Talk:Socialism/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Large sections, recently added

Two large quotes or collections of quotes were added. I was considering a revert, but thought some discussion was in order. Jack London and Upton Sinclair may be well recognized socialists, but perhaps a more careful summary of their definitions is needed. I am not sure that even they are sufficiently notable to warrant significant discussion. Certainly a iTunes commentator is not notable in his or her definition. The second quote, from Zinn, seems unnecessary entirely--more or less a commentary on recent events and entirely US-centric. Thoughts about an entire or partial revert? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it has now been added and reverted twice. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

While the recent edits by R-41 contain some valuable sources and information, they are misplaced in the article. On top of that, a slew of sourced material was removed from the lead. The summary provided in the new opening paragraph is a better description of the beliefs of various socialist parties, ideologies or individuals, and is therefore more applicable to the "Politics" or "Philosophy" subsection of the article. I believe the recent edits are conflating the beliefs of socialism, which better describe anti-capitalism, with the social and economic system(s) of socialism. The lead should contain a definition and concise explanation of socialism, not the beliefs of socialists or the political policies championed by socialist parties. I have therefore reverted the first paragraph of the lead and moved R-41's contributions to the Politics subsection. Battlecry (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No the intro is not accurate, it ignores socialism that does not support public ownership of the property of the means of production. We went through this indepth, the intro is better with the broad definition from the three prominent scholars who have studied socialism indepth to provide a broad cohesive set of common elements of socialism.--R-41 (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed it back to R-41's version. The definition of socialism is based on empirical observation rather than an ideal. TFD (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I understand R-41's objection that Battlecry's version "ignores Socialism that does not support public ownership...". Some of the possible aspects it lists are "cooperative" and "common ownership" which, as their own articles state, are actually in contrast to true public ownership. I don't see anything about it that conflicts with R-41's version and it seems to accurately define the fundamental economic principle behind Socialism. Since it is also more brief and concise, I'd say it's more appropriate as a header. R-41's additions regarding the deeper philosophical and moral differences between Socialism and Capitalism belong in the Politics subsection. (50.135.58.114 (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC))

The intro should be reverted back [1]. The present intro is very POV! The intro by Four Deuces is far more neutral (to the extent that any intro about this topic might be neutral). --Oddeivind (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Leonidas480AC (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Leonidas,03-05-12 This entry's completly wrong. It describes communism. The socialist partys in Europe simply advocate for a more balanced society. In some countries, like Germany, the Social-Democrats occupy that space on the center-left in the political sphere. This is why Yankees think socialism is communism... It's URGENT to correct this entry... France is about to elect a Socialist President, Mr. Hollande...

WP:SOAP

Lo All - could we be aware of WP:SOAP? Also, try and stay away from being a bit OR? Lets see if we can find an authority text to settle the current dispute. Now, to my mind the current version does not exclude forms of "socialism" which don't involve collective ownership models -- for example, Kevin Carsoneque small holding would still count as social ownership/control because there would be no large owners/monopolists. Like I've said before, though, we could replace and in the first sentence with or, or and/or. Would this help?--Red Deathy (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line is that we need to have an introduction that accounts for the first organized ideology of socialism, utopian socialism that under its two main founders Henri de Saint Simon and Charles Fourier does not meet with the current definition that describes socialism as being based upon support for direct social ownership of the capital and property of the means of production but they proposed no changes to private property. Saint Simon and Fourier supported social control by the community over the means of production through community controls. We've gone over this many times, the current definition in the article does not account for utopian socialism. What the intro should say is that there are variations of socialism that support direct social ownership over the capital and property of the means of production, such as Marxist variants of socialism, and that there are variations of socialism that emphasize social control over the means of production rather than direct social ownership. Such as through increasing participation of workers alongside consumers in management of economic affairs. Examples include utopian socialism or liberal socialism.--R-41 (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

if there is no difference between Utopian socialism and communism, why not use the more popular term? should such difference exist, plz explain. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There are HUGE differences between utopian socialism and communism. If you are not aware of the differences, you should know about them before commenting here, please read scholarly sources on utopian socialism and Karl Marx's views on utopian socialism to understand the differences. Karl Marx criticized utopian socialism, which was one of the reasons why he created communism.--R-41 (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"We've gone over this many times, the current definition in the article does not account for utopian socialism. What the intro should say is that there are variations of socialism that support direct social ownership over the capital and property of the means of production, such as Marxist variants of socialism, and that there are variations of socialism that emphasize social control over the means of production rather than direct social ownership."Yes, and what several editors have said is that, in their, good faith, opinion, the current lead does say that. (btw, Marx did not "invent communism, and communists in the late 19th century used the word communist and socialist roughly interchangeably, see William's "Key words").--Red Deathy (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the utopian socialism of Saint Simon and Fourier did not support direct social ownership over the capital and property of the means of production. This needs to be accounted for in the definition of socialism.--R-41 (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

And as I said, other editors believe that the current wording does, logically, include socialisms that don't espouse "direct social ownership over the capital and property of the means of production."--Red Deathy (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding making changes to the lead

• R-41, you would need to get some form of consensus here before making changes to the lead. You can start by posting your first paragraph here and then let the discussion follow. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• My proposal for the intro is below:
  • "Socialism is a political ideology and economic system that seeks to replace the competitive individualist profit-seeking economy and society of capitalism with a cooperative sociable economy and society. Socialists allege capitalism supports inequality of wealth through socially irresponsible policies on private property rights. Socialism advocates the socialization of the means of production, socialization can take on many forms, such as: direct social ownership of the property of the means of production through the state, a cooperative, or worker management; a mixed economy involving both social ownership over strategic economic interests and regulated private ownership in other areas that are regulated to be socially responsible; a socialist form of private property to replace the capitalist form of private property; and community ownership of property."

This is what I propose thus far that accounts for the many variations of socialism as I mentioned earlier. If I have missed important examples, please point them out and I will incorporate them into the proposed intro paragraph. --R-41 (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Socialism is primarily a political movement that does not necessarily seek to replace capitalism. Note that under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the stock exchange continued to operate, although they did nationalize the banks. TFD (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Tony Blair declared himself committed to ethical socialism. He declared that hostility to capitalism was not appropriate to the long-term project of promoting ethical socialism, but that reforms need to be made increase cooperation in the British economy. All forms of socialism that I am aware of publicly declare opposition in some form to capitalism due to inequality of wealth that it produced. The British Labour Party has felt obligated to behave moderately because of the immense political success of Margaret Thatcher's denouncement of state economic interventionism in the 1980s, they and other social democrats have struggled to develop a socialist economic policy that can withstand neoliberal attacks.--R-41 (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Are Blair and Brow considered socialists? I think they are generally thought of as followers of third way. -- Vision Thing -- 10:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Third Way is a policy. All successful political parties have adjusted policies in order to meet current conditions. TFD (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Are Blair and Brow considered socialists?" - Yes, Blair has repeatedly declared himself a supporter of ethical socialism.--R-41 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Are Blair and Brow considered socialists?" is not the same as "Do they consider themselves socialists?" Are they considered socialists by neutral third parties? --RJFF (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

RJFF, if you run into someone using the orthodox Marxist definition of socialism that does not account for earlier socialists like Saint Simon and Fourier, they will say that because they do not demand total social ownership of the means of production then they are not "true socialists" by Marxist definition, that definition is filled with holes for the definition of all of socialism. Ethical socialism is a real thing, advocated since the 1920s - and Blair's policies are compatible with ethical socialism's support of a mixed economy.--R-41 (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

RJFF, this is from the Blair article: "...but he promised before the 1997 election that New Labour would govern "from the radical centre", and according to one lifelong Labour Party member, has always described himself as a social democrat.[85] However, Labour Party backbenchers and other left wing critics typically place Blair to the right of centre.[86]" Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The argument among socialists about who is a true socialist goes back to the 19th century. However, both Blair and Brown were members and leaders of a socialist party. TFD (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Labour backbenchers and other left wing critics typically place Blair to the right of centre." statement by Somedifferentstuff - What kind of "critics" say Blair is right-of-centre? Opponents? Rivals in the Labour Party? There are "critics" who describe Barrack Obama as anything from a "socialist" to a "communist" to a "fascist", in reality Obama is a social liberal. Tony Blair is an ethical socialist - not only has he said so, but his policies adhere to ethical socialism's support of a mixed economy.--R-41 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You have a definition of socialism that you want to push onto the article. Use reliable sources not your own reasoning. Sources categorize the Labour Party as socialist. See for example Ware's Political parties and party systems.[2] See also no true Scotsman - Blair is no true socialist. TFD (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are saying this to me, I will tell you that I was quoting what the user Somedifferentstuff said when I used Italics, and I would agree with you TFD that the no true Scotsman argument has been used against Tony Blair - they say he "can't be a socialist" even though there is clear evidence that Blair has supported socialism for years - before he was Labour leader wrote policy papers for the Fabian Society in which he advocated ethical socialism, and secondary sources that have actually done proper indepth study know that Blair has long been a supporter of Christian socialism and ethical socialism and his policies are consistent with ethical socialism's support of a mixed economy that emphasizes cooperation and social responsibility.--R-41 (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• R-41, you need to add the reference/s you intend to use. Use the long form (i.e. <REFERENCE>.............<REFERENCE END> ) After that we can start the discussion. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the linked article under socialisation isn't useful (possibly go straight through to the paragraph on "Other uses"?), I would knock out sociable altogether, seems redundant.--Red Deathy (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Socialization is the appropriate word, if the article on socialization needs improvements, that is a different issue that should be addressed at that article's talk page. As for the word "sociable", socialism is not merely an economic system, it is a broader political ideology that aims for greater cooperative social interaction to replace the competitive individualism of capitalism as the primary cultural motivation of society is a common goal of socialists since the beginning of socialism. Socialists claim that capitalism's competitive individualism atomizes society into individuals who essentially fight with each other to make profit or simply to survive in the case of poverty, and socialists say that this behaviour is not constructive to the development of a cohesive society. I will organize sources for the intro I have proposed shortly.--R-41 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not that the article "Socialisation" is deficient, more than that as it stands it's inappropriate, seeing as how it mostly discusses the socialisation of human beings and only marginally reflects on the political/economic meaning. Really, that meaning should have a different article. All I'd suggest is delinking for now, as it's a misleading link. As for sociable, the connotations of that word are largely to do with conviviality. I think in the light, IIRC, of Hayek's polemics around the word "social", I reckon it wise (and useful) to break out the thesaurus.--Red Deathy (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for the intro:

Socialism refers to the political ideology and the economic system of the ideology that promotes social equality, community, and social control over the means of production, while criticizing the social and economic order of capitalism. Socialism supports the development of individuality and community through advocating social cooperation and solidarity of people. While socialists support individuality they oppose the the political economy of individualism promoted by capitalists, that socialists claim is used to justify a competitive, self-rewarding, and exploitative character, that stunts individual personality and makes it impossible for a real community of people to exist. Socialism arose out of objections to conditions deemed to be caused by capitalism, such as rising poverty and unemployment, low wages, inequality, and lack of social and economic protection of people.

Aside from a basic description of the themes of socialism, there are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single comphrensive definition capable of encapsulating all of the variations of socialism. However there have been common elements identified by scholars. Angelo S. Rappoport in his Dictionary of Socialism (1924) analyzed forty definitions of socialism to conclude that common elements of socialism include: general criticisms of the social effects of private ownership and control of capital - as being the cause of poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security; a general view that the solution to these problems is a form of collective control over the means of production, distribution and exchange (the degree and means of control vary amongst socialist movements); agreement that the outcome of this collective control should be a society based upon social justice, including social equality, economic protection of people, and should provide a more satisfying life for most people. Bhikhu Parekh in The Concepts of Socialism (1975) identifies four core principles of socialism and particularly socialist society: sociality, social responsibility, cooperation, and planning. Michael Freeden in his study Ideologies and Political Theory (1996) states that all socialists share five themes: the first is that socialism posits that society is more than a mere collection of individuals; second, that it considers human welfare a desirable objective; third, that it considers humans by nature to be active and productive; fourth, it holds the belief of human equality; and fifth, that history is progressive and will create positive change on the condition that humans work to achieve such change.

There are many forms of socialist economy. Utopian socialist Henri de Saint Simon advocated an economy that supported economic planning, the pursuit of full employment, and upheld private property as a social utility, though not as a right. There are socialist economies involving complete social ownership of the means of production. There are socialist economies based upon regulated mixed economy with public enterprise and private enterprise. A socialist form of private property has been advocated by some proponents of a socialist economy.

Common forms of socialism include: anarchism, communism, democratic socialism, and social democracy. There are also other versions of socialism, such as: authoritarian, communitarian, libertarian, organizational, and self-managing versions of socialism.

The above is my new proposal with as many good sources as I could add. I may need to add others. I don't know if it accounts for everything but it is a far wider and more comphrensive description of socialism as a whole.--R-41 (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better to start with the difficulty of defining the term. Notice that Freeden's "five themes" do not include "social control over the means of production", yet that is how you define it in the first sentence. Also you do not mention that socialism is a political movement, that socialists have organized political parties in most countries and are usually one of two major parties in each country. TFD (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I will consider recorganizing it in the way you have requested, but I am waiting to hear others' views. I did mention that it is a political ideology, if there is a source that says it is a political movement I will add that - but that seems to indicate that socialism is a single solid political entity, which it is not.--R-41 (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Your first source, A history of European socialism says in "Introduction: What is socialism?", p. ix, "I should make clear that in referring to "socialism" I mean more than a study of the linkage of ideas to one another or a description and analysis of socialist doctrines as such." [3] In fact is was a single political movement that came together in the First International, and all socialist groups retain some elements of the original symbolism. Also, it is bad style to source sections of a sentence, because it appears to be synthesis. TFD (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Was Saint-Simon the "founder" of Socialism? he may have originated the term, but there were certainly identifiably socialistic tendencies before him? I note somewhere over the years the Etymology section has lost the discussion on William's Keywords discussing how socialism and communism were used interchangeably for somewhile through the nineteenth century--Red Deathy (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Saint Simon is regardes as the founder of socialism my many sources, including these sources [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. These are many standard sources here that recognize Saint Simon as the founder of socialism. There is confusion as to Marx's stance - but one source I provided says that Karl Marx recognized Saint-Simon as the historical founder of socialism - even though Marx rejected the premises of what Saint Simon's "utopian socialism" - but it is known that Marxists have accepted Saint Simon as the founder of socialism - the Soviet Union recognized Saint Simon as the founder of original socialism.--R-41 (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Contradictorywise, the Catholic Encyclopedia[10], And Battlestar Britannica [11](1911), and [12] (modern) don't give that attribution, and indicate the antiquity of the idea.--Red Deathy (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

To TFD, the list of different methods of socialist economy is not WP:SYNTHESIS because it does not address them as one thing, it is addressing them separately - I could easily put them all down as separate sentences but it lengthens the intro with the necessary additional words needed to restart each sentence, that is why it is better in one sentence. As long as the sentence is addressing each of these examples of socialist economy separately, it is not synthesis - each example of socialist economy can be independently investigated through the references. I have however now changed that sentence to be referring to different forms of socialist economy, rather than "different forms of social control".--R-41 (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is synthesis, because you are creating a list that no one else has. Also, most of your sources say that Saint Simon was a founder of socialism (or "modern socialism"), not the founder. You should not present multiple sources to support your views, just one good source. Your first source for example is from a book published in 1928 - you should be using more recent sources. TFD (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Very well then, I have split up the list on the types of socialist economy into brief sentences. The first source was not written in 1928, it was written in 1983 about the position of Saint Simon on socialist economy. I have removed the statement that Saint Simon was the founder of socialism and put in that he is a utopian socialist. Now that the referenced sections have been split into their own sentences and that Saint Simon is referred to as a utopian socialist, is this acceptable? - See the above proposed text for the changes I have mentioned here.--R-41 (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, your source Socialism and Saint Simon was originally published in 1928, but is based on a series of lectures given from Nov 1895 to May 1896.[13] You are writing down your opinions, then Google-searching for sources. The result is POV and SYN. Articles should summarize what the main literature says. TFD (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I can replace the reference on Saint Simon. The sentence has been divided into more than one now. The examples added are not my opinions - they are examples of the different forms of socialist economy promoted by socialists recognized by the scholarly sources that are used. I listened to your critique and removed the sentence you said was synthesis, it has been broken up into independent sentences, there is no longer synthesis, furthermore you appear to not be assuming good faith on my part and are assuming bad faith.--R-41 (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are trying to find sources to back up what you believe rather than letting the sources drive what you put in. Why else would you present a book based on a series of lectures from the 1890s as a source? Did you choose that source because you believed it was the most authoritative and up to date or because it supported what you wanted the article to say? TFD (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Months ago I thought that Saint Simon supported complete social ownership of the means of production, then I found multiple sources that said that he accepted private property. I thought that this was a very important point to include, as many stereotypical definitions of socialism claim that it opposes the concept of private property. As I don't have books at my disposal on socialism I did use Google books to find the source or a similar one. If you have a problem with the source I can and will find another one. You should notice that I have included the description of socialist economy that Somedifferentstuff insisted that it be included in the intro - that a prominent form of socialist economy involves complete social ownership over the means of production - because Somedifferentstuff is correct that this has been a prominent description of socialist economy. Let's be constructive here, how can the proposed intro be improved?--R-41 (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that there has been no response from TFD or others, I revised the proposed intro again by removing the outdated source on Saint Simon's socialist economy and adding a modern source. I have added more sources on a basic outline description of socialism and on the major versions of socialism. Is the proposed intro now acceptable? (For new users, see the bolded part "Proposal for the intro" above) If it is not acceptable, explain why and say what changes do you think are needed?--R-41 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the second and third sentences are a touch clunky, and read a bit like a high-school essay, to my mind. Looking through, I think you could lose the first two paragraphs, the third seems, to me, to be a concise enough. The icing on its cake would be a source explaining the why there are multiple meanings/understandings of the term.--Red Deathy (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The second and third sentences are essential, the term "socialism" was coined in contrast with "individualism" - later the term "capitalism" became the contrast with socialism. Still, this is from a source that is clearly not a high school essay. Cutting off the first two paragraphs is unacceptable, I've built this definition to meet the concerns of multiple users, Somedifferentstuff stated that the third paragraph was only from one source and that we needed at least five sources for the intro, and Somedifferentstuff stated that we needed to include the one definition of socialist economy that has been prominent especially amongst Marxists that involves complete social ownership of the means of production. I've done a lot to accomodate many users concerns, but scrapping the first two paragraphs just puts us back to square one - it would be dominated by one source as noticed and opposed by Somedifferentstuff and it would not explain the diversity of socialist economies. I am willing to accept aesthetic changes and minor changes and accept that the intro may be missing important information, but we are not going back to square one by removing the first two paragraphs, this proposed intro is a major improvement over previous ones that I and others have proposed.--R-41 (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the extra references could be incorporated into the 3rd para without much damage. I didn't disagree with the second & third sentences, so much as dislike the waffley-clunkiness of the phrasing. I'd suggest: "Socialism opposes the political economy of individualism, emphasising the development of self-hood through collective endevour" (if the source referenced would support that wording, but any similar shortening into one sentence would suffice, I reckon). Perhaps it would be acceptable to rearrange the para order, with the third coming first? BTW, you asked for comments, I gave an opinion. Saying "X is unacceptable" is not a good way to build consensus, IMNSHO. --Red Deathy (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I said that the first request was unacceptable because the addition of the first paragraph and the paragraphs on socialist economies was in response to a request by Somedifferentstuff to include more sources and to have the one particular form socialist economy - complete social ownership of the means of production - included in the intro. If I put through your request to delete those two paragraphs it would violate the attempt to gain the consensus of Somedifferentstuff's concerns. I have reorganized and simplified the waffeley sentence as much as I could while retaining the content of what the source says. I reorganized the order of the paragraphs, I tried merging the one paragraph that speaks of the various definitions into the first paragraph but it made the first paragraph just way too long. I also replaced the word "fraternity" with the similar word "solidarity" since fraternity means "brotherhood" and is a very male-oriented word, the term solidarity is essentially the same and is less patriarchal sounding. Is the proposed intro improved now?--R-41 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good by me, I could support that intro.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Redacted--02:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.96.50 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright then. Red Dearthy is in favour of the intro now that I and her/him have worked out some issues, what are others views? Is the proposed intro acceptable now?--R-41 (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether other users have forgotten about this section or what, but the discussion over improving the intro has gone on for some time and since I and another user who previously had differences over previous proposals now in consensus and accepts this proposal I am inserting it in the intro - it is a major improvement over what has been there up to this point. If there are remaining outstanding issues we can revise the intro here again.--R-41 (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm mistaken, but I've never witnessed a consensus supporting such a radical and biased changed to the lead. It should be well and away from Wikipedia's quality standards to support this level of bias on such a volatile subject. The use of two solitary citations, no doubt the same page of the same book, to define an entire lead is unacceptable for anyone seeking legitimate, introductory information on this subject. While there might have existed some room for revision of the previous lead, it's completely unreasonable to move to an alternative of a re-write founded upon two solitary citations that are written with the objective of driving an opinion, and little else. Little else in terms of creating a solid, understandable distinction between capitalism and socialism. Mentioning that “socialism criticizes capitalism” is vague, and inefficient. Anyone looking to understand socialism who uses this lead will believe that socialism means little more than welfare and complains that have no basis in the real world.--Helios932 (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The current revision is pushing a PoV, specifically that contemporary European mixed economies are socialist. Among all the possible socialist theorists, it only mentions Eduard Bernstein and Henri di Saint-Simon (who has little, if any, bearing on contemporary socialist economics). While citing Bernstein is fine by itself, it is curious you don't mention any other more notable socialists with slightly differing views, such as Marx, Engels, Oskar Lange, Abba Lerner, Karl Kautsky or Leon Trotsky. Furthermore, the idea of socialists supporting some kind of a "mixed economy" as a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism is not specific to Bernstein, even the Bolsheviks advocated a transitional period where private and public enterprises coexisted in a mixed economy. But this is simply a strategy and theory regarding the gradual construction of a socialist economy, it is not the definition of socialism (the end-goal of this strategy), which the article should do a better job at defining. And as Helios pointed out, the first paragraph of the lead is entirely based on one source. The material in the second paragraph is an exact copy of the content under "Social and Political Theory", which is a more suitable subsection for discussing the political viewpoints held by various socialists. The article should be reverted back to its original lead for the time being. I am open to modifying the existing lead, but in no way do I support the complete abandonment of the sections on socialist economics and wholesale revision of an already comprehensive, encyclopedic and easily readable introduction to the socialist system and its accompanying political movements. Battlecry (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Helios says the intro is unacceptable and "biased" but I have worked through issues with the furthest left of the users here, the Marxist user RedDearthy who has accepted the intro. All the material is sourced. The intro shows the various forms of socialist economies. The statement by Helios argument claiming that the intro is "biased" seems to be based on this apparent view by Helios: "no socialist can support private enterprise in the economy" to which I would respond "But revisionist Marxist and social democrat Eduard Bernstein believed in the long-term necessity of a mixed economy involving public and private enterprise, liberal socialists such as Carlo Rosselli and R. H. Tawney supported a mixed economy",", to which the rebuke to my point would be "they are not true socialists, no true socialist would accept private eneterpise in the economy" - that is the No true Scotsman fallacy. Nowhere did I say that "all" mixed economies are socialist, but there is clear evidence of multiple socialist figures promoting a form of mixed economy.--R-41 (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed synthesis of old and new lead

Here is my proposed revision for the current lead that takes note of R-41's contributions and source material regarding the political views of socialist parties and his emphasis on socialists supporting mixed economies as a transitional state while retaining previous sourced material on socialism as an economic system as commonly defined by encyclopedic and academic sources on the subject.

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises. There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organized within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

A socialist economic system would consist of an organization of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time. Distribution of output would be based on the principle of individual contribution.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. In contrast, anarchism and libertarian socialism propose direct worker's control of the means of production and oppose the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership over the means of production.

Historically, modern socialism originated from 18th-century intellectual and working class movements objecting to conditions arising from industrial capitalism, such as increasing levels of poverty and unemployment, low wages, inequality, and lack of social and economic protections. The general views shared by socialist movements include a criticism of the socioeconomic order of capitalism, support for social equality and individuality as opposed to individualism, which socialists believe is used to justify a competitive, self-rewarding, and exploitative character that limits the formation and expression of genuine individuality. In the early 19th-century, "socialism" referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism regardless of the solutions offered. However, by the late 19th-century, "socialism" came to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for an alternative system based on some form of social ownership. The advent of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' critique of political economy influenced many socialists to place an end to class-based exploitation, reducing alienation in society, and the conscious control of economic production by society at the center of their political programmes.

The early Utopian socialists, such as Robert Owen, tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon advocated an economy that supported economic planning, the pursuit of full employment, and upheld private property as a social utility, though not as a right. Marxist-Leninists have pushed for the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a single-party state that owns the means of production, modeled on the Soviet model of economic development. Yugoslavian, Hungarian, and Chinese communist governments have instituted various forms of market socialism that combine co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production). In contrast, Social democrats advocate for redistributive taxation in the form of social welfare and government regulation of capital within the framework of a market economy as opposed to changing patterns of enterprise ownership, although historically social democracy advocated mixed economies consisting of both public and private enterprise as a transitional stage between capitalism and a fully co-operative form of socialism. Battlecry (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

(NOTE: I Posted this above, but posting again here in case users don't notice it): Helios says the intro is unacceptable and "biased" but I have worked through issues with the furthest left of the users here, the Marxist user RedDearthy who has accepted the intro. All the material is sourced. The intro shows the various forms of socialist economies. The statement by Helios argument claiming that the intro is "biased" seems to be based on this apparent view by Helios: "no socialist can support private enterprise in the economy" to which I would respond "But revisionist Marxist and social democrat Eduard Bernstein believed in the long-term necessity of a mixed economy involving public and private enterprise, liberal socialists such as Carlo Rosselli and R. H. Tawney supported a mixed economy", to which the rebuke to my point would be "they are not true socialists, no true socialist would accept private eneterpise in the economy" - that is the No true Scotsman fallacy. Nowhere did I say that "all" mixed economies are socialist, but there is clear evidence of multiple socialist figures promoting a form of mixed economy.--R-41 (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This proposed lead's concluding paragraph derives most of it's content from the new lead posted by R-41. It seems to me however, that it exceeds the purpose of the lead section - to provide an overview to the subject being discussed. These details should be explored in proper detail, according to their kind, in a history, philosophy, or politics section of the article. The lead section itself should focus on broad overview to provide readers unfamiliar to socialism with a strong, concise, and understandable definition of the system that can be easily compared to other economic systems (IE: capitalism) without explicit definition of the differences by the author.

I can see a strong, yet broad definition of the various methods, histories, politics, and instances of socialism from this proposed lead. Further definitions are and should be welcome, however these definitions belong further down the article to be explained in full detail rather than clogging up this critical section. The older lead, which provided a more understandable definition, lacked details which could not be explored in full detail without undermining the objective of a lead section - to provide overview and basic insight into the subject. Currently the lead present in the article defies this objective outright, it is wordy, it supplies unnecessary details that cannot be explored in a manner consistent with the objectives of a lead section, and should be replaced with something that fulfill this objective.--68.174.96.50 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41, the current lead takes into account mixtures of economic planning and markets ("the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning"), which is inclusive of anything from market socialism to decentralized-economic planning and any combination of the two in a form of mixed economy. As for Eduard Bernstein, he seems to be defining a mixed economy as a combination of public and private enterprise, something most socialists (including Leninist in favor of the New Economic Policy) support to varying degrees (private-enterprise usually being relegated to small businesses). In Bernstein's and Lenin's view, a mixed economy is not socialism per se, it is merely a transitional phase on the road to building socialism. You are conflating strategy and theory regarding the formation of socialism with the end-goal (socialism, as in an economy largely based upon cooperative and/or public ownership). I realize such an ambiguous term like "mixed economy" has no precise meaning (it is usually used to mean an interventionist and regulated capitalist economy as opposed to a genuine mixture of planned production and market allocation). The accusations of bias is based on the undue weight given to one particular view of socialism and an overemphasis on the views of politicians and policies of Western European socialist politicians. Regardless, the format of the lead should give a concise, broad overview of the subject begin discussed in the article. The current lead and my synthesis do just that: the first section defines socialism and the properties of socialist economic systems, the second describes the political movement (or socialist politics), the third talks about the origins and history of socialism. Battlecry (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The lead you are proposing is almost the same as the one that is currently used, it remains very vague - it does not clearly describe what the variants of socialist economy are. As for mixed economy, here is a sources and quotes by Bernstein, he supported a mixed economy for a transition period, in which private enterprise would evolve into cooperative enterprise "of their own accord": Bernstein accepted a mixed economy for an unspecified amount of time: (Steger, The Quest for Evolutionary Socialism, pg. 146.)

"It [socialism] would be completely mad to burden itself with the additional tasks of so complex a nature as the setting up and controlling of comprehensive state production centers on a mass scale – quite apart from the fact that only certain specific branches of production can be run on a national basis…Competition would have to be reckoned with, at least in the transitional period." Eduard Bernstein. (Steger, The Quest for Evolutionary Socialism, pg. 146.)

"[...] in addition to public enterprises and cooperative enterprises, there are enterprises run by private intellectuals for their own gain. In time, they will of their own accord acquire a cooperative character." Eduard Bernstein.(Christopher Pierson. Hard choices: social democracy in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, England, UK; Oxford, England, UK; Malden, Massaschusetts, USA: Polity Press, 2001. Pp. 25.)

Liberal socialism promoted by people such as Carlo Rosselli and R. H. Tawney has explicitly supported a mixed economy of public and private enterprise.--R-41 (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Simple, yet unfocused - almost vague - definitions are the purpose of leads and introductory sections. Specific details: histories, action plans, and specific variations have their place to be explored as needed. It's not been suggested that this content be deleted, or that it is irrelevant, but that it belongs in a section of it's own to be defined and sourced in proper detail. Why does Bernstein's specific point of view deserve to be the dominant perspective of socialism on this article? Pushing such a specific variant of socialism will accomplish just that.--68.174.96.50 (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, R-41 has shot himself in the foot by quoting Bernstein, who supports a mixed economy as a transitional state between capitalism and socialism, hence the name of his philosophy "evolutionary socialism", as he relegates socialism to a more distant future when cooperative ownership in most of the economy becomes viable and feasible. Of course, it is perfectly fine and true that many socialists support a mixed economy, but the transitional strategy/period is not to be confused with the general definition of socialism (the outcome of the transitional state).

To reiterate for everyone, the socialism article, and specifically the lead, should not talk about what certain socialists and movements advocate or believe in, whether it be their belief in how socialism is to come about or policies that are unrelated to socialism. The lead should provide a definition of the socioeconomic system of socialism; the end-goal. Hypothetically, it is possible for a socialist politician or party to propose anything within capitalism - some believe in social welfare or regulation to improve the lives of workers under capitalism, while others oppose it believing it only serves to strengthen capitalism or they are indifferent to such reforms. The common thread is, however, that socialists ultimately wish to create a non-capitalist or post-capitalist social and economic order of some kind, including some form of social ownership and production directly for use. Every major socialist economist I have researched defines socialism in a similar way and considers it to be a non-capitalist system as opposed to a regulated, mixed or welfare-state form of capitalism. The ideals certain (or most, even) socialists might have are insufficient for defining socialism - they certainly have a place in the article, but the ideals of equality, individuality, sociality etc are not the definitions of socialism, they are ideals shared by socialists in the hope that socialism may potentially allow for their realization. In this article (http://www.chicagodsa.org/thomasnewdeal.html) Norman Thomas, who was hardly a Marxist, but was a Christian socialist, even defined socialism as the replacement of the "profit system" with "production for use" and private property with cooperative/collective property, and pointed out (correctly) that even if the immediate demands (social welfare, regulation, etc) were adopted by the United States, that would still not be socialism because such demands are independent of socialism and are simply advocated by (some) socialists to improve the conditions of people living under capitalism. But simply because some or many socialist parties advocate such things does not in any way change or alter the definition of socialism. The lead should be careful not to conflate the two, as many anti-socialists and right-wing pundits do (e.g., Obama is a "socialist" because some socialist parties supported national healthcare and progressive taxation).

Your lead might be fine for a different article, entitled something along the lines of "Values of the socialist movement" or "socialist values" as it primarily explains the values held by many former and some existing socialist groups. Battlecry (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how I "shot" myself "in the foot" with the Bernstein quote, I intended to show that Bernstein was indeed a revisionist Marxist who advocated a long-term mixed economy - created by socialists to begin a transition away from a competitive profit-based economy to a cooperative socialist economy - and that private enterprises would gradually transform themselves "of their own accord" into cooperative enterprises. That is Bernsteinian social democracy. But there is also liberal socialism that accepts a mixed economy - Carlo Rosselli developed the theory for this based on his readings of then-Marxist Werner Sombart who saw an ideal modern economy as a mixed economy of public and private enterprise with a goal of increasing cooperation in the economy. A version of liberal socialism called ethical socialism was developed in Britain by R. H. Tawney and T. H. Green that supports a mixed economy with important social institutions run by public enterprise as well as accepting private enterprise provided that it was socially responsible, ethical socialism has been prominent in the British Labour Party since the days of Ramsay MacDonald. Liberal socialism developed especially in Italy and Britain has spread and is an important form of socialism, and it advocates mixed economy, so once again there are clearly socialists who support a mixed economy.--R-41 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Following along with Battlecry's reiteration, I agree that the lead article should precisely and accurately as possible define socialism in as simple and concrete terms as possible. The various strategies to achieving this end-goal, and the many variations of this goal, should be saved for the appropriate section of the article to describe these strategies and goals in great and appropriate detail. To put this simply, a clear, easy to understand definition of socialism that allows for a quick and accurate differentiation from capitalism and other systems is the nature of the content that belongs in the lead. The first three paragraphs of the current lead fulfill these objectives with precision, and provide a strong definition of the topic in order to prepare the audience to understand the information in the coming sections. This final lead paragraph appears to belong in a history subsection rather than as the first information received by a curious and uninformed reader. I can see see no any dispute or motion to remove your content, or your cited works from the article, rather the true issue here is the structure of the lead. To reiterate for a third time, the lead section is responsible for providing a solid, accurate, precise, concise, and easy to understand definition. The various strategies to achieving this definition, the creators of those strategies, and their specific points of view on the subject belong elsewhere.--Helios932 (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A "simple" and "concrete" definition of socialism as a whole is not possible, because there is only one "simple" and "concrete" version of definition of socialism - the Orthodox Marxian definition of socialism - and as I and TFD have made clear, not all socialism is Orthodox Marxian. As I and TFD have pointed out with the source The Historical Dictionary of Socialism, there have been entire studies by scholars into a precise definition of socialism - because there are so many variants and differences between them. There is scientific socialism and religious socialism, reformist socialism and revolutionary socialism, libertarian socialism and state socialism, etc. As such the defining themes of socialism have to be carefully chosen by sources that are very advanced and indepth in their understanding of socialism as a whole. The description I proposed includes the basic socialist policy of advocating social control over the means of production, I also included the Orthodox Marxian definition and other definitions. I fear that everything that I, TFD, Somedifferentstuff, and RedDearthy worked out is now being thrown in the trash can now that a new set of users has arrived who have not reviewed the recent previous discussions.--R-41 (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to this, Helios, I reject your earlier accusation that the intro I proposed is blatantly POV, it was worked out with three other users who had very different views, including the Marxist user RedDearthy who accepted the intro that I proposed after I worked with her/him to resolve remaining disagreements. The intro I proposed says that socialism seeks "social control over the means of production" and this is accurate and leaves it open for the various means to do so, but the current intro now that says "social ownership and control" is Orthodox Marxian POV because it appears to indicate that socialism requires total direct social ownership of the property of all of the means of production - and numerous socialists do not support total social ownership of the property of the means of production, such as Saint Simon' and Fourier's versions of utopian socialism that accepted private property under community regulation to insure it was utilized in a socially responsible manner, and more importantly liberal socialism that accepts a mixed economy.--R-41 (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You are repeating the same claims time and time again after they have been addressed in previous posts. But I will reiterate: the current lead is not based on "orthodox Marxism", and if it were a orthodox Marxist PoV it would define socialism in class terminology and would leave little to no room for market exchange under socialism. This is clearly not the case as the current lead is inclusive of market economies, decentralized planning, centralized planning and all kinds of mixtures among these archetypes. Furthermore, the lead in no way claims that socialism implies "total social ownership over the means of production" any more than the capitalism article on wikipedia implies capitalism means a "total private ownership" over the MoP. You propose to use ambiguous values and ethical propositions to define socialism as opposed to any parameters or concrete, objective standards to measure economic systems by. That is misleading, and while a discussion of values certainly has a place in the article, it should not be presented as the definition of socialism when it is commonly understood to mean a social and economic system. Liberal socialism appears to be little more than empty rhetoric about ideals divorced from any concrete economic theory and goals. Why should this particular and obscure brand of "socialism" deserve mentioning in the lead? That would be giving undue weight to a fringe element of socialism; it would be more balanced to give a short paragraph on Marxism-Leninism because they represent all existing and most former so-called socialist states and ruled over as much as two-thirds of humanity at one point. I am no Marxist-Leninist, but if we are going to start giving weight to specific ideologies in the lead, then Marxism-Leninism is definitely most deserving of a paragraph.Battlecry (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Battlecry. User R-41 is conflating and confusing socialism with some socialist political values, the article should define socialism before talking about values and political tactics for building socialism. His claims that the current version implies total social ownership are dubious and if he were to make that claim, he should be consistent and critique the capitalism article for broadly defining capitalism as private ownership and claim it leaves no room for state-monopoly capitalism and mixed economies. The current article is fine.Rocketman116 (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Battlecry - you call liberal socialism an "obscure brand" of socialism, and you reject that it even is socialism?! There have been multiple liberal socialist governments - such liberal socialist government leaders include Ramsay MacDonald - the first Labour Prime Minister of the UK, Clement Attlee, Sandro Pertini - President of Italy and who associated with liberal socialist Carlo Rosselli, Willy Brandt - Chancellor of West Germany - and the SPD in Germany accepts liberal socialism as its basis and the British Labour Party has promoted its version of liberal socialism - called ethical socialism since the 1920s. The intro I proposed did not give too much weight to liberal socialism - it also described socialist economies based on complete social ownership of the means of production, workers' self management as especially promoted by the Bolshevik movement in the October Revolution, by anarchists especially in Spain, by Yugoslavia under Tito, and Algeria under Ahmed Ben Bella. You claim that a clear definition of socialism exists and are using the No true Scotsman fallacy to claim that people who clearly identified as socialists and who wrote entire scholarly works on a form of socialism they promoted and who are identified as socialists by other scholars, are in your view "not true socialists" because they somehow fail to meet some clear rock-solid criteria that you Battlecry have not been able to tell us what it even is. And ethical values do matter in the definition of socialism - it has a general agenda and purpose. As for Rocketman's false accusation that I am not "consistent" - I agree that there is such thing as state capitalism and capitalist mixed economy as well, I will gladly bring up the issue at once on the talk page of the capitalism article. The current intro is completely unacceptable because it is designed to describe only scientific socialism - speaking in very scientific and mathematical terms - this does not account for religious socialism that is more strongly based on moral principles than scientific and mathematical terms. In conclusion, I can clearly see that all the efforts that I and other users such as TFD and RedDearthy made are being thrown in the trash can because they have left and a new set users have arrived who have failed to review at the issues previously discussed between me (R-41), TFD, and RedDearthy - I and RedDearthy, who initially had significant disagreements with my earlier proposals, worked together to reorganized the proposed intro into the last one I proposed that was deemed acceptable by RedDearthy, TFD has not yet returned to the discussion to comment on it. I do not believe I can ask RedDearthy and TFD to come back to discuss this - because I think that would be canvassing - however I am going to bring in an administrator and request Third Opinion to get an outside perspective on this.--R-41 (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I actually prefer the current version, but, on the basis that your version may have eventually achieved consensus, I contributed to iron out what I thought were some rough edges and points I disagreed with. As for the British Labour party, I wouldn't agree it promotes Ethical socialism -- christian socialism plays as big a part (or bigger, given the famous quote), and I'd hesitate before calling MacDonald an ethical socialist, for example.--Red Deathy (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Christian socialism is connected to ethical socialism - ethical socialism's founder R. H. Tawney was a Christian socialist. As for Ramsay MacDonald - there is a prominent source that identifies him as an ethical socialist, also MacDonald selected Tawney to write the Labour Party's political programmes in the 1920s.--R-41 (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

My issue with the current intro and the intro proposed by Battlecry is this: it says that socialism requires "social ownership of the means of production" - this implies that if parts of the means of production are not socially owned then such an economy cannot be socialist - thus implying that there must be complete social ownership of the means of production. Second of all, what does Battlecry mean by "social ownership" - if he means direct ownership of the property of the means of production then that excludes many socialists who have accepted a mixed economy. The source I provided says "social control over the means of production" which means the same general intention - but does not imply the necessity of total direct ownership of the means of production. If social ownership is defined as including indirect ownership through social control via specific regulations (such as promoting collective bargaining rights etc). I propose the following sentences as a compromise between the two views: "Socialism promotes social ownership of the means of production. This social ownership can be achieved through either direct or indirect ownership. Direct ownership involves ownership of the property of the means of production. Indirect ownership involves social control over the means of production through social regulations and rules such as collective bargaining rights, redistribution of wealth, regulations on wages and salaries, and laws on consumer and worker safety." Something along these lines would be acceptable.--R-41 (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"Socialism deals primarily with the evolution of economic relationships and not with the moral nature of man." Ramsay MacDonald [14] -- I wouldn't have pulled that quote out, but this one is particularly relevant to the current discussion: "Socialism is the creed of those who, recognising that the community exists for the improvement of the individual and for the maintenance of liberty, and that the control of the economic circumstances of life means the control of life itself, seek to build up a social organisation which will include in its activities the management of those economic instruments such as land and industrial capital that cannot be left safely in the hands of individuals. This is Socialism. It is an application of mutual aid to politics and economics. And the Socialist end is liberty, the liberty of which Kant thought when he proclaimed that every man should be regarded as an end in himself and not as a means to another man's end. The means and the end cannot be separated. Socialism proposes a change in social mechanism, but justifies it as a means of extending human liberty. Social organisation is the condition, not the antithesis, of individual liberty." Which is a pretty good definition, as it goes. BTW, could the current version be fixed by changing "and" to "or" in the first sentence?--Red Deathy (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The quote could be included in the article but the intro should have a general description of socialism rather than a specific quote by a specific person. I would like to know what the opinion is on this proposal I have made to take account the views by others on the issue: "Socialism promotes social ownership of the means of production. Social ownership can be achieved through either direct or indirect ownership or a mix of both.(Socialist thought and practice, Issues 7-12. University of Michigan, 1985. Pp. 104.) Direct ownership involves common ownership, cooperative ownership, or state ownership. Indirect ownership involves social control over the means of production through social rules and regulations and commonly includes a mixed economy. Such indirect ownership involves collective bargaining rights, redistribution of wealth, regulations on wages and salaries, and laws on consumer and worker safety." Is this acceptable to be included in the intro?--R-41 (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion Request: It has been removed because there are more than two editors involved in the dispute. The 3O instructions say: "If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." If you feel you still need dispute resolution you can consider going to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for help with negotiation or filing a request for comments to bring additional editors into the discussion in order to try to achieve consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

R-41, you are conflating ownership with regulation. Economic regulation is not "indirect ownership", the fundamental distinction between private and cooperative or public ownership is in the distribution of the economic profits: either they accrue to a class of private owners, or they accrue to all the employees in the enterprise or to the public at large. Your idea of "indirect social ownership" is nothing more than regulating private enterprise to correct market failures or to protect the public interest, something that has been an integral part of capitalism for a long time and does not in any way change its ownership structure (the distribution of economic profits and the orientation of the economy toward producing private profits). "collective bargaining rights, redistribution of wealth, regulations on wages and salaries, and laws on consumer and worker safety" are NOT forms of ownership, nor are they alternative mechanisms for allocating economic inputs.

I will reiterate this point for the umpteenth time: socialist political movements have historically promoted such causes (though controversially with in the broader socialist movement, i.e; immediatism versus impossibilism), along with other "progressive" causes within capitalism to improve living conditions for the majority of people living in capitalism, but they do this independently of their advocacy of socialism. Likewise, these causes do not come to define socialism (the ultimate goal of any genuine socialist party, regardless of their philosophy and political strategy).-Battlecry (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So once again we are back at square 1 with you implying that a socialist economy requires complete direct social ownership of the capital and property of the means of production in order for a socialist economy to exist. That excludes multiple socialist movements. Direct social ownership of the capital and property of the means of production did not take place under the utopian socialist economies of Henri de Saint Simon or Charles Fourier. Nor did it take place under liberal socialism which you apply the No true Scotsman fallacy to, in order to deny that it is "truely" socialist, or claim it is "fringe" which it is not - there have been multiple liberal socialist-led governments. And then there are socialists like Robert Corfe who opposes collectivist ownership as well as capitalist private property and supports socialist private property as an individual right - Corfe defines this as being within social ownership. Your narrow description of social ownership excludes multiple socialists - particularly the utopian socialists.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Socialism play /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system." - Current Article

This single sentence, which introduces the entire article, says and implies everything that you're saying while lacking wordiness, and remaining consistent and to the point. There is no real need to revise this part of the article.

"""Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises."""

This quote here summarizes social ownership. While a realistic socialist economy might have a mixture of social and private ownership, the defining difference between socialism and capitalism is this key method of ownership. Furthermore, this article does not state that social ownership is the only method of managing the economy, or distributing wealth, it also does not state that the process of building socialism requires total social ownership and or does not make any concessions to other methods.

"They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organized within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

Finally, this conclusive statement demonstrates everything that R-41 was arguing for. It shows that socialism, as any other economic system, varies from place to place and will most certainly be implemented differently across the world. This concise, easy-to-understand summary is exactly what the socialism article needs as a lead - a summary of the defining characteristics of socialism that put it separate from other economic systems. Further information should be explored in depth in further sections of the article.--Helios932 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

" "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises" ". According to this definition of social ownership being the basis of socialism, this definition means that the utopian socialism of Saint Simon and Fourier would not qualify as being socialist - as they maintained private ownership but under social control of the community, this definition would neither include forms of socialism that support a form of mixed economy, it does not include forms of socialism that advocate a socialist form of private property. Lastly it implies that the entire means of production must be under direct social ownership of its capital and property - in modern economies this has only been achieved through authoritarian or totalitarian states, the reality is that outside Marxist-Leninist states or other typically authoritarian revolutionary socialist states such complete ownership of the property and capital of the means of production has not been achieved.--R-41 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you not see an inherent contradiction in your claim that the means of production was under "direct social ownership" in "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" states? TFD (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is based upon your own interpretation of the quote. You've conveniently selected a part of the definition of socialism, 3 sentences down and then decided to ignore the rest entirely for your own purposes.

"Socialism play /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system."

"Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises."

Describing the inherent characteristics of socialism does not invalidate or fail to include any random deviation from these characteristics. Again, you're choosing which parts of the lead to include, and which ones to ignore. This section fulfills the purpose of describing the characteristics of Socialism to the point where various socialist systems can be accurately differentiated from other economic systems IE: Capitalism. These other suggested definitions would do little more than to destroy and confuse the characterizing elements of socialism as they are wordy, convoluted, and without the proper focus needed in a lead section. Simply put, it is easy to define a socialist economy under this definition, regardless of whatever variation is placed on it. These variations should be explained in further detail in the coming sections of the article, not in the lead.--Helios932 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD, stop with your bitterness, you know exactly what I mean when I say only authoritarian socialist countries have achieved total direct social ownership of the means of production - at in least large modern states - they force a radical change in the ownership of all industries of the means of production - that is not achieved without a real fight and often a militant revolution. It is true that democratic socialist-led countries have achieved partial direct social ownership has been achieved over important sectors of the means of production, but not the entire means of production. Helios932 says it is "easy to define socialism" - when studies of the variations of socialism that I and TFD have shown from the Historical Dictionary of Socialism demonstrated that it is hard to define socialism. The definition that Battlecry and Helios932 support does not account for the utopian socialism of Saint Simon and Fourier at all - they did not advocate total social ownership over the means of production, nor any substantial changes in property ownership of the means of production - they advocated social control by the community over the economy. Liberal socialism - that has formed the basis of multiple governments - has advocated a mixed economy. Then there are proponents of socialist private property - such as ex-British Social Democratic Party member and anti-Third Way social democrat Robert Corfe who rejects state socialism as well as collective ownership - he says that collective ownership and state ownership is not unique to socialism because many non-socialist and anti-socialist governments have utilized this - he claims social ownership should be achieved through creating a socialist-type of personal property as an individual right that is different than capitalist private property.--R-41 (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You are dismissing a major issue. Government ownership of property is not socialism unless the government is the instrument of the people. So neither the Soviet Union nor Sweden may have been socialist at all. If the Soviet Union was "totalitarianian" it was not socialist and Sweden is capitalist. TFD (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

R-41, nowhere does the article state that socialism "requires complete social ownership of the property of the means of production". All it implies is that socialism is based on social ownership, which may only include some large public enterprises and various forms of cooperatives for small-medium sized enterprises, or some other combination - either way the definition provided allows for extensive variation in the ownership structure. Saying that socialism implies social ownership over the means of production and surplus product is NOT the same thing as saying that socialism means a Soviet-type command economy. Alec Nove, one of the most prominent critics of the Soviet economy, advocates a mixed economy of indirect-planning and free-markets. Despite advocating a mixed economy, his position would not be in conflict with the definition given in the current lead (he advocates social ownership over economic enterprise), so your claim that the current lead excludes proponents of mixed economies is unfounded. And just to be clear, Individual ownership is not the same thing as private property and is in fact compatible with social ownership so long as it means individual producers engaged in small business.

Robert Corfe is an advocate of "Social CAPITALISM", not socialism, and has wrote extensively on the "death of socialism". His views are in principle no different from prominent social-liberal capitalists and investors such as George Soros, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who believe in "socially-responsible" capitalism and a more even distribution of corporate stock (which basically amounts to using ethical arguments to convince businesspeople to stop being greedy).

The utopian communities of Henri de Saint Simon and Charles Fourier were not complete economic systems, but they did entail collective ownership over large socialized assets. Regardless, your concern is addressed in the article already in the following section,which explains that while early socialists might not have advocated social ownership, by the mid-19th century, the label came to mean some type of social ownership over the MoP:

"In the early 19th-century, 'socialism' referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism regardless of the solution. However, by the late 19th-century, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for an alternative system based on some form of social ownership."

The liberal socialists you seem to admire so much do advocate social ownership over the commanding heights of the economy; though granted, recent ones seem to describe socialism as some obscure ethical doctrine rather than any system we can compare and contrast it to capitalism, and is thus meaningless political rhetoric. Regardless, having a liberal socialist president does not in any way change the structure of the country's economy (the same would be true if a Leninist Communist happened to be elected president in Italy - that simple fact would not change the structure of the economy). That logic is absurd, as we would have to conclude that the United States was an Evangelical Christian civilization under the regime of George W. Bush because the former president was an evangelical Christian.

Your claim that the Soviet Union was based on "total social ownership" is disingenuous, private enterprise and small private plots in agriculture did exist in the USSR. You also made a point saying that a society based on social ownership of the means of production (outside of Marxist-Leninist states, which is debatable) and production for use has never existed is irrelevant for the purposes of this article; socialism as a post-capitalist system or alternative to capitalism has not yet been achieved (unless we consider the former USSR to be some form of socialist society, which again is debatable).

A socialist movement that does not propose to change the structure of capitalism implies said "socialists" are in support of a capitalist economy and are thus indistinguishable from numerous liberal, progressive and nationalist political policies within the capitalist system.-Battlecry (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Battlecry, you are in complete denial - Robert Corfe did in fact promote socialism he rejected Third Way for not promoting socialism. Corfe has recently become deeply embittered with the failure of British socialism to overcome old state socialist, collectivist, and Marxist class conflict ideas, or what he deems the non-socialist ideals of Blair's Third Way, as such he claims that his vision of a new socialism that he and others desired failed to arise, and thus he deems socialism (at least in Britain) to be dying. As he sees no intention in Britain amongst Third Way-ists and hardline far-left socialists to develop such a necessary new socialism, he claims that social capitalism is the second, less-ideal, but viable option. In his book the Death of Socialism, he is writing that he laments what he perceives as the death of socialism - caused by what he perceives conservative refusal of hardline far-leftists in Britain to accept the failure of old ways of state socialism and the non-socialist opportunism of the Third Way that he claims had no intention to implement a socialist programme. Here is what Corfe himself has said on his advocacy of socialism in his book The Death of Socialism, he condemns Blair's Labour Party for abandoning socialism and his attempts at formulating a new socialism to which I am referring to:

Instead it [Blair’s Labour Party] resorted to a ruthless pragmatism which de facto ditched all socialist doctrines, and imposed a top-down authoritarianism reducing rank and file members to no more than cheerleaders and leaflet droppers at appropriate intervals.

— Robert Corfe, Death of Socialism

After five years active membership within the [Labour] party, I realized with dismay the leadership had no intention of re-establishing socialism anew, or offering a rationale or intellectual construct in inspiring thinking men and women on the way ahead. It was at that point on the daring, if not foolhardy, notion of attempting to prepare the groundwork for a New Socialism, and accordingly the first of my four books on this topic, Reinventing Democratic Socialism, appeared in the year 2000. The book sold well, but to my surprise, not amongst Labour party members or socialists. It was warmly reviewed however, by several leading Labour MPs and a prominent Guardian journalists, but left wing journals refused to give it any cover, apart from a paper on the far left which subjected the book to an irrational attack whilst being careful to avoid any reference to its leading themes. Instead the book found a readership amongst academics, students of the social sciences (with no axe to grind), and in learned circles in Continental Europe.

— Robert Corfe, Death of Socialism

Even if we exclude Corfe from the matter, then what about the utopian socialism of Saint Simon and Fourier? They sought community social control and regulation over the economy to direct it towards social goals rather than profiteering, but neither Saint Simon nor Fourier proposed any changes in direct ownership of the means of production. As to your retort that socialism must rebuke capitalism - are you not aware that when socialists like Saint Simon and Fourier arose that the very term and concept of "capitalism" did not exist yet - it was Karl Marx who described what it was which has since been utilized in political language. So according to what you are saying Also, Battlecry you darn well know that your statements on liberal socialism are No true Scotsman logical fallacy - the promoters of liberal socialism staunchly supported socialism like Carlo Rosselli, but you decide "they are not true socialists" - that is exactly the No True Scotsman fallacy - and you are not an authority to decide whether or not they should be judged as socialists, reliable sources are to determine that. Reliable sources have been provided that clearly describe that people like Carlo Rosselli are socialists and that they promoted liberal socialism. In short, Battlecry, you are deciding who is and who is not a socialist based on a narrow stereotypical criteria of what socialism is that fails to even account for original utopian socialists and multiple other socialists that cannot fit into your pigeonholing definition that denies that those that don't fit are not socialists based on No true Scotsman logical fallacy. Furthermore both TFD and I have provided a source that clearly states that socialism as a whole is difficult to define because of all the variations - entire studies have been devoted to a precise definition of socialism that can encompass all its variants.--R-41 (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, Battlecry since you personally attacked me and called me a "crank" which I hope to rescind, I will tell you that my position on what an ideal socialism should be actually much the same as yours, in some areas I am radical, in others moderate - I would like the economy to be directly socially owned by citizens rather than exclusively by a bourgeois merchant and rentier class as Marx accurately described capitalism as being. However I share Bernstein's belief that any such achievement of direct social ownership is a very distant and long-term goal that requires a slow gradual evolution - any government that has simply come to power and suddenly declares "now the entire means of production are to be socially-owned" is inciting a militant revolution because the capitalist private owners will not be willing nor able to suddenly adjust and they will seek to defend themselves, and violent unrest will likely occur. Even the Soviet Union backed off on its war communism and retreated to a social capitalism for many years - Ford Motor Company and IBM and other American private enterprises assisted the Soviet Union in economic development for years. Social control over the means of production - regardless of whether it is direct or indirect is a goal common to all socialists. I support the Bernsteinian gradual evolution of private enterprise into cooperative enterprise, with state enterprise for those areas best managed by the state, and cooperative enterprise in other areas. So I am not some "crank", I am just not an optimist in a sudden development of a socialist economy - I believe it requires evolution - and yes even Bernstein saw a social capitalism as part of the evolutionary tendency towards socialism - it is not the immediate situation that defines a socialist movement - it is its goals combined with whether it is pursuing those goals in practice.--R-41 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

R-41, again you are sidestepping the actual issue. Regardless of what you, me, Robert Corfe, Eduard Bernstein or any other socialist believes regarding the transition from capitalism to socialism, the point of the lead sentence is to define socialism, and not to specify specific theories regarding the TRANSITION or a specific POLITICAL PROGRAM of various socialist theorists. The current lead does just that, while explaining that there is multiple forms a socialist economy might take.

But just to clarify, I do not believe a socialist economy can be established overnight, in fact I believe it would take decades for the transition to take place, a transition that the population and government probably would not be aware of. Furthermore, I believe as Marx does, that socialism can only emerge once capitalism has exhausted itself (i.e., becomes unviable) - I don't think any Vanguardist party can impose socialism on a society based on a whim. Again, this is beside the point. I consider you to be a "crank" because you ignore the established definition of socialism in academia and the economics profession, which defines socialism as public or social ownership over the means of production. Notice how this definition says nothing about how this is to be achieved (meaning your PoV or those of Bernstein are not excluded) and how long the transition is to take; the current lead reflects this consensus definition and does not ascribe any particular theory or program for transition to the definition of socialism. However, you seem to ignore the given definition and instead try to define socialism by what socialist parties advocate, essentially making it a meaningless term (seeing as anyone calling themselves "socialist" would be one as there would be no criteria to go by to verify their claim, according to your definition).

If you would like to add material regarding the liberal socialist and modern social democratic concept on transitioning to socialism, you are welcome to do so in the appropriate article section. If that is not sufficient, perhaps we can add a sentence of two about the liberal socialist/mixed economy model of transition in the third paragraph in the lead, which briefly describes the notable strategies for establishing socialism by state socialists, social democrats, and so on.-Battlecry (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You are accusing me of being a "crank" for noting the known fact that the utopian socialism of Saint Simon and Fourier did not advocate a change in direct ownership of the capital or property of the means of production. Those definitions by scholars are typically defining Marxist socialism and its heirs - including anarchism that was inspired by Marxism though rejected by Marx, and the long period of interest in state socialism by revisionist Marxist social democratic parties. In fact those definitions have been criticized as vague. They do not address nor account for the utopian socialism of Saint Simon and Fourier. You can ignore liberal socialism based on your claim that it is "fringe" - which it isn't, but you cannot ignore utopian socialism - it is one of the key forms of socialism that has to be accounted for. We need a definition that accounts for utopian socialism.--R-41 (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Currently there is not consensus to make any major changes to the lead. Removing tag. Somedifferentstuff (talk) / 03:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)