Talk:Criticism of socialism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:12, 11 April 2022 editXx236 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,481 edits →socialisation: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:06, 12 April 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,300,524 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Criticism of socialism/Archive 4) (botNext edit →
Line 19:		Line 19:
	{{Archives\|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III\|age=1\|units=year}}		{{Archives\|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III\|age=1\|units=year}}


	== Criticisms of criticisms of socialism ==

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

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


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


	:: I can't say I agree. It would be pretty difficult to find all the refutations if you didn't know the topic well. I don't think it's 'soapboxing' to centralize the information. -unsigned. 7:56 8/23/2012

	:::Djupp and anon are correct. An article should never contain a single point of view. Misplaced Pages allows "criticisms" articles only with the understanding that they are ''articles '''about''' criticisms'' - in other words, articles presenting the criticisms as well as objections raised against them - not ''articles endorsing the point of view of the critics''. ] (]) 23:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

	::::Any article presenting a single point of view, without including appropriate critiques, is a fundamental violation of ]. ] (]) 04:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

	== market socialism is not criticized ==

	The section on centralized planning ends with a comment about market socialism as an alternative to traditional socialism. Would someone please write a criticism of market socialism regarding issues of centralized planning? Thanks! -- ] (]) 03:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

	:This of the book seems like a good starting point. -- ] (]) 00:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

	:While I have not yet read it, F. A. Hayek's "Socialist Calculation: The Competitive 'Solution'" apparently covers this topic. It can be found as a chapter of : . -- ] (]) 02:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

	::The essay that precedes the one I linked to above is "The Present State of the Debate", the second chapter in "Socialism and War" by F. A. Hayek. -- ] (]) 02:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

	== Criticism of a Communist Slogan or of Income Egalitarianism Is Not Criticism of Socialism ==		== Criticism of a Communist Slogan or of Income Egalitarianism Is Not Criticism of Socialism ==
Line 70:		Line 42:
	::I've been way too busy this year to respond to the foregoing argument, which is riddled with errors. I'll have to take it apart one piece at a time.		::I've been way too busy this year to respond to the foregoing argument, which is riddled with errors. I'll have to take it apart one piece at a time.
	::The most basic error is the ludicrous notion that "socialism is unrelated to such egalitarianism." ] and Michael Newman (just to name a few) . --] (]) 13:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)		::The most basic error is the ludicrous notion that "socialism is unrelated to such egalitarianism." ] and Michael Newman (just to name a few) . --] (]) 13:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

	== Removal of Drakulić on Communism and Hayek on Totalitarianism ==

	Hey, all. I’ve removed two different criticisms, neither of which was actually a criticism of socialism specifically. I’m more than happy to discuss whether these actually do belong in this article though, since I may very well be incorrect here.

	First, I removed the Drakulić criticism of state-run industries in Yugoslavia. If this is just a criticism of state-run industries, then it is not a criticism of socialism, since socialism does not require state-run industries (in fact, the bulk of schools within socialist thought are anti-statist, and a number are outright anarchist) and state-run industries can exist within many socioeconomic systems, e.g., communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism. If this is a criticism, instead, of state-run industries specifically within Yugoslavia, then this would be a criticism of communist (not socialist) statist planning, although for a good chunk of Yugoslavia’s history, it had a market economy, and so it’s not even clear that this criticism makes any historical sense. So: Either a criticism of statism or a criticism of communism or nonsensical.

	Second, I removed Hayek’s criticism of totalitarianism. I’m pretty familiar with the book and couldn’t remember Hayek making this criticism of totalitarianism specifically in reference to socialism. I went looking through the book for the material, and the content in our article seems to be a combination of several things Hayek says in a few different places in the book. For those who aren’t familiar with the book, Hayek is kind of all over the place in it, criticizing communism, socialism, statism, totalitarianism, regulation, interventionism, etc. The bits about totalitarianism that seem to have been woven together for our article are about totalitarianism specifically, not about socialism or some uniquely socialist form of totalitarianism. Most of those bits come specifically from parts of the book dealing with fascism. Since totalitarianism is neither necessary (very few socialists advocate totalitarianism) nor sufficient (totalitarianism is compatible with communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism) for socialism, this criticism would be better for an article on totalitarianism, not for this article.

	Please let me know if you have concerns with my edits or my reasoning. ] (]) 06:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

	== Mass killings under nominally socialist regimes ==		== Mass killings under nominally socialist regimes ==

Revision as of 02:06, 12 April 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of socialism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Criticism of socialism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Criticism of socialism at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Socialism Top‑importance

	Socialism portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Economics High‑importance

	Business and economics portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: Libertarianism Top‑importance

	Politics portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Social and political / Religion High‑importance

This 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

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy
	Philosophy of religion

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Criticism of a Communist Slogan or of Income Egalitarianism Is Not Criticism of Socialism

I removed a paragraph (diff) detailing a supposed criticism by John Kenneth Galbraith. My edit was reverted by User:Coolcaesar, so I'd like to discuss.

Since the article is "Criticism of Socialism," inclusion criteria should be well-sourced criticisms of socialism. However, the Galbraith quotation doesn't appear to be a criticism of socialism. I appreciate the suggestion by Coolcaesar to read the linked Google Book, although it was easier to grab my well-worn copy from my bookshelf. Checking the quoted passage, Galbraith is criticizing a supposed claim (by whom isn't clear) that there is a positive correlation between egalitarianism in rewards (I'm assuming this is intended to be read as wages and salaries) and worker motivation. Galbraith states that "enerations of socialists and socially oriented leaders" have learned that such a positive correlation does not exist. Galbraith claims to be criticizing the Marxist slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (which the editor who initially introduced the quotation in our article included). There are several issues with this being a "criticism of socialism," however:

1. It's not clear that Galbraith actually takes this to be a criticism of socialism. He mentions "socialists," but a criticism of socialists adhering to a slogan is not the same thing as a criticism of socialism. This is not a problem with Galbraith himself, but a problem with interpreting what Galbraith is saying as a criticism of socialism—claiming this is a "criticism of socialism" is simply not supported by the source.

2. Galbraith seems to be taking the slogan to mean that there ought to be egalitarianism regarding compensation for work done and that the reason for this egalitarianism is increased worker motivation. However, this is not what the Marxist slogan means. The slogan is neither about compensation for work nor about increasing motivation for work.

3. The slogan is Marx's pithy definition of communism. Socialism is not communism. If some socialists have used the slogan, so much the worse for those socialists, but criticizing a communist slogan, taking that criticism to be a criticism of the people using that slogan (socialists?), and then taking that criticism of those people to be a criticism of a socioeconomic ideology (socialism) requires several unsupportable leaps. Marx's pithy definition of socialism is: From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.

4. Even if we leave behind the meaning of the slogan, leave behind the fact that socialism and communism are not the same thing and so criticism of the latter is not criticism of the former, leave behind the fact that criticizing some socialists is not criticizing socialism, there's the issue of what socialism actually holds. Socialism is a broad range of positions and theories and ideologies; the common link between all is social ownership of the means of production (our Socialism article does a great job with the definition). Socialism has nothing at all to do with egalitarianism in terms of wages or income. If Galbraith is criticizing such egalitarianism, fine, but since socialism is unrelated to such egalitarianism, it's unclear how this criticism could be construed as a criticism of socialism.

5. Socialism also has nothing at all to do with making the claim that egalitarianism in income increases worker motivation. Search the sources for our Socialism article and no only will there be no claim that socialism generally promotes egalitarianism in income, there definitely, absolutely won't be a claim that egalitarianism and worker motivation are positively correlated.

So there's kind of a mess here—source doesn't support the claim that this is a criticism of socialism, communism is not socialism, criticizing unquoted socialists is not criticizing socialism, and the complete mismatch between what Galbraith is criticizing and what socialism actually is. I'm not entirely sure why Coolcaesar believed that removing this quote for all of those reasons was an attempt to censor Misplaced Pages, but I'll assume that was just an error. The quote should be removed because it either has nothing to do with socialism or it makes Galbraith look foolish (which he isn't) and like he has absolutely no idea what socialism is. Thanksforhelping (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I have once again removed this paragraph as per the above comments, as User:Coolcaesar did not seem interested in discussing their revert. I hope that in the future, this user will join the discussion rather than baselessly accusing another editor of attempting to censor Misplaced Pages. Thanksforhelping (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been way too busy this year to respond to the foregoing argument, which is riddled with errors. I'll have to take it apart one piece at a time.

The most basic error is the ludicrous notion that "socialism is unrelated to such egalitarianism." G. A. Cohen and Michael Newman (just to name a few) would strongly disagree. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under nominally socialist regimes

I've added a mention of the mass killings under Stalin and Mao, something that the political right are currently pushing as an indictment of the entire idea of socialism. This is currently a very popular anti-socialist talking point in the right-wing media, and I don't think it can be ignored in this article. As ever, I'm reporting the controversy per WP:NPOV, not assigning right or wrong to either side of the argument. -- The Anome (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Calling attention to this section, which is poorly written and contains POV pushing and weasel words e.g. "Many commenters on the political right...". Should be rewritten. "Nominally" should be removed from the section title. 206.172.157.8 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Source

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

socialisation

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

Categories: