Talk:Socialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 A formal Request for Mediation related to this article
was filed with the Mediation Committee on 20:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Please see the discussion on the case's request page.
All users involved in an issue undergoing mediation must agree to the mediation within seven days; please indicate your acceptance or denial of the mediation on the case's request page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Socialism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Socialism is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Socialism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Open tasks

Open Tasks for Socialism - (Edit Tasks)
Editing /
formatting		 Missing articles
(organisations)		 Missing articles
(concepts)		 Expansion




Explain the word socialism itself. Expound on the socioforming aspirations of the proponents of socialism.


 
Cleanup merges Discussions of importance Crossreferences
Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany => German Social Democratic Party



Socialism in China before 1917


[edit] Archives

Earlier discussions:

  • /Archive 1
  • /Archive 2
  • /Socialism and Nazism -- archive of extensive discussion on this topic from Jan 2004. Also includes the discussion that resulted in a bullet list of types of socialism (the two issues were intertwined). Inevitably, other topics were also touched on, but I have endeavored to leave in the present page the few clearly unrelated exchanges on the present page during that very heated period. -- Jmabel 09:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • /Archive 3
  • /Archive 4
  • /Archive 5
  • /Archive 6
  • /Archive 7

Contents


There appears to be vandalism here. I am not skilled enough to be able top correct this, but I suggest that this page is locked.

[edit] Criticism Section

I really wish the sentence stating that critics "use records of communist states" as criticism of Socialism would be either deleted or reworded and that it would stay that way. Socialism and Communism are not in simple terms the same, and to imply that they are as this section has done goes against neutrality rules. (EnglishEfternamn 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

I am convinced that the content of this particular section is being compromised by ideology-motivated edits by about four users here who, as can be seen in their user pages, identify with right-leaning creeds. I must make it clear that we all have the right to our own ideological preferences, but these preferences are influening the content of this article. I request that at the very least, the sentence regarding Communist state records, the weasel-worded statement which these users are trying so hard to make known, be accompanied by a [citation needed] template. In its present form it leads people to believe that Communism and Socialism are the same, they are not, and to imply they are are indoctrinating our readers to believe a certain notion. (EnglishEfternamn 19:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

How can they be different? even if socialism is an ideology, when applied in practice to its full extent, you get communism! I believe you are arguing over semantics, and a case could be made that you are the one trying to confuse the reader by making it sound like socialism doesn't lead to communism. Dullfig 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Socialism is thought to be different things depending on one's ideology. Communists see Socialism as the bridge from Capitalism, while some socialists see it as the happy medium. I for one, don't consider myself a communist, and I believe in retaining private property possibly as much as you guys. But our own political views are irrelevent in the matter. The problem is that some of you are attempting to make it relevant, which goes against the rules.

And to say that Socialism "always leads to communism" is an absolutist notion that doesn't take into account the dynamics of sociopolitical complexity. Countries like Sweden, and the Netherlands are thought to be socialist, at least partially, are they headed for communism? Probably not. Should you go to these articles and speculate that they are? Is that logical? Probably not. Besides, true communism has never been accomplished and probably never will be as it requires the absence of the state.

At the very least, the sentence is misleading and should carry a [citation needed] tag. Until that is accepted, I will not cease to change your revisions. Neutrality comes first. (EnglishEfternamn 23:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

Honestly, arguing over a sentence is a tremendous waste of time and effort. EnglishEfternamn, it is true that Communist leaders called their countries socialist states, since they claimed to be passing through the socialist stage of history according to Marxist-Leninist ideology. -- Nikodemos 22:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, what troubles me is the key factor influencing what goes into this article and what does not, IDEOLOGY IDEOLOGY IDEOLOGY. No one seems to understand that the key users that manage this page, are conservatives, or otherwise right-leaning, and thus they take part in editing, from an incourrigibly subjective point of view, an article explaining an ideology they are opposed to. Is this not a concern for neutrality standards, and if no one thinks so, how is that fair? (EnglishEfternamn 19:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

So what are you trying to say? that socialism should be interpreted as a bad ideology, that can only be edited by right wing editors? I'm not sure I understand :) Dullfig 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that it should not be taught as good OR bad, but from a neutrality point of view, conforming to the content rules that all articles on this website must adhere to. The problem at hand is that these "right wing" editors are prepetuating an imbalance of Socialism's characteristics, therefore INDIRECTLY teaching against the ideology.(EnglishEfternamn 21:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

The phrasing of "opponents of socialism often criticize the human rights records of communist states" implies that no kind of socialism is relevant other than Soviet communism: Hayekians and Stalinists alike want people to believe that. Or worse, it falsely implies that most people who call, or called, themselves socialist did not also make the same criticisms of Soviet Communism. We should make any such assumption explicit.

We should make the point objectively, how about: "many opponents of socialism contend that it inevitably leads to Communist dictatorship and suppression of human rights." 58.137.48.4 06:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 06:35 17 January 2006 [UTC]

That would sound much better.(EnglishEfternamn 19:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

I can't believe I'm writing this but I find myself in agreement, for the most part, with EnglishEfternamn in what he is saying, if not in the way he chooses to say it. As a Political Scientist, I have to say that Socialism and Communism, while inter-related, are not the same and at any given time, a community can be Socialist and not Communist. Whether Socialism leads inevitably to Communism is a matter of analysis and any mention of that has to be from a citeable source. Looking to records of communist states to criticize all aspects of socialism is not appropriate.--WilliamThweatt 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Are there communist states that are not socialists? -- Dullfig 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Just off the top of my head, none that I can think of. But that is a logical fallacy. Just because there are no communist states that aren't socialist doesn't mean we can equate communism with socialism. Are there any communist states that are not despotic? No. Do we therefore equate all despotic states with communism? Of course not. Socialism is an ideaology. Communism is one of many methods in which that ideaology is put into practice. The fact is that there are nations that employ socialist economic systems that do not have a communist form of government. Therefore, it is not justifiable to use the failures of communism as proof of the failures of socialism. For that, I believe there is plenty of evidence of the failures of socialism and it is especially evident in precisely these non-communist socialist states, such as Canada and various European Socialist Democracies. That proof, in part, lies in the statistics, such as overall satisfaction with state-run healthcare, overall success of small business, unemployment rates, rates of alcoholism, rate of taxation vs. cumulative benefits recieved per capita (i.e. loss of capital to inefective buearocracy), etc. There is plenty wrong with socialism (a strictly economic system), but it won't be brought to light by criticizing communism (an all encompassing politico-economic system).--WilliamThweatt 22:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This is all nonsense - socialism and communism were used interchangeably until well into the twentieth century - social democrats and Leninists were the driving force between the destinction between the two based on their faction fights - look to the Socialist Party of Great Britain for some hardened communists.--Red Deathy 08:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Socialism and communism are not used interchangeable terms because certain groups use them together. Socialism is most often (note I don't say always) framed as an economic theory while communism is usually a political system. That's why you can have a social democracy (less socialist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy) or a democratic socialism (more socialist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism) where the economic system is based less (or not at all) on capitalism and a democratic political system oversees the socialist economy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.166.32.179 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
In USSR, Communists said that the Socialist state is a tool to build Communism. For them, Socialism was political and economic system of the state, by which they wanted to create truly egalitarian society, or Communism. I want to say: A. Socialism is not just an ideology - in USSR it was regarded as a system. B. From Socialist point of view - there is no such thing "Communist State", even in the USSR Communists said that Soviet Union is a Socialist State, not Communist one. C. Socialism is not Communism, but it can be both an ideology and a system. When Socialism is regarded as a system, it is a tool to create Communism.

Suluguni 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Filled with so many idiosyncratic off-topic tangents and lacking any coherent organization, the old article was unsalvageable. I replaced the old scattered mess with a more concise and tightly focused new article. Various sections of the new article still need expansion. I will be expanding them shortly. I will be watching this article closely to address any comments and concerns. 172 | Talk 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Woah, that is a big change! The relevant diff is [1]. --Nema Fakei 12:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, it's a rewrite. 172 | Talk 12:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Great rewrite! Much better. Easier to read. More accurate. Hooray! Thanks 172.--Cberlet 12:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! It's a bit on the brief side; but at least it's a much better basis for expansion than the old mess. 172 | Talk 13:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nice 172. My only concern is that this rewrite seems to concern itself more with the history of socialism than with socialism as it exists in theory and practice. All the same, explaining socialism by tracing its history in this way is, I think, an excellent way of explaining in a simple, easily understandable way, the basic ideas behind socialism and its various schools of thought. So perhaps my concern is unfounded. Perhaps if you intend to expand a little on the non-historical sections it might help to round it out a bit. Other than that, my congratulations :) Gatoclass 18:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I intend to expand the last three sections. I think the history section is the proper length. To understand the various schools of thought of socialism, one must understand the history of how the different movements branched off from each other. 172 | Talk 22:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, great work. I especially like the history section and introduction because they accurately and concisely describe the heterogeneous nature of the ideology. In particular, you've done an excellent job explaining how socialism (both in theory and practice) has deviated from its roots over time. -- WGee 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vision Thing's objections

History section is just too long. Section "History of socialism" should be a short summary of the main article and not an article itself. -- Vision Thing -- 08:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. See the comments by WGee and me above explaining why this article needs a particularly detailed history section. Further, the new history section is already a short summary. It is much shorter than the 58 kilobytes long history of socialism article. The difference in length between the socialism main article and the summary is roughly standard for coverage of history on Wikipedia (compare, for example, the history section in Cuba to history of Cuba). Please stop restoring substandard sections found in the old version of the article. 172 | Talk 09:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
If folks want to change paragraphs and discuss them, that is one thing, but this childish revert war must stop. 172 did a major edit that much improved the article. Simply reverting it back to previous versions, or plopping in huge POV sections from past versions, is not constructive editing.--Cberlet 14:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't noticed that 172 discussed anything and, anyway, imported section on "Types of socialism" was a concensus version from old article. -- Vision Thing -- 14:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The old section "types of socialism" was a terribly written, scattered, disorganized mess. Please don't take offense-- perhaps you don't realize this because English is not your first language. The discussion of the different types of socialism is now subsumed under the discussion of the history, as the historical context is key to understanding the various splits in the movement over the years. 172 | Talk 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Different sections do exist for a good reason. If someone is not interested in history of socialism but it is interested in different types of socialism he shouldn't be forced to read whole History section for that. Someone might even give up from reading the article believing it doesn't contain information relevant to him. -- Vision Thing -- 16:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Britannica and Encarta organize their socialism articles like the rewrite, with long history sections. The more influential types of socialism are described better in historical context. They are not described well in the previous version... And as a historian, I do have a good idea about how flawed the previous version was. Just about every few sentences in the old version contained an inaccuracy, nonsense, or a sweeping generalization. There are so many problems with the old version I don't have nearly enough time to point them out. The old article was completely unsalvagable. The old sections need to be dead and buried. 172 | Talk 02:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Encarta didn't organize their socialism article like you organized the rewrite, and anyway don't try to use appeal to authority argument. Nobody had objections on that section in previous, erased, article. -- Vision Thing -- 07:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You are the only editor so far who does not acknowledge that the rewrite is a vast improvment. And yes, Encarta does include a long overview of the history of socialism; Britannica's is even much larger. And I am not making an appeal to authority. I have already explained to you why it makes more sense to subsume the discussion of the different types of socialism under the history, as have other editors. 172 | Talk 07:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You are making an appeal to authority:
1) Britannica organized it's article with long history section,
2) Britannica is famous encyclopedia,
3) therefore this article must be organized with long history section.
And I have already explained to you why it does make more sense to have special section for types of socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 08:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
If I'm making an appeal to authority, that's neither here nor there. What do you think citing a source is? Wikipedia editors are supposed to cite solid sources like Britannica. And while you have made your point, it has been rejected by all the other editors; your attempt to restore the old article is against the consensus here and isn't going to fly. 172 | Talk 17:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Which editors? Britannica has "Types of socialism" section [2]. -- Vision Thing -- 23:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You linked to their student encyclopedia. There main article builds itself around the history. Sorry, we're not dumbing down the article. (And by the way, Britannica's student encyclopedia entry on "type of socialism" in content looks a lot more like the history section in the rewrite than the trash from the old version you keep on reverting back to.) 172 | Talk 03:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
While I disagree with wholesale reversions with no explanation, I'm impressed by the response to 172's new version and intrigued by his comments on his "History of socialism" approach. I say, let's bear with him for a few days and see what becomes of it. Perhaps he'll take a crack at revising History of socialism, too, eh? --Uncle Ed 17:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
History of socialism is already a pretty good article. It just needs an intro. 172 | Talk 02:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said, "History of socialism" section should be summary of main article, not a completely new article, unconnected with main one. -- Vision Thing -- 07:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It already is a summary of the main article. And it is not the only section in the article. 172 | Talk 07:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Look at yours subsections and look at subsections of "History of socialism". Your version certainly doesn't look like a summary. -- Vision Thing -- 08:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
That's neither here nor there. The structure of summaries and main articles does not have to be identical. Compare Cuba and history of Cuba. The history section here is a summary. It is only about 1/3 as long as the main article, and brings up all the key points in the main article but in less detail. 172 | Talk 17:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Do I really need to point out other articles with completely different structure? Also, if I remember correctly, Cuba is another article in which you are heavily involved. -- Vision Thing -- 23:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't care which articles you point out with a different structure. The consensus is now in favor of the new history section. Your attempts to remove it aren't going to be supported. And I did not write the history of Cuba section in the Cuba article; Adam Carr wrote it. 172 | Talk 03:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about the article, instead of (a) accusing others of "plopping in huge POV sections" or (b) making personal remarks like "you don't realize this because English is not your first language".

And let's also define the term "social control" used in the intro but not defined anywhere in the article. It's a key concept. There is much dispute over whether Soviet-style command economies do or do not provide social control, even if there is widespread agreement that they result in government control. The question is whether (1) "the people" are empowered via the Dictatorship of the proletariat, or (2) a new ruling class is simply created that enjoys top benefits at the expense of everyone else. This is discussed in the Nomenklatura article. --Uncle Ed 15:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence in Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on socialism states that the term refers to a "system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control." I trust Britannica over original research. At any rate, your dispute with the first sentence does not support the vast amount of changes you made in your edit. Please revert your own edit while you become familar with what kinds of changes have been taking place on this article. 172 | Talk 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Pasting remark left at User talk:Ed Poor

Still, I don't think the scare quotes are necessary, as the term "social control" is not a socialist slogan, but a technical term in Western sociology. Notice that Britannica doesn't include the term in quotations. 172 | Talk 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
If we're quoting EB, then we can't use scare quotes. But we're not quoting them, are we? I tried to google the quote you attributed to them. --Uncle Ed 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Do a Google search for "Britannica socialism" and you'll see the article. If you don't have a subscribtion, you won't be able to read the article, but you will see the relevant sentence. (Britannica lets people preview the first few setences of their articles for free.) 172 | Talk 15:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Eureka, it worked! [3] Thanks, 172. --Uncle Ed 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Vision Thing, why did you insert a NPOV dispute tag? The most prominent and influential types of socialism are described better here than in the previous version — in their historical context, as they should be. I do not understand how the removal of the "Types of Socialism" section is an NPOV violation, anyway. Please explain in further detail why you dispute the article's neutrality. -- WGee 23:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Vision Thing also seems to be making reverts as an anon 72.139.119.165 in order to get around the 3RR. I'm beginning to think this user should be brought to the attention of administrators. 172 | Talk 02:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Please keep in mind WP:AGF. -- Vision Thing -- 07:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
All types of socialism should be described or at least mentioned in this article. -- Vision Thing -- 07:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Cberlet, another expert editor, has already told you "Simply reverting it back to previous versions, or plopping in huge POV sections from past versions, is not constructive editing." The rewrite can be expanded, as I already stated in my 13:09, 24 May 2006 post: "[The rewrite is] a bit on the brief side; but at least it's a much better basis for expansion than the old mess." To act as a constructive editor, you can make suggestions for expanding the rewrite, as opposed to reverting back to previous versions that are far to inaccurate and disorganized to be saved. And by the way, I can start really assuming good faith if you revert your own edit restoring the old mess so that another editor does not have to clean up after you. 172 | Talk 07:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Vision Thing, WP:AGF does not disallow editors from announcing or investigating possible rule violations. -- WGee 17:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't encourage posting unsupported claims on talk pages. -- Vision Thing -- 23:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. It looks like more than a coincidence that an anon IP with an edit pattern similar to your interests is making the same reversions on the same page at the same time. Do you want me to take this matter to WP:ANI instead of brining it up on the talk page? 172 | Talk 03:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do. -- Vision Thing -- 08:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to apologize for false accusation?. -- Vision Thing -- 13:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I said someone should figure out if you were making edits as 72.139.119.165. I eventually ruled that out. That's sufficient. Now are you going to address the specific objections to your repeated text dumps? 172 | Talk 13:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Opening Paragraph needs Revision

The constant desire of editors to revise and qualify the opening paragraph means the definition of socialism drifts into complete and total meaningless double talk. The opening sentence of an encyclopedia should not read like a paragraph midway through the methods section of a journal article. Start with a definition based on common usage. Add additional paragraphs for jargon or details and qualifications. If there are disgreements and they represent minority views, add them in another paragraph. Mrdthree 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Heres my critique:

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines, and may also refer to political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice. These movements generally envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control."

Apparently this is the entry definition for socialism and the second sentence in the Encyclopedia Britannica, only in reverse:

" socialism - system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces."
"Socialism refers to both a set of doctrines and the political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice."

Now the topic sentence is confusing instead of enlightening. Since it is plagarized someone might as well just put it in quotes and attribute it to the encyclopedia brittanica. Mrdthree 15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC) I think there is a better fix than what I did, but you cant say:

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines, and may also refer to political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice."

This is a meaningless sentence and does nothing to define socialism. At least in the encycl;opedia britannica article the 'doctrines' referred to the prior sentence where they were defined. Here I could just as easily say:

Sleeping refers to a broad array of doctrines, and may also refer to political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice.

Mrdthree 16:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this counts as a multiple post: I am just getting the hang of this:

Socialism is a socio-economic system or ideology that envisages people undertaking economic activity for collective benefit rather than private profit. This normally involves state, community or worker ownership of the means of production, and often state or collective control or intervention in the market.

I think that that avoids the impression that all we've ever read about socialism was in Hayek, van Mises and Ann Rand, while admitting that we have actually read them as well. 58.137.48.4 06:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC) (no login) 07:00 17 January 2007

[edit] Socialism

I do not understand what you are trying to tell me

[edit] Uhm

Just an anon that uses wiki

the Historical examples of Socialism is a joke eg. The Castro regime in Cuba

The Khmer Rouge headed by Pol pot in Cambodia The Baathist Party, formerly ruling Iraq, headed by Saddam Hussein under whom between 200,000 and several million were murdered The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Lenin, and later Stalin, under which 61,000,000 people were murdered [7]

-The Communist Party of China, originally headed by Chairman Mao during the famine years of the cultural revolution, and under whom 80,000,000 have been estimated to have been muredered [8]

i mean, why go into the numbers and why not talk about the socialist governments that have been successful?god, no wonder people criticize wiki.

and all your pictures are of murderous thugs hmm, I wonder what wiki is trying to tell me?

i have read so many good articles on wiki, but this article is terrible bad writing style, very strong language bordering on POV the whole thing doesn't read well at all it reads like it was written by a 100 people with a hundred different writing styles it shouldn't

I'm afriad that's a vandal's work.--Nema Fakei 09:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misguiding Sentences

Stalinists insisted on the creation of Soviet-style command economies under strong central state direction. Others advocate "market socialism" in which social control of property exists within the framework of market economics and private property.

This seems just a little bit dodgy, as if either you're a Stalinist or a Market Socialist. I can't think of a good way of rewording it, though. Anyone got thoughts? --Nema Fakei 20:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Socialism

I live in Spain and the Socialist party is the majority party and have won 4 of the last 5 general elections.

My interpretation of socialism is as a consevative left wing party, with emphasis on sustaining the welfare state and defenitely market oriented.

I have studied economics at the LSE and, it is my impression that socialism as is being practice, is founded in economic theory, known as Welfare Economics, and that major issues have been ruled by economic debate i.e. Nationalisation v.s. Privatisation.

However, just glancing at the article and talking with americans, I get the impression that you equate socialism as a branch of comunism.

You may think that I am mistaken, but nowaday, socialism is the main political trend in Europe.

If this issues are not addressed we will not be able to communicate effectively between europeans and americans, as when we talk of socialism we would be thinking of a conservative ideology whereas americans will think or the red menace.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 16:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the main trend socialism, or is it actually social democracy? The two can theoretically go together, but you can be one without being the other as well. In fact it is my observation that many parties in Europe today referring to themselves as "Socialist" are actually better described as social democratic. Most of us are not "pure" socialists anyway, since that implies advocating the complete eradication of capitalism, which might not be possible today, and admittedly I say, it might not be practical either.(EnglishEfternamn 18:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

This varies a lot, though. In the UK, it's common to use "socialism" to refer to quite radical movements, and "social democracy" to refer to conservative market socialism in Europe. And in America, "socialism" is used to refer to the European model as well as anarchist/libertarian/communist forms of socialism. Cadr 06:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been told repeatedly by Europeans that I "don't understand" socialism. Perhaps the part I don't understand is the non-Marxist types of socialism. Let's expand the article so that it is not only about the ideas of Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.
I'm particularly interested in blends of "socialism" and the "market economy" (or free market economics). That is, everything other than the kind of pure command economy that exists in Communist countries. --Uncle Ed 16:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
You should be careful to distinguish Marx (and Marxism) from Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, since Marx was pretty anti-authoritarian. Although it wouldn't do any harm to have more material in the main article, I think most of it is already present in Socialist economics and the articles on various different specific forms of socialism/communism which fall outiside of the Stalinist/Maoist model (e.g. libertarian socialism and council communism). Cadr 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I would like to draw your attention to the following comments:

European pragmatism The one crucial difference between the US and Europe is the extent of the Welfare State. Surprisingly, government intervention in the economy is not question, only the degree to which it has to be exerted. This intervention is not necessarily done by elected governments, i.e. the Federal Reserve is independent of Washington.

As an economist I have studied in depth many issues regarding society and the economy and I cannot but conclude that economics, through rational scientific approach and pragmatism on the part of society and its political system, has shaped current political - economic systems. The main examples would be: 1. Welfare Economics. 2. Independence of Central banks 3. Privatization v.s. Nationalisation. These topics form the core of economics and most of the issues they presented were addressed specially during the 60s, 70s and 80s, particularly the last two. By the 90s Economics as a science had developed a strong body of evidence ready to answer the questions, and this scientific background, together with the demise of the Soviet union, is what in my opinion has led to the unprecedented economic development the world has experienced during the last 15 years. For one long are gone the boom and bust economies and hyper inflation of the past.

Welfare economics deals with the way the markets work through the price system and discuses to what extent the outcome is desirable according to differing value systems, i.e. as a policy maker you may want to maximize happines (utility in economic terms) in aggregate, rich and poor, or maximize the minimum level i.e. have the richest poor. Economics does not make a value judgment of what value system has to be used but does analize the consecuences under a market - price system. One of the conclusions, is that externalities exist that are not taken into account in a price system, i.e. a business man that does not have to pay for the polution its factories have on the enviroment will not include such cost in its price, and would therefore give the wrong signals to the market, a low price, resulting in more consumption that would be desirable. Another issue is that of public goods, like road infrastructure, if it was left to the market, roads would be built to the extent that revenues would be collected from tolls, but this would not take into account that once the road is built, the more people who use it the better for the society. Similarly, can you imagine if a countries army, a public good, was arranged through the market? People and companies would be defended in as far as they would pay for it, and it would not be profitable to defend those (people, companies, regions...) who could not pay...

Hence Welfare Economics clearly states that intervention by a "public" body is necessary to address the short comings of a purely price driven economy. This, in my opinion, is the sole justification for governments and if the market alone delivered the "first best" solution there would be no need for government and we would all agree anarchy (each on their own) would be desirable system.

Welfare Economics started to be develop around the half of the 19th century, and its results in turn fueled socialistic views that governments had to interviene in society to address short comings, particularly in workers conditions: work risks, health cover, education, unemployment... These socialist views are not, contrary to what many think, left wing, they are infact just as part of right wing politics. For example the Nazi party was the NSDAP or National Socialist German Workers Party, and as other t and right wing parties endeavoured to favour the working classes through government intervention as described by Welfare Economics. In Spain, for example, the "welfare system" was introduced in the 60's by Franco's t/catholic/military regime. The difference between t and Communist dictatorships does not lie in their social agenda, the centralisation of government under one rule or the extensive use of propaganda, it is rather in the particular ideologies behind it, ts concentrating on patriotic values and communist on the working classes, with the first tending to favour control of the economy by industrialist, and the second wanting this "class" of industrialists to be wiped out. But in the end, they both propose solutions to the "social" problems of a purely market - capitalist system as addressed through Welfare Economics.

Coming now to the second half of the 20th century, Economics has continued to make progress, in particular, it has been clearly stablished that Independent Central Banks are required to avoid the risk of inflation. Inflation raged in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, I still recall when Spain used to have inflation above 10% per year, and that is relatively low as inflation goes. The reasons for inflation have mainly been from irresponsible monetary and economic policy by governments, posibly wanting to boost the economy before elections and possibly due to the application of untested economic theories. The result of these unbalanced economic policies was either a fall in grouth or inflation and in the worst cases both (stagnation). Fortunatelly, economic theory has advanced considerably and know we have a pretty good idea of how government have to react to economic situations to optimize growth. The main tools to do this are interest rates and goverment expenditure, which are relatively related as goverments can only spend more than they get in taxes by borrowing and hence raising interest rates, and if interest rates are not allowed to increase because they are harmfull to investment, then inflation follows. The solution to this problem is to take the interest rate decision out of politically electy governments and place it in the hands of independent economist i.e. the Federal Reserve in US or the European Central Bank in the EU. Their independence is crucial and it is relatively recent, only since the 90s can we say that interest rate decision has been taken away from elected gorvernments and since then, not only have we enjoyed unprecedent growth, but low inflation, low interest rates and a disappearance of severe economic cycles, i.e. the old Boom and Bust economies.

Another matter that has been settled by Economics is the case for Nationalisation v.s Privatisation of key utilities. The argument has been settled when the private sector has shown that it can run these industries more efficiently than goverments. However this has not meant that "public" control has dissappeared, on the contrary these industries which we can refer to as Monopolies, are heavily supervised. Indeed, in the US this control is mainly applied through Monopoly law, whith the break up of AT&T into MCI, Sprint and modern AT&T as one of its most famous cases, and more recently the case against Microsoft for monopoly practices for integrating Internet Explorer with Windows. In Europe anti monopoly law is also practised, though as privatisation is a more recent proccess governments still hold considerable control of private companies. For example, the spanish goverment holds a "golden share" in telefonica, which allows it to veto any decision, and a telecomunications board oversees the industry and its prices, with the power to force companies to set cealings on these to ensure competitiveness between rivals and to consumers.

Spanish Politics

The main example I bring forward is my own country Spain, where power is alternated between PP I(popular party), the right wing, and PSOE (Socialist Spanish Workers Party), the left wing. In the last few years their main differences have lied with their aproach to regionalism / patriotism and issues like religion and gay rights. The right wing represent conservative catholic values and a glorified idea of patriotism a la Bush, whereas the left wing socialist party is more accomodating to regional attitudes and more liberal. In 1996 PP won the elections after 12 years of PSOE rule because of repeated corruption and they proved to be a more controlled party internally. However PP became very authoritative in their approach, specially in 2000 - 2004 term, when they had full parlamentary majority, and was seen as diverting from a centre consensus party towards more militant right wing conservatism. Though there had been several events in the year previous elections, such as the Prestige oil tanker in Galicia, or the Yakolev accident in Turkey, which brought a lot of criticism and galvanised much of public opinion, they were relatively unlucky when in March 11 islamic fundamentalist set the worst terrorist attack in Spain as a result of the largely unpopular move to support the US in its invasion of Iraq. This decision was very risky as it was not passed through parliament, the constitution has now been amended, and polls suggested over 70% of the population was against. Unfortunatelly for PP, only about 40% of spaniards are "patriotic catholics" and the Socialist, being more liberal and consensus driven, has wider support. In addition they are very willing to form coallition governments with regional parties and have recently come to power in Galicia, which had been ruled for 20 years under PP, and Catalunya, which was ruled by CiU with minority support of PP.

So you see, politics is not anymore about economics, PP started the privatisation of many utilities and it has not been opposed by PSOE. Infact many of the decisions about crucial economic or social aspects are taken by consesnsus between the main parties, after they have special talks. Among which are a consesnsus on pensions under the current welfare system or a common stance on ETA.

However, I cannot avoid considering Spain a "Socialist" country, by virtue of it welfare system, the intervention of the state and the main Socialist party, PSOE, who have won, 4 of the 6 elections, and is a member of the International Socialist Organisation. Furthermore, though we have a considerable catholic conservative population, the majority of spaniards are quite liberal and antiwar, feeling partly as a result of the terrible Spanish Civil War, that violence is not the solution and we have to try to accomodate as many people as possible. Furthermore, the catholic conservative part of the population which fueled Francos military coup and regime, is now dying off and though 87% of Spanish are Catholics by Baptism, only 14% claim to attend services regularly. Similarly the Comunist Party used to be the main minority party, with close to 15% of votes, and nowadays barely manages to get a couple of seats in parliament.

conclusion

What I have tried to point out is that Economics as a science has succeeded in providing scientific answers to question which have long been considered ideological and that gradually it has narrowed down the range of acceptable economic policies and practises. Thanks to this science there is now a considerable consensus among differing ideologies about economic policy, and their differences point to different social aspect.

Modern Socialism in europe is no longer about the economics of the means of production, it is about having liberal attitudes towards social issues in a market driven economy supported with the necesary public intervention to ensure minimum welfare and competitiveness.

-- EU and US. The US in my opinion places too much faith on the private sector and allows to participate too much in the political system i.e. Enron and the Energy Crisis in California or Farenheit 9/11. You have still to pick up where Roosevelt and his "new deal" left. With Bush you have turned from The Superpower to a modern imperial power. We in Europe are surprised by your high economic incomes and the poberty in many areas, by your racial diversity and persistent racist attitudes, by your love for liberty and having highest prison population, by your war on drugs and extensive drug use, by your faith in God and in Guns, by your puritans and New Orlean's Madi-Gra, by your fight for freedoms and the persecution of comunists...

The US defenitely warrants both my highest admiration whilst holding unimaginable aberrations. I have made an effort to understand the US, I hope many americans will make an effort to understand the EU.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 05:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What you're actually giving is not a change in socialism per se, but a shift of once-socialist parties across Europe to solely social-democratic values. Perhaps this needs to be pointed out better in the article on Socialism. It looks like your input might be more useful at Talk:Social Democracy.
On a very much separate point, I'd argue that, for the most part economics has focused on studying market economies and mixed economies, and has never really tried to tackle the issue of describing the processes involved in alternatives, much less make comparisons. But the thing is, it's not really for us to say - not in this article, certainly. --Nema Fakei 09:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

~

Thanks for the comments. My main reason to post here is that in several articles where PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers Party) is discussed, there is a link to this article. Maybe the article warrants a disambiguation heading to avoid modern social democratic parties to be related to what seems blatant communism.
Please note that notable Soviet Economists tried to devise and alternative to a price (market) driven economy and failed to do so. there is just too much information enbodied on prices to do away with it. Only if NOTHING changed could alternative systems work, and for one, time passes for all of us.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that g del h has a point. Why should the article say what 350 million Americans mean by the word "socialism", and ignore what some 400 million Europeans mean by it? To say nothing of the hundreds of millions of Indians, Russians, Chinese, Africans and South Americans, many of whom regularly vote for parties who aim for some European-style "socialism"? 58.137.48.4 07:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Libertarian socialism"

Cadr, I have three comments to make about your recent edits. First, you wrote in an edit summary, "Libsoc really ought to be mentioned in the intro. There's nothing particularly "contemporary" about it -- it's arguably been around at least as long as Marxism." The term "libertarian socialism" itself is contemporary. One is rewriting history when classifying a group of 19th century thinkers in the anarcho-syndicalist tradition under a term that they would not have understood themselves. The term "libertarian socialism" should be used only in reference to the relatively recent thinkers who explicitly use the term (e.g., Chomsky) to (1) describe themselves and (2) to describe their dichotomization or categorization of earlier socialist thinkers. Second, as for your edit summary, "No citation needed -- see the linked article," normally I'd agree with you; I don't see a need to back elementary facts up with citations. In this particular case, however, the libertarian socialism article is such a mess I don't think we can rely on the article in place of a citation. Third, I disagree that "libertarian socialism," or anarcho-syndicalism, ought to be mentioned in the intro. The most notable strains of socialism to mention in the intro are the ones that became state ideologies or ruling party ideologies. "Libertarian socialism" has never had that distinction for any significant period of time. 172 | Talk 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The term libertarian socialism may be recent, but it is used to refer to a group of ideologies that have existed for centuries, so, in this case, I would ignore the term's etymology. Also, I disagree that a movement's notablity should be determined solely by its influence on states. Libertarian socialism (by which I mean anarchism, its strains, and council communism) is notable because of how prevalent it has historically been among academia. Libertarian socialist theories have been well-established by eminent philosophers of the 19th century. -- WGee 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
First, since the term is recent, it makes sense to use the term more historically recognizable terms. We cannot ignore the term's etymology, as that would constitute historical revisionism in the pejorative sense of the term "historical revisionism." Second, I think you're over-stating the influence of anarchism, syndicalism, and council communism on academia. The New Left academics of the U.S. and UK broke ranks with Soviet Communism, but they were for the most part rooted in the Old Left. In France, structural Marxism did not even represent a break with the PCF. Its leading proponent, Louis Althusser, defended Communist orthodoxy until the end. Sarte, unlike many structural Marxists, broke with the PCF, but he cannot be reasonably described as a "libertarian socialist," since his roots lay in existentialism, not in anarchism or syndicalism. In Germany, the Frankfurt School represented the leading current of socialist thought in academia, and it firmly established itself within the social-democratic orthodoxy of the postwar period. In short, communism and social democracy not only are clearly more notable than "libertarian socialism" in terms of their influence on states, but also on academia. 172 | Talk 03:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with using a more "historically recognisable" term. However, I do object to a significant strand of socialist thought being entirely excluded from the introduction (and indeed virtually excluded from the article). Currently, the introduction seems to suggest that Stalinism (or some other kind of command economy) and market socialism are the only options. Given that Marx arguably advocated neither kind of economy, and given that there's a long historical tradition of libertarian socialism (whatever you want to call it), this just can't be right. Also, even if libertarian socialism was a genuinely new intellectual development (which it isn't of course), this would be no reason to exclude it from the intro. Cadr 16:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, I agree with WGee on the issue of notability. The threshold of notability for a one-sentence mention in a fairly long intro is low. Libertarian socialism (and variants and antecedents thereof) are quite important in the intellectual history of Socialist thought. Other strands of Socialism may well be more important, but that's not really the point. Cadr 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
To be clear: I don't care at all whether or not the phrase "libertarian socialism" appears in the intro. I would just like to see some (brief) explicit acknowledgement of socialist theories which do not require state control of the entire economy or some kind of market system. Cadr 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I see the rewrite only as a basis for expansion (and a much better basis for expansion than the old article), by no means yet a complete article. I'll figure out a way to best incorporate anarchism, syndicalism, and council communism in the intro and elsewhere in the article, if no one else beats me to the job. 172 | Talk 23:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Libertarian socialism (or left libertarianism - Bookchin) is only a new term because a distinction between the original libertarianism (which was socialist and basically a synonym for anarchism) and the new right wing libertarianism in the US was needed. Thus, it's not really a new term, it's just the original term with a clarifying qualifier. I'm happy to help out including all the strains of socialism in anarchism - from mutualism to anarcho-syndicalism and anarchist communism. Donnacha 13:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Donnacha is correct. Libertarianism was a form of socialism that has existed for roughly the same time as Marxism; possibly longer. It has almost constantly been a fairly prominent part of socialism, although Marxism has dominated. Following the recent appropriation of the term by individualist capitalists, the socialism qualifier was added, but this is only a clarification of an older term because of its recent use by a different group. -Switch t 15:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something to consider.

I think that Middle East Conflict Man should be un-banned. He has not been responsible for almost all the acts of vandalism. I think he should be allowed back in, as long as he doesn't cause any trouble. There is no evidence that the sockpuppeting that has been taking place is his work. I think that the fact that many users BELIEVE that he has been doing the sockpuppeting is the only reason why he's blocked. At least give him a chance to clear his name if he's innocent. -130.216.191.184

When 30 accounts come in and all start making the exact same edits, that's all the evidence that's required, as ruled by Arbcom. "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." [4] --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I just unblocked the IP who posted the above, after it was autoblocked for creating an account with the charming name Blanning is a moron. Stupendous coincidence? YMSTICPC. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you're a bit of a fan of "house of cards" eh blanning. Me too. - 60.234.157.64

[edit] Nice work, people

I've been away for two months, but coming back, great job on the article, people. It's a lot less bloated and much more readable than before. I've just had a glance through it, will make further comments. :) -- infinity0 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Socialism and social and political theory" could do with a bit of expanding, but that's all I can think of. Again, good work! :) -- infinity0 20:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


I think that this article is quite good. It does a good job of maintaining NPOV. Thank you to those working on it. I think it would be even better if it had more citations for hings in need of them, Especially when uotes are used. If i get a chance i will mark those spots as "citation needed" and hopefully find some citations. ThePedro 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism as transitionary stage

Marx and Engels nearly always used the terms "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably. The source of the misunderstanding appears to be Lenin. He evidently equated the "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" cited as a transitionary stage by Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme ([5]) with socialism. Capitalism->Socialism->Communism is therefore not a feature of Marx's own thought.--Eric 08:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] umm

I remember that statement by Marx well. Too bad states don't just wither away. Quite a notion isn't it? A big huge power just withering away. Pretty funny if it wasn't so terrible! PatriotFirst 10:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. Not so long ago, Republicans were talking about whittling the government down to the point they could "drown it in the bathtub". Then they got control of the White House, and now the entire country is drowning in debt instead. Gatoclass 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User 60.234.157.64

This user has been vandalizing this page (and others) with rw drivel for months now. Surely it's time his IP was blocked? I'd do it myself but I am not 100% sure of the procedure. Can someone please take the appropriate action? Gatoclass 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:60.234.157.64 was blocked for a month 12:01, 17 June 2006.[6] // Liftarn
Glad to hear it, thanks for letting me know.
There seems to be one or two other serial idiots who require the same treament though. Like 130.216.191.184.
Edit: the last one seems to be an IP of Auckland University. Are these two the same guy? I suspect they are, since they both hail from NZ.
Maybe someone should contact his service provider and inform them of his vandalism. Gatoclass 11:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
71.113.213.107 is another one. --BobFromBrockley 12:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist economics

I edited the socialist economics section last week so that it reflected the range of different economic theories called socialism. I replaced the opening sentence ("The term "socialism" is often used to refer to an economic system characterized by state ownership of the means of production and distribution.") with this paragraph:

"The term "socialism" is often used to refer to an economic system characterized by some level of social control of the economy. This might mean direct workers' control of production or distribution, some form of collective economic enterprise (such as a worker or consumer co-operative, kibbutz or collective farm), or some form of state intervention. The type of state intervention varies from more minimal conceptions of state regulation and redistribution, through nationalization of key industries, to the abolition of private property and full state ownership of the means of production and distribution."

My edit was removed by 172, on the grounds that "the new detail in the section on economics was already established in the intro". Although I see the point, it means that the economics section is once again simply a discussion of Soviet economics, which, I strongly believe. What do other people think? --BobFromBrockley 12:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structuralism

How relevant is structuralism in this article? It seems very off-topic to me. --BobFromBrockley 12:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communism with a big C or little c

The wikipedia page on criticisms of communism, this useful distinction is made:

In the English language, the word communism and related terms are written with the uppercase "C" when they refer to a political party of that name, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party. When written as a common noun, with a lowercase "c", they refer to an economic system characterized by collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members; or to the position that such a system is possible and desirable. Thus, one may be a communist (an advocate of communism) without being a Communist (a member of a Communist Party or another similar organization). This distinction between communism (lowercase "c") and Communism (uppercase "C") is used throughout the present article.

This advice is no longer adhered to on the communism page itself, but I think it is very good practice. A clear analogy would be the difference between Republican and republican - republican thought is not synonymous with the Republican party - ditto Conservative and conservative, labour and Labour, etc.

I think this usage would make the socialism page clearer. However, when I turned some little cs into big Cs, they were turned back immediately. What do folks think? --BobFromBrockley 12:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What working class movement originated the modern socialist movement?

What was the name of that movement? What are the names of the working class persons that started it? I am unfamilar with this, as I had thought, as is Russia, that it was middle class intellectuals who organized these movements. KarenAnn 20:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is probably truer to say that the socialist movement and the working class movement had intertwining histories in the nineteenth century, rather than saying that one gave birth to the other. However, in Britain, there was a strong working class radical stream within the republican or reform movements of the late eighteenth century onwards, as documented, for example, in EP Thompson's Making of the English Working Class or Dorothy Thompson's Outsiders. The London Corresponding Society, formed, I think, in 1792, can be seen as the birth of both the socialist movement in Britain and the working class or labour movement. Trade unionism was obviously a working class movement, and it overlapped with the socialist movement, while Chartism had a strong working class element within it, which articulated socialist positions, for example in the newspaper Red Republican. If I had my copy of EP Thompson in front of me, I would name some of these activists, but I don't and, of course, EP Thompson's argument is precisely that posterity's condescension has forgotten the plebian rank and file while remembering middle class leaders.
I am less familiar with France and Germany, but I do know that there were working class socialist activists in the both places in the nineteenth century, people like Wilhelm Weitling or the working class followers of Charles Fourier that Jacques Ranciere writes about. The Communist League that Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto for was, I believe, mostly working class.)
In the early nineteenth century, it was mainly skilled workers (e.g. in the print trades) rather than factory workers involved in socialism, but that changed from the late nineteenth century, and we can see important working class leaders for example in the period of the New Unionism, such as Tom Mann or John Burns.
Finally, Russia was an unusual case because it had a very undeveleloped working class because its industrial revolution came so late. (Hence the whole problem of an essentially middle class leadership who took up Kautsky and Plekhanov's ideology that the working class can only be brought socialism from outside by the intellectuals... But maybe that's just my POV.) However, the story of the Bund (General Jewish Labor Union) is a story of working class Jews in Russia coming to socialism without much middle class leadership. --BobFromBrockley 08:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. It was very helpful. KarenAnn 14:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by user 138.37.246.26

I understand that it's vandalism, but I like his explanation MUCH better than the standard one :) Dullfig

[edit] Socialism worldwide article

There is article Liberalism worldwide.Should we create such article about socialism? BoDu 31 July 2006

Good idea. --BobFromBrockley 09:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Socialism is still alive and still intellectually bankrupt.

[edit] Couple of changes

Just to defend my changes - marx did consider socialism to be without money, technically you could have money and no markets, so it's worth mentioning the abolition of both (I cite critique of the Gotha programmme, leaving aside the arguments about stages, he clearly talks about the lower stage of communism/socialism as having abolition money).

As for the use of the two terms socialism or communism, I think it deserves prominence because until the early 20th c. they were used intrechangeably and Williams' explanation is the only one I've seen for why some preferrred one over the other.--Red Deathy 07:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the para on the term socialism, since this is an article about that term and its referrents, IMNSHO it is more relevent ehre than in the history article.--Red Deathy 09:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd don't believe I'm being unreasonably obstinate about this - and will back down if a third party indicates their preference on whether that para should stay or go. This article has a section on history of socialism, and the origin of the term is broad enough and relevent enough to this article to waarrant at least some mention.--Red Deathy 08:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Red Deathy, I am very troubled by your changes and behavior on this page. You will not become a constructive Wikipedia contributor unless you learn how to work the content you upload into the framework of the existing structures of articles. For now, I will cut you some slack because you are a new contributor.

Given the present structure of the article, a specific section distinguishing the terms 'communism' and 'socialism' is extraneous. Expand existing sections of the article addressing the distinction in order to avoid redundancy and undermining organization. For example, the first sub-section of the history section opens with a sentence stating, "The term 'socialism' was first used in the context of early-19th century Western European social critics." This part of the article would have been a better place for you to start expanding the coverage on the etymology of 'socialism.'

Further, in addressing the etymology, keep the priorities of an encyclopedia in mind: creating a very general overview for non-specialist readers. In describing topic as diffuse and complex as 'socialism' in an encyclopedia, the writer must start by laying out general, well known facts about the topic, and then work his way down to more academic discussions, such as your point about Raymond Williams. Williams' work is not prominent enough to justify the prominence your edit gave his work in the article. Williams is merely one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of academics and/or socialist critics who have offered their insights into distinguishing socialism and communism. His thesis does not warrant mentioning in an introductory paragraph of this article. 172 | Talk 00:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


User:172 I have been equally disturbed by your practice of refusing to discuss what seemed to me to be a simple matter of disagreement - I have already stated I'll back down to the judgement of a third party. To me discussion of the term socialism belongs in this article, as I have explained, as this is the article about socialism - we may disagree on that, but that's by the by. Logically, such a mention deserves an early position in the article, by ay of setting the scene for readers. Now, as for William's that just me working my citation into the text, really, but over here he is widely anthologised and given prominence in academia, so his views are credible. It is not a citation distinguishing communism/socialism, rather showing that the difference between teh two words was once quite arbittrary - a worthwhile fact that deserves a mention, I'd have though, in an article on socialism. I'm not a new user, I've been around a while, and I take as my example the single transferable vote page I've worked on so much, where there is a degree of overlap between that page and a separate extended page counting single transferable votes. I haven't wanted an edit war, and would have backed down to soundly put forward reasons in discussion, as yet I can't see any otehr than your taste. If you think the para belongs elsewhere in the article, move it.--Red Deathy 08:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

red deathy- while I find the new placement of your recently added info on the religious connotations behind socialism/communism better than the previous independent subcategory you created, I still feel that, while the information is worth noting, you need to do a better job of making that first part of the history category more fluid now that your info is in it. Also, you don't need to tell us who the info is attributed to in the paragraph itself, just start out with the facts, as we can see they are attributed to Raymond Williams in the footnotes and references.--Jackbirdsong 20:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of Kibbutz

I am surprised the only successful socialism, the Israeli Kibbutz, that didn't end killing its own people or going bankrupt is no where to be found in the article. 210.84.44.23 07:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be more appropriate with a general reference to co-operatives generally?

--Red Deathy 07:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move from article to talk

On 21:55, 3 August 2006, 12.159.43.115 added the following to the article, then it was removed. I moved it to talk. The material is:

Socialism One of the central questions of any political ideology or "-ism" is "Who should own and control the means of production?" (Means of production refers to factories, farmlands, machinery, office space, etc.) Generally there have been three approaches to this issue. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which disbanded the traditional ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; many workers are excluded. The third approach is socialism, which is defined as "the collective ownership and control of the means of production." That is, everyone owns and controls productive wealth, which is accomplished through the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to many owning it at the other. - - Socialism has quite a variety of forms. The primary feature is actually worker ownership of production. This point is probably the most confused and misunderstood aspect of socialism. "Collective ownership" does not necessarily mean "government ownership," as the case of anarcho-socialism shows. For those who automatically equate socialism with big government, the mere existence of an ideology called "anarcho-socialism" is a direct refutation of that belief. It is also a logical impossibility to have "collective ownership" by any dictator or dictatorial party, no matter what the dictatorial few claim by the name.


[edit] Requesting article "Tribunite"

Does anyone feel able to create a stub on Tribunite (sub-set of the mid-20th century British Left)?
The only sources I have are

http://www.allwords.com/word-Tribunite.html

(and other pages with identical text)

and this from Guardian

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1530801,00.html

"According to his biographer, Professor Bernard Crick, Orwell saw himself as a Tribunite socialist whose experiences in the Spanish civil war had left him sharply disillusioned with Soviet communism."

-- 201.50.123.251 12:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See Tribune - I'll create a re-direct...--Red Deathy 13:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This sentence

The words socialism and communism were used almost interchangeably in the beginnings of the socialist movement, prior to the formation of communism as a unique type of movement, separate from the greater socialist movement: uses the word 'movement' three times. Whiskey Rebellion 00:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Then fix it. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 00:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
ok. Whiskey Rebellion 01:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, I ran this statement around and around in my head, and I can't make heads nor tails of it. I guess someone else should fix it. Plus, I don't believe it actually makes any sense, sorry, so I would feel like a hypocrite if I pretended to understand it and to fix it. Whiskey Rebellion 01:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It makes sense to me, though perhaps the commas have confused you. I'll try to make it easier to comprehend. -- WGee 23:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
My revision: The words socialism and communism were used almost interchangeably in the beginnings of the socialist movement, prior to the formation of communism as a distinct movement. I removed the redundancy to remove the confusion. -- WGee 23:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social control?

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. Now, I know it would be hard to come up with a def for socialism (especially) as there are so many and disputed of them - hwoever social control strikes me as a bit weak because it would include any form of regulation In realise the ref. comes from the Battelstar Britaninica, but I'm sure I could come up with a much different ref. from the great Soviet Encylopedia or somewhere else - does anyone know a better def, or where there's something we could cite to build one? (Wording our own def. is not OR).--Red Deathy 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition is intended to be broad in order to accomodate the many varieties of socialism. -- WGee 23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm just wondering if it could be worded better, as it stands 'social control' could refer to government regulation, which is not a sole purview of socialism - admittedly, I'm wracking my brains and can't come up with anything (perhaps I'm blindsided by overly trying to avoid my own POV on this).--Red Deathy 07:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I still think that the current definition is fine. Social control essentially means control by the community (or control by society, literally speaking), which is not necessarily equivalent to government regulation or nationalization. Social control can be exercised by non-governmental entities such as cooperatives, workers' councils, and trade unions, for example. The phrase "social control" was chosen ultimately because editors could find no other accurate, non-verbose, and neutral phrase to describe the broad ideology that is socialism. The subsequent sentences expound the concept of social control, anyway, so there shouldn't be much confusion. -- WGee 05:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, control by the community may be a bit clearer--Red Deathy 07:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Social control is clear enough, in my opinion, and that the Encyclopædia Britannica uses it gives it some legitimacy. We should let sleeping dogs lie in this case, lest another troublesome content dispute will ignite. -- WGee 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
As you may have seen on the Anarchism talk, it is controversial because it excludes Mutualism (economic theory) and thus backs the "anarcho"-capitalists claims that anarchism isn't necessarily socialist. Socialism is about redistribution of wealth and egalitarianism at core, mutualism is a theory about how that can be achieved without anything other than individual control over property. Donnacha 00:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. I'm very unhappy with that too. "Social control" sounds a tad too much like the only sources of relevant information on socialism are Hayek and Van Mises. That kind of POV belongs in the criticism section. I would suggest:

Socialism is a socio-economic system or ideology that proposes economic activity be done for the collective benefit rather than private profit. This normally envisages state, community or worker ownership of the means of production, and often state or collective control or intervention in the market.

I definitely think that Marx's dictum "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" should be here somewhere, as should the Soviet claim that they had "actually-existing socialism", alongside Western European claims that social democracy is/was a competing and democratic form of socialism. Co-operative socialism, such as kibbutzim, the British co-operative movement, and the Mondragon councils need a mention too. The doctrine espoused here: "communism = economic system -- socialism = ideology" is very much a contentious POV. You can have a communist ideology or a socialist economic system, and people talk of them often, and distinguish them from their relevant other. (no login) 58.137.48.4 06:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 07:33 17 January 2007 [UTC]

[edit] Deleting "See Also" section

I deleted the "See Also" section because it is way too long, and there are enough links within the article and in the Socialism box for people to find more information about socialism. The "See Also" list cluttered up the article, and most people won't trudge their way through all those links anyway.Spylab 12:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

The See also section must remian because it is a navigational aid and it is mandated by Wikipedia's guide to layout. If we simply place the links in two columns, the section will be shorter and will waste less space. -- WGee 22:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you happen to know how to arrange the section in columns? -- WGee 23:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The See Also section does not have to remain, and in no way is it mandated by Wikipedia. When articles have boxes or templates with important links, there is no need for a See Also section, especially in an already overly-long article such as this. If there are links that you think are important enough to be included, put them into the Socialism box, and then every article with that box on its page will have those links. Also, there's no need to have links to every other non-socialist ideology out there. If people want to find out about them, they can find them on Wikipedia easily enough.Spylab 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
I think it should remain, but perhaps should be editted a little to keep to the top of the tree - users should cascade through the articles rather than treating this one as a comprehensive index.--Red Deathy 11:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I reduced it to Types of socialism & List of socialist ideas because they list every kind of socialism hat was in the See Also list. If someone is too lazy to click on those links, then I doubt they would bother going through the extremely long list that was there already. However, this is still unneccessary because those links are in the Socialism box. Spylab 12:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
A See also section is a "standard appendice"; thus, it is de facto required for all non-stub articles and de jure required for all featured article candidates. Once again, I don't see any problem in having a long See also section. Firstly, it is not difficult at all for even the laziest of users to browse through a bulleted, alphabetized list of 50 or so links (it is much easier than trying to find the links within the main prose). Secondly, this article is not "overly long" (please read WP:SIZE before alleging that); it is not comprehensive enough, if anything, and hence not long enough. Thirdly, most of the links you deleted cannot be found (nevermind "easily") in the two articles to which you linked. Thus, your reduction of the See also section is too drastic; many navigational links are needed for an article that deals with such an essential and broad subject as socialism. -- WGee 17:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • To reiterate, a See Also list is in no way required in a Wikipedia article, especially if there is a template or box with relevant links. There are many articles with no See Also section. A See Also section with 50 or so links would be rediculous and totally unjustified, and not the standard format for a Wikipedia article. If there are important links that aren't already in Template:Socialism or in List of socialist ideas, add them there instead of cluttering up this article. Spylab 18:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
I've told you precisely in which cases a "see also" section is required. All non-stub articles (even ones with templates) are expected to have one, hence it has been declared a "standard appendice". I even shortened the list to remove links already mentioned in the template, yet for some reason you still want to shorten it further. Please read and abide by Wikipedia guidelines, especially WP:CONSENSUS. -- WGee 18:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The "See also" section is supposed to be a list of socialist ideas in and of itself; thus, it is nonsensible to link to List of socialist ideas. In fact, that list is redundant and should be deleted, because it is the purpose of templates and "See also" sections to list socialist ideas. -- WGee 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I totally disagree, and so does the person who created the List of socialist ideas. See Also lists are not supposed to be very long. They are supposed to provide links to a few related articles. If they are extremely long, they should probably be turned into a separate article, in the form of a list. Also, it is unneccessary to have the Political ideology entry points, box, because not all of the ideologies are socialist. If people want to learn about other ideologies they can look them up themselves. Also, that box is very ugly and distracting. Spylab 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
I have included only links that are not mentioned in the List of socialist ideas or in the Socialism template, so that you cannot delete them on the grounds of "redundancy". Nor can you delete them on the grounds of "clutter", because there are only eight of them. Two editors have expressed disapproval of your edits, and I have even included a policy-based rationale for my position; still, you delete the links, showing utter disregard for Wikipedia guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Consensus.
I will not relax my position any more, so please don't delete more links. There is no need to ignite a revert war over a relatively insignificant See also section. That being said, I don't know why you are so preoccupied with it. Perhaps you should do something more constructive than delete information against the will of the majority.
-- WGee 02:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Note that if Red Deathy wants to restore the previous, more comprehensive version of the section (or a variation thereof), I will support him. -- WGee 02:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As I asked in my talk page, where is this "will of the majority" you speak of? And if you read what Red Deathy said, he does not want the full "comprehensive version" restored. And yes, deleting the Political Ideologies box because it is not specifically about socialism — and because the colours are garish and an affront to people with fully-functional eyes — is justified. And no, that box is not "vital." People can look up those non-socialist ideologies on their own without the aid of a handy-dandy USA Today-style chart. Spylab 14:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
The template doesn't have to be specifically about socialism; it merely has to be associated with socialism. And it is associated with socialism because socialism is a political ideology, hence socialism is mentioned in the template. -- WGee 02:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the nazi party

The Nazi party's official name was the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), although it was not actually a true socialist party, in the sense that Nazism rejected the policies of internationalism, egalitarianism, class struggle, and common ownership of the means of production, which are the main tenets of socialism.

I'm not really an expert on the subject, but I think that it is not totally correct. Albeit nazis were not egalitarians and internationalists, I think that even some other "real" socialists weren't totally, and yet are considered socialists. To me the formation of USSR is pretty much non-internationalist as what the nazis where doing while trying to "reconquer" what was "originally" territory of the "aryan race" (sensu nazi). The imposition of atheism over all religions (despite of atheism not possibly be considered a religion itself) does not seems much different of nazi's anti-semitism, and also isn't quite egalitarian, is it? Also, traditionally accepted socialists were in some instances anti-semitists themselves, weren't them? I think that the class struggle and common ownership of means of production were also implied in nazism, even though not to the same extent and obviously withouth nazi leaders quoting Marx; see the Nazi 25-point program to more details. Some more relevant items:

- We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

- Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

- We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

- All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

- The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

- Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

- We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

- We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

If it is not socialism, I think that it is quite close. But as I said, I do not really understand much of the subject. --Extremophile 21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This was propaganda just to attract votes. Although it was in the program, the nazis did not nationalize industry. They regulated it, for the benefit of German industrial corporations and the military. 72.139.119.165 21:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It might be worth asking an expert on the Nazis to expand the par a bit, perhaps mentioning Otto Strasser and the socialist strand within the Nazis that was quashed by Hitler. Donnacha 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
If one looks carefully at the list of Nazi "demands" it is clear that they are essentially a populist collection. Take, for example, Zerbrechung der Zinsherrschaft, which means "smashing the domination of interest". There's no indication anywhere, with any of these demands, how to get to get from where they were in early 1920 to where they purportedly wanted to be. In the absence of actual plans for the abolition of interest, it seems to have meant little more than "cheap loans". The demand that everyone should be entitled to the "opportunity of a livelihood" (even if an alcoholic?) is also meaningless unless there are concrete plans for making this a reality. As a demand it was very much "in the air" at the time and the right to a job had even been included in the Weimar Constitution. This kind of stuff is empty rhetoric, nothing more. As can readily be imagined, the sheer meaninglessness of this became glaringly obvious in the Great Depression. The reference to equal duties and rights is standard liberal stuff, possibly with a populist edge here against "privilege", but it's not socialist. Moreover, not long afterwards, Hitler took over the party, and he had no time for this kind of populist rhetoric and made a point of getting rid of the party's populist wing(s). Norvo 23:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Moshe Postone in his National Socialism and Anti-Semitism makes a case that the Nazi ideology could be taken as a privilleging of use value over exchange value - a desire to concretize value (and thus Jews, synonymous with finance capital and with a large, universalised diaspora symbollised this and were thus industrially destroyed). Dunno how far that gets you. Bernard Shaw saw m as just a form of radical reformism, and Paul Mattick in his essays Kautsky: From Marx to Hitler noted that the NSDAP realised most of the demands of the SPD. I'd also note that it was communist transfer votes that gave Hitler his final election victory. In the UK, during the war, the BBC broadcast lectures explaining why Fasicsm had nothing to do with socialism, as part of wartime propaganda--Red Deathy 07:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a fine line between explaining the genuine quasi-socialist (or, as Norvo would prefer "populist") elements within Nazism, and going into silly libertarian type ideas that Nazism is a form of socialism. Doing the first is generally worthwhile, while the second only confuses things. I think it's worth mentioning the Strassers and the quasi-socialist nature of the Nazis' official platform, but only if we also note that none of this stuff was actually put into effect, and that the wing of the party which supported it was purged. The formation of the USSR is not comparable to the Nazis' rabid nationalism. The former implied the consolidation of Leninist socialism within the former Tsarist Empire, but did not imply an abandonment of internationalism, and, indeed, communism remained an international movement throughout its existence. Red Deathy - I assume one of the demands of the SPD which was not realised was, er, the existence of independent trade unions? And "communist transfer votes" as an explanation of Hitler's victory in March 1933 seems dubious. Hitler's victory was a result of banning the Communist Party and basically intimidating all the others. It was not a fair contest in any respect. The last free election, in November 1932, had shown a leak of Nazi votes back to the DNVP and a leak of SPD votes to the Communists, as well as a leak of NAzi votes to the Communists. john k 11:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with nearly everything above except for the claim that "communism remained an international movement throughout its existence". Stalinism was opposed to internationalising the revolution, particularly in relation to the German and Spanish social uprisings. The post-WWII expansion of the USSR was not internationalism, but protectionism. Donnacha 23:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
That's what I vaguely meant, but perheps with historical flaws, in one part of my comment... but anyway... this rule of "socialist in theory but not in practice is not socialism" applies only to nazism, or to other parties as well? Such as this thing of post WWII expansion of USSR... and also the national bolshevism, which is strikingly nazi looking, but carry the hammer and sickle insted of a tetraskelion inside the white ball in their flag, other eventual symbols being sinistroverse swastikas[7] (or sinistroverse "n-skelions" [8]) with communist symbols in each edge. --Extremophile 06:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Mel Brooks put it best, in Springtime for Hitler. "Don't be stupid, be a smarty: Come and join the Nazi Party." ;-) --Christofurio 19:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian socialism

What the hell is that doing in the recent developments section? The use of libertarian as a term for anarchism dates back to the early 19th Century and Joseph Déjacque. The development of the terms libertarian socialism (Chomsky) or left libertarianism (Bookchin) as simply a clarification due to the recent association of libertarianism with the right in the US. Its high-point in the USA was in the early part of the 20th Century when the IWW was at its height. In Europe, the high point was the Spanish revolution. Donnacha 23:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some people who like to pretend to be anarchists while demanding "more government" -- of course only as a temporary measure. That sort of thing has probably been around since the pyramids were built. "Once we get this big building project done, Egyptian statism will just wither away." Nothing new, just as lying for the sake of power is nothing new, and the unscrupulousness of the worshippers of violence is nothing new. --Christofurio 19:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what you're saying, but I've edited the recent developments section in line with the bit of your criticism which I do understand. BobFromBrockley 15:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The def (Again)

There's something about Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.[1] that niggles. I think as it stands that def. encompasses simple regulation or even feudalism (with its social control on wealth and activity) - I was wonering if changing it to conscious control or conscious (collective/social) control. I think the element of consciousness/intentionality contrasts with the invisible hand, etc. Sorry to keep banging on about this, but while the current def. isn't wrong as such I can't help feeling it is a little off--Red Deathy 07:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, that definition would exclude Mutualism (economic theory), which is based on individual ownership generally under the "occupation and use" principle. Proudhon's distinction between possessions and property are hugely important in socialist theory, yet Proudhon rejected anything but individual control of their possessions. Donnacha 08:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think conscious excludes mutualism, since mutualism relies on co-operative exchange of goods by private individuals for just ends, rather than the power driven war-like capitalism. Mutualists are consciously co-operating agents (I've spent a long while reading Kevin Carson's blog....).--Red Deathy 09:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's semantics, I agree, but the problem is the word "control". While anarchist communists and collectivists voluntary enter into a situation of collective/social control, mutualists (and individualists) retain individual control based on more egalitarian distribution and choose to co-operate or not to as the case may be. This is the primary difference in emphasis between individualists/mutualists and communists/collectivists within anarchism. To encompase all of these, the definition needs to move the emphasis from control to the principle of egalitarianism. It's a difficult one, but the current definition is causing problems on the anarchism page as the "anarcho"-capitalists can argue that, because the Individualists do not meet the definition of socialism here, they're not socialist in the same sense. Fundamentally, socialism and communism are not strictly political ideas, as they are part of a variety of political ideas. Socialism is the economic theory around which a number of very different political ideas have been built. Donnacha 10:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, control is already there - I would argue the conscious element is more important, or rather, thatmorality/values/human ideas are no longer subject to market forces as a perceived external force. Ia gree that egalitarianism may need to be more central, however, the problem is then we lose stalinists and labourites - the likes of Bernard Shaw et al. who (NPOV-wise) belong in the tradition (whether we like it or not, this is wikipedia, not a propaganda page). The only thing they have in common is raising human principle (of some sort) above alienation of the market.--Red Deathy 10:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the current definition is correct: Socialism is a class of ideologies favouring collective ownership of all or most productive resources, either through the government or through cooperatives or workers' councils. It similarly restricts private property and prioritizes the common good over the wants of the individual. Thus, one cannot attempt to reconcile socialism with individualist ideologies such as Mutualism and individualist anarchism, which prioritize individual freedom and private property even when they conflict with the common good. -- WGee 03:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
For that matter, I don't think that any branch of anarchism fits the definition of socialism, because they all hold that individual sovereignty is primary, whereas socialism curtails individual freedom when that freedom would conflict with the common good. Also, some reliable sources, such as this one, define socialism as an economic system based upon government ownership of the means of production, thus excluding anarchism. -- WGee 04:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, WGee, but you're sounding like the right-wingers on the anarchism talk page - just coming from the opposite side. Anarchist ideas predate the Marxist interpretation of socialism you're using. Proudhon's ideas influenced Marx, the Diggers (True Levellers) were among the first socialist/communists and they predated Marx by many years, Bakunin and the Jura Federation were kicked out of the First International over this same dispute. By defining socialism as "curtailing" personal freedom, you are defining authoritarian socialism, not socialism. Socialism is any system that seeks to bring economic equality to society, anarchists of all kinds have argued (with considerable historical support) that equality without freedom is impossible, as much as freedom without equality. Anarchist ideas about freedom and equality have infused political movements since Proudhon's time and are the dominant idea in the "anti-globalisation" convergence. To argue, as the right-wing libertarians do, that socialism is authoritarian, thus individualist/mutualist anarchism is not socialist is sectarian and inaccurate. Donnacha 11:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the definition at this site is that reliable; it seems a rather non-neutral and anti-socialist. Socialism is about SOCIAL control of the means of production, not GOVERNMENT control. The clue is in the word "social" carefully hidden within the word "socialism".
Historically, the anarchist movement was an integral part of the socialist movement, and it is anachronistic to say that Proudhon is anarchist and not socialist or vice versa. Rudolf Rocker, one of the most representative figures in anarchism, makes it clear anarchism should be seen as part of the socialist family:

"In common with the founders of Socialism, Anarchists demand the abolition of economic monopoly in every form and shape and uphold common ownership of the soil and all other means of production, the use of which must be available to all without distinction; for personal and social freedom is conceivable only on the basis of equal economic conditions for everybody. Within the socialist movement itself the Anarchists represent the viewpoint that the struggle against capitalism must be at the same time a struggle against all coercive institutions of political power, for in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with political and social oppression. The exploitation of man by man and the domination of man over man are inseparable, and each is the condition of the other.

As long as a possessing and a non-possessing group of human beings face one another in enmity within society, the state will be indispensable to the possessing minority for the protection of its privileges. When this condition of social injustice vanishes to give place to a higher order of things, which shall recognise no special rights and shall have as its basic assumption the community of social interests, government over men must yield the field to the administration of economic and social affairs, or, to speak with Saint Simon: "The time will come when the art of governing men will disappear. A new art will take its place, the art of administering things." In this respect Anarchism has to be regarded as a kind of voluntary Socialism." Source:http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-and-anarcho-syndicalism-rudolf-rocker]
Similarly, Daniel Guerin, one of the most authoritative historians of anarchism, takes this position. I think it is more helpful to think about anarchism as including an individualist tradition (which is not socialist) and a socialist tradition, which historically has been the mainstream of anarchism, if it can be said to have a mainstream. BobFromBrockley 15:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Two fundamental principles gave Socialism its life and strength: the wage system and its master, private property. The cruelty, criminality, and injustice of these principles were the enemies against which Socialism hurled its bitterest attacks and criticisms. Private property and the wage system being the staunchest pillars of society, every one who dared expose their cruelty was denounced as an enemy of society, a dangerous character, a revolutionist. Time was when Socialism carried these epithets with head erect, feeling that the hatred and persecution of its enemies were its greatest attributes."

Emma Goldman. Or, if you want to see one of the most perfect definitions of socialism, read the quote on my user page. Donnacha 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
A point of disagreement, the anarchist individualist tradition has also been socialist and defined itself as such. What does "social control" mean? For the individualists, socialism was each individual's right to own their own possessions and do with them what they wished. Social control that prevents people doing that is authoritarianism. All forms of anarchism are based on voluntary co-operation, not just the individualist trends (all forms have elements of individualism). All true anarchists oppose wage slavery and capitalist domination of the means of production. Their theories of post-revolutionary organisation vary, but all are based on a wish to maximise egalitarianism and freedom. Some predict people will form communes, others that people will form collectives, others again that people will prefer to maintain personal holdings and have the choice of co-operating or not. The reality, should anarchy be achieved (which, I should point out, is also the stated aim of Marxism), is that a wide variety of social and economic organisations would exist. Socialism is about the removal of inequality and exploitation, not the removal of individual freedom in the individual's own sphere. Donnacha 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I challenge anyone to read Mutualism (economic theory) and say how it's not part of the socialist (rather than narrow Marxist) socialist tradition. Donnacha 16:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not propagating socialism according to Marx; I'm merely relaying the opinions of some reliable secondary sources. Many of them say that socialism "is associated with collective ownership of the means of production"; I ask, therefore, how Mutualism and individualist anarchism (which endorse private property and stress the importance of the individual rather than the collective) can be socialist. Remember, our goal here is to find the most common definition of socialism amongst political scientists, not amongst socialists themselves. If you disagree, then, with the current definition, you should be refuting it with secondary rather than primary sources. -- WGee 01:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a big difference between "associated with", which is true, and what it always is. It's the first line of the article that's problematic. Of course it's normally associated with its most common form (social democracy these days, with nationalised industry), but that doesn't mean it's exclusively in that form. I'll hunt for some sources, but it'll be difficult as political academia tends to be dominated by Marxists and opponents of socialism, which doesn't tend to give any form of anarchism much of a look-in. There is the Anarchist FAQ of course. Donnacha 02:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Does socialism necessitate collective ownership of the means of production or not? That's one question you should answer through your research, since the article is ambiguous about the issue. Sorry I can't do much research on my own, but I'm over-burdened with homework right now. -- WGee 02:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily - the fundamental principle is occupation and use. What's opposed is someone owning the means of production and paying others a wage to work and keeping the profit. Thus, workers in a factory could own equal shares in the business, thus maintaining individual ownership but on a socialist basis. I'll try to dig out some quotes on this over the weekend or next week. Donnacha 02:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] m + party

user: Vision Thing has deleted the following: "Despite the fact that the Nazi party's official name was the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), it was not actually a true socialist party, in the sense that Nazism rejected the policies of internationalism, egalitarianism, class struggle, and common ownership of the means of production, which are the main tenets of socialism." While I think the motive for VT's edit was likely brevity, this nonetheless seems to me an important thing to mention in an article on socialism, especially given the oft-used anti-socialist argument that Nazism was tantamount to, or a form of, socialism.--Jackbirdsong 04:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)(forgot signature initially).

I'm glad that Vision Thing removed that, because a discussion about m and an analysis of the name of the Nazi Party are extraneous in an article about socialism. Since the article did not attempt to liken socialism to m in the first place, there was no need to make an effort to distance the two. Also, the preponderant opinion in academia is that Nazism is not socialist (for various reasons that we need not discuss now); thus, we should not be giving undue weight and legitimacy to anti-socialist arguments that have no significant following among reputable scholars. -- WGee 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand that the opinion in academia, and in most unbiased circles for that matter, is that Nazism is not truly socialist. My logic was to cut the nazism = socialism presumption off at the pass for the benefit of the non-academic, less scholastic idividual, as the official name of the party was the National Socialist German Workers Party, and any uninformed but otherwise well-intentioned person might therefore conclude for obvious reasons that it was in fact socialist. However, I am fine with leaving it out if that is the general concensus.--Jackbirdsong 04:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

NAZI Germany was socialism. Socialism doesnt require that the state OWN the means of production. A socialist economy can be one where the state CONTROLS the means of production by telling them what quantities of things to produce,etc. In other words, a command economy. A command economy IS a form of socialist economy. Working Poor 19:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. A command economy is only socialism if it is controled by the workers (through the state) and if it is for their benefit. A state where a small group of people control the economy for their benefit is command economy, but not socialism. m/Nazism said that a dictator and an unelected body should control the economy by co-operating with capitalists and class collaboration. Hitler was an extreme anticommunist. Massive industrial corportaions like BASF actually thrived under Nazi Germany. In fact, Facsism/Nazism was based on inequality, hierarchy, nationalism, racism, imperialism, dictatorship, capitalism (in a corporatist form), anticommunism, and militarism. It is among the most anti-socialist views in exitence. There where some more populist elements in the party (see above discussions), but they were purged. Nazism (and m) was in no way a form of socialism. The name "National Socialist German Workers Party" was for propaganda purposes only. 72.139.119.165 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, it might be worth writing a little bit about the Otto Strasser socialist-influenced populist faction within early Nazism and its subsequent squashing by Hitler. Of course, your argument here disqualifies Stalinism as well, as there's no way you could argue that it was controlled by the workers nor for their benefit. Donnacha 01:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
When the state controls the means of production in any socialist economy, it is not for the benefit of the workers. It is for the benefit of the state. The state SAYS it is for the benefit of the workers, but Hitler also said that. "I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property." -Adolph Hitler. Of course NAZI Germany was socialist. Working Poor 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Although I had hoped to circumvent this old ridiculous debate, this discussion is a good example of the precise reason for my desire to include in the article the following paragraph, once again: "Despite the fact that the Nazi party's official name was the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), it was not actually a true socialist party, in the sense that Nazism rejected the policies of internationalism, egalitarianism, class struggle, and common ownership of the means of production, which are the main tenets of socialism." This makes clear the major divides between the Nazi controlled government (as it truly was in action) and true socialism. The differences go beyond who precisely controlled the means of production - the fact that real German socialists were primary enemies of the Nazis obviates the divide further - to the very fundamental tenets of socialism. -Jackbirdsong 04:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need thos old debate again? Nowdays the nazis call themselves things like "national democrats", but that doesn't make them democratic. They just use a buzzword to make their ides sound better. // Liftarn

Well, it does need addressing somehow. Partly it's the result of the weak definition of socialism at the top of the article - social control would include Nazi style govt. control whether you like that style or not. It also includes Soviet state capitalism. A good many from the SPGB to Paul Mattick (i.e. screaming ultra-lefts) to Bernard Shaw saw Nazism as a species of radical reformism (at the time), so it's not an entirely all-right wing view. --Red Deathy 09:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats not true. If you had a democraticly elected socialist government that kept it's origanal beliefs instead of becoming facists, you would end up with a state that does whats best for the workers. It's all very well trying to keep the rich minority happy, but at the end of the day it doesn't keep the 'masses' happy. Nazism is completly different. It is one madman's veiw about how the world should look and if the different peoples don't fit that mould, they will be killed. Socialism is a type of government that has been exploited by men with there own ajenda's in times of need. It is easy for just anyone to join a party and become the head and eventually get what he wants. Hitler did this in the depression, Mau did it in the culural revolution and Lenin did it in the Russian Revolution. Franklin D. Roosavelt ,however, kept his word and brought the U.S.A out of the depression. So Socialism doesn't have to be Communist or Nazist. The point is there needs to be an outlying point on the differences between Nazism and Socialism. --reds4eva
Agreed! You cannot place socialism and communism in the same box as nazism; they are almost opposite ideologies. Socialism involves a government appointed by the people, and nazism is a self-imposed dictator with little incentive to help the 'masses' as you say. They are at opposing ends of the political spectrum. I'm sorry, Red Deathy, but I strongly disagree with your anti socialist views. --Earl of Wellington
Earl, I am a socialist, and if I were arguing politics I would claim that Nazis, Stalinists and members of assorted Labour parties and so-called socialists parties (as in France) were not socialists, I would also argue that socialism is a stateless classless moneyless society in which the means of production and distribution were owned and democratically controlled in common. Sadly, this is Wikipedia, where we have an NPOV policy in which we have to try and accomodate the views Stalinist wingnuts and Looneytarians. My point is, without special pleading, given the weak definition of socialism in the article, you cannot exclude the NSDAP, and that there were historical and contemporary critics (opponents) who did draw comparisons between the Nazis and leftwing reformism. As for the Nazi government, it had considerable popular support, and was the acme of mobilised dictatorships.--Red Deathy 10:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] male suffrage

Shouldn't that be "universal female suffrage," in the Moderate Socialism and Communism section (second paragraph, second sentence)? --michael 15:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Female suffrage lagged behind quite considerably. "Universal" suffrage at the start of the 20th Century tended to be male-exclusive. Donnacha 16:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right-wing wreckers

I added links to the introduction for libertarian socialists (the blanket term for all those who support "decentralized collective ownership") and mutualists (the primary form of market socialism started by Proudhon) and two right-wingers ("anarcho"-capitalist POV-pusher Vision Thing, who is clearly watching my edits, and new one) have been reverting my edits. Just so you know what's going on. Donnacha 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For those who want to argue about "neologisms," socialisme libertaire goes back to at least 1894, and was common by the turn of the century. Based on the evidence in WorldCat and those full-text works available online, it seems to caught on in the 1890s. I can't access all of the full-text periodical databases to check those at the moment, but the New York Times picks up the term in 1919. Libertatia 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the term - does not strike me as undue weight, and the age of the terminology is frankly irrelevent...--Red Deathy 08:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:NEO neologism should be avoided, while mentioning mutualism in the introduction is undue weight because they are tiny minority. -- Vision Thing -- 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"With the development of industrial capitalism, a new and unanticipated system of injustice, it is libertarian socialism that has preserved and extended the radical humanist message of the Enlightenment and the classical liberal ideals that were perverted into an ideology to sustain the emerging social order." (my emphasis) - ["Notes on Anarchism" in For Reasons of State]. Noam Chomsky, 1970

This Chomsky article is one of his most famous and is probably the one that revived use of the term. Thirty-six years is far too old to be a neologism even if this was the first use ever of the term. Donnacha 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I unknowingly made my last edit without signing in first, it was indeed i who readded Libertarian Socialism to the list of various forms of socialism in the intro. I don't think Libertarian Socialism qualifies as a neologism becuase it describes an ideology within socialism that is historical and important. that the term had to be adapted to differentiate left libertarians from "right libertarians" and the political party which emerged in the US is undoubtable, previously socialist libertarians were simply known as libertarians. Vision Thing, do you think that the ideology and people that the term libertarian socialism describes is not worthy of inclusion in the intro or is your problem purely a semantic one? do you have some other agenda i can't think of? Considering that libertarian socialists played an important part in the rise of socialism and continue(d) to be of consequence leads me to assert that it warrants mention in the intro. Blockader 20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
When I looked at the Libertarian socialism article the other day, it almost had no sources. Whole article looks like an original research, and it lacks any credibility. There is no clear definition of libertarian socialism, and that is one of main problems with neologisms. -- Vision Thing -- 20:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The info in the libsoc article seems mostly right to me, whatever thats worth, but is certianly not fully cited. you don't seem to dispute the historical or contemporary existence or relativity of the various ideologies described by the term libertarian socialism, right? well, i don't think there exists a better general term that describes them, do you? Blockader 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This issue was very well explained by 172 to Donnacha:
The term "libertarian socialism" was very rarely used in publications before the last third of the 20th century. A good test is taking a look at a search on Jstor for instances of the term "libertarian socialism" and then sorting the results by date, oldest to most recent. Few entries appear even for all dates. [9] Hardly any appear from the early 20th century; and the ones that do appear to use the term much differently from the way you use "libertarian socialism." [10] [11] This is what I mean when I point out that you are not using terms that are widely socially familiar. They are still concepts that have not entered a large social lexicon. In this sense the terms you use are neologisms.
There is no harm if we just say some socialist. Btw, formulation "some...while others" implies majority, and that is not the case. -- Vision Thing -- 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And Libertatia very well refuted 172's statements above when she wrote, "For those who want to argue about "neologisms," socialisme libertaire goes back to at least 1894, and was common by the turn of the century. Based on the evidence in WorldCat and those full-text works available online, it seems to caught on in the 1890s. I can't access all of the full-text periodical databases to check those at the moment, but the New York Times picks up the term in 1919." I don't know what you are referencing with the comment, "Btw, formulation "some...while others" implies majority, and that is not the case." Blockader 23:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It's the formulation last seen in this edit, and look who it's by! Donnacha 23:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proudhon and possession

Proudhon did not limit the concept of "possession" to land alone. ""The satisfaction of a natural right always gives rise to an equation; in other words, the right to a thing is necessarily balanced by the possession of the thing." Thing, not property. Perhaps "occupation and use" is not the best term, but it is completely inaccurate to say that mutualists accept private ownership of the means of production - it's not that simple. Donnacha 13:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mutualists don't apply "possession" to everything. For example, if you build widgets with your machine, those widgets are truly your private property. They don't become available for the taking for free by others just because you're not using them. You can offer them for sale in the market. That is the normal conception of private property. And you can store that machine (your means of production) in your garage and keep others from using it. It too does not become avaiable for the taking just because you're not using it. It's normal private property.Anarcho-capitalism 13:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
(Just talking to you because this is important) Et voila - a perfect definition of "possession" - its yours once you have it in your possession (occupation). The flip is the use side. If you rent it out to someone else who needs it, they have possession of your property. Thus, there's an issue ("the right to a thing is necessarily balanaced by the possession of the thing"). Thus, mutualism does not accept private property of the means of production by an individual who has not got possession of them. My original formulation ("limited private property") is accurate, you're the own who insisted on expanding it. Mutualism is a form of "market socialism", just a different form to that advocated by reformist Marxists. Donnacha 14:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't understand "possession." You're mixing up Proudhon's definition with the literal meaning of "possession." "Possession" for Proudhon means occupation or use. If you store your corn in a silo, you're not using it, but you still have a right to exclude others from taking it. It's your private property in the fullest sense. That would not be allowed for land. You could not stop using your land and leave in storage and exclude others from using it. BUt, you could do that for your machine. You can leave your machine sitting idle and keep others from using it.Anarcho-capitalism 14:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you please read the quote. Mutualists oppose rent, they oppose private ownership of the means of production when they are used by others. Yes, you can leave your machine idle because its in your possession. However, they do oppose private ownership of the means of means of production when they are not in the possession of the owner. Really, how hard is "the right to a thing is necessarily balanced by the possession of the thing" to understand? Land is not the only thing. The specific focus of "What is Property?" on land is because that was a disputed issue among early activists, who opposed capitalism, but not the ownership of land (particularly by the gentry and aristocracy of the day). Donnacha 14:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You still don't understand "possession." "Possession" as Proudhon defines it does not mean the same thing that "possession" means in normal parlance. Possession, for Proudhon, means occupation or use. Leaving your machine idle, even though it is in your "possession" by the normal use of the term, it is not in "possession" by Proudhon's use of the term. But, in mutualism you cannot do that with land. If you fence in some land, it is in your "possession" by normal of the use of the term, but it's not "possessesion" by Proudhon's use of the term. "Possession" is by definition occupation or use. It doesn't mean that is simply in your possession.Anarcho-capitalism 15:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me why I don't bother arguing with you. You can repeat yourself all you like, but it still doesn't change the fact that you don't get the fact that the quote contradicts you. I give up (again). Donnacha 15:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, go "report" me to the authorities then. *laugh* Anarcho-capitalism 15:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mutualism is so obscure, it probably doesn't deserve mention in the intro anyway.Anarcho-capitalism 18:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

The term "libertarian socialism" does not warrant mentioning in the intro. 19th century Marxian socialism, social democracy, and communism-- for better or worse depending on one's point of view-- are far more notable subjects for a general readership than a couple of 19th century Russian anarchists who failed to establish lasting political movements. Further, the term "libertarian socialism" itself is inappropriate. The 19th century anarchists did not use it themselves. Chomsky popularized it in contemporary times-- a few decades ago may be a long time for you kids but not me-- to help classify the many different types of socialism that have profiferated and diverged over the course of nearly 150 years; the political theorists and organizers getting classified did not use the term themselves. An encylopedia should try to stay as loyal to the actual historical record itself, rather than promoting the taxonomy of a particular contemporary political writer. 172 | Talk 22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Apart from bring an anachronism, the term "libertarian socialism" is ambiguous: Chomsky says it is a synonym for anarchism, whereas this essay says that it also encompasses council communism and western Marxism. This uncertainty is compounded by the fact that the term is not widely used in academia, which on its own is a reason not to use it. -- WGee 01:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, most people, including Chomsky, absolutely acknowledge that it is a broad term usually used as a synonym for anarchism. Donnacha 19:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
You may think the example WGee is pointing to is "wrong," but that's your own ideology. The term is too new, and can be definined in a variety of ways depending on the ideology of the author. More clear terminology should be used. 172 | Talk 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I was saying he was wrong about Chomsky, please read what I actually write. And, if you had suggested the current (pointless) compromise a while ago, there would have been no problem. But, what kind of historian refers to a term most famously used in the modern sense 36 years ago as new? You have consciously and deliberately ignored all examples that contradict you. Donnacha 20:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Stop the personal attacks. 36 years ago may not be recent in the history of (say) the internet, but it is relevativley recent in the history of socialism. Further, Chomsky is a contemporary thinker who is still alive and publishing books. 172 | Talk 21:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
What personal attack? You are ignoring what we're saying. What exactly is your point about Chomsky? I know well that he's alive, I've spoken to the man. If you read his material (which I have), it's clear that he uses libertarian socialism in the broad sense, though it's often seen as a synonym for anarchism. He used it in a hugely influential article in 1970, as I pointed out above. For the umpteenth time, 36 years is far too long for the term to be a neologism, even if you ignore the uses from the beginning of the 20th Century (which you continue to do). Anti-globalisation, World Social Forum, these are accepted political terms that are less than a decade old. Donnacha 22:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The attack was implied in sarcastically asking me "what kind of historian refers to a term most famously used in the modern sense 36 years ago as new." An article on socialism deals with a very wide spatial and temporal frame. The focus is global, covering nearly 200 years. Looking from a broader time horizon, our own lifetimes can be seen as relatively recent. Whether or not we call the term a neologism is not too important. The point is that the term is not nearly as well established enough to come up in other encyclopedias. The term is jut not woven into the fabric of a more general, wider public discourse outside leftist circles. 172 | Talk 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless it's dodgey translation Bakunin seems to have used the term himself[12] - Marxists.org has the following for a search for the term [13] including Paul Mattick - so that's going back to an early 20th Century use. That plus the Jstore illustrates that there is a tradition of using the term dating back a long way - if it is obnscure it's possibly because it is in the marginalia of the socialist movement, some parts of which are obscure to the lay public and if we are seeking comprehensiveness we m,ay need to consider being very inclusive. I'll note even Trotsky seems to have used the term. If those are all hooky translations, we could posit that the term is mainstream enough in specialist discourse to support such persistence of mistranslation - personally I trust MIA.--Red Deathy 08:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll also note 10,500 hits on Google Scholar [14] Including one by Hayek always good to have him on your side...--Red Deathy 14:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it is absolutely appropriate for libertarian socialism to be in the article, and see no reason it shouldn't be in the intro. Libertarian socialism refers to a family of different views, ranging from council communism and social anarchism to Peter Hain of the British Labour Party who wrote a book a couple of years ago (Ayes to the left) advocating what he called libertarian socialism. This heterogeneity does not make it less worthy of inclusion, it makes it more important. It also means to talk about "socialists influenced by anarchism" does not make sense - that may be true of Chomsky and Bookchin, but obviously less so of Peter Hain or Paul Mattick. In fact, I can't understand what's contentious about this. BobFromBrockley 11:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
And, as for Murray Bookchin, his wikipedia article says he broke with anarchism in 1999 and describes him above all as a libertarian socialist, so I'm going to change that too. BobFromBrockley 12:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chomsky - obscure?

Most ridiculous and unsubstantiated edit yet

[edit] the clintons

because bill and hillary wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for social programs for lesser income groups, could they be considered socialists? Keltik31 16:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In Europe they'd be described as social democrats I suppose, though over here that's now a Tory policy, which means it's acceptable to some flavours of liberal. There's nothing socialist as such about the welfare state.--Red Deathy 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worker ownership of the means of production

The first paragraph says that socialism is associated with "worker ownership" of the means of production. If that's the case, then the U.S. is socialist, because "About three quarters of all U.S. business firms have no payroll." As of 2002, the number of firms in the U.S. with no employees is 17,646,062. The number of firms with employees is 5,696,759. [15] Improper Bostonian 19:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you look up the stats for ownership of productive wealth, I suspect you'll find that a much smaller proportion own that - many small businesses are capital light--Red Deathy 09:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you are missing a point: capitalism is ultimately about who has access to ownership of the means of production. Under communism, no one has access the ownership. During the industrial revolution, only the upper class had access to ownership. But when you have that many people owning their own business, it is patently obvious that (at least in the US) ownership of the means of production is open to anyone. And that is freedom. Dullfig 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually my point is that the statement in the article is wrong. Socialism is opposed to private ownership of the means of production, whether the owner is self-employed or employing others. Improper Bostonian 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was responding th Red Deathy :-) Dullfig 21:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
From my POV, User:Improper Bostonian you're right, Socialism is the abolition of private property in the means of production. however, this is Wikipedia, we must be NPOV and some socialists do not deny the right to won private property in the means of production, hence why our opening paragraph is so vague and contains a non-definition. User:Dullfig if there is an enormous concentration of ownership of the MoP, that means there is highly restricted access - a worker owning their own mop does not equate to owning the MoP.--Red Deathy 08:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
What socialists support private ownership of the means of production? And what do you mean "a worker owning their own mop does not equate to owning the MoP." Of course it does. Improper Bostonian 12:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the British Labour Party, UK has never opposed private ownership in principle, just the the commanding heights of the economy - now, I don't consider the labourites to be socialists, but many of them do, so NPOV means we have to incldue their POV in our writings - and owning a mop is no use without a floor on which to clean, just as owning a hammer is no good without nails so long as a market relationship intercedes between the ability to do the work and doing it.--Red Deathy 13:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

where i come from, nederland, the labour party are deffinitely not communists. if socialism does technically imply a ban of private ownership whilst some socialists do not think of it as such, it should be added as such, but socialism does not include that at al, socialism is not communism.--Lygophile 04:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You're still not explaining why "a worker owning their own mop does not equate to owning the MoP." My father owns his own business and building and he's the sole employee. Why does that not equate to owning the means of production? Improper Bostonian 13:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, mop was just a bad pun, but back in the day miners were expected to own their own shovels (or at least the price of digging tools was deducted from their pay), but they were still employees of the mine. If the mine owners didn't hire them, those tools were next to useless. Likewise a wood cutter who owns the axe but not the wood, I don't know what your father does, but if he owns a business in which effectively he is a subsidiary of a larger business - like the logger, they don't own the means of prduction - he might own some, but as I've said self employment tends towards the less capital intensive parts of the economy, the bits that don't mass produce cars--Red Deathy 14:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
No my father's business in not a subsidiary of a larger business. He is a worker who owns his own means of production. That is private ownership of the means of production. Improper Bostonian 14:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair do's - but one of my mates was a 'self employed contractor' which meant he worked for otehr people, effectively as an employee but had different tax arrangements. A trucker might own their own truck but still be an effective subsidiary of the warehouse chains in their area if there is a restricted market in which they can ply their trade--Red Deathy 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but by being an independent agent, he gets to decide who he works for, therefore obtaining as much money as he can from his work. The people hiring him, of course, try to pay as little as possible, but it all works out. If being a trucker for example, pays little money, not to many people will become truckers. There will be a shortage of truckers, forcing the trucking companies to pay more to attract truckers. So private ownership of the Mop ensures you get paid the most money the market will bear.
As a side note, if you look at capitalism and employment from a return on investment (ROI) point of view, unskilled labor has a really high ROI: the worker hardly puts any money of himself, yet he gets paid anyways. I would have to dig up the article, but a couple of years ago the trade magazine American machinist[16] did a study, and they showed that college graduates have a lower ROI because, even though they make more money, they spend vast amounts of money to aquire their education, while on the other hand a machinist gets a huge ROI because they don't need to go to college, most big manufacturers will train you, and you usually are already drawing a paycheck during training. Think about that. Dullfig 17:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


All of us tend to talk about property as if the current, capitalist form of "private property" is the only way property can work. Remember that for much of human history there have been forms of property of land (in particular) based on actual occupancy and use that still didn't extend to the point of being exclusive (the biblical system of the needy "gleaning" the fields, common grazing, hunting, wood gathering rights in pre-capitalist England, etc.). This ownership concept is still fundamentally important to human freedom because it implies autonomy and self-direction in the sphere of productive activity (most of one's waking life is spent in labor in in the act of reproducing labor power) while also allowing one to collect the entire product of one's labor (Marxism may not like to make these type of ethical statements explicitly but they are always present in all socialist ideas--we are talking about freedom from coercion and an attendant freedom from theft, both very essential liberal values). I think it is important to note that socialists and liberals share a lot of common ground with regard to the importance of "liberal property rights" to human freedom. What socialism is essentially arguing for is a system of property which allows for the continuation of real, effective ownership (that is control over the use of property--which in an industrial setting amounts to a democratic voice in the day-to-day operations of the workplace as well as the distribution of tasks--as well as an amount of income equal to one's share of the market value of the firm's output. [[[User:74.192.158.65|74.192.158.65]] 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Amos]

[edit] utilitarianism, egalitarianism

exactly how is utilitarianism an influance, and egalitarianism an idea? i thought they were both in the same catagory, as a philosophical moral view based on equality of worth of people.--Lygophile 01:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated error regarding Marx

In the rise of Marxism section, it states:

"For Marxists, socialism is viewed as a transitional stage characterized by state ownership of the means of production. They see this stage in history as a transition between capitalism and communism, the final stage of history."

Regardless of how you wish to define socialism and communism, neither Marx nor Engels differentiated between the two in this way (if at all). Nor did they suggest there would be two phases. This is made very clear in chapter one of Critique of the Gotha Programme. If anyone believes otherwise, please provide a reference.

This section was introduced by 172 who made the same error in the communism article (which has been slightly improved since). To be honest, given that 172 is an historian focusing on political economy, I'm surprised that he/she has made such an elementary mistake. Hydrostatic 09:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem being, as with NPOV re: Stalinists, many self-described Marxists do hold that view, following Lenin's clear propounding of that view. I suppose inserting Leninists in place of Marcists may suffice, but....--Red Deathy 09:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how it could be a NPOV problem at all, RD. After all, if the claim doesn't apply to Marx, you cannot really attribute it to Marxists. A view isn't automatically Marxist just because many Marxists hold it. Regardless of this, it's extremely misleading as people can only assume that Marx held this view. Therefore, I see no justification for it.
Changing "Marxists" to "Leninists" is OK, but then it shouldn't really be in the "rise of Marxism" section. Hydrostatic 10:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism and the State

On several occasions, I have attempted to edit the opening paragraph. As of 8:00 EDT, the last two sentences now read:

"As an economic system, socialism is often associated with state, community or worker ownership of the means of production. However, most socialists nowadays would agree that issues of democracy are crucial with regard to the state."

I have attempted to attach something equivalent to the final sentence many times. As a life-long socialist and as an active socialist debater I have observed on numerous occasions how right-wingers, and those who just are unfamiliar with socialist theory, equate state ownership, per se, with socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth: the issue of democracy, to put it in simplest terms, not even dealing with questions of class democracy, counsels, etc., is absolutely crucial.

To omit a reference to democracy in a reference to socialism and the state is foolish, to say the least.

RED DAVE

As I said in my change, numerous socialists, from Stalinists to the likes of Bernard Shaw have been unconcerned with democracy - whilst I agree with you as a socialist partisan, Wikipedia should have Neutral point of View and we need to include anti-democratic socialists (I'll throw in bordga as well here). Sucks, I know.--Red Deathy 13:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Dave has a point in terms of definitions. I mean, if I were to say I was a Christian who didn't believe in god, would we have to avoid calling christianity theistic at all? WP has to acknowledge the fact there is no one definition of socialism, and trying to find one that's NPOV is impossible. WP's responsibility has to be to report that debate, namely to say that many believe that democracy is essential and inherent in socialism, but that others define it more broadly. I'd also say that democracy is such an important issue in socialism we simply can't leave it out of the first paragraph. --Nema Fakei 00:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is more a case of trying to include trinitarianism in the definition of Christian - whilst a vast majority of Christians are trinitarian, a good number aren't (although POV-wise the former would deny the latter are really Christians). WPhas to take that into account in upholding the NPOV policy - it's our Prime Directive...--Red Deathy 08:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism doesn't work

There should be this mentioned in the article since everwhere socialism has been tried it has failed and also, that despire this failure, socialists still try to cover up this fact by naming themselves something else or taking credit where it doesn't belong. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

this is not the place for political discussion, and your comment totally redundent, and also untrue. there is always a certain amount of socialism, without it, there would still be slavery and childlabour. the point is just that people dont seem to agree on the desired exact amount of socialism--Lygophile 09:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just can't let this one slide. The left has never represented individual freedom. Socialism has always held that the individuals must bow to the will of the majority. It is the right that keeps insisting that each individual counts by himself. After all, it was the Republicans, not the Democrats, who went to war with the south during the American Civil War. Read your history book. Dullfig 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
i know very little about american history (why does every american keep assuming every internet user is american), but i totally miss any point your trying to make, nor do i see relevance with what was said. by neutral standarts, both republicans and democrats are right winged, republicans just absurdly right winged. at absolute deprevity of socialism, lot of families couldnt afford school and would be forced into engaging in child labour. it is the rise of socialism, that made an end to childlabour.--Lygophile 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
These are just plain falsehoods. Socialism has caused more human suffering than capitalism ever has. Capitalism gives you the opportunity to better yourself. Socialism lowers everyone to the lowest common denominator. And child labor disappeard because the conditions were right, not because of some law. You cannot legislate prosperity. Case in point: minimum wage. If minimum wage is so great, why stop at $8.75 an hour? Heck! let's make it $100.00 and hour. Why not? there is no real basis for setting it at where it is now. At $100.00 an hour, everyone would be instantly rich. no more poverty. But you know it can't be done. The economy won't support it. So you'd rather have everyone poor, as long as there are no rich people. Sounds like envy.
After thousands of years of surviving on the occasional bison, humans are hard-wired for energy conservation. If you hold a race (say the 100m dash) and you guarantee there will be no winner (somehow you give no recognition to the winner), you probably will get no one to run. But give out a trophy, all of a sudden everyone wants to run their fastest. And even the last guy in will be better off because all that training has made him a better runner.
Same with capitalism: by allowing everyone to compete and try to make it to the top, even the one at the bottom becomes a better earner than he would have been under socialism. Notice I said earner not worker. You make more money under Capitalism. Even the ones at the bottom. Check it out for yourself. Dullfig 03:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I can't see the argument for all the straw. Anthropology 101 is that humans mentally adapt to their conditions; there is no "human nature" that makes people competitive. How else do you explain noncompetitive people existing still after all that hardship humans went through a few million years ago? In fact, an argument can be made to the opposite effect; in pre-feudalist societies, people are mostly noncompetitive and live harmoniously in what could more or less be called socialism. -Switch t 05:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
And we all know what a swell period of history the Middle Ages where. Dullfig 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
...And the Middle Ages came before feudalism. And that's what I was clearly referring to. -Switch t 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
would you please stop confusing socialism with communism? because of the large scales of operation in this modern age, absolute communism would require force to get people to work, because of the egoism of the lot, unless it be a communalism. an absolute capitalism would provide such a force by abusing the fact that people would then need to work to prevent starvation. fine and all, but those that are incapable of work need food to survive as well. if there are no social provisions at all, children in poorer families wont have the money to go to school, and would be forced to chldlabour. thats simple math. you devide it in two possibilities: the way it is now, which is a capitalist system, with slight touches of socialism, and you call that capitalism, and absolute communism, which you call socialism. i wont keep repeating that it is a line, and that everyone wants it at another coordinate on that line, and that the absolute right end would necessitate childlabour, and the absolute left end authoritarial force or something or other. socialism kind of brings the absolute right somewhat closer to the middle. so one could never say that socialism has ever failed or caused suffering. communist dictatorial states may have (just like rightwing fascist states), but you cant credit that to the whole concept of socialism.--Lygophile 10:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC) -also nederland is (relatively) a socialist country. we dont have the red on top our flag for no reason. but we sure as fuck arent communistic. and i fail to see any suffering our socialism has caused10:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me play the devil's advocate here: you say that poor families would have to send their children to work. Let's say that that is so. With more people working in a family, wouldn't that family be less poor? By preventing the children from working, aren't you condeming the family to have less money than they could earn? Kids used to run paper routes (deliver newspapers), and cut the neighbour's grass. It gave them spending money, and it taught them responsibility. Now kids get money from their parents for doing nothing, which teaches them that in life you can get something for nothing. These kids in turn grow up to become adults that think that if they aren't earning enough, that it is right to expect the government to just give them money for nothing. I fail to see how child labor is all that bad. Dullfig 16:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
fail to see....you havent been paying much attention in history class have you? ow wait...your an american, you dont get any history besides the couple of centuries of american history. probably the same thing counts for...i dont even know the english word.....but in countries where childlabour does exist it aint such a pretty picture. children can still do the jobs your describing, thats not actually childlabour as such. having them work in a factory, thats childlabour. i agree that the way children are raised these days (or any other 'days') is wrong, but that doesnt have much to do with the abolishment of childlabour. but mostly the problem is that childlabour is taking away the most importend thing, education.--Lygophile 17:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Gosh, you don't suppose that there is no need in the US for childlabor because it is the most Capitalist nation on earth, do you? But that would be a contradiction. You say that the more capitalism, the higher human misery will be. But it doesn't work out that way. So, it must be that your premise is wrong. Dullfig 17:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
you really dont know much do you? when has childlabour ever been necessary because a country was too socialistic? of course, less kapitalistic (compared to USA) 'western' countries are full of childlabour hmm? America is a country with a very wealthy state, yet most of its people are very poor. i dont think theres any country in the world that has so much wealth combined with so much poverty. and theres sure no western country where the 'lower class' has so little oppurtunity (since good education is very expensive). maybe if thered be a democracy, and less corrupt media propoganda bs, it would make a change hmm....when theres an actual multiparty liberal democracy, instead of a biparty dictatorship. and a fair direct voting system io the outdated sick statevote system they have now.--Lygophile 06:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding. Have you been to Rwanda lately? Or Somalia? Or Haiti? Or (Insert country here)? You have made the silliest comment I have heard in a while. Dullfig 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
And are those countries socialist? Are they, in fact, capitalist countries? (hint: the answer is "yes") Have you ever lived in Appalachia? Why am I so sure you haven't? Are there several socialist countries with better quality of life than the United States? (hint: the answer is "yes" again) -Switch t 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Rwanda and Haiti are not capitalist. A capitalist system has adequate protections for private property, private ownership of the means of production, and the state doens't confiscate all or most of the profits. Somalia, however, is capitalist and only recently so. Protection of private property is performed by private contractors and there is no state to confiscate profits. That's why it's doing pretty good today considering where it came from, which was a system of "scientific socialism" and a bloody civil war. See more in the Somalia article. Improper Bostonian 20:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Most of the people in the U.S. are poor? What?! LOL. I'm sorry but I just to laugh at that. I'm in the U.S. and almost everybody looks pretty comfortable to me. In, fact most of those that are considered "poor" are actually rich by the most of the rest of the world's standards. For example, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46% of those in "poverty" in the U.S. own their own home (with the average poor person's home having three bedrooms, with one and a half baths, and a garage. Understanding Poverty Improper Bostonian 17:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I always say: when your biggest problem is obesity among the poor, you must be doing something right :-0. Dullfig 02:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
yeah, in the vast country, where there is so much emtpy space (since the 'americans' whiped out the original inhabitants), of course you dont need much money to have a big house. many of the poor people cannot afford good education, and thats where the biggest problem lies. this "something right" that they have done was genocide· Lygophile has spoken 11:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There are large parts of the Democratic Party that are no more right wing than any other mainstream center-left party in the developed world. Is Nancy Pelosi really more conservative than Tony Blair or Ségolène Royal or Gerhard Schröder or Romano Prodi? There are fairly conservative elements within the Democratic Party, but they are much weaker than they were even 15 years ago, due to the near death of the Southern Democratic Party. I get rather tired of this claim. john k 02:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To everyone arguing above: Define your terms. So far you've been arguing about "socialism" "capitalism" without explaining what you mean by those words. What objective features make a nation more or less capitalistic? What countries are "socialist"? What countries are "capitalist"? -- Nikodemos 09:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the socialists are using the standard definition of socialism, and Dullfig is using (roughly) Leninism or something approaching it.
The giding principle to build a just society should be this:
-- No one should be required to give up their rights, so that others may benefit --
Social control of private property is in itself a tyranical concept. Private property is intimately connected to the excercise of human rights. Take for example the right to life. Rights do not exist as mere concepts, but have to be expressed in order to exist. In a gatherer tribe, for example, the right to life would mean that you have a right to gather food from the land, and no one has the right to stop you. At the same time, no one has the right to demand that you gather food for them also. The food you have gathered is your property. The act of expending your time and effort in gathering food to support your right to life is what made it yours.
Of course, you are free to gather food for someone else if that is what you choose to do. But there cannot be coersion, or you are being denied you rights. You may also choose to exchange some of your food for something of value that someone else offers you. That would be commerce. But the choice to enter into such an agreement has to be yours. If there is coersion involved, you are not free, and your rights have been denied.
That is why I don't bother to define what I mean by "socialist country". When there is social control of private property, your rights as a human being have been denied at some fundamental level. Sometimes it's more pronounced, like the soviet union, and sometimes it is less so, as in other countries, but your rights are being denied nontheless.
Dullfig 00:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, no. The reason you come to this conclusion is that you use too narrow a definition of socialism. If you use this argument to defend your definition, you are using circular reasoning, which really does not lend you credence. -Switch t 12:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not defining socialism too narrowly; you are defining it too broadly. You can't say "socialism is whatever I want to consider socialism to be". We are talking about socialism as it is defined in this article, namely a social system where property is under social control. And that is what I am basing my coments on. The nazi party called itself socialist as well. Doesn't mean they where. From my point of view, individualist anarchist are closer to laissez-faire capitalists than to socialists. You cannot include in the definition of socialism, any group that calls itself socialist. Dullfig 19:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
"Social control" is vague enough to include just about any sort of anarchist cooperative economic system, I would have thought. And the definition in the intro is supposed to be concise, not to include every philosophy which can legitimately be called socialism. Really, the term is used in so many ways it's futile to argue over whether any particular application of it is correct or not (except in really extreme and obvious cases of misuse). Cadr 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. But the problem is, socialists don't believe in individual human rights in the first place. The individual is obligated to serve others, and that's OK with them. It's OK to force people to serve the community because they don't have individual rights, according to them. Improper Bostonian 01:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are using too narrow a definition of socialism. The first individualist anarchists considered themselves socialists, and they (obviously) strongly opposed coercion and infringement of personal rights. -Switch t 12:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
To the contrary. If you include them as socialists then you have too broad of a definition. This article says "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control." Obviously the "individualist" anarchists were opposed social control of property and distribution of wealth. That's what makes them individualists. If any of them called themselves socialists it was obviously an extremely non-standard usage of the term. Improper Bostonian 17:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
This is all hopelessly vague and abstract. Clearly, there is always some form of social control in any society consisting of more than one person. Arguably, socialists do not necessarily desire more control, but want what control there is to be based on democratic principles rather than (say) control by the wealthy. (I don't wish to argue whether or not that's a legitimate point, since it's not going to do anything to improve the article.) Cadr 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, everything that is discussed here, even if only slightly, helps improve the article. There is a great deal of misunderstanding for that these various terms mean. "... socialists do not necessarily desire more control, but want what control there is to be based on democratic principles rather than (say) control by the wealthy ..." is a classic example of confusion. If this is the case, then this is not socialism at all, but classic democracy which alone suffices to limit control. The Greeks used democracy precisely to this end, to prevent any type of wealthy or military power from assuming control. Sorry, but socialism is not needed at all for this, as defined by Marx. And because of the Nazis, socailism, even with good intentions, will suffer from its historical use as a word. And then there is "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control." Well, the same can be said of calitalism or any other ideology or economic system. Capitalism use to just means what John Locke and Adam Smith argued, but has long since exploded into a new form of aristocracy. This is not good enough. Everyone needs to define what form of socialism one is discussion for this to be effective. Jcchat66 18:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not a confusion, it's an opinion held by many socialists. I.e., that in an economy run on co-operative principles, power would be with the people rather than in the hands of the wealthy, big corporations, etc. Again, I will not argue for the correctness of this position; I'm just pointing out that it's quite widely held. We aren't talking about socialism as defined by Marx or any other single person -- we're talking about the (inevitably hard-to-define) spectrum of socialist opinion. To be honest I can't see what relevance your comment has to my original comment after about the first five sentences, which is why this is a short reply. Cadr 18:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The revelance is quite obvious, Cadr. But what you argue for was already accomplished by other systems without what is currently defined as socialism. Power is already with the people regardless of what system is in place. No government can exist, not even an autocracy, without the willing acceptance of the people. And it should not be hard to define at all. Socialism, as a word, is meaningless, and all the good intentions of socialist will be wasted if something else is not chosen. Quite simply, socialist that are not Marxist or communists are better described as liberals ... those that believe in diffusion of power. By definition socialism calls for MORE power over people, not less, and therefore negates itself. Is that not confusing? Jcchat66 03:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
"Quite simply, socialist that are not Marxist or communists are better described as liberals"
What about anarchists? And why are you conflating "power" and "willing acceptance"? Your arguments are just groundless. ~Switch t 11:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
What about anarchists? Why would my argument be groundless? Are you saying the dictionary is groundless? These words have been pretty well defined for quite some time. Jcchat66 07:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Anarchists are socialists. Anarchists are not "liberals". Hence, your assertion above was wrong. Similarly, when power was being discussed, you retorted - by substituting willing acceptance in place of power. ~Switch t 10:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I never mentioned the word anarchism at all, and nor do I intend to, because that had nothing to do with this article. Anarchism is jusy anarchism, and cannot be applied to either liberalism or socialism, or any other word that implies some sort of structured society. When I speak of power, I means power over others, thus slavery, unwilling acceptance, forced labor, forced anything. If one can force another to do something against their will, that is power. By willing acceptence I mean people that go on with their lives and let others gather more and more power over them, without questioning it, voting against it, or in extreme cases, revolting against it. If people do not care about that laws are being passed, or where the wealth is being concentrated, then they willingly accept it. I did not use willing acceptance in place of power, for those are two different concepts. Power can be obtained willingly, such as in employment, where the supervisor has necessary power over the worker. Or unwillingly, in which power is seized in various ways, violently or through fruadulent and secretive means. (See the history of Rome for a case study in that art.)
Do socialists seek more power for their government, or less power? Or do they seek to reduce the power of all people, including government and special interests? That is the question. Would someone care to answer? Jcchat66 20:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
anarchism is a socialist ideology. and i bet there pretty liberal as well. and not every noncommunist socialist is necessary a liberalist, and liberalist is certainly not a better term for that. probably most of them are social liberals though, but so are many communists. do not box such terms in a narrow corner that easely· Lygophile has spoken 11:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Democracy

I have always used the word "socialism" to mean economic democracy, an economy of, by and for the people.

This means that every working person has an equal voice in how the economy is run, whether through direct votes or through electing economic representatives or workplace managers.

It would probably mean that most larger businesses would have to be worker-owned and governed on a "one employee one vote" basis. It does NOT mean every employee would be paid exactly the same regardless of effort or skill.

A labor-managed socialist economy could utilize "market forces" to a pretty big degree, since it would allow each cooperative to maximize its collective income and provide a better living for ALL its employees. Even government-run services and utilities could sometimes implement quasi-market pricings and such, especially for consumers who use more than bare bones.

This sounds like a compromise. But it is a compromise worth taking if it moves us closer to the socialist ideal of economic democracy. Comrade Sephiroth 21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying that everyone would have equal vote, makes it sound like everyone is equal; but that is far from the case, as what you are proposing means that you no longer are free. Indeed, you are subject to the decisions of the majority vote, and if the majority decides you no longer need a house, tough luck! "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" will always mean that some people will work more than they get in return. Now think about this carefully: isn't that the definition of slavery? one who works for nothing? After you have worked enough for your own subsistence, the rest of the time you are working is being confiscated from you, you are working for someone else for free. Think about it. Dullfig 04:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Could I remind ediors this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not debating about socialism, which I'm sure we could all do and I'd wipe the floor with the lot of youse. Cheers.--Red Deathy 08:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Red Deathy (would the Red Death be what happened to Russia?), discussion may include anything relating to the article, including the very merit of its existence, which always will be, and always had been extremely questionable. Dullfig's point is absolutely valid, and a fine example of why socialism has failed in all historical examples. Jcchat66 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
red deathy is deffinitely correct. dullfig never said anything about socialism. in the first bit he counterargues democracy, and indeed that is the disadvantage democracy brings, but its better then any practically managable alternative (besides maybe a form of demarchy, maybe). in the second bit he starts on about communism. why on earth he would do such a thing if it hasnt been mentioned anywhere here before is beyond me. and yes, the talk pages are to help or potentially improve an artical, he wasnt doing that.
and sephirot, that sounds more like syndicalism then socialism, at least economically. its an idea similar to socialism, or maybe a form of socialism, that holds relation to marxism.--Lygophile 13:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No, this section began with the dicussion of economic democracy and socialist economy, and went from there. Socialist and communist alike try to latch onto concepts of democracy to justify their point of view, using such phrases as "social democracy" or "democratic socialism." Yet both concepts are clearly incompatible for the very reasons (and many more) that Dullfig mentions above. Democracy, no matter what type, cannot be established in such a way that people may vote their rights away, because then it would quickly cease to be a democracy, a textbook fact. Socialist do not generally acknowledge free will (though they often claim otherwise without success) because socialism does not leave people with the will to NOT be apart of the system. Socialism requires the use of force to exist, for it is against human nature to support the state before supporting themselves and those they love in a family ... which was why Marx wanted to remove the notion of family in his Manifesto. In essence, the perfect socialist state would require the complete supression of free will, selective love, and the right to that which they create with their own labor to function at all. Ironically, the ideal that Marx and Lenin appeared to seek was more like how the ancient Celts, who were educated, civilized, hardworking, and still contemptuous of tolerating an aristocracy or ruling class (which Marx rightfully argued against), which is evident by the fact that they resisted becoming imperialistic, and yet still managed to unite in war against those that attacked them. Unfortunately, that type of thinking was more along the lines of the American Revolution, not any of the socialists revolutions of Europe.
The only improvement to this article, logically, would be for socialism to be acknowledged for what it really is, evident in all historical examples as fact and not opinion, as a completely baseless social cause ... and a social cause which has caused the death of untold millions of people and at least more than one holocaust. This cause has no place amongst intellectual free-thinkers and academic study, but needs to be put to rest as as one of many dogmatic, fanatical, and overzealous ideologies worse than any of the crusades or jihads combined. Jcchat66 20:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
discussions like these are not what wikipedia is for, neither will this ever end, especially with participation of such utter stupidity as is coming from you. you divide the world in complete communism and complete capitalism, and fail to see the middle ground. this middle ground is a very long line ranging from complete opression of capitalists and equal distribution of wealth (or according to need), and utter elitist plutocratic terricracy, with exploit of labourers, slavery and childlabour. lcukily we are at neither end but somewhere on that line in between. in reality, we are VERY close to the right end, as our system is that of wage and kapitalism. some people wish it to go even farther to the right, and some wish it more to the left. socialism, that is, social securities, progressive taxes, and labour parties and such, is just that, which is added to the capitalist system to shift it more to the left on that line. nobody wants it at the absolute right end (except dangerous madman that didnt take his medicine). hopefully i explaned it in a way even you can understand. so you cant say socialism never worked, this is the most stupid thing utterable. you may say communism has never worked. i would refute, and say that just cause it has corrupted into state capitalism in dictatorial regimes doesnt mean it inherently cannot work, its just not as refined as the aged capitalist system.
and in your 'textbook' example democracy would not cease being a democracy, but it would be ruled by consensus, hence it being called consensus democracy. and what, you want to abolish democracy now? like i said, there would be no alternative outside of dictatorship or anarchy. or maybe demarchy. so what do you suggest we substitute democracy with then? also i still see no reason to bring up communism, as socialism and communism are not synonimous. and as for human nature..yes human nature is egoism. such as plundering rape and murder. what your talking here is primitivism. luckily we have come a long way since then.
i see two axels: one between complete authoritarianism and pure anarchy. luckily democracy has been invented to bring the two together in a middle ground (may not be absolutely perfect, but in the big picture its brilliant. unluckily, america is hardly democratic). probably just such a middle ground would ideally be found on the axel between complete egalism and pure, absolute kapitalism. socialism could bring us close.--Lygophile 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Those who think that people on the right are dangerous madment that didn't take their medicine, are dangerous madmen that didn't take their medicine. It is interesting to observe how some people ascribe to themselves the noblest of intentions when they ram-rod their opinion through, but always assume that anyone with contrary views can only be motivated by personal greed, ulterior motives, or downright evil. Dullfig 00:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
if you would learn to read, youd see that i didnt say that every right winger is a dangerous madman, but only those, that want it at the absolute end. that would tolerate that if one gets sick and is unable to work, he would no longer get any pay nad would rely entirely on family if hes lucky, or starve if hes not. that if you get a sick newborn that needs a lot of care, your forced to kill it or starve. that sociaty is reliant on charity of the church in a lot of cases. this has been trueth before, when there was near absolute deprevity of socialism. anyone prefering that is a madman. just as i consider fascists mad. madman can probably be found at both ends though. you sound like a libertarian or something.--Lygophile 04:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, Lygophile, what a passionate outburst of assumptions and blatant character attacks. You have no idea what I stand for, which is certainly not capitalism, or any of the other countless isms of the world. Do you dictate what Wikipedia is for? An encyclopedia is for the purpose of spreading knowledge, and that is precisely what I intend after studying history, sociology, and political science for over fifteen years. Yet you assume that because someone does not agree with Marxist principles that they are automatically a capitalist, or a Republican, or just plain stupid. And I never said anything at all about abolishing democracy, where did you get that? Calling people names is definitely not what Wiki is for, so I expect an apology from you for such distasteful comments. You accuse me of dividing the world into capitalism and communism? When it is you that divide into leftist and rightist thought, or authoritarianism and anarchy? Wow, impressive display of hypocrisy there. Sorry, but the world is not divided so, and have been abused to the point of being meaningless. There is no middle ground between countless ideologies and beliefs, only politics and the age-old aristocratic struggle for power. What does it matter if there is capitalism, or communism, or religion, or socialism? As long as there are aristocrats dictating what goes where, whether it be the Aztec kings, Sumerian priesthood, or Red Army, then tyranny and slavery become a high risk. Most wars and struggles in history where not for land, or money, or ideology, they were for power, and used those things to that end. So where we are, making all of these isms to try and limit land, money, and ideology, when we could just concentrate on limiting people from gaining power. In all of history only a few people have come close to accomplishing that, the Hebrews and Jews and their various struggled against tyranny, perhaps the first people in all history to do so; the Greeks and those they influenced; and the various Britannian peoples. Land, money, and ideology can either be used to liberate people from power, or enslave them to it. I know very well that most socialists have convinced themselves that they are trying to liberate the world from some perceived inequality, or from the resources being controlled by a limited few. Good! But many ancient thinkers have already done so far more successfully than you argue for. Democracy is a tool that was meant to prevent any one person, or small groups of people, from gaining power over others. But don’t take my word for it. Open your eyes to all of history, and it will become quite self-evident. Jcchat66 20:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry all, but please, if you want to debate socialism in the abstract, do it in user space, if you want to discuss the article, please do, and remember the Neutral Point of View policy, I assume the critics here are implicitly suggesting we beef up the criticisms sections? And, no, Red Death is not what happened in Russia, a capitalist revolution lead by the bolshevik party is what happened in Russia :) We could go on like this forever defending our own ideological patches, or we could make a great encyclopaedia article about socialism.--Red Deathy 08:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

i do apologise for my tone in my former edit, i thought yours was a respons to something including what i allready said but did so in the, uhm, 'topic' above this one instead of here. never called anyone any name though. but here you come up with all new sorts of stupidity. i figured you sound like a libertarian (i thought i was repsonding to you, but it was dullfig, my mistake) mostly cause of your criticism on consensus democracy and your view of socialism as antiliberal. i still find you sound like one, or else an antisocialistic libertarian socialist, which is quite confusing. anyway, you keep criticising consensus democracy and communism but calling these things 'socialism'. and you keep absolutifying. but whatever, red deathy is right (again), im done with this arguement--Lygophile 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Why the labels? It is precisely these labels that make things confusing now. Did the revolutionaries of history care much for all this ideological nonsense? Only the revolutions of the 1900's seemed to use labels, yet prior to that it was simply liberalism, which meant anything opposed to absolute government. The American Revolution was a liberal revolution, and so was the French and the various Spanish revolutions. Washington, Bolivar, Ludwig von Mises, were all liberals. Liberals stood for freedom, democracy, the right to private property, a free economic system, etc, etc. And yet now we confuse capitalism with fascism, liberalism with socialism, Marxiam with libertarianism ... it's rediculous. Capitalism does not mean what it use to, which was strictly a free market economy inspired by Adam Smith, and most notably endorsed by Ayn Rand. Today's capitalism is nothing like what she or Smith wrote about, and she would have probably rejected the modern day trend towards corporate fuedalism ... that's right ... corporate fuedalism, for that is the best way it can be described. The corporations of today have become fiefdoms ruled by lords, the few elite that run everything in contempt of liberal rights, or social freedoms, and profit the most controlling the means of production and distribution ... but WAIT. Isn't that fascism?
If as a socialist you stand for the teaching of Marx, than that is a radical ideology, influenced in a German aristocratic atmosphere of racism that has seldom existed in most other parts of the world. What he had to say was valid for his unique situation in that land. One will notice that most ideologies that come out of German countries either stood for the defense of some kind of aristacracy, or against it, and even (I dare say) tried to justify a master race. Compared to the series of German dictatorships of that region (Prussia, Austro-Hungary, Nazi Germany, etc), socialism and communism of ANY kind was preferable! But its like they look liberal ideas, twisted them into something that would justify the violent extermination of that aristocracy, and spit out a host of new frivilous ideas that are, or were, by definition incompatible. Because of this, socialism is meaningless as a functional word to use if you stand for freedom of any kind. Thanks to National Socialism of the Nazis, I don't think the word will ever recover.
Thus, my point. The word socialism carries too much dead weight and baggage, and the article does nothing to clarify or educate the casual reader. If your against corporate monopolies and commercializion of society, well then, SO ARE MOST PEOPLE! But private property and the rights of the individual has been, and will be the only thing, that limit the power of all types of aristocratic power, whether it feudalism, capitalism or any number of the flavorful isms.
Besides, Marx was both right and wrong. All of history is defined by a stuggle ... but not for materialism though. It was for power. This is evident in almost every observation of society, even in fictional works. All dictators and warmongers seek resources as an end to a means ... slavery, power over others. They do not seek the resources for themselves, for money, by itself, is meaningless. Land is meaningless. All materialism is meaningless ... unless it frees you from men, or allows men to rule over you. Do you think Mr. CEO of Corporate America wants money? Land? His big yacht? Sure, but deep down, he is greedy not for any of those things. Mr. CEO is greedy for power over others, which he has a great deal of in his position, more so even than most government officials. Not all of them of course, but it only takes one really power-hungry CEO to make them all look bad. Therein lies the problem. In 1800's America there was a simple solution to this ... corporations (or any artificial person) could not own land at all except with an act of congress. That utterly prevented most companies from getting too big, because how could they when the land could be ripped out from under them by some poor widow who decides to give her land to a local charity? You don't need an ism to define this ... it just IS. Remember, lack of private property was the defining mark of fuedalism, and no matter what ideology is used to remove private property, feudalism will always be the end result. Welcome to the Neo-Feudal Age! Jcchat66 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
shut up. no one but an idiot will sociate socialism with nazism. right-wing socialism lol. and capitalism technically means the pursue of wealth, why do you think they called it capital-ism? and just because marx's ideas were sprung from necessity doesnt mean the ideology is inherently invalid in any other situation.--Lygophile 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, aren't you a pillar of self-righteous arrogance and hate. Shut up you say? Isn't that exactly what most socialists governments tell their citizens to do when they complain? Usually at gunpoint. Oh, and a total lack of respect for freedom of speach, bound up in that single statement "shut up." So only an idiot would make a connection between Nazism (National Socialism) and socialism? Even though that's what Nazism meant? Why don't you assert your opinions with some facts for a change? Jcchat66 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
just look at the freakin nazism page. nazi's were sure as fuck no socialists. not a socialist an earth associates with nazi's. and your just bullshit anyway, cause you allready know nazi's have no relation with socialists, you cant be that stupid. Lygophile has spoken 22:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
So, is this how to defend or debate your points of view? With profanity and anger? If your going to act like a child, take a recess and face the wall. Anyone that uses such terms as right-wing or left-wing is an idiot. So the National Socialists were not socialists? Well then, that is my point exactly! Socialists are probably not even socialists! Then again, socialism is usually a venue for distatorships and fascists regimes anyway, for in the name of freeing the exploited, they enslave them. (Religious fanatics have done that for centuries!) Are you using a different dictionary or something, Lygophile? If power is not concentrated into the hands of a few, an aristacracy, then it is a liberal society. If it is concentrated into the hands of a few, it is aristocratic. From liberalism we have freedom, rule of law, constitutional government, democracy, etc. From aristocracy, an elite few, and rule by government above the law, we have fascism, capitalism, nazism, communism and socialism. Of course aristocractic countries can choice to be liberal, but most often they degenerate into despotic regimes. (There are such things as socialists kingdoms, after all.) Historical citations? World history. Ancient liberal nations: Greece, Estruscans, Lydians, early Romans, Carthaginians, Gauls, Britons, Old Kingdom Egypt, Hebrews, Gataens, Phoenicians, and probably many more such as the Parthians and Bactrians, and at least some Asian cultures. Ancient fascists and/or socialist countries include: Mesopotamia, New Kingdom Egypt, Persians, Chinese, Germans, Later-day Romans. Liberals generally are not racists, mix well with others, open their arms to foreigners, believe in free society and rule of law, and most of all, FREE WILL. All the rest generally become racist, extremist, openly disregard other people, and believe that might is right, and use destiny to control the masses and to justify some sort of caste system. It would be interesting to note that the Hebrews, and later the Jews, fled from most of these fascist empires, but contributed culturally to all the rest. But don't take my word for it, just read history ... its all there. Jcchat66 23:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
what anger? nad i sure hope your talking classical liberalism, cause if your talking neoliberalism you really got the wrong idea about them. – "Anyone that uses such terms as right-wing or left-wing is an idiot." "Socialists are probably not even socialists!" "Then again, socialism is usually a venue for distatorships and fascists regimes anyway" "Liberals generally are not racists, mix well with others, open their arms to foreigners, believe in free society and rule of law, and most of all, FREE WILL. All the rest generally become racist, extremist, openly disregard other people, and believe that might is right, and use destiny to control the masses and to justify some sort of caste system." obviously socialism is by deffinition unliberal and is connected to fascism, yeah. i rest my case. Lygophile has spoken 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, usually when one uses the word "fuck" as often as you do (A search of this page will link all words to you) that generally is regarded as angry. Neoliberalism, huh? I love how socialist and fascists hijack words for their own biased ends. And since you clearly have nothing to offer, I rest my case as well. "Lygophile has spoken." No, you typed. And you demonstrated even more arrogance. What a refreshing way to support your heroic cause! Jcchat66 01:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
typical. i used the word fuck twice, both times in the phrase 'sure as fuck'. you whiny little bitch. and "i have spoken" is just an ironic signature i often use in fora. and "no you typed", i mean really did i? what a clever thing to notice. and by the way, have you noticed your own attitude: 'everyone with another stance as me is an idiot, a racist and militant'. and then you call me arrogant. get your head out of you ass adn quit bittering. its wikipedia, not a 'lets be an arse' forum. Lygophile has spoken 03:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Lygophile: tone down your rhetoric. Writing WP articles is about reaching a consensus between diverging factions, not about belittling, putting down, or insulting other editors. If you cannot argue your point in a civilized manner, perhaps you should look for something else to do. Dullfig 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

blah blah. i am toned down. if some fascist nazi shithead would come up and start talking white power ill tell him 'fuck off asshole'. i just give people what they'v got coming. i never directly called jcchat by any name except just now i called him a whiny little bitch which he is. if someone is being a whiny little bitch its only fair to inform him/her of that. and surely anyone that associates socialism with nazism is an idiot. you know, he called every follower of every other ideology but his a many number of things, thats enough grounds for me to call him a shithead, and i dont mind if i do. i was too aggro before for which i had apologised, but i am not ungrounded in whatever i have given him since. your just giving a biased comment on our discussion. Lygophile has spoken 17:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
i do probably use too much powerterms though. thats because i usually speak in a very calm manner. in written text i may sound more aggressive then i intend to. Lygophile has spoken 17:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Much fear in you, I sense. The way to the dark side, fear is. Control anger, you must. Yoda (not really) Dullfig 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
lol. yeah probably "anger, i must control". lol. Lygophile has spoken 01:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lygophile, don't try and get out of it, you're clearly expressed your asshole nature calling people names in the first place. You initiated it, and now you can handle it? What goes around comes around. If you'd get your head out of the arse you read what I was writing instead of just going off into cyber-rage. If you cannot accept the absolute fact that nazism was a form of socialism then that is you problem. Nazi means National Socialism, period. It is merely a form of socialism, not associated with all forms of socialism. Once again, the only connection is concentration of power! Socialism requires the concentration of power into the hands of the few to occomplish its goals. That is why it is an easy venue for asshole dictators to use it to their advantage. Does that mean socialism is wrong or evil? No, not at all. It just means its flawed just like everything else. For crying out loud, even America is a socialists country, yet it could hardly be called fascist or communist. But apparently you're too simple-minded to look beyond the stupid labels of right-wing left-wing bullshit, beyond the meaningless names, and see what the real issue is. While I see a reason for socialists and libertarians to unite, you see a reason to remain divided. But until the whole world sheds these stupid labels, it's never going to happen.

Either you want to disperse power evenly across the population, or concentrate it into the hands of the few. Which is it, Lygophile? It's a simple question, and politics is not nearly as complicated as everyone makes it out to be. Jcchat66 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

america a socialist country??? yeah right. sure it is... and i wouldnt call them fascist no...but you were the one arguing that everything outside of liberalism ends up in a whole lot of bad stuff you mentioned. also one could call america empirialistic, which is only a door away from fascism. and i see reason to devide? your the one combining and seperating labels wherever you please, throwing them around wildly. and your the one acting like socialism and liberalism oppose eachother in some or other way. there is lots of social liberalism, just as i can surely be called both probably. so i guess, we at least agree that socialism and liberalism should come together...so it seems. Lygophile has spoken 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as socialism implies a disregard for private property, a slant towards more powerful government, or any of the number of changes needed to control the means of production, it has little to do with liberalism. Once again we seem to have a definition issue here, Lygophile. Does not socialism require more powerful government to achieve their aims? As for America, the US government controls more of the means of production than ever before, thus falling within the scope of a socialist economy. Look up liberialism and you get a very different definition. More powerful government? Less powerful government. Liberalism usaully stood at teh center between autocracy and anarchy, which oncee again ranges from total government to no government. Socialism has always advocated more government power than liberalism as the center. So which is it? Jcchat66 02:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
i have no idea what your talking about but im talking about socialism. america is not socialistic. socialism is not totalism or whatever something your thinking of. anwyay, since were discussing nonsense here, and this is in no way benificial to the article and has no place in this discussion page (though it took up bout half of it) lets just call it a stalemate. Lygophile has spoken 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You have no idea what I'm talking about? Have you read any book on socialist doctrine at all then? The definition and meaning of socialism is well established, and defined EXACTLY as I have mentioned above. Your refusal to accept the definition of a word is not pertinent to this argument. And this article remains deminished as a result of precisely this lack of understanding of words being used. I think you need to read more books on the subject or something, Lygophile, instead of trying to push your own theories. Jcchat66 20:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
if i build a hospital, is it then the structure i create that defines my hospital?· Lygophile has spoken 12:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to socialist websites

WGee removed links to various socialist websites. I agree that personal pages by undergrads shouldn't be here (e.g. http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/) but think that major socialist webpages like World Socialist Web Site and Socialist Party and World Socialist Movement have a place. So, we should either remove ALL of these links OR find a good selection of representative socialist websites.BobFromBrockley 11:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Links to socialist websites are not appropriate external links - Wikipedia is not a directory. On an article like this, external links have to add content that we haven't got somewhere. Of course, many of these sites do appear to contain some historical information, so I haven't tried to purge such links myself. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think linking to socialist web pages certainly comes under adding information that would not be included were this a featured article and going beyond the detail reasonable in an encyclopaedia article. However, the problem is one of NPOV and given that we've had to broadly define socialism I think we can't really single out any group or tendency as representative, even SI is partial. On that grounds I think we should remove any links to socialist organizations (they'll be linked to in their own pages, anyway), and only link to things like MIA and artcle archives...--Red Deathy 13:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I removed those websites not primarily because they are biased, but because they do not help the reader gain a deeper understanding of socialism than is possible through this article. The websites under "Critical appraisals" and "Introductory articles", meanwhile, are great resources for people who would like to learn about the details and schools of socialism that this article omits. And, considering that this is an encyclopedia dedicated to self-education, the latter websites are preferred. -- WGee 06:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are some socialist sources that are informative, critical, scholarly, and thus suitable to link to: New Left Review, Monthly Review, The Socialist Register, Review of Radical Political Economics. If somebody has the time, he/she could scour those sources for some suitable articles or essays about socialism; otherwise, we can link to the websites themselves. -- WGee 06:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh well. Having the link to my page removed will at least motivate me to get involved with this topic. BTW I'm not an undergraduate. What a cruel thing to say. See you in the new year. -- DMcM 04:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
WGee, I agree that linking to specific articles is the way to go, and leave links to socialists oranisations main pages out, I'll strip SI away for now - maybe replace with a Wiki link to a list of Socialist organizations on WP? Hmmm. --Red Deathy 08:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. And sorry about repeating "undergraduate" slur! BobFromBrockley 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the issue of fair criticism

EnglishEfternamn, you restored the phrase that says that socialists don't consider the criticism of communism to be a fair criticism, as they don't consider communism and socialism to be the same thing. Out of curiosity, is there any criticism comming from the right that socialist DO consider fair? Otherwise we could just include a statement in the intro to the effect of "Socialists do not accept any criticism of their system". This would save some typing. Dullfig 07:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

IMNSHO, criticism in criticism sections should generally be placed without rejoinder - the main text of the article essentially puts the "pro" side of the argument anyway; I'm very much against WP pages being turned into back and forth arguments. Dullfig is absolutely right that it goes without saying that socialists don't accept the criticisms, otherwise they wouldn't be socialists - including such rejection amounts to POV pushing and is unencyclopaedic and redundant.--Red Deathy 09:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Red Deathy that we should omit the socialist rebuttal. Like it or not, mainstream political scientists and historians believe that Communist states practised a form of socialism, and it is their opinion that matters most. But in order to avoid controversy between New Left socialists and the less "radical" users who edit this page, the following sentence would be best: "Opponents of socialism often criticize the human rights records of Communist states." Because it makes no comment as to whether or not Communist states actually practised socialism, readers can decide the truth for themselves, which is really the essence of WP:NPOV. -- WGee 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, RD, you just went up a notch on my respect-o-meter :-) It's nice to see there's some inteligent life on the left. Dullfig 02:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Ditto! Elodoth 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert was necessary

The old version of the article (that posted by the anonymous user) was extraordinarily biased. Simply read the introduction and you'll understand why a revert was necessary. Prime example: "Socialists hold that capitalism is an illegitimate economic system, since it allows far too much human freedom and serves the interests of the wealthy and allegedly exploits an unlucky minority of the population. As such, they wish to replace it completely or at least make substantial modifications to it, in order to create a more just society that would enforce hard work, guarantee a certain basic standard of living, and extend mediocrity and uniform outcome and success to all[3] [4]

Socialist theory is diverse, and there is no single body of thought that is universally shared by all socialists. Rather, different socialist ideologies have arrived at similar conclusions by different paths. However, there are some common themes. One such theme is the idea that humans are inherently stupid animals which cannot be allowed to roam free, for risk that some people may achieve more than others. See tall poppy syndrome.[5]."

Along with the picture Saddam Hussein right at the top, every picture was negative, showing Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jung Il. No pictures of Marx, Lenin, or any other major socialist thinker. So, in order to eliminate a severe case of vandalism, I reverted the page to the newest version which did not appear to contain vandalism. Nanite1018 19:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a serial vandal, see WP:LTA#The_Middle_East_Conflict_Man. You don't need to explain, just revert him. I've blocked the IP for another 6 months (he's only able to edit because previous blocks expired). --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to play the devil's advocate here, it is difficult to find pictures of socialists that are actually positive. Come to think of it, I can't name one :-) (it's a joke, lighten up) -- Dullfig 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Not just pictures, Dullfig, but historically as well. There have been no success stories for any nation that practiced socialist doctrines. Unless, of course, someone would like to argue this politely. Jcchat66 20:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sadaam? what?

Why is that Picture of Sadaam Hussein relevant at all to Socialism? Ok so he was in charge of the Baath party but it seems a little unnessary and maybe a little biased since it adds how many people he killed. I dont think that Picture belongs there.

Please see section above this one. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] characterization of the Mensheviks

The article says:

In 1903, there was a formal split within the Russian social democratic party into revolutionary Bolshevik and reformist Menshevik factions.

Describing the Mensheviks as Reformist seems misleading to me. The Mensheviks were not reformist in the sense of, say, Eduard Bernstein and Friedrich Ebert in Germany. They were orthodox marxists, and are much more comparable to, say, the left-wing of the German Social Democrats (Luxemburg, et al) than to the more conservative reformist types. The division with the Bolsheviks had more to do with party organization (the Mensheviks supported a more open party organization) and with the issue of how ready Russia was for revolution (Bolsheviks tended to think that action by the party could hasten the proletarian revolution; Mensheviks believed that Russia would have to go through a bourgeois revolution first, which is why they supported the Provisional Government in 1917). I'm not sure how to characterize the two parties, but "revolutionary Bolshevik and reformist Menshevik" is highly misleading. Both factions were revolutionary by comparison with, say, the British Labour Party or the right-wing of the German SPD. Neither was into active terrorism in the vein of the SRs. So, anyway, I'm open to suggestions as to how to revise, but I think some revision is necessary. john k 06:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the bolsheviks were into "expropriations" (i.e. banditry and bank robbery) which the Mensheviks opposed, and favoured a more geurilla style organisation, mabe that should be the angle?--Red Deathy 07:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The article on the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party says the split was due to Lenin's democratic centralism being unpalatable to the mensheviks, and also tension over 'revolutionary' or 'historical' ideas of a Marxist party's role. It seems difficult to sum that up in one sentence, so I've wikilinked and left it vague. What do people think? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Good call. BobFromBrockley 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I noted that the Bolsheviks were more radical (certainly true), and that they were led by Lenin, whose views were briefly explained a bit earlier in the article. That should be sufficient, I guess. john k 07:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The Menshevik article does a good job of describing the parties' differences:

The Bolsheviks felt that the working class should lead the revolution in an alliance with the peasantry with the aim of establishing the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, where the Party acts as extreme revolutionary opposition. On the other hand, the Menshevik vision was one of a bourgeois democratic revolution in which they could take part in government.

I interpret this to mean that the Bolsheviks advocated revolutionary socialism whereas the Mensheviks advocated a form of democratic socialism, by which they were willing to collaborate with capitalist parliamentarians for the gradual realization of socialism. Wouldn't that then make the Bolsheviks revolutionary and the Mensheviks reformist? -- WGee 23:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
They were not reformist in the sense that, say, SPD Revisionists in ermanhy were. I think the description of the Mensheviks' position in Menshevik is, in fact, completely inaccurate. The Mensheviks believed that before there could be a proletarian revolution, there would have to be a bourgeois revolution. Presumably this would involve either the overthrow of the monarchy or its replacement by a genuine constitutional monarchy, with power in the hands of liberal groupings like the Kadets and the Octobrists. So far as I know, before the war, there was no intention for the Mensheviks to participate in such a government. They would continue to organize and await the real, proletarian revolution. If you look at what happened after the February Revolution, this is, in fact, what they did - no Mensheviks joined Prince Lvov's government. Instead, the Mensheviks helped organize the Petrograd Soviet, which provided an alternative government to the Provisional Government. They would tolerate the Provisional Government as an alternative to counter-revolution, and as a progressive step in the direction of the proletarian revolution for which Russia was not yet ready, but they would not join it. They only joined the PG a few months later, when it became clear that the Liberals could not run the country without support from the socialist parties. This put them in a very anomalous position of being one of the main props of a "bourgeois" regime, but this wasn't meant to be a permanent situation, and it was one that they only found themselves in because of the desperate situation in Russia in 1917. This is in pretty stark contrast to someone like Philipp Scheidemann or Friedrich Ebert, who worked willingly alongside conservative forces to crush revolutionary socialists, many of whose views were closer to those of Mensheviks like Julius Martov than they were to Lenin's Bolshevism. Mensheviks were not reformist, and the particular description in the Menshevik article is wrong and should be changed. john k 17:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! I noticed that the Mensheviks participated in the Provisional Government and then automatically (and ignorantly) equated them with the social democrats and other reformists. Thanks for using your expertise to clarify the situation. -- WGee 23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
There really weren't very many Social Democratic reformer types in Russia in 1917. Kerensky, maybe, and those with him associated with the rightmost fringe of the SRs, but the SRs were really their own weird Russian beast, not comparable to anything in the west. The Socialists who participated in the Provisional Government did so on quite odd rationales. john k 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking further into it, it would appear that it was the Legal Marxists who most closely approximated the views of the Bernsteinian revisionist Marxist types in the rest of Europe. But by 1917 these folks had long abandoned socialism entirely, and seem to have largely been Kadets. john k 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism Section

I really wish the sentence stating that critics "use records of communist states" as criticism of Socialism would be either deleted or reworded and that it would stay that way. Socialism and Communism are not in simple terms the same, and to imply that they are as this section has done goes against neutrality rules. (EnglishEfternamn 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

Communist states called themselves Socialist, many socialists called them socialist - moreover many critics did use "Go back to Russia" or accusations of communism against socialists (e.g. Thatcher famously called Kinnock a crypto-communist). It is poor style to start filling criticism sections with rebuttals, if you want to make the point clear, amke it in the description of socialism generally, but leave the criticism to stand on is own feet.(BTW, I've moved this section to the bottom of the talk section where it belongs)--Red Deathy 08:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
rebuttle is one thing, removal another. criticisms on communism must be kept in the communism article. the two are not the same. communism is a system, socialism an ideology. criticising communism in the socialism article is similar to criticising fascism in the conservatism article, and should be removed asap.--Lygophile 14:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
but i should learn to read what its about first:S. if antisocialists really bring up that arguement to criticise socialism it can remain in there, no matter how dumb those idiots are. but how often is that actually done?--Lygophile 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
"Socialism and Communism are not in simple terms the same, and to imply that they are as this section has done goes against neutrality rules." No one is implying that they are same; we merely state that opponents of socialism often criticize the human rights records of communist states. That is not to suggest that opponents of socialism are correct in doing so. Although I and the majority of political scientists believe that communist states practiced and do practice a form of socialism, that belief is controversial among some Wikipedians, so I figure that it would be best not to make any comment on the connection between communist states and socialism at all. Moreover, I agree with Red Deathy that this article should not turn into a [Wikireason] page, full of arguments and counter-arguments. -- WGee 01:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
How can anyone argue that communist states are not socialist? In state communism, the the means of production are publicly owned. That's socialism by definition.Anarcho-capitalism 21:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Do not try to breed conflict with your partisan rhetoric. First, there is no such ideology as "state communism": it is merely one of your epithets. Secondly, this is not an argument about whether or not the article should assert that communist states were socialist, but an argument about whether or not we should include the New Left argument that they were not socialist. -- WGee 23:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You're unjustifed in attacking me as trying to breed conflict. There is "anarcho"-communism and state communism.Anarcho-capitalism 05:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't care about your perceptions of communism; this dicussion has nothing to do with them. Instead of provoking controversy by using this page as a soapbox, productively discuss the issue at hand. -- WGee 07:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not using it as a soapbox. You are and are being disruptive and uncivil. I'm just helping out.Anarcho-capitalism 16:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
communism is a system that fits in the socialistic ideology (as an extreme version thereof). but as democracy is not anarchy, conservatism is not fascism and liberalism is not anomie, socialism isnt communism.--Lygophile 23:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Anarchy is not an extreme form of democracy.
  2. Fascism is not an extreme form of conservatism.
  3. Anomie is not an extreme form of liberalism
  4. Socialism is communism. Marx said it.
However, your latest post does show that you are of the opinion that humans left to themselves, without the guiding hand of the all-knowing government, degenerates into one of the conditions you mention. -- Dullfig 01:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
where did i say that? and marx never said socialism is communism. in his idea, socialism could be used as a buffer before applying full communism, so clearly he said they were seperate things. of course anomie is an extreme form of liberalism. in an anomie you can do what ever the fuck you want, so its an absolute form of liberalism, just like communism is an absolute form of socialism. fascism and anarchy can be seen as extreme versions of respectively conservatism and democracy. the last one is somewhat farfetched though.--Lygophile 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Stay on topic. This is not a debate as to whether or not socialism is communism; this is not even a debate as to whether or not communist states practiced socialism. The issue raised at the beginning of this thread is whether or not we should include in the criticism section the socialist rebuttal that communist states were not truly socialist. Your last two posts are irrlevant to this discussion, and I must remind you that "[a]rticle talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views" (WP:TALK). -- WGee 03:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
i was just validating my point which he counterargued, which was that communism and socialism should not be confused as the same thing. but the arguement is getting too stretched out, and only started because some people fale to distinct between socialism and communism.
probably somthing in the line of 'confusing socialism with communism' should be entered in the sentence in the article. thats not an actual rebuttle but merely validates the mention of the use that criticism. but the tricky thing is that communism is percieveble as a form of socialism, so the correct wording of that intersentence is difficult, because of the limitations of language.--Lygophile 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is confusing communism with socialism; "communist states" were not communist but socialist. They were just called communist on the West. -- Vision Thing -- 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The argument is still questionable as 1: Communism and Socialism, for the 29th time, are not the same, two, not everyone who identifies as "Socialist" advocates the style of the "Communist states" in question. What "Communist states" are you refering to anyway? The Soviet Union? The People's Republic of China? Cuba under Castro? Are these states exactly the same?

This on top of many logical points illustrates why the setnence as you prefer it goes agianst neutrality rules. I will revert it.(EnglishEfternamn 22:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

No one is implying that Communism and socialism are same, and no one is implying that all socialists support the policies of Communist states. We merely state that opponents of socialism often criticize the human rights records of communist states. That is not to suggest that opponents of socialism are correct in doing so; we are just stating that they do it. -- WGee 23:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Surely if all we write is "opponents of socialism often criticize the human rights records of communist states" this is as relevant to an article describing socialism, to be frank, as "opponents of capitalism often criticize the human rights records of South American military dictatorships" would be to one describing capitalism. The point is that the assumptions of the wording imply that no kind of socialism is relevant other than Soviet communism: Hayekians and Stalinists alike want people to believe that. We should make any such assumption explicit.
We should make the point objectively, say: "many opponents of socialism contend that it inevitably leads to Communist dictatorship and suppression of human rights." (no login) 07:12 17 January 2007 [UTC] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.137.48.4 (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
The criticism section already says that, just in different words. -- WGee 07:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really, and even if it did, it belongs in a communism article: it isn't relevant here: most people who call themselves "socialist" have been just as critical of Communist human rights violations. I'm sure most critics of socialism have criticised Castro's dress sense, but just because he too calls himself socialist doesn't mean that it's relevant either. If you mean that all socialists will inevitably have as shaggy a beard as Castro, or have as repressive social policies as Castro, you should frankly say that is the opinion, not put in as an assumption. 58.137.48.4 07:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
hmm..yeah. im not totally satisfied with "confusing the two ideologies", since technically communism is not an ideology but an economic system. if youd name the ideology behind communism that would probably be extremefied or absolutified socialism. but i do insist such a sentence be included, since youd have to justify putting in a criticism thats flat out wrong. I have spoken 00:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Do not most communist countries, past and present, use Marxist ideology to attempt to justify their positions? Does not Marx use both socialism and communism often, with the former leading to the later. The two are related by definition concerning the means of production, and the concentration of power necessary to control the means of production. Not the same, just related. Jcchat66 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I may be mistaken, but I believe China has moved away from Marxist ideals. Even the former Soviet Union cast aside Marxism (for the most part) by the time they folded. I agree with your second point: they are not the same, just related. Socialism and communism are not used interchangeable terms because certain groups use them together. Socialism is most often (note I don't say always) framed as an economic theory while communism is usually a political system. That's why you can have a social democracy (less socialist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy) or a democratic socialism (more socialist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism) where the economic system is based less (or not at all) on capitalism and a democratic political system oversees the socialist economy. .--User:Unk 19:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro (2)

WGee and 172, you have both reverted my edits to this article because of concerns over my expansion of the intro section. First of all, please take note of the fact that not all of my edits concerned the intro, and thus a full-scale reversion is not warranted (if you really want to restore the old intro, please at least take the time to copy and paste the old text into the current version of the article rather than reverting).

Your objections to my expansion, as far as I can gather, come down to the following points:

1. "I took [WGee's] reference to "fringe movements" to be include the expanded coverage on forms of soicalism not embraced by ruling parties and states for long periods of time"
  • My answer: The only such form of socialism mentioned in my intro is libertarian socialism. All the others have, in fact, been embraced by ruling parties and states. And libertarian socialism should be mentioned because we cannot simply ignore the existence of anti-state forms of socialism. One sentence in the intro is not too much to ask.
2. WGee mentioned on my talk page that he objected to the conflating of social democracy with market socialism. I agree, and have fixed the problem.

In any case, it seems your objections would have been satisfied by removing the mention of libertarian socialism and separating the references to social democracy and market socialism (which I have now done). Reversion was hardly justified, especially since the old intro to which you revert also has at least one glaring flaw: It makes the statement that only "Stalinists" support command economies, which is patently false. -- Nikodemos 18:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so I inserted Stalinists 'among others.' Why on earth would you want to expand this intro??? You know as well as anyone how POV-warriors often look for any excuse to pick fights with other users in articles like this one. The more we keep the intros short and simple, the more likley the page will be stable. 172 | Talk 23:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"Stalinists among others" is still POV. Planned economics has support from across all branches of Marxism. Thus, it must be "Marxists", or "many Marxists".
My edits to the intro would have gone unnoticed if you and WGee had not insisted on reverting. As it is, you are increasing the likelihood of attracting POV-warriors by challenging my edits for no reason. I wanted to expand the intro because it was incomplete, that's all. Really, if you're concerned about stability, leave my edits alone and defend the new intro instead. -- Nikodemos 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole." As Red Deathy said, "One word ['egalitarian'] does the job of a whole excised sentence" [17]. Also, were "the interests of society as a whole" a primary concern of Stalinists, for example? Some people would say that their policies of distributive justice were meant to serve the interests of the state and the party rather than society as a whole.
"while social democrats hold a vision of socialism in which social control over the distribution of wealth and the means of production exists side by side with private ownership in a mixed economy." Compare this mass of verbiage to "Social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies," which is not only much less verbose than the former, but more accurate as well. Your favoured sentence, Nikodemos, is so vague that it can be equally applied to market socialism.
"Marxists advocate the creation of planned economies directed by a democratic state that owns all of the means of production." The only Marxists to have ever come to power are Marxist-Leninists, and what is important is what they practiced, not what they advocated in theory. They practiced "Soviet-style command economies under strong central state direction," and nothing less.
"Market socialists wish to combine public ownership of the means of production with a market for consumer goods." I don't understand what is meant by "a market for consumer goods," since the entire economy is based on the market. What was wrong with the old sentence?
The article already stated that "the movement has split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between moderate socialists and revolutionary communists," so there is no reason to devote a whole paragraph to the division. Also, mainstream socialists currently oppose revolution, whereas your paragraph makes it seem like socialists are evenly split between the revolutionary and democratic branches.
Overall, Nikodemos, your edits have destablized the lead section, and stability is a major issue for me. Also, you did not discuss what was wrong with the former lead before making your contributions, nor did you procure a consensus.
-- WGee 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Stability is a major issue for me as well, but, in my book, reverting someone else's edits is the best way to destabilize an article. I blame you for any instability that will arise out of this, but, of course, blame is irrelevant. We must concentrate on reaching consensus ASAP. So, regarding your points:
  1. I do not believe that the idea of economic equality - which is arguably the primary motivation of socialists - was given enough coverage in the old intro. I will have to insist on at least one sentence (not a word) about the importance of equality for socialism.
  2. Agreed. I will change it back.
  3. I'm sorry, but what socialists practiced is always open to debate - if we go by that criterion, someone could come in and write "Marxists support evil oppression!" We must go by what Marxists advocate, since that is not open to debate and interpretation.
  4. The old sentence was too vague (most socialists advocate "limited private property").
  5. Historically, socialists were most certainly split rather evenly (if anything, revolutionary socialists had an absolute advantage from 1917 until 1990). And why shouldn't we devote a paragraph to the most important division in the socialist movement? -- Nikodemos 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to open discussion point 6: Looking over this page, I notice many users have complained about the poor definition of socialism given in this article ("social control"? that could include every society that ever existed). One user proposed the following first sentence: Socialism is a socio-economic system or ideology that proposes economic activity be done for the collective benefit rather than private profit. What do you think? -- Nikodemos 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
1. For the sake of stability, it is best not to discuss the motivations of socialists, as they are impossible to ascertain in many cases.
3. The lead discusses socialist movements that have stayed in power for a long period of time; likewise, it makes more sense to discuss their policies while in power, for they had a much greater effect on humanity and world history than their theories. In any case, Marxist-Leninists did advocate command economies under strong central state direction; that's why they created such economies.
4. You ignored what I said about "a market for consumer goods" not making sense. There is a market for all goods and services in market socialism, is there not? Could you explain what you mean?
5. Your paragraph has nothing to do with history: it is written entirely in the present tense. Plus, we've already made the distinction between revolutionary and moderate branches in one sentence, and by making the lead longer you are only destabilizing it.
-- WGee 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
3. I will accept 172's recent revision of the Marxist sentence: "Some Marxists advocate the creation of planned economies directed by a state that owns all of the means of production." I would also accept the adding of the word "central" or "centralized" somewhere in there if you wish.
4. "Market socialism" has actually been used to mean many different things. Just about every kind of socialism that doesn't advocate full nationalization has been called "market socialism" at one time or another. The original justification for including market socialism in the intro was that China uses it as their official system, but then how do we define it without mentioning the fact that it is in effect identical to capitalism? "Some social control + some private property", which was the old definition, makes it identical to social democracy. Frankly I'd support removing it altogether.
5. Would it be better if I put it into the past tense? The problem with the one sentence is that it mentions the existence of the branches but does not explain their differences. If you can summarize my paragraph you are welcome to do so. -- Nikodemos 00:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
6. I will withdraw my proposal to change the "social control" definition as long as both the word "egalitarian" and the last, equality-related sentence remain in the first paragraph. -- Nikodemos 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Finally, a small point to 172: Note that "libertarian socialism" is an umbrella term which includes anarcho-syndicalism. -- Nikodemos 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Socialism#Intro about the term "libertarian socialism".
That discussion never reached a conclusion. And libertarian socialism is a very good article. I prefer linking to good articles than ones that are barely above stub status, like anarcho-syndicalism. -- Nikodemos 09:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The size of the article is irrelevant. The fact remains that "anarcho-syndicalism" (sometimes referred to simply as "syndicalism") is a more definitive and widely used term than "libertarian socialism." Similarly, the definition of "libertarian socialism" varies greatly from author to author, the definition of "anarcho-syndicalism" less so. -- WGee 10:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
3. How about, "Marxist-Leninists advocate the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all of the means of production."
4. We definitely cannot remove it since it is the official ideology of the PRC. And I still don't understand what you mean by "a market for consumer goods," so let's just keep the old sentence—market socialism is difficult to distinguish no matter the wording, as you pointed out.
5. One branch is moderate and the other is revolutionary; the terms are self-explanatory. The differences are explained in detail in "Moderate socialism and communism". E.g., "Revolutionary socialists, on the other hand, believe that socialism can only be achieved as the result of a proletarian revolution (obviously the revolution would not be carried out by plutocrats, as anyone can deduce from the first paragraph of the article) - that is, an insurrection of the working class which completely removes the existing political and economic institutions and builds a new social order in their place (readers don't need to be given the definition of the term 'revolution')."
6. OK.
-- WGee 02:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
3. I have changed "Marxist-Leninists" to "some Marxists", because there is some debate as to whether Trotskyists count as Marxist-Leninists or not, and because some ruling parties still claiming to follow Marxism-Leninism have moved away from central planning.
4. Wait a minute... is it the official ideology of the PRC? I thought the official ideology of the PRC was still Marxism-Leninism. The constitution of the PRC does not mention "market socialism". I have therefore removed market socialism on the same grounds as libertarian socialism (though I would very much support putting them both back in).
5. The terms are most certainly not self-explanatory to someone with no background in politics. I will expand the sentence slightly and accept your deletion of the last paragraph, but I will put that paragraph in a new section that I plan to add to the article. -- Nikodemos 09:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Large-Scale Edit IS NEEDED : URGENT!

Given the logical and POV failures of the current version of this article, I am announcing my plans to give it a large scale edits for better clarity, this will include grammer corrections and new references. Expect to see this by the end of the day. (EnglishEfternamn 22:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

For the following reasons, I am convinced that this page needs a strong overhaul. It does not conform to an NPOV, in my estimation. Here is why:

The entire article resorts to harsh wordings to describe proponents of Socialism, while using soft wordings to refer to its opponents. Example, a few users here insist that the article states that early socialists "condemned" capitalism and private property. Condemn is a harsh word which implies malice. I think the correct term is "criticise" Further, "and/or" should precede "private property"; not all Socialists seek to abolish all forms of private property. ---- AND YET... the article gives minimal mention to political opposition to Socialism in the United States, the McCarthy hearings, the arrest of Eugene Debs for political opposition to US involvement in WWI, etc.

The external links section carries far more anti-Socialist references than supportive content. It is my fair guess that there should be a form of equilibrium in this regard.

I have tried to correct this problem already. Also, I would like to note that the external links sections of most other ideology articles contain no critical links whatsoever. Libertarianism, for example, has no critical links. All of them are listed under criticism of libertarianism. Perhaps we should apply the same standard here and move the critical links to criticisms of socialism. -- Nikodemos 19:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be a good idea either, that would just make the article one-sided in the opposite sense of what it is now.(EnglishEfternamn 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

The "Criticism" section is ambiguous, and one sided. A few users have stated that the section is no place for rebuttals, yet such content can be seen in the criticism section of many other ideologies.

The criticism section is supposed to be only a short summary of criticisms of socialism. -- Nikodemos 19:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an apparent monopoly on editing of content by conservative users. This would not be a problem at all if the content was in NPOV form, but as I explained it isn't. For this reason, I cannot even put a dispute template, because it is quickly reverted on the ground that my reasons are illigitimate, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE! Furthermore, if I act within my rights to re-instate the template an admin warns me about "3RR violations", even though I can name about five users on this article who have violated these rules several times. I have reported these violations, and no action has been taken. BOTTOM LINE: This article is in need of major work. I feel the reasons for disputing its neutrality are legitimate, and for this reason I will place a template at the top of the page. All rational discussion on the subject is welcome, please confine it to this particular section. Thank you, and I hope we can get this resolved. (EnglishEfternamn 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

I am trying to help here, but by reverting you help no one. Please instead make edits to improve the problem you are concerned about. I also don't think the tag is justified. --Guinnog 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I explained at length why the tag is justified. And the edits you refer to will only be changed back by the users I was talking about earlier. This is unfair, that is why until some type of balance could be found, the readers should be able to know that the article might be a bit slanted.(EnglishEfternamn 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Please name the specific changes you want to make. A good way of doing that would be to post a suggested draft here, followed by a summary of the changes you propose and a brief explanation of why each one would be in the interests of the project. Please do not keep adding the tag as I cannot currently see evidence it is warranted. --Guinnog 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is everywhere. Could you be more specific? Why is not warranted, and what would it take for it to be accepted. In other words, if the mistakes on the page are not evidence what is?(EnglishEfternamn 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Yes, please put forth a draft of some very specific changes along with explanations of why those changes would improve the article. You raised some valid points in the "Criticism Section" above with which, you'll be surprised, I agreed and helped defend. However, I don't agree that the article is slanted toward a POV. It is inaccurate or non-academic in many places and the body could indeed stand a thorough rewrite as you suggest. I think the intro is fine as-is. If you are seeing something that all the many contributors and readers up to this point have missed please eloborate specifically and we can all cooperate in fixing it.--WilliamThweatt 23:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"It is inaccurate or non-academic in many places and the body could indeed stand a thorough rewrite as you suggest." I'm curious to know how you came to that conclusion, especially considering that this article was just recently rewritten by a professor. Also, have you read any one of the article's references before making that conclusion? -- WGee 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Rewritten by a professor of what? I, too, am a professor (of Political Science at a four-year University here in California). And I came to "that conclusion" after reading the article and noticing some inaccuracies and some sentences reflecting a simplistic or layman's or "talk-radio" (hence my use of "non-academic") understanding of Socialism. Besides, even if it is true that it was "recently rewritten by a professor" that would still make it simply the product of one man's work, not a definitive gospel of Socialism. Not all professors are equal in either their writing skills, their knowledge of the subject or their agendas (just look at how many articles are submitted to the journals vs. the small number that actually get published). Regardless of who "recently rewrote" it, it still has to stand up to the scrutiny of consensus.--WilliamThweatt 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

By "one man's work" I sure hope you mean one PERSON's work. Not all professors are men.(EnglishEfternamn 20:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

I can see where this is going. Before you accuse me of having a "talk-radio" understanding of socialism, please note I am not the source of much of the content in the article, nor can I possibly monitor all the changes. You noted earlier, Looking to records of communist states to criticize all aspects of socialism is not appropriate. [18] For the record, I was not the source of that sentence, and I agree with your assessment. 172 | Talk 01:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't accusing anybody specific of having such an understanding. My exact words were that "some sentences reflected" that understanding. I don't have the time nor the petty desire to do the tedious research necessary to find out which editor is responsible for the few sentences in question. If it wasn't you then please don't take offense and let's all just try to make the article better.--WilliamThweatt 03:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that the article is devoid of inaccuracies; it was just your use of the word "many" that struck me, since most of the article conforms with what I've read in mainstream textbooks. Nor did I mean to suggest that the article is above criticism because it was rewritten by a professor. I think some sections need to be expanded, and I agree that some sentences are simplistic, but I don't think it needs a "thorough rewrite." It would be helpful if you could elaborate on the inaccuracies, and feel free to improve the prose where necessary. -- WGee 02:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will concede that the use of "many" was imprecise, open to misinterpretation and possibly a bit of hyperbole. I will also concede that "a thorough rewrite" would probably have been better stated as "a thorough copyedit" as the article is admittedly well-structured and well-organized. Nonetheless, there are a few inaccuracies (some of which seem to have been corrected somehow in the mess of editing today) and, as you say, places where expansion would greatly improve the article.--WilliamThweatt 03:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EnglishEfternamn's draft

[edit] Changes with rationale

As instructed by the admin Guinnog, I am going to explain changes I propose to the Socialism page. They are as followed:

1. First and foremost, a balance of historical content should be presented. I propose an equilibrium in content, we can talk about the abuses that went on in the Soviet Union, followed by the abuses that went on right here in the US, i.e. the McCarthy hearings. The fact is, it would be un-neutral to cover the "failures" of countries seen to be connected with socialism without covering what was done in non-socialist countries to combat the spread of the ideology.

2. More in-depth content about socialist figures in the U.s., such as Eugene Debs, and why these figures did not succeed in formulated a significant movement.

3. Coverage of how socialism applies today, in various European democracies, it could be called "socialism today".

4. Revision of emotion based words: i.e. "condemned", "trenchant", "abuses", etc. and have them replced with "criticised", "outspoken", "misconduct", these terms better serve to make the article objective.

5. Equilibrium in external links pertaining to support and criticism, or sending the external links critical of the ideology in question to the "Criticism page"

6. A larger criticism section with both criticisms and rebuttals. This need not be detailed, but if rebuttals are allowed to exist in other articles with "criticism" sections, why not here?

7. Coverage of US foreign policy, and anti-socialism as a motivation for various conduct.

[edit] Discussion

Please let me know what you think of these changes. If they are not addressed by a response from at least one concerned user within two days, the tag will be returned to the article. Thank you, and let's get this done. (EnglishEfternamn 23:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Grounding the article in specific historical context is the approach to encyclopedic coverage of the subject. Proposals for "criticisms and rebuttals" of "US foreign policy" and the "failures" of "non-socialist countries" threaten to turn this article into an internet chat room or blog, not an encyclopedia article. 172 | Talk 23:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
A point-by-point reply:
  1. I agree that this is necessary, but it belongs either in criticisms of socialism or criticisms of communist states. Please make sure to put the right information in the right article.
  2. Good idea.
  3. No European democracy claims to be socialist. Calling a country "socialist" when it does not use that label for itself is non-encyclopedic.
  4. Very well, good idea.
  5. Already done, but I support moving the critical links.
  6. Again, remember that the criticism section is merely a summary of criticisms of socialism. Please edit there before you edit the criticism section here.
  7. US foreign policy is not an appropriate topic here, but you are more than welcome to write about it in the article anti-communism. -- Nikodemos 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

2 and 4 are the most reasonable, as Nikodemos points out. Still, the expanded coverage of 2 first belongs in History of socialism; the discussion here is more general. Regarding #4, I don't see where the words "trenchant" and "abuse" are used. 172 | Talk 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Certain points that need to be made. American foreign policy has played a large role in the developement of socialism....or lack thereof in the US. I think it is important to mention this.

True, almost no nation in the West refers to itself as socialist, but that does not mean that various countries like Sweden and France are not socialistic in practice, at least in some areas. For example, it could be mentioned in the article that the "mixed economy" seen in most European democracies is thought to be a middle ground between capitalism and socialism. Bottom line on this, it should be mentioned how socialism has influenced certain aspects of contemporary (by this I mean in the last 15 years) politics. It should also be mentioned that the ruling parties of more than several European countries claim to be Socialist.

Just because the criticism section has its own page does not mean that one-sided coverage in a SECTION is justifiable. Not all readers are going to look at every page they get the chance to read, I certainly don't, I've not the time. It think to leave it unabridged would do a disservice to readers and especially students. I wouldn't use this article for a research project, but how many high schoolers would?

If Soviet policy is relevent to the article, so is US foreign policy. Can we discuss the effects of an ideology without mentioning the efforts done to thwart it? Let me know what you all think. (EnglishEfternamn 05:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Right:
  1. Strikes me as uncyclopaedic, and more polemic, a link to an article (if there is one) on anti-communism would suffice.
  2. Why the US? Surely that would be for an article about socialism in the United States - maybe a note about the "American exceptionalism" thesis, but no more here.
  3. Again, why only Yurpian Socialists? We have articles all over the place about Socialists parties by nation, a link to the cat. or to a list would suffice for an avid reader.
  4. If the critics et al. condemned rather than criticised then we should use the former, supported with citations.
  5. General purge of external links, more like: the subject is just two well covered on t'internet with such a plurality of sites that balance and WP:WEB are gonna be impossible to maintain.
  6. Chiefly because I'm probably not editting those articles, but where I do edit I consider that putting rebuttals in is unnecessary. There is scope for discussion of what criticisms are notable and those thoroughly rebutted and cannards should be discouraged to leave only substantial and serious criticisms. Here, however, we're dealing with politics, so when Margaret Thatcher called Neil Kinnock a Crypto communist we have a notable and substantial criticism on our hands, however cannardy it was.
  7. Again, why American foreign policy only? Plenty of other countries followed anti-communist foreign policies, why not a long discourse on Franco? What about Nazi Germany's anti-communist foreign policy?

--Red Deathy 08:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As a general observation: EnglishEfternamn, you seem to operate under the assumption that this article should give full coverage to anything and everything related to socialism. That is not the case. If we included all our information about socialism in one article, that article would grow to enormous lengths and no one would ever bother reading to the end of it. That is why we have separate articles for various socialism-related topics: history of socialism, socialist economics, criticisms of socialism, and so on. You are most welcome to create an article on socialism in the United States. -- Nikodemos 08:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You can bet I'll follow that lead. (EnglishEfternamn 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)) But I must let you know, that is not enough. Balanced coverage of socialism-related events must take place. Therefore, I will allow you all to pick three of the historical subjects that I have mentioned. It is your choice. When this is agreed upon, I will happily insert these new sections myself, with proper wording, format, and citations. Until then, I will not let this matter just die down as you users have attemped to do by suddenly ignoring the discussion at hand. You guys have two days, pick the events you think will best suit the article. Thank you, and let's get this done. Also, will someone please find citations for some of the paragraphs referring to the developement of socialism? Some of these facts, for the 30th time, are not basic, but only known to those who are learned in political science. Please find citations (I will look for them as well), or the only other option would be to re-insert the [citation needed] tags.(EnglishEfternamn 23:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Well thanks for giving us 48 Hrs.! As I've said, you should prepare a version of the lead and pop it in the space I made for your draft rather than stating things repeatedly or giving other editors an ultimatum like that. --Guinnog 17:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You realise that if I don't hear the preferencial responses I requested, I will have no choice. Ultimatum is a harsh word, I call it a "request for negotiaton". I'm trying to seek a compromise here, but I won't just ignore the problem. My edits are within the rules, so I reserve the right to again resort to them, but I am voluntarily delaying that right in hopes I get more feedback. Again, no-one has addressed that some of the facts in question are in need of references, either...(EnglishEfternamn 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Because these users have ignored my requests in hope that I will just "slip away", I feel it necessary to return the "POV" template to the top of the article; the two days I gave them have passed and the feedback I have requested has not been made. Don't see me as doing this, see the users in question for their inaction and stark unwillingness to revise this page for a neutral point of view.(EnglishEfternamn 01:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

It's really simple. An article liek this is not improved by adding a tag but by discussion. I suggested a while ago you submit a draft which we could use as the starting point for such a discussion. Why have you not done it? --Guinnog 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

We've not decided as a whole which topics are appropriate. I'm trying to make this a democratic effort, but I can only attribute refusal to participate to un-neutrality, therefore, the tag should stay until participation is back in place.(EnglishEfternamn 18:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

The POV tag is for use when statements within an article make said article one-sided toward a particular Point of View, not for a percieved "refusal to participate". In other words, "refusal to participate" is not a valid reason to place the POV tag. You must point to specific points that reflect a recognizable and describeable Point of View and suggest how you believe the points in question ought to be changed. Thus begineth the dialogue. As Guinnog points out above, you were invited to do so and have as of yet failed to do so.--WilliamThweatt 19:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article in question has been one sided. I have proposed a large scale change in coverage of subject matter and I also requested a vote on which subjects should be appropriate for coverage. I've not received one vote, probably for reasons that the users here who are prepetuating a POV page are hoping I will give up on the problem at hand. The article as is, is indeed one-sided, in both coverage and wording, therefore a refusal to participate in what I have gone out of my way to make a democratic process DOES constitute the return of the template. Note that it says "The neutrality of this article is disputed...", this is true, as I have disputed the neutrality of the article in question, and again, requested for input, and again, the input has not been given.

It does not disrupt the article to place this template; readers can still read the content with clarity. And as soon as the users who wish to get a word in return to a discourse of what direct the article should go in....I will be happy to remove the template and resume discussion. The sooner we can agree on what subjects to be appropriately covered, the sooner I can present a draft and we can wrap up this matter.(EnglishEfternamn 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)) One sided in what way??? What "side" do you claim it represents? The article is a fine exposition (as far as an encyclopedia entry can be an exposition) of socialism. The fact that nobody has "responded" indicates that we all agree that consensus has already been reached (in the form of the status quo) regarding what "should be covered". Additionally, the lack of any "input" directed your way could possibly also suggest that nobody here is taking you seriously because, by not giving specifics, you appear to only have the purpose of disruption. Thirdly, that nobody has suggested subjects to be covered does not prevent you from presenting a draft that would satisfy you...you are the only voice in objection, tell the world what would satisfy you by presenting a draft of the article as you want it to appear. Forthly, you keep mentioning "democratic process". Neither consensus nor the democratic process requires unanimity, only a majority (or even just a plurality). Again, you are the only voice of objection. Therefore it would seem that the vast majority of editors are happy with the article as currently structured and feel that it is properly balanced. It follows that the democratic process for which you so often plead has already indeed been observed. Continued placement of the tag will not convince others to see things your way, nor will it stimulate debate of the issues in the article. It will only serve to invoke discussions of why it is inappropriate to place the tag. Your actions determine the course of the discussion here. Place the tag, we'll talk about why it is not appropriate. Present a draft or be bold and make the changes you desire and we'll discuss your proposed changes.--WilliamThweatt 21:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've talked at length at what is wrong with this article, you can read the info for yourself in the paragraphs above. Again, I have gone out of my way to make this a process by which the users can make an imput as to what they would like the draft to look like, because I can assure you, when the draft is ready, it will likely be the new standard for the article. The article as is today is not neutral in that it holds right-leaning bias in both wording and coverage of events related to socialism. But I have already gone through this...twice.

The fact that I am the only objector to the neutrality standards seen in this article does not negate the meaning of the template. The template simply states that ongoing disputes exist, WHICH THEY DO! This does not disrupt the page, and I am within my rights to state the situation of the page in question. If you had bothered to read the past few sections in this talk page your would see that I have given reason, until I am blue in the face, why I think the article must be significantly modified. The fact that I am giving the users who are interested a right to debate this and they have not done so can only lead me to believe they are satisfied with the page as is. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT IT IS NOT NEUTRAL (EnglishEfternamn 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

Speaking as an ultra-leftist socialist, I'd say that the article reads fairly neutrally to me - I certainly can't see any rightwing bias. Certainly, there is scope for tidying and for improving the referencing - that's a job for a long Saturday evening, but on the whole I support the current consensus. I don't really see how any of your proposed changes relate to neutrality, indeed they seem to violate it by being US-centric--Red Deathy 09:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Red Deathy, the article could stand tidying and referencing but I don't see the changes EnglishEfternamn proposed as likely to improve the article. Further, I don't see how making blanket statements, using all caps, delivering ultimatums, stating how good your new version is going to be, or revert warring is likely to improve the article either... EnglishEfternamn, I suggest you do a bit more reading on how things get done here, especially on the consensus process. Note, my bias is fairly different than Red Deathy's ++Lar: t/c 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks, the changes needed will take place with or without your approval.(EnglishEfternamn 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Agh...the unbelievable arrogance! You wrote above "I am giving the users...a right to debate this"...oh, really...you are giving all of us a right. Sorry to burst your bubble there buddy, but you are in no position to extend "rights" to anybody. Our rights come from someplace totally different. Then, you deplore the lack of input and when people (even hard-core socialists) give their input in favor of the current version you say "the changes will take place with or without" their approval. It is becoming more and more aparent that either you are being purposefully disruptive or that you need to read God complex and seek professional help(comment out of line, see apology below).--WilliamThweatt 05:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone stopped to think, that in the last six thousand years or so of recorded history, that this subject is simply not worth all the fuss? Jcchat66 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

EnglishEfternamn, you need to change your approach. That's really not negotiable. If you don't understand what you are doing wrong, review your own talk page where Guinnog counseled you about how to approach things. "the changes needed will take place with or without your approval."... no, they won't. What is more accurate is to say that "the changes will take place if there is consensus for them". If you do not get consensus for them first, they won't stick, and if you try to revert war for them, you'll be blocked. WilliamThweatt, your points may be valid but saying someone needs to "seek professional help', or using terms like "unbelievable arrogance" may not be useful. Everyone needs to remember to be collegial here and seek consensus. If not, you are going to get additional previously uninvolved administrators paying attention, and some of them are more likely to hand out blocks than I am. ++Lar: t/c 13:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WilliamThweatt: This type of commentary was completely uncalled for and reflective of a most trenchant form of personal attack. Since you have not hesitated to lambast me without proper reasons and in violation of the "civility rules".

This website was designed for the purpose of projecting objective information, do we compromise this because of user intimidation and blatent bullying, or do we stick to our ground and give the readers what we owe them? Let it be known that Thweatt once stated that Wikipedia was "...not about neutrality...", see it for yourself at the Michael Savage talk page.(EnglishEfternamn 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

OK, I'll admit that the comment about reflecting on whether "professional help" might be needed was at the least not helpful and at most uncivil. Sometimes I just calls 'em as I sees 'em out of frustration when I should just hold my tongue. I therefore apologize to EnglishEfternamn for that comment (and only that comment). I stand by all of my other points, which, as Lar pointed out are indeed valid. Furthermore, EnglishEfternamn, you have only taked about yourself for last few days and nothing in this discussion has been concerning the ideology of Socialism or how the article can be improved. Therefore as of this edit, in order both to avoid such mistaken choice of words and not encourage you further, I will cease to take part in the discussion here unless we are talking about Socialism or recomendations for improving the article. I will continue, however, to follow Wikipedia policy and revert improperly placed tags, unconstructive edits, and edits which have not met the approval of consensus. Also, I will make one last digression to defend the mischaracterizations above. I have demonstrated no bias here (unless anti-disruptionism can be considered a bias). All I have sought to do was to point out to you (in vain, I might add) how your edits were inappropriate deviations from established consensus and violations of such policies as WP:POINT. And my edit on the Savage page was not about Wikipedia in general, I invite anybody to read my statement there. It is clear from the context that I was refering to our disagreement which, indeed, was not about "neutrality" but about the application of Wikipedia policy (namely WP:BLP. I will offer these parting words of advice: if you are going to be successful in making wholesale changes to any article on Wikipedia, you must first change consensus. Being disruptive, arguing off-topic on the talk pages, writing in all caps, adding and re-adding tags that everybody else says is inappropriate and ignoring consensus will accomplish nothing except dragging you into these long, drawn-out digressions that in the end accomplish nothing and you possibly developing the reputation of a disruptive troublemaker. If you had expeneded half as much effort in making your case for the changes you desire, you may have gotten somewhere by now. So, in closing, please do heed Lar's advice drasticly and permanently changing your approach in the future and I will be more than happy to debate Socialism as it relates to this article and specific proposed changes.--WilliamThweatt 19:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
...But for the 29th time, I have already stated at length what is wrong with the article (see above). Why should I repeat all that for your entertainment?(EnglishEfternamn 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC))
Yes, we understand that, but here is how to proceed, and gain the confidence of other editors, as well as consensus. Propose one (and only one) specific, small change, and get consensus on it. Then make the change. Repeat. After you have done this several times, make the changes you propose larger. If you can demonstrate consistently getting consensus, you will advance to the point that other editors will trust you with sweeping rewrites. You have not yet demonstrated that trust by other editors. Sweeping changes will be resisted if there is not specific consensus for them. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: Please learn about how to format your comments on talk pages without using html markup. To get indents just use ":", one for each indent. using <p> for formatting breaks things, it caused my comment to abut yours in the same paragraph, which is not good. ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling my text format "not good" is un-neutral and a personal attack, such conduct is frowned upon in Wikipedia. I'll overlook this.(EnglishEfternamn 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

Your "text format" is not a person. If you don't want your writing to be criticized mercilessly, as the Wikipedia disclaimer suggests, do not submit it. If one cannot distinguish criticism of his/her writing from a personal attack, he/she should find other things to do with his/her time rather than edit Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 02:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's two personal attacks thus far, I'll overlook these rule violations, but I must say, I will not be intimidated into disregarding my own concern for the rules.(EnglishEfternamn 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Further Action

I propose we get beyond the scope of discussion and discuss further action. My last edit consisted of the rephrasement of various sentences I percived to have carried a slant. Please do not revert these changes unless you have an adequate reason and it is sufficiently discussed on this page, in this section. Thank you.

Second: The criticism section on this article must be rephrased or completely overhauled. The statement that: "Critics of socialism attacks human rights record of communist states..." is unwarrented for two reasons: 1. Communism and Socialism are not the same, and 2. The statement carries no verification. Now I'm sure you know that some statement I have made have been deleted on the grounds that it did not carry a reference. I admit those who reverted my edits were correct in that regard, all claims must be verified, so let's find a citation for this statement, or not allow it to be posted at all. To do nothing would be a double standard.

  1. Is there any country in your learned opinion, that qualified as "socialist" and
  2. Is there any ctriticism that you will deem valid?
What is your basis to affirm that socialism and communism are not the same? why are criticisms of the USSR, for example, not valid? I do not know what you mean when you say that socialism is an ideology; Is it not true that all political systems are based on an ideology? So why is it not valid to criticise a political system, when the political system is a demonstration of what happens when you apply the ideology?
I could say the same thing about capitalism:
  • capitalism is an ideology
  • The United States is a political system.
  • You can't say that capitalism is bad by pointing out that the USA has exploitation, because you are criticising a political system, and capitalism is an ideology. As a matter of fact, you cannot use any capitalist country in the world to criticise capitalism. On what grounds would you criticise capitalism, if you are not allowed to point to specific countries to use as examples of what happens if you implement capitalism? -- Dullfig 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Third: There are various paragraphs that NEED citations. My request for them through [citation needed] tags have often been reverted on the grounds that the facts in question are "elementary". Not so true in some of the cases, especially when the article discusses "early socialism", not all political scientists agree on the ideology's origin, so I think a request for verification is in order in this regard. Please let me know what you think. EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 20:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

First, any primary school history textbook will tell you that "the Labour Party under Ramsay MacDonald was in power for [almost] ten months in 1924 and again from 1929 to 1931" [19]. That qualifies as "elementary" for most people. Second, the words "condemned" and "doctrines" have no negative connotations given their context, so I do not know why you are so aversed to them. But if you insist on replacing them, at least use American English spelling to conform with the rest of the article. Do not use British English just to childishly illustrate that it is the "superior" dialect. Finally, who the hell are you to decree that people cannot revert your edits unless they have an "adequate" reason that has been "sufficiently" discussed? Nobody has to satisfy your critera to impose changes on the article; all one has to do is garner a consensus, something you've never done. -- WGee 22:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a personal attack and goes against Wikipedia civility and profanity rules. Please rephrase your wording as it does not help your cause. Now, is there any serious feedback?-- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 23:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. You have an immature and annoying habit of ignoring those whom you perceive as not conforming with your ideology. I suggest you end this habit, because Wikipedia is not a political battleground.
  2. For the second time, indent your posts with colons; your HTML markups screw up the layout of the page.
  3. Read WP:NPA. People will start taking you seriously when you demonstrate that you are actually aware of Wikipedia's policies and stop crying wolf.
  4. I have provided "serious feedback" on your suggestions, as have several other people. You simply choose to ignore it using whatever petty excuse you can—whether it be "personal attacks," "profanity," or "this person is a right-wing POV-pusher!" And you are never going to procure a consensus by repeating the same arguments over and over, by disrupting the article to make a point, and by exhausting the patience of editors with ridiculous accusations.
-- WGee 02:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WGee, there's no reason for you to abuse yourself by responding to clear disruption. Many users have been slapped with indefinite bans for causing less trouble. The response should be a request for relief on the admin noticeboard. Sorry for failing to get around to this myself. I should have taken that course of action days ago, rather than merely reverting his vandalism in the Soviet Union referring to the "pristine environment" of Chernobyl and the Aral Sea. In that article, his edits were too off-the-wall to represent any POV. Even parties that defend Soviet Communism, like the KPRF and the CPUSA, acknowledge that rapid industrialization of the USSR came with environmental costs. (His "pristine environment" paragraph offers such a crackpot description, I wonder if we're having a joke played on us.) 172 | Talk 09:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Let it be know that the past two comments by these past users are reflective of personal attacks, a disdain for neutral civility, and right-wing bias. This is a violation of the rules on many levels and is characteristic of user intimidation.-- EnglishEfternamn

EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing, the criticism section can not stay as is and be considered neutral. The latest revision states that "Critics cite communist states as examples of socialism in action..." ... What is that supposed to mean? This statement is ambiguous and could refer to a number of things. What about communist states do these critics cite? This is why I added "perceived misconduct", 1., because the "misconduct" of these states is indeed relative to one's views (therefore perceived), and 2. Because it makes the statement more specific, a characteristic that was lacking in the previous revision. Also, a [citation needed] tag must be followed by the sentence. Until a proper reference is made, to exclude the tag goes against Verifiability rules. Thank you, and have a wonderful day.-- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 19:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

By definition a criticisms sections is not neutral, it is conveying the POV of critics, however, these critics exist and their ommissions would be an act of PoV on our part, so we should strive to accurately report their criticisms.--Red Deathy 15:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but it is neutral to keep the substance of a criticism section balanced. Also, I changed the latest edit to the criticism section because the citation in question refers to Frederich Hayek, and not "critics of socialism" as a whole. Please do not describe the work of one philosopher as the work of "critics", who, as the article clearly states, come from different ends of the political spectrum. Thank you -- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the hayek cite as an example, perhaps I should have put an e.g. in the ref. but most people would be capable of seeing it as an exemplar citation...--Red Deathy 08:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that type of assumption does not suffice. But if the section stays the way it is at this time, it will be much better than it was previously.-- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 17:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next Order of Editing: Standardisation of English Dialect

Good morning. The next aspect of this article that I wish to see addressed is the matter of English dialect that is being used. I propose that we make the British English the standard dialect for this article and here is why: This article pertains almost entirely to socialism regarding Europe, therefore the more European version of the English-language (British English) should be used. It has been stated that articles referring to American things should use American English and so fourth, so we should follow this principle and get to work. If this article talked a bit about Socialism's relation to the US, I think it would be a toss-up in terms of what dialect should be used, but such is not the case. Please let me know what you think, have a wonderful day. --- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I for one would like the entire article re-written in Oxford english, of the Victorian period. I think it would give the article an air of erudition that standard american english cannot hope to convey. Who do these Americans think they are anyways, writing encyclopaedic articles in that crass, debased dialect they keep calling english? It's about time Americans realized that only true Brits can write in elegant, properly spelled prose. If only Wikipedia could also convey that Oxford English intonation. Now That would be special! Dullfig 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC) (Proud to be American)
I'm not so sure if you meant that, but you have a point if you do. But that is not the primary concern for adopting British English fully in this article. The primary concern is that almost of of the content on this article refers to socialism in Europe, so why should Americam English be used? Again, I have requested (about 29 times) that a section about socialism in the US be put in. That request has been ignored....--- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 19:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Our practice here on the English Wikipedia (see the manual of style, it's good reading) is to retain the spelling choices that the article already has, or that it had at the start of substantial editing. There is never a good reason to change style from one to the other for an article that is not concerned with a topic where dialect matters, such as this one. If this was written in American English to start, it should stay that way. Needless changing of spelling is not productive, and doing so repeatedly may even be disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 19:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC) PS, EnglishEfternamn please indent properly, it would be appreciated. ++Lar
I disagree, the format has been changed in many other incidences on the grounds that the article was about American, or British, or otherwise European things. To state that it would be disruptive to change the spelling would be an overstatement, as disruption is defined as that which would keep the reader from reading the article properly.--- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, formats get regularised to match topic origins. c.f. The Beatles which is written in British English. But this article is about Socialism, not American Socialism, or Commonwealth Socialism, or Indian Socialism. Therefore, by long convention (review the reference I gave you to the manual of style) it should not flip flop spellings based on the whim of whoever edits it last. Such flip flopping is disruptive to the other editors working on the article. This is not a debatable point, really, at least not here. If you have an issue with this policy, the place to debate is on the Manual of Style talk page. Flopping the spelling around (as one of your edits did recently) needlessly, or without consensus is disruptive. Also, please use the formatting that others use in your talk page remarks. You have been politely requested to do so more than once. Use of paragraph or break marks is not necessary if you learn how to use ":" properly. I have again reformatted your remarks to match conventional usage so if you are not clear about what I mean, look at the diff to see. Also, please use indenting to preserve threading as appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, we are in disagreement. Article pertains mostly to socialism in Europe, therfore the spelling should be British English. There is no flip flopping, no disruption, nothing of that sort, it sounds as if you are mad about this change, but two of us have agreed that British English is a better bet.--- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 21:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using <br> and <p> in your comments. 4th request. I'm not mad about anything except wasted time. The article title is not Socialism in Europe. So the topic is worldwide, and the "first usage" convention applies. And you may want to reread the "victorian english" comment, that was sarcasm, in case you hadn't figured that out. You will have a hard time gaining consensus for a change in the Manual of Style, and until you do, flopping spellings around is disruptive editing. Internalise that. Or take the consequences. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, you are not an administrator, therefore your position is nowhere above mine. And for the fourth time, the changing of spelling is not disruptive. If you are going to continue with personal attacks and the vandalism of my user page, I don't see where discussion between us headed.--- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 23:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I am an administrator, here are my stats: Lar (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). I was asked by Guinnog (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), (you will recall Guinnog gave you a lot of good advice, and blocked you once already when you did not heed it), to keep an eye on this page, and on your activities. I have made no personal attacks against you here or anywhere else, and to say so suggests you do not understand WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA yet. I have given you gentle guidance on your talk page, which you removed (as is accepted practice) with confrontational edit summaries (as is NOT accepted practice) and to call it "vandalism" is mischaracterisation at best. My position is not "above" yours, we are all contributors here, but I do have more experience with the wiki, with our processes and policies and traditions, and with users. I would strongly suggest you take on board the feedback that many are giving you, and soon, or you may find yourself blocked again. This is more properly something to discuss on your talk page, feel free to refactor your posting and this one to there, but you did bring it up here. ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

never saw people pull rank on the internet before O.o ...
English aftermen makes good points about the articles contend. however, despite the fact that theres a really good point hidden in his request to change the dialect into brittish english, i dont agree with actually doing so. even though practically this article unfortunately is a europian article, in theory its an international issue. this article in theory could potentially have a lot of contend related to america, so in theory, we may get to have to change the dialect back again once its made brittish. in reality, this will never happen, since americans are fed an averse for socialism by their extremely sophisticated propoganda machine, but i strongly disagree we acually should treat socialism as a europian issue. I will repeat though, that theres a very significant point behind his request· Lygophile has spoken 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda machine?! when 2/3 of your citizens bellow the poverty line own their own house, with three bedrooms, running water, bathroom, car, color TV (big screen I may add), and when your population under the poverty line has a major weight problem (!) (as in overweight, not malnourished), you don't need a propaganda machine to convince people that capitalism works. ;-) -- Dullfig 23:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
im not gonna expand that discussion with you to this section as well. we cant hijack every section of this page. but every non-retard knows america has a dreafully sophisticated propoganda machinelygophile 00:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Lygophile, every nation has a propoganda machine. In case you haven't noticed, most governments would LOVE to impliment socialist idealism, as it would increase their power substantially. And yes, socialism really is primarily a European idea, as Europe never experienced true democratic freedom and liberalism. Most of those that push the idea do so in retaliation against industrial fascism (what you mistakingly call capitalism), in which workers had no rights, and most people did not own land. Socialism was reactionary to tyranny and oppresion in the new industrial age, a problem that was not nearly as bad in America. Socialism, after all, is better than fascism, the "lesser of two evils."
And Dullfig, that is a piss poor example of American ideology. Only about 10% own their own land (a mortgage does not count!) and most people will never, ever, own their own house even with a college education ... much like Europe. Small businesses are vanishing before the might of Walmart, and most people now work for someone else, which was not the case a hundred years ago. Jcchat66 04:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about. My contacts within Haliburton have assured me there is no propaganda machine... -- Dullfig 05:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
no......no i cant discuss this here....this is the wrong section. ...no.....no i wont. nothing sensible to react to anyway· Lygophile has spoken 14:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Lygophile has not spoken, I'm shocked! Jcchat66 06:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Market socialism def.

I rm'ed 172's def. because at least one or two sources (Ollman, for one) I've seen would define market socialism as one that uses market mechanisms for allocation, not necessarilly in competition with a private sector (i.e. competition between state owned enterprises, and planned markets). I'll defer to an authoritative citation, obviously.--Red Deathy 13:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What you removed [20] is not my definition. Nikodemos keeps periodically deciding to either remove or change the reference to market socialism in the intro, seemingly piqued over the removal of (his preferred conception?) "libertarian socialism." (This is frustrating-- not the high quality of work I'd grown accustomed to expecting from him over the years.) I suppose I ended up restoring something different from what I thought I was restoring. Now that I have read the sentence, I see that it is not an adequate summary of all well-known understandings of the term. I will insert a new description. 172 | Talk 14:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my definition. I thought we were referring specifically to China's "socialist market economy," since market socialism was enclosed in quotations marks. This reminds me that we should expand the "Socialism as an economic system" section to include the various forms of market socialism, especially "socialism with Chinese characteristics," with its publicly owned "town and village enterprises." We should also discuss participatory economics in the form of worker-managed cooperatives, employee stock ownership programmes, and worker co-management, which has recently taken root in Venezuela. I will probably only be able to help expand the section sometime next semester, though, in early spring. -- WGee 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologize. It's not your fault that sentence on market socialism keeps getting removed without warning. The definition was one of the ones out in the literature, just perhaps not the most widely accepted. 172 | Talk 01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word origin

Following the verification request.... The early history of the word (Socialism) is somewhat obscure. The first use of F. socialisme appears to have been in the Globe of 13 Feb. 1832, where it was employed in contrast to personnalité. In its modern sense it is variously claimed for Leroux or Reybaud, writing within three or four years after this. A different account, assigning the priority of this use to England, is given in the Encycl. Brit. (1887) XXII. 205; according to this the word originated in 1835 in the discussions of a society founded by Robert Owen OED. 1st verifiable citation in the OED is 1837 in the Leeds Times.--Red Deathy 08:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (p.s. that is the current OED online is the source, we have sub at work).--Red Deathy 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Red Deathy. I've always been skeptical of the factual accuracy of that contribution, not only because it was based on an obscure primary source, but also because most histories of socialism trace the word's origin to "around 1830" at best. The reputable opinion of the OED has only vindicated my doubts. In any case, there is no need to discuss the precise origin of the word socialism in this very broad article; the place for that, if any, would be the history of socialism article. For our purposes, saying that the word originated in the early 1800s is sufficient. -- WGee 17:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with WGee. As WGee has clarified, this issue is so complicated and contentious that we are better off working around it in the socialism article, which is only (as it should be) only a broad textbook account. 172 | Talk 05:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Whilst EEs method of scattering 'fact' tags throughout the text wasn't helpful, the main point, that the citations need improving is correct, if only as an exercise in linking some of the further reading at the bottom to the corresponding paragraph. Whilst not every obvious fact need citing, each para or broad section should be capable of being pointed to a rough citation, if only to help readers navigate and reach useful reading material.--Red Deathy 08:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary quantitative criteria for use of citations, like a citation for each sentence, or a citation for each paragraph, or a certain number of citations for the entire article, will not help. Whether a citation is used should be determined solely on the basis of whether a particular claim requires citation. Citations are not used to direct readers to literature. They are used to indicate the source of particular claims. Lists of further reading and external links serve that function. 172 | Talk 08:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Citations are not used to direct readers to literature. They are used to indicate the source of particular claims. The two are, obviously, the same. Lists at the bottom are sufficient, but in text citation is better in order to stablish the links between listed sources and particular claims or sectiosn of claims. It's the difference between OK and excellent - specifically as, over time, the point referenced in the lists at the end may well vanish from the text. I wasn't setting any arbitrary targets, but a realistic rule of thumb for a well cited article. Certainly, IMNSHO, tehre'd have to be a good reason to go a whole section without a citation. The content fo the article is pretty good, the real work now is polishing it.--Red Deathy 09:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You stated "whilst not every obvious fact need[s] citing," citations should be inserted even when an "obvious fact" does not warrant citing "to help readers navigate and reach useful reading material." As any writing manual will tell you, the function is citations is not to offer a guide for further reading. The function of citations is to give credit to the source of information or writing whenever a text is using the ideas or words of other texts. If there is no author to cite, and one simply makes up citations, this is not 'going from OK to excellent,' as you put it, but considered fraudulent in publications and student assignments. The tag you inserted means the article systematically uses the work or ideas of other publications without citations. This is a damning allegation, not a call for 'polishing.' If such a failure is not systematic, but you find a few claims in the article making reference to the findings of material or books outside the realm of general knowledge, insert 'fact' tags. Do not insert tags until you are capable of substantiating them. Until them, inserting them constitutes disruption. 172 | Talk 10:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
What I meant by not every obvious fact needs citing was that you don't have to put a cite behind every sentence, but can have broad citations that indicate a paragraph or section is derived (or can be derived) from a particular source. Everything must be verifiable at some stage. Put another way - each individual obvious fact does not need citation, but collectively they do, evem if we point to a broad source. The article does indeed use sources without acknowledging them, in as much as the text isn't linked to the citations. The ideas in this text have been derived from other authors, and where we can't discover which one was originally used we should seek to find a suitable source to anchor it to. (Oh, and might I suggest that the imperative is a poor choice of mood for discussions among equals, interrogative mood is much more effective)--Red Deathy 11:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The above is hopelessly unclear. Are you or are you not capable of substantiating the claim behind the tag, that the article fails systematically to credit the words or ideas of other publications that it uses? If you are, point to examples of specific claims that require citations. If you are not, stop inserting the tag. If you continue to insert the tag without offering a single example of use of an outside source without credit or factual inaccuracy, one would not be out of line in reporting you for disruption. 172 | Talk 11:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The failure is so systematic that my only evidence is the vast swathes of text that don't have a citation attached - that it is impossible to ascertain which source large chunks of a very big article are derived from. Anyway, To clarify my point about broader citation - a paragraph on Henry VIII and his wifes would not need a citaion to proove each marriage, or the existence of each wife, but a general reference to a biography of Henry VIII, for example. You may not be out of line for reporting, but I doubt the charge would stick. Or, I should add, if we had an article on Stalin, that just listed Service, Conquest, Deutscher and twotsky at the bttom, we'd be entitled to ask which bits came from which author, even bits that appear common sense and obvious--Red Deathy 12:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Certain "vast swathes of text" require more citations than others. In an entry one of the most notable ideas of the modern era, just about all of the content is grounded in elementary facts well-known to anyone who has read general textbook surveys of socialism. Such text is derived from being politically aware and alive in the 20th century. Regarding Stalin, I do surmise that that article requires more citations than the one here given the specific claims appearing in the article. As of now, please insert individual 'fact' tags, rather than the heading. 172 | Talk 13:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, however well known is hard to judge, and IMNSHO the onus is on the decision not to put a cite. We should be assuming our reader hasn't read those textbooks, and needs pointing to specifc ones on specific points. That much of the text would benefit from citations (not least as a good barrier against PoV pushers means I don't have pecific quibbles with any specific part, and was generally sugegsting that those who can pin a point to a cite should, otherwise I'll just work on it piecemeal on my loathsome, as I have been. I honestly haven't been pushign for a fight,a nd thought a general template would be more effective than scattering 'fact' tags throughout.--Red Deathy 13:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Over time we can add footnotes which are not necessarily citations, like "for a general overview on... see..." You intent to develop barriers against POV pushers is good, but keep in mind how they seem to be drawn by dispute tags. 172 | Talk 13:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aspects of article that MUST be addressed

Dammit, I am so outraged here because everything I do for the sake of serious editing is labeled as a disruption, so I am going to take this back here to the talk page as discussed. Here are a few small things that I feel need to be changed in order for the article to represent the highest degree of neutrality:

1. In the statement "criticized capitalism and private property...", I feel the "and" MUST be replaced with "and/or", for two reasons: A. Not all socilaists seek to fully abolish private property, B. There is no means of certainty (in the context of the article) as of yet that the all early socialists sought to fully do away with it. If someone can find a citation, that would change the issue and would not longer be a problem.
2. "Socialism as political theory section": There are a couple of areas where citations are NEEDED, under verifiability rules. Especially the areas where quotes are being used. It is unencyclopedic for a paragraph to A. State that ANYONE states ANYTHING without citing it, and B. Giving ANY quotes without references. So please, let's change this.
3. The United States, as most of us know, has acted as the biggest opposer of Socialism on the international level, there should be a section on this, discussing socialism within the US, and reasons as to why it has been systematically rejected in American politics. If the users here think it unsuitable for the article, I am requesting permission to start a "Socialism in the United States" article.


What I ask the most is that we can put our petty differences aside for now and make some progress. Please do not label my revisions which are made out of serious concern as disruption for ideological reasons. This is counterproductive and delays progress. Please let me know which of these ideas should take priority. Thank you. --- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 02:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In partial response,
1. Your arguement is a non-sequitur, the sentence only says that socialists "criticized"..."private property". It mentions nothing about "seeking to fully do away with it".
2. I would tend to agree with you that, in general, a quote should be sourced.
3. You don't have to ask permission to start an article. Just click this red link: Socialism in the United States and write away. If it doesn't meet guidelines and policy, though, expect a swift AfD. Strike that. The article already exists. Perhaps a section with a general (very brief) description with a {{main|}} template link to the Socialism in the U.S. article might be in order.--WilliamThweatt 03:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The "quotation" to which EnglishEfternamn is referring is "iron cage of future bondage" [21]. I told him that it does not need a citation because it is not a quotation per se but rather a general reference to Max Weber's well-known metaphor (which various translations render differently). It should be comparable to using "Property is theft," for example, without a citation.
Furthermore, we should not add a section to this article about socialism in the United States. One paragraph is already devoted to the subject, and that is enough considering this article's broad scope. Adding a separate section would upset this article's structure and balance, as well. -- WGee 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Points taken. However, regarding the quote (or, paraphrase), it may be "well-known" to you and I, but to the lay-reader who is just curious about the topic (which, I wager, would include the vast majority of readers that will get to this article) it may be new. While probably not necessary, I don't see any problem with providing a source where the reader could follow up and explore Weber, his quote and it's context more thoroughly. Secondly, including a brief summary of the Socialism in the U.S. article was simply a suggestion for compromise. I should have been more clear--I agree with WGee on this, but I am open to compromise. Maybe a link to the article in the "See also" section will suffice.--WilliamThweatt 15:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Surely there is no harm in citing Weber's work for the benefit of the reader, but the way to ask for a citation is through the discussion page, not by adding a 'cite needed' tag as EnglishEfternamn has done when a citation is actually unnecessary. -- WGee 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The tag should stay until a citation is provided. As William pointed out, not everyone may be able to just pick up on it without more information. We're all generally in the know regarding political science. Many readers are not.--- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 02:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is THIS neutral??

Read the most recent citation in the Socialism "Criticism" section. It is regarding socialism's death account!? I don't know about any of you, but I think this is POV content. What part of socialism is this critic describing? What countries to be exact? Until this is further clarified, I think the reference should be removed, all it really seems to say is that "socialism kills people". I'm not so sure this is neutral.-- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 16:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you understand NPOV policy. On what grounds are you objecting to inclusion of this criticism? -- Vision Thing -- 17:59, 3 February 2007

(UTC)

On the grounds that it conveys inappropriate implications.-- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 18:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
"Inapropriate implications" is NOT the criteria for NPOV. NPOV means you present an argument without making a judgement on wether that argument is right or wrong. For example:
  • NPOV: some critics argue that socialism has killed millions of people.
  • POV: some critics have wrongly argued that socialism has killed millions of people.
Can you spot the difference? the second one takes a position on the criticism, stating that those who take this position are wrong. The fact of the matter is, there is a substantial number of people that consider the deaths of millions of people under socialism to be a fair criticism. To simply state this fact is not POV. To criticise this fact is.
NPOV simply means that the person writing the article does not take a position on the subject. It does not mean that you cannot present oposing views within the article. I, for example, do not agree with some of the criticisms leveled against capitalism, but I am mature enough to accept that there are oposing views to mine, and I can mention those views without saying they are wrong. -- Dullfig 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not expect to ever say this-- EnglishEfternamn is right on this point. The 'death toll' refers to certain types of socialist regimes. The topic is more relevent in a more specific entry. In particular, this discussion is covered in detail in criticisms of Communist party rule. 172 | Talk 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Since this article talks about those "certain types of socialist regimes", this critic is appropriate. -- Vision Thing -- 19:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not necessarily true, because the citation talk rather ambiguously about socialism's "death toll". What precisely does that mean? People killed under communist regimes? And if so, which regimes? Until it is more specific, it is not appropriate. Furthermore, these statistics remain disputed by other studies. Why exclude reference to that?--- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 20:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It serves perfectly as a sourced, short summary of those criticisms that are further elaborated in the "Criticism of socialism" article. If you want further elaboration here, that won't be a problem. -- Vision Thing -- 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No, VisionThing, this article is about socialism as an ideology and a political movement. The article characterizes various political regimes as a point of reference, not as the principal focus of the entry. Broad references to concerns about human rights under socialism are appropriate under the criticism section. Further detail belongs in more specialized entries such as "criticisms of Communist party rule." 172 | Talk 21:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
One sentence about the deaths is not going into details. Criticism section is thin as it is (two whole sentences on criticism of socialism, wow!), and not mentioning deaths is a clear violation of POV policy. -- Vision Thing -- 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I support expanding the criticism section. But making sections longer is not a goal in and of itself. An expanded criticism section must be of high quality, which means starting with the most prominent works of criticism and working our way down to lesser known ones. If any one book is cited, it must be a great classic distinguished by its considerable political influence, like Hayek's Road to Serdom. 172 | Talk 06:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any Wikipedia's policy which requires that sources must be "the most prominent works" in the area, that is clearly your personal preference. Because exclusion of this criticism, which is the most important criticism of socialism in my and many others view, I'm disputing neutrality of the article. -- Vision Thing -- 17:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a broad encyclopedia article that is supposed to introduce readers to the subject; thus it makes sense to give prominence to the influential classics that are representative of mainstream criticism and upon which many other works are founded. This really isn't a matter of policy, but, since you insist, WP:NPOV#Undue weight essentially requires that the most prominent sources take precedence over lesser known ones. That said, I am not opposed to expanding the criticism section, as long as it is done according to 172's common sense approach. -- WGee 22:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining the problem of undue weight more clearly than I had, WGee.
Another problem with VisionThing's reasoning above is his assumption that a brief criticism section is a violation of NPOV in itself. The assumption is misguided. The article contains no 'advocacy,' as VisionThing would probably put it. Indeed, what makes the article more readable than many articles here is that the content avoids the formulaic style of back-and-forth dialogue between ahistorical 'critics' and 'advocates' typical of bad Wikipedia articles. The article mostly consists of a neutal historical narrative (at least as close to neutral by the standard of our times and cultural context), as the narrative does not imply support or opposition to any particular point of view not outside the realm of reasonable discussion of the subject at hand. That being said, I still support expanding the criticism section, along with the two other underdeveloped sections ("Socialism as an economic system" and "Socialism and social and political theory") in order to make the article more informative. 172 | Talk 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
To best of my knowledge, the two most prominent books which criticize socialism and actual existing socialism are The Road to Serfdom and The Black Book of Communism. In next few days I will try to summarize the main points of their criticisms. If you know of some more prominent work which deals with criticisms, feel free to contribute. Also, if someone plans to put some counter-criticisms, I expect equally prominent sources. -- Vision Thing -- 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The latter book you mentioned focuses on Communism, not socialism specifically. I feel uncomfortable about your reference to "counter-criticisms." The criticisms section should consist of what I had described earlier as a neutral historical narrative focusing on the history of political thought, not a back-and-forth dialogue between "criticisms" and "counter-criticisms." If the section is going to be expanded, we need to get it right. VisionThing, with all due respect, you should give me the chance to write the expanded section first, as I have more of a background in the history of political thought than a lot of editors. 172 | Talk 21:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem, how much time do you need? (preferably not more than a week) As for communism, "communist states" are often seen as an example of "actually/real existing socialism". -- Vision Thing -- 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem then becomes one of neutrally and accurately dealing with that sort of distinction for beginners in a small space of text, get it wrong and a full scale edit war could ensue of PoV warriors defending socialism saying 'but that's communism, gner', etc. as we've seen here before. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but that it would be tricky and is best done by a consensual decision so whatever goes in has plenty of editors to defend it. As a suggestion, maybe the angle should be to mention The Black Book of Communism as a critique of revolutionary socialism?--Red Deathy 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
But remember that the disruptions you described above are largely the work of one user who is currently being monitored by an administrator. Also, I favour not mentioning The Black Book of Communism at all, since its topic is specifically Communist regimes rather than socialism as a social or economic system. -- WGee 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be right on that, 172, but still some critics equate socialism with the political movement. Stating this is not NPOV, even if they may be wrong by doing this equation. Luis rib 21:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How it's going? -- Vision Thing -- 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Categorization of all subjects is inherent in writing an encyclopedia. Otherwise, there is no way of determining the content germane to a single entry. Your assertion "some critics equate socialism with the political movement" is meaningless. Anyone who does not 'relate socialism to the political movement' has no historical frame of reference. Socialist ideology is not a priori reality independent of a particular context in which it is constructed in discourse or by a political movement. The ideology and the political movement are inseparable. But for the sake of organizing information, one or the other angle can be emphasized depending on the subtopic. (Indeed, the goal of my rewrite of the article was to situate discussion of the ideology in historical context. The entry is nothing I'd ever consider for a writing sample; but I think I achieved the goal fairly well.) 172 | Talk 21:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

VisionThing... with advance apologies to others for using this page for outside discussions... thanks for fixing many of the references in "criticisms of Communist party" rule. I've been planning to do so myself, but you spared me of a tedious duty. Thanks! 172 | Talk 21:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, the citation is structurally inappropriate. Are we agreed then?-- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 23:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

IMNSHO The book as a citaton isn't so bad as compared with the text it accompanies. As a citation it could be used to support the old text which stated that some critics criticised the human rights of communist regimes - beyond that it would be nice if the citation actually referrenced that Kor's contribution is an article in a wider book about Socialism, much of which doesn't sound quite as strident, looking at teh contents list on the LoC record...--Red Deathy 08:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism in the United States section

As earlier discussed, I propose that a "Socialism in the United States" section should be included in the article, although I agree it should be brief. I think it should mention how socialism became considerably popular in the 19th century, then this popularity died out at the beginning of the first Red Scare. Maybe it could mention the fact that most socialists have opposed every war the US has ever been involved in, and how Eugene Debs, who once ran for president, was jailed for political opposition to WWI. I know this sounds very US-centric, but the reason I think this should be included is the very historical fact that as stated earlier, the US has acted as the biggest opposer of Socialism on the international level. Major ideologies mentioned in this website should be accompanied by explanation of efforts done to oppose them.--- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 17:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is more of a topic for a graduate seminar than a general encyclopedia entry on socialism. The classic question 'why there is no socialism in the United States' goes back to Werner Sombart. It was picked up by Louis Hartz and the 'consensus school.' In recent years, the late Seymour Martin Lipset coauthored It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States, picking up the theme of 'American exceptionalism.' The topic is covered in the articles on the relevant works by Sombart, Hartz, and Lipset. What you are proposing here is actually badly needed in the American exceptionalism article, where coverage on socialism is surprising absent. 172 | Talk 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but I think even minimal mention is suitable here. Again, can an article talk about a concept without refering to its biggest opposer?-- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 20:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The answer is essentially the same as the one offered under the above heading to VisonThing, redirecting attention back to the core focus of a general survey on 'socialism' in an encyclopedia. The article currently refers to various forms of opposition to socialism from the United States as a point of reference (e.g., the First Red Scare, the Cold War, and rise of neoliberalism during the Reagan years). Discussions of ideology in the United States in comparative perspective-- the question of why a certain ideas were hegemonic in the U.S. but not elsewhere-- belong in more specialized entries, particularly 'American exceptionalism,' where a discussion of 'why there is no socialism in America' is actually needed but not offered. 172 | Talk 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It will be offered soon, I'm working on that, but why not mention it in this article? While we are at it, shouldn't more mention of the Red Scare and Cold War be in order too? What about the Rosenbergs, or the jailing of the Hollywood 10?-- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 23:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
We could go and on here. There are lots of articles related to the history of socialism. This is a general article for people who are not just unfamiliar with the Hollywood 10, the First Red Scare, and the Rosenbergs, but barely have any knowledge connected to the term socialism. 172 | Talk 13:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I broadly agree with 172. There is also an article Socialism in the United States, as well as a moer general history of socialism, both linked to in the article. This article needs to have the most important points about socialism for a beginner. BobFromBrockley 10:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian Socialism?

shouldn't that be added to the list, too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.247.124.237 (talk • contribs).

[edit] "Blacklisting"

Contained in the "Moderate Socialism And Communism" section, 9th paragraph, is the following sentence: "Communism would also fail to gain a large following in the U.S., in part due to the later efforts of former Senator Joseph McCarthy and the blacklisting of prominent Americans by the government in the 1950s."

Blacklisting was done by businesses, most notably the Hollywood film industry, not by government. Government blacklisting would have been Stalinist.

The sentence would be more accurate this way: "...efforts of former Senator Joseph McCarthy and the use of blacklisting in the 1950's by industries such as the Hollywood film studios."

GufportDoc 22:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)GulfportDoc

[edit] Criticism Section needs work again

I am a bit hesitant to just leave the newest wording in the criticism section as is. It refers to "prosperity" of the "general populous". What in this context is "prosperity"? And what in this context is the "general populous"? The wording is too ambiguous to leave as is in my opinion, it needs to be changed. -- EnglishEfternamn talkcontribs 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

All that is explained in the Hayek book that is referenced (a good book...I recommend it to everyone here). Also, I believe details such as those are better left to the main article (Criticism of socialism), that's why we have the "main" article template in the first place, to direct readers who desire more information (such as detailed definition of relative terms, etc.) to the appropriate article. That having been said, I would not object to a rewording, providing it is equally compact and concise and not so awkward as to disrupt the current flow of the article.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 19:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree, previous wording would suffice.--EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 21:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The disputed sentence

In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property.

First, it doesn't explain when the term first appeared. Second, "European social critics" is an awkward phrase. Third, "European social critics who criticized" contains a redundant word. Xiner (talk, email) 02:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The previous setence provided the timeframe, the late-19th century. The word choice in "European social critics" has to do with substance, not style. The description must be as general as possible to describe all notable early socialists, but as specific as possible to be informative. Alternative phrases or words like "writers," "reformers," "revolutionaries," "workers," "political leaders," etc. lead to various problems currently avoided in the intro. Frankly, the above post strikes me as an attempt to look for problems where there are none. 172 | Talk 02:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Er, please assume good faith. That comment is quite unnecessary. Please also note that substance and style are not mutually exclusive. Xiner (talk, email) 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
If you can improve the style without changing the substance, change the phrase. There is no need to put up dispute headings in the process. 172 | Talk 02:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I was reverted twice, so I consider that a dispute, but whatever. It's not my problem anymore. Xiner (talk, email) 02:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section (revisted)

I thought we had been over this again and again. The newest rendition to the criticism appears to be characteristic of an anti-Socialism slant. It implies that Socialism is inherently connected to Nazism and Fascism. Whether it is or not, such a subject is highly disputed at this time, in any legitimate circle of political science. The previous version of the criticism section did just fine, and it was generally agreed that such was the case. I think it should be changed back. Furthermore, any section that deals so much with critical statements should have a rebuttal as well, and such is not the case. Bottom line, disambiguate the section, leave it short (as there is already an entire article for the subject anyway), and stop it right at the area where it states that "...critics state that Socialism compromises human rights...". Please voice your feedback on this.--EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy requires that all viewpoints should be included. If notable critic of socialism claims that socialism is connected to Nazism, that needs to be mentioned. -- Vision Thing -- 21:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree with you that the criticism section should be expanded, it must be done in compliance with WP:NPOV and bearing in mind the final product. To the contrary, you simply transposed one of the editorials that are interspersed throughout Encarta, and added a sentence that belongs in another article. I suggest that you wait for 172 to expand the section in a way that will emphasize eminent anti-socialist literature. -- WGee 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
How is not in compliance with NPOV? -- Vision Thing -- 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The claim that socialism is connected to Nazism is not a criticism of socialism (it is, in fact, the fallacy of Reductio ad Hitlerum; we cannot simply take it for granted that anything connected to Nazism is by definition evil). The criticism you are thinking about - Hayek's criticism - is that socialism inevitably leads to unacceptable restrictions on individual rights. That is the central argument in The Road to Serfdom. -- Nikodemos 06:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hayek's criticism was that socialism leads to totalitarianism, and he gave examples of Fascism and Nazism. Whether Fascism and Nazism are by definition evil is beside the point, he saw them as evil and that is enough to put that argument in Criticism section. -- Vision Thing -- 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally, please bear in mind that the main article for criticism is criticisms of socialism, and that the criticism section in this article should be a brief summary of that article, not a content fork. -- Nikodemos 07:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently criticism section is not a brief summary of the main article, because couple of editors here is actively working to keep it incomplete. -- Vision Thing -- 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Although Nikodemos was right to remove your sloppy, impromptu, and biased contributions, I agree with 172 that the section should eventually be expanded in a way that highlights influential anti-socialist literature. What do you say to this, Nikodemos? -- WGee 01:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest that any work carried out be carried out at the criticisms article and then imported back here?--Red Deathy 08:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Market socialism definition

This doesn't make sense: "some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, make decisions about production and exchange." First of all "market forces" don't make decisions, people do. Secondly there is still central planning in market socialism. Central planners direct and guide the market. Encyclopedia Britannica says: "Others advocate a “market socialism” in which the market economy would be directed and guided by socialist planners." The first model of market socialism was by Lange who proposed that prices be set by central planners and adjusted when shortages and surpluses occured. I think whoever wrote the sentence defining market socialism in this article and put the sources there did not read the sources correctly. Can anyone verify what those attached sources say? Working Poor 05:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your first criticism concerns a problem of semantics that I have already fixed. As for the definition of market socialism found in Britannica, it is so simplistic as to be inaccurate. Oskar Lange proposed that only the prices of producer goods be set by a Central Planning Board. The prices of consumer goods would be determined by supply and demand, with the supply coming from state-owned firms that would set their prices equal to the marginal cost. There are also other relevant versions of market socialism that we cannot overlook: Marshall Tito's worker-managed market socialism, in which worker-managed but state-owned enterprises operated with little direction from the state; "socialism with Chinese characteristics", which consists largely of state-owned "town and village enterprises" that have hard budget constraints, seldom receive government bail-outs, and thus resemble your typical private firm; a market socialism derived from the Japanese keiretsu system, in which state-owned banks own large amounts of stock in corporate conglomerates and monitor their performance; and various forms of Tito-inspired participatory economics. This article's definition of market socialism covers all these differing versions and is verified not only by the Dictionary of the Social Sciences, but also by John Barkley Rosser and Marina V. Rosser's Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy (Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, 2004). Being an undergraduate textbook, the latter is a particularly fine source for this general article. -- WGee 03:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

As currently written there are no references to libertarian socialism, no references to voluntary socialism, no references to market socialism in the anarchist sense of the term, no references to mutualism, one reference to collectivism (referring Saint-Simeon's and Owen's systems, not to Bakunin's), two references to syndicalism, and no references to communism in the anarchist sense of the term (and frequent use of uncapitalized communism/communists to refer to Marxist-Leninism/Marxist-Leninists). There are six references to anarchism (including sidebars and the list of political philosophies).

There is one reference to Proudhon (wedged among the Utopians) with no discussion of his ideas, of his influence on Marx, of his critique of property, of his critique of the state, or his defense of markets as socialist. There is one reference to Tucker (as the author of SS&A). There is one reference to Bakunin (very simplistic). There are no references to Malatesta. There are no references to Dejacques. There are no references to Kropotkin. (!!!). There are no references to Bookchin.

It looks like almost all discussion of anarchism, one of the most important strains of socialist thought in the 19th century, in the early 20th century, and at the present, has been purged from the article. Jacob Haller 05:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Demigod Ron has just rewritten the intro to state that:

As an economic system, socialism is defined by state ownership of the means of production.

It is now clear that certain editors are attempting to erase all references to anarchism from the discussion of socialism (and damaging much of the rest of the article in the process). As such I must dispute this article. Jacob Haller 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism is not a branch of socialism. If you recall the anarchists lead by Mikhail Bukanin split from the socialists lead by Karl Marx during the First Internation. Anarchism is therefore it's own distinctive socio-economic system that had broken it's ties to socialism during the First International. (Demigod Ron 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
No, anarchism broke with Marxism during the First International (see Anarchism and Marxism. The break was between the followers of Marx (the Marx Party, the Marxists) and the followers of Bakunin (the Bakuninists, the anarchists). Socialism is not Marxism. Marx himself was opposed to the existence of the state, and defined "true socialism," which is to say communism, as being stateless. ~Switch t c g 05:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with SwitChar on this. Classic texts of anarchism produced long after the split in the First International (e.g. by Rudolf Rocker or Daniel Guerin) make clear that they thought of anarchism as a variant of socialism. The anarchists tried to join the Second International - and were supported in this by Keir Hardie and the British trade unions, but opposed by continental Marxists. BobFromBrockley 09:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining my Reverts

172 just reverted several updates including, among others:

  1. A clarification regarding the 1st International.
    Links to political parties and other stuff mentioned in the text.
    Correcting comments about communist parties to Communist Parties, socialist parties to Socialist Parties, etc. Where the context made clear that political organizations (Socialist, Communist), not economic ideas (socialist, communist), were referred to.
    Several fact tags, mostly regarding disputed claims. Citation is good.

I restored the previous edits. Jacob Haller 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

From the communism article:

According to the 1996 third edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage, communism and derived words are written with the lower case c except when they refer to a political party of that name, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party, in which case the word is written "Communist" (with an upper case C). Thus, one may be a communist (an advocate of communism) without being a Communist (a member of a Communist Party or another similar organization).

In most cases, the text is speaking of advocates of communism/socialism rather than party members, so you were incorrect to capitalize virtually every instance of socialist and communist.
I only capitalized Communism and Socialism when referring to (Marxist) Communist organizations exclusive of other (e.g. anarchocommunist) communist movements; similarly I only capitalized Socialism when referring to (non-Marxist-Leninist State-Socialist) Socialist organizations exclusive of other (Marxist-Leninist state-socialist, and non-state-socialist) socialist movements. In fact the text somewhere referred to "communists and their parties," which I took to refer to members of Communist Parties. Jacob Haller 21:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, most of the instances of communists you capitalized refer primarily to advocates of communism, not to members of Communist parties (in which case one would be correct in capitalizing the word). Whether these advocates of communism are Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, or anarchists does not affect capitalization; no provision is made for that in any style or usage guide. -- WGee 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, uncontroversial, elementary facts that can be found in any and every reference book on socialism – and even in high school history, politics, or economics textbooks – do not require citations. None of the sources at the bottom of the article or elsewhere dispute the "claims" you tagged; whether or not you dispute them is irrelevant. -- WGee 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Citations are good. You are arguing that you should not cite because it would be so easy to cite. Why? Jacob Haller 21:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It is only necessary to reference information and ideas that are derived from someone else's work, in order to avoid plagiarism. General knowledge or information that is common knowledge in your field of writing does not need to be referenced because it is not derived from the research of any particular person. In fact, referencing common knowledge on college papers – apart from cluttering up your paper with ugly footnotes and making you look dumb – can lead to mark deductions. -- WGee 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This article only has 6 footnotes in 34 kb. Anarchism has 136 footnotes in 104 kb. Gothic and Vandal warfare has 83 footnotes in <<32 kb. I would expect 40-50 footnotes in an article of this size. Jacob Haller 01:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The number of footnotes in an article depends on its content, not on its size. General articles on familiar subjects, like this one, consist largely of elementary facts that do not require citations. We could include notes of some sort directing the reader to relevant literature (e.g., For more information on utopian socialism, see [book]), but such notes would not be the equivalent of in-text citations. -- WGee 02:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Capitalism and democracy are general articles on familiar subjects and they have 30+ footnotes, so your argument doesn't stand. -- Vision Thing -- 13:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
If it would make you happy to add in-line citations for certain lesser-known facts, go ahead; I would not object. But what I would object to is the insertion of 'cite needed' tags, because, despite being desireable to some, in-line citations are actually unnecessary. -- WGee 23:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] communism/Communism and socialism/Socialism

In the intro:

Some Marxists, including many 20th-century communists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production.

Now the Soviet economy was, according to Marxist theory, (transitional) socialism, not communism. I originally substituted Communists here. I now substitute state-socialists here. It inspired many non-communist state socialists (as well as the Rooseveltian New Deal, and other mixed economies, for that matter) and didn't inspire, e.g., anarcho-communists. Jacob Haller 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
if that bugs anyone, "some socialists" would still be an improvement over "communists." Jacob Haller 21:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Marxist-Leninists, the ones who propose centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production, are still communists. Although they use "state-socialist" means, they are officially committed to the realization of communism as an end. -- WGee 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In the Interwar era and Would War II:

Western European socialist parties won major electoral gains in the immediate postwar years.

Again switch to Socialist parties. I think this is clear. Jacob Haller 22:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
In this case, the text is referring to political parties that advocate socialism, not just parties that name themselves "socialist"; thus, a lowercase "s" would be appropriate. -- WGee 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been following this page recently, but I think it is very important to avoid using "communist"/"communism" with a small C to refer solely to big-C Communists (Communist parties and states), because so many definitions of communism (e.g. anarchist communism, the left communist tradition, Marx himself) are so opposed to the reality of Communist states. The best rule of thumb is this one, from [[Criticisms of Communist party rule]: "Note also that when referring to an ideology or a proponent of that ideology... which has as its ultimate goal the classless communist society, the terms "communism" and "communist" take an initial lowercase letter ("c"). When referring explicitly to a Communist Party, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party, the terms are capitalized (i.e. "Communism," "Communist")." BobFromBrockley 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Between Utopianism & Marxism

Relating to my concerns with (1) the definition of socialism on this page and market socialism on its page (2) the limited coverage of non-Marxist socialism, particularly early socialism and anarchism (3) my fact tags for certain claims about Marxist history.

I am not particularly familiar with the early "Utopian" schools (Saint-Simeon, Fourier, Owen, etc.). I would be glad if other editors could clarify. Nevertheless, in my understanding, the early "Utopian" schools emphasized cooperation (and non-market economics) with little or no emphasis on class struggle. At the same time, the early market schools (Hodgskin's, Warren's & especially Proudhon's Mutualism) emphasized class struggle as well as market economics.

I think that the early history of the class struggle side would help explain things. Proudhon, of course, influenced Marx early on, and Bakunin, later, and focused attention on the institution of property and possible alternatives. Jacob Haller 01:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV assertion

"One of the difficulties of the socialism in the 21st century is that it needs capitalism to generate economic growth and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialism&action=submitprosperity, and at the same time capitalism doesn't need socialism for providing welfare protection. All this resulted in the loss of confidence by socialist leaders and followers.[1]"

Please defend the insertion of this text. At the very least, it needs to be a direct quote in context. It is highly POV, speculative, and not appropriate as it was inserted.--Cberlet 15:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

True, that presents one point of view, but if "Some argue/claim that one of the..." is added I don't see why it shouldn't be included. -- Vision Thing -- 15:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The above editorial should not be included, even in quotation marks, because its validity rests on idiosyncratic definitions of capitalism and socialism that are unknown to the reader. The author should have chosen his words more carefully instead of using ambiguous, undefined -isms. Moreover, any criticisms of socialism should be derived from eminent, scholarly anti-socialist literature, not from online encyclopedias run by software companies. -- WGee 18:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The text itself does not need to be defended. Sassoon wrote a monograph on European socialist parties, it probably has the same conclusions. Donald Sassoon. Intangible2.0 06:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As Intangible2.0 already noted, author of Socialism article in Encarta is a professor at University of London and the author of "One Hundred Years of Socialism". Excluding his views would be violation of NPOV. Btw, I see you talking a lot about "eminent, scholarly anti-socialist literature" but you constantly fail to contribute anything to this article about that subject. -- Vision Thing -- 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to include that argument in criticisms of socialism, since it is most obviously a criticism. However, I'm not sure about its value to the reader. Why does Sassoon believe that socialism needs capitalism to generate economic growth? As it stands now, most readers would see the argument as: "Some person says that socialism needs capitalism to generate economic growth". That's really just an assertion, not an argument. Unless it is further explained, how does that add any knowledge to an article? I'm sure we could find many anti-socialist authors who can be quoted as saying "socialism is evil". But, unless they explain what they mean by "evil" and why they believe socialism to be evil, such assertions are useless to an encyclopedia. -- Nikodemos 21:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That paragraph informs readers that some people have observed loss of confidence in socialist ranks because of socialism's inability to generate economic growth without capitalism. Since it's talking about modern socialist, I think it is also appropriate for Contemporary socialism section. -- Vision Thing -- 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if we're talking about a person who wrote an entire book about socialism, I cannot help but wonder why you only wish to add one of his assertions to this article, Vision Thing. If I didn't know you better, I might think you're picking and choosing only the anti-socialist bits out of your readings. -- Nikodemos 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As several editors already acknowledged, Criticism section is a bit short. Since they seem unintrested in expanding it, I'm currently focusing on arguments that migh be appropriate for it. -- Vision Thing -- 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You do not have full editorial control over the criticism section just because other editors are "uninterested" in expanding it. -- WGee 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism

I propose a section on fascism, both national socialism (nazis) and Italian fascism since these were basically socialist systems where property was controlled and nationalized for the public good. Billy Ego 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem you get when people associate socialism with state ownership. Fascism is control by the capitalist class through the state. (Contrast with control by the working class(es) without the state, discussed above). Jacob Haller 22:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Association socialism with state ownership is a correct association. Socialism by definition is state owned or controlled industry, unless you're talking about utopian socialism. In socialism there is social control over the means of production. This control is exercised on behalf of the people by state. The Fuhrer himself said "I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual...The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property." And he said "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Clearly NAZI germany was socialism and so was Fascist Italy, as pointed out below. Billy Ego 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not a correct association. Read the article. Notable socialists who opposed the existence of the state include Oscar Wilde, Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bakunin, and even Karl Marx himself - who, as I have said before, defined "true socialism" as being stateless. Socialism is about economic democracy and egalitarianism. Fascism, while it features an economic system that incorporates government intervention, is also in support of the free market when it is beneficial to be. Fascism's economics are pure populism. There is, at best, a weak connection between the two. ~Switch t c g 05:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than the expropriation of Jewish property, if Mr Ego can give me one example of fascist nationalsation, I'd be very pleased to hear of it. By the way, state control of the economy is something of an exaggeration. The German economy was not placed upon a total war footing until 1943 at the earliest. They were still manufacturing domestic refrigerators while their soldiers froze at Stalingrad...

--Train guard 17:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many examples. So I'm sure you'll be extremely pleased. "The IRI invested directly in industry, particularly shipping, steel, shipbuilding, chemicals, electricity and telephones. By 1938 the Italian state controlled four-fifths of shipping and shipbuilding, three quarters of iron and half of steel, while as a result of the 1936 Banking Reform Act, the the Bank of Utaly and most other large banks become public institutions. By 1939 Italy had the highest percentage of state-owned enterprises outside the the Soviet Union." -Adrian Lyttelton (editor), "Liberal and fascist Italy, 1900-1945", Oxford University Press, 2002. pp. 13. This was a great benefit to the people of Italy that saved them from capitalist leeching class. Billy Ego 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You should be very careful here. Most of this relates to actions taken in the wake of the post 1929 - 31 economic crisis. The IRI mainly purchased shareholdings in failing or near bankrupt concerns. It also obtained interests in businesses through its acquisition of failing banks. It received nationalisation powers in, I think, 1937, but there are few instances of major state companies. The main exception was that of oil, which was considered a strategic sector. Despite your claim, we are talking of perhaps 20% of the economy as a whole in which the state could be said to have any controling interest (not all of which were state companies pure and simple), and mostly obtained in response to economic emergency, not direct fascist policy.

But your remarks relate to Italy. What about Nazi Germany?


--Train guard 17:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm going to take a scholar's of fascism's word over yours. My remarks relate to Italy because Italy was THE Fascim. National Socialism was modeled after Fascism. In Nazi Germany there wasn't as much nationalization but sigificant social control was still exercised over industry. Laissez-faire was not allowed. Industry was controlled to serve the people. Wage controls were instituted as well as many price controls to makes sure the people weren't exploited. Billy Ego 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you clearly have no understanding of how the German economy functioned prior to 1943. Why did they adopt the blitzkreig tactic in 1939 - 41? When you can answer that, please come back to us...

--Train guard 17:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism as an economic system

Although the section must be expanded, it should continue to focus on Soviet-style socialism, market socialism, and their bastions. Mixed economies (i.e., the economies of every industrialized nation) or welfare states are not considered socialist but rather manifestations of advanced market capitalism. Participatory or syndicalist economics can be discussed as well, but the focus should remain on the centrally planned economy of the Soviet Union, "socialism with Chinese characteristics," and the market socialist economies of Communist Hungary and Yugoslavia, in accordance with textbooks on comparative economics such as Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy (Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, 2004). -- WGee 02:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you say? "Mixed economies (i.e., the economies of every industrialized nation) or welfare states are not considered socialist but rather manifestations of advanced market capitalism." What?! Mixed economies are not advanced market capitalism. Mixed economies are by definition part capitalism and part socialism. See the article mixed economy. Mixed economy is manifestation of non-market socialist characteristics being introduced into what was a capitalist economy or capitalist characteristics being introduced into what was a socialist economy. Working Poor 02:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you actually read the provided source, or any other general textbook on comparative economics for that matter? -- WGee 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The majority of people who currently claim to be socialists - that is, social democrats - would consider mixed economies to fit their definition of socialism. The article does currently cover social democracy, so why shouldn't it cover the economic views of social democrats? If you believe that social democracy is not a form of socialism, that's fine, but you must then remove it from the entire article, not merely one section.
In any case, the economy section as it stood before was clearly inadequate. Please remove any paragraphs you deem inappropriate from the new section rather than reverting. -- Nikodemos 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I believe that the reason social democrats call themselves social democrats, rather than democratic socialists, is that they are not socialists and do not consider themselves to be. Democratic socialists support slowly supplanting a capitalist ecoonomy with a socialist one, while social democrats support reform within the capitalist system, i.e. a mixed economy. That's my understanding of the difference between the terms. ~Switch t c g 05:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
My own personal POV is that you are correct, and social democracy is not a form of socialism. However, the largest organization of social democratic parties in the world is called the Socialist International, and many social democratic parties claim to be socialist (e.g. French Socialist Party). -- Nikodemos 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. ~Switch t c g 05:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with whether or not social democrats consider themselves socialists; neither your contributions nor the section to which they were made concern that issue. Since you inserted information about contemporary Western economies (i.e., "mixed economies" or "welfare states") into a section entitled "Socialism as an economic system," the implication follows that such economies are socialist. My problem is that mainstream literature on comparative economics indicates that they are actually advanced capitalist economies rather than socialist ones, and thus should not be discussed in that section. I dislike your approach to expanding the section in general, as you have shifted the focus away from socialist economic systems and how they (would) work to the broad economic principles that socialists advocate. -- WGee 07:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That is because I meant my edits to provide the framework for further development of the section. I strongly object to the previous state of that section, which not only gave ridiculous undue weight to the Soviet Union, but also seemed to be more concerned with Western criticisms of the Soviet economy than with explaining how that economy actually worked.
I will restore my edits, with some changes: 1. I will comment out the section on social democracy; 2. I will give a summary of the workings of the Soviet economy. -- Nikodemos 07:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I reinserted the paragraph about the liberal critique of socialist planning because the economic calculation problem actually engendered market socialism, which is discussed in the following paragraph. It would be unencyclopedic to omit the cause of the effect. -- WGee 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
In theoretical terms, you had free-market advocates like Proudhon and Tucker active in the socialist movement in the 19th century (and others in the 20th century). In practical terms, the NEP was a mixed economy in the 1920s. Jacob Haller 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was going to mention earlier that we should add information about the NEP as a type of mixed-market socialism, although I think Proudhon's economic theory is too obscure and uninfluential to be included in this general entry on socialism. -- WGee 22:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a shorter summary of the liberal challenge would be in order (along with a note that it is, in fact, a challenge from liberal free market economists, rather than the vague notion of "western economists"). The reason I dislike having any argumentation in sections not dedicated to argumentation is because argumentation attracts POV-pushers. -- Nikodemos 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
But the paragraph is only three sentences long, and the economic calculation debate surely deserves at least that much attention considering its impact on contemporary socialist economic theory. I understand your concern about POV-pushers running wild with arguments and counter-arguments, but in this case it is not helpful to force all criticism into one section. We'll just have to be extra vigilant. -- WGee 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That is correct, the paragraph is short, but then again, the entire section is short. Undue weight is relative to the size of an article or section. Three sentences can be too much in a stub (such as we have here), or too little in a section that is 30 kb long. In any case, I will again try to stick to your suggestions while rephrasing the text and providing a link to the economic calculation problem. The ultimate solution, I think, will be to simply expand the section. -- Nikodemos 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

<-------Sorry for being so nitpicky, but there were a couple of problems with your rephrasing; see the edit summaries. Now that the market socialism paragraph has been expanded a bit, perhaps we could just leave the critical paragraph alone. Like you said, the ultimate solution will be to expand the section rather than condense the economic calculation debate into one sentence. Eventually, I hope to see a section that includes subheadings, comparable in length to the history section. -- WGee 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You do seem to be rather inflexible, but that's okay. Any inconvenience is more than made up by your role as a bastion against POV-pushers. :) (could I ask for your assistance with two other articles, by the way?) Getting back on topic, please do not remove my text explaining which socialists support the Soviet model. Starting out with "In the Soviet Union" seems rather abrupt and may create all sorts of different false impressions. The general template should be: *This group of socialists supports this economic model, and here is a description of the model*. How many models do we have, by the way? I count four as of now: Soviet, Trotskyist, market socialist, and "participatory". We should aim to expand each of them into sub-sections. Finally, note that the sentence "they argued that socialist planned economies would eventually fail" is original research. There is no such concept as the "failure" of an economic model in academic economics. There is only poor performance on various indicators. What liberals argued was that centrally planned economies would allocate goods and services in a non-optimal way, whereas market economies would allocate them optimally. -- Nikodemos 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully I've adequately addressed your concern about who advocates what economic system by mentioning that Marxist-Leninists advocate central command planning.
We could replace fail with collapse, as in "to break down suddenly in strength or health and thereby cease to function." Either way, I'm quite sure that the reader will know what we mean. We are not writing scholarly economic literature; we are simply summarizing information in laymen's terms.
We should aim to discuss the following socialist economic models in addition to the current ones:
-- WGee 02:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In my understanding, Trotskyist economic proposals vary as much as other Marxist economic proposals. The article implies that Trotskyists share common economic proposals (distinct from other Marxists) and, probably inadvertently, implies that these proposals influenced anarcho-syndicalism (et al.). There is some back-and-forth between anarchist and Marxist proposals (some direct and some via libertarian Marxism/council communism), but anarcho-syndicalism predtates Trotskyism. It is probably better to say that both influenced the new left. The typology of non-state (not necessarily anarchist) systems could use some work, perhaps cross-referencing non-state systems like collectivism (e.g. Parecon) and syndicalism with comparable state sustems (I've never studied the Yugoslav model) and non-state communism with decentralized forms of state communism (???) and so on. Jacob Haller 04:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definitional Concerns (Fascism isn't Socialism)

Now in the 20th century few/no [other] socialists regarded the Fascists, Nazis, etc. as socialists. Ergo they weren't socialists. And in the 19th century most other socialists regarded the mutualists, collectivists, etc. as socialists. Ergo they were/we are socialists. Certainly Proudhon's, Greene's, or Tucker's (free-market) systems don't look like Owen's or Marx's systems. But these people considered each other socialists. And the socialist systems claimed one common feature which few if any non-socialist systems had: the workers control the means of production. This could include anything from individual artisan ownership or collective factory ownership in a free market to centralized state ownership with a democratic state (and we can argue about which is more likely) and would exclude anything where the nobles, or the capitalists, or the bureaucrats control the means of production. It would definitely exclude Fascism. Jacob Haller 07:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You said "the socialist systems claimed one common feature which few if any non-socialist systems had: the workers control the means of production." I beg to differ. Capitalism has workers control of the means of production, all except in the case where the majority of control is held by investing stockholders. Most businesses in the U.S. do not have pubicly available stock but are owned by the workers themselves. Moreover, most businesses in the U.S. are sole proprietorships. Are you saying the U.S. is socialist? Working Poor 17:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In socialism the state controls the means of production for the good of people. There is no denying that Fascism was socialism. What's this about "democratic state"? Mussolini was elected and he did was he promised to do. He prevented the capitalists from exploiting the people. He nationalized large amounts of industry and put strong controls on others. The means of production were controlled by the state as the people's representative. Industry syndicates were set up to make sure people received a proper wage, employment insurance, health benefits, etc Prices of goods were set so that everyone could afford them. A welfare system was set up for the poor. And so on. The system of National Socialism under Hitler was similar. There wasn't as much direct nationalization but the means of production were controlled by the Third Reich to serve the people instead of pillaging them as laissez-faire capitalism had. Billy Ego 16:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
In socialism the state controls the means of production - a definition that, at best, is derived from a misunderstanding of socialism. Many, many socialists actually opposed the existence of the state. Not just anarchists, but also council communists, libertarian Marxists, followers of Young Marx, and autonomists among others. There is a reason no fascists joined the First International. ~Switch t c g 06:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(1)Socialism does not (or ought not) distinguish between categories of people. All belong to the human race. All are individual people with individual potential. Socialism is about creating the conditions in which individual potential is realised.

The ultimate solvent of fascism is race. The individual cannot exist without membership of a volk community from which other individuals are excluded. What is important is the continued survival of the volk. Therefore, all individual aspirations are subordinated to it.

(2) Mussolini was appointed Prime Minister by the King. He was not elected.

(3) His corporate system abolished trade unions. Industries were regulated by 'Chambers' or 'Syndicates' that , in practice, were dominated by the employers.

(4) Contrary to your assertion, he did not nationalise large amounts of industry. (See my previous posting.)

(5) The means of production were not controlled by the Third Reich. I suggest that you read a decent book on the German war economy.

--Train guard 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is not about race. You're wrong. You're trying to equate Hitler's personal racism to classic Fascism. Where does Mussolini say that race is important? And yes Mussolini did nationalize large amounts of industry. I gave you a source. It counts much more than your word. Billy Ego 17:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Billy, if you deny that race and folk community is not at the heart of fascism, then you clearly have no understanding of what fascism is or was. You did indeed give a source, and I criticised your use or interpretation of it. Now if you are are not prepared to argue on the basis of my points, there isn't much more to be said.

--Train guard 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My interepretation of the source? I didn't interpret it at all. It says plainly that the Fascist Italy had the highest percentage of state-owned industry besides the Soviet Union. Again, where does Mussolini ever extol race? Or are you denying that Mussolini's system was Fascism? Billy Ego 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I quote. "This was a great benefit to the people of Italy that saved them from capitalist leeching class." That is your interpretation of the source that you cited. I have suggested that the facts of the citation should be seen in context; as a response to an economic emergency, and not a fundamental part of fascist ideology.

I also suggest that you consult the Italian Race Laws of 1938.

--Train guard 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

All socialists, including myself, are opposed to the capitalist leeching class. Where do you see race in what are you say is Mussolini's statement? And no it's not my interpetation of the source. This is a direct quote from the source: "By 1939 Italy had the highest percentage of state-owned enterprises outside the the Soviet Union." Billy Ego 19:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat. You said "this was a great benefit to the people of Italy that saved them from capitalist leeching class." That is your comment immediately after the quote that you cited. Ergo, it is your interptretation of it. And I am arguing that it is wrong. I made some points in a previous posting to suggest why you should not think this way. I have no idea what the reference to a statement by Mussolini refers to. As to my mention about the Race Laws, I was answering your assertion that Italian Fascism never comprehended a racial element.

I do not wish to be rude, but I cannot seem to get any sense out of you. It is therefore better if I discontinue this exchange.

--Train guard 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


<-------------I have filed for mediation concerning the longstanding disputes over the relationships among Nazism, National Socialism, National Socialism (disambiguation), Socialism, Collectivism, Fascism, Fascism and Ideology, Economics of fascism, New Deal, The New Deal and corporatism, Fascism_as_an_international_phenomenon#United_States. Please visit and consider joining the discussion concerning the appropraiteness of mediation.Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/National_Socialism--Cberlet 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In these kinds of disputes one should just stay with the uses of the words as defined. As defined, no socialist doctrined is opposed to the state, but rather, needs it as an intrumental tool to promote social programs, therefore, a much more powerful state than allowed in traditional liberalism. Only liberalism in general promotes the limitation of the state, in whatever form, regardless of economic or social ideals. Therefore, as defined, fascism is most certainly socialism. Look it up in any dictionary and those points are made clear.
We canno go around promoting our personal views in complete disregard to the dictionary. The definition of words is critical to understanding language and one another for proper debate and context. Jcchat66 08:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
say what? if that were true we could close down the entire left wing (and then the building would collapse out of imbalance:P). but your reasoning is the most faulty logic i ever saw. you say for one that because liberalism promotes less power to the state (which i am sure conservatist liberalist would disagree with) any other '-ism' could not. and secondly you say because A (socialism) is B (statechauvanism) - which in itself is already false - any B is A by necessity. if that is the extend to which your logic can reach, kindly shut up· Lygophile has spoken 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least one or two socialist groups are opposed to the state (the SPGB for one), liekwise syndicalists and libertarian socilaists of the boochin type - hence why the def. in the article is so unutterably broad. the rea, IMNSHO, difference between fascism and socialism is the absence of any (even nominal) commitment to egalitarianism - maybe we should focus more on that?--Red Deathy 08:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I must make two points about definitions. Firstly, I'm a European. 'Jcchat 66' defines 'liberalism' in what I would say is an American sense of the word. We would call that concept 'Gladstonian Liberalism' and it certainly doesn't relate to modern British or European liberalism. It certainly doesn't describe the views of Lloyd George, for example, let alone present day liberals. (I doubt whether some Americans would recognise this definition, but that's a separate issue.) As Wikipedia is not meant to be an American production as such, you really have to be careful about the 'universality' of your attempts at definition.

Secondly, I'm puzzled by the way that many people refer to dictionaries for definitions. Dictionaries are wonderful things, but they are lousy at defining complex abstract concepts. Which is why most political scientists never use them. In contrast, they define their own terms, so we can all understand what they are talking about. The best way forward for this article is to use the most accepted definitions by political scientists and historians. We can have a debate about that, but please leave dictionaries for the definition of empirically defined objects of perception.

--Train guard 09:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mussolini clearly stated:
  • "We cannot confiscate the property of landlords; we are fascists, not socialists." [source: Weiss, John. The Fascist Tradition. Harper & Row, 1967. page 91]
Italian fascists never called themselves socialists. The application of the term "socialism" to Italian fascism is done exclusively by outside sources, usually libertarian or conservative. We cannot and should not include in this article every instance of someone calling someone else a "socialist" or something similar (such as the John Birch Society's claim that Dwight Eisenhower was a communist). -- Nikodemos 03:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. And although the similarities between Fascist and socialist economics in practice are alegitimate subject of research, it is important to remember that Fascism and socialism are more than just economic systems; they are also theories of the state, democracy, social orgqanization in general. -- WGee 22:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are Fascism and Nazism forms of Socialism?

Please take part in the current vote to rename the Nazism entry to National Socialism. See: Talk:Nazism#Requested_move. This is part of a longstanding dispute that goes back at least to 2004, in which some editors argue that Fascism and/or Nazism are merely a variety of Socialism. This is the view of a small number of libertarian/Free Market authors, and an even smaller subset of authors on the left. I argue that a majority of scholars reject this formulation, but this is being challenged on a number of pages. In addition, several editors have started redirecting [[National Socialism and National socialism away from National Socialism (Disambiguation) to Nazism, which they are attempting to rename National Socialism, as part of this larger campaign to suggest Nazism is Socialism. If you are interested in the outcome of this vote and the larger discussion, please visit: Talk:Nazism#Requested_move. Thanks.--Cberlet 17:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fascist Hostility to Socialism

We agree that Fascism is opposed to Marxism and to laissez-faire capitalism. I added that Fascism is opposed to anarchism, social democracy, and independent labor unions. I don't have handy reference books on fascism so declined to cite the additions. However, we can check other wikipedia entries...

  • Fascist opposition to anarchism: The Fascism page begins "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology..." and quotes Mussolini that "the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State..." and also that "The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value..." The Anarchism page observes that "In the 1920s and 1930s, the familiar dynamics of anarchism's conflict with the state were transformed by the rise of fascism in Europe. Italy saw the first struggles between anarchists and fascists."
  • Fascist opposition to social-democracy: Mussolini seems to disparage social-democracy when he states "Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number..."
  • Fascist opposition to independent labor unions: Economics of Fascism adds that "the Nazis outlawed trade unions and banned strikes."

Are any of these claims in dispute? Jacob Haller 04:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The main problem first of all is it looks like you're attributing something to a source which the source doesn't say. That's not "honest" though I'm sure you that's not your intention. I agree about anarchism. That's a given. I just suggest putting it in a different sentence instead of attributing it to that source. Opposition to social democracy seems to be a stretch of interpretation by you. Social democracy isn't necessarily majority rule. I think fascism and social democracy are closely related. Stalin said "Fascism is the fighting organization of the bougeousie, leaning on the active support of social democracy. Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.... These organizations do not negate but complement each other. They are no antipodes but twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two basic organizations, which arose in the situation of the post-war crisis of imperialism and is intended for the struggle against the proletarian revolution." So you'll need to find a source that says fascism in general is opposed to social democracy. Above all don't attribute it to the source that's there. Billy Ego 05:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I just saw that there's a social fascism article. Check it out. Billy Ego 05:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For those who are not aware, when the Italian Fascists said they opposed "socialism" they were talking about Marxian socialism. Mussolini says "Fascism [is] the precise negation of that doctrine which formed the basis of the so-called Scientific or Marxian Socialism" -Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore. Hitler also said he was opposed to Marxian Socialism. He said "Our adopted term "Socialist" has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not." ---Adolph Hitler in the Sunday Express. He was clear that he was nonetheless a socialist. "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Not all socialists are Marxians don't you realize? There is such thing as socialism that allows private property but is anti-capitalist and anti-usury and anti-finance capitalism. Billy Ego 05:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, Hitler's Naziism and Mussolini's Facsism were separate ideologies – nice try, though. In any case, your interpretation of primary sources constitutes original research, so you'll have to find some secondary sources. -- WGee 05:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
National Socialism and Italism Fascism are both considered "fascism." More importantly, that source specifically is referring to them both. Finally, I did not "interpret" a primary sources. It was a direct quote from the source. Billy Ego 05:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
As per WP:NPOV, the propaganda of political parties or personages is not to be portrayed as factual. And as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, such marginal views as yours are not to be included in articles. -- WGee 06:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? That is the philosophy of fascism. The "propaganda" is the recorded ideology. Anyway those quotes from Hitler and Mussolini are not in the article. What is in the article is an independent source saying that fascism is opposed to Marxian socialism and capitalism. What exactly is the problem you have? Billy Ego 06:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose the basic problem is that the NSDAP banned and persecuted the non-Marxist SPD as well as opposing bolshevism. I'll scann around for sources, we have a couple here, but self evidently the fate of the SPD belies the claims of the article.--Red Deathy 08:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. We should probably also note that fascism opposes class struggle (at least by the workers, in theory by all classes). Jacob Haller 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
How are you defining "class struggle"? Struggle can mean violent action or it can mean to proceeed with difficulty. If you mean the latter why would anyone support struggling over doing something with ease? Billy Ego 17:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It can also mean non-violent conflict, such as strikes, boycotts, or competition, instead of or in addition to violent conflict. Classic market competition isn't usually class struggle but strikes usually are and boycotts often are. Jacob Haller 18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The source that Billy Ego cited says, "Rhetorical anti-materialism is another notable feature of both fascist and far-right movements. . . . Anti-materialism also cast the fascists in opposition to socialism and Communism, both of which were firmly rooted in the scientific materialism of Marx and Engels" (The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right, p. 103). The source is quite clear. -- WGee 22:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
"Marx and Engels," yes. Fascism is against Marxian socialism. Two pages prior to that on page 101, that is stated clearly. "Nonetheless, much of fascism's bid for greatness depended on a batlle of ideas, not only with Communism but with liberal democracy as well. This was especially evident in the claim that fascist movements represented a "Third Way" between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism." So what is your point? Why are you taking out mention that fascism opposes Marxian socialism? Billy Ego 00:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The source says that the fascist movement opposed socialism in general, because it was all rooted in Marx and Engels's scientific materialism; it does not say that fascists were opposed only to Marxian/revolutionary socialism. The fascist movement, although influenced by socialism, was nevertheless opposed to the ideology proper. That is why fascists claimed to embody a distinct "Third Way" and terrorized members of the socialist movement. -- WGee 03:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur, the source seems to state freely that fascism opposed Socialism and Communism, and I think the p. 101 cite is pulled out of context.--Red Deathy 08:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Red Deathy and WGee. It is unnecessarily complicated here to say "Marxian socialism" and to argue the source is saying that fascism only opposed Marxian socialism is twisting out of context. Clearly, fascism was opposed to socialism in general, and really did not distinguish its Marxian from non-Marxian forms. BobFromBrockley 15:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That paragraph states the following: The nation, the people or the race represented a spiritual force that was above the greedy inclinations of capitalism. Anti-materialism also cast the fascism in opposition to socialism and Communism, both of which were firmly rooted in the scientific materialism of Marx and Engles. -- Vision Thing -- 21:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make Marxian and non-Marxian sections

I think this article is geared too much toward Marxian socialism. The main categories in socialism are Marxian socialism and non-Marxian socialism. There probably should be sections for both. Billy Ego 17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What branches would you suggest? I'd like to see more coverage of:

  • Early class struggle schools (not all of which fit the definition in the introduction)
(Marxism didn't spring out of thin air)
  • Chartism, etc. might be relevent but I'm not familiar with them.
  • anarchism of different kinds
  • labor unionism, reformist and syndicalist
  • Bellamy's nationalism
  • criticisms, internal criticisms, and debates, probably organized into market perspectives, mixed-economy perspectives, non-market perspectives, and controversies regarding the role and nature of the state.

Anything else that could use more coverage? Jacob Haller 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with the change you just made to say "Marxism is only one branch of socialism, though many non-Marxist socialists borrow some of Marx's theories." You're writing off socialists that don't borrow from Marx. See "Non-Marxian socalialism" chapter in A Companion to the Histotry of Economic Thought, Blackwell Publishing, 2003, pp. 184-198, especially the section "Socialism Before Marx." Billy Ego 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be wrong to divide the article into "marxian" and "non-marxian" sections, particularly as there has been so much traffic between them. However, I agree that the different non-Marxian traditions of socialism don't get enough space - in particular libertarian socialism, of which there is not one single mention in the article. By the way, is there a case for a Non-Marxian socialism article? BobFromBrockley 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a good case for a Non-Marxian socialism article. Those forms of socialism are much neglected and fragmented across Wikipedia articles. There should be a single article to discuss this. And the term "non-Marxian socialism" is used often enough if there is any question about that. Billy Ego 18:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This article already gives due weight non-Marxist socialism: see "Early socialism," "Moderate socialism and communism," "Contemporary socialism," and "Socialism as an economic system." -- WGee 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur, it already states that socialism is a broad range of ideas, that it ante-dates Charlie & Fred's works - but they remain the most sigbnificant thinkers in the field in which everyone else basically has to take account of them (for or against).--Red Deathy 08:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, but there is next to no mention of syndicalism, no mention of Chartism, no mention of libertarian socialism. BobFromBrockley 15:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that this article currently mentions very little besides the history of socialism. Compare it with the liberalism and conservatism articles, which deal with equally broad and vague ideological terms. -- Nikodemos 06:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There needs to be material on the main currents of socialism (perhaps absorbing types of socialism. This would be equivalent to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Trends_within_liberalism section or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#Schools_of_Conservatism section of those pages. And there needs to be a bit more discussion of socialist political theory and socialist political economy. The history here could probably be trimmed, making sure that anything trimmed needs to be in the history of socialism page. BobFromBrockley 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change to the Introduction

I have altered the first paragraph of the introduction, since, as it stood, it only dealt with the means of socialism and not the end. I can't think that any reasonable person, who knows anything of the subject, could object to this. I am happy to consider any changes, but please do not revert it for no good reason.

--Train guard 11:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted with, what I think is the good reason, that that view of human nature is not common to all socialists (some do hold to a fixed human nature which makes capitalism 'unnatural'), and some non-socialists hold that view. Without an authoritative citation to back it up, I don't think that belongs in the lead.--Red Deathy 14:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What socialists do not subscribe to the view that human nature is not fixed? If you can give me one instance of this, I will relent. If not, I will want my contribution restored. What I think you are saying is that the natural condition of man (in the sense of Rousseau) does not make capitalism natural. Marx would agree. But consider, capitalism exists because the nature of man has been distorted. Ergo, human nature is not fixed. If it can be corrupted, it is capable of being perfected. Can't you see that? Non-socialists do indeed hold this view, but that is only the first part of the definition. Socialists offer a different means to achieve the goal of perfectabilty, but you can't deny that this view of man is a fundamental part of socialist belief from Robert Owen to Karl Marx. As it stands, it is not a definition of socialism.

--Train guard 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Burden of evidence is always on the editor who wishes to include something. See WP:V. -- Vision Thing -- 19:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

All right. How about Sidney Hook, America's foremost Marxist scholar?

"First of all, Marx and Engels insist that the human nature to which the “true socialists” appeal as the guide to social organization is an historical variable. It does not explain society but society explains its specific expressions. To understand human nature, then, at any definite time we must understand the nature of the society in which human beings live. When we do this we find that human nature is not something homogeneous to which we can appeal for justification of any concrete social proposal. Class divisions, interests, and values enter as refracting and polarizing influences upon it."

Sidney Hook: "Marx's Criticism of 'True Socialism'" in New International, Vol.2 No.1, January 1935, pp.13-16.

Or, as Robert Owen said:-

"By my own experience and reflection I had ascertained that human nature is radically good, and is capable of being trained, educated and placed from birth in such manner, that all ultimately (that is as soon as the gross errors and corruptions of the present false and wicked system are overcome and destroyed) must become united, good, wise, wealthy and happy. And I felt that to attain this glorious result, the sacrifices of the character, fortune and life of an individual was not deserving a moment's consideration. And my decision was made to overcome all opposition and to succeed or die in the attempt."

--Train guard 20:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I did give one - Noam Chomsky who applies rationalism and the idea that language and morality are biologically fixed characteristics of Human nature. I'd suspect Christian Socialists do not derive their socialism from notions of human perfectability.--Red Deathy 08:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there are problems with this. Firstly, both Chomsky and Christian Socialists, although important, do not belong to the mainstream of socialist thinking. Secondly, that does not particularly matter, because it leads back to my point about Rousseau.

I am familiar with Chomsky's thinking. If you argue that the natural condition of human kind involves some kind of innate or 'wired in' propensity for a basic morality, together with an instinctive formulation of 'language', it is one and the same with the concept of the 'noble savage'. But as we are not noble savages, we can be pretty disgusting amoral people. Why is that? Rousseau argued that a noble nature was corrupted by the society in which he lived. Chomsky would no doubt posit a similar explanation. Therefore, if human nature can be corrupted (but also redeemed) it cannot be regarded as a fixed commodity, as it is capable of change.

If we look at the Christian Socialists, we are seemingly presented with a paradox. There is the Christian concept of original or birth sin, that might seem to argue in favoure of a view of human nature as a finite commodity....'the curse of Adam'. Yet not all Christians have believed this. From Pelagius, through certain concepts of predestination to antinomianism, Christians have argued and believed that human nature can be transcended, altered, perhaps perfected. Think of Captain Ralph Margery, the Anabaptist. His charge sheet included the following:-

"Item: He doth believe in the perfectability of man."

Christian Socialists may not be what you think they are.

Now, as to the introduction, I really do think that any explanation of socialism must start with where they are coming from, and therefore has to include a reference to their concept of human nature. Otherwise, the rest is meaningless.

--Train guard 10:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The point remains that not all socialists start from that point of view, and we can't give undue weight, esp. in the lead (and please could you indent your paragraphs to make the flow of conversation easier to read?). I think the lead should just define broadly what socialism is, the idea you are presenting belongs somewhere in the body of the text.--Red Deathy 10:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not aware of any socialists who do not start from this axiom. And neither, I think, do most other people who are familiar with socialism as a concept. I have asked you to indicate some evidence that this may be so, and so far, you have not done so in a satisfactory way. I have provided some citations, but you, so far, have not. I have indicated why I think that your examples do not hold water. But you just continue to tell me that I'm wrong. How am I wrong?

(I have yet to discover a way of indenting paragraphs without it coming out in a box.)

Why should something so fundamental to a considered definition of socialism belong in the text, and not in the introduction?

--Train guard 15:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Red Deathy. There are many different views of human nature from socialists - and many of these views are shared by non-socialists. This certainly shouldn't be in the lead, which should defnie what socialism is as succintly as possible. If editors think it is important, these views can be detailed either in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Socialism_and_social_and_political_theory section or in a new section on socialist views of human nature. If such views are detailed there, examples would need to be given. BobFromBrockley 11:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you consider that socialism is just about means and not ends, fine. But I think that you can have a reasonably succinct definition that includes both. And it should be in the introduction. This is an article about socialism. We have to tell the reader what this concept means, surely.

--Train guard 15:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The "end" of socialism is not reformed human nature is it? Many socialists have no view whatsoever on human nature, many more only an implicit view. If this has to be included, I'd prefer a much simpler formulation, like "Socialists tend to believe that human nature is not finite or fixed but can be changed for the better." Any more detailed discussion should NOT go in the intro, but further down. BobFromBrockley 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If the end of socialism is not 'reformed human nature', or, if you prefer, emancipated human nature/true humanity, what on earth is it? However, I do agree agree with your formulation, which is virtually the same as my original edit. Now, will Red Deathy agree?

--Train guard 16:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the phrasing from you, but made it slightly more concise. This isn't the place to discuss this, but for me socialism's end is greater material and spiritual wellbeing for all - which may or may not be the same as emancipated humanity (I'm not sure there is such a thing as true humanity...) But that's for another day. Let's just aim for a consensus on this article for now! BobFromBrockley 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think that I can agree even that formulation, as I said, that doesn't concurr with the Chomskyian rationalist view, and it wouldn't hold true for earlier Christian sects neither. I think it is best discussed at length at some point in the article and it certainly has a place in tracing the ideological roots of scrocialism - but if other editors want it in the lead ad that is the consensus I'll defer, so long as it is short, and possibly towards teh end of the lead rather than first sentence.--Red Deathy 08:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that I had already dealt with those points. Certainly, you do not refer to my comments upon Chomsky and Christian Socialism (which you may have missed, for they are further up this section). Unlike you, I do not think that my point just belongs in the text...it is such a crucial part of the definition of socialism that it should be in the introduction. But what do other editors and contributors think?

--Train guard 09:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I did see your comments, and don't agree (entirely) - but the substantive point remains that not all socialists share the view you set out, nor is that view exclusive to socialists.--Red Deathy 09:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moral criticsm

Anyone know where a moral criticism can be found so we can put it in the article? Let's face it, "nationalisation" is a euphemism for theft whether it's direct expropriation or taxing the public in order to purchase a private business and forbid competition. Working Poor 19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to put that in the Criticism of Socialism talk page. But here is good too. Working Poor 20:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. Nationalization is expropration of property from a capitalist who is using it for exploitive purposes. Billy Ego 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine, that sounds like a good criticism - if you can find a notable exponent of that PoV that would be brilliant - otherwise put a small paragraph in the criticisms section and ask otehrs to improve it. --Red Deathy 08:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'll add a wee factoid - when the Labour Party nationalised coal mines in the UK, they converted the owners shares into interest bearing bonds - the interest was paid for from the profits of the mines. Theopretically, although that was a forced sale, it wasn't theft, and taxpayes money strictly speaking need never be involved (the bonds could be paid off through borrowing). Strictly speaking you could use this device to voluntarilly nationalise a firm/industry. Thought it worth mentioning.--Red Deathy 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much history/not enough other stuff

Following Nikodemos' point and my response at the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socialism#Make_Marxian_and_non-Marxian_sections I had a look at the article again, and noticed that there is too much weight in the article given to the history of socialism which has an article of its own. For example, the section on early socialism here is actually longer than the equivalent section at history of socialism, which can't be right. Similarly, the section on the Cold War years is very long.

On the other hand, there is little on the different traditions of socialism or on socialist political philosophy. It is partly because of these lacks that the previous two controversies on this page (on non-Marxian socialism and on human nature) have arisen. If there were solid sections on the different traditions of socialism and on socialist political theory, those issues would be able to be adequately dealt with in the right place. BobFromBrockley 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This article had "Types of socialism" section but it was removed by 172 on a basis that history section provides enough information on different socialist traditions. -- Vision Thing -- 13:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to explain how the history section does not provide adequate information about the different socialist traditions? I don't think the reader would gain an accurate understanding of socialism if we were to describe its variants outside of any historical context, that is, in a "Types of socialism" section. -- WGee 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] von mises

You cannot mention an economic calculation debate without mentioning Mises. Intangible2.0 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why?

--Train guard 09:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? You can check at Google Scholar why. Intangible2.0 15:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The Book: http://www.mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx. Socialism penned by Von Mises introduced the economic calculation problem. It's Mises' (to me) second magnum opus next to Human Action. In my opinion it singehandedly destroys Socialism, but I'm getting off topic here. Fephisto 07:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That depends upon how seriously you take Von Mises as a critic. Most people in Europe have never heard of him.

--Train guard 15:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, he was born in Europe. Fephisto 00:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been my experience tha in the left's view, no one is ever qualified to critique socialism. Only Socialist are qualified to critique socialism, and as they will explain to you, socialism is grand, with no flaws whatsoever. Dullfig 19:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is, how much time do we want to go intot he history of the ECA here (it might be nice if someone added that history at the page itself - it remains awful and I haven't had time to complete the fixes I started). I think it suffices here to mention ECA, and possible add cite/ref. to Mises and leave the rest to elseplace. ECA is obviously important and needs a decent mention but since it isn't the focus, and to avoid undue weight i think we should avoid talk of progeniitors and conentrate on the bones of the arrgument - this is a general page. IMSNSHO --Red Deathy 07:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Also, to the average reader without a previous knowledge of socialism or economics, the sentence "without a freely working market in capital goods, consumer valuations cannot sift through the stages of production" means nothing. Let's stick the the general theory behind the economic calculation problem and avoid all this pedantry. -- WGee 01:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Social Control

The new language, in terms of the intro to the article, apparently devised to finesse the issue of whether the phrase "social control" should get a link, seems dodgy and awkward to me. The distinction between "direct" control by a community and "indirect" control through the state seems to involve some very lofty question-begging abstractions for so early a point in the article. The old language, with the link, made more sense, IMHO. --Christofurio 13:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (Okay, ignore the H in that acronym.)

I think "control by the community" is better than social control as latter implies conformity etc (see its article). I think the direct/indirect thing is good, as it enables lead definition to encompass all forms of socialism, not just statist forms. IMHO. BobFromBrockley 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Christofurio, you are mistaken in believing that there has been any significant new language added. The distinction between direct and indirect control has been in the intro for many months, and it is meant to summarize the difference between state and non-state forms of socialism ("control by society" is too vague; "control by the state" ignores the non-state forms of socialism; the intro as it stands now was written for the purpose of avoiding those two potential problems). The current dispute over the use of the term "social control" is restricted to just one part of one sentence. [22]
I support removing the link to the social control article, because the article deals with a different subject than we have here. The article begins as follows: "Social control refers to social mechanisms that regulate individual and group behavior..." So we would be saying that socialism is a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social mechanisms that regulate individual and group behavior... But that doesn't make any sense, and it sounds like it could apply to all socio-economic systems that ever existed (after all, any society has social mechanisms that regulate behaviour). -- Nikodemos 14:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, Nikodemos, how nice to see you again. For once I agree with you.
This issue is important, and difficult to define it would seem. Is this article to cover both forms of socialism, non-state controlled and state-controlled? Or are we looking at breaking up the article again? I noticed that social control was changed to community. Again, this needs to be defined, for community can means many different things. I think the Wikipedian Community needs some deliberation on this. Jcchat66 15:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Kull wahad! We agree! :) It is nice to see you as well. Now, this article is to cover all forms of socialism that are reasonably mainstream and widely recognized within the socialist movement, which generally means the "Big 3": Marxism/Communism, Reformism/Social democracy and the Libertarian/Anarchist schools of socialism. It is very useful to compare this article with the articles on liberalism and conservatism, which face similar tasks (that is, covering a wide variety of vaguely related political views). They seemed to have solved the problem of definitions by focusing not on the practical policies advocated by liberals and conservatives, but on their fundamental values (which are liberty and tradition, respectively). I would like to see socialism defined in terms of its fundamental value, which is human equality. However, the current definition and intro are pretty good enough, and, as some editors have pointed out in the past, it is often a good idea not to touch the intro of a prominent article, because that tends to lead to edit wars that may well end up causing a mess of things. -- Nikodemos 15:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Anything that leads readers to believe that there is only two sides to the story is a very bad idea. Capitalism v. Socialism, liberals v. conservatives, Republicans v. Democrats. Most socialists seem to react only to capitalists, which was not even a proper word until Marx defined it in his special way. Capitalists seldom consider themselves capitalists. If socialism means control of resources by government of any form, that is a form of aristocracy, rule by an elite. Yes, government is aristocracy, the privileged few given the power to rule. If socialism means control of resources by community, then this is literally tribalism, and defines most Amerindian, Celtic, and nomadic cultures. These cultures also answered to chieftains and nobles, and so this is also a form of feudalism. (Yes, a great Native American warrior was given power and women in his tribe, a kind of knight.) So rule by the community does not mean what it appears. Every commune has to answer to those chosen to govern it, a special elite no matter how you look at it. This could be democratic or aristocratic or autocratic, or a mix of any of them.
So this conveys no new understanding or insight, as all socialist ideas have then been practiced in history. It is not a new idea, but it is held up as being progressive and even revolutionary. We have more than enough history to define the termonology of these concepts. All I ask is that the concept of socialism be defined, and that is avoided more often than anything else. Who is up to the challenge? Jcchat66 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure "control by the community" sounds less conformist than "control by society" or that the connotations of conformism ought to be avoided in any event. We all to some extent are "controlled by" others -- it is the price we pay for having been born onto a small planet, I suppose. The word "society" is one way of referring to those others and the word "community" is another. The latter sounds more a bit more cozy in vernacular English, but I'm not sure we should be writing this so as to guarantee its coziness. At any rate, the material in the article to which some seem determined not to allow a link surely is germane to this element in any plausible definitiin. Socialism is called "social"-ism, after all. --Christofurio 18:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Other movements like classical liberalism define these terms specifically, such as limited government, representative democracy, individual liberty balanced by free will and accountability, etc. I seldom ever hear those same concepts used with socialists. The only huge corporations, and labor forces that existed in the early days of liberalism were monopoly-chartered companies like the British East India Company, Hudson Bay Company, etc, all requiring sanction by an aristocracy or royal family, not liberals who where still a minority. Do socialist generally regard the British East India Company as a model of capitalism? Or the serious social problems in England that caused many to flee to America? If that was capitalism, then the American Revolution was anti-capitalist. Was Benjamin Franklin a socialist? Adam Smith? Aristotle? How do socialist regard the ancient world and slavery, where the vast majority of the work force was exploited under horrible conditions? Was the Roman Empire capitalist? Anyone? Jcchat66 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Those would be pre-capitalist economic formations. Different movements adopt different definitions of socialism and capitalism. It's not uncommon for anarchists to describe the five-year plans as 'capitalist' and state-socialists to describe labor unions, mutual banks, etc. as 'capitalist'. (This talk page should provide enough examples of both). Jacob Haller 22:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Jcchat66, here is my understanding of the issue.
The fundamental problem is that different political movements - advocating entirely different things - have taken up the name "socialism" for themselves. The very first recorded use of the word "socialism" was by a Christian socialist (arguably the first Christian socialist, since he invented the term) named Alexandre Vinet, who in 1831 defined socialism as "the opposite of individualism". Vague? Certainly, and that is how things remained for the next few decades. From the 1830s to the 1850s, the term "socialism" was a vague label applied to a collection of political and religious groups who were mostly concerned with (a) criticizing the rise of selfishness, materialism and individualism in Western society, (b) trying to combat poverty (often through charity), and (c) sometimes setting up small utopian communities.
Then came Karl Marx. The Marxist conception of socialism, which was formulated in the late 1840s and became dominant in the 1850s or 60s, is much more precise. Marxists believe that human society advances through a series of historical stages. In the Marxist view, socialism is the stage that comes after capitalism and is characterized by (a) state ownership and control of the economy, and (b) working class control of the state. In the late 19th century, the word "socialism" entered common vocabulary as a result of the rising popularity of Marxism, but most non-socialists only paid attention to the first part of the Marxist definition. It is for that reason that most non-socialists even today have a tendency to define socialism as a state-controlled economy, no matter who controls the state or what the state does.
In parallel with Marxism, there was a growing movement of libertarian or anarchist socialism. Anarchist socialists defined their version of socialism as a society in which the community controls the economy in some kind of decentralized collective arrangement, rather than through a state. In fact, they rejected the state altogether, arguing that it was created to serve capitalism and could never be effectively used for any other purpose.
As Marxist political parties began to enter the mainstream in the early 20th century, they were often forced to make political compromises. A number of Marxists (in fact, the majority) were slowly convinced that it wasn't really necessary to completely restructure the economy or eliminate private property and markets. They began to see socialism not as an alternative to capitalism, but as an improvement upon it - in a way, their version of socialism is supposed to be a kinder, better, more humane capitalism. These are the social democrats. They do not want to replace capitalism, but to improve it through such things as the creation of a welfare state.
Those three conceptions of socialism - the Marxist, the anarchist, and the social democratic - are the dominant ones. You may have noticed that they have many fundamental differences. Marxist socialism is an economy controlled by a state that is in turned controlled by the working class. Anarchist socialism is direct control by the community over the factories and other production facilities in their local area. Social democracy is an attempt to combine state ownership with a capitalist economy for the purpose of improving standards of living. My own personal view is that the only thing shared by all socialists is a commitment to advance the cause of human equality. I would define socialism thus: "Socialism refers to a broad range of ideologies and political movements whose primary goal is to advance the cause of human equality, particularly in the economic sphere." -- Nikodemos 00:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
For the most part, I agree with this - the major trends in socialism are the libertarian socialism of Bakunin and Proudhon, the Marxism of, er, Marx and Engels, and the democratic socialism and social democracy that together seem to encompass everyone from George Orwell to David Lloyd George. The only problem with this is the actions of supposedly socialist regimes under Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and other totalitarian "socialists". They were obviously not concerned with egalitarianism at all, though they did still claim such. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 08:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that economic egalitarianism is the kleystone, the problem is finding a citable source for such claims. Most people who define socialism tend to do so for partisan reasons - from "Socialism is what the labour party does" to "Socialism is equality of income or nothing" (Shaw backtracked on that one later). The principles of the SI are a good source, if only because they are so watered down as to be a catch all for various socialists groups - but that is, again, subject to claims of patrisanship. note though how much time is spent discussing equality...--Red Deathy 08:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "social control" is a perfectly sensible article to which to link this one. I have re-worked the link so that it doesn't require using the phrase "social control" in the text, though. --Christofurio 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As the consensus here seems to indicate (I think), there is as much problem linking to the article on social control, as with the wording. Social control in the sense described by the article has nothing to do with socialism. (Christofurio, you say "We all to some extent are "controlled by" others -- it is the price we pay for having been born onto a small planet, I suppose." That may be true, but then it would be no more true of socialism than any other ideology.) Social control in the social control article is control OF society, by various dominant forces, whereas the type of control socialists want is control BY society. I liked the wording used by Nikodemos and Red Deathy above, and am hoping one of them can re-write the leader, as I'm through for the weekend! BobFromBrockley 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Though I think we are making progress, there are still concerns. Libertarians at least like to simplify things, and according to them, they distinguish only two types of ideals: social liberties and economic liberties. They rejected conservatives because they wanted less social liberty but more economic liberty. They rejected liberals for the opposite reasons, good social liberty but less economic liberty. And they rejected fascism because it allowed neither. So that left them, who want both economic and social liberty ... or the same as classical liberalism. Equality, or egalitarianism, can only be expressed by "equality under the law," which is the only successful method in history of bringing any hope of equal moral status. This led ultimately to the destruction of slavery, the expansion of the middle-class, and a drastic decrease in both the rich and poor as separate classes. Capitalism is just conservatism with no differences.
By this methodology, it sounds like democratic socialism falls into modern liberalism with no perceivable deferences. Marxist socialism is fascism (because a state-run economy is hopelessly doomed to fail as another form of feudalism.) And libertarian socialism is, well, when has that ever existed, and should it even be considered? The moment there is no government at all, groups quickly form into tribes, and tribes soon turn into feudal states, then dynastic monarchies, and away we go. When has there ever been anarchy for any length of time anywhere on earth?
What is the point of all this? Well, it sounds like many people believe in the same ideals, and yet are divided by words. So, agreeing mostly with Nikodemos, this article shoud somehow reflect the relationships between other ideological concepts. Any ideas? Jcchat66 05:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, not the original Nolan Chart!
I think we can agree that there are opposing state-socialist traditions, with Marxism the most important today, and libertarian socialist traditions, with anarchism the most important today. There are also legislative-reformist tendencies. Some legislative-reformist tendencies seek minor modifications to capitalism; other legislative-reformist tendencies seek incremental movement out of capitalism. Of course their approaches (legislation, regulation, etc.) blend into Marxist state-socialism, not into libertarian socialism. Jacob Haller 05:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think that the intro is now more or less fine and shouldn't be much tampered with. The article as a whole, though, lacks proper discussion of the big three traditions of socialism, whatever we prefer to call them... I am inclined to support Nicodemos' proposal that that work be done in the Types of socialism page, and then merged into this page only when the Types article is up to scratch. BobFromBrockley 13:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Nolan Chart? Haven't heard of it until now, and it does not relate to my point, Jacob. If the concept of socialism cannot be broken down into easily digestible concepts for the laymen (or the proletariat) then it will be understood by no one but intellectuals. It is precisely the lack of understanding that makes most people so hostile towards it. Amongst most non-socialists, the word almost always brings up images of red flags and totalitarian states, not the contrary as most socialists argue. So how can this article be improved to correct this? After all, most socialists are absolutely no different than classical liberals, who also sought restraint against any government or corporation from gaining too much power and property disproportionately. If this is the case, than why use the word at all? Jcchat66 17:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plato

I don't understand what Plato is doing in this article. IMO he was a statist, but not a socialist. Can anyone explain why he should be mentioned, along with their sources? This follows from a smilar discussion at Talk:Communism#Plato. Grant | Talk 09:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains The Republic's relevance to socialism and, in particular, the issue of private property:
"There should be no confusion about private property. When Socrates describes the living situation of the guardian classes in the ideal city (415d-417b), he is clear that private property will be sharply limited, and when he discusses the kinds of regulations the rulers need to have in place for the whole city (421c ff.), he is clear that the producers will have enough private property to make the regulation of wealth and poverty a concern" [23].
-- WGee 01:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

From that it sounds as if only the Guardian (reader? ;-) class is "sharply limited" in the property it can hold. That it certainly different from conventional class structures, but I still wouldn't call it socialist. Some conservatives also favour limits on the ownership of property, the means of production and so on. Grant | Talk 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't consider Plato's means socialist, and I don't think anyone could consider his ends (strict hierarchies, etc.) socialist either. Jacob Haller 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is calling Plato or his ideas "socialist." The article simply says that "certain elements of what is typically thought of as socialism long predate the rise of the workers movement of the late 19th century, particularly in Plato's Republic . . ." That much is verified by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. -- WGee 02:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
there aren't none elements tipically of socialism in Plato. The limitation of property for only a class is not element of socialism. --Francomemoria 12:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought I edited out that Plato reference months ago... In this passage he is talking about what is proper to the different classes of society - the rulers should have power but no wealth, the merchants wealth but no power and so on. This is not an idea predating socialism. Plato's views have nothing to do with equality (his utopia is highly inegalitarian) or social justice or social ownership of the common wealth, or anything like that. I think this should be removed. BobFromBrockley 13:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The Encyclopædia Britannica refers to Plato's Republic in its article on socialism; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy devotes a section to communism in its article "Plato's Ethics and Politics in The Republic"; and even more encyclopedias refer to it in their articles on communism, including the Columbia Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia of Russian History, and the Legal Encyclopedia [24]. So I think it is appropriate to make a brief reference to The Republic when discussing the origins of socialism. -- WGee 18:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
agree with BobFromBrockley, is this encyclopedies wrongs this not a good reason for wrong also in wikipedia, unlucky i haven't source in English.--Francomemoria 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC) and in Stanford article communism section is not write that Plato is a back of socialism or communism, i've already tell critic on other, but britannica i can't see the socialism article is not free--Francomemoria 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
(You can access the socialism article on Britannica Concise for free [25].) I have just demonstrated that several reliable sources regard The Republic as relevant to the origins of socialism or communism. And according to WP:ATT, we must not refuse to conform to their opinions by deliberately removing all references to The Republic. -- WGee 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thanks for link, also britannica not write motive for this back as Plato's Republic they write with not motivation it's not a serious work. if you wan report need a source that explain this back and not only write there is a back a Plato. --Francomemoria 10:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/c/Talk%7ESocialism_66a9.html"