| Revision as of 19:25, 14 May 2013 editUrumia (talk | contribs)2 edits →Social Loafing?: new section← 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 |
| (47 intermediate revisions by 28 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. ''] ]'', <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. -unsigned. 7:56 8/23/2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Social Loafing? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think under ], there should be a mention or link to ], which gives a more in-depth explanation of this phenomenon. ] (]) 19:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
'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)
