Talk:Criticism of socialism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Link spamming mises.org

Note to User:Vision_Thing. Here is some text from Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer:

• Adding many links to (or mentions of) the same site or product. Going through an article and adding the name of your product to every paragraph where it seems relevant is just going to attract the revert button.
• Adding the same link to many articles. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button. And that's not very much fun.

Please show some sense of proportion and please stop spamming this and other pages with multiple links to mises.org material.--Cberlet 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Four links are not "many". Also, all links are relevant to the article, are form different authors and they can be found only on mises.org. -- Vision Thing -- 16:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is still obviously link spamming to promote a political POV. Please stop it.--Cberlet 19:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon POV Pushing

The following text has had to be frequently removed from the main article. The user inserting these changes has had no interest in discusssing this chunk. It appears that the editor has started using a new IP address, too (due to a block). Can I ask all editors to keep an eye out for this.

The fact that historians estimate that Socialism has murdered 100,000,000 people worldwide in less than 90 years, which is more than any other political movement in history, including fascism and more than all the wars (including both world wars) in the 20th century combined, reminds people of the merciless brutality and contempt for individual rights and freedom which are characteristic of all Socialist regimes and makes people particularly fearful of what kinds of horror these types of movements may wreak in the 21st century if left unhindered. Combined with the economic, academic personal and cultural poverty created by Socialist regimes has left many in no doubt that it is an impossible system to work, due to the fact that there has never been an attempt at imposing Socialist rule that has not resulted in mass suffering and failure. This is characterised by the nickname for Socialism of a disasterous 'experiment' on the human population. The only possible exception to this may be China, which is developed in some aspects, such as it's military, (despite not having any major national security threats). Although very little can be said of improvements for the general population in China, with more than 500,000,000 never having brushed their teeth due to extreme poverty. However, this has been largely due to China's shift to a more market based economy, which has brought efficiency and an explosion of international trade and enterprise, characteristic of capitalism to this now very much impure Socialist state, rather than Socialist/Maoist policies which have caused famines in the country and obscurity from the world. There is still widespread repression, torture, sentencing to labour camps and murder of dissidents, democracy supporters, civil liberties groups and religious groups such as the Falun Gong, Tibetan Monks and Muslims in China.

If the original author wants to come forth and talk, they're welcome to indicate, and I/we can help them understand how to improve the article without disruptive edit warring, as well as pointing out the problems with the text.--Nema Fakei 10:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Michael40 has seen our messages on the talk page of Socialism, and seems to be willing to discuss things. I reckon a lot of what he has to say is worth including - whether fairly or unfairly, these *are* criticisms levelled against socialism. He's also realised it's a bit POV and has made some modifications. I say let's try to make it a bit more in keeping with WP by editing it on the talk page, then put it back into the article. Here's the current verison.

The fact that historians estimate that states going under the banner of Socialism have murdered an enormous number of people, figures usually ranging from 80,000,000 to 145,000,000 worldwide in less than 90 years, which is more than any other political movement in history, including fascism and more than all the wars (including both world wars) in the 20th century combined, makes many people who are opposed to Socialism very weary of new governments which appear to be overly egalitarian or statist. These critics also maintain that Socialism has caused widespread and extreme poverty, both on an economic basis and on a cultural and societal basis. This is characterized by the nickname for Socialism by critics of a disastrous 'experiment' on the human population. The only possible exception to this may be China, which is developed in some aspects, such as its military, (despite not having any major national security threats). Although very little can be said of improvements for the general population in China, with more than 500,000,000 never having brushed their teeth due to extreme poverty. However, this has been largely due to China's shift to a more market based economy, which has brought efficiency and an explosion of international trade and enterprise, characteristic of capitalism to this now very much impure Socialist state, rather than Socialist/Maoist policies which have caused famines in the country and obscurity from the world. There is still widespread repression, torture, sentencing to labor camps and murder of dissidents, democracy supporters, civil liberties groups and religious groups such as the Falun Gong, Tibetan Monks and Muslims in China. Proponents of Socialism deny that these problems are characteristic of real Socialism however, and maintain, that the regimes of the 20th century were corrupt, and unnecessarily totalitarian in their ways of ruling and were not truly Socialist. Many in the ‘new left’ view these regimes, which they claim to be dogmatic, oppressive and inflexible Communist states to be as ‘bad’ as Capitalist countries. An example of this is that many of the most vocal critics of the Communist party of China are in fact proponents of Socialism. Many Socialists also counter that there have been regimes endorsing Capitalism which also have poor human rights records, such as that of General Augusto Pinochet.

Right, I'm going to start the ball rolling. My comments are in ((double normal brackets)).

Those critics of socialism who hold what are known as communist states to be examples of socialism frequently highlight the human rights records of these countries. Many socialists themselves condemn such countries on similar grounds, and even reject the categorisation of such examples as socialist.

Estimates of the number of deaths caused by communist states range from 80,000,000 to 145,000,000 worldwide over a the past ninety years. This figure is greater than that of any other political movement in history, including fascism and more than all the wars (including both world wars) in the 20th century combined. ((is it?)) makes many people who are opposed to Socialism very weary of new governments which appear to be overly egalitarian or statist. ((irrelevant)) These critics also maintain that Socialism has caused widespread and extreme poverty, both on an economic basis and on a cultural and societal basis ((belongs in another section)). This is characterized by the nickname for Socialism by critics of a disastrous 'experiment' on the human population. ((I think it was a socialist term - 'experiment' not in mad scientist sense, but in the sense of 'attempt'))

The only possible exception to this may be China, which is developed in some aspects, such as its military, (despite not having any major national security threats).((Um, that's at best a very dubious point)) However, very little can be said of improvements for the general population in China, with more than 500,000,000 never having brushed their teeth due to extreme poverty. This has been largely due to China's shift to a more market based economy ((??? - there was poverty before the market)), which has brought efficiency and an explosion of international trade and enterprise, characteristic of capitalism to this now very much impure Socialist state, rather than Socialist/Maoist policies which have caused famines in the country and obscurity from the world ((commentary on china is all offtopic)). There is still widespread repression, torture, sentencing to labor camps and murder of dissidents, democracy supporters, civil liberties groups and religious groups such as the Falun Gong, Tibetan Monks and Muslims in China.((Here we go. It needs a little integration into the text, but liiks good.)) Proponents of Socialism deny that these problems are characteristic of real Socialism however, and maintain, that the regimes of the 20th century were corrupt, and unnecessarily totalitarian in their ways of ruling and were not truly Socialist.((This needed to be covered first. No need to repeat)) Many in the ‘new left’ view these regimes, which they claim to be dogmatic, oppressive and inflexible Communist states to be as ‘bad’ as Capitalist countries. An example of this is that many of the most vocal critics of the Communist party of China are in fact proponents of Socialism. Many Socialists also counter that there have been regimes endorsing Capitalism which also have poor human rights records, such as that of General Augusto Pinochet.

Not finished yet, but it's a start. Michael, see if you can follow my lead.--Nema Fakei 12:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion:

Those critics of socialism who hold what are known as communist states to be examples of socialism frequently highlight the human rights records of these countries. Many socialists themselves condemn such countries on similar grounds, and even reject the categorisation of such examples as socialist.

Estimates of the number of deaths caused by communist states range from 80,000,000 to 145,000,000 worldwide over the past ninety years. This figure is greater than that of any other political movement in history, including fascism and more than all the wars (including both world wars) in the 20th century combined. In China there is still widespread repression, torture, sentencing to labor camps and murder of dissidents, democracy supporters, civil liberties groups and religious groups such as the Falun Gong, Tibetan Monks and Muslims in China.

However, many of the most vocal critics of the Communist Party of China are in fact socialists. Many socialists also counter that there have been regimes endorsing capitalism which also have poor human rights records, such as that of Chilean former president Augusto Pinochet.

Objections? -- Vision Thing -- 17:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have two basic objections: (1) the complete lack of references (this is the more serious charge) and (2) the shape of this text is generally aimed at communism and not socialism as such (to wit: "many socialists...", "many of the most vocal critics..."). This kind of criticism is already covered under Criticism of communism. At best, this page should have a brief summary (which this is approaching) and a link to that page. It might even be appropriate just to have a see also-type link. ^iggy_talk 09:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

1) by The Black Book of Communism there were 94 million dead and by R. J. Rummel 145; 2) this is a brief summary - it has seven sentences, and three of them are rejections of criticisms. -- Vision Thing -- 17:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Iggy, it's already coverd on the Criticism of communism page and the Democide page and doesn't need to be covered here as well, particularly since these crimes pertain to communist rather than socialist states.

At best, a line or two and a link to the CoC page is all that's required here IMO. Gatoclass 09:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This article is called "Criticisms of socialism", not "Criticisms of some actions in states sometimes called socialist". // Liftarn

Your objections can be refuted from two different angles: 1) communism is a form of socialism; 2) in theory there is no such thing as a "communist state" and in practice those states called themselves socialist, "communist" being just an epithet given to them by theirs enemies. -- Vision Thing -- 17:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm. "those states called themselves socialist" Yeah, but they also claimed to be democratic. Will this be going under democracy? I agree that the record of the USSR, China, et al in no way affect socialism. Nevertheless, people criticise socialism on these grounds. They may be wrong to do so, but it's not something you can ignore. Frankly, we'll be more useful to users by pointing out that yes, there were atrocities in these countries, and no, they weren't socialist.--Nema Fakei 18:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether there were socialist is not ours to say. What we need to do is to say what are common criticisms and what are answers to those criticisms. -- Vision Thing -- 18:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Historical Examples section at the bottom of the page clearly references communist states as an example of one type of state commonly identified as "socialist", emphasizes that criticism of these states is "particularly prevalent" and provides a pointer to the criticism of communism page. So there is no reason to duplicate any of the info at the "criticism of communism" page here. These particular criticisms clearly belong on the CoC page in any case. Gatoclass 05:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

First half of that section belongs to the Socialism page. Second half should be expanded by suggested addition. -- Vision Thing -- 16:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I still maintain that since these criticisms pertain specifically to communist states, they are best located at the CoC page.

But in any case, there are clear problems with your proposed edit. To begin with, these figures are extremely contentious. They are taken either from RJ Rummel or from the Black Book of Communism. Rummel in my opinion is a shonk. I have also read that a number of contributors to the BBoC have denounced the editor's overall conclusions. If you look at the CoC page, for example, you'll see the smallest estimates for Soviet and Chinese Communist deaths comes to only 23 million combined, a long way from the lowest "80 million" figure presented here.

Not only that, but these figures are presented completely out of context, in such a way as to smear socialism as a particular nasty form of government.

As an example, the Chinese famine during the period of the Great Leap Forward is one of the main contributors to the above numbers, with estimates of the dead usually in the range of about 30 million. This was undoubtedly a disaster for Chinese Communism. But then if you look at the history of China from the 1850's to the advent of Communism, you will see that tens of millions likewise perished under previous Chinese administrations. Why then, pick only on the failures of the Communists, without reference to the record of the dysfunctional regimes which preceded them?

Then there is the record of the capitalist countries themselves. While it is probably impossible to get an accurate estimate of the number of victims of Western imperialism, I've seen estimates as high as 100 million. But I suspect a thorough study would come up with a number far higher. Even Rummel, who often tries to minimize the "democide" of Western countries to a ridiculous degree, admits to 50 million victims. Others have estimated the victims of American foreign policy alone in the last fifty years to be in excess of 16 million people. So the argument that socialist crimes are "greater than that of any other political movement in history, including fascism and more than all the wars (including both world wars) in the 20th century combined" is far too contentious to deserve inclusion.

To sum up - I object to the numbers, which rely on a couple of the most biased sources and are highly inflated, I object to the claim that this is the greatest death toll attributable to any political movement in history, which given the uncertainty of the figures is a claim that cannot be substantiated, and I object to the commentary about China since it is a pointless digression. This basically leaves nothing of the original edit. Gatoclass 16:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the CoC page, for example, you'll see the smallest estimates for Soviet and Chinese Communist deaths comes to only 23 million combined, a long way from the lowest "80 million" figure presented here.

Find source for 23 million and we can add that as the lowest figure.

Why then, pick only on the failures of the Communists, without reference to the record of the dysfunctional regimes which preceded them?

Because we are talking about criticisms of communist/socialist states, not about criticisms of previous¸ or other regimes.

Then there is the record of the capitalist countries themselves. While it is probably impossible to get an accurate estimate of the number of victims of Western imperialism, I've seen estimates as high as 100 million. But I suspect a thorough study would come up with a number far higher.

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. However, if you can find reliable, published source, cite it and we will remove the statement about "the greatest death toll attributable to any political movement in history". -- Vision Thing -- 17:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The sources are already extant, on Wiki and elsewhere. For example, a couple of sources on the criticisms of communism page give the total number of victims of Communist China and the USSR as no more than 23 million, total, over the course of 90 years. Now compare that to Rummel's figure of 50 million due to Western imperialism. Alternatively, compare it to the death toll in WWII of 56 million, caused by fascist aggression. There is clearly no ground whatever for claiming that the alleged "victims of socialism" are "greater than that of any other political movement in history". Gatoclass 05:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to use Rummel's figure for one thing, you need to use the figure HE used for the thing you are comparing it to. Rummel's figure for Communist regimes is nearly 145 million. Rummel's sources on Chairman Mao are definitely reliable, as many of them are directly from members of his own commie party who were closest to him and had to carry out his orders personally. Besides much of the deaths from imperialism were nothing to do with Capitalism (the word Capitalism didn't even come into use until the 1850s) and were monarchist regimes and with mercantillist policies, nothing like what is featured in American capitalism today. Also, many of those deaths come from Japanese imperialism during the 1930s. [unsigned comment]

"You need to use the figure HE used for the thing you are comparing it to". No I don't. Why do I need to do that? The point I'm making about Rummel is that he is a biased source. His figures for crimes of the left are far greater than those from any other source, and likewise, his figures for the crimes of Western countries are often absurdly small. And yet even Rummel concedes a death toll of 50 million for Western imperialism. That's the point I'm making. Others would put the toll due to imperialism much higher. (For example, the death toll due to the European slave trade alone has been estimated as high as 200 million).

The broader point I am making is that many of these figures are notoriously unreliable in any case, as well as heavily subject to the methodology employed. Since many of the numbers are so rubbery, it can't possibly be stated with any confidence that socialism's crimes are "greater than that of any other political movement in history". It's a totally POV statement, dependent entirely on who is doing the counting.

As for your claim that "imperialism [has] nothing to do with capitalism", I think that's a preposterous claim. It's also inconsistent with your overall position. You folks have argued for the inclusion of communist death tolls on this page on the grounds that communist states are examples of "actually existing socialism" regardless of whether or not these states conform to socialist theory. I can easily turn that around and argue (and with considerably more justification) that "actually existing capitalism" has long employed imperialism as a means to wealth accumulation, regardless of whether or not imperialism itself conforms to capitalist theory. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Gatoclass 06:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Gatoclass must not be able to read. that would explain why he cannot see that I have listed relevant sources, and have removed any POV from article. I have not said that those states ARE Socialist, just that they, and much of the rest of the world claims that they are. I have also (unnecessarily, since it's would be neutral enough without them) included pro - Socialist counterarguments. The figures are not inflated at all. Wikipedia endorses the HIGHER figure. So if anything, by even bothering to put in the lower figure, I'm being biased IN FAVOUR of Socialism. Clearly Gatoclass is either biased or thinks he knows more than the internationally acclaimed professional historians who make up valid Wikipedia sources. How arrogant. Who does he think he is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.157.64 (talk • contribs)

I've reverted you again. You need to understand that Wiki is a consensus enterprise. You don't get to just put up what you think is appropriate and ignore the views of everyone else. This is a controversial edit, and we are having a discussion here and trying to reach a compromise that everyone can live with. You can either participate in this process or continue to act like a dick [[1]] and engage in edit wars. But perhaps you are now beginning to realize that edit wars are not the way to go, because it's a great way to ensure that no part of your views gets represented. More to come... Gatoclass 03:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply

NO actually what is put on wiki editing depends on the TRUTH and how valid the sources are. This is nothing to do with what you or I think, or any of the other users who edit this page. This is about the fact that verified trusted information by sources who are far more knowledgable than anyone here say that these figures I am writing about are valid. So I have reverted you, and will continue to do so until hell freezes over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.157.64 (talk • contribs)

Yes, and I notice that while you've been sanctimoniously swearing your commitment to "the TRUTH" and lecturing us for allegedly removing "verifed, trusted information", you went to the Central Intelligence Agency page and whitewashed[[2]] a number CIA operations by deleting well established information, such as that the Mossadegh government overthrown by the CIA was democratically elected, or that US supported regimes in Guatemala were responsible for over 100,000 deaths. In other words, you've been doing the very thing on other pages that you've been accusing us of doing here. That's called hypocrisy.

Not only that, it underscores your blatant POV pushing. Gatoclass 06:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[To 60.234.157.64] Instead of continually trying to insert your text, please join the discussion on this talk page on how to best formulate and integrate the viewpoint you're trying to convey. In the long run, that'll be much more productive. Thanks! Henrik 06:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Integration

Since Iggy decided to try and integrate the number of victims of communism onto this page in a more NPOV fashion, I decided to suspend my objection to this material appearing here at least for the time being, even though I still believe it is inappropriate to this page and more than adequately covered on the CoC page.

I have therefore made a correction to Iggy's edit and reworked the text somewhat to effect a more balanced picture. Since the alleged number of "victims of socialism" has now been included on this page, I think this is a more than fair compromise. Regards, Gatoclass 07:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical Examples

The section

and Bryan Caplan argues that there were systematic human rights violations during the Spanish Civil War by anarchists.[3]

is in dispute. I don't think it's relevant to include the views of any random person with a website. He is a professor of economics and not a historian so his views is as relevant as a dentist's. // Liftarn 11:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Add opposing source. He quotes good sources.Ultramarine 11:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The sources may be good (why not use them instead), but he is known for using very dubious ways to deal with sources. For instance removing parts of a sentence to change the meaning. He is not a reliable source. "Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. Web sites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. /../ Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? /../ editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views /../ A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself." // Liftarn

You give no soucres for your statements regarding Kaplan. This is not a personal website, but a university page. He is a respected academic who provides extensive sources for his statements.Ultramarine 12:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is his personal homepage (see http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/ ). That it's hosted by the uni makes no difference. He is an economist and is thus unqualified to give statements about history. His strong bias also makes his statements dubious. May I remind you that "A personal website /../ may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself." so Caplan's personal website is not usable as a source. // Liftarn

Since it is his university page, this certainly limit what material he can put up. Again, not a personal webpage. Note also that he discusses economic issues in his article. If you insist, I will just quote the books he uses instead. Ultramarine 13:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The title is even "Bryan Caplan Homepage" and it has pictures of himself and his family so it certainly is a personal homepage. Who provides the hosting doesn't matter. Yes, please use reliable sources instead of a single person crank website. And don't just use Caplan's list of refences, check them first. // Liftarn

I think ultra's link is OK. He's linking primarily to a history, not to Caplan's site.

I've removed the phrase "Several academic books...describe" because it is long winded and redundant, and just replaced it with "Others condemn" (the link is there for everyone to see after all). Also replaced "human rights violations" which is another longwinded phrase, with "atrocities", which is what anarchists are being accused of. I've also added the phrase "although all sides committed atrocities in this conflict" for balance, and because I see no point in picking on the anarchists when everybody in that war was doing much the same thing. Gatoclass 18:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I did some more language work. I also removed the link to Caplan's homepage since his bias is well known and a single person website is not a reliable source. // Liftarn

I'm not sure that "Others have condemned atrocities committed by all sides during the Spanish Civil War" is sufficient. If you put it that way, it loses any relevance to the subject at hand, which is the alleged human rights violations committed by other socialist groups. If the line is not going to refer specifically to anarchists, it might as well be deleted altogether, as redundant to the subject at hand.

I'm inclined to agree with you about Caplan though. I guess I just feel his inclusion isn't worth an edit war. I mean, the crimes allegedly committed by the Paris Commune and the shortlived Spanish anarchist collectives are insignificant in comparison to the other crimes mentioned in the preceding paragraph. So does it really matter whether they get a mention or not? Gatoclass 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There were several different groups in the Spanish civil war. Singling out one of them seems odd. Do you have any suggestion on how to phrase it? // Liftarn

I agree it is rather pointless to single out anarchists in this context. However, some people obviously want to point out that it isn't just "commies" who have committed atrocities on the left - even if that means scraping the barrel by referring to such shortlived phenomena as the Paris Commune and the Spanish anarchist collectives.

I obviously don't agree with the inclusion of these examples because I think they are peripheral, but I personally don't think their inclusion is worth a fight. Their inclusion does have the added benefit though I think of giving an excuse to include links to the Paris Commune and the Spanish Civil War, which are themselves broadly relevant to the subject of socialism.

BTW I reinserted the reference to anarchists, because I don't think the sentence is serving any function without reference to them. I've left out the reference to Caplan though. If you want to delete the sentence altogether I'll leave you to fight it out with Ultramarine. Good luck with that :) Gatoclass 07:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't bother. It looks OKish as it is. Perhaps the word "atrocities" is not the best, but there are other articles I need to work on more. // Liftarn

Reply to Gatoclass and others regarding edits on CIA crimes from 60.234.157.64

I did not intentionally filter information. The sources I had previously read about this form from had referred to those govts as "regimes," and I had never actually seen any reference to them as democratically elected before. I thought that perhaps they were communist or fascist, since fighting communism was probably the biggest priority of the CIA. I had thought that the claim that they were democratically elected was POV pushing, and that they were classing "people's democracies" (or in other words commie regimes) as democracies. I realise that I was wrong about that issue and I stand corrected. If you don't believe that my intention was good, look at it this way. I am a college student in New Zealand who has never even been to the USA nor ever wants to go. Why on Earth would I care enough about what people think about the US to bother wasting my time POV pushing about it when it makes absolutely no difference to my life whatsoever? BTW I am not POV pushing about socialism. I don;t have a political bias, nor do I particularly care about politics in the first place. I just think that the atroities committed by these regimes which, MAY (in many people's opinions, and these opinions are just as valid as yours) have been Socialist, and who claimed to be Socialist, and share many of the traits of Socialism (such as abolishing nearly all private ownership of the means of production) should not go unnoticed, since they do involve events of a large magnitude which are definitely worth noting in an encyclopedia. (I only state that they CLAIM to be Socialist, which is true). In hindsight to realising that the CIA did in fact help overthrow those democratically elected govts, I am pleased that you corrected my error, and I hope that the atrocities that they committed are widely publicised as well. As I said before, I don't have any double standards, and my only motive is to make sure that atrocities from history get the attention they deserve, out of a sense of justice.

Weak graf

Re: The critics of socialism often claim that imposing a policy that would lead to the reduction of inequality would also reduce incentives, and therefore productivity and total wealth would be reduced in turn. Empirical evidence shows no statistical correlation between a nation's wealth and the degree of inequality in that nation. The most egalitarian nations in the world include wealthy countries such as Denmark, Japan and Sweden, while the countries with the most economic inequality are the poor African nations of Botswana, Lesotho and Namibia (see list of countries by income equality).

Is this not original research? This declaration of "no statistical correlation" is based on a very superficial list, not to mention that "inequality" itself is not the incentive that capitalists have in mind. It would be one thing to source someone who makes this argument, but I don't see this as in line with Wikipedia rules without a reference. Many poor African nations are run by corrupt and dictatorial governments, so I don't see how this rather weak statistic shows anything except, perhaps, the editor's own philosophical leanings. Aplomado ^talk 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like OR. Does anybody have source for this? -- Vision Thing -- 14:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried googling any of this?

• There is no clear functional relationship between growth and measured income inequality. [4]
• There is broad empirical evidence that societies with a moderate level of inequality do better -- by many measures -- than highly unequal ones. Economists Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini conducted a thorough statistical analysis of historical inequality and growth among modern nations, and found that those with more equal incomes generally experience faster productive growth. Numerous other studies have also confirmed their findings. [5]

To answer Aplomado's question, it's clearly not original research. It's something the contributor may have assumed was common knowledge, but should have been sourced. I have supplied two sources from Results 1 - 10 of about 226,000 of a Google search on the sentence, "Empirical evidence shows no statistical correlation between a nation's wealth and the degree of inequality in that nation." --Uncle Ed 14:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm. The way it's phrased does come across as original research, and will seem so to the reader, I'll wager. The question is how to give the evidence fair credit without making the article sound like 'opponents of reducing inequality are blind'.--Nema Fakei 16:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this?

In a February 2006 paper, Günther Rehme wrote, "There is no clear functional relationship between growth and measured income inequality."

It's not original research when we quote some non-Wikipedian's ideas, is it? --Uncle Ed 17:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Any growth in such states is concentraced in a tiny elite. 72.139.119.165 23:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak intro

Cut from intro (was first paragraph):

One of the fundamental goals of the socialist movement, throughout its history, has been the abolition of capitalism. As such, many of socialism's opponents have been advocates of capitalism - most often, advocates of "pure" or laissez-faire capitalism. They include liberals, conservatives and libertarians such as Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Joshua Muravchik, to name a few.

This smacks of labeling critics as Capitalism advocates and therefore not objective (since they are merely advocates of a point of view).

This paragraph also suffers from not explaining what any critics were saying about socialism. I like the short paragraph at Socialism#Criticisms_of_socialism better:

Criticisms of socialism range from disagreements over the efficiency of socialist economic and political models, to condemnation of states described by themselves or others as "socialist." Many economic liberals dispute that the more even distribution of wealth advocated by socialists can be achieved without loss of political or economic freedoms. There is much focus on the human rights records of communist states. Some critics identify these examples with socialism, while others reject the categorization of such examples as socialist.

We should add to this what is probably the most common criticism, namely the claim that socialism as an economic system creates negative economic growth. --Uncle Ed 14:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that fall under "disagreements over the efficiency of socialist economic and political models"? In any case, I haven't heard anyone arguing that a socialist economic system creates negative growth - the common argument is that it leads to sluggish growth; that is, positive but very slow growth. -- Nikodemos 05:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask the people you're talking to, to define their terms more carefully then. Have the critics you're referencing been using aggregate or per capita figures? Sluggish growth in aggregate may well be growth that doesn't keep up with population increase, which makes it negative growth per capita. --Christofurio 14:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This smacks of labeling critics as Capitalism advocates and therefore not objective (since they are merely advocates of a point of view). But critics of socialism are merely advocates of a point of view: broadly speaking, that socialism is bad. If you dispute the labelling of the critics as capitalists, then you only need to look at the notable critics of socialism, all of whom are capitalists. -- WGee 05:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)