Talk:Socialism/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Socialism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Length and Semantics

Socialism is that view of the organization of "society" which attempts to rationalize "it", i.e. society, specifically by making its ground principle the good of society overall¹, the presumption being that except for primitive socialism, all current and past social orders substitute the rule of elites as their thetic principle. The fundamental, inevitable, and continually confused/obfuscated truth of this relation of the phenomenon to its core concept, i.e. of socialism to society is the sort of thing which can't be expressed here due to the constraints of encyclopaedic Q. I do not think the article is too long, given it's importance, and don't see either discussion of it's length or a date at which the toolong template was placed. ¹Or, technically, any rationally asserted objective.Lycurgus Δ 11 Frost 4705 (公元)

Importance of the article has nothing to do with its length. If some section of long article is important enough it can be spun off into new article. -- Vision Thing -- 18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this for a quick and dirty trim? Feel free to edit and suggest there...--Red Deathy 16:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your version looks fine. Only thing I'm not sure about is elimination of "Marxism and the socialist movement" section but others should also express their opinion on this. -- Vision Thing -- 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't review in depth, but looks good, would say if you can make a comment that no content (in the edit summary) has been lost only moved and remove the toolong scary, it's good to go. Lycurgus 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Also this page is over a quarter meg so will archive content between the TOC and this entry if noone objects after that change as it will essentially make a new baseline of discussion for the article. Lycurgus 05:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The most recent change, which I have not reviewed is not the global charge Red Deathy prepared and which would by now be out of sync with the head revision. Will archive as noted though if no further comment on two issues of this § over a reasonable time as removal of the toolong tag in effect sets this as the determined length and therefore this revision as a new baseline of discussion. Lycurgus (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to implementation of this version of the article? -- Vision Thing -- 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be the edit I commented on above updated with the intervening changes, in which case my comment of 13 November now applies to it. Lycurgus (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have integrated most of content into History of socialism. Some things were already there, if I missed something feel free to add it. -- Vision Thing -- 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged, I think this settles the length matter. Wrt the statement that "[t]he modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century working class movement", I believe this is incorrect and that in fact the correct genealogy for European socialism would start with the early 19th century precursors of Marx. The communist manifesto after all was 1848 and while there was no mass movement until the final quarter of the century, that mass movement would have been impossible without the prior formation. The correct fuzzy origin would seem to be somewhere between 18 Brumaire and 1848. Lycurgus (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This statement, "[t]he modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century working class movement" , this is untrue. Socialism was created, defined, and originated from within the bourgeoisie. Marx was no proletariat. An argument could be made that he was the petty-bourgeoisie, but it is often noted that the majority of communists were members of the class they were trying to destroy, from Marx, to Lenin, to Trotsky, and even to Che Guevara. 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvibbert (talk • contribs)

Why not origin of location? The socialist movement did not begin all at once around the world, but from one geographic source, primarily Eastern and/or Central Europe. "The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century in Eastern Europe?" Any discussion? And indeed, was this a working-class movement? No one has responded to the above comment. Jcchat66 (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Note also Veblens treatment of this matter ([ http://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/veblen/soc-econ02.htm]). Lycurgus (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Without Marx or Jesus

It seems to me that the length of this article is comparable to subjects of similar or indeed lesser significance, eg. Jesus but let us settle this by requested discussion or remove the tag Lycurgus (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Socialism versus Social Insurance - Similarities and Differences

In terms of historical progress, according to this Wikipedia article on "socialism", socialism seems to "fade-out" in the 70's. There is no mention in the article of any activity or organization continuing to promote it, or think about it, after the "mixed economy" 1970's period, section. What happened after that to socialism, per se'? Did somebody delete that section of the article?

HUGE GAP in terms of the current status. I would like to know if anyone would also like to add a section comparing the benefits of "social insurance" to those of "socialism". What is the difference, practically speaking, between the two. We still have Social Security in the U.S., and unemployment insurance, etc. We still have welfare also.

If all F.D.R. did was implement social insurance, I guess he really wasn't a commie after all...(P5g4xn (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Removed statement from criticisms of socialism

I saw this statement in the 'Criticisms of socialism' section of the article:

Anarcho capitalists reject any form of taxation as a form of disguised theft, and therefore, reject socialism.

This statement seemed like it made a rather unfair generalisation to me, since the article itself explains that not all varieties of socialism have a state that could tax people, and the majority seek to abolish wage-labour, rendering the concept of taxation itself obsolete. It seemed more like a criticism of social democracy than socialism to me, so I was bold and removed it. superioridad ^(discusión) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, because socialism requires a redistribution of value, whether or not that value is expressed in currency or labor; taxation is at the heart of all forms of socialism. This taxation may simply be a labor requirement instead of payment of currency. And so your argument is thus voided. 67.101.106.100 (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Um - this is just anarcho-capitalist bias. Most socialists oppose taxation. Please do not implement your ideology into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.208.46 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"To each according to his contribution"--Francomemoria (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that much of this article is offensive to both advocates and opponents of socialism and it is not consistent with the standards of fairness that wikipedia generally fulfills. For instance, how could a discussion of socilaism not include the nazi party, did Reagon really attack socialism from within, is unequal distribution of wealth a factual flaw?

An opposing concern is below:

I think the red flag needs to be deleted, because I believe it to be offensive. The red flag is the symbol of communism and republicans, the official (coat of arms if you will) should be a red rose if anything, cause as a socialist i would never fly a red flag. thank you Slipoutside (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a matter for the info box' discussion page. Obviously, I should add the British Labour Party (official Symbol, a Rose) sings "The Red Flag" at its conference...--Red Deathy (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

the red is the colour of socialist in all the world (afaik, surely in continental europe)--Francomemoria (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The red flag has been a symbol of socialism and the labour movement for hundreds of years, and I've never heard of a socialist being offended by its use. See the red flag article for more information. Spylab (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

the red flag is a symbol of communism, i think the red rose needs to be on this page cause the red flag is to vage and open. the red rose is the true and recognized symbol of socialism. Slipoutside (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

darn-so i tried to change the flag since there were no objections, but my computer is acting stupid and i cant change the image, if some one wouldn't mind, it is an easy image to find just look under socialist rose, you can find it most any where, thanks for your time. Slipoutside (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The red flag is a much older and more recognizable symbol of socialism then a red rose. Why do you believe otherwise? There is room for more than one symbol, but the red flag must not be removed.Spylab (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The red flag is a symbol for socialism which have a historical background to the revolutions of France in 1848, and the red rose is mainly a symbol for the socialdemocratic movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.251.107 (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

i only know of one democratic socialist group who uses the rose, i still dont get why everyone want to keep the flag, isnt this site suppose to be educational? this is not 1848, this red flag is to vage to people trying to find information. and a red flag symblizes to many other things Slipoutside (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Way more socialists use the red flag to symbolize their movement than those who use the red rose. The red flag is not too vague. It is commonly known as a symbol of socialism throughout the world today, and throughout the history of the socialist movement. I still don't understand why you would believe otherwise. Spylab (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

we will have to agree to disagree, but i dont get why you are so against puting up the rose instead we might as well go to every consevative political page and make their flag red, or go to every countrys page that is a democracy and change their flag to white, im just saying colors represent alot of ideals but the symbol should be here not the flag. ive never been to a political rally where there was a plain red flag flying.(a socialist political rally obviously)-peace be with ya Slipoutside (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice that countless socialists have contributed and edited this article and you are the only person to take offense or have any problem with the a red flag as a visual representation of socialism. You have said the same thing repeatedly without citing a source. You even admitted that you tried to remove the image yourself when clearly there is no consensus to do so, in fact you are the only person to have this POV. Cite something or drop the issue.Vvibbert (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The red lag has to stay!!! It IS the symbol of socialism. Has always been —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joemancoblondie (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The only people who really would have a problem with the red flag are American's, since America does everything backwards, IE Blue represents the Left and Red the Right, while in all but one other country I know of it's the opposite. That said I will also point out that I am American, so don't start on me being a foreign American-basher.

IkonicDeath

This is because of American history, where the Republics use to be very leftist (radical) in the civil war fighting to free the slaves, thus the red. Blue was for the blue-collar workers, which is still an attempt as class distinction in America, but use to be the color slavery back when the Democrats fought to retain slaves, thus conservative. Anyway, red is appropriate for Republicans today still, as they have been recently hijacked by red-faced radicals countering every liberal foundation of America. Russia, I hear has the same problem, as the old Iron Guard has become the stiff-necked conservatives of the old ways. Remember, the colors and the term was from the French, when the radicals sat to the left of the king, and the conseratives (usually friends of the king) sat on the right, thus the right hand of the king. Therefore, it is not politically alligned, but merely a reflection of the new (red) versus the old (blue.) It gets confusing in rare cases when the new wins out, and eventually becomes the old, and the new new is fighting to return to the way it was before the new took over. That's American politics in a nutshell. Jcchat66 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What about a clenched fist as a symbol for socialism? SergioBlaze —Preceding comment was added at 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That depends really, the clinched fist is a very broad symbol that usually is used by liberation movements of al types as well as Anarchists. I'd say that in and of itself it is not a truly Socialist symbol. IkonicDeath

im glad i started this conversation, but realy we need to change the symble, im not saying it 100 percent wrong but, i feel it could be more accurate,IkonicDeath i agree most things in america are done backwards but still the red flag is closer to facism and communisim than out right socialism, i say a red closed fist would be acceptable or a red rose, i know some dont agree with the rose but it is the most used symble by socialist partys around the world(Slipoutside (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

The red flag is the most Universal symbol of Socialism, I don't think it needs to be changed. Also, I've never seen a red flag used in association with Fascism, with Communism yes, though in regards to Communist use it tends tobe with some sort of star motif. A red rose, or red carnation are more symbols of social democratic movements rather then Socialism. As for use by parties, while there are some socialis parties (who are more social democratic then socialist) that use the fist holding a red flower, it's used by less then half of Socialist parties (estimate), and really the only thing the vast majority of Socialist party symbols have in common is the color red incorporated into them, either as a backgroun or part of the symbol. IkonicDeath —Preceding comment was added at 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

ok lets meet in the middle, how about we use more than one symble? we can put a red rose up a clinched fist and keep the flag-everyone wins and it would still be accurate, how ever the clinched fist must not be black as this is reguarded as a symble of anarchy. but i think this solution will help stop this argument.-peace(Slipoutside (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

Why not add a section in the main article discussing the use of flags, symbols and colours for representation of socialism and affiliated ideas!! --Jaye001 (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

i like that idea jaye001 that would please most everyone, and be more educational to readers looking for information. it would also close this discussion, but his mean putting every symbol under this section that is related to socialism, such as anarchosocialism, democratic socialism ect. but this idea should be seriously considerd and i vote there be a new section added discussing the many flags, symbols ect.(Slipoutside (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

Churchill quote

There is an ongoing dispute regarding the inclusion of a Churchill quote in the criticism section. I assert that including the quote would be a blatant case of undue weight, but I am willing to accept it if my proposed counter-quote from the Labour Party is also included. The fact that a section is called "criticism" is no excuse to violate NPOV. -- Nikodemos (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You are free to add content to Criticisms section, but it must be argument about socialism, not an attack on capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Churchill is saying that socialism causes tyranny; the Labour Party is saying that, on the contrary, capitalism causes tyranny. That is a fair rebuttal. I will not accept your attempt to quote Churchill extensively despite him not being a notable critic of socialism and at the same time exclude a counter-criticism because you do not believe it is direct enough. I tried to offer a compromise; if you do not like it, that's fine, but I suggest you try to offer me another compromise rather than reverting out of hand. This is not going anywhere. -- Nikodemos (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a rebuttal at all. One effect can, and it often does, have more than one cause. -- Vision Thing -- 14:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to give it less weight, you can add other criticisms. However, it is a single whole, and is a nice touch to the section. Larklight (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My argument is that Churchill is not notable for being a critic of socialism, and that a criticism section should include counter-criticisms for the sake of NPOV (either that or we should have a section about arguments in favour of socialism). -- Nikodemos (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Most certainly. If Churchill get's quoted in the criticisms section, so should his opponents. This is an encyclopedia article. It's purpose is not to grandstand for a dead British prime minister or crucify an idea. The socialist rebuttal is just as important for NPOV as the critic's charge. Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. It's worthless rhetoric. Equivalent to putting a quote from Fidel Castro in the Conservatism article calling them 'capitalist pig-dogs' or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotHereAgain (talk • contribs) 03:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Vision Thing, I have added a direct rebuttal by Clement Attlee, with five sources; the sources state clearly that Attlee's statement was made in direct response to Churchill's quoted text. The fact that the word "socialism" is not explicitly mentioned is a disingenious excuse for the rebuttal's removal. Attlee was a well-known, self-described socialist. Would you apply the same standard to other sources, claiming that they are not relevant unless they explicitly mention the title of the article? Perhaps then we should remove all references from books about Marx that do not explicitly use the adjective "socialist" to refer to Marx's ideas. -- Nikodemos (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with rebuttal but rebuttal shouldn't be as twice as long as criticism, taking up a third of the section. Cut the quote in half I won't object to keeping it. -- Vision Thing -- 17:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree with that. However, that is not the standard you used in defense of the Churchill quote. I have long argued that quotes didn't belong in that section at all, or that the Churchill quote is too long compared to the rest of the text. You disagreed. I argued that it is a violation of NPOV to include a quote from one side without also providing a quote from the other side. You disagreed.

By the same standards, if there is nothing wrong with having one quote to support one position and no quotes to support the opposing position, then there can be nothing wrong with having quotes of different lengths for the different positions.

So I'm sorry, but I will have to insist on enforcing the same standards on the pro-socialist quote that you have enforced on the anti-socialist quote for about a year. As I have said before, I am fine with any standards you choose to handle a controversy, as long as you apply them equally to both sides. In the past, you said that the length of the Churchill quote didn't matter. So the length of the Attlee quote doesn't matter either. -- Nikodemos (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

So when I moved my position on this more towards yours in a spirit of a compromise, you decided that you are not going to let such good deed go unpunished and moved your position more toward extreme. Did I understood you correctly? -- Vision Thing -- 09:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The last thing I want to do is provide you with a disincentive to compromise... But look at it from my perspective: The Churchill quote stood alone for about a year, after which my attempts to add counter-quotes were reverted and kept out of the article for several months (even when they were well-sourced and directly relevant). The way I see it, the quotes are balanced as they stand now, and any compromise on my part would be step more towards a balance of power - or a balance of stubbornness, if you will - than a balance of POVs. Maybe we could just say that "I owe you one" for another time and perhaps another article? Or we could develop the non-quote parts of the section a bit to compensate. It is certainly misleading to suggest that the Hayekian criticism of socialism is the only criticism, as a reader might be inclined to think after reading the section in its current form. -- Nikodemos (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you own me one. -- Vision Thing -- 16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is the largest portion of the “Criticisms of Socialism” a quote in defence of socialism? Perhaps the section should be renamed “Point / Counterpoint” or the quote by Clement Attlee should be moved elsewhere. PS. My apologies if I have added to this page incorrectly, I’m new here.Jeff Vollmer 11/18/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.43.210.146 (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

i didnt know where else to put this with out making another section, but since you guys are talk about critisims here. i think we to connect the usa's involvment in south and central america to this page some how, more spicific the cia's involvment, i think we could also put a list of curent (self proclaimed) socialist leaders of the world, just a couple of thoughts.(Slipoutside (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Churchill Quote

It is my view that the Churchill quote should be removed or put in a better context with Atlee's (pretty excelent in my opinion) rebuttal, on its own it looks like an obvious appeal to superiority by A single editor by getting Churchill on side. I actually think it contributes very little considering the Flak Churchill got for the quote at the time, the fact that it is siimply a politically motivated attack and not a statement Chruchill would make spontaeneously (pointed out by Atlee), and additionally Churchill was proven wrong by the fact the Labour government never opened up a 'gestapo' nor resisted being un-elected 6 years later. If it is included, as I say I think Atlee's rebuttal should be included and the context in which the quotes are being made should be made much more apparent.86.140.39.142 (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

'Community' in the definition

The term 'community' in this first line of the article is sort of unclear: "...and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community." Does the community refer to the proletariat or state, or society in general, or something else? WinterSpw (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear because of the use of words. The article use to read "...subject to control by the state." But that sounds too soviet for most defenders of the socialist faith. A planned economy, which is at the core of all socialist ideals, requires political, economic, and military power concentrated into the hands of some kind of council or committee. (It is taboo amongst the defenders to say oligarchy or aristocracy, so we use council to be safe.) If the actual individuals controlled those things, then it would become an unplanned economy, and therefore not socialism (or capitalism, for those of you that think only in polarities.) Jcchat66 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to this, the following sentence from the first paragraph of this article; "This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state." How is this an example of direct and indirect? A cooperative or collective of worker's councils is still indirect, control exercised through a third party. Jcchat66 (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was more to do with the fact that there are many anti-statist socialists that the word "state" wasn't used. And it's untrue that a planned economy is at the core of all socialist ideals (even Marx didn't favour a planned economy, and there are also alternate socialist economic arrangements like Proudhon's mutualism). And no, an organisation formed by and consisting of the individuals concerned is not a third party. A workers' council may or may not be a third party, depending on the specifics, so it is probably true that a better example could be substituted. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 05:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mutualism does not bring to mind socialism, as socialism is defined in most dictionaries and encyclopedias. Libertarians, classic liberals, even Adam Smith were all mutualist to one extent or another, favoring individual rights and spurring corporate rights.

If there is someone you must deal with to assert your claim in any situation, that is a third-party. I should know, I am on the board of directors of a cooperative. Though I must act in the best interests of our people, they do no have direct control over the services provided. I am a third-party. All committees, board of directors, councils, etc are third-party groups. Jcchat66 (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Socialism/Communism

I've just removed a claim that Marx said socialism would elad to communism - Marx didn't write that in the manifesto, in fact he didn't say that at all, he talked of the two stages of communism in the Critique of the Gotha Programme which Lenin later used to differentiate between socialism as a stage to communism. In Marx' day socialism and communism were used reasonably interchangeably, as at least one version of this article once stated.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Marx didn't talk of "the two" stages of communism in Critique of the Gotha Programme. It's true that he alluded to two stages ("phases") but (in the English translation at least) implied there could be any number of stages, and I can't find any evidence of him actually saying there should, would, or could be two. It says a lot about the foundations of Leninism, though, doesn't it? Hydrostatic (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the list of "socialist nations" seems to ignore the fact that all these countries are communist. Perhaps changing this to a link to communist countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.156.31 (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Who said that the word of Karl Marx is absolutely authoritative on the matter? There were socialists before Marx had even begun writing, probably before he was even born (see David McLellan, Marx (1975)). The fact that Marx did or did not write about socialism in the Manifesto of the Communist Party is all but irrelevant. The Oxford English Dictionary does state the following as one if its definitions, however,

socialism •(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

Hasfg (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Biased?

"There is much focus on the economic performance and human rights records of Communist states, although some proponents of socialism reject the categorization of such states as socialist."

There was scarcely any socialism (let alone communism) in Communist states (ie. Soviet Union; but not the same)! The 2nd sentence says so, merely (slightly) counterbalancing prejudice. Smart-assed Wikipedia... experience, experience! --89.142.102.135 (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no bias. All communist states had a planned economy of one kind or another, thus making them socialist. This same argument for socialists to seperate themselves from fascism is used, but any and all states, including fascist ones, where state-planned economies exist, are by definition socialism. Though Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, words still have meanings based on their primary definition in a dictionary. Otherwise, you will just cause confusion and endless debates. Jcchat66 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

i think communisim is to closly refured to socialism here and changes should be made, communisim is more a millitant style of socialism, thous not the same thing(Slipoutside (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

Why? It's still a form of socialism. In order to plan any economy, the planners must wield tremendous military power to force the people to comply. Force is required for socialism to work at all, because no individual in such a system has the right to opt-out. Jcchat66 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since we're having a POVfest in talk, the line in the article stands valid - the "state capitalism" strand of socialist thought would reject what JCChat66 has said, observing that state property is the private property of the state, and the presence of coersion is likewise indicative of the absence of socialism - see William Morris passim. That said, many commentators have used the SU to critique socialism and many socialists have defended it, so in a wiki sense, that line is valid.--Red Deathy (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as state property being private, when the state is composed of a small group of individuals with enormous political, police, and military authority, so I do not follow. Private property is property own by an individual (and perversely, a corporation given the power of an individual.) If you're saying that capitalism is a form of socialism, then I agree. There are obviously many different forms of socialism, but all with a common binding definition ... planned economics and collective ownership of property. Capitalism fits the bill as well, if it means corporations own most of the means of production, which are nothing more than mini-states answering to a larger state. Corporations cannot exist without sanction from the state, after all. Jcchat66 (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You just made up the definition that any state with a planned economy is a socialist state, inherently that idea has nothing to do with socialism and many anarcho-socialists would reject it utterly. Socialism is the belief in worker/class solidarity (depending on who you ask), it is actually quite hard to define, and many right wingfascist states (which btw, you are incorrect, they did not have planned economies but were corporate states heavily influecned by the government) like Italy or Hiler's Germany were explicitly anti-socialist. The aims of socialism are most often attempted to be fufilled through bringing the means of production under the state, however the actual idea is to hand the means of production to the labourers. In soviet Russia State=Workers (apparently) hence the name Soviet Union, with Soviets being unions, not in every socialsits mind. You seem to have a very incorrect view on the matter. P.S. If military force is required to implement socialism, why have in the past so many labour parties been elected and unelected, and why in sweden for 40 of the last 50 years has a socialist democratic party been in power without using this 'military force'?86.140.39.142 (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not make of this definition, it's been defined as such in dictionaries and encyclopedias for well over a century. Anarcho-socialism is a recent idea, which if broken down, makes no sense. If you don't like how socialism is defined, then use another word, there are plenty to choose from. "the actual idea is to hand the means of production to the labourers" ??? Countless ideologies contend this same thing, and countless people fought for it, it is hardly exclusively socialistic. Sparticus, and anyone who fought against slavery, fought ultimately for the means of production to be put back into the hands of the laborers (the slaves). That does not require planned economics or collective ownership of property, both of which ancient Rome practiced as a tool to maximize labor production. You are mixing two entirely different concepts not supported by any definition of socialism. Otherwise, most Western countries would have adapted socialism long ago. Why do most Americans despise socialism? Because it carries the very opposite meaning of equality and means of production being in the hands of laborers. America started off with both these concepts, but required no "collective ownership" or "planned economics" to do so. Thus, these are entirely different concepts. If socialism is so hard to define, than it is useless. Simplicity is the key to understanding, not complexity. Jcchat66 (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no single definition of socialism accepted by all self-defined socialists - the only thing all socialists agree on is a vague commitment to equality and collective ownership of property, but no more than that. They do not agree on the extent of this equality or collective ownership, and various schools propose many other things in addition to those two. To say that anything is "by definition socialism" is POV pure and simple. -- Nikodemos (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you just asserted by point, thank you. However, it is NOT POV to define something, but simply science. Everything must be defined, or we could not have language at all. No one is going to understand anything if words and concepts are not given precise definitions, otherwise this is all a pointless waste of time. I am merely breaking down the individual concepts merged together to make a word, which in the case of socialism, has always been the same. You've already asserted the same definition I have, but then counter your own statement. If you are truly serious about putting together a good article on socialism, you will agree that its concepts must be spelled out, even if it means something than you thought it meant. The dictionary is still the starting point of any word's meaning. An encyclopedia adds everything else that led up to the creation of that word, its history, the ideologies surrounding it, the movers and shakers, etc. The root meaning must remain intact for it to make any sense. Jcchat66 (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Jcchat66 is simply incorrect. Socialism doesn't mean planned economy. I could just end the statement here, but it's worth elaborating. Socialism means workers control, normally of the means of production, or in some models, of the government (through extremely strong, if not direct, democracy). In Nazi Germany, workers had absolutely no power, all power was in the hands of the bureaucrats. The same goes for the Soviet Union. Therefore they were not Socialist. Your argument that as Nazi Germany fits your definition of socialism therefore it is socialist is nonsense (and frankly boring). You're argument that socialism needs a strict definition, and as it doesn't (this is not because it's a mystic word, but because of various viewpoints. For example, take the words "Trotskyist" and "Marxist-Leninist". Trotskyists would consider the two synonymous, "Stalinists" would not. That is not because they do not have a clear understanding of the words in question - in fact they have a very clear understanding - they just have different understandings. It would be best, in my view, to let the Socialists define Socialism.) therefore we should all accept your view is also rubbish. Let Socialists define Socialism, they should know. JohnyGoodman (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like you to show me your 'dictionary' that says that a planned economy equals socialism. My dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary (you might have heard of it), says that the only absolutely definable aspect of socialism is that it "implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market". Perhaps you will understand this to mean something different to myself, but in no way does this necessitate a planned economy in my opinion. Stopping the untrammelled workings of the free-market could be anything from full-scale nationalisation to providing limited welfare benefits to those who are unemployed.

Previous editors make good points; over sixty currently governing political parties are socialist ones, where's this 'military force' you're talking about? In my opinion this whole article is crap. It describes communism more than anything else.

Full quote from dictionary:

The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy.

Hasfg (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More Bias?

The first sentence of the article uses the word "fair" which is a positive value judgement: "...with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation." I believe this word should be removed or at least enclosed in quotes if neutrality is to be maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bws93222 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My edit

I changed the heading to theory from system. In theory it goes for equal distribution, in practise the system doesn't achieve this. If people want 'system' back, the bit about what it leads to will have to be more NPOV. Larklight (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it already only says that equality is an aim, not that it has been achieved, and system is more NPOV in itself since some editors here would maintain that socialism has existed/exists in various manifestations (I don't agree, but hat's what teh NPOV policy is for).--Red Deathy (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro, as it stood, pretty much said that socialism was the same as communism. It would have worked much better as an intro for the communism article than for this one. As such, I have tried re-writing it, taking into account that the word "socialism" may refer either to a system or an ideology, and the fact that different branches of socialism disagree bitterly about many important things. -- Nikodemos (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your rewrite attempt was full of POV and OR. I think that the current version is much better in that respect. -- Vision Thing -- 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain which particular elements of my attempt to rewrite the intro were POV or OR. The version to which you reverted isn't all that bad (it's certainly better than the one I found, in any case), but I do believe that it places undue weight on market socialism and doesn't make it clear that the word "socialism" may refer either to a certain type of society or to a certain political ideology (this is different from "liberalism", for example, which refers strictly to a political ideology; or to put it another way, the sentence "I live in socialism" makes sense, but the sentence "I live in liberalism" doesn't).

On a different note, I continue to be amazed by the ridiculous way in which you not only keep adding that Churchill quote back, but keep removing any counter-quotes - or indeed any mention of the historical context in which Churchill said it, as you just did a couple of days ago. Please understand that it is simply not acceptable, nor possible in the long term, for this article to keep displaying only one side of the argument. This dispute will not end until balance is achieved. -- Nikodemos (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's enough to read a second sentience to realize what is wrong with your version: "As a system, socialism is primarily defined by public and democratic control over productive property and the distribution of wealth". As for Churchill you are only one who objects that quote. -- Vision Thing -- 18:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I object as well, I added information to counter-balance the quote (you were attempting to appeal to superiority-I was adding the context of the election and Atlee's statement regarding the quote, that he beleived the media mogul was speaking through Churchill's mouth), personally I don't think the quote serves any other purpose than your appal to superioirtiy, I can tell you have a desier to use it because it is on your user page, and you obviously have a POV conflict with certin people on this talk page. If you want that quote to stand-I would propose adding what I suggested, I added it before, but you removed it without even explaining why on this talk page (look above).86.138.248.126 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Vision Thing, you would revert a whole edit because you disagree with one word of it? I took that sentence from a previous version of the introduction, and I must have missed the word "democratic" when looking over it. I agree that it does not reflect all forms of socialism. So I will restore my introduction, removing the word "democratic" from it. Is there anything else that you object to?

Regarding the Churchill quote, the problem is not so much that you wish to include it (that's fine), but rather that you edit out any information providing context or any counter-quotes. Like the anon user above, I find it very hard to assume good faith on your part. I offer two different ways to resolve the dispute: remove the Churchill quote and replace it with a paraphrase, or add a counter-quote from Atlee or the Labour Party. Just because a section is called "criticism", that is not an excuse to violate NPOV. -- Nikodemos (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that one word was an example. Division between socialism as socio-economic system and socialism as political ideology is artificial and not sourced. Also, while claim that Marxism had a lasting influence on the most branches of socialism is probably true, unsourced claim that most socialists subscribe to views about class exploitation and working class revolution is not.

Context of Churchill quote is already provided, "during 1945 election campaign". And while I don't have anything against counter-quotes that refute connections of socialism with totalitarianism, quote that accuses capitalism is not a counter-quote, but a new argument that is not connected with the topic of this article. -- Vision Thing -- 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert without at least giving a general description or list of your objections. And most of all, please do not revert wholesale when you only object to parts of an edit. We've worked on many articles together, and you often revert full edits out of hand only to realize later that, in fact, much of the new text was perfectly acceptable. It seems that every time we have a dispute we must first go through a lengthy reversion process in which I attempt to convince you to read my edits carefully and identify the objectionable parts so that we can discuss them and reach a compromise. It is very tiresome, so why don't we just try to avoid it in the future? Let's skip to the part where we identify contentious fragments and reach a compromise.

Now, as for the distinction between socialism as socio-economic system and socialism as political ideology, I thought it would be largely self-evident. I'm not sure what the dispute is. Do you contend that there is no difference between the concept of a political ideology and the concept of a socio-economic system - or do you contend that the word "socialism" is used with only one of these meanings and not both? I am only trying to clarify things for the reader. Consider the phrase "Socialism in Russia", for example. This could mean either the socialist movement in Russia, or the socialist system that once existed in Russia. The two are plainly not the same. "Socialism" as a movement existed in Russia in 1905, but "socialism" as a system did not.

The claim regarding Marxism was not that most socialists subscribe to views about class exploitation and working class revolution, but rather that most socialists subscribe, however vaguely, to some parts of Marxism. If you think this requires a source I will go find one.

If there are any other disputes please state them here. I will now restore my version, ommitting the part about most socialists subscribing to some parts of Marxism. You will probably revert, but I would consider it a sign of good faith if you at least avoided reverting the final paragraph of the intro, which I have shortened so as to eliminate the undue weight given to market socialism.

Just saying "during 1945 election campaign" means nothing to the average reader. The anon user above claimed that you reverted him after he tried to provide a quote of Atlee's direct response to Churchill. I will go look through the article history to see if this is true. If there is, you have absolutely no justification for removing that response. As for the claim that the quote I provided is off-topic - perhaps if you consider it so unacceptable here, I should go look for a different one, and place that old quote in, say, economic freedom, in the section about political and economic freedom (since it's a direct counter to Hayekian claims). -- Nikodemos (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Socialism?

I remember there being a section on jewish socialism and contrasting the efforts of socialist jewish organisations and individuals in Russia and Germany opposing the rise of totalitarianism in both countries and zionism, its gone altogether now and its pretty conspiscious by its abscence given that the other main currents of religious socialism are present.

In general this Wiki entry used to be very good but its been totally vandalised by people trying to improve or meddling with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.32.136 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You could be right. Your cherised topic may have been lost or become a link when the edit for length was performed. "Everybody" knows what a critical role Jews have played in Socialism since Marx and before, through Trotsky and the kibbutz movement down to the rump that exists today though so your concern may be misplaced, perhaps enlisting more jews in socialist efforts today would be more effective. Also protecting this article as Marxism was was/is an option and would inhibit vandalism but there's also something attractive about having it open and defended by the people. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

definition of socialism

the definition reported in the beginning doesnt correspond (unlikely to what the note says) to the one of Britannica, that actually is "social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."

the definition stated only stresses the "control of property" and not the values of equality, solidarity and cooperation. Should be changed to be more neutral, by quoting better the definition of britannica or taking into account examples from wikis in other languages --78.13.72.115 (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I just read the first two lines in the introduction and got confused. The definition sounds so twisted that it's now completely incomprehensible. The Marxist definition is pretty good though. WinterSpw (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Marxism is just one kind of socialism. Obviously the specialization cannot be a norm for the thing it's a specialization of. Lycurgus (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Britannica is not an authoritative source on Socialism (or anything else for that matter), it's just another Encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Wiki is not limited to what whoever owns Britannica now can do. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Britannica just another Encyclopedia like Wikipedia? That's a good one. Can I try? How about: A Harley is just another bike like my ten-speed... Bogart was just another actor like Matt Damon... Champagne is just another drink like Tab... I think you get the drift. By all means feel free to add your own, it is QUITE an amusing pastime... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.166.77 (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither Fish nor Fowl

The current structure of the article is poor and needs revision before it can advance in quality. It is neither History of Socialism nor is it not that. I suggest a history major section and seperate one for discussion of discrete concepts. The article can't advance with the current hodgepodge. A new structure could be something like:

Lede
<HistoricallyOrganizedMajorSection>

main article: History of Socialism

- Origins
- "other Current history sections chronologically ordered".
<ConceptuallyOrganizedMajorSection>
- Economics
- Politics
- "other conceptual sections in lex (alphabetic) order"
See Also
Notes
References and further Reading
External Links

where

the bracketed names are TBD.

Note that we have already had a round of effort about the length so this isn't a call to write an encyclopedia of socialism. This article is about Socialism not its history so the major exposition should be in the conceptual major section. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also in the rework of the <HistoricallyOrganizedMajorSection> the focus should be on the development of the concept of Socialism in theory and praxis rather than history as such, for the same reason. This will eliminate the need to "define" socialism. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

national socialism

I think national socialism should be added to the infobox about socialism. After all it's a version of socialism (with elements of nationalism) and thus highly appropriate. Furthermore, national socialism links to nazism which is blatantly POV as the national socialist experiment goes way beyond the nazis, in fact they are merely a part of the national socialist paradigm. Lihaas (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. The form of national socialism that had a little similarity to socialism was defined by Otto Strasser. Essentially national socialism is a form of fascism, proponing a feodal state based on national culture not on an internationalist ideology of common property. All forms of national socialism believed in elites/hierarchies and of an election of a leader, while socialism by definition, not by practice, propones a stateless/classless system. The variant that Otto Strasser proponed, was less racist and more democratic than all other fascisms, but Strasserism was nevertheless fascism, not socialism. National "socialism" is probably a conscious deceit. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 19:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

National Socialism, a type of fascism, is corporatist in nature, it has a much relevance on the Capitalist infobox as the socialism infobox. Simply because Hitler was the head of a party that originally cosidered itelf partially socialist, it does not make the party socialist. This applies for all 'national socialist parties' which are not national liberation movements in nature. The fact of the matter is in Germany Hitler dealt with all subversive left-wing elements in the party with the night of the long knives, additionally his sworn enemies were The social democrats and Marxism, whilst he was allied to the right wing conservatives. This pattern is pretty much universal in all National Socialist/fascist states, with the left always being target no 1. Aside from the fact you are simplyn wrong in beliving national socialism to fit under 'socialism' as it academically known, the broad academic consensus is that you are wrong, and you would have to back up your statement with reliable sources. Additionally, this has already been discussed aaaaaaddddd nnnnaaaaaauuuuusssssssseeeeeeeuuuuuuum.86.143.98.32 (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

i have to agree national socialist are not related to traditional socialism in any fourm. socialist always try to fight for the best intrest of the hole society, to where national socialist most always work for the support of the said nations majority rather it be race or religion ect. normaly this produces extream opression of minorities, as to where in real socialism the government works for the betterment of the said nation as a whole.(Slipoutside (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

I jsut thought Id come back to write this, I know its wrong to dissaociae ideologies you don't like just so you don't get called a Nazi for being a socialist, but that is not what my point was. There are some basic tenets for socialism which National socialism does not except, in order to be considered socialism it has to be socialsit in more than just name. However in fact National socialism is no more than socialist in name only. The only truly demonstratable link between national socialism and socialism is that National socialism tends to be modernising and inclusive to the working class, and also (like the majority of socialist governemnts) tends to have some sort of centrally controlled economy, but the difference is whilst socialism has a socilaist planned economy, nazism relies on coprporatism and the use of pre-existing state apparatus to control the workfroce and economy. Additionally, socialism is non-exclusive (that dosen't mean there havent been racist socialists, like Stalin for instance), whilst national socialism is based on race, ethnicity, and national heritage. In essence, the difference between socialism and fascism (national socialism), is that socialism is progressive, left wing and usually revolutionary. Whilst facism (National Socialism), is neo-conservative, right wing and nearly always reactionary.86.140.39.212 (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that "socialism" should not be defined by the people who have historically called themselves socialists? The analysis I see above is about whether the national socialists were "corporatist" and whether they "fight for the best intrest of the hole society" (sic), which seems beside the point. That position is like refusing to include Mormons in a list of Christian sects (no offense intended by using them as an example) because, even though they label themselves as Christians, some group of scholars and/or Wikipedians has determined that they're not real Christians because their beliefs are too different; or like fans of some media franchise unilaterally declaring something non-canon. I could understand not listing something in one of those infoboxes because it's not significant; for instance I removed "token economy" from a list of economic systems because it seemed to refer only to an obscure economics study. But national socialism was an extremely prominent movement that had, shall we say, an impact on many people. In short, is it the policy here that being an extremely prominent, vocal, self-proclaimed adherant of some ideology isn't enough to get you listed among the versions of that ideology?

There was similar discussion over at Third Way some time ago, with people not wanting to mention fascism despite its being a prominent political movement that called itself "third way." Another parallel to that discussion is that both are described as a broad range of ideas. Why would we say that socialism is a big tent while absolutely avoiding mention of a group that declared itself part of that? -Kris Schnee (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Although there's been no reply here, I see that there's been retooling of the infobox as well as an addition of "national socialism" to Types of socialism. That's an improvement. Still, it seems odd to have a section in this article about "socialism during the inter-war period and during WWII" and not mention that organization calling itself "national socialist" as having been involved. That should be fixable with a sentence or so. -Kris Schnee (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre edits

On 3-4 September, User:64.41.6.76 made several edits to this article. Some seem fairly innocuous; some are stylistically clumsy and apparently non-English ("Bellic interregnum", " ideologic demarcation"), and some are patently absurd("Daniel De Leon still lives"). I have started to repair this; but it will need more work from others to sort this out; please help. RolandR (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hacks/Bizarre Sabotage comments

This article is being sabotaged. I don't know how to check this, but it needs to be corrected. I'll dig around and find out what to do next (for example...opening line: "Socialism refers to giving me doooooom a broad array of ideologies....")Stevenredd (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Definition

The definition needs to be scrutinized. Socialists like Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Oppenheimer, and so forth would disagree with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.208.46 (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Elaborate. What makes you say or even think that they wouldn't agree with it? How would you define socialism?

Tucker and Spooner supported things other than "collective property." I'm not sure how you would define it per se, but all socialists consider labor the primary indicator of personal wealth and find wealth accumulated from other sources illegitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.208.46 (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Socialism's origins are in eastern world

The control of state, under a tirane that had a status of a god, wasn't created by Karl Marx or Lenin.In fact old Egipt had leaders that were god on earth.The land belonged to the leader and god.The core of socialim economic politics are a copy of these politics. again copied by Islam.The easy link between socialists and islamics, to example:Saddam Hussein, Nasser, Hafez Al-Assad, Khadafi,etc. is obvious. In medieval islam land was coletivized.The same sistem used in former Soviet Union for agriculture was just a copy of system used by Islam more than one thousand years before.Anyone really has freedom under islam or under socialism.Both are totalitarianisms.There's Allah in Islam, but totalitarianism is totalitarianism. Agre22 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)agre22

Nice of you to include sources in your illogical loony rant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.126.212 (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This page needs Semi-Protection.

I have seen a lot of vandalism, on this article, just recently. In fact, I just noticed an entire section disappear for no given reason. (fortunately it was put back) Dursty (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

This page really needs soures and a real clean up. --The Day That Never Comes (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

ANC

"In South Africa the ANC abandoned its partial socialist allegiances on taking power..."

In fact the ANC is still a member party of the Socialist International. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

small problem

The articles states: "In the West, neoclassical liberal economists, e.g. Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman"

It is correct to classify Friedman as a neoclassical liberal economist, but Hayek is part of the Austrian school which does not adhere to neoclassical methodology. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is correct but a minor technical point in the intellectual history of microeconomics. Hayek and Friedman agreed on the main issue covered in this article, which is whether ownership of the means of production (and of property in general) should be private or public. They agreed that it should be private (that is, they believed in capitalism); that the supply-demand-price function should proceed unimpeded (free markets); and that government should not interfere in business affairs (free enterprise). 141.155.164.69 (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Recent American Presidential Election

I realize that this may not be the best place for a such a conversation, but how accurate were charges that the Democratic candidate was advocating socialism through progressive taxation? If it isn't socialism, maybe the article should mention the sort of things which socialism IS NOT. If it was, then it probably belongs in its own article. I was just asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.247.163 (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the government takeover of the banking industry and the largest insurance company, its evident that some socialist nationalizations are occuring in the US. Clearly socialist policies even if nobody is admitting to it. Then again, one could say that it is part of a broader plan toward privatizing social security by putting the stocks in those companies into the social security trust fund.75.67.80.68 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the recent comments on socialism make this the right place and perhaps there will be sufficient discussion for it to merit an article of its own in time. The reversal of policies of the last 30 years don't constitute socialism by any means, especially in the sense I stated above under "Length and Semantics". The proposed taxation is extremely unlikely to return to pre-Reagan era norms² and the bailout of finance capital on its own terms hardly constitutes anything other than government support of the essential institution of capitalism, i.e. banking. The branding of the Obama campaign as socialist is equivalent to branding the candidate a muslim and a terrorist. The irony is that by raising the issue to scrutiny, the distance of the democratic party from the reality of socialism as an essential support of the capitalist order may be made that much clearer. Lycurgus (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not social costs will be paid, but by whom. If the progressive tax rates that were in place in the first half of the post-war period were in effect now with the current level of GDP, the majority would not need to pay any tax at all even given the increased cost of government¹. The incoming administration far from proposing anything of the kind has lead the move to have the cost of the recent finance capital bailout paid for by taxes collected primarily from lower income (than the Finance Capital class) rate payers.
¹ Current or proposed at the time of this writing. ² Actually understates the situation. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

McCain's comments tell us more about him than anything about socialism. Go to libertarian or far right websites for an explanation of this world-view. Ironically, American politicians almost never use the word socialist when referring to members of the Socialist International. For example, America's Socialist allies in Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Venezuala, Iraq, Haiti, and Pakistan are called "pro-democracy". The Four Deuces (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The 10 year budget outline released yesterday confirms what I said above. Among its most striking features are: not only continuing the obscene level of DOD spending but actually increasing it, projected deficit spending without end, and a laughable sum allocated for health care. The latter to be paid for by closing a few loopholes on the upper 1% of the income distribution but by no means returning to pre-Reagan era norms. The actual single largest item in the budget is repayment of the national debt, interest payments that on an individual basis, will largely go to that same upper 1%.

OFF TOPIC

The purpose of a talk page is to discuss the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject. See WP:TALK for details. Unless someone can explain how the above conversation relates to amending and/or improving the article I propose to delete it. I have no wish to monitor a discussion about American Politics when we are meant to be creating an encyclopedia. --Snowded (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page for the response. Lycurgus (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Social democrats

This setence:

"Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies "

Is certainly not true for todays German Social Democrats. It was historically true for Social Democrats and Christian democrats. But its ancient history since the Godesberger Programm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.85.182 (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Spam link

An anonymous editor is continually adding a link to an article in a Republican Party blog, portraying Barack Obama as a socialist -- which, in the view of the blog, is a smear. Although the article is unsigned, the anonymous editor has given an author's name in the citation, suggesting that s/he is involved somehow in production of this blog. In any case, it is an unencyclopaedic citation, and I have therefore removed it again. The editor is also posting hostile comments on my talk page, which is no way to make an argument for inclusion of this link!. RolandR (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And this is intended to be some sort of black-painting of Obama? Poor political vandals! I feel sorry for them, lacking brains. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 19:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Socialism in the USA?

Through high taxation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Even with Obama's proposed increases on the rich, the rate is still pretty low compared to most countries. It used to be very high in the US from 1930-1980, like 80-90% for the top bracket. I would agree that the US has many elements of socialism though (welfare programs, Medicaid, Medicare). You could really consider any country a mixed economy if you wanted to, but some are pretty communist and some are pretty capitalist. Compared to all other "industrialized" countries, the US is probably the most capitalist (no nationalized healthcare, low taxes on the rich, limited welfare, etc). KenFehling (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible confusion in "Social Democracy in power" section.

In the paragraph about British politics, currently starting with "In 1956, Anthony Crosland said...", there are several mentions of "Social Democrats". This the name given to members of the SDP (Social Democratic Party UK) which launched in 1981. Perhaps there should be clarification here? Jezcentral (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The U.S.A is a capitalism country, not a socialism country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.41.220 (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, right. I was talking about a paragraph about British politics. And being a capitalist society doesn't mean that you can't have a socialist movement.Jezcentral (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed "Social Democrat" to "Labour" for the United Kingdom. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to Capitalism/Communism

The definition of "socialism" has clearly changed very much since Marx.

How can we consider both capitalist countries and communist countries to both be "socialist" ? I believe the definition of socialism has become very vague, and this page currently doesn't clarify anything.

For example, the special box on the right says: An organisation like the Fourth International (hardline athiest communists) is listed as socialist, while Buddhists and Christians are also listed as socialist. these two groups would arguably be on opposite sides of the barricades (extend this to the other groups listed), so clearly this concept of "Socialism" means at least two distinctly different things to different people.

How can there be different versions of socialism for capitalists and communists? This question needs to be addressed before this page makes any sense.

-- Will

There is a long standing tradition of Christian Socialism (Go to Liberation Theology in the 1970s and elsewhere), ditto in other religious groups Atheism is neither a necessary or sufficient condition to be a socialist. In contrast its hard to see how pure capitalism (in the sense of Ayn Rand and followers) could be considered socialist. However you will find forms of socialism that overlap aspects of market capitalism. Communism and its relation to socialism is more problematic, but even there if you look at say Euro-communism you will see that we are dealing with spectrum relationships rather than rigid categories. --Snowded (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As a reflection to Will's questions: the intro could maybe improved, so that a link to Socialist state occurs early, in order to stress the concept of Socialism (system). The article on Socialist state seems to reflect the vast difference between Marx'es theory and the actual Socialist states (in western capitalist terminology: Communist states), and a little such a distinction could also occur in the intro of Socialism. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 19:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This national socialism stuff

There is no doubt that national socialism does not belong to socialism, except in dirty rhetorics. National socialism is fascism, socialism is socialism. I think the clause of national socialism should be at the end of the intro, claiming that national socialism is not socialism. The ref Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism. Doubleday, 2008 used for the current anti-claim, seems biased beyond bounds, because it confuses Liberalism with Socialism. That guy doesn't even know how to distinguish ideologies from each other. (Or how come that European liberals are considered far rightwards from socialism?) I think Goldberg's ref cannot be considered a reliable source. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand, browsing the history of the article, f.ex. HERE, the trouble is that the intro doesn't evolve around the ideology, but rather around the history of some things that are called "socialism". The ideology of "socialism" is a mind set containing:

a large set of common/communal property, in the extreme cases only common property - here socialism differs from fascism/nazism,
the individual is defined per the collective, and cannot be understood except in the context of the collective,
the working class with no personal properties produces all wares and all properties in this society,
a propriety owning class takes all profit from the working class, and leaves only sustenance left for the working class,
the working is going to organize and take over the society from the propriety owning class,
workers in all countries are going to collaborate to make a revolution (or by the social democrat ideologies: be democratically reformed) at the same time, toppling the current propriety owning class of all countries - here socialism differs from fascism/nazism
this new system is going to be a "socialism", a system without classes - here socialism differs from fascism/nazism

If the intro is rewritten to concentrate on the ideological basis of socialism, maybe this reoccuring confusion could be avoided. It is a good thing to have "false socialisms" mentioned in the intro, otherwise this confusion problem will recur again and again, supported by some cheap rhetorics from far right in US. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Rursus, I believe those points clearly show the need for more clarity in the article.

I couldnt see who wrote the line about the split between "reformists and the revolutionaries" - but that's exactly what was needed.

I'm also very happy to see all the religions banished to "Regional variants" LOL!

- Will —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.208.212 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Obama's no socialist"

This may be of interest, given the constant vandalism by reactionaries keen to mischaracterise Obama. Billy Wharton, editor of The Socialist has an op-ed in the Washington Post, "Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know!". I don't think it is appropriate to link to this in the aericle, but someone may disagree and want to add it.RolandR (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Social Democracy in power

This section states: "To wit, France claimed to be the world's most State-controlled, capitalist country.[34]" The link appears to be broken. It is unclear when this happened or whether it was a result of socialist policies, as in the UK. The section should be clarified or deleted. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

American politics v. European Academics

Please remove the reference to Jonah Goldberg's Liberal fascism, it is not a work that was produced to provide an analysis but for political reasons. It has no value in historical research what so ever. It has not been used in serious scholarly works or the likes. There is a troublesome evolution here on this article, it seems that Godwin's law has become flesh in the form of some conservative wikipedians (mostly from the US, no conservative in Europa has ever heard of Goldberg's book). In Europe National Socialism has always been treated as a rightwing force, the only discussion was if it was an unique evolution in history or if it had its roots far deeper (mostly a German question). Italian fascism on the other hand made itself clear during its twenty odd years of rule as an anti-socialist (social democracy and revolutionairy marxism) ideology (nobody seems to question this here either). While i do not want to repeat the discussion on national socialism as a socialist ideology or not, i do want to say that American users should treat mostly European terms in an European context (and period context). Look at what was considered leftwing in the '30, and what was considered right wing, look at the alliances (why did the Catholic Conservative Zentrumpartei collaborate with the NSDAP and not the Socialists?). Also many people here seem to think that nationalisation or state directing forces in the economy equates socialism, yet even right-wing Christian Democracy (the People's Parties, communists and socialists aren't the only ones who used the People) advocated it strongly just before the second World War and after. This is a problem that should be adressed on wikipedia, terms like Liberalism, Socialism, Conservative, Christian Democracy, etc. etc. all have a gulf between the European meaning and the American meaning. And always, always, this falls prey to foolish political fights, which immobilized the articles improvement. Enfin, no European professor in History has ever told me that the NSDAP is a left-wing ideology, or have I ever read an non-political high scholarly article that claims that NSDAP was left-wing in ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.150 (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said! The American and European (differing!) usages of the word need be specified. - Hordaland (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sourced/Referenced Information repeatedly being removed

Why is the information on Socialism, by Marx's defininition, being the transitional stage between communist and capitalist production being repeatedly removed in edits such as this?. I don't want to be involved in a revert war or break WP:3RR, but that information is both correct and referenced to reliable sources, so why remove it?--Tangent747 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this edit is a 3RR violation, why do people contine to re-add and revert this rather than attempt to reach the straightforward consensus that the information is clearly correct, on this talkpage?--Tangent747 (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not the best phrasing. Marx clearly states that true communism will only be achieved after the abolition of the division of labour and the disappearance of the state; in effect this synthesis emerges after a long period "in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, (be) stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges". This leads to "In the higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly - only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Most popular accounts tend to go the last phrase without realising that it is the end point of a long period of evolution. It is therefore true that Marx saw socialism as a transition to "true" communism and while the phase might need better expression it is wrong to delete it. --Snowded (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as Marx was concerned, socialism and communism were the same thing. The transition from capitalism to communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. To say that Marx said that socialism was the transition to communism, or even a higher phase of communism, would be entirely wrong. He used the two words interchangeably. The distinction of the lower phase of communism as socialism originated with Lenin, not Marx. Zd12 (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it appears this has been discussed above once before.Zd12 (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am quoting from Marx above and I think you are failing to appreciate the hegelian influence on Marx. I took that one from McLellan, with more time I could find material in Grundrisse. Its a subtle point and the phrasing as I said could be a lot better. In popular interpretations of Marx little distinction is made so I can see where you get it from. It is clearly there in Marx however, its not just an idea that Lenin had, although he did (if I recall) develop it. If its been discussed before then what is the reference? --Snowded (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That quote is from Critique of the Gotha Program in which Marx clearly states that it is the dictatorship of the proletariat that is the transition to communism: "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." He also says "In a higher phase of communist society" meaning that he saw both the lower and higher phase as communism. You can not find Marx in any of his writings refer to the lower phase as socialism and the higher phase as communism, this originated with Lenin. I don't see what Hegelian influence has to do with this at all. This was discussed before in the topic socialism/communism and it was determined that it should be removed. Zd12 (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As I think I said, its a subtle point and may need rewording. I think it is clear that (i) there is a long transitionary phase to true communism and (ii) that true communism is not socialism per se in the wider sense of this article. I think the transition is seen a dialectical one (hence my point on Hegel) and it doesn't fit into a set of neat categories. I'll look at the prior discussion though. --Snowded (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK I read it, somehow I was expecting more than three posts and I don't see a clear resolution. OK if we look at the period in which Marx was writing socialism and communism are user interchangeably. However we are writing now and Lenin was interpreting that transitionary period as socialism in the emergent language of his period. I agree the current phrasing is inadequate, but deletion is not the solution, how about trying to improve it? --Snowded (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's one line, I don't see what the big deal is. Not even Lenin called the transitional period socialism, he just created the distinction of the first phase as socialism. It says that Marx said it. He didn't, and so the only thing that makes sense is to delete it. Zd12 (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the only thing that makes sense is to amend it so it reflects the concept of transition. I will look at that tomorrow. --Snowded (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Utopian

Removed Category:utopian movements since only utopian socialism is utopian. Inaccurate generalization. Madhava 1947 (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

FTR

I've given up here. I don't want my refusal to participate in an edit war with Zd12 et. al. to be taken as anything other than that. It's a shame that Wiki has to sink to a lowest denominator like this but of course there are other sources available and those who want to know can't be kept from the truth. Also it's about time to archive this talk. Lycurgus (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not, the last arkiv of Jesus (107) is more than 200K and this page isn't even generating length notices yet. Lycurgus (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Misleading article

This section "But from 2005 through to 2007 the country was wracked by many thousands of protests from poor communities." is extremely misleading. There wasn't thousands of protests nor was it big national news - it is a sentence created to give a false impression.

The shack dwellers association (Abahlali baseMjondolo) is also not nationally known - even for a "pressure group". The most media attention it gets is from Naomi Klein books (outside South Africa). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.14.116.32 (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Socialism has changed?

Hi, I want to ask if people think the definition of socialism may have change in the last few months. Socialism used to mean Government or worker control of industry ('means of production')... however, today many people and not just those on the right in America open call what should be welfare states "Socialism". I think we may be seeing a shift in the definition of socialism.24.130.20.121 (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Social democracies fail to meet the traditional definition of socialism that involves the collective ownership of the means of production. There are certainly definition transformations that can occur, but I'm inclined to regard the definition of social democracy (and liberal democratic capitalism) as "socialism" as purely baseless. 71.103.106.177 (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you both. :-) It's partly the traditional American knee-jerk conflation of socialism with communism. (Why should non-profit health insurance be "worse" than non-profit police and fire departments?) But, too, European labour and left-of-center political parties certainly do use the words socialist / socialism, as the texts of countless First-of-May speeches will attest. If you, 24.130.xx.xxx, think there have been changes in "the last few months", I think you should explain. But a general trend may be there. My 2 cents. - Hordaland (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

i take it you mean you've read different sources on socialism the last few months? .."welfare state" is a capitalist state with a degree of a collective wallet to ensure a minimum livelihood for it's citizens. it is used to distinct it from a state that does not provide such an insurance, thus, it is relatively more socialist then a state that is not (comparitively) not a welfare state. the welfare system itself could be considered an element of socialism. of course, it implies a mixed economy, and the level of socialism isn't clearly defined by the word 'welfare state', potentially being very small.· Lygophile has spoken 14:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The presence of a Criticism Section and POV

A survey of various opposing political-economic philosophies indicates that there was a broad consensus to remove the "Criticism" sections from articles such as "Objectivism" and "Capitalism", but the "Criticism" section remains here. This creates the appearance of a global POV for the whole Wikipedia project. Consistent with this, I have deleted the "Criticism" section, which was small and appeared to a "tacked-on" item anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.180.53 (talk)

those articles actually do have extensive criticism sections (at least now they do). they're just not placed at the bottom.· Lygophile has spoken 12:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Socialism leading to communism?

I can never find a clear answer on this, maybe something about this could be added to this article. Is it possible to have socialism that ends up phasing in communism? (As I believe communism is a good thing however, I believe it needs to be peaceful and phased in). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.222.217 (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Socialistic capitalism

Can socialistic capitalism be mentioned at the see also section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.199.16 (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rose logo

What happened to it. The current logo seems a lot worse and more basic than the brief modification to an updated flag and rose. I suggest changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canistabbats (talk • contribs) 02:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping we could get this article with out the mention of Obama in this manner, but I guess I was being too optimistic in mankind. If we're calling Obama socialist, we'd might as well call Bush fascist by those standards --MercZ (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Ownership" has at least 3 dimensions: 1) legal title; 2) effective control; 3) risk-reward. Socialists in academia and the mainstream media have tried to mis-define socialism by keying on who holds legal title. However, socialism is an economic, not a political system. Economically, legal title is irrelevant; the dimensions of control and risk-reward are what count. Any ideology or system that advocates government excercising substantial control over the means of production, at least in certain key industries, can therefore be called socialism. Any ideology or system that proposes to have government take over a substantial portion of the risk and/or reward is also socialism. Massive government subsidies and bailouts are manifestations of socialism. President Obama's effective control over General Motors and Chrysler is socialism. So-called "single-payer" health care systems are socialism.

Even if one refuses to accept the above clarification, one cannot reasonably dispute that "single-payer health care" by definition constitutes government ownership of the health care financing industry, if not the health care industry itself, and is therefore socialism.

President Obama's policies appear to be consistent with correctly-defined socialism. President Bush's economic policy and "aggressive defense" approach to national security, however, appear to be more consistent with National Socialist ideology than with fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly J Bailey (talk • contribs) 04:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, they really don't. Please, just drop it.Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the widespread description of Obama as socialist is an important factor in society, particularly among the political right, but at the same time I think that it should be noted as largely baseless accusations and not as widely accepted. MattW93 (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama is not particularly seen as a socialist. The political right just uses it as a meaningless buzzword for anyone they don't approve of. Bill Clinton was called a socialist plenty of times as well. --Ashenai (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama is no sort of socialist. Period. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The article should include something about the way the word socialism is thrown around. Most Americans probably encounter the word socialism only in the context of defamatory misuse and this merits a sentence or two. 74.178.245.217 (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that cover this phenomenon? I agree that there might be a section describing popular misuse of the word to describe something else (like Obama's conservative health care reform plan) but we need to have a couple of sources to include such a section. Regards So Why 11:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, there was an article in The Guardian yesterday; and there are several other aericles in the Guardian online dealing with this phenomenon. RolandR 11:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any encyclopedic sources that have covered the issue. There are plenty of blogs, but they're junk. Maybe there is or will be an article in a political science journal. 74.178.245.217 (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian is an RS.Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any sources we could find for a dispassionate classification of Obama's policies without breaking WP:OR? I only ask because, although the guardian article addresses that American conservatives incorrectly call Obama a socialist, inclusion in the article on socialism would be better if it was not just a refutation of his status but rather an explanation of what his political position realistically represents and how that differs from socialism, with references and examples from sources such as that guardian article.Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, having a section in this article refuting the accusation of Obama's 'socialism' would be just beautiful. Wikipedia is becoming more and more the standard for general sourcing in semi-casual discussions, so including a section on that would really serve the purpose of speeding up discussion. (It, of course, has to be NPOV, though that shouldn't be an issue considering Obama's center-conservativism is pretty much hard fact.) 8bit (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just need an RS saying that.Simonm223 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The notion is so absurd that few RS will even get the idea to discuss this. Try to source "the ocean is not pink" or "anvils don't fall ~~down~~up". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ROTFL Fair point. However there has to be some journalist or scholar who has said "Obama is a fiscal conservative" somewhere in print.Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. But that is not strictly incompatible with being a socialist - one is concerned with the control of the means of production, the other with how the state spends money. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sure we can find a RS that says he is in favour of free-market capitalism. I've seen video footage of him saying that...Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Another Vandal Oh dear. While we are over here on the talk page discussing the fact that Obama is nearly as far from Socialism as Reagan yet another vandal was linking Obama into the Socialism page. I can tell this one will be on my watchpage basically indefinately.Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't need a section to refute charges that Obama is a socialist or about the terms "socialism" and "socialist" being thrown around in a defamatory way. What we do need is a section describing the manner in which socialists went "underground" in academia and the media in the mid-20th century, and the fear that modern socialists have of the socialist label. I support public schools. I don't want a public monopoly or a heavy-handed approach, but I do want government to offer a good public education to everyone. That makes me a socialist, to a limited degree. Now why can't all the other, bigger socialists out there acknowledge what they are? It's as if they know "socialism = bad" without understanding the essence of socialism.

Having the legitimate right to control something is the essence of ownership. The essence of socialism is the belief that it is the legitimate role of government to ensure everyone's needs are met - that is, government has the moral right and responsibility to control all wealth in society, and the people, at least to the degree necessary to ensure everyone's needs are met. The implication of this is that the State ultimately "owns" everything, in precisely the same sense that medieval kings and lords owned everyone and everything subject to their jurisdiction.

Let's see a section about the phenomenon of how the mid-20th century socialists in academia and the media have so misshaped the public's understanding of socialism, capitalism, and the concept of ownership, that so many people think ownership is all about holding legal title - that the control and risk-reward dimensions of ownership don't really count, that the State can control an industry but that it isn't socialism as long as we hide behind the fiction of legal title? That's what we really need to see covered in the sections on socialism, market socialism, etc.Kelly J Bailey (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Kelly B

Perhaps you should consider that support for public education has not traditionally been considered as an aspect of socialism. The essence of socialism has nothing to do with the role of government, but with radical egalitarianism and rejection of the sanctity of private property - particularly rejection of the principle of private ownership of the means of production. Anarchists can be socialists. And anti-socialists like Bismarck or European Christian Democrats can build a social welfare system. john k (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The essence of socialism has everything to do with the role of government. I believe that each of us has a moral responsibility to help those who are in need, to the extent of our abilities. This belief is perfectly consistent with classical liberal and capitalist thought. However, nobody who advocates a compulory, government-run social welfare system can rightly be called anti-socialist. They may be anti- some particular form of socialism, but they're not strictly anti-socialist. The notion that it is the role of government - i.e., that government has the responsibility to establish social welfare apparatus that is compulsory (taxpayer funded or othewise) implies that government is socialist. Responsibility and authority necessarily go hand in hand, so the notion implies that government holds sovereign ownership of, which is to say it has the legitimate moral authority to control as it sees fit, all of societies wealth including the labor of its citizens. This is directly contrary to the classical liberal principle expressed by John Locke and others that WE own the fruits of our labors, that government has only the rights and authority which we explicity agree to give to it. All forms of socialism, social welfare state, so-called market socialism, etc., appear to be built not on classical liberalism, but on the age-old paternalistic theory that has been used to justify every form of authoritarianism since the dawn of time - that whoever is lording it over us under whatever political form, they lord it over us for our own good.

That is the common thread that binds all forms of socialism, and therefore merits a little better discussion in the sections on capitalism and socialism. Unfortunately, thanks to the dominance of socialist thinking in academia and the media, most of us no longer even know what classical liberalism. We've been trained to see only the weaknesses of capitalism. Few understand the essence of socialism, and are therefore unable to see that the flaws of socialism pervade President Obama's economic policies as they pervade all big-government social welfare programs. Which brings us to another point that should be included as a criticism of all forms socialism: the fact that they breed dependence and irresponsibility, as we've seen over the past 40 years. We see proof of this in liberal Democrat policies, as well as in socialist-lite policies of Republicans like Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.118.197 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would refer you to WP:SOAP.Simonm223 (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Noam Chomsky and other libsocs are aware they aren't socialists? Socialism is normally defined economically, yes, but egalitarian practices in a capitalist economy do not constitute socialism any more than a market in a socialist economy constitutes capitalism. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 00:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This definition of "socialism" robs the term of all useful meaning - it makes every government of the last 150 years socialist, to a greater or lesser extent. Look, it's up to you to find sources which support your definition. As Simonm223 alludes to, wikipedia is not a soap box for you to elaborate on pet personal theories. If you want your idiosyncratic definition of socialist to be included in the article, you need to find reliable sources, from mainstream academic scholarship, which define socialism in this way. If you can't do that, it doesn't belong in the article, as simple as that. john k (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful for the article on socialism to elaborate further on the criticisms. For example, there are two important practical implications of the lack of "rational" pricing in a socialist system. First, there will be overproduction of some goods and services, wasting precious limited resources. Second, there will be underproduction and overconsumption of other key goods and services, inevitably leading to rationing and corruption.

Socialism breeds an entitlement mentality. The sense of entitlement results in fewer people being productive, productive people being less productive. The number of unproductive people and their consumption grows until the system is unable to sustain itself.

--And you don't think capitalism breeds entitlement? Like the rich who want tax breaks? What world do you live in?

Socialism breeds corruption. Citizens ask not what they can do for their country, but rather what their country can do for them. In effect, socialism mixed with democracy means that the citizens are selling their votes to the politicians. Power corrupts, and it is inevitable that despite the best of intentions, the government apparatus will also be corrupted as the people in power use their economic control to manipulate and oppress the populace.

--And you don't think captialism breeds corruption? So Wall Street is full of saints, eh? Again, what world do you live in?

Classical liberal ideology protects against such State-sponsored oppression, asserting that under "natural law" or "God's law" we are all completely free, and that government has absolutely no moral authority beyond that which we all agree to grant to it. Socialism, in contrast, suggests that the State has supreme paternalistic responsibility and authority over the people. Implicit in all forms of socialist thinking, including the predominant "liberal" Democrat thinking of the 21st century, is the idea that the State has sovereign ownership rights over all forms of wealth and that the people hold property rights limited strictly to those which the State in its eminent wisdom chooses to delegate.97.127.118.197 (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Kelly B

Please review WP:SOAP and WP:NPoV. Might be good to also consult WP:SYNTH. Then consider your proposal in light of those policies.Simonm223 (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, what is the source for all this nonsense? You can't simply recite original nonsense of your own imagining and expect that anyone will be willing to include it in a wikipedia article. The purpose of this article is to provide a précis of what reliable sources say about socialism. In this case, reliable sources means the work of political scientists and historians in academia. john k (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

hmmm liberal ideology rejects socialism you say? what profound insight you have. black rejects white. dry rejects wet. let's add this to the article. 76.103.47.66 (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we stop this? I am a strong conservative, and I do not believe Obama to be socialist, just very, very, very, liberal. He is not a socialist. --Carolinapanthersfan (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

See one thing socialists and conservatives alike can agree on. Obama is not a socialist.Simonm223 (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The first time I checked this section it only had a few sentences. Now it looks like a 3 page paper. I am so sick of this accusation. Is Bush a socialist for handing out those stimulus checks back in 2007? Dumaka (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I expect 7.5 more years of this nonsense.Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Social democrats and nationalization of industries

Maybe it should be noted that social democrats don't usually nationalize an industry or property without proper compensation to the owner. It was also common to develop those key industries using public funds. On a side note, EU countries are no longer allowed to have national industries, something that european social democratic parties seem to respect.

Libertarian socialism should get its own paragraph, I don't see how is it related to social-democracy.

85.55.152.51 (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Ike, 7-September-2009

Which part of the article are you referring too? Dumaka (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph just before the table of contents (begins with "Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries" [...] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.139.2 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Libertarian socialism and Social democrates are being intertwined together in that paragraph. Libertarian socialism is only referred to in a few sentences. It is too small to have it's own paragraph, unless you care to expand on it. Also, it says "Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies". So the way it is worded now makes sense. Dumaka (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Prior Discussion

Note: Please stick to a working discussion of the content of this article. Use: this to rate or comment on the article "Socialism".

/Archive 1 /Archive 2
/Socialism and Nazism -- 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. -- Jmabel 09:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
/Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6
/Archive 7 /Archive 8 -- Archive of discussions begun from June 2006 to Dec 2006 and ending no later than Feb 2007.
/Archive 9 -- Archive of discussions begun from January 2007 to March 2007, with no live discussions.
/Archive 10 -- Up to the settling of the length issue (2007-03 - 2007-12)
/Archive 11 -- From settling of the length issue up to settling structure and relation to other articles (2007-12 - 2009-08); Also discusses semantics (meaning) of "socialism".
/Archive 12 -- Please keep this thread on this page and update this to summarize content when this archive created so the people don't look stupid by continually rehashing the same stuffs.

Archives