Talk:Socialism/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Should wikipedia cater to fringe views?

Should wikipedia cater to fringe views, like the view that the Soviet Union wasn´t socialist? A50000 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not a fringe view and warrants a brief message. Not everyone believes that in the Soviet Union the people had effective control and owership of the economy and that the Communist Party represented the popular will. TFD (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be using the word socialism as a synonym for democracy. In that case the term socialism is completely redundant and useless. A50000 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No it would mean that the concept is useless and redundant. TFD (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What concept? A50000 (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Socialism. TFD (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What is your point? A50000 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You argued that because in democratic countries the people have effective control and owership of the economy that the term socialism is useless and redundant. My point is that is an argument that the concept, not the term, is useless and redundant. TFD (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood what I wrote. You seem to be using the word socialism as a synonym for democracy. If what you really mean is democracy then you can just use that word. Using the word socialism when what you really mean is democracy just creates confusion. A50000 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The definition of democracy does not necessarily mean that the people have effective control and owership of the economy. TFD (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So, are you now claiming that socialism and democracy are in fact different concepts? A50000 (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed they were the same concept. TFD (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement. Socialism has fuck all to do with democracy. A50000 (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a form of democracy where the people have effective control and ownership of the economy and government represents the popular will. Hence the discussion about whether or not socialism was achieved in the Soviet Union. TFD (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You have it backwards. Capitalism is a system where the people (ie the private sector) control the economy. A50000 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

A50000. you have it backwards. As I said, if under capitalism, the people control the economy then the concept of socialism is useless and redundant. Your theory is well explained in Louis Hartz's Liberal Tradition in America, in Daniel Bell's End of Ideology, Seymour Martin Lipset's It didn't happen here, and Fukuyami's The End of History and the Last Man. TFD (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, the concept of socialism? I have no idea what you are trying to say. A50000 (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If you do not understand what "concept" means, I suggest you consult a dictionary. TFD (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Don´t evade the question. Explain what you mean. A50000 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The concept of socialism, as opposed to the term. Terms are words or phrases used in language to denote concepts. TFD (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference? A50000 (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think, what tfd is explaining is that if in a capitalist society, the "people" had ownership of the means of production, and so on, there would be no need for the concept socialism, as the terms capitalism and socialism would be synonymous (because capitalism would not be capitalism, but would be what we understand to be socialism (the concept)), and therefore, the concept of socialism would be redundant, because there would be no difference between the two terms. I'm not sure how much more tfd can clarify than has already been done. -- in capitalism, ownership is described as private (which you noted, but also stated "the people") -- yes, 'people' are the owners (and not machines or other animals?) but not people as a whole, or a collective, not "the people" ... I'm imaging this is where your confusion is coming from? Hence, redundant concept (because you were applying the concept of socialism to the term capitalism)AnieHall (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You have it backwards. TFD was applying the concept of capitalism to the term socialism. A50000 (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that trying to prove that the Soviet Union wasn´t socialist by re-defining the word socialism is just ridiculous. A50000 (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it is ridiculous trying to prove the Soviet Union was socialist by re-defining the word socialist. So the Soviets said they were socialist. You may believe everything the Communists said, but I do not. TFD (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It was you who was re-defining the word socialism, not I. You conflated socialism with democracy, which has fuck all to do with socialism, and with capitalism, which is the opposite of socialism. A50000 (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I prefer obrain my information from reliable sources rather than what someone tells me on the internet. TFD (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

And these reliable sources claim that socialism is in fact capitalism (ie private ownership of the means of production) and vice versa? A50000 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

These reliable sources claim that socialism is in fact public ownership of the means of production. TFD (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

So you have stopped claiming that socialism means private ownership of the means of production? A50000 (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I never made that claim. TFD (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You claimed that socialism is a system where the people control the economy. So you basically equated socialism with capitalism. A50000 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, TDF wrote that under socialism "the people have effective control and ownership of the economy" There is a significant difference between "the people" and "people", and if you don't understand that you will have great difficulty in editing this article. RolandR (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that you have misunderstood what I wrote. In a capitalist system, the people control the economy. In a socialist system, the people do not control the economy. In a socialist system the people can only have indirect control, at best. A50000 (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That, in my opinion, is 9a complete inversion of reality. And I doubt that you would find any consensus toi change the article to reflect that view. In any case, unless you intend to propose a specific edit, this thread is superfluous soapboxing, and is not contributing to improving the article. RolandR (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Asking whether wikipedia should cater to fringe views is not soapboxing. A50000 (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A50000, It is a stretch to claim that when socialism was developed in the early 19th century that the people controlled the economy. In most European countries, a small elite controlled the economy with government protection and in the world's most free nation, the United States, a large section of the population was enslaved or in bonded servitude. Land which was the main source of economic output was usually owned by the Crown and leased to individuals of their choice. Much of the world were colonies, where the economy was owned by foreign capitalists, such as the East India Company. TFD (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism. A50000 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

So when Marx coined the term "capitalism", wrote the book Capital and said that he wanted to overthrow capitalism he was confused because there was no capitalism in his lifetime. TFD (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not claimed that capitalism did not exist in Marx´s time. Please stop with these strawman arguments. A50000 (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

TFD, you are a capitalist who think´s he´s a socialist. You have redefined the word socialism so that it actually means capitalism. In your world the Soviet Union was capitalist while the United States is socialist. A50000 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No, A50000, you are a capitalist who thinks that all socialism is state socialism, that capitalism just means a non-centrally planned economy and that private ownership is the same as social ownership. To clear up your confusion, I suggest you just start by reading the first two sentences of the article:

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.

'Social ownership' not state ownership. Social ownership meaning that The People own the means of production, not individual persons but people as a group. Hence stuff like land to the farmers, the factories to the workers, the idea is that the workers in a factory own the factory, the machines, the tools communally or 'socially'. That's what they mean with Social Ownership or 'the people control the economy', not just that it's owned by individual people.

/Some/ socialists believe that the way to achieve and manage such Social Ownership is through the state and a state-controlled economy, some but not all. Some believe in co-ops or syndicalism, that the capitalists idea of private property is the problem and only made possible by the state, some believe in trading the product of labour in a market, some don't, some don't even in believe a state. In fact most Anarchists would consider themselves a form of socialism (and early anarchists where often acknowledged to be socialists by others including Marx and Engels, until they wanted communism to be the only 'valid' form of socialism).

That's also where the idea that the Soviet Union wasn't really a socialist state comes from. Yes, the economy was controlled by the state and property was 'public property'. But the state wasn't truly controlled by the people so the means of production were owned by the state, but not at all by the people. Neither directly or indirectly through a democratic worker's state.

I would say the early Soviet Union was socialist, but it become mainly just totalitarian under Stalin. I'll leave it at that, this shouldn't turn into a capitalism vs. socialism debate, just clarifying some things, hopefully. CyberWasteland (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing socialism with syndicalism. A50000 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you are confusing what mainstream writers say with what you read on fringe sites. TFD (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That may well be, but the fact still remains that he is confusing socialism with syndicalism. A50000 (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the view that the Soviet Union wasn´t socialist is not a fringe view? A50000 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That's your own view, and you are entitled to believe that. But Lenin wrote a book called Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, so this is clearly not just a "fringe theory". RolandR (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the view that the Soviet Union wasn´t socialist is not a fringe view? A50000 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's you who raised the issue. Do you have any evidence that it is?RolandR (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So that´s a no then? Just as I suspected. A50000 (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, socialism, obviously, is not the same as democracy, but just because the terms are not synonymous does not mean that they have f. all to do with each other. For instance, an apple and an apple pie are not the same thing, but that does not mean that an apple has nothing to do with an apple pie.AnieHall (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a fringe view. The question would appear to refer to a revert I made of A5000's edit. The text had stated "During the course of the 20th century, states run by Marxist-Leninist parties implemented various economic systems"; A5000 replaced this, without any explanation, with "During the course of the 20th century, the socialist states implemented various economic systems." I reverted, with the edit summary "It is highly POV to assert that these were "the socialist states". Not everyone will agree, and the previous usage was clearer and factually correct". I don't believe that this is a fringe position, I think my edit summary is perfectly accurate and legitimate, and I think that in the summary above A5000 oversimplifies and distorts what I wrote.

If A5000 wants to alter the text to her/his preferred version, then let's discuss that wording here, not some hypothetical debate about what is or is not a fringe view. RolandR (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No A50000, it's not a fringe view. In fact it's the conventional wisdom of most modern socialists, Trotskyites and others, outside of the remaining existing communist states whom they also don't see as socialist. See deformed workers' state, state capitalism, etc. etc. So contrary to your statement the reverse is true, it's mainstream within the community of interest, not fringe. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

All of which you have just said above is opinion - an opinion not held by socialists like social democrats or Mensheviks or collectivist anarchists or anarcho-syndicalists who condemned the Soviet Union for delivering a false and hollow socialism in practice and for being a tyranny. Your opinion above, and your behaviour on articles relating to socialism, confirms that you have a clear anti-socialist POV and thus that you have no business even attempting to claim that your efforts here are are to improve understanding of this ideology, your real intentions here are to discredit the ideology.--R-41 (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Even many Marxists and Leninists now say that they were not socialist. Also there is an almost limitless amount of evidence proving that the ideas and beliefs of socialism, communism, or Marxism, and the Soviet Union have almost nothing in common, and no proof that they were socialists other than 'that's what they called themselves'. I would say that after consulting logic, almost all socialists between 1000BC and the present day, and the evidence, it would be factually inaccurate to refer to them as anything other than 'nominally socialist', and ideally 'state capitalist'. Sarg Pepper (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

all socialists between 1000BC and the present day (were actually) capitalist, well said sarg. perhaps we should add a line or two about the historical absence of socialism in practice? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, you either misunderstand, or deliberately distort, what another editor has written. Sarg Pepper did not say that "all socialists between 1000BC and the present day (were actually) capitalist"; s/he said that the Soviet Union and its allies were "nominally socialist", or even "state capitalist". RolandR (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

a state capitalist is a capitalist, perhaps you can explain how that is a distortion. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Which comment shows that you have neither read what is written above, nor have the least comprehension of this subject and its terminology. RolandR (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

or maybe it is you lacking comprehension? states that own controlling shares of publicly listed corporations, effectively acting as a large shareholder or a capitalist Darkstar1st (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, to put this another way -- the Democratic Republic of Korea calls itself "democratic", but few would argue that it actually is. At various stages in the soviet union, there were certain times and areas where market economies were allowed within the state. So it would be difficult to say that the ussr was fully socialist - but most, if not all, states have a mixed economy to some extent. And it would be pretty difficult to be completely socialist when competing against hyper-capitalist usa... anyways. it's certainly safe to say that the USSR was not Marxist, as much as the state might have claimed. The term socialist can be used more vaguely than Marxism can, though. Anyways, back to the point of this thread, I think? ... Roland explained:

"The text had stated "During the course of the 20th century, states run by Marxist-Leninist parties implemented various economic systems"; A5000 replaced this, without any explanation, with "During the course of the 20th century, the socialist states implemented various economic systems." I reverted, with the edit summary "It is highly POV to assert that these were "the socialist states". Not everyone will agree, and the previous usage was clearer and factually correct"" - this logic seems pretty clear. "Marxist-Leninist parties" is more precise than "socialist states". A socialist state "implementing various economic systems" would be somewhat contradictory to the term. And while the "various economic systems" may not be necessarily a part of Marxist-Leninist theory, the sentence refers to the "parties" which can do all sorts of contradictory things. So... this debate surrounding the definition of socialism and democracy and their relationship, or lack thereof, and whether the ussr not being socialist (or whatever) is a fringe issue, is all completely unnecessary, unless someone is proposing to change Roland's revert? or something else in this article? Which I haven't noticed?AnieHall (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the position that the Soviet system was not representative of socialism is certainly not a fringe view. This position is held by many notable scholars in political science and economics, including Marxist-Leninist leaning academics such as David McNally, and notable non-academic Marxist-Leninist economists like Ernest Mandel and Tony Cliff, who believed the USSR was only in the process of transitioning to some form of socialism, but had not yet achieved (or would be unable to ever achieve) socialism-proper. -Battlecry 08:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The Soviet people who knew the tyranny of Stalin's gulags knew that Stalinist "socialism" was a cruel joke. So much so, that the post-Stalin Soviet Union encouraged anti-Stalinist literature, such as the famous book One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962) written by famous Gulag survivor and Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, that mocked the falseness of Stalinism by noting how forced labour at the Gulags was claimed by the Stalinists to be "rehabilitation" and part of "Socialist Community Development", that everyone knew was a lie. And this anti-Stalinist book was published with the support of the government of the Soviet Union. The 1960s-era Soviet Union completely rejected Stalin as being a man who corrupted the intentions and goals of the October Revolution and Lenin's goals, they executed Stalin's henchman Beria, so in the view of the Soviet government in the 1960s - from the late 1920s to 1953 the Soviet Union was not genuinely socialist, but a tyranny.--R-41 (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TFD, RolandR, and others that this is not a fringe view. Sources should be abundant. Here's a video discussion: [1] causa sui (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This entire discussion is preposterous. You clearly have biased points of view here vying for control with no regard for the simplest facts. Who controls the economy? Now, why don't you provide academic evidence that economies can be controlled? What is an economy? Merely a descriptive aspect of one of many functions of society. But is cannot be excluded from all social studies, can it? Is the individual choices one makes daily divorced of all the psychological, sociological, anthropological influences? Of course not, thus economics is not in and of itself a proper study. Can humanity be managed? History (the scientific data) decisively says no.

If find it ironic that a culture that has embraced evolution and natural selection, had not then applied that to all other human affairs. Obviously, evolution cannot be controlled, nor can natural selection, though thinkers from the 1800 and 1900 hundreds, and evidently a remnant in this century, still hold to that silliness. No one controls the economy. No one can. No institution, government, corporation, or state can control that which is everyday aspect of the evolutionary power of society as a whole.

Such arrogance is unbecoming. What this really is, is at least a century of entrenched scholars and professors who have made a living from the illusion of socialism, or capitalism, being viable ideas of any kind. Now get out of the way, and let us define what socialism actual is ... the arrogant assumption that any small group of people can better manage something that is already naturally managed by human nature and natural selection. Jcchat66 (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of technical tag

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The {{technical}} tag was on the article long before I got here, because of the overwhelming #Feedback described above. Now those who would prefer a marxist definition far more suited for 1950s than the de facto mixed economy socialism of every single country which calls itself socialist today are suddenly trying to sweep the tag under the rug.[2][3] For shame! Is that the respect we have for our readers? Neo Poz (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC) North Korea has a mixed economy? That´s news to me. A50000 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Granted, that's technically a counterexample, but most socialists would say that they're an authoritarian dictatorship poorly attempting to masquerade as a socialist state. What's the proportion by population of people living in states described as socialist? The issue here is that there's the marxist definition, as a stepping stone to full-on communism, and there's reality, with mixed economy welfare states. WP:COMMONNAME is clear: we should use what most people mean when they say the word. Marxists are a tiny minority in that regard. Neo Poz (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Most socialists are wrong then. The fact that they are authoritarian doesn´t make them less socialist. Socialism and authoritarianism go hand in hand. A50000 (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC) RolandR (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC) The other four states that call themselves socialist today are China, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba. TFD (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC) All except Cuba of which are mixed economy welfare states far more than the marxist definition of socialist, and Cuba is moving in that direction. Neo Poz (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Economic literature on the subject of socialism all recognize that socialism is a distinct economic system from capitalism differentiated by its basis in social ownership of the means of production and allocation. All major sources describe socialism as an economic system, not a set of social policies or public policies within structurally capitalist economies. This is not at all an exclusively "Marxist" definition. -Battlecry 01:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC) So, per WP:COMMONNAME, how do we count the proportion of the two differing uses in "reliable sources"? If we use common news sources the answer may be different than limiting to academic journals. Note how these three terms transitioned around 1950 and 1980. Neo Poz (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC) You need to provide a specific example where the word is used to mean something different. TFD (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Okay, what does "socialist China" mean in [4] when referred to by "a renowned Cuban expert on China"? I'm not sure whether there is any way to systematically count the prevalence of the two meanings. Perhaps it should be decided by editor RFC. Neo Poz (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC) I presume that as a Marxist he believes that China is a socialist state as understood by Marxists. What do you think he means? TFD (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC) He means a mixed economy welfare state per Socialism with Chinese characteristics#Socialist market economy. It seems to me that a Cuban Marxist using the term that way is very significant for deciding which meaning the introduction of this article should use. Neo Poz (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC) He could be referring to the official ideology of the Chinese government and Communist party. If he is referencing the economic system, he is referring to the "socialist market economy", which is very different from the European welfare state models of capitalism. The socialist market economy is based on state ownership of the means of production and is neutral on the question of social welfare provision; it is widely regarded as a form of state capitalism consisting of a mixture of state ownership, free markets and interventionism. This is a different meaning than what is meant by a "mixed economy" in reference to welfare states in Europe and even in the United States. If one is inclined to believe the Chinese model is a type of "market socialism", market socialism has always been held in contrast to mixed capitalist economies and is neutral on the question of social welfare provision (the argument goes that such welfare state provisions would be unnecessary with social ownership of the means of production in a market economy). If one believes the Chinese model is a form of state capitalism, it is still significantly different from a welfare state (the Chinese socialist market system has less generous welfare provisions than the United States). The fact is, the term "mixed economy" is very vague. Yes, socialism can consist of a mixture of markets and planning - the current lead recognizes this in the first paragraph. What you are conflating with "socialism" is properly called "Social democracy" and is a Western and Northern European phenomenon. If you care to look at the discussion page for Social democracy, I have been pushing to include this popular definition of Social Democracy (which is used by Academics and is held in contrast to socialism) in its lead. -Battlecry 03:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC) The extent to which China is now a welfare state has very recently vastly increased.[5][6][7] I think I agree with your suggestion and will take a closer look. Neo Poz (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC) You are confusing what the "expert" believes about China and the reality. It could be that it is really state capitalist, but he believes it is socialist. The expert would probably not describe the U.S. as socialist, although it is a mixed economy welfare state. TFD (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC) You make a good point that China is expanding both welfare programs (universal healthcare) and engaging in more economic interventionism (carbon tax and minimum wage), however the fundamental difference between the Chinese model and the Western European model is the role of state ownership of enterprises. In China, state ownership is the central feature - even if it might only be a charade, as the profits are not distributed among the public - while Western European economies are fundamentally rooted in the primacy of private property. However, you are conflating three different concepts that exist independently of each other: the welfare state (meaning public policy in capitalist market or mixed economies to benefit the public via taxes), economic interventionism (which means regulations or policies designed to correct market failures) and Socialism (which means public/social ownership of the means of production). It is generally regarded that a socialist system wont have a need for a welfare state to equalize the "distribution of wealth" because the initial distribution of income would be more equal in the first place, as the returns to the socially-owned/public enterprises would belong to the public as opposed to private owners. Can individual socialists and socialist political parties support welfare state programs and interventionist policies to benefit their constituents? Certainly; this was often seen as a temporary measure independent of the end-goal of building a socialist economy in the Social democratic parties. But this is not the definition of socialism; welfare state programs and interventionism exists independently of the definition of socialism and have been advocated first by non-socialist and anti-socialist political groups (the first European welfare state in Germany was implemented with the goal of stabilizing support for capitalism amidst fears of a growing interest in socialism). The welfare states of Europe owe their existences to Christian democrats and conservatives as well as to social democrats (which, mind you, are only one of many political movements under the Socialist banner). -Battlecry 04:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Your definition of socialism is no longer relevant to what the word means in English today. The continual attempts by communists to POV-push are blatant, pathetic, against policy, and serve no purpose but to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. Apr38 (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Note Apr38 has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Nrcprm2026 [8]. --TFD (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC) The definition of socialism doesn't change over time, just like the definition of capitalism doesn't change. So your stating of "what the word means in English today" is irrelevant. If you're thinking of countries such as Denmark and Sweden, those are capitalist welfare states, not socialism. Also, for those who are unaware, the guy who initially started this thread, Neo Poz, has been blocked for sock puppetry. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC) See semantic change and Finger (2001) "Response to Michael Albert" New Politics 8(2). Suggesting that the meaning of "socialism" has not changed is absurd, but its the same absurdity that has led to generations of people referring to fascist totalitarian dictatorships as "communist." Smooth move, ideologues. Do you want to console yourself for lost dreams, or do you want an encyclopedia which people can make sense of without being misled? Apr38 (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I have no idea what you are talking about, but you seem to be suggesting that, since some (unspecified and vague) people misapply or misunderstand the term "socialism" to be equivalent to "social democracy", that we should therefore restrict this article to social democracy, and that we should wait until socialists adopt another term before we include information about them. If I have misunderstood, then I apologise; but in that case, please explain clearly and specifically what it is that you mean, and how you propose to edit this article. RolandR (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"Marxist-Leninist socialists"

An editor is repeatedly replacing the term Marxists with "Marxist-Leninist socialists". This is a nonsense, since the group "Marxists" includes the sub-group "Marxist-Leninist socialists". It makes as much sense as stating "I like fruit and apples". If you wish to make such a change, please discuss and justify it here and establish a consensus for this first. RolandR (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It´s blatantly obvious that the only reason why you keep removing this is because you don´t think that Marxist-Leninists are socialists. A50000 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually they are communists. TFD (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)+

All communists are also socialists. A50000 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that is just your personal opinion. TFD (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

several people hold such opinion [9] Darkstar1st (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your link does not say that. Could you please read sources before presenting them, otherwise you are wasting my time. TFD (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

actually it does, and unlike you, i did. perhaps it is you wasting our time? There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your source does not say that communists are socialists. I suggest you read it. TFD (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

but it does, and i hope this will be the last time i suffer your time wasting. please hat/hab when YOU read it.

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. Compare utopian socialism.

Origin: 1830–40; social + -ism

Related forms pre·so·cial·ism, noun sem·i·so·cial·ism, noun un·so·cial·ism, noun Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013. Cite This Source | Link To socialism

Explore the Visual Thesaurus » Related Words for : socialism socialist economy View more related words »

Collins World English Dictionary socialism (ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm)

— n 1. Compare capitalism an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels 2. any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system 3. (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 Cite This Source Relevant Questions What Is Socialism? SEPPINI: Why No Socialis... How To Socialize? How Socialism Works? 00:03 Socialism is always a great word to know. So is ninnyhammer. Does it mean:

an arrangement of five objects, as trees, in a square or rectangle, one at each corner and one in the middle.

a fool or simpleton; ninny.

LEARN MORE UNUSUAL WORDS WITH WORD DYNAMO... Etymonline Word Origin & History

socialism 1832, from Fr. socialisme or from social + -ism. Cf. socialist. Apparently first in reference to Robert Owen's communes. "Pierre Leroux (1797-1871), idealistic social reformer and Saint-Simonian publicist, expressly Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper Cite This Source

American Heritage Cultural Dictionary socialism definition

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your sources say that communists see socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. They see capitalism as a transitional stage between feudalism and socialism, feudalism as a transitional state between slavery and capitalism etc. If you are interested in Marxist theory and you probably are not then pick up a book and read about before posting poorly informed comments. TFD (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

it said the exactly the same thing A5000 said, all communist are socialist. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no one would make that conclusion based on a reasonable reading of the sources provided. TFD (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

And what is your reasonable reading of the part in bold? A50000 (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

poppycock, you didn't read the source, accuse me of the same, suggested i read a book on socialism, told me to not waste your time, referred to my comment as poorly informed, then once you realize you were wrong [10], shift your argument to suggest a reasonable reading of the words all communist are socialist means something different than all communist are socialist. you are in a hole, stop digging. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating as this lexical digression may be, it sheds not the slightest light on my original question. So to return to the issue, what is the purpose of repeatedly replacing the term "Marxists" with the term "Marxist-Leninist socialists" in this article? --RolandR (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like it is written by extremists. Hence we have communist socialists, liberal socialists, conservative socialists, etc. Anyone not right wing enough is a socialist. More appropriate for a right-wing blog. TFD (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the entire article sounds like commie trash (excluding the criticism section). Does that give me permission to delete the entire article? A50000 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

History should go first

I want to argue here for the history section to go after the introduction. As the subjec of this article has been well and extensively defined in the intro, it is better to put in context these ideas with a history of it afterwards before getting into the pure philosophical-theorectical discussion. --Eduen (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposal for the following reasons: the article should first talk about what socialism is and its various forms before going into the history of the subject, and because the history is primarily focused on the history of the labor and socialist movement - which is definitely crucial to the subject, it is not the main focus (which is socialism, defined as an economic system). -Battlecry 11:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is trash

Why?

1. The history section is badly written
2. Little emphasize on ideology
3. The article continuously mix up Marxism with Marxism–Leninism, and Marxism–Leninism with Leninism, they are three very different things
   1. Classical Marxism believes that the means of production decides everything, that is, you can't build a socialist society in Russia, China etc (its just impossible), and no matter what you do, it will always fail (unless, an advanced capitalist society falls under a socialist revolution about the same time as the backward does)..
   2. Marxist–Leninist believes the the means of production, and the relations of production are secondary to the Superstructure (Marxism) which develops out of the means of production. They believe that through superstructure relations they can force immediate change on the means of production through political command (hence the establishment of the command economy and the communist belief that you can "jump" stages).. Other changes are that human thoughts and behavior are not linked only through materialist foundations (that is class), and can be changed through revolutionary indoctrination (again, by the superstructure).. Major difference, the means of production and the relations of production (which is primary in classical marxism, become secondary in Marxism–Leninism, that is , communist thought).. This idea was created by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky in his book The New Economic Order were he stated that the only way of continuing, and strengthened the socialist revolution, was by exploiting the peasants to establish an advances heavy industrial base in which would copy the same relations of production as the capitalist mode of production had been established in other countries. As you may know, Stalin took power, killed the rest, and made it his own, he called his new idea Marxism–Leninism, but on economic grounds it disagreed with Lenin and on the political and economic front it made a break with many classical Marxist tenets..
   3. Leninism is, or at least many considers it to be, a further development of Marxism. Leninism and Marxism were mostly one until after the Russian Revolution (the only difference being really that Leninism thought that a planning system had to be state responsibility). When Lenin took power, he thought that by turning Russia (the "weakest link" of capitalism) socialist, the rest of the advanced world would follow. Since this didn't happen, he introduced the "New Economic Policy" to advance capitalist relations (developing Russia so that it could finish the capitalist mode of production stage; socialism can only be developed, according to Marx, from the "material abundance" of capitalism) ...
   4. I won't deny this, this is a discussion, but a major one, and therefore, for the sake of neutrality, this discussion should at least be mentioned in passing, and the article should stop making Marxism synonyms with its various interpretations and breaks
4. This article is inherently leftist, the Labour Party under Tony Blair (until I changed it) is described as having rejecting socialism. Tony Blair doesn't believe he rejected socialism, Gordon Brown doesn't, Ed Miliband doesn't. The party is still, officially committed to democratic socialism. The removal of the original clause 4 in 1997 (i think, don't remember the year for sure) was not seen by Blair as a rejection of socialism, but rather, as a rejection of Marxism.
5. I think its interesting how this article fails to go into depth for why socialists seek equality, its mentioned in passing (but really, this is the most important in socialism, since all socialists agree upon seeking equality, how much, however, is disputed)
6. Again, this article fails on the ideological front, the Africa sections linkes "main: African socialism", African socialism is a concept developed by Julius Nyerere.. Not all Africans consider themselves adherents to the ideological concept of African socialism.
7. China does not have "state influence in the banking and financial sectors." It barely has any private banks at all, and the few they have have variously been said to be controlled by the Communist Party itself. Secondly, China has the most regulated financial sector in the world, come on, influence is not enough.
8. Third Way (centrism) should be discussed in depth, in a "concept" section...
9. In short, this article focuses to much on history and to little on ideology, thought. --TIAYN (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Then change it. But you will get more support if you avoid terms such as "trash" and "leftist." TFD (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Its sayed upper: «this article focuses to much on history and to little on ideology».

But what is ideology role when in facts, a socialist government and Parliament makes tax collected by private company? such as: «The tax is set up by a law voted on 24 April 2013 by the National Assembly, after several round trips between the Assembly and the Senate. The company Ecomouv, a subsidiary of Autostrade, is responsible for the tax collection.».

Actually the word socialist was so many used for so many things it is difficult to make an article which deal with the one concept the reader might expect to find under this label. Some occurs with other words such as republican or liberal. It is like if you say that Spanish Republican government in exile and Republican Party (United States) are both republican and both are against any king or queen and so a republican article should focus on republican ideology... while in fact one ideology might be the exact opposite to its own sister ideology! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.80.142.48 (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The article does need to do a better job distinguishing classical Marxism, Marxism-Leninism and Leninism from each other and should somewhere explain the key differences between these perspectives because they are key to understanding different socialist movements. The history section is badly written and unorganized, some parts of the article conflate socialism with political actions specific socialist parties took in the past, or conflate socialism with specific policies that were implemented by specific socialist/social democratic parties in history. The article should place a stronger emphasis on socialism (the economic system and political philosophy) and less of an emphasis on the history of the labor movement (which can be expounded upon in detail on its own page).-Battlecry 01:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Unclear sentence in the lead

"These include reformism and revolutionary socialism; state socialism and libertarian socialism, the former of which calls for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism; and the latter of which opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership."

Could somebody split this sentence up so that it could be parsed more easily?—indopug (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded the paragraph to be more understandable:

The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies. Core dichotomies within the socialist movement include the distinction between reformism and revolutionary socialism and between state socialism and libertarian socialism. State socialism calls for the nationalization of the means of production as a strategy for implementing socialism, while libertarian socialism opposes the use of state power – whether exercised through parliamentary politics or state-owned industry – as a means to achieve socialism. Democratic socialism highlights the central role of democratic processes and political systems. -Battlecry 02:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"Philosophy" section

For neutrality reasons we should try to achieve in this section the most possible synthesis of all of socialist thought that we can come up with. As it stands now it is referenced with too much mentions of marxism, which is clearly an important section of socialism but clearly not all of socialism and Marx is neither the only theorist of socialism, nor the single theorist voted by all socialist persons throught history to represent their views. I will suggest that there are manily three sections of socialism: parlamentary reformist socialism (democratic socialism and social democracy and subtypes of that such as Fabianism or eurocommunism), jacobinist insurrectionary state socialism (Blanquism and leninism), and libertarian socialism (autonomism, anarchism, left communism, etc). We have to make a philosophy section which will do justice to these three sections of socialism. I will come with suggestions in the following days as time lets me do it. As this section stands now it is clearly undersourced for a huge and very influential subject such as socialism. For a guide anyone can go check similar ideology related articles such as liberalism, conservatism and fascism and than person will see that those articles rely on various sources and not on a single theorist and that in many cases every single sentence is supported by a source.--Eduen (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

To User:Snowded i respond that i deleted things that are unsourced. The philosphy section which i deleted is completely unsourced and also unbalanced. Since that user defends that section as unsourced and as unbalanced and it is againts Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight i will proceed to add a banner telling readers of this situation.--Eduen (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Major deletions of that type should be discussed on the talk page first. Personally I think the level of treatment of Marxism is commensurate to its role in socialism overall. The deleted material did not claim it was the only theorist or the single theorist per your comment. Those statements are simply false. If you come up with additional sourced material I am sure everyone is happy to look at it.. ----Snowded ^TALK 00

19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as the discussion, or absence of it, goes what i deleted previously to the banner i added were unsourced claims which can be deleted according to wikipedia policy. Socialism is a very large and more than 200 year old theory which is clearly larger than the writings of a particular author, in this case Marx. As such a "philosophy" section should bring out the general arguments which synthesize a position. A clear example of what i am saying:

"Marxian socialism is philosophically materialist, revolving around the theory of historical materialism."

Well, that might be true as far as marxism. What about socialists who come from religious perspectives, or socialists who might adhere to the philosophy of Hegel or Kant or socialists who are not very much interested in the "idealism-materialism" debate. In the case of the anglo world other philosophical tendencies and problematics are as important or more important there such as pragmatism, utilitarism, analytic philosophy, empiricism. Many socialists in fact really didn not care much about these particular discussions in detail which are more for specialists in philosophy. Clearly that particular affirmation can be deleted since it is not representative of the whole of socialism from its start by saying that "marxian socialism" is something instead of saying "socialism is...or...tends to be"...

Afterwards other marxism describing sentences appear which are also unsourced and which also do not deal with socialism in general:

"Marxists argue that freeing the individual from the necessity of performing alienating work in order to receive goods would allow people to pursue their own interests and develop their own talents without being coerced into performing labour for others. For Marxists, the stage of economic development in which this is possible, sometimes called full communism, is contingent upon advances in the productive capabilities of society."

Another one:

"Marxists stress the importance of freeing the individual from coercive...In Marxist terminology, this is the goal of transcending alienation through material abundance."

Afterwards two more marxism centered affirmations are present. But in the end they will even be very weak even for defining marxist philosophy. As far as defining socialist philosophy in general they could not be more biased and insufficient for that. So what i did is just to delete all these unsourced and insufficiently relevant sentences and i argued for a better definition of socialism in general similar to the well sourced and clear definitions of other ideologies here in wikipedia such as liberalism, conservatism or fascism. Not that i am arguing necessarely for deleting all mentions of Marx in this section but clearly as it is now these excessive mentions clearly are not doing justice to its subject. Since on top these affirmations were unsourced i just followed Wikipedia:Verifiability which says that "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." As far as this article i can clearly go back to deleting these particular sentences according to wikipedia policy. In this case i will wait for responses from other uses for a few days.

But another issue comes if we compare the socialism with the liberalism, conservatism and anarchism articles and it is the fact that these don´t begin dealing with "philosophy" but go to history. I can suggest that the logic here is the fact that their subject´s philosophy has been described in many paragraphs in the intro and so a history of its subject will be more appropriate in order to understand the ideas along the social, historic and spatial situations in which they appeared and developed.--Eduen (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that beginning with the chronology is better for political movements. It explains why ideologies arose, who set up the various movements, how they saw the world, and how their policies changed as the world changed. TFD (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There are basically two perspectives underlying "socialist" philosophy: the amoral perspective that socialism will emerge and should be advocated for material, efficiency or reasons of inevitability (held by Marxists, neoclassical, analytic philosophy) and "ethical socialism" which is concerned with moral reasons for advocating socialism. While Marx is not the only influence on the philosophy of socialism, his views were hugely influential on the socialist movement to a point where even notable non-Marxist socialists held similar views on historical materialism et al (Joseph Schumpeter, Thorstein Veblen, Bertrand Russel and Corliss Lamont immediately come to mind). The philosophy section does a good job at approximating the philosophical basis of socialism. That being said, there is still room for improvement and mention of "ethical socialism" and "utopianist" philosophy. I disagree about mirroring the structure of the liberalism and anarchism articles because socialism is primarily defined as an economic system, whereas Liberalism et al are political ideologies. -Battlecry 09:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I can argue that this last argument of yours tends towards economicism. Socialism can certainly be said to be an "economic system" yet it will clearly be also a main ideology in politics alongside liberalism, fascism, conservatism and anarchism according to any political encyclopedia and also according to wikipedia. Also there are things called economic liberalism and anarchist economics and fascism and conservatism also had to provide interpetations of economics and economic proposals as well. Anyway even the argument of yours that "socialism is primarily defined as an economic system" will need a source which it seems to me it will be hard to find since socialism, as i argued before, is clearly also an important main ideology and this is obvious by the fact of the existence of parliamentary and revolutionary parties who adopt the "socialist" label in their name almost in every country around the world.

As far as the distinction that you provide here on "ethical" and "amoral" socialisms it sounds like it will be a good addition for the philosophy section but of course it will have to be well sourced.

Returning to the issue of the importance of Marx within socialism it is clear that he was a very influential thinker on all of it yet this influence was not only one of adherence to his views but also one which many times motivated criticism and rejection and in others which clearly its influence was not as important as it was in central europe around Germany. For example Mikhail Bakunin in an important way decided to position anarchism in opposition to Marx´s views in the debates of the First International. Also in the First International there were also other non-anarchist sections and members who also took sides on some issues with Marx´s supporters and in others with Bakunin reflecting in this was independence from Marx´s particular views. I am mainly talking about British sectors who come from different traditions of socialist thought which go back to chartism and which later developed fabianism and the Labour Party. All this was very different from the German one which Marx came from and also from the italian, french and spanish ones in which Pierre Joseph Proudhon was more influential as a thinker than Marx. In France Blanqui was also very influential while Marx was still not as translated to french or spanish or italian in those times as is today. From the United States the individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner attended the First International and this shows clearly yet another line of socialist thought which later produced movements like georgism and the IWW. An analysis of a particular instance of socialist history such as this one shows centering on a single writer such as Marx is to do unjustice to the subject which we deal with here in this article.

I have also to add that Marx himself only lived until the end of the XIX century. Afterwards "marxism" was a very plural point of view on itself which could include highly contrasting personalities such as genocidal authoritarian tyrants like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot alongside libertarian or even libertine thinkers such as Herbert Marcuse, Wilhelm Reich and Guy Debord but also almost anarchist anti-state interpretations such as those of council communism as well as very moderate reformist almost social-democrat views such as those of eurocommunism. So later interpretations of Marx will also be better served by showing the plurality of marxism itself rather than reducing too much to the individual called Karl Marx.--Eduen (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Liberalism is certainly based on an economic system - capitalism. Conservatism was based on opposition to capitalism. TFD (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say liberalism is based on the capitalist economic system.. For instance, India had a planned economy and was a liberal democracy at the same time... Probably more examples, but that was the first I could come up with. --TIAYN (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Congress Party is socialist and they actually added the description "sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic" to the constitution in 1976. But in fact, India was a capitalist country. The reason you do not think liberalism is based on economics is that liberalism is the dominant ideology. Someone who does not support capitalism is not a liberal. TFD (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, many people seem to disagree ([11], [12], [13], Commercial Banking in the Planned Economy of India etc...), secondly, even Wikipedia says that India had a central planned economy (Economic history of India. --TIAYN (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

India's economy was a capitalist mixed economy that involved a degree of macroeconomic interventionism and state development planning. It was not a planned economy in the definition of a non-capitalist economy based on planned production and physical planning. References to India as a "planned economy" usually conflate planning with interventionism, or are coming from a free-market biased point of view, or are referencing the role of state development planning of India's macro-economy (which technically speaking is not the same thing as a planned economy - a planned economy aims to replace markets with direct planning, not to aid/interfere in their workings). This is regardless of the official ideology of the political party running its government. I would agree with TFD that liberalism generally implies support for some form of capitalism (whether it be state-interventionist or lassiez-faire). The rise of classical liberalism coincided with the emergence of commercialism.

Eduen, what you are describing are political views of historical socialist movements. A discussion of these perspectives and movements belongs in in the "politics" and "history" subsections. "Philosophy" concerns itself more with the philosophical underpinnings of socialist thought - e.g. why individual thinkers and movements advocate socialism, what its underlying values are (if any), and what its relationship is to concepts like freedom and equality. From my understanding, there are basically two perspectives - the first that socialism is advocated for "ethical" or "moral" reasons; the second being a materialist, logical or analytic perspective of the emergence of socialism. The latter view has been much more prominent, not only among Marxists but other independent thinkers as well (Polanyi, Schumpeter, Veblen, Lenin, Luxembourg - even Proudhon I think did not advocate mutualist socialism for mainly ethical/moral reasons). Marx is, however, the most prominent figure associated with the articulation of this second perspective, and his views influenced many non-Marxist socialists. So I think it is justified that Marx deserves greater attention in the "philosophy" subsection of the page. -Battlecry 02:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

TIAYN, your links show that India had a "planned economy", not that it was not capitalist. I suppose that if the Soviet Union had allowed free elections and observed their bill of rights, one might have called it a "liberal democracy", but no one would have called the government liberals. TFD (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User Battlecry: "From my understanding,...".

Interesting understanding but what we need here is sources supporting that.

"Marx is, however, the most prominent figure associated with the articulation of this second perspective..."

Same thing here. And now you are almost just repeating the same affirmation without bringing in any new information and still no sources. But also Marx himself built his philosphy on many other influences such as David Ricardo, Charles Fourier, Max Stirner, Ludwig Feuerbach, Pierre Joseph Proudhon and others. As this article stands now i can very well go delete the excess of Marx in the "philosophy" section according to wikipedia policy since most of it is unsourced.--Eduen (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no "excess of Marx" in the philosophy section. All the material on Marx in the philosophy section is sourced except for the one paragraph mentioning him starting with "The development of Marxian economics and philosophy had a profound impact on the socialist movement..." This is pretty standard description of Marxism and the materialist perspective that is central to many socialist movements. Why shouldn't such a brief overview of something so crucial to the development of socialist philosophy be mentioned in the philosophy section?-Battlecry 09:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section might need another entry for Mises

Mises did famously argue that socialism wouldn't work because of the price calculation problem but he did seem to think that a system of workers owned companies could. There seems to be some disagreement between Maoist and other Marxist socialists whether this is actually really socialism or not but maybe it should be mentioned as a note in the criticism section?

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.ie/2012/10/mises-on-rational-economic-planning.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.25.46 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a stronger source? bobrayner (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It should not be in the criticism section because it only applies to some types of socialism. It does not apply to Mises supporters who happen to be members of "Socialist" parties. TFD (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Socialism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Socialism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "naturismolibertario":

• From Libertarian socialism: "EL NATURISMO LIBERTARIO EN LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA (1890–1939) by Jose Maria Rosello" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-10-11.
• From Anarchism: EL NATURISMO LIBERTARIO EN LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA (1890–1939) by Jose Maria Rosello

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy section

At it stands now this section is clearly the weakest one in this article. Frankly i really don´t see the use of having separate "philosophy" and "social and political theory" sections. I propose joining information of both sections into one giving preference for the structure of "social and political theory" since it is clearly stronger in content and sourcing. As far as the sections "economics" and "politics" i support the general structure of them and their being separate but of course they can be improved in some sentences.--Eduen (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Eduen: The article is strange; first it focuses on the "socialist" movement (that is, communist and socialists left of the social democratic movement), and then, out of nowhere, social democracy is brought out from the cold. Another problem why doesn't the "Politics" section have a sub-heading on Communism?... And at last, again with social democracy; social democracy is mentioned throughout (even having its own section), but the Economics section is missing a sub-heading on the mixed economy. This is a mess, a better mess than before, but its still a mess. --TIAYN (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that we keep the discussión in this section on the subject it was made for, namely reforms on "philosophy" and "social and political theory".

As i see it communism, in the past centuries and the present one, has appeared in forms which intersect some of the categories proposed in the "politics" section just as "market socialism" and "mixed economy" has. Communism has appeared as a form of "democratic socialism" in the form of eurocommunism and now parliamentary communism has received an important theorectical proposal in Gianni Vattimo´s Hermeneutic Communism book. Communism has appeared also as a form of anarchism in anarcho-communism and as a form of anti leninist libertarian marxism in the forms of council communism and autonomism. The way i see it is that communism should be a category in the "economics" section and in the "politics" section we might need to add a category for leninism and its antecedents such as blanquism.

As far as socialdemocracy i will think that it is a category that only came into its own in the late 19th century with the establishment of the German SPD and with the Fabian society calling for the establishment of a "Labour party". In its contemporary form it only took form after leninists left socialist and socialdemocrat parties around europe and the american continent to form "communist" parties. Before that organizational politics within the socialist movement were still in early discussion so that it is why social democracy as a term appears in the place where you found it and not before.

As far as the economics section and the mixed economy i have noticed that that particual section has been modified a few times and that i find the distinction between "planned economy" and "state directed economy" should be worked upon. On that point i think it is better to point out that there is "state planning", which might advocate varying interrelations between capitalist markets and state planning incluiding a specific degree of nationalizations or socializations and a place for non capitalist markets as well and "libertarian socialist decentralized" economies which might advocate for federal or confederal descentrallized planning based on councils and workers and consumer cooperatives and cybernetic coordination and/or a coexistence with non capitalist markets such as is the proposal of proudhonian socialism and forms of market socialism.--Eduen (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Eduen: How is Eurocommunism not parliamentary communism? ... Second, not every social democrat support the creation of a "state-led economy". and it therefore doesn't work as a replacement for a "mixed economy" section (which is technically everyone use, in capitalist societies, when they talk about state-led economies and so on)..This article should focus on socialism in practice, not prodhonian socialist economic, or council communist economics.. If you want to focus on these issues, write an article entitled Socialist ideologies, forms of socialism etc. .. At last, the "Critique of capitalism" section focus on Marxist, Anarchist, etc etc critique of capitalism, and makes it sound like all socialist movements are highly critical of it. I mean, social democracy is totally forgotten here.... --TIAYN (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I clearly identified eurocommunism as a form of parliamentary communism. The ideas of Proudhon were influential on the Paris Commune and in the brief spanish government of Francisco Pi y Margall. Anarchist economics governed even the city of Barcelona during 1936 so these have been actual practices of all that and all of those thing clearly are forms of libertarian socialist economics. The present state of the economics article has not been done by me so you should not blame me for what is there right now.--Eduen (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)