Talk:Socialism/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Criticisms Section is Wanting

I'm fine with perhaps linking to criticisms on another page. I'm not fine with AndyL trying to silence criicisms (see the section below on Criticism and AndyL's shameful edits--my apologies to AndyL if this was a typo). I'm also not fine with implying that most objections to Socialism are just over its economics. Here are a few political and philosophical criticisms off the top of my head:

Because Socialism in the broadest of senses does not define a political structure, there can be no criticisms against this (non-existent) political structure. However, many practices in Socialist countries are routinely criticized. Any deviation from democracy is criticized, and many socialist countries have instituted limits on personal freedoms such as immigration and emigration; ownership of private property (versus ownership by the state); and civil liberties (versus state decisions for the good of all people). So states that are authoritarian "dictatorships of the proletariat" that do not provide social services to non-citizens, prevent citizens from leaving the country, confiscate or outlaw private property, and execute "counter-revolutionaries" are criticized, though such a state may not be considered as Socialist by other Socialists. A counter to these criticisms is that these limitations are often duplicated in Capitalist countries (even if to lesser degree). For example, the US restricts immigration and does not allow prisoners to emigrate; does not allow business monopolies or personal ownership of nuclear weapons and enforces eminent domain (legalized theft of private property for public use); and America's celebrated "Free Speech" does not allow incendiary speech or bomb threats and it does not even prevent your employer from firing you for something said, even if you say it after hours.

The scientific community at large does not recognize Socialism as scientific--that is, scientists don't find Socialist theories even worthy of criticism--but on occasion, philosophers of science make fun of it. I'll quote Lakatos in "Lecture One: The Demarcation Problem" from "For and Against Method": I remember back in my Popperian days I used to put this question to Marxists and Freudians: "Tell me, what specific historical or social events would have to occur in order for you to give up your Marxism?" I remember this was usually accompanied by either stunned silence or confusion. But I was very pleased with the effect (p. 26). The Freudian theories and Marxism also appear to have something which Einstein's theory of quantum electrodynamics lacks. If you happen to meet someone who works in these latter fields, you usually find you are facing a person subject to frequent headaches brought on by the number of problems he has to solve, someone who has many doubts about the whole theory, who doesn't really know if he is coming or going, who sees puzzles everywhere. Now consider a Freudian of Marxist: he lives in a state of happiness, he can explain everything, and enjoys that happy, relaxed state of mind called `understanding'. If you go to a theoretical physicist, he usually says: "I do not understand what is going on in the universe, but I have some theories and occasionally my experiments work; but I still do not understand what God meant with this chaos." Approach a Freudian or a Marxist, on the other hand, and everything falls into place (p. 27). There is a fantastic quote regarding Historical Myths in Lecture 3: "when you have utopian standards ... you end up in lies" (p. 47). A counter to this teasing is that Socialism is not scientific or that Lakatos is a counter-revolutionary and as such must be executed by the state.

Given any area where Socialism differs from "western" society (Britain, U.S., Australia, Japan, etc.) and there will be criticism. The article only noted economic criticism because Socialism was defined purely economically. It is dishonest to pretend that only the economists dislike Socialism. - James

The nationalist tendencies of socialism are under represented on this page.

The link between socialism and nationalism should be explicity acknowledged, even though the connection is not a logical necessity, but rather mediated through human nature. For instance socialist proposals in the United States when implemented have tended to increase resentment against immigration and immigrants. The US does not have the luxury the buffer of distance from the third world. Immigration gets criminalized, and the now illegal immigrants are considered a burden upon the welfare state. Implementing socialism on a national scale does not advance socialisms goals internatinoally, because it can be argued that the poor of the world benefit more from emmigation to the US than they would from the implementation of socialism within the US. A socialize medicine that resulted kidney transplants for the previously uninsured in the US, is a misallocation of resources when internationally hundreds of lives could be saved with the same commitment of resources as represented in dollar terms.--Silverback 10:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let me put this in a simple fashion: The above is your opinion. In other words, POV. In other words, it has no place here.

That fact alone is sufficient reason for your edits to be removed. But your argument is also inherently fallacious. By definition, a country concerns itself with its own citizens. That's what makes it an idependent country. Socialist measures implemented in country X will only affect the citizens of country X - because ANY measures implemented in country X will only affect the citizens of country X. As long as the world is divided into separate independent countries, all of them must necessarily by "nationalistic" by your definition, no matter if they're running a socialist system, a capitalist one, or any other. Thus, you're not talking about "nationalist aspects of socialism" but about the nationalist aspects of nation-states in general. So go edit the articles on nation states or countries if you wish. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Nations do not have to implement socialist policies which foment nationalism and racism. They are also able to benefit people outside their borders, they don't have to selfishly just provide benefits to "their own". If nations restrict themselves to protecting human rights they are not nationalist in the senses in which it is traditionally used. Nationalism is a virulence that does not improve with socialism. You should be able to distinguish between socialism as an ideal and what usually occurs in practice.--Silverback 11:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First of all, let me remind you that the main issue here is your POV. Your edits do not belong in this article regardless of how strongly you believe in your opinion. Are you aware of Wikipedia policy?

Perhaps you need to explain how a fact you disagree with somehow becomes a POV. Logically, once one has excluded all the non-nationalist socialists, you are left with the nationalist socialists. Have you forgetting the terrible toll of nationalism in the last century? Nationalists should not be given a free pass, just because they are socialists. But beyond that, note that I do not condemn their position in the article (I do here), I just point it out.--Silverback 12:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not a fact, it's an opinion! That's the whole point! Even your definition of "nationalism" is entirely different from the one used by the overwhelming majority of historians and people in general (since you define as "nationalism" even the slightest belief that the citizens of a country are entitled to more consideration by their own government than the citizens of another country, whereas the generally accepted definition of nationalism is an exaggerated belief in the superiority of one's own nation above others). Most people would argue that the principle that "the government of a country should put the people of that country first" is common sense, not nationalism. And, in any case, all governments put their own citizens first, so it's absurd to single out the socialist ones. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Second of all, let's get back to our discussion. Are you arguing that it's better to let all poor people starve than to save at least some of them?

no I was arguing it is better to prevent hundreds who aren't in your nation from starving than to give one who is in your nation a kidney transplant, but that unfortunately is a consequence of mixing socialism with nationalism.--Silverback 12:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is better to prevent hundreds who aren't in our nation from starving than to give one who is in our nation a kidney transplant. Most socialists agree with that principle. But, unlike you, we don't have the luxury of living in fantasy land. Those hundreds of people who are starving in other nations can't vote in our elections. So if our socialist government helped them rather than its own citizens, it would lose the next elections by a landslide, and then it wouldn't be able to help anyone any more. The only way to help everyone on Earth is to have a worldwide socialist government, elected by all human beings - and, by the way, this is what millions of socialists have been fighting for during the past 200 years. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And are you really that ignorant of the entire history of the socialist movement, and what kind of measures the socialists have always tried to implement? Socialism was an inherently internationalist movement from the moment it was born! The very first motto of socialism was "workers of all countries, unite!". Socialists have been at the front line of the struggles for decolonization and liberation of the Third World, and socialists all across Europe are fighting to crush the nationalist extreme right and increase help to refugees and immigrants, as well as foreign aid to impoverished countries. You talk about nationalism in the USA, but have you forgotten that the USA is the least socialistic nation on the planet? Hell, it doesn't even have a proper welfare state and there is no major socialist party! -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:19, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point is not to argue which nations are the most socialist, but rather to distinguish socialism implemented at the national level from that that is not, so that they can be evaluated separately, so all don't get painted with the same broad brush. I've corresponded with many of the nationalist socialist ilk who denigrate how we in the US treat treat "our" poor compared to how they treat "theirs". This is the level of nationalism they have sunk to, they implicitly assume they have less responsibility to help the US poor than I do.--Silverback 12:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, they're right, because you can vote for the US government and they can't, you moron! It's your government because you elect it. Their government is theirs because they elect it. They don't have less responsibility, but they do have far less power to help the US poor than you do. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let me point out that Mihnea is wrong :) Sam [Spade] 11:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[sarcasm] Wow! Such an amazing argument, Sam! I can't think how to reply to that one! [/sarcasm] ;) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but I basically agree w silverback on every point, and disagree w each of yours. IMO socialism leads to nationalism, imperialism, the placement of the workers into brutal serfdom, starvation, ethnic cleansing, etc... I cite every example of a socialist state in world history ;) And no, soc-dems don't count, thats democracy and capitalism at work. Sam [Spade] 12:10, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note the most important part of the above paragraph: IMO. As in opinion, point of view, something that certainly does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Why is that so hard to understand? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thats not at all hard to understand, but this isn't an article, this is a talk page, and there is no NPOV policy for talk pages. Maybe there should be, but look into it, there isn't. The rule is that we stay on topic, and focus on fixing the article. ;) Sam [Spade] 14:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, socialism leads to nationalism and imperialism. Democracy leads to tyranny. Liberty leads to slavery. Christianity leads to atheism. Republicanism leads to monarchy. Construction leads to destruction. Going forwards leads to going backwards. Up is down, black is white, war is peace, blah blah blah. All of these crucial links must be noted.

Sounds like you need read some speeches by Ronald Reagan, stat! Sam [Spade] 12:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In summary, I think its very important to separate socialist propoganda and doctrine from what is actually practiced. Sam [Spade] 12:27, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah let's leave the fringe analysis of socialism on the fringe. Silverback has not even presented a case, just wild assertions. I can't think of a single socialist measure or proposal that singles out immigrants from receiving products or services. In the so-called communist block, it is relatively easy to emmigrate there. Significant numbers of Thai people move to Vietnam. People from all over Latin America go to Cuba, even if just for a few weeks, to receive medical treatments which they administer to anyone for free or for a small nominal charge.

The barriers to immigration in Sweden are high. In Cuba, medical care is cheap because it has barriers to emmigation, as does China. They have captive labor markets prevented from achieving thier market value.--Silverback 20:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If Sweden lifted its barriers on immigration, it would get overwhelmed by a deluge of immigrants attracted to its very high standards of living. It would not be able to cope with such an immense number of immigrants, the whole system would collapse, and then no one would be able to benefit from Sweden's socialist provisions. Is that what you want? You don't seem to understand that no country has infinite resources. We can't help everyone on the planet - you are holding socialists to impossible standards. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Within countries that are capitalist that call themselves democracies, "socialistic" measures sometimes are introduced and implemented. Does this lead to Nationalism? No, for at least two reasons. Socialistic measures aren't socialism. This isn't a page about welfare reform or public sector service opportunities. It is a page about Socialism. Also, whatever the right wing of a nation, or its nationalists, want to legislate against immigrants or "outsiders" or whatever, is the work of the nationalists and not the socialists. The socialists policy is "open borders". This can be found on any socialist party's website.

That is the point, there is a difference between policy and reality. You haven't mentioned a socialist nation yet whose border isn't closed in one direction or the other.--Silverback 20:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Internationalism is a major aspect of most all socialisms. Silverback cites no examples or facts but rather appeals to a certain variety of "common sense" gleaned from life in "middle America".

You should have read more carefully, the healthcare examples have pointed out that some socialist nations are giving their citizens kidney transplants, and none are covering the poor in the United States. There are hundreds of similar facts that could be cited that these exemplars should suffice. Unless you want to dispute them?--Silverback 20:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wait a minute here. is Silverback arguing that, for instance, Canada should stop providing health care to its citizens and give money to the poor in the United States? First of all, that's insane. Second of all, I seriously doubt that the United States would be willing to stand for such a situation to begin with.

They don't cover the poor in the US because they don't have infinite resources! If you're arguing that socialists are "nationalistic" and "bad" when they don't help every single poor person on Earth, then all I have to say is that you're delusional. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If any such "socialism leads to nationalism" polemic is going to appear in any form on this page, it had better be cited from primary sources which meet academic criteria and not original research.

Review the history before stepping in it. The only change to the page was to point out that there are nationalist socialist countries. It is left to the reader and other pages whether that is a good thing or not.--Silverback 20:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See wiki policy!! If there is one or two professors of the Libertarian school, likely from the U.S, who have published books on the matter of "socialism leads to nationalism", CITE those sources and then be prepared to be told that it is a wildly minority opinion and will thus be given such weight. In other words, if this is something from the Ayn Rand Institute, or the Von Mises Group, say so, and we know that this is the POV of Von Mises or Rand, or someone of note.

Unfortunately, or fortunately rather, this page cannot be "Silverback proves Socialism leads to Nationalism through Logical deduction because of His theory on Human Nature". --Capone 18:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now I am confused, are you referring to the talk page or the original?--Silverback 20:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Handling conflict over edits

For the record, this mess is now listed at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting? You are attempting via vandalism what you were unable to establish on the talk page. It's clear that the statement most of the statements that you reverted were facts and not POV, and all objections had been answered on the Talk page, and there were no counterpoints that could stand to scutiny.--68.35.159.18 17:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) --Silverback 17:31, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Most of the statements"? There is only one statement that I keep reverting, and that is your absurd, ridiculous and blatantly POV claim that all socialism other than the "anarcho-" or "libertarian" versions is nationalistic. You are oblivious to reason, and any arguments I throw at you seem to be hitting an impenetrable wall. Go back to review the previous section of this talk page, and you will notice that I have answered and demolished your points - and quite long ago, I might add. Furthermore, you don't seem to grasp the fact that any statement of yours which is not shared or supported by anyone worthy of being mentioned in an encyclopedia article is, by definition, POV. If you wish, we can add to the article the following statement: "User:Silverback believes that all socialism other than the "anarcho-" or "libertarian" versions is nationalistic." That would be a fact. And it would stand up for about 2 seconds before someone rightfully removed it. If you want your opinion posted here, come back when you're a world-famous political analyst. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

thats a completely innappropriate way to handle this situation, but since your obviously new here, I'll give you a tutorial:

are both places for resolving problems, after the talk pages of the articles and editors involved have failed to achieve the needed results.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation is for when you like some help resolving a personality conflict with a particular editor.

WP:CU and
Wikipedia:Pages needing attention are for when you can tell the article needs work, but your not the one to do it.

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress is for VANDALISM (such as someone replacing the article w "pAuL iS gAy", not anything that can remotely be considered an attempt to improve the article).

Please review , Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Truce as needed. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 16:54, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have been open to suggestions to improve the statement, and I am not sure that the latest version is the one I would want to defend in a forum, I think an earlier one that was reverted two or three times was provably correct and neutral. Unfortunately nationalist socialists want to assert that trusting government with more power is benign when done with good intention, but all real world examples violate socialist priniciples and they want to disown them. I think their problem is with reality and they want to restrict this page to the utopian ideal only.--68.35.159.18 17:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) Apologies, forgot to login, did not intend to be anonymous.--Silverback 17:31, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If "real world examples" (and which examples are those, I wonder?) violate socialist principles, then they are, by definition, not socialism. "Democracy" that violates democratic principles is not democracy. "Capitalism" that violates capitalist principles is not capitalism. And "socialism" that violates socialist principles is not socialism. To give a real world example, the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" is not a democracy, despite the name, because it violates basic democratic principles. The same goes for the hundreds of other governments in history who claimed to be something they were not, including a good number of self-proclaimed "socialist" ones. Just like the "Holy Roman Empire" was in fact German and not Roman, so can various "democratic" or "socialist" or "capitalist" countries be something other than what they claim to be. Should the democracy article discuss "real world examples of democracy" such as the Democratic People's Republic of [North] Korea? Of course not. Kim Jong-Il can scream at the top of his lungs that North Korea is a democratic country, but no sane man will believe him. Why, then, do you hold socialism to different standards than other political ideas? If an obvious dictator claims to be a democrat, no one will take him seriously. But, for some reason, when an obvious non-socialist claims to be a socialist, there are always people who insist that his claim must be taken at face value.

Oh, and for the record, socialists want to invest the people with more power - and the government only enters the picture insofar as it is made up of the elected representatives of the people. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From the above it seems clear you are confusing "nationalist socialists" with "state socialists". Nationalism and statism are not the same thing ie the nation and the state are not synonymous. AndyL 18:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps. Can you clarify? The points I raise in response to capone above, are they addressing the statism or the nationalism? -- thanx, --Silverback 18:31, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that is what he seems to be doing, the question is how useful the distinction is in this context. You heard my POV some time ago that Chinese communism has alot in common w national socialism. Anyways, whatever the quality of silverbacks edits or precise position, the fact is that the relationship between nationalism and socialism is glossed over in this article, in favor of an emphasis on theoretical socialism (i.e. rhetoric). Sam [Spade] 18:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heh, "Chinese socialism" (or is it "socialism with Chinese characteristics"?) actually has much more in common with capitalism than anything else. In any case, the only relationship between nationalism and socialism is one of staunch opposition. If you feel that this article puts too much emphasis on theory, then, by all means, let's add some real history! Let's talk about the countless occasions when socialists and nationalists fought each other bitterly and to the death! Let's talk about the Spanish Civil War and the street fights between Nazis and Communists in Weimar Germany! History proves my point better than anything else. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps. Can you clarify? The points I raise in response to capone above, are they addressing the statism or the nationalism? -- thanx,

The Nation is an ethnic/cultural concept. State refers to the governmental apparatus of a specific country. "State socialists" believe that socialism can be achieved by putting sectors of the economy under state control. They make the assumption that "the state" is synonymous with the people and that democratic control over the economy (or workers control) can be achieved through expanding the state sector both through state owned enterprises, state regulation of economic relations and state administered taxation and redistribution of wealth. Other socialists argue that for true socialism one needs the state to whither away and for the economy and society to be run directly by the working class without the state as an intermediary. "Nationalist socialists", if there is such a thing, would be chavinistic and believe in the superiority of their "nation" over other nations. They also may be more concerned with the well being of their particular nation than of all of humanity or of all the citizens of a particular state. A nationalist would not necessarily want the state to have more power in society, they simply are interested in the well being of their group. Indeed, because nationalists are more concerned about their nation and are not concerned about class it is doubtful that one can be both a nationalist and a socialist.AndyL 19:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I find this distinction difficult to apply in the real world, since most of those nations which opt for the statist solutions have restrictive policies in either in immigration or emmigration which are difficult to distinguish from nationalism or racism. Restrictive immigration seems to imply, "we've got ours and we aren't sharing" and restrictive emmigration seems to imply somekind of presumtion of ownership based on race or nationality.--Silverback 00:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The distinction is similar to the one between a sand castle and the Great Pyramid. In other words, comparing restrictive policies in immigration or emmigration with something like nationalism or racism is like comparing a sand castle to the Great Pyramid, or a flea to an elephant. It takes a hell of a lot more to make you a nationalist than just checking people's passports when they want to enter your country. Besides, as I have pointed out in earlier comments, restrictive border policies may simply be pragmatic solutions that have nothing to do with nationalism or any other ideological position. For example, if your country has a high standard of living and millions of people want to enter it, you have to put restrictions on immigration, because otherwise you would get a massive influx of refugees that would destabilize the economy and destroy the country's high standard of living - thus you wouldn't be helping anyone by letting all those refugees in. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:24, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Checking a passport"? You are doing the glossing, the Scandanavian countries are notoriously resistant to allowing immigrants to reside there and achieve citizenship. Cuba and China don't allow citizens to emmigrate, forcing them to stay and work for below market wages. Immigrants don't destroy the high standard of living, they improve it, and I am not talking about the millionare immigrants that drove up the real estate prices in Vancouver, Canada, but even those pooring across the US/mexico border. Yes, they may lower the "average" per capita GNP and may make the "health crisis" look worse because the increase the percentage of the uninsured, but both they and the people who benefit from their services are better off. Open borders help far more people than insular statist/nationalist socialists do. Immigrants and emigrants are people too.--Silverback 17:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have to say, silverback is right on the $, as usual. Socialists restrict people with overbearing regulations, even on simple things like leaving the country! I don't know if Mihnea knows anyone who has lived in, or been to a socialist country, but its not all sunshine and roses. Scandanavia may be nice to visit, but they have a very sluggish economy, and an extremely high suicide rate. Besides, their democratic. When you look at non-democratic socialist countries... lets just say China is probably the best (due to being the most capitalistic), and I hope you know at least a little about the downsides of china... Can you imagine someone immigrating to N Korea? Thats communism for ya! Sam [Spade] 01:18, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I thought you were a psych major? Certainly you know the link between lack of sunshine and suicide rates. Also, last time I checked, Scandanavian countries don't have any particular rules barring anyone from leaving. As for immigration restrictions are you familiar with Switzerland? Both you and Silverback are engaging in broad generalizations, as per usual. Also, I don't find the US particularly open to Mexican immigrants, does that mean the US is socialist? AndyL 02:28, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is no correlation between immigration restrictions and "statism". Most countries in the world, "statist" or not, have very restrictive rules in regards to immigration. Changes in immigration policy have little to do with "statism" and everything to do with the needs of the domestic economy for surplus labour. AndyL 02:28, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Most countries in the world barely control their borders, you must be thinking of the highly socialized states of northern Europe.

Silverback, have you ever heard of the European Union? If you did you might know that a) border controls are consistent throughout the EU and that b) EU citizens can travel and move freely within the EU regardless of whether, say, they are moving from Italy to Sweden or from Sweden to Spain.

It is not mere traveling that is at issue here, but immigration.--Silverback 16:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Secondly, are you aware that it's almost impossible to get Swiss citizenship? Migrant workers can live in Switzerland for years, their children can be born their and still not be eligible for Swiss citizenship. Switzerland is one of the most capitalist countries in the world. Similarly, it's very difficult to get Kuwaiti citizenship (ask the workers from the Phillipines who work there).

I knew it was difficult to get Swiss citizenship, there are other reasons to try to close the door behind you, I am not aware of what social benefits the Swiss provide despite their capitalist reputation, are you saying they have totally private health care there? Kuwait is a close the door behind you country. Their oil wealth is shared among the citizens, so there is resentment of new citizens just as there is in socialized countries.--Silverback 16:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, so do you now see that immigration policy has no correlation with "statism" and that your earlier thesis was wrong? It is difficult to immigate to Sweden (from outside the EU) and it's even harder to immigrate to Switzerland not because these countries are "statist" or "socialist" (Switzerland is clearly neither) but because both countries are desirable destinations for would-be immigrants. AndyL 16:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please stop speaking out of ignorance. AndyL 16:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Speaking out of ignorance can aid in learning, stick to the issues instead of ad hominen attacks.--Silverback 16:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It can only aid in your learning if you admit you're willing to admit you're wrong. AndyL 16:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Chinese and Cubans flow quite freely in and out of their respective countries. It is in the United States where Cubans are not given entrance visas. Capone69.107.251.230 05:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cubans are given special favorable treatment if they manage to escape to the US, it is controversial because the other caribean nations don't get such favorable treatment. Cubans are basically imprisioned in their island. Look how long it has taken for family members of Cubans in the major leagues to be reunited with their families. I doubt you are the real Capone.--Silverback 07:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Cuba and the US negotiated the Cuban Adjustment Act a few years ago under which the United States was required to issue 20,000 visas to Cubans annually. However, the Bush administration has refused to comply with the act issuing only 505 visas to Cubans in the first six months of 2003 and has dragged its feet since. The problem with Cuban emigration is not that Cuba isn't letting people leave, it's that the US isn't letting people in. I know that doesn't fit into your ideologically blinkered world view but it is a fact.

once again you are confusing visiting with emmigration. Cubans that would just visit the US have a high likelyhood of being agents of the regime, or subject to pressure on relatives at home. Are Cuban's allowed to travel as complete families?--Silverback 16:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No Silverback you're wrong. The US has quotas on how many Cubans can immigrate to the US and is not even living up to meeting the quota it's set. Will you stop altering facts in order to meet your ideological assumptions? Look up the Cuban Adjustment Act if you don't believe me and then look up the info on the Bush Administration's failure to live up to its agreement to allow 20,000 Cubans to immigrate a year. Sorry to burst your bubble. And emigration is spelt with one m, not two. AndyL 16:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the INS Silverback?AndyL 16:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is not mere traveling that is at issue here, but immigration.--Silverback 16:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Silverback, again, you show your complete ignorance of the EU. It's not simply travelling, any citizen of an EU country can move, work, live and vote in any other EU country without having to make any sort of application. I *am* talking about immigration. AndyL 17:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanx, I just read the article. I hadn't realized the Sweden was a member now either. How can they do this, have social benefits been equalized across the union, are there non-legal barriers or difficulties to immigration, are full social benefits conferred upon new immigrant workers? -- thanx again, --Silverback 17:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that a citizen of an EU country resident in any EU country must be treated in the same way as a citizen of the country he or she is living in ie Sweden must treat citizens of the UK living in Sweden the same way they treat their own citizens. In any case, you seem to be conceding a point I made above in that Sweden's immigration restrictions aren't a result of "statism" but a result of the fact that Sweden is a desirable destination for immigrants ie high demand. Sweden, btw, has no emigration restrictions.AndyL 17:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was going to concede your point, but you've have now stated that they do have restrictions as a result of "high demand". Didn't you state that EU citizens were free to move and work in any of the countries? --Silverback 18:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was referring to immigration from non-EU countries. Sweden is a highly desirable destination for immigrants from, say, North Africa, because it has a high standard of living. AndyL 18:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It appears the Sweden still has considerable control over immigration, both legal and defacto. Yes EU citizens and freely go there and even work for up to 3 months, but after than they must have a work permit to stay, to get that, they must have a work certificate that they get from an employer. Furthermore, only Swedish citizens are entitled to vote at parliamentary elections. See[1]. A defacto barrier to immigration is the xenophobia and discrimination against immigrants. If employers refuse to hire them then, of course, they can't get work permits and must leave. There is high unemployment among those of immigrant backgrounds who had already achieved resident status, and there is resentment against the high social benefits they consume. See [2]. Fortunately, ignorance can be remedied. It appears the nationalist tendencies of socialism are under represented on this page. --Silverback 19:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Silverback, what you describe is the case throughout Europe (and indeed throughout most of the industrialised world) regardless of whether or not the country is "socialist". The situation is the same in Ireland, for instance, and as I keep saying, Switzerland. As for the EU rules you describe the 3 month rule etc (which I had not known about, apparently while the EU is quite advanced in allowing citizens to live in each others countries it has not yet reached the stage I had thought it had) applies throughout the EU, not just in Sweden, regardless of whether or not the country is "socialist".

There are a lot of blondes in Sweden. By your logic, blondeness, therefore, must be a feature of socialism.

And again, immigration policies are not simply a product of nationalism, they are as I keep saying also a matter of economics and demand ie countries for which have high standards of living and are popular destinations for immigrants tend to have stricter immigration controls than countries that are not popular destinations and have low standards of living - the critical factor in determining immigration policy is whether the domestic economy is in need of more workers. The US has rather strict immigration policies (the INS, you've heard of it?) is this a product of American nationalism or the fact that a lot of people wish to move to the US? Canada, which arguably is more "socialist" than the US, allows more immigrants per capita each year than the US (both countries, I believe, accept about 200,000 each year despite the fact that the US has ten times Canada's population). How do you explain that if you correlate immigration controls with "socialism"?AndyL 20:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Silverback, consider the fact that correlation is not causation. Just because something exists in Sweden does not mean that thing is a product of socialism, particularly when that same thing exists in numerous other countries regardless of their economic or political system. AndyL 20:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I agree, but in a behavior as complex as nationalism just because something other than socialism causes nationalism, doesn't mean that socialism doesn't also cause nationalism. The resentment of the burden of paying benefits for others and wanting to shut the door on new burdens, is apparently playing a role in Sweden. In Switzerland, instead of socialism, it may be the desire to preserve the rural, small village character. I live in a beautiful rural neighborhood that while expressing concern for affordable housing, strictly limits subdividing of property and prohibits mobile homes. Lots of people, once they are in want to close the door behind them. Because this is a near universal and natural response with different causes does rule out socialism as a cause. While socialism does not necessarily cause it everywhere it is implemented, it certainly doesn't do a good job of eliminating these nationalistic responses. The situation in China and Cuba appears to be the opposite, they don't have much, so they force people that do provide the benefits to stay and restrict emmigration instead. The fact that the US also restricts immigration, is probably also due to the same ungenerous desire to preserve to ourselves what we have, however, the US is more open despite its laws, and the resentment of immigrants and illegals would probably rise if social benefits were increased. Part of the cost of socialism and other social benefits, including even beautiful scenery is nationalism and loss of freedom. It is a cost partially born by the poor of other countries.--Silverback 00:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The resentment of the burden of paying benefits for others and wanting to shut the door on new burdens, is apparently playing a role in Sweden

And what does that have to do with nationalism? You seem to have a very vague idea of what nationalism is given that your "analysis" could hold true for any industrialised country. In fact in Sweden as in other European countries it is the (anti-socialist) right wing that is most anti-immigration while the socialist left is most sympathetic to the rights of immigrants and refugees. If your correlation of "socialism" with anti-immigration sentiment was true then the opposite would be the case. As for your impression of Switzerland I think you've seen too many Heidi movies. Switzerland is actually highly urbanised. In fact, throughout Europe, "nationalism" is the domain of the most right wing parties. AndyL 02:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nationalism is the hubris of a nation presuming it has the right to impose its will upon the individual. Unless you intend to eliminate the anti-socialist right, you should assume they will still be present and will turn the socialist state towards nationalism and resentment of immigrants, and perhaps even, that as the burden of immigrants grows, so will the anti-socialist right. It would be either idealistic or murderous to assume there will be no anti-socialist right. Unless socialism requires a single party state, lets assume the anti-socialist right will exist and perhaps even be the mechanism by which socialism usually is also nationalistic. I happen to think the nationalism is more intrinsic than that, that a geographical state is required to impose socialism.--Silverback 04:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So then are we to assume that it is the anti-socialists we should be primarily concerned with when looking at the reasons behind nationalism? Capone69.111.18.60 09:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is what happens when one compares existing examples of societies which have been erroneously labeled in American schools and media vs. ideal societies we dream about after reading Ayn Rand or Von Mises. Socialism cannot be imposed upon a state; a state that is socialist, according to the Marxist, Leninist, and Trotskyist senses of the word, is an oxymoron. Socialism, Communism, to them is international and stateless. What the socialist imagines communism to be is analogous to what the libertarian imagines capitalism to be. Capone69.111.18.60 09:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nationalism is the hubris of a nation presuming it has the right to impose its will upon the individual.

You know, I really don't think you have a clue what nationalism is. No wonder you think this article doesn't pay attention to the "nationalist" aspects of socialism, in your view nationalism is a form of socialism!

will turn the socialist state towards nationalism and resentment of immigrants,

So the antithesis of socialism is still, in your mind a form, of socialism and what will the anti socialist right do in non-socialist states, the exact same thing? But somehow this is still socialist? What a strange world you live in where both socialism and "anti-socialism" are socialist. Silverback, perhaps you should just go somewhere and argue with yourself. It's clear you have nothing to contribute to this article. Your concept of socialism is a straw man, it has nothing to do with reality. AndyL 12:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. I honor socialists by assuming that they won't completely suppress or eliminate dissenters (anti-socialists) and then point out that this hetergeneity may drive the course of a socialist society towards nationalism, and somehow you conclude that you can do a reductio ad absurdem of my arguement to anti-socialist = socialist. You may succeed doing this somehow rhetorically, but you can't do it logically. Perhaps, I can contribute by helping to clarify thinking. I find that I learn more and refine my thinking more by seeking challenges rather than just listening to those that agree with me.--Silverback 02:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is completely bizarre. Silverback seems to have no clue what either socialism or nationalism is about, especially nationalism. Why don't you read a book on nationalism and get back to us? I recommend Eric Hobsbawm's Nations and Nationalism in Europe since 1780 or Ernest Gellner's Nations and Nationalism. Anderson's Imagined Communities is famous, but not all that good. There's also numerous, numerous books by Anthony Smith that all say the same thing. By the way, the Nationalism article is dreadful. Until just now, it listed Smith, Anderson, and Gellner as famous nationalists! john k 04:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

M:Foundation issues

That is severely impolite. Why am I not suprised? If you have personal comments to make, please make them via email. Sam [Spade] 18:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "severely impolite", I didn't question the legitimacy of Silverback's birth after all. It's just clear he really doesn't know what he's talking about and while it might be fun to debate him in a chat room it's pretty much a waste of time here. Thing is wikipedia is not some sort of debate forum, it's not free republic or che lives, it's an encyclopedia and these pointless ideological debates are complete wastes of time and counterproductive distractions, especially when a participant, as Silverback admits, is ignorant about what it is he or she is talking about. Editors should write in areas they are expert or scholars in, not areas where they profess ignorance. To do the latter is pure self-indulgence and just a waste of everyone else's time. To say so is not "impolite" it's just cutting to the chase. AndyL 22:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

AndyL, I don't think I professed ignorance, except perhaps on the Sweden issue, but then it turned out you were making rosy claims that went counter to what I had read. So I refreshed my understanding and found evidence of worse Swedish nationalism than I had feared. I also found out that you have the courage not to back down when faced with the facts. There is a tendency here to accuse people that one disagrees of ignorance. It is just an ad hominen attack, which I don't take personally. regards.--Silverback 16:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Silverback, you said "Speaking out of ignorance can aid in learning", my point is that our purpose here is not to educate you, it's to write an article and by engaging in tangential debates you're wastiong our time. AndyL 20:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I thought that might be the statement you misunderstood. As a seeker after truth, I try to be open to these secular religions, hoping for some elegant construction to be enjoyed for its beauty if not its rigor, but usually they require to great a leap of faith. Just like Christian fundamentalists, who when they can't rigorously defend certain scriptural interpretations that they know are right, they drop into the universal out, you can't understand the scripture without special knowledge, "without the the aid of the spirit". With Marxism, it was the mystery of the dialectic, they knew they had the right synthesis, but couldn't show how it rather than some other could be derived from the thesis and anti-thesis, and then tried to obfuscate by denying the validity of logic, although they had nothing to replace it with. What is the secret you think the initiated have? Can you express it, expose it to scrutiny? You sound more like a true believer than an encyclopedist. Calling others ignorant because you can't explain yourself to them is grasping after straws out of fear.--Silverback 21:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FYI, Marxism and dialectical materialism are not based in esoteric knowledge and there are no initiated or rites, formal or informal. There is no mystery or arbitrary assignings of which sides are involved in the dialectic. The criticism of the formal logic, of Aristotle, by Marx is not a refutation of it but a constructive criticism which it claims adds to its use.

Capone 00:17, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Um no, I called you ignorant because you don't seem to know anything about socialism or nationalism and because you're engaging in nonsensical arguments. Arguing that socialism is nationalistic because anti-socialists in Sweden are nationalistic defies logic. The point is, however, that our purpose here is not to have a debating forum but to write and edit. If you want to engage in original research and put forward your own personal arguments this isn't the place to do it. I'm sure Sam can refer you to the Wiki rules against original research. AndyL 21:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is not original research to realize that most people in Sweden will want to be equal to the better off in their society and not equal to refugees in the southern Sudan. The facts of immigration, discrimination and xenophobia there support this position as documented in the links I provided. This hypocritical and nationalist result should not be a surprise. Perhaps I should not have conceded that those who pressed to close the doors are anti-socialists. They too may worship the equals sign, as long as there is a greater than with it.--Silverback 22:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is original research unless you can point me to studies that draw the conclusion that there is a correlation between socialism in Sweden and xenophobic attitudes. AndyL 05:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the 2nd link I referred you to, you have an analysis by an expert, that was basically descriptive. You aren't going to get the type of research we are used to in the physical sciences, we just don't have a lot of Sweden's to conduct repeated experiments with. Yes, any correlation won't have strong statistical significance because of the small sample of countries that both sides are willing to agree are socialist. However, the absense of a counter example where neither immigration nor emmigration is restricted, should at least engender caution among the social engineers. The statistical power can also be increased by viewing socialism as just one point on a spectrum of increasingly expensive compulsorily financed social benefits. In the US when the social burden is high, calls for stricter border and immigration controls increase. I don't know if this is an area that is studied even independent of socialism. It is clear that socialism as practiced, does not escape nationalism.--Silverback 06:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In other words the answer is no, there are no studies that make those conclusions. Then your argument is completely immaterial to this article. AndyL 06:48, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You must be a newby. There are lots of criticisms of socialism and responses in the article, that couldn't be justified with a study. All that is needed is some "authority" that uses this as a criticism, such as Dick Army or the Centre for Public Policy and Management.

Here are a couple quotes from Dick Army. "The impulse to limit immigration is really a manifestation of the protectionist impulse. And it's misguided. It's a desire to use government's monopoly of coercive power to benefit oneself at the expense of somebody else. And that, as Hayek taught us, is self-defeating. But the biggest problem with the closed-border idea is that it embraces the liberals' world view. And thus it leads logically down the path to bigger government." and "We have too many immigrants coming here to get on welfare. But the reasonable response is not to build a police state. It's to shrink the welfare state. "[3]

Here is a quote from the Centre for Public Policy and Management in "An Introduction to Social Policy": "Nations are seen at times as groups linked by a shared history or culture; as a collective group of people in a specific geographical location, with a common identity; or as political communities. Historically, social welfare became important shortly after the rise of "nation states", and in some views the ideas are closely associated. David Miller, for example, argues that the nation is the principal community on which welfare provision depends.National identity is as often used, however, to exclude people from welfare as to promote inclusion, and the influence of nationalism on welfare has tended to be negative. Titmuss criticised the idea of the "welfare state" because it seemed to limit the scope of welfare to a particular locality. Universalists have promoted an inclusive concept of welfare; in principle, this concept is inclusive, but in practice it tends to be confined to citizens, or members of the political community"[4]"

Or from David Millers, "On Nationality" published by New York: Oxford University Press, 1995 "Even if nationalism itself is not on the rise, as some say, its study certainly is. One aspect that has received too little attention is the intimate relation between nationalism and forms of economic collectivism—especially socialism and welfare statism. This is no idle academic matter: the horrors wrought by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, popularly known as the Nazis, may be directly related to their fusion of two illiberal ideals, socialism and nationalism; and the ferocity of the current national conflicts in the Balkans and Eastern Europe may be traceable to the corrosive effects of socialist institutions on social order and the inclination toward peaceful cooperation."[5]

Some more relevant quotes, from a review of my TIVO recording of the Houston Rockets v. Sacramento in the PRC. Yao Ming, when commenting on why it was more important to him to win an Olympic gold medal than the NBA championship stated that what he had always learned as a kid was "to always put honor for the country as first". He also commented that he "dreams of the day that athletes in China have more individual rights".

I found these on just the first two pages of a google search on "immigration socialism welfare state". If you review the main article, you will see how many of the statements are not likely to be supportable by a study. I hope you won't hold me to higher standard because of perceived ignorance. --Silverback 07:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, it seems you are writing an article on the (POV) Philosophy of Von Mises, Hayek, and Dick Army. What does this have to do with an NPOV article on socialism? Considering that the libertarian world view considers nearly any government activity at all as "socialism", I don't think that this is helpfull to the article. I still can't make heads or tails of this "social net" = "nationalism". It seems that the fact that the United States has the highest rate of immigration but also has the smallest welfare state (excluding corporate welfare and the military industrial complex) per capita among the industrialized countries would force us to examine that proposition again. It would seem that any industrialized nation where there were jobs and opportunity would be a desirable destination for an immigrant. The argument, then becomes, that nations should either cease being nations or they should cease being desirable by ruining their own economy or political system. Most socialists agree that nation states should be done away with as soon as physically possible. One cannot possibly claim that socialism is inherently nationalistic while simultaneously calling for a one world government, can they? Capone 68.123.238.128 22:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I noted, the article is achieving NPOV "neutrality" by presenting criticisms and responses. Limited government philosophies are still providing legitimate intellectual challenges based on the ability of markets to be responsive to the diversity of individual values. In a non-linear world there are often unpredictible effects. Socialism may be diametically opposed to nationalism as an ideal, yet may contribute to nationalism because of a basic incompatibility with human nature, at least on the dehumanizing scale of modern societies that bear little resemblance to those human nature evolved in. Perhaps the value shared by limited government philosophies and socialism, that nation states should fade away is only an apparent similarity. That subset of socialists that seeks for "one world government", is only for it as long as that government is socialist. One world government may be so suspiciously similar to one world nation, that the aims and actions of the this subset of socialists become indistiguishable from nationalism. The inherently nationalistic claim appears to be logically and empirically possible, statistically supportable and unfortunately, given the complexity and diversity of human nature and culture, may not be easily decidable given the flaws in its implementation that persistently frustrate each attempt to impose it on others. --Silverback 00:41, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(sigh) a one world nation is a contradiction in terms. Now I'm convinced you don't know what you're talking about. AndyL 04:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(brow furl) What ever -ism drives humanity to achieve a one world government will be a shared culture, unless it is achieved by conquest. In either case the result does not contradict the term nation and could even be argued to be a nation by definition of the term. Which and how many of the definitions of nation does it contradict? I submit none, unless you choose such a narrow definition, that the United States would not qualify. --Silverback 04:59, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You confuse the term state with nation (as many Americans do) hence your confusion of statism and state socialism with nationalism (discussed earlier).. AndyL 05:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you are possibly right. But how important is the distinction? A nation without a state can hardly present much danger from nationalism. Unless they establish a state, they are reduced to a mob or guerilla warfare. So the greatest danger from nationalism is statism, and a weak state doesn't have the resources to be aggressive. In Europe there was so much statism around, associated with nationalism, that they thought of the state as protection against nationalism. In America, statism was identified as the real threat, and the founders of the United States agreed that a state that was not subject to and limited by the law was illegitimate, and even if it did agree to observe the laws, it needed to be restricted even further by separation of powers and being held to standards by the people (through jury trials and elections), the courts and the legislature. So is the United States a nation or not? Does the shared culture of limited government make it a nation? If the nations of the world voted to adopt constitutions and joined the Union, so that there was one world government, would it still be a nation? Of course, if the other nations were so good willed, there would be no point in having one world government, a few treaties would suffice and the world would be safe enough for the states to leave the union and government to become more local and responsive, less expensive and burdensome.--Silverback 07:12, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam's rebuke

I suggest you review M:Foundation issues and get back to the article. Sam [Spade] 23:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes and? I see nothing there that encourages editors to edit in areas in which they profess ignorance. AndyL 23:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2. Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering

I see a sugestion that you not profess arrogance. Sam [Spade] 23:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to follow your example. AndyL 04:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great, thanx. Sam [Spade] 13:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam, editing as an IP (ie not registering) is not the same as editing in an area with which you are not familiar. And in any case, Silverback is a registered user so I don't know what your point isAndyL 15:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ability of anyone to edit articles. Sam [Spade] 20:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

without registering. You're parsing a sentence to make it mean something it doesn't. AndyL 21:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I am trying to make the obvious more obvious, w little success. Hows the article doing? Sam [Spade] 21:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Parsing quotations is intellectually dishonest. I hope you know enough not to do that in your writing and editing. AndyL 21:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

oh dude Sam are you serious? That sentence parsing is exactly how the stalinists transformed marxism.Capone68.123.238.128 23:45, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"No, I am trying to make the obvious more obvious" No, you're changing the meaning of a sentence by removing what it is that's being referred to (whether IP-only editors have the same rights as registered editors).

The article would be going better if people with ideological axes to grind didn't keep trying to insert side arguments like "nazism is socialism" or "socialism is nationalistic". AndyL 21:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, now I'm a Stalinist eh? I suppose you might see that as a step up from the other names I get called here, but I can't say I agree, I put Stalin as my forerunner for all time worst person. Sam [Spade] 16:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yet an apparent fan of his methodology!-Capone 05:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Criticisms sEction

Why was most of the information from the criticism section removed? TDC 17:48, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

You may want to see the archives. I am unaware of any mass amounts of criticism being removed. Capone 00:05, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here is the deletion TDC may have been referring to.[6]--Silverback 01:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Massive reverting?

Most arguments made by the anonymous user were totally within NPOV, ie. "they said..." and "according to...". I see someone really got angry over them, but lots of good work including my contributions were deleted right back - could people, even when they see what they view themselves as messy and POV stuff, please lay back, check the edits and try to NPOV them without reverting 8 long edits? Could you, please, try and fit everyone's viewpoint into the same article constructively, instead of "ohh! capitalism! revert!" --Tmh 00:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Those edits are extreme POV and some of them are impossible to make NPOV. Even the titles are POV. How can criticisms of socialism fall into the category of 'freedom' since socialism is all about increasing freedom?

See, that statement itself is POV. Socialism is not "all about increasing freedom", socialism is an economic system. Increased freedom may be a byproduct of socialism, but the arguement that you deleted was a common objection that should be included in the article. I wasn't sure about some of your other edits, but you were deleting whole paragraphs of objections, so I reverted the whole thing. But then, some of the text that I was reverting back to wasn't exactly POV either. I think it's a fair asessment that this article has some serious NPOV issues. -- Scott Burley 01:35, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I reverted to the last NPOV version which is a long-standing version and has survived many edits by people of different opinions. The paragraphs deleted are all recent additions and those criticisms are already made in the article in NPOV ways. If additions are to be made they should be NPOV and not repeating things that are already there.

Sorry, I didn't see this before reverting. -- Scott Burley 03:23, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

My bad. I should have said 'see Talk' in the edit summary but I assumed you were watching the Talk page too.

For the record, these are the recent additions that have been reverted.

Inserting 'Freedom' as a category under which criticisms of socialism fall which is extreme POV.
Adding a quote from Robert Nozick and false claims about capitalist socieites.
Text (which ends with a false claim): 'So, everyone is supposed to work according to their ability, but proponents of capitalism note that people's working motivation varies according to clear incentives, and most socialist systems give no incentives to work well.'
Text (POV stated as fact in the first two sentances): 'In capitalism, the only "central planners" are the capitalists, ie. the persons investing funds into different companies and stocks. They have a natural incentive to invest in the most profitable business; according to the proponents of capitalism, these companies are the ones that people are willing to pay to the most, ie. the ones that make the best products or services. Proponents of capitalism thus see the market economy as a self-correcting system.'
Text (this is an NPOV addition): '(see public choice theory)'

Hey - how can a reference to a common scientific theory most often made by the opponents be NPOV? Are you either denying the existence of public choice theory? What? --Tmh 08:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV means 'neutral point of view' so is not being objected to.
Text (POV stated as fact): 'Proponents of capitalism note that the problem isn't even necessarily the fact that the central planners were evil and corrupt (which, they however, often see them), but the problems of central planning stem more from the fact that the central planners do not have access to all the tacit and distributed knowledge that is shared over all the market place, and hence the market works better when everyone is free to use his or her information in voluntary cooperation with others and not forced to obey any rulers.'
Text (POV stated as fact): 'However, this critique is off the mark, since there the problem is not prices but wealth. One can redistribute wealth by taxation without controlling prices.'
Text (POV stated as fact): '(although this does not seem to be the case in our world),'
Text (false claim): 'Historically, the socialist countries have been more inefficient and poorer than their neighbors.'
Text (POV stated as fact, personal research, false claims): 'And shops will try to keep prices as high as they can. Yet we can buy our food cheaply and obtain much higher wages than those living in socialist countries, because of competition. If an employer pays me too little, any other employer has the incentive to offer me more etc. until some employer has offered me the pay (almost) equal to my productivity. If the employer would pay me more than that, I would cause him/her loss. Thus, the wages in capitalist countries, even in those that previously were poorer than African countries, are much higher than those in socialist countries. In Estonia, which is the most capitalistic ex-Soviet state, the unions are negligible and the wages increase 8-10 % annually, because of the law of supply and demand. The workers in more socialistic neighbors are worse off.'
Text (POV stated as fact, personal research, false claims): 'This can be rephrased as that the rich can buy more than the poor. However, the poor in capitalist countries are much better off than the average people in socialist countries. E.g., the poor from the U.S. do not escape to Cuba, Laos, China, North Corea or Vietnam but vice versa. Thus, in a capitalist economy, the rich may be better off than the poor, but the poor are better off than in a socialist country - particularly if you compare to a country which has been socialistic for a long time.'

I don't think it's personal research to claim Cubans migrate to the US but not vice versa. Do you have something against this? --Tmh 08:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Using the fact that people emigrate from totalitarian countries to back up claims about the relative state of 'the poor' under socialism is personal research as well as POV and false. How do you know that the people doing that emigrating are 'the poor'? How do you know they would not be emigrating from those countries if they were capitalist? People emigrated from them before they became socialist. And what makes you think they are leaving those countries because of wealth? Most of the people who leave those countries are economically worse off than they were before they left. They leave for other reasons not wealth. The fact that they have to escape those countries is why they leave not anything to do with socialism. And how do you explain the fact that proportional migration to democratic socialist countries mostly exceeds migration out of those countries?
Text (POV stated as fact, false claims): 'However, malaria is no longer a problem in Europe but it was through the 1500-1800s when Europe was poor due to the lack of liberal market economy. The critiques of socialism claim that if the African countries would give up socialism, they would become richer as do the Aasian countries that did, and they would get rid of malaria too. Moreover, during 1900s, the capitalist countries produced roughly 50 times as many new drugs as the socialistic countries, and these drugs have caused enormous benefit also for the poorest countries in the world.'
Text (POV stated as fact, false claims): 'This claim, however, is in contrast with reality: in capitalist countries the environment is, in the average, in a much better shape and much healthier than in socialist countries, and much worse environmental crimes happened in the Soviet Union than in capitalist countries. Since many countries in the Eastern Europe gave up socialism, their people have started to enjoy a better and healthier environment.'
Text (POV stated as fact, false claims): 'Finally, historical data strongly suggests that socialism leads to inefficiency and poverty. For example, there has been no wide-spread famine (hundreds of thousands or millions dead) outside socialistic countries since 1918. Current examples of famine are communistic North Corea and socialistic Zimbabwe, where food production declined rapidly and caused wide-spread malnutrition when president Mugabe socialized several farms. Other recent examples include Ethiopia, Mosambique and Somalia. In China and Soviet Union, communism has several times caused starvation leading to millions of deaths.'
Text (pointless): 'Proponents of capitalism believe this "Homo Sovieticus" argument did not work in the Soviet Union nor in other socialist countries.'

I don't think that your are the best person to figure out the pointfulness of any given chapter, right? After all, if everyone's got to have a say in the articles with the NPOV, then I can't go to the capitalism-article and start deleting pointless critique I find stupid? --Tmh 08:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is the point of it as a critique of socialism? The tragedy of the commons critique just above it is an actual critique of socialism and is useful. But this just makes general statements about capitalists and socialist countries without foundation for either or relation to socialism. What is the point in calling something a "Homo Sovieticus" argument except than to try and poison the well? When has that name ever been used before and by who?
Text (this is an NPOV addition but the second bit is repetition): 'Capitalism advocates believe the same argument could be used for or against any social structure: "It has always worked to the opposite in the history, but it might yet work this way in a better realization".'

Nonsense

The last text dump added some utter POV gibberish. [7] Will someone deal with it? I don't have the energy to deal with the user that added it. 172 21:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The studies on the genocides of communism are real and careful. As are the other objections. May I suggest arguments, not censorship? Ultramarine 22:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Other ideologies including the word "Socialism"

This section has way too many weasil words and appears to be pushing a POV in the controversy over what relationship National Socialism (Nazism) has to Socialism. The weasil words include several anonymous appeal to authority arguments e.g. "most political theorists," "historians and political theorists generally argue," "most political theorists...reject this claim" without identifying WHO these "political theorists" and "historians" are or what bearing they have on this subject. In short, the author of this section appears to have stated his POV on the subject and "validated" it with supposed "expert" opinion that is neither specified nor elaborated.

I attempted an edit toward greater neutrality by removing the weasil words and simply replacing it with a link to the section where this topic is discussed extensively under the National Socialism article. This seems to be the most neutral way of handling this situation without repeating what's already over there, which would be redundant.Rangerdude 21:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't find that to be an accurate description of events. Like in the Nazi article, the user set out to argue that Nazism was genuinely Socialist and this, notwithstanding all the objections about weasel words, etc., was the driving force behind the contencious edits. El_C 22:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your allegations are becoming abusive. You have not demonstrated anywhere that I "set out" to argue anything, and in fact my edits were all intentionally neutral in their wording. You seem to be deflecting attention away from the fact that weasil words remain a problem in the section I edited and have yet to offer any solutions, prefering instead to impugn my motives without substantiation.Rangerdude 23:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all, if any of what I said came accross as abusive, I apologize for that. It is, perhaps, a product of English not being my native tongue and the fact that I am rather curt. At the same time, that similarity on that area is rather striking. I have demonstrated and stated this claim on my part, quite clearly (and explicitly), I think, in the Nazi article's talk page; and it is likewise clearly evident, I challenge, when one examines the respective diffs in this article as well. I don't want to repeat what I have written elsewhere, but I have addressed your thoughts on the matter of weasel words, etc., so please review that. Lastly, and to recapsulate my inital point in this comment, I never questioned your personal motives, and you should not dwell into the semantics of "set out to" too deeply. That said, this the one (very important) area of your edits that I objected to which I find consistent in both articles. Of course, I am open to be persuaded otherwise – so, if you believe my claim is in error, by all means, I will give due weight to any thoughts you have on this. El_C 23:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Now, can we agree on how to handle all these weasil words? As I indicated previously, I believe a neutral solution would be to remove the anonymous references and simply leave it at a link to the other article - something along the lines of "For a discussion of the relationship of National Socialism and Socialism see National Socialism"Rangerdude 23:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I think, concretly, a good way to progress forward on this would be for you to submit any respective addition (clearly you have several in mind) sperately in the talk page, and I will give you my opinion of it. And same goes for the Nazi article and its respective talk page. Does that sound like a sensible approach? I want to stress that am not here to a priori reject your edits, far from it. In fact, I wish to commend you for the useful ones you have made. But for now, I have to drive out and get some food. Hopeful for a positive response, El_C 00:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gah, not this again. As to weasel words, it is hard to cite historians who believe that Nazism was not socialism directly, because it is an assumption - no serious historians argue the contrary, so there has been no need for major historians or political theorists to argue that Nazism was not socialism. john k 00:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's being asserted that Nazism was socialism directly. That is a straw man of the complaint. Anonymous "experts" are, however, being used to dismiss the relationship between national socialism and socialism entirely (e.g. "political theorists generally argue that the term "socialism" in "national socialism" existed solely for propaganda purposes), which is NOT a matter of consensus by any means.Rangerdude 01:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I certainly welcome learning the thoughts of economic historians who think otherwise, but 'generally,' Kenysian and Corportist-like economics are not considered a variant of socialism, with the NSDAP providing workers (and peasents) with any real, beyond New Deal rights, specifically and very crucially at the expense of centralized wealth. So, virtually all we are left with (in a Socialist viz. Kenysian sense) are platitudes to that effect on the part of the NSDAP. Now, even if JK is correct, and no 'serious' scholars express themselves so literally and outright (as JK seems to suggest, for risking reductionism) on the polemic, they certainly qualify this and provide ample basis for a comparison. The question as to which policies the Nazis did implement which, socialistically, had a depth, intensity and intention to go beyond rhetoric and a blame-centred ideological indoctrination, seems a pressing question. I am open to the possibility that I overlooked parts of the critical scholarship on that front, and I hope all of you would believe me when I say that, in the event this is the case, it is something I genuinely welcome learning (for my own intellectual orientation and knowledge on the subject). El_C 03:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other ideologies, contd.

Then lets start with the recommendation I just made - replacing the weasil words with a simple link.Rangerdude 00:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. You mean for this area of the article, I presume (or perhaps others, too?). For my own clarity, please cite the pertinent excerpt alongside that which it seeks to supplant or supplument and we can discuss it from there. El_C 03:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't like that, if you don't go into it at all, and just give a link, it gives the impression that there's a close relationship between them, when the relationship is distinctly antithetical. It's kind of like going to the George Bush page and saying "for an examination of the relationship between Hitler and Bush, go here". Sure, on the Hitler page, it might say there is no relationship, but the link gives that impression to those who don't read it. It's POV in nature.--Che y Marijuana 00:58, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly how I saw it, as such an implication, which is why I reverted it. El_C 07:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A relationship can be both "close" and "antithetical" -- as anyone who understands the Hegelian tradition in philosophy would know. The white pieces and the black pieces on a chess board are "antithetical" only in that they are on the same board, i.e. close. To take two very erudite philosophers for purposes of illustration: Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger both conceived of the world in very similar ways, which is precisely why their respective political positions (communism and Nazism, respectively) were antithetical. --Christofurio 14:44, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Your point being that POV, being antithetical to NPOV, is actually close enough not to worry about mixing them up?--Che y Marijuana 20:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

What Christofurio is attempting to get across, I believe, is that when two things stand in opposition to one another, the very nature of that antithetical relationship inexorably intimates a certain 'closeness.' El_C 06:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understood that, but I don't see how this changes my original point that such a wording's denotative meaning is not at issue, it's the connotations involved that make this POV. I was sleep-deprived at the time, so I guess my response to him was unjustified, and kinda incoherent. I have no idea what it means actually, even though I wrote it :P But yeah, I think the original point stands.--Che y Marijuana 14:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't really have a dog in this fight, in the sense that I haven't made or reverted any edits for the "other ideologies that call themselves socialist" section. But let me try to explain my thoughts about the subject in terms of your example, what one might put in an article about George Bush. One might properly say, "For a discussion of the relationship between the Bush family and the Baathist regime in Iraq see ..." and then provide a link. The article to which one linked would, presumably, make clear that the two sides of that relationship have been antithetical, but that they shared certain assumptions (both sides, just for example, have consistently presumed that the post-colonial Brit-imposed borders should stay in place). Likewise, I think it would be appropriate to say, "For a discussion of the relationship between Marx' views and those fascists who have also drawn upon Hegel, see ..." and then provide a link. Unfortunately, I don't see that anybody has quite written the article I would want on the opposite side of that link! --Christofurio 20:12, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Socialists don't define Socialism

Cite some sources for your claims. "most scholars"??? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Will you please cite some sources for your claim: "most scholars" ? is a 'request.' I supplanted 'most' with 'many' until the former could be better established. El_C 13:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please cite the "most socialists", "most scholors" etc.. surveys to which you theoretically refer (assuming this isn't just a lot of original "research". Repeat as neccesary. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Most' has been omitted yesterday as per Sam Spade's 'request.' I urge Sam Spade to read more closely the pertinent two-sentence comment directly above. El_C 08:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am currently disputing "many", as well as "most", in different places. Cite the sources for these amounts, or stop inflicting this article with POV. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade must note that he needs to specifically mention that he is disputing 'many' for it to become communicable to other editors. I, again, urge him to conform to Wikipedia:Civility. No "amounts" need to be provided to 'many', etc., and no "surveys" need to be conducted for all scholars on the planet. That is an unreasonable demand whose very basis seems to be a POV hostile to the objective information which the NPOV passage in question reveals to the reader. El_C 08:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look at the differences between our two edits [8]. I removed POV. Some of it was impossible to cite

Another party who employs socialist in its name but is generally viewed as being not genuinely socialist

in practice, the Nazis allowed (friendly) capitalists to thrive while liquidating socialists everywhere else (including from within their own party in the Night of the Long Knives)

being purely opinion (it could be attributed to an expert, of course...). Other changes are citable in theory

but many scholars generally argue

most political theorists (as well as nearly all other socialists) argue that

but I assume you have no survey of socialists, much less scholors, or political theorists (lol!) with which to back them up. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I should point to Sam Spade that such (mechanically oversimplified) "surveys" are not central for an overview of (widely-known) historiographical opinion and consensus. And I continue (yet again) to urge Sam Spade to cease from the chatroom and otherwise exclamations and nuances and, instead, stick to the subject at hand. El_C 09:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So your saying you have no evidence, I take it. Feel free to revert yourself then. Thanks for your time, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will not engage in innuendo and exchange rhetorical exclamtions with Sam Spade, is what I am saying, ladies & genetlemen. What might ordinarily prove sufficient evidence, in this case, is secondary to Sam Sapde's unreasonable, reductionistic demands entailing a grossly exaggurated scope for which. And yet again, I urge him to cease from chatroom and otherwise exclamations ("lol," etc.) which I find to be nuanced in a derogatory way. I wish that this tendency on his part (exhibited by his very first, up until his last comment here), will cease immediately. El_C 10:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cite your "widely-known historiographical opinion and consensus", or move on. This is a reference source, not a repository for propagandistic musings. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As polite as always. El_C 11:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam, stop being so anal. The wikipedia article on the Nazi party cites plenty.--Che y Marijuana 17:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sir Thomas More

Marx was not the first person to define socialism - nor was he at all Marx wrote about Communism not socialism Sir Thomas More wrote the book "Utopia" in 1516 long before Marx He is Considered the first to define and discuss socialism

Newsflash:Jesus was a socialist. (He was an Essene. Look it up). Kinda predates More. Rd232 10:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Red Flag

thge red flag does not represent socialism or communism - it represents the bloodshed in revolution

>>Here are some photos that show the glories of socialism in Cuba: www.therealcuba.com

Changes to beginning of article

I beleive that the beginning of the article was very messy, with scattered points, not really forming a coherent whole. So, I've attempted to clean it up a bit, most of those points are now in the "see also" section, and the article now begins a little more confidently. If there's any problems, just post them here. --Brendanfox 02:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Needs a definition

It seems to me that this article should have a nice simple definition for socialism near the beginning of the article instead of forcing readers to wade trhough the entire article of history and analysis. Phoenix Hacker 01:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I had the same problem myself. You can read through the article for quite awhile without getting a clue about what is commonly meant by "socialism." RJII 02:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edits

Can someone create Branches of Socialism, Criticisms of Socialism, etc. The article is also 90kb long, so I reckon that is should be streamlined. Also may the Controversy and the NPOV labels be removed. I am 90 percent sure that this article represents all the POVs.

What is Socialism?

I must agree with some previous comments. This article is very hard to follow. I arrived here thinking it would be an article on the modern version of Socialism as practiced in many European countries, where you have tons of Socialist parties. It turns out that this article is not at all on that subject (which is apparently treated in Social Democracy, but no link in the lead points THAT out), but that it is mostly on the marxist idea of socialism. The note of usage should be put close to the top, in my opinion.

Secondly, pardon my ignorance but what exactly is the difference between communism and socialism (as it is treated here)? I personnally have no idea. But I guess that many people coming to wikipedia to look up Socialism and Communism would be interested in a paragraph comparing both.

Third, in the remainder of the criticisms section, only extremist economists or "scholars" are listed. This is unfortunate, since it gives the (erroneaous) impression that socialism was only criticised by extremists. Luis rib 21:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clarified start

I believe I clarified the start now, without ignoring the communist past. I've been editing the start for days and even added that box, so I hope its ok now. But I can't fix the rest of the article coz its too marxist/communist for me, and I am not in the position to revise that. The original contributors should handle that, also in the other related articles. I suggest to check the site of Socialist International. It explains everything about socialism today with respect to government and economy. Socialism is very different today. Communism, an offshoot, or branch of Socialism is now widely rejected by SI. Also, I removed the controversial label thing, no heated debates here.

For comparison, according to the SI site,

Communism achieves equality and solidarity at the expense of freedom.
Socialism in contrast believes that all three may be achieved without compromising freedom

history

It is so boring

Categories: Talk archives