Misplaced Pages

Talk: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 16:02, 13 November 2006 editDonnachadelong (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,812 edits →male suffrage← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:23, 13 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,703 edits Assessment: banner shell, Politics, +Human rights (High) (Rater) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{WPCD}}{{V0.5|class=B|category=Socsci}}
{{Talk header|search=no}}
==Open tasks==
{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{SocialismOpenTask}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}}
{{British English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|blp=other|vital=yes|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Top|American=yes|American-importance=low|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject European history|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|social-and-political=yes|continental=yes|modern=yes|contemporary=yes}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High|Social movements=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High}}
}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=


{{Section sizes}}
==Archives==
{{Press|subject=article|author= Maxim Lott|title=Inside Misplaced Pages's leftist bias: socialism pages whitewashed, communist atrocities buried|org=]|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed|quote=The two main pages for "Socialism" and "]" span a massive 28,000 words, and yet they contain no discussion of the genocides committed by socialist and communist regimes, in which tens of millions of people were murdered and starved. "The omission of large-scale mass murder, slave labor, and man-made famines is negligent and deeply misleading," economics professor ], who has studied the history of communism, told Fox News.|date=February 18, 2021|accessdate=February 18, 2021}}
{{Split article|from=Socialism|to=Socialism (economic system)|diff=696864242|date=14:01, December 26, 2015}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 31
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Socialism/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Marx) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Marx","appear":{"revid":1088337451,"parentid":1088153456,"timestamp":"2022-05-17T12:56:01Z","replaced_anchors":{"Marx critique of the quasi-religious and ahistorical methodology of economists":"Marx's critique of the quasi-religious and ahistorical methodology of economists"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1133141167,"parentid":1133141012,"timestamp":"2023-01-12T12:01:26Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
}}


}}
Earlier discussions:
*]
*]
*] -- archive of extensive discussion on this topic from Jan 2004. Also includes the discussion that resulted in a bullet list of types of socialism (the two issues were intertwined). Inevitably, other topics were also touched on, but I have endeavored to leave in the present page the few clearly unrelated exchanges on the present page during that very heated period. -- ] 09:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


== Large swaths of the 20th century section are about Communism, not Socialism ==
__TOC__


They're related enough to be worth ''mentioning'', but devoting multiple entire paragraphs to Communism, with no sources that mention socialism at all, is ]. It also seems as though much of this was copy-pasted from ] (where it belongs!) --] (]) 23:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
==Rewrite==
Filled with so many idiosyncratic off-topic tangents and lacking any coherent organization, the old article was unsalvageable. I replaced the old scattered mess with a more concise and tightly focused new article. Various sections of the new article still need expansion. I will be expanding them shortly. I will be watching this article closely to address any comments and concerns. ] | ] 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
:Woah, that is a big change! The relevant diff is . --] 12:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
::Well, yes, it's a rewrite. ] | ] 12:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


:Yep, this copy-pasting across the two articles took place in June and July 2023. –] (]) 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Great rewrite! Much better. Easier to read. More accurate. Hooray! Thanks 172.--] 12:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Thanks! It's a bit on the brief side; but at least it's a much better basis for expansion than the old mess. ] | ] 13:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


== Clear usage of slanted argumentation in supposed factual description ==
Very nice 172. My only concern is that this rewrite seems to concern itself more with the history of socialism than with socialism as it exists in theory and practice. All the same, explaining socialism by tracing its history in this way '''is''', I think, an excellent way of explaining in a simple, easily understandable way, the basic ideas behind socialism and its various schools of thought. So perhaps my concern is unfounded. Perhaps if you intend to expand a little on the non-historical sections it might help to round it out a bit. Other than that, my congratulations :) ] 18:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks. I intend to expand the last three sections. I think the history section is the proper length. To understand the various schools of thought of socialism, one must understand the history of how the different movements branched off from each other. ] | ] 22:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, great work. I especially like the history section and introduction because they accurately and concisely describe the heterogeneous nature of the ideology. In particular, you've done an excellent job explaining how socialism (both in theory and practice) has deviated from its roots over time. -- ] 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Under the section on planned economy it is written "State socialism is unfeasible in this view because information cannot be aggregated by a central body and effectively used to formulate a plan for an entire economy, because doing so would result in distorted or absent price signals" This is a clearly a subjective opinion of the writer which if anything should be in criticisms of socialism. Nowhere is it mentioned either that 21th century computing, AI and statistics can be used to potentially predict with a high degree of probability the consumption of a population and required production. ] (]) 17:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
==Vision Thing's objections==


:Also Socialism is more of an economical theory than a political ideology. The modern invention of categorising socialism under the political umbrella terms such as "left-wing" ideologies is a modern invention produced by mostly non academic slanted sources and as a product of modern right-leaning propaganda. The definition of Socialism is simply: 'workers controlling the means of production' which is a purely economical definition and not a political ideological one. whilst socialism obviously branches off and can have progressive social elements social similar to left-leaning ideologies, it is important to make the distinction as the economical mode of function should be the focus point of socialism. ] (]) 18:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
History section is just too long. Section "History of socialism" should be a short summary of the ] and not an article itself. ] 08:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
:your right. ] (]) 19:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, it does seem to be very subjective. It would more correct to add that this is the opinion of a writer or a group of scholars or we can potentially remove it altogether if it's not significant enough. ] (]) 01:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


== Difference between Socialism and Communism ==
:No, it is not. See the comments by WGee and me above explaining why this article needs a particularly detailed history section. Further, the new history section is already a short summary. It is much shorter than the 58 kilobytes long ] article. The difference in length between the socialism main article and the summary is roughly standard for coverage of history on Misplaced Pages (compare, for example, the history section in ] to ]). Please stop restoring substandard sections found in the old version of the article. ] | ] 09:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


Reading the communist manifesto, their IS a distinction, and the terms weren't use interchangeably as the the page suggests.
::If folks want to change paragraphs and discuss them, that is one thing, but this childish revert war must stop. 172 did a major edit that much improved the article. Simply reverting it back to previous versions, or plopping in huge POV sections from past versions, is not constructive editing.--] 14:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


Source:
:::I didn't noticed that 172 discussed anything and, anyway, imported section on "Types of socialism" was a concensus version from old article. ] 14:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
::::The old section "types of socialism" was a terribly written, scattered, disorganized mess. Please don't take offense-- perhaps you don't realize this because English is not your first language. The discussion of the different types of socialism is now subsumed under the discussion of the history, as the historical context is key to understanding the various splits in the movement over the years. ] | ] 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


"Thus, Socialism was, in 1847, a middle-class movement, Communism a working class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; Communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it."
:::Different sections do exist for a good reason. If someone is not interested in history of socialism but it is interested in different types of socialism he shouldn't be forced to read whole History section for that. Someone might even give up from reading the article believing it doesn't contain information relevant to him. ] 16:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Britannica and Encarta organize their socialism articles like the rewrite, with long history sections. The more influential types of socialism are described better in historical context. They are not described well in the previous version... And as a historian, I do have a good idea about how flawed the previous version was. Just about every few sentences in the old version contained an inaccuracy, nonsense, or a sweeping generalization. There are so many problems with the old version I don't have nearly enough time to point them out. The old article was completely unsalvagable. The old sections need to be dead and buried. ] | ] 02:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Page 8 preface
:::::Encarta didn't organize their socialism article like you organized the rewrite, and anyway don't try to use appeal to authority argument. Nobody had objections on that section in previous, erased, article. ] 07:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf
::::::You are the only editor so far who does not acknowledge that the rewrite is a vast improvment. And yes, Encarta does include a long overview of the history of socialism; Britannica's is even much larger. And I am not making an appeal to authority. I have already explained to you why it makes more sense to subsume the discussion of the different types of socialism under the history, as have other editors. ] | ] 07:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Frederick Engels January 30, 1888, London 16:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::You are making an ]:
:::::::::1) Britannica organized it's article with long history section,
:::::::::2) Britannica is famous encyclopedia,
:::::::::3) therefore this article must be organized with long history section.
::::::: And I have already explained to you why it does make more sense to have special section for types of socialism. ] 08:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::If I'm making an appeal to authority, that's neither here nor there. What do you think citing a source is? Misplaced Pages editors are supposed to cite solid sources like Britannica. And while you have made your point, it has been rejected by all the other editors; your attempt to restore the old article is against the consensus here and isn't going to fly. ] | ] 17:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Which editors? Britannica has "Types of socialism" section . ] 23:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::You linked to their student encyclopedia. There main article builds itself around the history. Sorry, we're not dumbing down the article. (And by the way, Britannica's student encyclopedia entry on "type of socialism" in content looks a lot more like the history section in the rewrite than the trash from the old version you keep on reverting back to.) ] | ] 03:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023 ==
::While I disagree with '''wholesale''' reversions with no explanation, I'm impressed by the response to 172's new version and intrigued by his comments on his "History of socialism" approach. I say, let's bear with him for a few days and see what becomes of it. Perhaps he'll take a crack at revising ], too, eh? --] 17:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
:::] is already a pretty good article. It just needs an intro. ] | ] 02:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Socialism|answered=yes}}
::::As I said, "History of socialism" section should be summary of main article, not a completely new article, unconnected with main one. ] 07:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Request to add
:::::It already is a summary of the main article. And it is not the only section in the article. ] | ] 07:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::Look at yours subsections and look at subsections of "]". Your version certainly doesn't look like a summary. ] 08:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::::That's neither here nor there. The structure of summaries and main articles does not have to be identical. Compare ] and ]. The history section here is a summary. It is only about 1/3 as long as the main article, and brings up all the key points in the main article but in less detail. ] | ] 17:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


* ]
::::::::Do I really need to point out other articles with completely different structure? Also, if I remember correctly, Cuba is another article in which you are heavily involved. ] 23:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
* ]
:::::::::I don't care which articles you point out with a different structure. The consensus is now in favor of the new history section. Your attempts to remove it aren't going to be supported. And I did not write the history of Cuba section in the Cuba article; Adam Carr wrote it. ] | ] 03:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] ] (]) 11:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 13:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


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


] and ] ] (]) 20:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
And let's also define the term "social control" used in the intro but not defined anywhere in the article. It's a key concept. There is much dispute over whether Soviet-style command economies do or do not provide social control, even if there is widespread agreement that they result in '''government control'''. The question is whether (1) "the people" are empowered via the ], or (2) a new ] is simply created that enjoys top benefits at the expense of everyone else. This is discussed in the ] article. --] 15:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
:The first sentence in Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on socialism states that the term refers to a "system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control." I trust Britannica over original research. At any rate, your dispute with the first sentence does not support the vast amount of changes you made in your edit. Please revert your own edit while you become familar with what kinds of changes have been taking place on this article. ] | ] 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


== Javier Milei's Speech ==
Pasting remark left at ]


@] This was not boiler plate "anti-communist propaganda" delivered by a nonentity. He is the president of Argentina, a well known economist, and his speech was delivered at the World Economic Forum in Davos. His speech, in its entirety, has gone viral on the internt and has been garnering widespread coverage in the press and media to the degree that it probably rings the notability bell in its own right. . -] (]) 04:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
:Still, I don't think the scare quotes are necessary, as the term "social control" is not a socialist slogan, but a technical term in Western sociology. Notice that Britannica doesn't include the term in quotations. ] | ] 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


:Virality of Milei's recent speech is temporary, and it certainly won't pass a ]. It is in its entirety boiler plate anti-communist rhetoric, everything from making people poorer, through having always failed, to 100 million deaths. There is no original criticism here that an academic body of people could come around and uphold it to support its notability. Nothing dissimilar to hundreds of remarks about the same topics made by Trump. And again, this article and this section is ''not'' a catalog of speeches that 'criticize' socialism. –] (]) 05:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
::If we're quoting EB, then we can't use scare quotes. But we're not quoting them, are we? I tried to google the quote you attributed to them. --] 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
::Completely agree. The last thing this section needs is to be blown up with run-of-the-mill criticisms of socialism from reactionary politicians.--] (]) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Do a Google search for "Britannica socialism" and you'll see the article. If you don't have a subscribtion, you won't be able to read the article, but you will see the relevant sentence. (Britannica lets people preview the first few setences of their articles for free.) ] | ] 15:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
:::@] Polemics and name calling do not lend themselves well to a sober discussion. -] (]) 05:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
::::The point still stands. Politicians lie like they breathe, and I don't believe it would be constructive to start shoehorning their screeds into this section, be it Milei, Trump or anyone else. Besides, it is redundant. It is already noted in the last paragraph that "Many commentators on the political right point to the mass killings under communist regimes, claiming them as an indictment of socialism". That should be sufficient. Including each individual commentator (like Milei) seems to me to be undue.--] (]) 05:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::The speech covers a great deal more than that. Beyond which I would note ] (already mentioned below). You seem to have a very strong prejudice here. Criticism of socialism is not ipso-facto a "screed." My point also stands. Polemics and name calling are not conducive to a constructive conversation, especially on a sensitive topic. Unfortunately, I do need to get some sleep. I will pop in later today when I have some time and we can continue the discussion. -] (]) 06:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
::@] ] is not a compelling argument. You are certainly free to disagree with his remarks. But the speech goes into considerable detail and has garnered massive coverage in the press and media. That coupled with who delivered it and where, and IMO it easily passes the customary standards for a mention in the article. -] (]) 05:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: "I don't like it" isn't what I stated. I pointed out issues with this addition, and you just repeated what you previously stated without addressing any of my concerns. –] (]) 05:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
::::@] Your concerns as far as I can tell are that you do not agree with his speech, You believe that his position would not pass muster with an academic body. And you think it is similar to remarks by Donald Trump. (A point on which I strongly disagree, but then I have listened to the entire speech.) You also refer to the speech as part of a catalog of criticism "by just anyone." Not many speeches by the President of the United States get this kind of coverage. It appears that you believe his speech consists of the four sentences quoted. I am guessing you have not heard the speech or ready any of the coverage. FTR I have. -] (]) 05:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] I think we are in different time zones. It is close to 1 in the morning here and unfortunately, I need to get some sleep. I will be happy to have a look at this later in the day when I have a few minutes and continue our discussion. Good night (or day). -] (]) 05:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
*Ok. I've now got three people telling me they don't agree with the edit. While I don't agree, I will wait for the time being and see what kind of legs the speech has. If I choose to take this up again, I will open an RfC. -] (]) 23:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


== Private Property Viewpoint ==
::Eureka, it worked! Thanks, 172. --] 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


The description regarding private property is not supported by the Iinked reference 311.
:::Vision Thing, why did you insert a NPOV dispute tag? The most prominent and influential types of socialism are described better here than in the previous version &mdash; in their historical context, as they should be. I do not understand how the removal of the "Types of Socialism" section is an NPOV violation, anyway. Please explain in further detail why you dispute the article's neutrality. -- ] 23:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Vision Thing also seems to be making reverts as an anon in order to get around the 3RR. I'm beginning to think this user should be brought to the attention of administrators. ] | ] 02:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Please keep in mind ]. ] 07:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
::::All types of socialism should be described or at least mentioned in this article. ] 07:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Cberlet, another expert editor, has already told you "Simply reverting it back to previous versions, or plopping in huge POV sections from past versions, is not constructive editing." The rewrite can be expanded, as I already stated in my 13:09, 24 May 2006 post: " a bit on the brief side; but at least it's a much better basis for expansion than the old mess." To act as a constructive editor, you can make suggestions for expanding the rewrite, as opposed to reverting back to previous versions that are far to inaccurate and disorganized to be saved. And by the way, I can start really assuming good faith if you revert your own edit restoring the old mess so that another editor does not have to clean up after you. ] | ] 07:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Socialists view ] relations as limiting the potential of ] in the economy. According to socialists, private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralised, socialised institutions based on private appropriation of revenue''—''but based on cooperative work and internal planning in allocation of inputs—until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant. ] (]) 08:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::Vision Thing, ] does not disallow editors from announcing or investigating possible rule violations. -- ] 17:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


== Adding More Historical Figures ==
:::::::It doesn't encourage posting unsupported claims on talk pages. ] 23:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Nonsense. It looks like more than a coincidence that an anon IP with an edit pattern similar to your interests is making the same reversions on the same page at the same time. Do you want me to take this matter to ] instead of brining it up on the talk page? ] | ] 03:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


In the Socialism sidebar, there is a tab labeled "People" which includes a number of historical figures. While this covers a fair number of historical figures, I believe that it should cover more.
:::::::::Yes, I do. ] 08:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


First, why should it do this? Socialism is, per the first Merriam-Webster ], "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." By this definition, a wide number of people would fall under this label. However, a not-insignificant number of these people are not included in this list.
:::::::::Are you going to apologize for false accusation?. ] 13:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::I said someone should figure out if you were making edits as 72.139.119.165. I eventually ruled that out. That's sufficient. Now are you going to address the specific objections to your repeated text dumps? ] | ] 13:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Second, why the Socialism sidebar? Socialism is, per its modern definition, a wide-reaching term that can mean a plethora of things. The most authoritarian Leninist to the most libertarian Anarchist could both (accurately) be called Socialist. So, all those who fell or have fallen into one of the the differing camps of Socialist theory deserve to be grouped under the Socialist label. And, as of yet, several people have not been added.


Therefore, to rectify this, we should start by adding the following people. I have provided the Misplaced Pages pages of the people who I am referring to for easy reference. Feel free to ask or criticize me about my inclusion of any of these people. I can elaborate wherever necessary.


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


This is not a comprehensive list, but instead just the people I could think of right now. Let me know if I added someone on this list that is already mentioned. ] (]) 06:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Heres my critique:
::Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines, and may also refer to political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice. These movements generally envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control."
Apparently this is the entry definition for socialism and the second sentence in the Encyclopedia Britannica, only in reverse:
::" socialism - system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces."
::"Socialism refers to both a set of doctrines and the political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice."
Now the topic sentence is confusing instead of enlightening. Since it is plagarized someone might as well just put it in quotes and attribute it to the encyclopedia brittanica. ] 15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a better fix than what I did, but you cant say:
::"'''Socialism''' refers to a broad array of doctrines, and may also refer to political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice."
This is a meaningless sentence and does nothing to define socialism. At least in the encycl;opedia britannica article the 'doctrines' referred to the prior sentence where they were defined. Here I could just as easily say:
::'''Sleeping''' refers to a broad array of doctrines, and may also refer to political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice.
] 16:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


== Socialism == == {{slink|Socialism|Culture}} ==


@]: these hatnote links seem to be {{tl|See also}} content rather than {{tl|Main}} articles for the section. There should also be less of them. –] (]) 01:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I do not understand what you are trying to tell me


:@] Can you specify which links in your view should be in the {{tl|See also}} section ? (Just to avoid any potential disputes) ] (]) 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
== Uhm ==
::You seem to be confused, I am not talking about the <nowiki>== See also ==</nowiki> section, but the ''See also:'' hatnote. Please check out the hatnote templates I linked. I am not personally sure which links should stay, which is why I started this talk page post. What I am sure about is that it should '{{tq|point to a small number of other related titles}}' and that the wrong hatnote is being used, because main articles should be closely related to the topic, and there are usually very few of them. –] (]) 12:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
:::@] No problem. The original sentence was not clear but the changes have been made now. ] (]) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


== "Cultural socialism"? ==
Just an anon that uses wiki


Charity seems to be an individual act. But can socialism be thought of as a kind of ingrained philosophy where the government or church-in-charge uses funds to aide those in need? (Food, medical care, fire wood in the past, etc.) And they do it for ethical reasons because they are fellow Humans. So far as I know, this has been happening since at least the Middle Ages in Europe and immigrated into North America with the planter groups in the 1600s. Am I missing the boat and don't understand my own words or is this article slanted in economic and political directions?
the Historical examples of Socialism is a joke eg.
Thank you for your time, ] (]) 20:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
The Castro regime in Cuba


== The definition of socialism is outdated and irrelevant and needs to be replaced with something that actually exists. ==
The Khmer Rouge headed by Pol ''pot'' in Cambodia
The Baathist Party, formerly ruling Iraq, headed by Saddam Hussein under whom between 200,000 and several million were murdered
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Lenin, and later Stalin, under which 61,000,000 people were murdered


Socialism does not actually exist according to the old definition that we continue to perpetuate.
-The Communist Party of China, originally headed by Chairman Mao during the famine years of the cultural revolution, and under whom 80,000,000 have been estimated to have been muredered


Lets work together to redefine socialism according to how it actually presents in the world.
i mean, why go into the numbers
and why not talk about the socialist governments that have been successful?''god, no wonder people criticize wiki.


I've been writing about this on Linkedin and can share my thoughts here if that's more appropriate than sending links. ] (]) 02:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
and all your pictures are of murderous thugs
hmm, I wonder what wiki is trying to tell me?


:@] can you please elaborate on your issues with the current definition? –] (]) 05:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
i have read so many good articles on wiki, but this article is terrible
::It doesn't matter because it's evident that this new account is just trying to promote their personal opinions and ideas. Reliable sources, reliable sources{{snd}}and all they offer is ''their Linkedin''. I cannot take this "proposal" seriously. <big>]]</big> 05:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
bad writing style, very strong language bordering on POV
:::that's a very closed minded position to take Yue.
the whole thing doesn't read well at all
::: I'll respond properly soon. ] (]) 10:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
it reads like it was written by a 100 people with a hundred different writing styles
::::1. there's no such thing as a socialist country. Not one.
it shouldn't
::::2. Socialism is not mutually exclusive from Capitalism.
:I'm afriad that's a vandal's work.--] 09:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:::: -There's not one democratic socialist country that doesn't also have a strong foundation of Capitalism. That doesn't exist.

::::-EVERY COUNTRY is on the SPECTRUM between these two systems -shifting a bit to the left or right depending on the party in power.
== Misguiding Sentences ==
::::3. There's no country that is purely capitalist without any elements of socialism. that also doesn't exist.
:''] insisted on the creation of ]-style ] under strong central state direction. Others advocate "]" in which social control of property exists within the framework of market economics and private property.''
::::4. Socialism exists the same way that capitalism does -in moderation and in balance depending on the government in power. Some countries have more socialism at some times, and more capitalism at other times depending on the political party in power, but at no time does the pendulum ever swing fully into end. Both are always held in balance.
This seems just a little bit dodgy, as if either you're a Stalinist or a Market Socialist. I can't think of a good way of rewording it, though. Anyone got thoughts? --] 20:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::::5. many of the most prosperous countries in the world with the happiest citizens are also the most socialistic.

::::6. Even the most socialistic countries in the world don't identify as Socialist. Why not? Because they don't conform to the definition of socialism (NO ONE DOES!!). This alone should tell you that the definition of socialism needs to be updated to something that actually exists. ] (]) 02:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

:::::With the preceding in mind (sorry I wasn't logged in), if I were to write the first paragraph of the definition, it might go something like:
==Socialism ==
:::::Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing a spectrum of economic and social systems characterized by varying degrees of social ownership and government investment in the public realm.

::::: In practice, most modern implementations of socialist principles exist alongside capitalist elements in mixed economies. No pure socialist or purely capitalist systems exist in the real world; instead, countries operate on a spectrum between these ideologies, with the balance shifting based on governing parties and policies.
I live in Spain and the Socialist party is the majority party and have won 4 of the last 5 general elections.
:::::Socialist principles are often integrated into democratic systems, particularly in some of the world's most prosperous nations with high citizen satisfaction. These countries, while incorporating socialist elements, typically do not identify as purely socialist states. The implementation of socialist ideas varies widely, influenced by factors such as the role of markets, degree of economic planning, and organizational structures in both public and private sectors.

:::::As a political philosophy, socialism remains an influential force on the left side of the political spectrum in many countries. However, its practical application in governance often involves a nuanced balance with and against capitalist principles, rather than a wholesale replacement of private ownership as seen in Communism.
My interpretation of socialism is as a consevative left wing party, with emphasis on sustaining the welfare state and defenitely market oriented.
:::::Examples of socialistic investments in the public realm include:

:::::-Free education for K-12
I have studied economics at the LSE and, it is my impression that socialism as is being practice, is founded in economic theory, known as Welfare Economics, and that major issues have been ruled by economic debate i.e. Nationalisation v.s. Privatisation.
:::::-Free Libraries

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

:::::-Fire fighting
You may think that I am mistaken, but nowaday, socialism is the main political trend in Europe.
:::::-Public parks

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

:::::-Low income housing
:This varies a lot, though. In the UK, it's common to use "socialism" to refer to quite radical movements, and "social democracy" to refer to conservative market socialism in Europe. And in America, "socialism" is used to refer to the European model as well as anarchist/libertarian/communist forms of socialism. ] 06:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::-Foodbanks

:::::-Community Centres
::I've been told repeatedly by Europeans that I "don't understand" socialism. Perhaps the part I don't understand is the non-Marxist ]. Let's expand the article so that it is not only about the ideas of ], Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.
:::::-Highways and bridges (not including toll ones owned by private for profit companies) ] (]) 03:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

::::::since no countries exist that can be described as socialist, I propose that we either need to change the definition to something that actually exists, or create a new definition for what exists. Modifying the definition to match reality makes much more sense to me. ] (]) 03:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::I'm particularly interested in blends of "socialism" and the "]" (or ] economics). That is, everything other than the kind of pure ] that exists in Communist countries. --] 16:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::"create a new definition for what exists" Misplaced Pages does not create definitions, it simply quotes those found in reliable sources. ] (]) 06:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

::::::::I understand. Thank you. ] (]) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:::You should be careful to distinguish Marx (and Marxism) from Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, since Marx was pretty anti-authoritarian. Although it wouldn't do any harm to have more material in the main article, I think most of it is already present in ] and the articles on various different specific forms of socialism/communism which fall outiside of the Stalinist/Maoist model (e.g. ] and ]). ] 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

''' Spanish Politics '''

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

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

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

'''conclusion'''

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

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

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

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

:What you're actually giving is not a change in socialism per se, but a shift of once-socialist parties across Europe to solely ] values. Perhaps this needs to be pointed out better in the article on ]. It looks like your input might be more useful at ].
:On a very much separate point, I'd argue that, for the most part economics has focused on studying market economies and mixed economies, and has never really tried to tackle the issue of describing the processes involved in alternatives, much less make comparisons. But the thing is, it's not really for us to say - not in this article, certainly. --] 09:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
~
:: Thanks for the comments. My main reason to post here is that in several articles where PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers Party) is discussed, there is a link to this article. Maybe the article warrants a disambiguation heading to avoid modern social democratic parties to be related to what seems blatant communism.

::Please note that notable Soviet Economists tried to devise and alternative to a price (market) driven economy and failed to do so. there is just too much information enbodied on prices to do away with it. Only if NOTHING changed could alternative systems work, and for one, time passes for all of us.] 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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

:The term ''libertarian socialism'' may be recent, but it is used to refer to a group of ideologies that have existed for centuries, so, in this case, I would ignore the term's etymology. Also, I disagree that a movement's notablity should be determined solely by its influence on states. Libertarian socialism (by which I mean anarchism, its strains, and council communism) is notable because of how prevalent it has historically been among academia. Libertarian socialist theories have been well-established by eminent philosophers of the 19th century. -- ] 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::First, since the term is recent, it makes sense to use the term more historically recognizable terms. We cannot ignore the term's etymology, as that would constitute historical revisionism in the pejorative sense of the term "historical revisionism." Second, I think you're over-stating the influence of anarchism, syndicalism, and council communism on academia. The New Left academics of the U.S. and UK broke ranks with Soviet Communism, but they were for the most part rooted in the Old Left. In France, structural Marxism did not even represent a break with the PCF. Its leading proponent, Louis Althusser, defended Communist orthodoxy until the end. Sarte, unlike many structural Marxists, broke with the PCF, but he cannot be reasonably described as a "libertarian socialist," since his roots lay in existentialism, not in anarchism or syndicalism. In Germany, the Frankfurt School represented the leading current of socialist thought in academia, and it firmly established itself within the social-democratic orthodoxy of the postwar period. In short, communism and social democracy not only are clearly more notable than "libertarian socialism" in terms of their influence on states, but also on academia. ] | ] 03:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I have no problem with using a more "historically recognisable" term. However, I do object to a significant strand of socialist thought being entirely excluded from the introduction (and indeed virtually excluded from the article). Currently, the introduction seems to suggest that Stalinism (or some other kind of command economy) and market socialism are the only options. Given that Marx arguably advocated neither kind of economy, and given that there's a long historical tradition of libertarian socialism (whatever you want to call it), this just can't be right. Also, ''even if'' libertarian socialism was a genuinely new intellectual development (which it isn't of course), this would be no reason to exclude it from the intro. ] 16:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Also, I agree with WGee on the issue of notability. The threshold of notability for a one-sentence mention in a fairly long intro is low. Libertarian socialism (and variants and antecedents thereof) are quite important in the intellectual history of Socialist thought. Other strands of Socialism may well be ''more'' important, but that's not really the point. ] 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:::To be clear: I don't care ''at all'' whether or not the phrase "libertarian socialism" appears in the intro. I would just like to see some (brief) explicit acknowledgement of socialist theories which do not require state control of the entire economy or some kind of market system. ] 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Sounds reasonable. I see the rewrite only as a basis for expansion (and a much better basis for expansion than the old article), by no means yet a complete article. I'll figure out a way to best incorporate anarchism, syndicalism, and council communism in the intro and elsewhere in the article, if no one else beats me to the job. ] | ] 23:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::Libertarian socialism (or left libertarianism - Bookchin) is only a ''new'' term because a distinction between the original libertarianism (which was socialist and basically a synonym for anarchism) and the new right wing libertarianism in the US was needed. Thus, it's not really a new term, it's just the original term with a clarifying qualifier. I'm happy to help out including all the strains of socialism in anarchism - from mutualism to anarcho-syndicalism and anarchist communism. ] 13:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

== Something to consider. ==

I think that Middle East Conflict Man should be un-banned. He has not been responsible for almost all the acts of vandalism. I think he should be allowed back in, as long as he doesn't cause any trouble. There is no evidence that the sockpuppeting that has been taking place is his work. I think that the fact that many users BELIEVE that he has been doing the sockpuppeting is the only reason why he's blocked. At least give him a chance to clear his name if he's innocent.
-130.216.191.184
:When 30 accounts come in and all start making the exact same edits, that's all the evidence that's required, as ruled by Arbcom. "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." --]<sup>]</sup> 09:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:By the way, I just unblocked the IP who posted the above, after it was autoblocked for creating an account with the charming name ]. Stupendous coincidence? ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 18:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

== Nice work, people ==

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

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


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

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

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

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

==User 60.234.157.64==

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

:] was blocked for a month 12:01, 17 June 2006. // ]

::Glad to hear it, thanks for letting me know.

::There seems to be one or two other serial idiots who require the same treament though. Like '''130.216.191.184'''.

::Edit: the last one seems to be an IP of Auckland University. Are these two the same guy? I suspect they are, since they both hail from NZ.

::Maybe someone should contact his service provider and inform them of his vandalism. ] 11:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

:::'''71.113.213.107''' is another one. --] 12:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

== Socialist economics ==

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

"The term "socialism" is often used to refer to an economic system characterized by some level of social control of the economy. This might mean direct ] of production or distribution, some form of ] economic enterprise (such as a worker or consumer ], ] or ]), or some form of ] intervention. The type of state intervention varies from more minimal conceptions of state ] and ], through ] of key industries, to the abolition of ] and full state ownership of the ] and distribution."

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

== Structuralism ==

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

== Communism with a big C or little c ==

The wikipedia page on ], this useful distinction is made:
:In the English language, the word communism and related terms are written with the uppercase "C" when they refer to a political party of that name, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party. When written as a common noun, with a lowercase "c", they refer to an economic system characterized by collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members; or to the position that such a system is possible and desirable. Thus, one may be a communist (an advocate of communism) without being a Communist (a member of a Communist Party or another similar organization). This distinction between communism (lowercase "c") and Communism (uppercase "C") is used throughout the present article.
This advice is no longer adhered to on the ] page itself, but I think it is very good practice. A clear analogy would be the difference between Republican and republican - ] thought is not synonymous with the ] - ditto Conservative and conservative, labour and Labour, etc.

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

== What working class movement originated the modern socialist movement? ==

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

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

::Thanks for your reply. It was very helpful. ] 14:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

==Edits by user 138.37.246.26==
I understand that it's vandalism, but I like his explanation MUCH better than the standard one :) ]

== Socialism worldwide article ==

There is article ].Should we create such article about socialism? ] 31 July 2006
: Good idea. --] 09:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Socialism is still alive and still intellectually bankrupt.

==Couple of changes==

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

== No mention of Kibbutz ==

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

:Wouldn't that be more appropriate with a general reference to co-operatives generally?
--] 07:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

== Move from article to talk ==

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

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



==Requesting article "]"==

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

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

(and other pages with identical text)

and this from ''Guardian''

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

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

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

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

==This sentence==
''The words socialism and communism were used almost interchangeably in the beginnings of the socialist movement, prior to the formation of communism as a unique type of movement, separate from the greater socialist movement'': '''uses the word 'movement' three times.''' <span style="padding: 0px; background: white; border: 1px solid; border-color: #0A2060"><font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font> <font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font></span> 00:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
:Then fix it. ]] 00:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::ok. <span style="padding: 0px; background: white; border: 1px solid; border-color: #0A2060"><font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font> <font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font></span> 01:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::On second thought, I ran this statement around and around in my head, and I can't make heads nor tails of it. I guess someone else should fix it. Plus, I don't believe it actually makes any sense, sorry, so I would feel like a hypocrite if I pretended to understand it and to ''fix it''. <span style="padding: 0px; background: white; border: 1px solid; border-color: #0A2060"><font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font> <font color="#720000">]</font><font color="#00036A">]</font></span> 01:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
:::It makes sense to me, though perhaps the commas have confused you. I'll try to make it easier to comprehend. -- ] 23:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::::My revision: ''The words socialism and communism were used almost interchangeably in the beginnings of the socialist movement, prior to the formation of communism as a distinct movement.'' I removed the redundancy to remove the confusion. -- ] 23:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

==Social control?==

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

:The definition is intended to be broad in order to accomodate the many varieties of socialism. -- ] 23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:Indeed, I'm just wondering if it could be worded better, as it stands 'social control' could refer to government regulation, which is not a sole purview of socialism - admittedly, I'm wracking my brains and can't come up with anything (perhaps I'm blindsided by overly trying to avoid my own POV on this).--] 07:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::I still think that the current definition is fine. ''Social control'' essentially means ''control by the community'' (or ''control by society'', literally speaking), which is not necessarily equivalent to government regulation or nationalization. ''Social control'' can be exercised by non-governmental entities such as cooperatives, workers' councils, and trade unions, for example. The phrase "social control" was chosen ultimately because editors could find no other accurate, non-verbose, and neutral phrase to describe the broad ideology that is socialism. The subsequent sentences expound the concept of social control, anyway, so there shouldn't be much confusion. -- ] 05:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Hmmm, ''control by the community'' may be a bit clearer--] 07:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::''Social control'' is clear enough, in my opinion, and that the Encyclopædia Britannica uses it gives it some legitimacy. We should let sleeping dogs lie in this case, lest another troublesome content dispute will ignite. -- ] 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::As you may have seen on the ] talk, it is controversial because it excludes ] and thus backs the "anarcho"-capitalists claims that anarchism isn't necessarily socialist. Socialism is about redistribution of wealth and egalitarianism at core, mutualism is a theory about how that can be achieved without anything other than individual control over property. ] 00:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

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

:The ''See also'' section must remian because it is a navigational aid and it is mandated by ]. If we simply place the links in two columns, the section will be shorter and will waste less space. -- ] 22:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::Do you happen to know how to arrange the section in columns? -- ] 23:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

*The See Also section does not have to remain, and in no way is it mandated by Misplaced Pages. When articles have boxes or templates with important links, there is no need for a See Also section, especially in an already overly-long article such as this. If there are links that you think are important enough to be included, put them into the Socialism box, and then every article with that box on its page will have those links. Also, there's no need to have links to every other non-socialist ideology out there. If people want to find out about them, they can find them on Misplaced Pages easily enough.] 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

:I think it should remain, but perhaps should be editted a little to keep to the top of the tree - users should cascade through the articles rather than treating this one as a comprehensive index.--] 11:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

* I reduced it to ] & ] because they list every kind of socialism hat was in the See Also list. If someone is too lazy to click on those links, then I doubt they would bother going through the extremely long list that was there already. However, this is still unneccessary because those links are in the Socialism box. ] 12:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

::A ''See also'' section is a "standard appendice"; thus, it is ''de facto'' required for all non-stub articles and ''de jure'' required for all featured article candidates. Once again, I don't see any problem in having a long ''See also'' section. Firstly, it is not difficult at all for even the laziest of users to browse through a bulleted, alphabetized list of 50 or so links (it is much easier than trying to find the links within the main prose). Secondly, this article is not "overly long" (please read ] before alleging that); it is not comprehensive enough, if anything, and hence not long enough. Thirdly, most of the links you deleted ''cannot'' be found (nevermind "easily") in the two articles to which you linked. Thus, your reduction of the ''See also'' section is too drastic; many navigational links are needed for an article that deals with such an essential and broad subject as socialism. -- ] 17:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

*To reiterate, a See Also list is in no way required in a Misplaced Pages article, especially if there is a template or box with relevant links. There are many articles with no See Also section. A See Also section with 50 or so links would be rediculous and totally unjustified, and not the standard format for a Misplaced Pages article. If there are important links that aren't already in ] or in ], add them there instead of cluttering up this article. ] 18:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

::I've told you precisely in which cases a "see also" section is required. All non-stub articles (even ones with templates) are expected to have one, hence it has been declared a "standard appendice". I even shortened the list to remove links already mentioned in the template, yet for some reason you still want to shorten it further. Please read and abide by Misplaced Pages guidelines, especially ]. -- ] 18:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:::The "See also" section is supposed to be a list of socialist ideas in and of itself; thus, it is nonsensible to link to ]. In fact, that list is redundant and should be deleted, because it is the purpose of templates and "See also" sections to list socialist ideas. -- ] 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

*I totally disagree, and so does the person who created the ]. See Also lists are not supposed to be very long. They are supposed to provide links to a few related articles. If they are extremely long, they should probably be turned into a separate article, in the form of a list. Also, it is unneccessary to have the Political ideology entry points, box, because not all of the ideologies are socialist. If people want to learn about other ideologies they can look them up themselves. Also, that box is very ugly and distracting. ] 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

::I have included only links that are not mentioned in the ] or in the ], so that you cannot delete them on the grounds of "redundancy". Nor can you delete them on the grounds of "clutter", because there are only eight of them. Two editors have expressed disapproval of your edits, and I have even included a policy-based rationale for my position; still, you delete the links, showing utter disregard for Misplaced Pages guidelines, especially ].

::I will not relax my position any more, so please don't delete more links. There is no need to ignite a revert war over a relatively insignificant ''See also'' section. That being said, I don't know why you are so preoccupied with it. Perhaps you should do something more constructive than delete information against the will of the majority.

::-- ] 02:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Note that if Red Deathy wants to restore the previous, more comprehensive version of the section (or a variation thereof), I will support him. -- ] 02:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

*As I asked in my talk page, where is this "will of the majority" you speak of? And if you read what Red Deathy said, he does not want the full "comprehensive version" restored. And yes, deleting the Political Ideologies box because it is not specifically about socialism — and because the colours are garish and an affront to people with fully-functional eyes — is justified. And no, that box is not "vital." People can look up those non-socialist ideologies on their own without the aid of a handy-dandy USA Today-style chart. ] 14:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

::The template doesn't have to be ''specifically about socialism''; it merely has to be associated with socialism. And it is associated with socialism because socialism is a political ideology, hence socialism is mentioned in the template. -- ] 02:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

== the nazi party ==

:''The Nazi party's official name was the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), although it was not actually a true socialist party, in the sense that Nazism rejected the policies of internationalism, egalitarianism, class struggle, and common ownership of the means of production, which are the main tenets of socialism.
I'm not really an expert on the subject, but I think that it is not totally correct. Albeit nazis were not egalitarians and internationalists, I think that even some other "real" socialists weren't totally, and yet are considered socialists. To me the formation of URSS is pretty much non-internationalist as what the nazis where doing while trying to "reconquer" what was "originally" territory of the "aryan race" (sensu nazi). The imposition of atheism over all religions (despite of atheism not possibly be considered a religion itself) does not seems much different of nazi's anti-semitism, and also isn't quite egalitarian, is it? Also, traditionally accepted socialists were in some instances anti-semitists themselves, weren't them? I think that the class struggle and common ownership of means of production were also implied in nazism, even though not to the same extent and obviously withouth nazi leaders quoting Marx; see the ] to more details. Some more relevant items:

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

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

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

- All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

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

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

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

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

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

:This was ] just to attract votes. Although it was in the program, the nazis did not nationalize industry. They regulated it, for the benefit of German industrial corporations and the military. ] 21:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

::It might be worth asking an expert on the Nazis to expand the par a bit, perhaps mentioning ] and the socialist strand within the Nazis that was quashed by Hitler. ] 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::If one looks carefully at the list of Nazi "demands" it is clear that they are essentially a '''populist''' collection. Take, for example, ''Zerbrechung der Zinsherrschaft'', which means "smashing the domination of interest". There's no indication anywhere, with any of these demands, how to get to get from where they were in early 1920 to where they purportedly wanted to be. In the absence of actual plans for the abolition of interest, it seems to have meant little more than "cheap loans". The demand that everyone should be entitled to the "opportunity of a livelihood" (even if an alcoholic?) is also meaningless unless there are concrete plans for making this a reality. As a demand it was very much "in the air" at the time and the right to a job had even been included in the Weimar Constitution. This kind of stuff is empty rhetoric, nothing more. As can readily be imagined, the sheer meaninglessness of this became glaringly obvious in the Great Depression. The reference to equal duties and rights is standard liberal stuff, possibly with a populist edge here against "privilege", but it's not socialist. Moreover, not long afterwards, Hitler took over the party, and he had no time for this kind of populist rhetoric and made a point of getting rid of the party's populist wing(s). ] 23:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Moshe Postone in his ''National Socialism and Anti-Semitism'' makes a case that the Nazi ideology could be taken as a privilleging of use value over exchange value - a desire to concretize value (and thus Jews, synonymous with finance capital and with a large, universalised diaspora symbollised this and were thus industrially destroyed). Dunno how far that gets you. Bernard Shaw saw m as just a form of radical reformism, and ] in his essays ''Kautsky: From Marx to Hitler'' noted that the NSDAP realised most of the demands of the SPD. I'd also note that it was communist transfer votes that gave Hitler his final election victory. In the UK, during the war, the BBC broadcast lectures explaining why Fasicsm had nothing to do with socialism, as part of wartime propaganda--] 07:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

:::It is a fine line between explaining the genuine quasi-socialist (or, as Norvo would prefer "populist") elements within Nazism, and going into silly libertarian type ideas that Nazism is a form of socialism. Doing the first is generally worthwhile, while the second only confuses things. I think it's worth mentioning the Strassers and the quasi-socialist nature of the Nazis' official platform, but only if we also note that none of this stuff was actually put into effect, and that the wing of the party which supported it was purged. The formation of the USSR is not comparable to the Nazis' rabid nationalism. The former implied the consolidation of Leninist socialism within the former Tsarist Empire, but did not imply an abandonment of internationalism, and, indeed, communism remained an international movement throughout its existence. Red Deathy - I assume one of the demands of the SPD which was not realised was, er, the existence of independent trade unions? And "communist transfer votes" as an explanation of Hitler's victory in March 1933 seems dubious. Hitler's victory was a result of ''banning the Communist Party'' and basically intimidating all the others. It was not a fair contest in any respect. The last free election, in November 1932, had shown a leak of Nazi votes back to the DNVP and a leak of SPD votes to the Communists, as well as a leak of NAzi votes to the Communists. ] 11:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

::::I agree with nearly everything above except for the claim that "communism remained an international movement throughout its existence". Stalinism was opposed to internationalising the revolution, particularly in relation to the German and Spanish social uprisings. The post-WWII expansion of the USSR was not internationalism, but protectionism. ] 23:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

==The def (Again)==

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

:Again, that definition would exclude ], which is based on individual ownership generally under the "occupation and use" principle. Proudhon's distinction between possessions and property are hugely important in socialist theory, yet Proudhon rejected anything but individual control of their possessions. ] 08:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::I don't think conscious excludes mutualism, since mutualism relies on co-operative exchange of goods by private individuals for just ends, rather than the power driven war-like capitalism. Mutualists are consciously co-operating agents (I've spent a long while reading Kevin Carson's blog....).--] 09:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:::It's semantics, I agree, but the problem is the word "control". While anarchist communists and collectivists voluntary enter into a situation of collective/social control, mutualists (and individualists) retain individual control based on more egalitarian distribution and choose to co-operate or not to as the case may be. This is the primary difference in emphasis between individualists/mutualists and communists/collectivists within anarchism. To encompase all of these, the definition needs to move the emphasis from control to the principle of egalitarianism. It's a difficult one, but the current definition is causing problems on the anarchism page as the "anarcho"-capitalists can argue that, because the Individualists do not meet the definition of socialism here, they're not socialist in the same sense. Fundamentally, socialism and communism are not strictly political ideas, as they are part of a variety of political ideas. Socialism is the economic theory around which a number of very different political ideas have been built. ] 10:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, control is already there - I would argue the conscious element is more important, or rather, thatmorality/values/human ideas are no longer subject to market forces as a perceived external force. Ia gree that egalitarianism may need to be more central, however, the problem is then we lose stalinists and labourites - the likes of Bernard Shaw et al. who (NPOV-wise) belong in the tradition (whether we like it or not, this is wikipedia, not a propaganda page). The only thing they have in common is raising human principle (of some sort) above alienation of the market.--] 10:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::I believe that the current definition is correct: Socialism is a class of ideologies favouring collective ownership of all or most productive resources, either through the government or through cooperatives or workers' councils. It similarly restricts private property and prioritizes the common good over the wants of the individual. Thus, one cannot attempt to reconcile socialism with individualist ideologies such as Mutualism and individualist anarchism, which prioritize individual freedom and private property even when they conflict with the common good. -- ] 03:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::For that matter, I don't think that any branch of anarchism fits the definition of socialism, because they all hold that individual sovereignty is primary, whereas socialism curtails individual freedom when that freedom would conflict with the common good. Also, some reliable sources, such as , define socialism as an economic system based upon ''government'' ownership of the means of production, thus excluding anarchism. -- ] 04:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Sorry, WGee, but you're sounding like the right-wingers on the anarchism talk page - just coming from the opposite side. Anarchist ideas predate the Marxist interpretation of socialism you're using. Proudhon's ideas influenced Marx, the ] were among the first socialist/communists and they predated Marx by many years, Bakunin and the Jura Federation were kicked out of the First International over this same dispute. By defining socialism as "curtailing" personal freedom, you are defining authoritarian socialism, not socialism. Socialism is any system that seeks to bring economic equality to society, anarchists of all kinds have argued (with considerable historical support) that equality without freedom is impossible, as much as freedom without equality. Anarchist ideas about freedom and equality have infused political movements since Proudhon's time and are the dominant idea in the "anti-globalisation" convergence. To argue, as the right-wing libertarians do, that socialism is authoritarian, thus individualist/mutualist anarchism is not socialist is sectarian and inaccurate. ] 11:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::I don't think the definition at is that reliable; it seems a rather non-neutral and anti-socialist. Socialism is about SOCIAL control of the means of production, not GOVERNMENT control. The clue is in the word "social" carefully hidden within the word "socialism".
::::::::Historically, the anarchist movement was an integral part of the socialist movement, and it is anachronistic to say that Proudhon is anarchist and not socialist or vice versa. ], one of the most representative figures in anarchism, makes it clear anarchism should be seen as part of the socialist family:
:::::::::<blockquote>"In common with the founders of Socialism, Anarchists demand the abolition of economic monopoly in every form and shape and uphold common ownership of the soil and all other means of production, the use of which must be available to all without distinction; for personal and social freedom is conceivable only on the basis of equal economic conditions for everybody. Within the socialist movement itself the Anarchists represent the viewpoint that the struggle against capitalism must be at the same time a struggle against all coercive institutions of political power, for in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with political and social oppression. The exploitation of man by man and the domination of man over man are inseparable, and each is the condition of the other.
:::::::::As long as a possessing and a non-possessing group of human beings face one another in enmity within society, the state will be indispensable to the possessing minority for the protection of its privileges. When this condition of social injustice vanishes to give place to a higher order of things, which shall recognise no special rights and shall have as its basic assumption the community of social interests, government over men must yield the field to the administration of economic and social affairs, or, to speak with Saint Simon: "The time will come when the art of governing men will disappear. A new art will take its place, the art of administering things." In this respect Anarchism has to be regarded as a kind of voluntary Socialism." Source:http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-and-anarcho-syndicalism-rudolf-rocker]</blockquote>
::::::::Similarly, ], one of the most authoritative historians of anarchism, takes this position. I think it is more helpful to think about anarchism as including an individualist tradition (which is not socialist) and a socialist tradition, which historically has been the mainstream of anarchism, if it can be said to have a mainstream. ] 15:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::<blockquote>"Two fundamental principles gave Socialism its life and strength: the wage system and its master, private property. The cruelty, criminality, and injustice of these principles were the enemies against which Socialism hurled its bitterest attacks and criticisms. Private property and the wage system being the staunchest pillars of society, every one who dared expose their cruelty was denounced as an enemy of society, a dangerous character, a revolutionist. Time was when Socialism carried these epithets with head erect, feeling that the hatred and persecution of its enemies were its greatest attributes."</blockquote>
:::::::::. Or, if you want to see one of the most perfect definitions of socialism, read the quote on my user page. ] 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

== m + party ==
] has deleted the following: ''"Despite the fact that the Nazi party's official name was the ] (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), it was not actually a true socialist party, in the sense that Nazism rejected the policies of ], ], ], and common ownership of the ], which are the main tenets of socialism."'' While I think the motive for VT's edit was likely brevity, this nonetheless seems to me an important thing to mention in an article on socialism, especially given the oft-used anti-socialist argument that Nazism was tantamount to, or a form of, socialism.--] 04:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)(forgot signature initially).
:I'm glad that Vision Thing removed that, because a discussion about m and an analysis of the name of the Nazi Party are extraneous in an article about socialism. Since the article did not attempt to liken socialism to m in the first place, there was no need to make an effort to distance the two. Also, the preponderant opinion in academia is that Nazism is not socialist (for various reasons that we need not discuss now); thus, we should not be giving undue weight and legitimacy to anti-socialist arguments that have no significant following among reputable scholars. -- ] 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::I understand that the opinion in academia, and in most unbiased circles for that matter, is that Nazism is not truly socialist. My logic was to cut the nazism = socialism presumption off at the pass for the benefit of the non-academic, less scholastic idividual, as the official name of the party was the National Socialist German Workers Party, and any uninformed but otherwise well-intentioned person might therefore conclude for obvious reasons that it was in fact socialist. However, I am fine with leaving it out if that is the general concensus.--] 04:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

:Incorrect. A command economy is only socialism if it is controled by the workers (through the state) and if it is for their benefit. A state where a small group of people control the economy for their benefit is command economy, but not socialism. m/Nazism said that a dictator and an ] should control the economy by co-operating with capitalists and ]. ] was an extreme
anticommunist. Massive industrial corportaions like ] actually thrived under Nazi Germany. In fact, Facsism/Nazism was based on ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (in a ]), ], and ]. It is among the most anti-socialist views in exitence. There where some more ] elements in the party (see above discussions), but they were purged. Nazism (and m) was in no way a form of socialism. The name "National Socialist German Workers Party" was for propaganda purposes only. ] 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::As I said above, it might be worth writing a little bit about the ] socialist-influenced populist faction within early Nazism and its subsequent squashing by Hitler. Of course, your argument here disqualifies Stalinism as well, as there's no way you could argue that it was controlled by the workers nor for their benefit. ] 01:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

::When the state controls the means of production in any socialist economy, it is not for the benefit of the workers. It is for the benefit of the state. The state SAYS it is for the benefit of the workers, but Hitler also said that. "I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property." -Adolph Hitler. Of course NAZI Germany was socialist. ] 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:Although I had hoped to circumvent this old ridiculous debate, this discussion is a good example of the ''precise'' reason for my desire to include in the article the following paragraph, once again: ''"Despite the fact that the Nazi party's official name was the ] (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), it was not actually a true socialist party, in the sense that Nazism rejected the policies of ], ], ], and common ownership of the ], which are the main tenets of socialism."'' This makes clear the major divides between the Nazi controlled government (as it truly was in action) and true socialism. The differences go beyond who precisely controlled the means of production - the fact that real German socialists were primary enemies of the Nazis obviates the divide further - to the very fundamental tenets of socialism. -] 04:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

:Well, it does need addressing somehow. Partly it's the result of the weak definition of socialism at the top of the article - social control would include Nazi style govt. control whether you like that style or not. It also includes Soviet ]. A good many from the ] to ] (i.e. screaming ultra-lefts) to ] saw Nazism as a species of radical reformism (at the time), so it's not an entirely all-right wing view. --] 09:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:Thats not true. If you had a democraticly elected socialist government that kept it's origanal beliefs instead of becoming facists, you would end up with a state that does whats best for the workers. It's all very well trying to keep the rich minority happy, but at the end of the day it doesn't keep the 'masses' happy. Nazism is completly different. It is one madman's veiw about how the world should look and if the different peoples don't fit that mould, they will be killed. Socialism is a type of government that has been exploited by men with there own ajenda's in times of need. It is easy for just anyone to join a party and become the head and eventually get what he wants. Hitler did this in the depression, Mau did it in the culural revolution and Lenin did it in the Russian Revolution. Franklin D. Roosavelt ,however, kept his word and brought the U.S.A out of the depression. So Socialism doesn't have to be Communist or Nazist. The point is there needs to be an outlying point on the differences between Nazism and Socialism. --reds4eva

:Agreed! You cannot place socialism and communism in the same box as nazism; they are almost opposite ideologies. Socialism involves a government appointed by the people, and nazism is a self-imposed dictator with little incentive to help the 'masses' as you say. They are at opposing ends of the political spectrum. I'm sorry, Red Deathy, but I strongly disagree with your anti socialist views. --Earl of Wellington

::Earl, I am a socialist, and if I were arguing politics I would claim that Nazis, Stalinists and members of assorted Labour parties and so-called socialists parties (as in France) were not socialists, I would also argue that socialism is a ''stateless classless moneyless society in which the means of production and distribution were owned and democratically controlled in common''. Sadly, this is Misplaced Pages, where we have an NPOV policy in which we have to try and accomodate the views Stalinist wingnuts and Looneytarians. My point is, without special pleading, given the weak definition of socialism in the article, you cannot exclude the NSDAP, and that there were historical and contemporary critics (opponents) who did draw comparisons between the Nazis and leftwing reformism. As for the Nazi government, it had considerable popular support, and was the acme of mobilised dictatorships.--] 10:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

== male suffrage ==

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

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

Latest revision as of 17:23, 13 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 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, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about 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 Socialism at the Reference desk.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This  level-3 vital article is rated B-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 iconPolitics: American / 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 American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as High-importance).
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 iconHistory High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean history High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Social and political / Continental / Modern / Contemporary 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
Continental philosophy
Taskforce icon
Modern philosophy
Taskforce icon
Contemporary philosophy
WikiProject iconSociology: Social Movements 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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the social movements task force.
WikiProject iconUnited States: History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
          Other talk page banners
Section sizes
Section size for Socialism (32 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 27,983 27,983
Etymology 13,425 13,425
History 3,401 11,761
Early 21st century 8,360 8,360
Social and political theory 5,422 27,539
Criticism of capitalism 6,981 6,981
Marxism 4,443 4,443
Role of the state 3,731 3,731
Utopian versus scientific 2,354 2,354
Reform versus revolution 4,608 4,608
Culture 7,093 7,093
Economics 12,138 37,368
Planned economy 4,834 4,834
Self-managed economy 9,318 9,318
State-directed economy 2,526 2,526
Market socialism 8,552 8,552
Politics 2,787 85,646
Anarchism 12,921 12,921
Democratic socialism and social democracy 13,254 13,254
Ethical and liberal socialism 3,556 3,556
Leninism and precedents 16,148 16,148
Libertarian socialism 13,982 13,982
Religious socialism 2,309 2,309
Social movements 19,233 19,233
Syndicalism 1,456 1,456
Public views 4,240 4,240
Criticism 8,613 8,613
See also 597 597
References 30 16,200
Bibliography 16,170 16,170
Further reading 8,127 8,127
External links 1,645 1,645
Total 250,237 250,237
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Material from Socialism was split to Socialism (economic system) on 14:01, December 26, 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Large swaths of the 20th century section are about Communism, not Socialism

They're related enough to be worth mentioning, but devoting multiple entire paragraphs to Communism, with no sources that mention socialism at all, is WP:SYNTH. It also seems as though much of this was copy-pasted from Communism (where it belongs!) --Aquillion (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, this copy-pasting across the two articles took place in June and July 2023. –Vipz (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Clear usage of slanted argumentation in supposed factual description

Under the section on planned economy it is written "State socialism is unfeasible in this view because information cannot be aggregated by a central body and effectively used to formulate a plan for an entire economy, because doing so would result in distorted or absent price signals" This is a clearly a subjective opinion of the writer which if anything should be in criticisms of socialism. Nowhere is it mentioned either that 21th century computing, AI and statistics can be used to potentially predict with a high degree of probability the consumption of a population and required production. Midflyer (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Also Socialism is more of an economical theory than a political ideology. The modern invention of categorising socialism under the political umbrella terms such as "left-wing" ideologies is a modern invention produced by mostly non academic slanted sources and as a product of modern right-leaning propaganda. The definition of Socialism is simply: 'workers controlling the means of production' which is a purely economical definition and not a political ideological one. whilst socialism obviously branches off and can have progressive social elements social similar to left-leaning ideologies, it is important to make the distinction as the economical mode of function should be the focus point of socialism. Midflyer (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
your right. 92.9.187.0 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem to be very subjective. It would more correct to add that this is the opinion of a writer or a group of scholars or we can potentially remove it altogether if it's not significant enough. Frankserafini87 (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Difference between Socialism and Communism

Reading the communist manifesto, their IS a distinction, and the terms weren't use interchangeably as the the page suggests.

Source:

"Thus, Socialism was, in 1847, a middle-class movement, Communism a working class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; Communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it."

Page 8 preface https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf Frederick Engels January 30, 1888, London 16:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to add

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Too many links

MOS:SEAOFBLUE and MOS:OVERLINK toobigtokale (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Javier Milei's Speech

@Vipz This was not boiler plate "anti-communist propaganda" delivered by a nonentity. He is the president of Argentina, a well known economist, and his speech was delivered at the World Economic Forum in Davos. His speech, in its entirety, has gone viral on the internt and has been garnering widespread coverage in the press and media to the degree that it probably rings the notability bell in its own right. Google is your friend. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Virality of Milei's recent speech is temporary, and it certainly won't pass a WP:10YEARTEST. It is in its entirety boiler plate anti-communist rhetoric, everything from making people poorer, through having always failed, to 100 million deaths. There is no original criticism here that an academic body of people could come around and uphold it to support its notability. Nothing dissimilar to hundreds of remarks about the same topics made by Trump. And again, this article and this section is not a catalog of speeches that 'criticize' socialism. –Vipz (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Completely agree. The last thing this section needs is to be blown up with run-of-the-mill criticisms of socialism from reactionary politicians.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@C.J. Griffin Polemics and name calling do not lend themselves well to a sober discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The point still stands. Politicians lie like they breathe, and I don't believe it would be constructive to start shoehorning their screeds into this section, be it Milei, Trump or anyone else. Besides, it is redundant. It is already noted in the last paragraph that "Many commentators on the political right point to the mass killings under communist regimes, claiming them as an indictment of socialism". That should be sufficient. Including each individual commentator (like Milei) seems to me to be undue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The speech covers a great deal more than that. Beyond which I would note WP:IDONTLIKEIT (already mentioned below). You seem to have a very strong prejudice here. Criticism of socialism is not ipso-facto a "screed." My point also stands. Polemics and name calling are not conducive to a constructive conversation, especially on a sensitive topic. Unfortunately, I do need to get some sleep. I will pop in later today when I have some time and we can continue the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Vipz WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a compelling argument. You are certainly free to disagree with his remarks. But the speech goes into considerable detail and has garnered massive coverage in the press and media. That coupled with who delivered it and where, and IMO it easily passes the customary standards for a mention in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: "I don't like it" isn't what I stated. I pointed out issues with this addition, and you just repeated what you previously stated without addressing any of my concerns. –Vipz (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Vipz Your concerns as far as I can tell are that you do not agree with his speech, You believe that his position would not pass muster with an academic body. And you think it is similar to remarks by Donald Trump. (A point on which I strongly disagree, but then I have listened to the entire speech.) You also refer to the speech as part of a catalog of criticism "by just anyone." Not many speeches by the President of the United States get this kind of coverage. It appears that you believe his speech consists of the four sentences quoted. I am guessing you have not heard the speech or ready any of the coverage. FTR I have. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Vipz I think we are in different time zones. It is close to 1 in the morning here and unfortunately, I need to get some sleep. I will be happy to have a look at this later in the day when I have a few minutes and continue our discussion. Good night (or day). -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Ok. I've now got three people telling me they don't agree with the edit. While I don't agree, I will wait for the time being and see what kind of legs the speech has. If I choose to take this up again, I will open an RfC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Private Property Viewpoint

The description regarding private property is not supported by the Iinked reference 311.

Socialists view private property relations as limiting the potential of productive forces in the economy. According to socialists, private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralised, socialised institutions based on private appropriation of revenue—but based on cooperative work and internal planning in allocation of inputs—until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant. shiznaw (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding More Historical Figures

In the Socialism sidebar, there is a tab labeled "People" which includes a number of historical figures. While this covers a fair number of historical figures, I believe that it should cover more.

First, why should it do this? Socialism is, per the first Merriam-Webster definition, "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." By this definition, a wide number of people would fall under this label. However, a not-insignificant number of these people are not included in this list.

Second, why the Socialism sidebar? Socialism is, per its modern definition, a wide-reaching term that can mean a plethora of things. The most authoritarian Leninist to the most libertarian Anarchist could both (accurately) be called Socialist. So, all those who fell or have fallen into one of the the differing camps of Socialist theory deserve to be grouped under the Socialist label. And, as of yet, several people have not been added.

Therefore, to rectify this, we should start by adding the following people. I have provided the Misplaced Pages pages of the people who I am referring to for easy reference. Feel free to ask or criticize me about my inclusion of any of these people. I can elaborate wherever necessary.

This is not a comprehensive list, but instead just the people I could think of right now. Let me know if I added someone on this list that is already mentioned. Mr. Anarchyle (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Socialism § Culture

@WikiUser4020: these hatnote links seem to be {{See also}} content rather than {{Main}} articles for the section. There should also be less of them. –Vipz (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Vipz Can you specify which links in your view should be in the {{See also}} section ? (Just to avoid any potential disputes) WikiUser4020 (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
You seem to be confused, I am not talking about the == See also == section, but the See also: hatnote. Please check out the hatnote templates I linked. I am not personally sure which links should stay, which is why I started this talk page post. What I am sure about is that it should 'point to a small number of other related titles' and that the wrong hatnote is being used, because main articles should be closely related to the topic, and there are usually very few of them. –Vipz (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
@Vipz No problem. The original sentence was not clear but the changes have been made now. WikiUser4020 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

"Cultural socialism"?

Charity seems to be an individual act. But can socialism be thought of as a kind of ingrained philosophy where the government or church-in-charge uses funds to aide those in need? (Food, medical care, fire wood in the past, etc.) And they do it for ethical reasons because they are fellow Humans. So far as I know, this has been happening since at least the Middle Ages in Europe and immigrated into North America with the planter groups in the 1600s. Am I missing the boat and don't understand my own words or is this article slanted in economic and political directions? Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The definition of socialism is outdated and irrelevant and needs to be replaced with something that actually exists.

Socialism does not actually exist according to the old definition that we continue to perpetuate.

Lets work together to redefine socialism according to how it actually presents in the world.

I've been writing about this on Linkedin and can share my thoughts here if that's more appropriate than sending links. Toosh42 (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Toosh42 can you please elaborate on your issues with the current definition? –Vipz (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't matter because it's evident that this new account is just trying to promote their personal opinions and ideas. Reliable sources, reliable sources – and all they offer is their Linkedin. I cannot take this "proposal" seriously. Yue🌙 05:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
that's a very closed minded position to take Yue.
I'll respond properly soon. Toosh42 (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
1. there's no such thing as a socialist country. Not one.
2. Socialism is not mutually exclusive from Capitalism.
-There's not one democratic socialist country that doesn't also have a strong foundation of Capitalism. That doesn't exist.
-EVERY COUNTRY is on the SPECTRUM between these two systems -shifting a bit to the left or right depending on the party in power.
3. There's no country that is purely capitalist without any elements of socialism. that also doesn't exist.
4. Socialism exists the same way that capitalism does -in moderation and in balance depending on the government in power. Some countries have more socialism at some times, and more capitalism at other times depending on the political party in power, but at no time does the pendulum ever swing fully into end. Both are always held in balance.
5. many of the most prosperous countries in the world with the happiest citizens are also the most socialistic.
6. Even the most socialistic countries in the world don't identify as Socialist. Why not? Because they don't conform to the definition of socialism (NO ONE DOES!!). This alone should tell you that the definition of socialism needs to be updated to something that actually exists. 2001:4958:300A:7201:FDDA:FD8:D3C6:7BCC (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
With the preceding in mind (sorry I wasn't logged in), if I were to write the first paragraph of the definition, it might go something like:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing a spectrum of economic and social systems characterized by varying degrees of social ownership and government investment in the public realm.
In practice, most modern implementations of socialist principles exist alongside capitalist elements in mixed economies. No pure socialist or purely capitalist systems exist in the real world; instead, countries operate on a spectrum between these ideologies, with the balance shifting based on governing parties and policies.
Socialist principles are often integrated into democratic systems, particularly in some of the world's most prosperous nations with high citizen satisfaction. These countries, while incorporating socialist elements, typically do not identify as purely socialist states. The implementation of socialist ideas varies widely, influenced by factors such as the role of markets, degree of economic planning, and organizational structures in both public and private sectors.
As a political philosophy, socialism remains an influential force on the left side of the political spectrum in many countries. However, its practical application in governance often involves a nuanced balance with and against capitalist principles, rather than a wholesale replacement of private ownership as seen in Communism.
Examples of socialistic investments in the public realm include:
-Free education for K-12
-Free Libraries
-Free healthcare
-Public Transit
-Fire fighting
-Public parks
-Police
-Homeless shelters
-Low income housing
-Foodbanks
-Community Centres
-Highways and bridges (not including toll ones owned by private for profit companies) Toosh42 (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
since no countries exist that can be described as socialist, I propose that we either need to change the definition to something that actually exists, or create a new definition for what exists. Modifying the definition to match reality makes much more sense to me. Toosh42 (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
"create a new definition for what exists" Misplaced Pages does not create definitions, it simply quotes those found in reliable sources. Dimadick (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you. Toosh42 (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories: