Misplaced Pages

Talk:Criticism of socialism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:55, 23 August 2012 edit98.219.34.181 (talk) →Criticisms of criticisms of socialism← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:39, 27 July 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,024 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Criticism of socialism/Archive 4) (bot 
(51 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{talkheader|search=yes}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=C|importance=Top}}
{{American English}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Top|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|religion=yes|political=yes}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 2
|algo = old(365d)
|archive = Talk:Criticism of socialism/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Source ==


https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/10/what-is-left-of-socialism ] (]) 10:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


== Requested move 2010 == == socialisation ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''


'socialisation' and 'nationalisation' is mentioned once, without any link or definition. The reference is incorrect (dead link) and the source is a book, so I would expect numbers of pages.] (]) 10:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: '''no move'''. Multi-page proposal doesn't appear to have generated any kind of support, and is opposed. ] (<small>]</small>) 10:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

----

] → ] — Consistency. Vast majority of criticism articles are using the non-plural form. See ]. <small>Relisted. ] (]) 00:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)</small>
] ] 08:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]

* ] → ]
*] → ]


:] is tragically not a reason to form "consistency"
::At any rate, ] and ] mean, from my view, that it should be plural if there is more than 1 (and by having an article i think it is).(] (]) 17:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).
*'''do not rename''' The high level category is ]; lower level categories are named 'Criticisms'; many of the articles are named 'criticisms' and a sampling of the ones that are named 'criticism' show they offer multiple criticisms not just one about the subject in question. These criticism articles are the ones that should be changed, should be made plural. ] (]) 05:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
:All category names are plural. Also non-plurals . Skim through a couple of those, see if it changes your mind. ] ] 12:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
:: First, I think ] is poorly written and needs re-thinking. Second, I see no value in using the singular 'criticism' to describe a entire series of remarks, extending over time, involving multiple subjects, multiple critics, etc. I think the singular 'criticism' is very misleading in these cases, which include all the ones you mention in your nomination as well as others I found in looking at the ]tree. Same with 'controversy' Third, I am not considering other words at this time. ] (]) 20:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
:I think that the titles should be "Criticism of" - this is because they need to treat the ''subject'', rather than be a list of "criticisms". "Criticism" here is a mass noun rather than a count noun. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>16:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
::Concur with Rich Farmbrough. --] (]) 19:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I agree these pages should be "Criticism of...". Criticism is also more neutral than "Inaccuracies", since the allegations of inaccuracy is POV. It's attributed POV, but still POV. "Criticism" is more attributive. ] (]) 22:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

== Relationship with other criticisms ==

Should ] be referenced in this article?

What is the relationship between ] and ]?

Should this article be understood as a criticism of socialism, with socialism as in ]?

What is the relationship between ] and ]? ] (]) 22:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

== Undue focus given to criticisms from Austrian Economics ==

Why do Misplaced Pages editors let these dingbats put a mark of such unwarranted size on every page related to economics? Somebody trying to educate themselves on economics with wikipedia would assume that the Austrians are dominant, rather than largely ignored. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Requested move ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: '''pages not moved'''. No support at all for the proposal. ] (]) 11:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

----


] → ] — Consistency. Criticism is a mass noun. Vast majority of criticism articles are using the non-plural form. See ]. ] ] 20:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]

*'''Oppose''' While criticism is indeed a mass noun like "fish", its form with an "s" does have a meaning separate and distinct from the form without one. Compare "fishes". Where there are schools (or types) of criticism, the form with the "s" is appropriate. In these cases it is better to grasp at the various types of criticism that these doctrines, people, policies, etc. are heir to. As such we should encourage such articles to use the "s" in their title and to avoid having content that just deals with a single type of criticism. --] (]) 03:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. The content of most of these articles is multiple categories or types of criticism, i.e., criticism'''s'''. (''N.B.'' ]: ''"Some mass nouns can be used in English in the plural to mean 'more than one instance (or example) of a certain sort of entity'".'') They are mostly laundry lists of grievances of various opponents of the topic in question. Criticism (without an ''s'') implies a singularity that doesn't exist. While "criticism'''s'''" could be subsumed under "criticism", using the plural makes the nature of the articles clearer. This is indirectly covered by ]. ''Cf.'' ], ], ], ]. — ] 17:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
**'''Oppose'''. What Ajax said. —] (]) 20:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

== Section "Absent or distorted price signals" could need editing? ==

Hello,
I finally decided to get more involved on Misplaced Pages, and I incidentally found myself a bit flustered by this paragraph.

First, there is a quote by von Mises that might easily be read as stemming from Trotsky. Second, it seems that the essence of the section could be summed up easily in about two or three paragraphs.

If no one objects I will attempt to revise the section in the next week or so.

] (]) 04:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

== Criticisms of criticisms of socialism ==

Hello,
after finishing reading the article there remains a question in my mind: Should we not also produce counterarguments to the criticisms given in this article? To me it seems that NPOV actually would indicate this as necessary. The way it stands, it seems that Milton Friedman's silly "socialism means inefficient first class mail delivery" argument is somehow the only opinion on the matter (and so on with many other criticisms). There is quite a good amount of respected scholars in both economics as well as political science who would disagree with that. What is the consensus, should there be a "Criticisms of Criticisms of Socialism" article or do we want to include that in this article?

] (]) 04:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
:Disagree. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or a debating forum. Misplaced Pages already contains articles on socialism and its components that extensively detail its merits, and this article contains the critiques. That is sufficient. --] (]) 06:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


::I understand your concern. However, I am not speaking of the merits of socialism but of specific critiques of some of the arguments given in this article. I still think that this criticism should be addressed in the article. If I understand it correctly, Misplaced Pages:Content_forking has the following to say on articles like this one: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Misplaced Pages, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." ] (]) 14:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


:: I can't say I agree. It would be pretty difficult to find all the refutations if you didn't know the topic well. I don't think it's 'soapboxing' to centralize the information.

== Why is the title of this article different? ==
For Capitalism, the title of the article is "Criticism of capitalism". This article is titled "CriticismS of socialism". Both articles contain '''mulitple''' criticisms and the proper name is in the singular(Criticism). Can someone fix this? I don't know how to change the title of an article. ] (]) 21:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

==Famine and poverty==

I came here looking for connections between ], in preparation for an article on that topic. Socialism has variously been touted (by its advocates) for increasing the general prosperity but blamed (by its critics) for promoting famine and poverty. I just spent the last two hours reading about the ] and the conflicting reports on how "]" or "]" (a) made the famine much worse or (b) were just about the only thing that alleviated the starvation.

I come not to "bury" socialism or "praise" capitalism, but to collect the arguments for and against. Can anyone help me? --] (]) 18:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

:I can give you logical arguments, but it would probably be deemed original research, though it is not. Nor do I know anyone that have come to the same conclusions, though I'm sure many have. To understand the issues the concepts must be defined. Firstly, that economics is a way to understand one aspect of society, but in itself is an incomplete study. For example, a free society also must have a free market, because they are one and the same. A free society is almost always economic, since it really means "Where will I buy coffee today? And how much am I willing to spend?" Free choice is a free market. Until this understood, all else fails. Therefore, a free market is not an ism, or a belief, but nothing more than the maximum potential for free choices that all people make in any given society. Secondly, all degrees to control a free market are based on various ideals. Some believe it can be best controlled by corporations or businesses, (capitalism.) Others by the power of government (socialism and its many cousins.) What both mean is that choices are made by an elite few, not the majority in a free market. The logical question then is ... can a small group more efficiently run something that a free society does naturally?

:Or, argued in scientific terms, the free market is natural selection. Can then any small group of people best manage natural selection than nature itself? The logical answer is absolutely not. Socialism is not a misguided belief because of any opinion, it is misguided because it attempts to change the nature of man himself (thus, social reform, not government reform.) It attempts to make society itself the problem, rather than acknowledge the simple fact that small groups of people are the problem. Small groups cannot better manage larger groups, just as we cannot improve on natural selection.

:And yes, it is demonstrable, once the above is understood, that all attempts to manage the free choices of society results in undesirable reactions of society, such as famine. Government, like all institutions of small groups. can only manage so much before they reach a critical limit. Humanity in general already self-manages a great deal, after all, we are highly evolved species. In other words, a few computers cannot do better than a great many in processing power, but a few computers, for security reasons, is best suited for certain tasks such as antivirus and checking credentials for admission into the system.

:Hope that helps. Of of course, socialists, in their infinite arrogance and lack of rational dialogue, will still argue that humans are imperfect, and must be managed by intellectuals that no better than the rest of us. There is absolutely no scientific basis for this assumption, but they are persistant. ] (]) 05:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

== Criticisms are directed toward central planning ==
The critiques leveled against socialism in this article overwhelmingly focuses on ] or a command economy, so I have taged the article as being pushing a PoV.] (]) 01:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

:Nonsense. That is what socialism means ... central planning, or the means of production being held in trust by a few, rather then privately in the hands of the laborers themselves. It is quite simple. you have central, or you do not. Thus, that defines ALL ideologies. Or better put, does the individual govern themselves, or does someone else? Simple, and to the point, and logically ... not at all a POV. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 14:39, 27 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of socialism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Criticism of socialism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Criticism of socialism at the Reference desk.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconSocialism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEconomics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: Libertarianism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconSociology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Social and political / Religion High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of religion

Source

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/10/what-is-left-of-socialism Xx236 (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

socialisation

'socialisation' and 'nationalisation' is mentioned once, without any link or definition. The reference is incorrect (dead link) and the source is a book, so I would expect numbers of pages.Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Categories: