Talk:Socialism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Interlanguage

For fun, it's interesting to read what other language wikis have to say about the subject.

Summaries:

  • Dutch : Socialism started in the 19th century, it started with marx, but it's changed a lot since then. Here's a list of socialist .orgs in .nl (not a literal translation). The note at the end is enlightening: "Note that in the USA, socialism is a swearword." Talk about blunt dutch people.
  • French : " Socialism is a collective political ideology who's goal it is to protect people against attacks on their wellbeing " , um, my french sucks...
  • German : Makes a divide between Realsozialismus (from the old soviet union) , and Sozialdemokratie (which is what's used in western germany). Remember that germany was split in east and west? It's really interesting to see that split showing up on the wikipedia :-) . The intro paragraph goes: " Socialism is the set of political theories wherein justice and the freeing of the individual within society are central" . (translating meaning->meaning)

Kim Bruning 08:09, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The French definition is particularly difficult to translate - made worse by the use of the term "ontology" which is a slippery term in either language. But perhaps it is something we could work with. Another way of rendering it might be: " Socialism is a collectivist political ideology which advocates defending the interests of workers in relations of social conflict." Sunray 02:44, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)


Well, I checked out portugese, esperanto and swedish as well. I don't officially know those langauges so I'm not going to try to actually translate them. :-P

I do notice that the current *english* article is mostly about say the face of socialism: who did it, who says what it is or what it isn't etc. It doesn't actually mention terms like collectivism, solidarity or class struggle, which are important to the underlying philosphy which is common to all socialists by the look of it.

Heh, and I'm not even a socialist, I think I'm getting the hang of NPOV here. :-)

Hmmm, how about saying what socialism *is* and skipping what it isn't. It might make for a somewhat shorter article than the current one (socialism isn't nazism, socialism isn't communism, socialism isn't the kitchen sink... etc...) Kim Bruning 08:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Define what socialism is... I like that idea and I'm also not a socialist. We could resort to some noted authorities on the subject instead of simply people's POV. Gasp, we could even bring in what some socialist thinkers have said on the subject. My head is beginning to swim with the possibilities. I'd better go. Yours in hope. Sunray 19:27, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

I wanted to compliment you all on the fine discourse. I havn't much to ad other than to praise the civility and focus on other wiki's. Quality articles are nothing exclusive to the english wiki, and I am glad you appreciate that. Maybe we'll soon have a entry on socialism good enough for me to know what the word means? ;) Here's hoping! p.s. Please put in that part from the dutch wiki about the use of the word in the US, its quite an apt summary ;) Sam Spade 03:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What socialism is (or isn't)

"What socialism is (or isn't)": the problem, and we can't make it go away, is that there is no consensus agreement on exactly who is, or is not, a socialist. What this article can try to do is to sketch the complex territory, point out the mountains, give reasonable citations and attributions as to who says what, and (what is, perhaps, missing now) try to give a flavor of what the various types of socialism have in common. However, we are not in a position to successfully "define" a term that is used differently by different people. This is exactly analogous to Wittgenstein's discussion of the word "game" in the Philosophical Investigations: there is simply not one definition that embraces baseball, chess, and peek-a-boo. There is a common thread, it can be drawn, but simple explanations are inherently going to be false. -- Jmabel 03:38, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the concensus is that socialism is ment ot be good for poor people, at least in theory. The improvement of the conditions of the lower class (at least in theory/propaganda, what-have-you) are common thruout all versions of socialisms, as far as I can tell. Egalitarianism and a removal of private ownership to one extent or another may or may not be included, that is much more debateable. Sam Spade 21:50, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Those are certainly necessary conditions for a worldview to be called socialist, but certainly they are not sufficient. Christian charity is not socialism. -- Jmabel 01:30, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sure. Collectivism, solidarity , and class struggle appear to be the defining common thread in socialism. RTFIW (Read The Friendly InterWiki) :-) Kim Bruning 11:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


controversial

I found there's a controversial tag and added it to 3 articles that seemed worthy of it. Thanks to the english wiki attracting usaians, there's some controversy between them and other folks who have very different ideas of socialism than they do! :-)

Hmm, actually the current article really and truely sucks, since it isn't being very sophisticated as far as the divide-and-conquer trick tactic is concerned. It'd be a lot more coherent if different socialist kinds were split into different headings or even different articles entirely.

  • modern applications of socialist thought should be upfront, since that's what most people will expect in an encyclopedia.
  • the ussr was important during the 20th century so should get prominent mention also.

Socialism has a common base , which apparently can be divided very roughly into the bolshewik-like and menshewik-like lines of thought. That's the first split into 3 parts you can make right there. Can others help figure out how to divide and conquer further? Kim Bruning 13:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Menshevism" is already pretty radical. I'd say the first split would be between Marxist socialism and early utopian socialism. The latter basically died out. Then you'd have a split within Marxism between "orthodox" Marxism which continued to advocate the revolution, and "revisionist" socialism, which advocated change through reformism, and is the ancestor of present-day social democracy. Within "Orthodox" Marxism, you'd have a split between Menshevism (Or Independency, in Germany - that is to say, genuine orthodox Marxism) and Bolshevism (or Spartacism, in Germany, or Marxism-Leninism). The latter has frequently split further, the former has mostly disappeared, I think. You also have academic Marxism, which is generally fairly idiosyncratic, and doesn't necessarily fit in with any of the various mass socialist movements. john 20:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Very unhappy with recent edits by 195.92.168.165

195.92.168.165 recently made a set of edits, supposedly for NPOV, which I think make mush out of the article. However, since nearly all of the edits are in my writing and claim to be for NPOV, I am not the appropriate person to revert them. Someone independent, please review and make a decision! -- Jmabel 18:04, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not sure. I think the anon is right that the current article has some mildly POV phrasing. But the anon's changes have generally been for the worse. What do others think? john 18:23, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd say they were sound edits, but that there is much, much more to be done. I personally, and readers at large of course, need this to be a brilliant article, capable of allowing me, as an american ;) to understand what the heck socialism is anyway. Is it the traquil utopia's of sweden and soc dem europe, or the death camps of stalin and pol pot, or the dubious and controvercialy embargo'ed cuba? If it is ALL of these, what the heck brings it all together??? All I know is the article needs alot more work. Sam Spade 18:43, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It certainly is all of these, just like capitalism is both the vibrant cities of America and the sweatshops of East Asia. Or for that matter, the vibrant cities of East Asia and the sweatshops of (South-of-the-Border) America. Anyway, I'm going to stay out of making any significant edits in this article for a while, although I will stay active in the talk page: right now the article has more content from me than from any one other person and since this appears to be a POV dispute, I should probably try to stay at arm's length. But would someone without too much of an axe to grind please have at 195.92.168.165's material, which, again, seems to me to be absolutely mushy? -- Jmabel 20:01, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And another new edit that strikes me as silly; new part is bolded: "In the U.S., the federal government continues to run the post office, many local governments own power companies and other utilities, plus the aerospace and military-industrial complex..." I am unaware of U.S. local governments owning the aerospace and military-industrial complex. (I did take the liberty of correcting the same person's misspelling of Keynes's middle name, figured that should be uncontroversial!). -- Jmabel 20:25, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looks like TDC promptly reverted it. TDC: isn't it nice to know that there are people out there so crazy that you & I can both agree that they are wrong? -- Jmabel 20:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
HA! Good one. TDC 20:41, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was the one who added the part about the military industrial complex. I can't remember what handle i used to use on here, and i forgot how to automatically sign; its been a while since I have played on the wiki. In the past I have added things to this page that other co-editors have appreciated, so I was a little surprised at first when I logged on tonight to see that the part I added was silly, "plus the aerospace and military-industrial complex". I think that part needs to be there, and I'll now explain why, but in doing so I'll also say that in re-reading the the paragraph on the whole, I understood and agreed with it being removed. The point of this paragraph, as I read it, is that even in countries that people consider capitalist, there are aspects of their economic activity which some people consider socialist or socialistic. One of these aspects is state ownership. My reading of socialist theory is that state ownership is only one of several aspects which could be considered socialist, and that another for instance is state planning. It is here with the state planning that I added the part about the military industrial complex. What is the relationship between state planning and state ownership? State ownership would obviously seem to include and imply state planning (primarily here the allotment of budget/resources/debt). But it is also entirely true that the state planning mechanism works just the same insofar as economic life is concerned regardless of whether or not the state owns the means of production in question (in this case aerospace and military) or if it simply supplies the capital and directs the (private) firm's economic life in that way. Conversely, it is also true that the state can own the economy on the whole, but allow considerable individual autonomy in terms of supply and price setting to the individual managers at each enterprise or firm, the competition mechanism. This was the case in the economic side of Kruschev's de-Stalinization program in the USSR; state ownership was a legal-political matter here, but the managers of the enterprises played the economic and social role that a capitalist would, with the state acting as the bank or lending institution, and thus the state can mimic the effects of competition. The point of state ownership or state planning is not based upon any ideological or moral motives as far as the economist is concerned, but rather on the need for economies of increasing scale to pump a certain knowable, planned, and solvent flow of liquid capital into the economy in order to alleviate the chaotic or anarchic effects of laizzes-faire "hands off" economic policy typical of 19th and early 20th century forms of capitalism, which both Marx and Keynes have stated is the source of the boom-bust cycle of growth and depression. Ownership, a property and thus legal question, only has secondary or super-structural effects on econonic mechanisms of control like planning versus markets (competion). Or if one would reject this analysis, one could simply say that state ownership of the means of production effectually constitutes the private property of the ruling clique that runs and thus owns the government. In any case, I agree most of my addition was incorrect because the paragraph did not yet explain that state planning is an economically "socialist" mechanism that can take the form of state ownership but dosen't necessarily have to. This can also be, though not limited to, something understood within the context of keynes, even though I couldn't spell his middle name I am quite familiar with keynes none the less. One of the contradictions (see dialectics in the marx entry) of the capitalist economy according to socialists is the "anarchy of production", i.e, the boom-bust cycle. Keynes later reitereated this nearly a hundred years later, and that is the Marx-Keynes connection. With this said, I will wait another day or so to make the necessary changes to the entry, and if anyone contests what I have done then, I know they will say something about it here! Capone 21 april 2004

The reason it was silly was because you were saying that local government owned the military-industrial complex. That is not, of course, the case. john 05:05, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Um yeah thanks John, if you read the post you'll find that I said I understood why it was taken out. But now you'll see it makes sense when I put it back in, yeah? Capone 22 april 2004

Alright, I'll admit to not having read all of your novel length disquisition, so I suppose I missed that part. john 23:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So I made that part clear with my additions, and the information now then seems to logically flow. Also, in regards to the history of socialism, while the term socialism seems to date back to the beginning of the 19th century, the economic and ideological roots date at least as far back as the Enlightenment in the 18th century. A direct line follows even before if you look at the Diggers and Levellers around the English Civil War in the mid 1600's, coming to support the Republic of England, the New Model Army and Cromwell. In the Enlightenment, 80 or so years after the short lived Republic of England, (particularly the French Enlightenment as opposed to the more moderately tempered English Enlightenment), the socialist ideas of liberty, franternity, and egalitarianism were expressed in the writings of Condercet, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Mably, Morrelly and the like. This was, needless to say, quite a while before the Utopian Socialists like Robert Owen, Saint-Simon, and Fourier. The French Enlightenment was the ideological product of the 17th and 18th century struggle against absolutist, aristocratic, feudal, and oligarchical establishment embodied by figures like Louis XVI. In turn the French Revolution effected the Enlightenment, and changed from being the ideas of a small group of intellectuals who were not interested in how they were regarded by officialdom, to the ideology of masses of France, in particular the French artisan bourgeoisie and artisan proletariat. The radical program of the Jacobins and Robespierre was not radical enough for the maximalist program of the Conspiracy of Equals. The CoE, led by Grachus Babeuf, organized around the program of complete expropriation of the bourgeoisie as a class. Babeuf had been a Jacobin militant, but he and his faction of the most radical of the sans-coulliotes splintered to form the CoE. The radical program of the CoE can be juxtaposed to the comparatively moderate program of the Jacobins who only expropriated aristacratic/noble property while allowing for and basing its support in the property owning city bourgeoisie, though placing tight controls on the profit margins of the bourgeois through the laws of the maximum. If the Jacobin's program can be compared to either the corporatist, social-democratic, or moderate socialist parties of today, then Babeuf on the CoE can be compared to the radical socialists or communists of today. In defending the principles of communism, Babeuf extensively cited and relied upon Rousseau, Mably, and Morrelly. At Babeuf's execution at the hands of Robespierre's Jacobins, Babeuf is quoted as saying, "The masses can no longer find a way to go on living; they see that they possess nothing and that they suffer under the harsh and flinty oppression of a greedy ruling class. The hour strikes for great and memorable revolutionary events, already forseen in the writings of the times, when a general overthrow of the system of private property is inevitable, when the revolt of the poor against the rich becomes a necessity that can no longer be postponed", (Babeuf's statement at his execution, 1796). Babeuf considered Robespierre a betrayer of the communist principles of earlier Jacobinism, arguing that the laws of the maximim still allowed for the bourgeoisie to exist and exploit others. After Babeuf's death, however, the organization and movement continued to develop and find new leadership in people Babeuf's long time Jacobin comrades Buonarroti and Blanqui. Buonarotti and Blanqui involved Karl Schapper, and Karl Schapper was the leading figure of the League of the Just, which was based upon Babeuf and Blanqui's philosophies and organizational models. Karl Marx later joined the League of the Just, and would then soon after be called the Communist League. Capone 22 4 04

socialism with Chinese characteristics

I made some changes to take into account socialism with Chinese characteristics. First of all its not true that all socialisms believe that the economy is run for the benefit of a small elite. The Chinese government certainly doesn't official state that this is true of the Chinese economy. Also, its also not the case that all socialisms favor cooperation over competition, again this is not the case for China.

Roadrunner 08:32, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

1.) I think these changes have relevant information, but now the article reads as an article about the chinese exceptions to these frameworks we are laying out here. I think the changes need to be better assimilated into the article because its now discontinuous and the focus on chinese exceptionalism runs through it. Certainly this isn't an article about chinese socialisms vs. all other socialisms. A billion and a half people live in a country whose government party is the communist party and they claim to be socialist, so obviously this needs more treatment than the article had before the changes, but now after these changes it seems like, well, there is too much specificity about where chinese socialism deviates from other socialisms.

2.) I think these specificities are POV or careless, since Roadrunner clearly hasn't accounted for the social democratic position, which is *as socialist* as it claims to be, and that position ALSO says that private ownership in collusion or competition with the public sector can = socialism.

3.) Roadrunner didn't glean from the article that when socialists say that "the government or the economy is run in the interests of the rich or the few" - they aren't talking about how things OUGHT to be, they aren't talking about SOCIALISM, they are talking about CAPITALISM. In other words, this isn't a socialist statement about a future or present socialist society. Is this article about socialism or chinese revisionism? -Capone 5-6-04

I've tried to better integrate Roadrunner's material. I do think it is important that the Chinese case be discussed, but equally important that it not come to dominate the article. I believe I have retained all of Roadrunner's substantive points, while reducing the volume of words and improving the flow. -- Jmabel 18:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Make this a disambig page instead?

Hmm, since different people simply have different ideas about even the definition of socialism, this page is going to be controversial forever. Perhaps it'd be wiser to simply have links to the different meanings of socialism used in different parts of the world. That way we'd have proper NPOV articles on each version, rather than the total definition mess we have now. Kim Bruning 09:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Strongly opposed. The fact that a topic is complicated doesn't mean it's incoherent. Virtually all ideologies/systems/etc. considered to be socialist share common roots and much common history. The fact that they have diverged makes the topic very complicated, but that complexity needs explication somewhere, and this is where. Yes, all of those additional, more circumscribed articles should also exist. -- Jmabel 19:51, 9 May 2004 (UTC)