Talk:Socialism/Archive 20

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Nonsense argument

User:TIAYN, you stated, "The Nordic model is capitalist, but that doesn't make it less socialist" --- that is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard in awhile. The reason the Nordic Model is called a mixed economy is because that is what it is; the means of production are mainly under private control, etc. You can pretend to play with the definition of Socialism but that doesn't change anything. Using your logic, the U.S. can also be considered Socialist because it has Medicaid and Social security, but that argument would be considered garbage. From what I've seen, both yourself and User:Eduen are reading the same book. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: China is still officially socialist, Vietnam is still officially socialist, Cuba is still officially socialist and Laos is still officially socialist... China is the country which publishes most books on the dissolution of the Soviet Union and in university, learning about the USSR's collapse is forced; akeen to Ex.phil.. I concur with what @The Four Deuces: wrote; "The Historical Dictionary of Socialism provides what I think is the best overview of attempts to define socialism. Significantly, it says the first common element identified was general criticisms about the social effects of the private ownership and control of capital - poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security. Thereafter, other than an agreement that socialists should do something, there is wide divergence over what action should be taken or how far society can be changed."

What does a mixed economy have with the economy being less socialist? Socialism does not need to mean an economic system, according to some socialist theories/philosophies, yes, but not all! State socialism is not the only form of socialism!? (that's why they call it state socialism, to make it distinct from other approaches) .... US Social Security and the Medicaid system is not even close to a modern, European welfare state (the US does not even have a welfare state...) The welfare state does seem to be a component of socialism, since every socialist regime has tried creating one, that is every nominal socialist regime from North Korea to Norway - practical policy is worth something.

I agree with TFD, and partially with Eduen... It seems that you and Battlecry are in the minority, so no need to be so cras! --TIAYN (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL, LOL, I had to do it. -- The fact that China calls itself Socialist means that China calls itself socialist. Have you heard of Foxconn in China? -- China can call itself whatever it wants; it is our job to accurately define what Socialism is, not kowtow to what China calls itself. -- You stated, "The welfare state does seem to be a component of socialism"; you are misguided here as well. The Welfare States of Norway, Sweden, etc. do have socialist attributes, but since most of the means of production are under private control, these countries are generally referred to in reliable sources as mixed economies, not Socialist ones. -- Percolating terminé. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Somedifferentstuff: A mixed economy is not the complete opposite of socialism, and I'm guessing that Chinese scholars who are forced to read Marx, Engels, Lenin and co from the very beginning of them joining the party knows more about socialism then you, I'm just guessing doh.. Honestly, discussing with you is an annoying experience to say the least, if you want to force one intepretation of socialism (and say all other socialist theories are wrong, then fine), but that's not correct, and if WP is to follow its policy of neutral point of view, that position cannot be implemented. --TIAYN (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@TIAYN: The claims of politicians don't carry much weight in serious scholarly analysis of social and political processes. If they did, then someone could just as plausibly state that Adolf Hitler was a socialist based on quotations of speeches he made in the 1920s and early 1930s. The term "mixed economy" can be very misleading. What exactly is the Nordic model a mixture of? If we are talking about the economy of Sweden, it is closer to free-market capitalism than the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism, as privatization is much deeper and trade and markets (barring the labor market) are less regulated and have greater flexibility than those in the US. It is easier to start a business in Sweden than it is in the United States. The economy of Singapore, on the other hand, has a much more even mix of state and private enterprise and might be better described as a "mixed economy". But in general, the economic literature defines mixed economies as a mixture of lassiez-faire (free markets) with state intervention in certain markets (including regulation), that is, as a species of capitalism.

Marxism is not the opposite of socialism. It is a method of social, economic and political analysis that is used to formulate various theories that many socialists have used or subscribed to. But Marxism (method and theoretical perspective) cannot be compared with socialism (socio-economic system) as that would be comparing apples to oranges. -Battlecry 23:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

An important problem with this discussion is that it seems some people want to reduce socialism to somekind of economic system while socialism is also a political movement. Self named socialist political movements have very different purposes and clearly in this article we have to account for socialist political movements. Wikipedia has to work with levels of relevance and influence in society and that will have to do with mass movements, governments and the like and not just the discussions of intellectuals-which does not mean we should not deal with some discussions intellectuals have had which later translated into influence in wider social sectors.

"privatization is much deeper and trade and markets (barring the labor market) are less regulated and have greater flexibility than those in the US"

It will be nicer to see the sources on this. Anyway the liberal language of "public" and "private" hides some things in between. An artisan runs a "private" business yet if that person does not have a salaried employee, that person is not a capitalist. On the other hand state subsidies many times have gone to corporations and capitalist companies and other times the police and the military many times have just concentrated in protecting big capitalist ventures such as mining and oil extraction. So just because something comes from the state it doesn´t men that it has to be so easily seen as "public" or working for the "public".

"It is easier to start a business in Sweden than it is in the United States."

This cannot be easily be seen as a sign of something being more capitalist than something else. This because someone can start a personal, family or cooperative business or a business of a few partners and so all this situations cannot be said to be capitalist since wage labour is not involved and the owners are working directly in the enterprise. I don´t have the knowledge and data for anwering the particular cases of the US and Sweeden but anyway in some places it might be actually easier to start a huge enterprise such as a mining or an oil operation and instead starting a cooperative or an artisan partnership might have less support and more obstacles since small businesses are not really a priority for a particulaer state because they don´t bring politicians and bureaucrats as much benefits as a big business venture.

"Using your logic, the U.S. can also be considered Socialist because it has Medicaid and Social security, but that argument would be considered garbage. From what I've seen, both yourself and User:Eduen are reading the same book."

This is also a cause of only thinking of socialism as an economic system. And not even as a set of economic theories (which it also is) but only as an economic system. The article never states that the US or even Nordic countries are "socialist" countries. As far as nordic countries it just points out that socialist and socialdemocratic parties there have been strong and even governed those countries for decades and so that is how we can understand their having the biggest welfare states and the best well being standards in the world. The article in fact never mentions the US economic system but it does mention US socialist movements such as the Communist Party USA, the socialist Party of America and the Black Panthers. According to an specific criteria one could argue that in fact nordic countries are more socialist than officially named socialist countries like vietnam and china for having more respect for workers self organization and for providing in some cases more protections, better salaries and more benefits for workers. This will also apply for the Soviet Union and Cuba where non state trade approved and controlled unions were not allowed just as it happened it fascist Italy, conservative catholic francoist Spain and the neoliberal dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile. Also Nordic countries have much better wealth distribution than china and vietnam. In the end in this article all we can account for is for movements which have important enough associations with socialism in a wide sense such as calling themselves "socialist" and related names such as anarchist, communists and socialdemocrats or saying they are or were implementing socialist measures. if we really decided to propose a single standard of evaluating whether something is REALLY socialist or not then we will have to account for an inmense debate between socialists throught history where almost every tendency and movemement told another one that they are not socialist.

As far as users Battlecry and Somedifferentstuff i think we can ask them ¿what examples of REAL socialism in practice they can give us? This because they seem to be very sure of that and so able to give us an exact model of what socialism really is and what is not. It is probable that if they give us the exact example of REAL socialism in practice then ee will have a small article only dealing with one case of socialism which they think is the only true one. And of course they will also leave out the defintion of socialism as a political and social movement since for them it seems socialism is only an economic system.--Eduen (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@TIAYN and Somedifferentstuff:There is a tendency for some editors to provide a non-scientific analysis of the definition of socialism, in particular when it comes to the subject of “social democracy” and “the Nordic model”.

If a group of Muslims, or even a political party, advocates terrorism as a means to further their goals, I think most people would agree that the definition of Islam does not change to include terrorism. Likewise, if a socialist party or group of socialists advocate a welfare state (or its opposite, austerity), the definition of socialism does not change to mean a welfare state or austerity. It is possible for socialists to advocate things independently of socialism (and this is assuming these parties still advocate socialism in any meaningful sense). I can understand why certain people like to associate socialism with Sweden or the Nordic model: it looks attractive, especially to progressives and American liberals. But Wikipedia is not the place for this. Wikipedia needs to be as factual as possible – even if reality does not conform to preconceived notions about what “socialism” is by conservatives or confused American political commentators.

And when making note of revised and minority definitions of socialism, such as that given by Anthony Giddens and other contemporary social democrats who use the term “socialism” loosely in reference to ethical ideals or a policy regime (welfare state et al.), they don’t warrant a major discussion in the lead. While these alternate uses of “socialism” can be described briefly in appropriate sections of the article, they don’t warrant a major discussion in the lead as they are not the major and common definition of the concept.

Finally, the view of socialism as simply a movement without a concrete objective is a very social democratic PoV. It is false to treat any perspective that bases its arguments for socialism on a logical, materialist, evolutionary or any non-moralist/ethical grounds as “Marxist”. In fact, the vast majority of notable socialist thinkers and theorists primarily based their arguments for socialism primarily on material, logical, or structural cases rather than over issues of morality. It is patently false to claim that any perspective that treats socialism as something concrete as opposed to a moral creed as “Marxism”. -Battlecry 09:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Battlecry: "The claims of politicians don't carry much weight in serious scholarly analysis of social and political processes. If they did, then someone could just as plausibly state that Adolf Hitler was a socialist based on quotations of speeches he made in the 1920s and early 1930s" What does Hitler have to do with it? Fascism had socialist elements, but its usually categorized as right-wing (that simple). Likewise, social democracy is normally categorized as socialist despite having influences from the left, centre and right.
"The term "mixed economy" can be very misleading. What exactly is the Nordic model a mixture of? If we are talking about the economy of Sweden, it is closer to free-market capitalism than the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism, as privatization is much deeper and trade and markets (barring the labor market) are less regulated and have greater flexibility than those in the US." Eh, no, the Anglo-Saxon model is to the right of the Swedish model and the Norwegian model. Sweden has undergone severe privatization in recent years during the rule of the Moderate Party, sadly, but in Norway, the system remains intact.. At last, a mixed economy is an economy with both public and private ownership, and of course, regulations over the economy and so on... Singaporean state has 60 percent ownership over the economy, but its still capitalistic in how they run (unlike China, where they have way-to-many monopolies).... Just because its easy to establish a private something doesn't make the economy less socialist. While its true that socialism has historically been opposed to private property, in recent years, considering the complete and utter failure of state socialism the view has, not surprisingly, change alot. For instance, people call Hugo Chavez socialist, a revolutionary socialist and so on, but he has never tried to abolish private ownership in the national economy .... But to the point, the Nordic model is not a socialist economic system' (but no one disagrees with that), but the Nordic model was created through reformist socialist policies (the same government who created the system in Norway, created a planning department since they believed was the only way to safeguard against the uncontrollable markets).. So the Nordic model is proof that socialism and capitalism are not opposed to each other; its proof that they are not antagonistic.
"But in general, the economic literature defines mixed economies as a mixture of lassiez-faire (free markets) with state intervention in certain markets (including regulation), that is, as a species of capitalism." ... True, but you now have China, Laos and Vietnam who says the opposite. There rationale is that, as long as the public sector "dominates" and "guides" the economy (that is, if the public sector infringes on the right of the private sector to safeguard the nation's well-being), the economy is not capitalist per-se. So instead of talking about just how large the public sector should be (as we in Western democracies talk about), these regimes talk about how the importance of the public sector controlling the economy.. Short, socialism in these countries means dominance of the public sector and guidance (five-year plans) of the public sector, not state socialism.
"Marxism is not the opposite of socialism." I've never said anything like that, Marxism is very much socialist. However, Marxism is the most popular socialist philosophical discourse out there, and Marxism clearly refers to socialism as an economic system, the socialist mode of production (with its own unique superstructure; the political and social system).
At last, in Marxism, to get the point through, Marxists (after Marx) referred to socialist political system, socialist culture, socialist democracy and so on, because these were components and/or systems in the superstructure. Even Marxists don't deny that there exists socialist political systems or socialist anything else, Marxist argue that the economic system is the basis for the others to exist. If Marxism disagrees with you, you have a problem.
I agree with Eduen, which country/movement subscribes to being socialist according to you Battlecry? --TIAYN (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@TIAYN: What makes the "Nordic model" less socialist than the economy of Singapore? (The People's Action Party was influenced by socialist thought in its early stages just as like the Swedish Social Democratic Party was - but that is irrelevant to the structure of the economic models of these countries). The Singapore model has a form of public ownership in place, so nominally at least, the citizens control the economy and receive the state profits. The same can't be said for the Nordic model, which emerged as a "compromise" during the 1930s in the aftermath of major strikes to prevent the emergence of socialism (or any threat of dismantling private property, profit etc) by suppressing radical ideas within organized labor through recognition of collective labor rights. Just to be clear, I am not claiming Singapore constitutes a socialist model, but it seems that your reasoning is based on an emotional appeal (the outcomes sound nice, so you ignore the actual processes which generate those outcomes, and label it socialist because some of the goals of socialism happen to overlap with the outcomes of Nordic capitalism).

And you are correct to state that socialism will have a distinct culture, politics and whatnot - those emerge as a response to the emergence of the socialist system. As such, we can only hypothesize about what a socialist culture will be like and what politics in a socialist system will look like (unless we are of the view that the Soviet bloc represented socialism, in which case we have information).

As for China and Vietnam, officially they are not fully-developed socialist economies but market economies transitioning to socialism, or in the case of China, in an early stage of socialism. They justify the widespread existence of capitalistic processes as a necessity given their level of economic development - which is a reasonable point, but if you are asking my opinion I would have to say that the dominance of those capitalistic processes and ownership structures means they fall under the label of "state capitalism". Changing the name to "socialist" wont change that. The "socialist market economy" model is conceptually different from traditional notions of market socialism, and the Chinese Communist Party seems to reject market socialist theory (at least officially). Are they on the path to building socialism as they claim? I can't possibly know the answer to that. -Battlecry 10:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Battlecry: In Sweden, it emerged as a compromise, not in Norway, but in Sweden they had a majority in parliament for 40years (with the exception of one miss).. The compromise did not last long, as was proven Olaf Palme who taxed some of the riches people 80-90 percent..... I'm saying socialism is not synonymous with how large the public sector, you say it is. You have to have a large public sector in socialism, no one disagrees with that, but to say one public sector is more capitalist or socialist than the other is a pointless discussion since you can't prove anything. --TIAYN (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@TIAYN: I definitely agree that socialism is not synonymous with the size of the public sector in an economy. While I am reluctant to discuss my understanding of socialism (as Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion about the subject of an article), I will say that socialism involves a different set of processes than capitalism (hence why it is contrasted with capitalism as a system). State-owned enterprises that are structured as businesses and operate under the same dynamic (capital accumulation, the profit system) are just as capitalist as private firms operating under the same criteria. In the vast majority of market socialist proposals, the key difference between capitalism and market socialism is that meaningful ownership of firms belongs to society (or to the workforce) in the form of a basic income/social dividend (all citizens receive a portion of the profits), thereby eroding away at the system of wage labor. This type of market socialism is thus quite different from the "socialist market economy" that exists in China or Vietnam. Regardless, the processes (resource allocation, distribution of surplus, method of resource valuation) do not fundamentally change simply because the president of a given country is "socialist" or a socialist/social democratic party has been elected to office (said party might very well have the ultimate goal of achieving socialism, but the definition of socialism does not change to mean whatever exists under the governance of a self-described socialist president/party). I also understand that sometimes authors, and especially politicians and commentators, use "socialism" in reference to the actions and proposed policies socialist or social democratic parties advocate for at the moment, but this is very unscientific. For example, while Kshama Sawant was elected to the Seattle city council on a the platform of a $15 minimum wage, that in no way means the definition of socialism becomes defined as advocacy for a $15 minimum wage (or a minimum wage at all).-Battlecry 11:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The "public" sector to me sounds like something that continues to adhere to the liberal "public" "private" dichotomy. In fact libertarian socialists of the left communist and anarchist sort will tend to criticize mere nationalization and instead tend to focus on community and workers control. Community and workers control is clearly something which makes the liberal distinction between "public and "private" problematic and so socialism and indeed "socialisation" should not be seen as just nation-state control and/or ownership.--Eduen (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Organization of article

@TIAYN, Somedifferentstuff, and Eduen:As it currently stands, this article is in need of serious restructuring – particularly in how much space is given to certain topics. Prospective readers want to know the following about socialism:

What socialism is – the various types and models of socialism (Planned economy, Lange model et al)
Development of the concept of socialism - what planning means in socialism and how it evolved etc
What attempts have been made to implement socialism or socialistic systems have existed (Soviet Union et al)
The various arguments in favor of socialism (Marxism, Neoclassical, etc.)
The major perspectives on how socialism will emerge and related political debates (Leninism, Syndicalism etc.)
The key dichotomies within socialist theory and socialist politics (markets vs planning; reform vs revolution; etc.)

What is largely irrelevant for the subject of this article is the extensive overview of political movements that might have identified themselves as “socialist” at some point, such as the Sandinistas, and describing their actions (In the case of the Sandinistas, building socialism is more of an undertone and second to their immediate goal of national liberation). Dedicating so much space to discussions of political parties or individuals simply because they identified as “socialist” is unwarranted – unless that information is pertinent to building socialism or a key political conflict that helped define socialism (such as discussing the theories of Eduard Bernstein and reformism). As the article currently stands, we have a disproportionate amount of space dedicated to discussing these subjects in the “History” section, and comparatively little information on the topics I listed above. This needs to be rectified.

Finally, a word on Marxism: we cannot easily separate discussion of Marxism or Marxist concepts from the development of socialism because it has heavily influenced the development of socialist movements and socialist theory. Marxism is extremely relevant when discussing perspectives on how socialism will emerge (historical materialism, class struggle, etc.). “Marxism” =/= socialism meaning an economic system or “central planning”. The conception of socialism as a non-capitalist economic system or society (and a political movement that aims for achieve such) is the dominant view by scholars, not just “Marxists”. So anything that sounds remotely “Marxist” should not be automatically purged from the article simply because it is not a view held by every single socialist. -Battlecry 10:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Battlecry: I agree, the history section should be reduced, we have an article entitled History of socialism, this article is about socialism, the theories, concepts, views and the definition of it.
Marxism does not equal central planning, Lenin was the one who called for central planning. Marx, being vague and all, only said the economy needed a form of planning, not which. The only time he was close to specific was when he called for the workers' in the Paris Commune to organize together to create an economic plan...
Marxism should be given more focus in the article. Marxism is, along with social democracy/democratic socialism, the most popular and well-known socialist philosophies/ideologies out there.
The problem with this article is that you're treated one concept of socialism as dominant.. Socialism is not an ideology per-se, its a catchphrase used by various socialist movements/ideologies, and means different things nearly all the time. This is what you're not taking into account, you're forcing one interpretation. --TIAYN (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I regard the so called "lange model" as mostly a discussion of academics with little influence outside that milieu. On the other hand the Sandinistas are actually governing Nicaragua and the FMLN is also governing El Salvador. As anyone can see in this image the FSLN propagandizes openly for a "socialist nicaragua" and it is governing the country. In the banner i present to you there is not a single mention of "national liberation" but clearly there is a mention of socialism and of "revolution". And also i clearly regard an episode like the genocide carried out in Indonesia in the 1960s of around 500,000 communist and leftist militants and sympatisers. Clearly not everything is theorectical discussion.

"As the article currently stands, we have a disproportionate amount of space dedicated to discussing these subjects in the “History” section, and comparatively little information on the topics I listed above."

As i see it, the history section is full of theory but of course theory which had actual relevance on mass movements and governments (revolution vs. reformism, utopianism vs. "scientific" socialism). Still the article does mention the Lange model that user Battlecry seems to be so enthusiastic about. For important discussions in economic theory there exists the economy section.

"* What attempts have been made to implement socialism or socialistic systems have existed (Soviet Union et al)"

The Soviet Union and its worldwide influence is mentioned extensively in the history section. Also other countries ruled under one party systems such as the Eastern european bloc and also Vietnam, china and even North Korea are mentioned. I also added in history the experiment of the Paris Commune. I don´t know what the complaint is about here.

"* The various arguments in favor of socialism (Marxism, Neoclassical, etc.)"

Neoclassical economics, and perhaps the field of economics in general, is mostly the field of economic liberalism and so it is interesting to note why the so called "Lange model" might have had so few actual influence in social movements and political parties. Socialist movements and parties really had their minds in other subjects and maybe even producing theory which came from most important issues in their actual practice rather than discussing "neoclassical economics".

"* The major perspectives on how socialism will emerge and related political debates (Leninism, Syndicalism etc.)"

Leninism and Syndicalism are both mentioned in the politics sections as well as in the history section.

"* The key dichotomies within socialist theory and socialist politics (markets vs planning; reform vs revolution; etc.)"

Reform vs. revolution is mentioned in history and social and political theory sections. As far as the dichotomy between markets vs. planning i will suggest bringing an actual outside reference that shows how important it has been in socialist discussions and theory. I tend to suspect "dichotomies" in general due to the reductionism they end up producing in more complex and plural phenomena. For example "planning" can come from a municipal instance or from a centralized nation state or from an assembly of federated communes or of workers and consumer councils. "Markets" can come in capitalist and non-capitalist forms. Artisan and small peasant markets are clearly non capitalist and participate in small sized markets. On the other hand something like Wall St is clearly something very different and it is the reason why these two sorts of "markets" end up very often being in opposing spaces within parliamentary discussions and in barricades and street protests.

"As the article currently stands, we have a disproportionate amount of space dedicated to discussing these subjects in the “History” section, and comparatively little information on the topics I listed above. This needs to be rectified."

Wikipedia gives amount of space according to social relevance and so if some things are mentioned more extensively in this article it is because they have had more of that while the "lange model" has not gone outside academic discussion. See Wikipedia:Due_weight#Undue_weight

"Marxism is extremely relevant when discussing perspectives on how socialism will emerge (historical materialism, class struggle, etc.). “Marxism” =/= socialism meaning an economic system or “central planning”."

Marxism is an important socialist theory. It has not been the only one. In the First International Marxism was critizised and opposed by two other theories, mainly anarchism in both proudhonian and bakuninist forms and on the other hand by the british tradition of socialism which sometimes sided with the marxists and in other issues sided with Bakunin in discussions. George Woodcock suggests it was because of the level of sectarianism of Marx himself that the First International collapsed.

Marxism tended to be discarded by socialist and socialdemocratic parties in Europe in the post-war period. But by this time marxism on itself was hardly a "single" marxism but a very plural and sometimes very conflicting point of view inside it. As such it is very hard to see as sharing the same point of view, on the one hand, highly authoritarian people like Stalin, the North Korean leaders and Pol Pot, and on the other hand plainly "libertine" theorists like Herbert Marcuse, Wilhelm Reich and much of the sixties student and countercultural movements and their leaders such as Abbie Hoffman or the organizers of something like Kommune 1 in West Germany. Marcuse, Reich and Hoffman even scared the liberals of their time in their amount of "libertarianism". But even by the 1940s marxists were already murdering each other and so an international theorectical and political leader of the importance of Leon Trotski was murdered by Stalin´s agents. In other episodes we even had actual armed conflict between socialist governements as it happened in the episode where the Vietnam governement overthrowed the Pol Pot regime because of its excesses. In latin american in the currents known there as "socialism of the XXI century" Marx is as influential or even less in some cases as other things like "bolivarianism", "christian socialism", "liberation theology", and in the case of the current socialist government of Chile the Chilean Socialist Party is very much a product of the post-war climate and discussion inside socialist and socialdemocratic parties mentioned before. These particular examples show us that it is better to be more especific in many instances and not overemphasize the supposed "same" viewpoint two or more things might have in common. In some cases it might actually be that their differences are what is more important and not less important or anecdotical agreements. I think marxism is given enough recognition in this article and this going as far as having a section of its own in "social and political theory" and even a photo of Marx himself.--Eduen (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@TIAYN: You misunderstood me - I was stating that Marxism does not equate central planning, a concept that was only developed extensively in the early 20th century. Aside from definitional disputes, we seem to be in agreement on every other point.

@Eduen: The article gives undue weight to talks about the history of struggles and elections of socialist or labor parties when that is not the topic of this article. The topic is socialism, which is largely an abstract concept. Likewise, more weight needs to be given to discussing aspects that are more relevant to understanding the theoretical and practical aspects of socialism. The detailed history of "mass movements" allegedly related to socialism can be discussed in its own article. As it currently stands, it looks as though you are pushing the PoV that socialism is defined as "struggle" as opposed to a socioeconomic system or goal. This is reflective of the type of propaganda found on leftist websites that glorify and equate political struggle/agitation to socialism (while avoiding or downplaying the goal of socialist movements).

The current lead and sections are very inclusive of non-Marxist views of socialism, such as mutualism and anarchist economics, as well as idealist views (that socialism should be implemented because it is "moral"). However you are either removing or downplaying any material that views socialism in a technical (i.e.: something based on economic evolution, rationalism, materialism) in favor of the moral view (that socialism is a hodgepodge of values) as indicated by your continued reversion of the section in the lead touching upon the distinction between the principles of "To each according to his contribution" and "To each according to his need". -Battlecry 08:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The article says, "Post-World War II social democratic governments introduced social reform and wealth redistribution via state welfare and taxation." That is not entirely true, because many social programs (health, welfare and education) are funded through regressive taxation. And of course many non-socialist governments, including the U.S. and Germany, adopted similar policies. But the article should explain why socialist parties adopted these policies, rather than merely explaining what they did. TFD (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. If we are going to include information on the policies or stances adopted by socialist parties, we should include context so readers get an idea of how this relates to socialism or the goals of socialism.-Battlecry 09:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Socialism article include an Advocacy section?

Advocacy section is not needed or desired for this article.--v/r - T P 20:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Survey

Support as proposer based on three arguments: 1. I believe a significant proportion of readers approach the article wishing to find out the strengths and weaknesses of Socialist economic and political thought, based on a range of opinions from economists, politicians, campaigners, environmentalists etc. The article only offers a Criticism section and not an Advocacy one, therefore this article does not offer that function. 2. Including a Criticism section and not an Advocacy one upsets the neutrality of the article, giving unfair weight to one viewpoint of a much-debated topic. 3. Socialism is widely regarded to be the alternative economic system to Capitalism, therefore it is reasonable to expect that many readers will view both articles if they start researching either topic. The Capitalism article includes both an Advocacy and a Criticism section, unlike this article which only includes the latter (also please note that the Capitalism article is not tagged for a dispute in neutrality but rather giving undue coverage to certain countries, therefore its Advocacy/Criticism structure has been accepted). While I realise the WP:Other stuff exists argument is not adequate for a sole basis of reasoning, the guidelines do state that it can be valid reasoning in some circumstances in order to maintain consistency of Wikipedia as a whole. I think it applies to this circumstance. Thank you for your time, any input would be greatly appreciated. Autonova (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
~~Divided~~ Disagree I'd argue that the Capitalism article should not have an advocacy section rather because those sections are, in general, WP:NPOV minefields. However before I would be comfortable coming down on one side or the other on this issue I'd like to see what articles on other political and economic models do. Does Merchantilism or Gold Standard have an advocacy section? How about Democracy or Authoritarianism? Simonm223 (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Disagree The description of various perspectives on socialism in this article already touches upon the academic arguments in favor of socialism in a neutral manner. Adding a specific section on advocacy would likely incite highly biased POV in favor of specific socialist ideologies or straw-men arguments. The capitalism article should be devoid of an "advocacy" section as well. -Battlecry 09:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Disagree Good articles do not have criticism or advocacy sections, because both should be incorporated into other sections of the article. TFD (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Side note You should break each part seperately.
1 Oppose! Strengths and weakness? A strength in one place could be a weakness in another. What worked for the USSR may not have for China.
2 Aprove but keep both simple. Both are thruout the article I would assume.
3 OPPOSE!!! If you want to form any kind of consensus about the capitalism page you should do it on the capitalism page.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Advocacy isn't a very good opposite for Criticism. Criticism although most commonly used to highlight negative points can include positive points. Where as advocacy doesn't really mean to analyses in the same way. Rather it is the act of promoting something. If the Capitalism advocacy section is anything to go by I oppose. It seems an opportunity to say this section isn't natural, read some unmitigated praise. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This article needs an advocacy section - the Capitalism article has one, this one should too. I am not informed enough of the topic to make one from scratch, but I thought I should suggest it. 151.224.55.55 (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that falls into an WP:OSE type of suggesting or not. But either way, that Capitalism article is currently tagged for having a potentially biased approach. Aren't we currently getting away from advocacy/criticism sections on Wikipedia currently, by working such content into the body of the article? ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope so. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. An advocacy section would be unhelpful. bobrayner (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Capitalism article is tagged for bias towards covering specific geopolitical regions, not bias in favour of the economic model itself. I'd dispute the neutrality of this article, since it only has a Criticism section and no Advocacy one. If I did my research and created one, in a similar style to the Capitalism section, would this be acceptable? Autonova (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Autonova: Socialism is not an economic system... People refer to socialism to mean a lots of different things, for instance, a stage of development, economics, or use it interchangeably with social democracy and Third Way. So no, it is not needed. --TIAYN (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@TIAYN: Socialism is an economic system, based on the first sentence of this article and the second sentence of your post. I'm aware it is a broader term than Capitalism, however it is widely regarded to be the main economic alternative to it. I would guess that half of all traffic for this article is from people who wish to find out its pros and cons, as seen by economists, politicians, social activists, environmentalists etc, in exactly the same fashion as the Capitalism article. It's biased for an article to have a Criticism section but not an Advocacy one. Autonova (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of the philosophy section is about reasons for advocating socialism, as is some of the material under "Social and Political Theory" which discusses the arguments for the emergence of socialism by Marx, Veblen and Schumpeter. There is no need for a specific advocacy section, and such a format is not consistent with the format of other articles (save for the non-NPOV capitalism article). -Battlecry 09:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

After thinking about it for a while I don't think an advocacy section would help here. Perhaps it's time to see about removing it from the capitalism article with appropriate redistribution and reordering of content. Simonm223 (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joining "Philosophy" and "Social and political theory"

As i have argued before the terms "philosophy" and "theory" are very close to each other in meaning so as to make it an clear excess to have separate sections on that. On top a lot of the affirmations on the "philosophy" section in particular are very vague. Also i am trying to address the issue of article lenght with this proposal. That is why i am putting in consideration here a User page in my name of a proposal for a single "Social and political theory" section instead of the two existing right now. The link is User:Eduen/Socialism.--Eduen (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy has a normative element to it. Social and political theory includes subjects that are supposedly positive/descriptive, such as theories on how socialism will emerge or the underlying causes that make it inevitable. The two are not necessarily the same thing. Perhaps the section needs to be renamed, or some of the subsections should be placed in one or the other section, but there is clearly a difference in discussing the nature of "freedom" and, say, discussing historical materialism or evolutionary economics (the latter two don't easily fall under the label of "philosophy"). -Battlecry 08:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as content, the "philosophy section" was very vague and the sourcing was very bad. At times that sounded like a personal essay and not a description of main themes of socialism supported by sources dealing with socialist philosophy in general. As it stands now it supports most of its affirmations with "marxists say" or "marxists think". Lets remember we are writing the "socialism" article and not the "marxism" article. That section is by far the weakest in this article and a lot of it is mentioned in a better form elsewhere with more clarity as far as where a particular proposal is linked with history. Clearly the Social and political theory section was better sourced and clearly dealing with historically speaking easily identifiable subjects. As far as the "normative element" all of that is dealt with in "politics" section where the different types of socialism are dealt with a their particular proposals for society. In you proposal it is clear that "philosophy" and "politics" section become redundant.

As far as the marxist teleology of "first socialism then communism" it simply cannot be in this article´s introduction. We are dealing with socialism in general and so not all socialist sectors agree with this marxist teleology. We have been discussing this before and there is simply no agreement on keeping this marxist teleology in the intro representing all of socialism.--Eduen (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Marxist views on each subsection should be included, but properly attributed to Marxist socialists. The views of contrary socialist perspectives can also be included in each subsection, explaining their perspectives on equality, freedom, etc. Again, Marxism has had a very profound impact on socialist philosophy, so we should expect to have those views articulated more prominently than more minor philosophical traditions. As for the lead, I would suggest either adding an addendum at the end of the sentence on distribution, stating that this was the Marxist perspective of socialism and communism. This is, as Michaelwuzthere pointed out, an important thing to mention for the subject of socialism because many prospective readers will be coming to this article to seek clarification on the difference between socialism, communism and their relationship, particularly in regards to Marxist-Leninist theory/existing socialist states.-Battlecry 09:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As i have explained before, the principle of "to each according to their need from each according to their possibilities" is not on itself only summarized under the word "communism". It is a principle which has appeared as a form of radical republicanism or as an extension of republicanism to the economic field. As such someone like Thomas Paine could propose a form of Basic Income coming only from republican liberal positions with no "communist" notions involved. Also contemporary advanced Welfare states put in practice a form of "to each according to their need" when they provide universal healthcare programs or in some cases free education, something which is even provided by the US up to the secondary education level but in scandinavian countries and in some south american ones up to the university level. This is why both principles have to be mentioned and "to each according to their contribution" is not the only principle put forward by socialists.

Marxism is well included in this article going as far as incluiding a picture of him and a section dedicated on marxism itself. A different thing is to present a marxist notion even by name so as to present that as representing all socialism. One of my main concerns on the very weak section called "philosophy" which i am proposing to merging with "social theory" is that it is undersourced and in some cases only presents some vague arguments as coming from marxists. I ask User Battlecry to defend his position of keeping this very weak and qestionable "philosophy" section basing on the merits of it as it stands right now. As i see it, that section is only occupying space which should be left for more clear and important information and in order to manage the article´s lenght and weight. I aslo ask user Battlecry to respond to my previous response to his reversion of my edition. He should answer on the topic of the "normative" element which he said exists in the philosophy section. i answered him that the "normative" element is already well present in the "politics" section.

As far as readers coming on information on "Marxist-Leninist theory/existing socialist states", when actually reading the article they will start to notice that socialism is not reducible to the leninist one party states but that is in fact a much wider political position. then when they reach the "History" section there are many links, mentions and explanations on the Soviet Union, eastern europe states, China and Vietnam. So they can go to those article to get information on that. In the politics section i also included a section on "leninism" as a political form and so these users can go to the "leninism" article.--Eduen (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Likewise, more weight needs to be given to discussing aspects that are more relevant to understanding the theoretical and practical aspects of socialism."

Frankly by this point i really don´t know what user Battlecry is referring to. All of this is well present in history, social theory and politics sections. He keeps repeating this sentence and he never explains what he means by it but to me it is clear all of this is well present in all of these sections.

"The current lead and sections are very inclusive of non-Marxist views of socialism, such as mutualism and anarchist economics, as well as idealist views (that socialism should be implemented because it is "moral"). However you are either removing or downplaying any material that views socialism in a technical (i.e.: something based on economic evolution, rationalism, materialism) in favor of the moral view (that socialism is a hodgepodge of values) as indicated by your continued reversion of the section in the lead touching upon the distinction between the principles of "To each according to his contribution" and "To each according to his need"."

I ask user Battlecry to point out to us where exactly does this article mention "moral views" of socialism. He is saying that i am proposing "moral views" and in order to support this accusation he gives us a very vague and questionable reason such as "either removing or downplaying any material that views socialism in a technical (i.e.: something based on economic evolution, rationalism, materialism)". In fact i added a sentence on the influence that positivism had in early socialism and so it is clear that one cannot get more rationalistic and materialistic than positivism. I also added in the merging of the "philosophy" and "social theory" sections a photo of non a less materialistic, rationalistic, overt-evolutionary and tecnocratic personality than Saint Simon himself. It was in fact user Battlecry who took out that photo when he reverted this proposal. By this point i can only argue that this particular accusation of user Battlecry is absurd. But a different thing is to include people like that and mentioning their arguments and another is to adhere to the views of them as representing all of socialism. In something as plural and multiple as socialism we will only do justice if we keep attention to that main characteristic of socialism.

As far as "the distinction between the principles of "To each according to his contribution" and "To each according to his need"." i have only pointed out that these have not been only proposed by marxism, that they can be said to be present in positions such as anarchism and socialdemocracy, and that "to each according to their needs" is not reducible to communism. Also that both principles can coexist. And i should also add that communism is not a goal of all socialists and that in fact some socialists reject communism incluiding Bakunin, Proudhon and most socialdemocracy. On the other hand communists such as anarcho communists in the line of Errico Malatesta do not argue for the elimination of all private property but an economic pluralism based mostly on cooperatives which also includes a place for artisans and peasants working individually which is very different to the scheme of Stalin and Mao Tse tung which can be said to not even being "communist" (self governing communes-not state claiming to represent communes) but in fact of the nationalisation of everything. As far as the socialism article, the main economic concept should be "socialisation" and that will have to explain how things have been proposed to being socialised in schemes such as nationalisation, communisation, libertarian municipalism (Paris Commune), workers and consumer cooperatives, state control of labour markets and taxation, workers councils and consumer councils.--Eduen (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Just putting this out there, since I continue to get notifications from this. I am giving up on this page for the time being. The rules of Wikipedia are continuously violated by users who have agendas to push their personal views on socialism. Socialism as a scientific economic theory has largely been purged from the content of the page and been replaced with socialism as a pie in the sky moral standpoint, and more blatantly promoting propaganda on the evils of big bad revolutionary/state socialists while social democrats/libertarian socialists are put on a pedestal of moral high ground. I have had enough of it, this article is turning into complete trash and I wouldn't suggest it as reliable to anyone. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Clearly we are dealing with a political movement and not with just scientific discussions. So frankly talk of "Socialism as a scientific economic theory" seems to me is a problematic that will certainly be strange when dealing with political discussions in which interests, ideologies and issues of power are the main issues. Anyone can go check the articles on liberalism, fascism, conservatism and anarchism and see that there is not a single mention of "scientific economic discussion" since clearly we are dealing there as we are here with political ideologies and movements. We simply have different political positions debating againts each other and we have to mention them and their debates alongside main events. In fact "scientific economic discussion" sounds to me like we will have to deal with the discussions of academics and frankly we are dealing with a social and political movement in which for various reasons academics will have much less influence than in their universities. As far as unfair treatment of revolutionary/state socialists i really don´t see that. In fact i was the one that added mentions of Eastern bloc countries and a description of Soviet Union events up to the dissolution of it as well as adding leninism in the politics section and a photo of Lenin and Trotsky themselves. Criticisms of social democrats are also mentioned such as Rosa Luxembourg critizicing Edward Bernstein and i am the person who added the establishment of communist parties around the world motivated by the creation of the Soviet Union. As far as "pie in the sky moral standpoint" i can suggest to user Michaelwuzthere to explain himself in a clearer form which might mean reducing the sarcasm a little and explaining this problematic of ethical socialism in a more direct form. As i read both the "scientific socialism" and the "ethical socialism" articles I got what i expected from the first one. Namely that overassociating science with a political movement will be highly problematic and that it is mainly a word that was proposed by a section of marxism but since marxism is highly diverse on itself there is not even a consensus of that within it. As far as ethical socialism i see that it is a term that is highly related with British socialism but it seems to me that it is a discussion too specific to deserve a mention in the main socialism article and this mainly since tendencies like Fabianism and Guild socialism are mentioned as well in the main socialism article already.--Eduen (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Eduen: While I agree with you on many things, I agree that there is too little emphasise on Marxism. You seem to think of Marxism as a distinct category all together, forgetting that Marxism as influenced and changed socialism permanently, no other philosophy has done that... Secondly, scientific socialism is synonymous with Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism etc - its not a branch, its Marxism practiced by communists. All communists are scientific socialists, and consider Marxism as science (another explanation for China's economic reforms, since everything changes, even science, as they say)... In addition, while its true, you explain certain positions in the History section, you don't actual focus on them... At last, there are a number of inaccuracies, often attributed to much generalization, for instance; "Mikhail Gorbachev wished to move the USSR in the direction of Nordic-style social democracy, calling it "a socialist beacon for all mankind." ... He still called himself a communists in his last speech as President of the Soviet Union, its a strange that a guy who called himself communist was a social democrat, isn't it? ..... In addition, he wanted the Soviet Union to become "a socialist beacon for all mankind" (stating this in 1985, right after taking office). --TIAYN (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There are marxists such as the Frankfurt School (highly prominent within the social sciences) that distanced themselves from overassociation with "science" since they were critical of positivism and of soviet marxism. Herbert Marcuse even wrote a whole book on the dogmatism and idealism of the whole soviet marxism system and its implications in epistemology and methodology. Even on the discussions between leninists there is clearly controversies which have not gone in the direction of the natural sciences and in fact have been solved by purges and sometimes murder as when Stalin assasinated Trotsky so i think we will have to be careful on not embracing too much this view of marxism-leninism as a "science" since clearly it is composed of discussions between political factions, interests, mass movements and of global geopolitics and not just of academics as it is the case in science. As far as the distinction between what is different or contrary to "scientific socialism" i can say there is this "ethic socialism" that other users around here have mentioned but also the one i knew which is "utopian socialism". Maybe we should mention this scientific socialism in the marxism section in the social and political theory section since it seems to be mostly a marxist concept. But of course someone like Saint Simon was highly scientistic and technocratic and a precursor of positivism yet i guess marxists of the "scientific" sort will think he is not "scientific" but "utopian". As far as Gorbachev he has had a few attempts in establishing a socialdemocratic party in the Russian Federation but i guess he is still very unpopular since it seems many people there see him as someone who ruined the USSR. So one can think that he is a socialdemocrat and that even though he was speaking in Communist Party jargon, deep inside he wanted to move the USSR towards a system similar to nordic socialdemocracy. As far as the truth for this only he knows but the mention of Gorbachev and socialdemocracy was already present in this article when i came to edit the history section so i really did not add it. I just kept it since it was sourced and because it had a lot to do with discussion between socialist sections and schools of thought and because it involved a prominent influential socialist political leader such as the President of the Soviet Union.--Eduen (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I am in general agreement with Michaelwuzthere. This article is taking an increasingly moralist / ethical standpoint where socialism is presented as either an ideal that can be implemented (that distribution according to need can be implemented at any time and is not contingent upon a certain level of technological development in production), or as a collection of vague values (progressive social causes, opposition to inequality, etc.) which could just as easily describe the ideals of social liberalism. Eduen fails to realize that socialism is juxtaposed with capitalism and is not synonymous to purely political concepts like liberalism (although there is certainly some overlap between socio-economic concepts and political concepts). Frankly, the content and modifications by this user resemble the kind of confirmation bias I would expect to hear from American conservatives about "socialism" being an moralist concept with no technical and/or economic grounding, where instead of acknowledging the concept and discussions of its development (as an objective system(s) to be attained) there is sole emphasis on the history and actions of socialist parties/politicians with little to no connection to what any of that has to do with socialism.

As for Mikhail Gorbachev being a social democrat, sources indicate he wanted to move the USSR toward a market socialist system - one which retained public ownership of at least major industries, and not the Nordic model. The source by Noami Klein only states that Gorbachev was inspired by the Nordic model, but wanted to combine aspects of it - free markets and a social safety net - with public ownership; not that he wanted to implement the Nordic model in the former USSR.^[1] However, there are sources that state that Gorbachev was not even in favor of market socialism but was committed to maintaining and strengthening the centrally-planned system with his reforms.^[2]

In regards to "scientific socialism", I never stated that this article needs to take the scientific socialist (orthodox Marxist) perspective. But it does need to take into account that the vast majority of literature on socialist economics and theories of its emergence are based on the general perspective that socialism is not simply an ideal to be implemented, but the outcome of technological processes interacting with social processes which make it feasible; and that socialism is heavily influenced by a broad desire to "rationalize" society and the economy. This applies to resolutely anti-Marx sociological thinkers such as Thorstein Veblen and Joseph Schumpeter, and even "bourgeosise" economists who were socialists but could hardly be called Marxist (such as Enrico Barone and Abba Lerner). Even Marxist thinkers who downplayed the technical preconditions for socialism relative to ethical factors (such as Bernstein and Mao) still held some notion of this perspective. Aside from more contemporary social democrats (meaning those who define "socialism" as socially-liberal values), you will be hard pressed to find any serious scholarly literature advocating socialism solely on the basis of ideals and values.

Nowhere did I imply that all socialists believe that communism (distribution according to need) is the inevitable outcome of socialism. What I take issue with is how you present this concept in the lead which again, sounds like American conservative confirmation bias - that socialists want to ration goods and services based on collectively-determined needs - when in reality, "distribution according to need" is only predicted to emerge (primarily by Marxists) when the productive forces allow for superabundance and "distribution according to contribution" becomes unnecessary. It is true that some socialist groups (such as Anarcho-communism and the World Socialist Movement) believe that productive technology is already sufficiently advanced to allow for an end to scarcity, but this is quite beside the point and doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead.

My point regarding the weight given to social and political theory versus history is that the Marxism section (and related sections on socialist theory) need to be expanded to include more of the technical aspect of socialism, and the "History" section needs to be drastically shortened.-Battlecry 05:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually socialism is an ideological family just as liberalism is. There are socialist and liberal parties. Liberals also had a view of what was wrong with pre-liberal states, but disagreed about the approach to take and what type of society should develop. The only difference is that liberals have transformed nations into liberal states; socialists never did. But reliable sources on political families will have sections on liberalism, socialism, and other ideologies. And the "Nordic model" was not socialism, but the policies of socialist governments that combined the interests of workers, peasants and the bourgeoisie. They apparently believed that education and the improvement of living standards of workers would trigger a peaceful revolution into a socialist state, but that never happened. TFD (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Battlecry: "This article is taking an increasingly moralist / ethical standpoint where socialism is presented as either an ideal that can be implemented (that distribution according to need can be implemented at any time and is not contingent upon a certain level of technological development in production), or as a collection of vague values (progressive social causes, opposition to inequality, etc.) which could just as easily describe the ideals of social liberalism."

Frankly i don´t know where user Battlecry finds the tendency of this article turning "moralist". I ask User Battlecry to point out to specific affirmations where the article is advocating "moralism" and the other things he says. Otherwise i am really having trouble understanding what he is talking about at all. This user has been saying the same thing over and over without pointing to specific examples.

"Frankly, the content and modifications by this user resemble the kind of confirmation bias I would expect to hear from American conservatives about "socialism" being an moralist concept with no technical and/or economic grounding, where instead of acknowledging the concept and discussions of its development (as an objective system(s) to be attained) there is sole emphasis on the history and actions of socialist parties/politicians with little to no connection to what any of that has to do with socialism."

Mmmmm. Self described socialist politicians, parties and movements. That is the strongest "relationship" to socialism that anything can have and so it makes us having to talk about them in this article. As far as "objective systems" i send again this user to check the inmense discussions within and outside socialism whether somenthing is or is not socialist and the history of concepts like "state capitalism", "social fascism", "degenerated workers state", and others. Saying this and something else is not socialist will take us very close to a bias towards one or another other position which we cannot have in wikipedia. All we should do here is, as wikipedia states in WP:IMPARTIAL: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."

"In regards to "scientific socialism", I never stated that this article needs to take the scientific socialist (orthodox Marxist) perspective. But it does need to take into account that the vast majority of literature on socialist economics and theories of its emergence are based on the general perspective that socialism is not simply an ideal to be implemented, but the outcome of technological processes interacting with social processes which make it feasible; and that socialism is heavily influenced by a broad desire to "rationalize" society and the economy."

I think this view is clearly relevant for the "socialist economics" article. Here we are writing the general "socialism" article and so we have to deal also with the political movement and the idea(s) of socialism. Also i ask user Battlecry to point out in the article EXACTLY where the article states that "socialism is ONLY an ideal to be implemented". He sometimes says the article promotes an idealism and then he says that the article overemphasizes politicians and movements. This is clearly an incoherent contradictory argument since politicians and movements take us to the practical implementation of socialist views. So i ask user Battlecry to decide inside him whether this article is idealist or too concentrated on the practical.

"What I take issue with is how you present this concept in the lead which again, sounds like American conservative confirmation bias - that socialists want to ration goods and services based on collectively-determined needs - when in reality, "distribution according to need" is only predicted to emerge (primarily by Marxists) when the productive forces allow for superabundance and "distribution according to contribution" becomes unnecessary. It is true that some socialist groups (such as Anarcho-communism and the World Socialist Movement) believe that productive technology is already sufficiently advanced to allow for an end to scarcity, but this is quite beside the point and doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead."

I have to inform user Battlecry that i am neither someone living in the United States nor someone born there, and so i am not familiar with US conservative thoughts on socialism. I say this since it is the second time that this user brings the issue of the opinions of those people. Frankly for the purpose that have us discussing here i find them very irrelevant and more since we are not writing the socialist article in response to US conservatives views of socialism, or Mozambique fascist´s views of socialism or uruguayan catholics views of socialism, but the wikipedia "socialism" article. Also the particular issue of "rationing" is clearly well beyond the purposes of this article but an article on "rationing" will have to include mentions of rationings that happened under conservative and liberal regimes such as Franco´s Spain as well. But then i really cannot see the logical link with that with the next issue which user Battlecry brings up around some argument on the role of technology. Afterwards User Battlecry responds himself by stating that the teleology that he wants for the intro of this article is a marxist one. So he says that "when in reality, "distribution according to need" is only predicted to emerge (primarily by Marxists) when the productive forces allow for superabundance and "distribution according to contribution" becomes unnecessary". In fact the whole issue of "prediction" here is strange since we are dealing with a social and political movement and not with some sort of magic divination movement which predicts the future. I am aware that Karl Kautsky in particular had a view that socialism was inevitable due to a view of him on the determinism of technological and productive forces. Kautsky is one socialist theorist among others. Rosa Luxembourg was more cautious and suggested "socialism or barbarism" as more than one possibility. As far as this article we should only report on these discussions according to their relevance and influence.--Eduen (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Why I removed the last paragraph in Criticism section

“

Philosophers have also criticized the aims of socialism, arguing that equality erodes away at individual diversities, and that the establishment of an equal society would have to entail strong coercion.^[3]

”

It talked about the supposed total equality of wealth in socialism and the importance of freedom/choices and the diversity of people's desires, etc. This is totally irrelevent. There are two socialist views on how wealth should be distributed: "To each according to need", and "to each according to contribution". Neither of these imply equality of wealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegentlemanfromtralfamadore (talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Criticism should not be placed in a separate section but should be in the relevant parts of the article. TFD (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It paragraph talks about equality, but this can mean different things. For example, it could be talking about equality of opportunity rather than of wealth. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The meaning is clear based on context. The author uses the term "extreme equality", then says it is not a goal of socialism. So in this case we are criticizing socialists for something they do not believe. TFD (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A repetition

As I was reading through the history section, under the topic of "Socialism expands and the First and Second Internationals", I noticed a repetition in the beginning of the last paragraph.

Here is a picture of the repetition.

What else I noticed is that in the first repeat the word "organisations" is in British English while in the second repeat the word "organizations" is in American English. Also, "Second International" in the second repeat isn't linked.

Is there a reason for this repetition or simply a over-sight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siphonaptera (talk • contribs) 09:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Marxist/marxist

Should Marxist be capitalized? The capitalization is not consistent, so it should be changed to be one way or the other. Unless there's some pattern that I'm not seeing... Jwood (leave me a message) See what I'm up to 20:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

In English, it should always be capitalized, and in Spanish not. Zozs (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a misinterpretation about Trotskyists:

Near the middle of the article it states "Marxism–Leninism was the official ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and of the Communist International (1919–43) and later it became the main guiding ideology for Trotskyists, Maoists, and Stalinists." However earlier it states "Trotskyists argued that the Comintern or Third International had become irretrievably "lost to Stalinism" and thus incapable of leading the international working class to political power." And in the article on Trotskyism it states "Trotskyists are critical of Marxism-Leninism, as they oppose the idea of Socialism in One Country." While in the article on Marxism-Leninism it states "[...] the struggle against Marxism–Leninism was led by the Left Opposition (with Trotsky as de facto leader)". Therefore Trotskyism is not Marxism-Leninism. Trotskyism is Bolshevik-Leninism and Trotsky himself was an Orthodox Marxist. I personally can't edit the article, but shouldn't it be edited now to remove the reference saying Trotskyists are Marxist-Leninists? So it should now say "Marxism–Leninism was the official ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and of the Communist International (1919–43) and later it became the main guiding ideology for Maoists and Stalinists." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrollKaiser177 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2014

This edit request to Socialism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"characterized" is misspelled in the first sentence 64.25.221.232 (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: seems a difference between british and american english. not sure which this article is predominantly written in but not a misspelling Cannolis (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Loss free division is no diminution

And the point was to make the entire content of the article more visible/accessible and add the two illustrations. But not going to argue the point, have put more than enough into back and some of the front matter on this article. Lycurgus (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the more appropriate word(s) for social safety nets?

Many people, maybe even most people in the US, use "socialism" to refer social safety nets like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, and the like instead of Marxism or collective ownership. What is the appropriate term for those things taken as a whole? 71.215.67.106 (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no one term, but various terms are used such as "welfare", "welfare state", "social services" or your term, "social safety net." And various terms have also been used for specific cases, such as "social liberalism", state socialism", "social democracy", "tory paternalism". TFD (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

[Don't know what happened, but my additions became mixed up with some deletions that appeared in the history to have been done by me in the same edit, but certainly were not done on purpose] Thank you for undoing it. If it was finger trouble on my part, apologies. I think 'welfare state' is preferable to the other terms in the list above.

Gravuritas (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you edited on an old version of the page. That happens, never mind. Cheers. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Socialism generally isn't defined as "Marxism", not even by Marxists. Socialism is commonly understood as a hypothetical economic system juxtaposed with capitalism. An appropriate term for social safety nets would be "welfare state" and "social services". A term for an entire economy that features lots of welfare and social safety nets would be "welfare capitalism" or the "social market economy" (the latter referring to the European welfare capitalist model). The term for the ideologies that advocate social safety nets and welfare states are "social liberalism", "social democracy" (particularly in Europe) and "Christian democracy". -Battlecry 01:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy: Perspectives on Equality

Buenos-Ding-Dong-Didily-Dias:

I noticed that this section talks about Roemer's view of socialism, which I think the article gets right. *But* it might be worth noting Jeffrey Reiman's criticism of Roemer, where he argues that exploitation is not merely the unequal distribution of assets but the fact that the exploited are *forced* to make surplus-value for another powerful group. That comes from "Exploitation, Force, and the Moral Assessment of Capitalism" in Exploitation edited by Kai Nielsen and Robert Ware. Or perhaps a line saying that his understanding is contentious would suffice, and the aforementioned source could be cited.

Anyways, just a suggestion.

Saludos!

70.72.45.131 (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that inequality is not exploitation per se, exploitation is structural coercion inherent to capitalism (and other class-based societies), and this is how the vast majority of socialists have understood exploitation. The reason I included Roemer is because his perspective on distributive justice is actually quite prominent and has been advocated by ethical "socialists" and contemporary Social Democrats during in the latter half of the 20th century up till the present. But I never intended to make it sound as though Roemer's view is *the* major perspective of inequality/exploitation in the socialist movement.

It would be more fruitful if the article discussed more of these dichotomies between socialists rather than taking so much space describing the historical exploits of self-avowed socialist or labor parties.-Battlecry 06:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding the Australian Fabian Society to the Socialism Portal

There is an article about the Australian Fabian Society, I suggest you add it to this portal and make some alterations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.22.102 (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015

This edit request to Socialism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

Characterized is misspelled. It should be spelled with a z not an s. Zach lukas97 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: That is the British English form of the word, this article is to be written in British English (see the notice on the top of this page). Kharkiv07 ^Talk 23:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed references to Blanquism

Lenin's paper "What is to be Done?" is not an accurate source as it was written almost 20 years prior to the Russian Revolution, when Revolutionary parties were illegal and suppressed, and well before the Bolsheviks were an open, large, and popular party. Blanquism is not Marxist nor Marxism, Leninism is not Blanquism. Therefore, Blanquism doesn't belong on this article in general and should not be referred to one in the same as Marxism Leninism specifically. In 1917 Lenin himself commented on how the Bolsheviks were not Blanquist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.50.3 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2015

This edit request to Socialism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Jawaharlal Nehru was Prime Minister of India. It is erroneously mentioned in the article that he was President. 103.232.224.249 (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Confusion should not reign

The article starts with a clear statement that Socialism means two things: "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.." However, the second para "A socialist economy is based on the principle of production for use,.." seems to me to refer to the theoretical socialist system, rather than real-world implementations of what is claimed to be socialism. Given the clarity of the opening statement, I would like this clarity maintained throughout the article, e.g. by inserting 'theoretical' as the second word in the second para, and similar changes to avoid confusion between statements that refer to the real world and statements that refer to hypothetical constructs. Any objections? Gravuritas (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The opening paragraph isn't specific enough with what "social ownership" implies. The second paragraph goes into more detail as to what social ownership implied traditionally (a system of production for use, meaning socialized assets are operated according to economic dynamics than the profit system of capitalism). As for "real-world" systems, there is no agreement as to whether or not socialism has ever been fully achieved in the "real world". Note that the official orientation of Soviet-style economies (assuming that is what you mean by "real-world implementations") was to plan production for use via material balances as opposed to relying on profit-loss signals for the guidance of production. So the concept of "production for use", while admittedly a broad generalization, is not something relegated to pure economic/political theory. -Battlecry 20:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Considering the fact that it seems like this page has defined socialism as what Marx defined communism to be I'm a bit confused as well. Marx based his utopian vision on actual real world systems that were being recorded in the travel logs of European explorers, anthropologists, traders, etc (which is why it was a 'primitive' system within his unilinear model). It might be better to define socialism as any economic system or subsystem organized around and driven by social interaction, relationships, and sociality, since there are real world examples of such systems. I don't know if that definition is out there though and is original research on my end (most definitions for socialism are functionally crap), but I think some close approximation would go far to improving the page. 76.7.208.79 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ill formed sentence in Criticism §

Other economists ^[who?] criticise models of socialism based on neoclassical economics for their reliance on economic equilibrium and pareto efficiency.^[4]

I think what is meant here is that standard bourgeois economists do so, the text as is is unworkable. I'll review the source and put the text back properly composed shortly. Stiglitz is not such an Economist.

^ Klein, Naomi (2008). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Picador. ISBN 0312427999 p. 276
^ Bialer, Seweryn, and Joan Afferica. "The Genesis of Gorbachev's World", Foreign Affairs 64, no. 3 (1985): 605–644.
^ Self, Peter. Socialism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p. 339 "Extreme equality overlooks the diversity of individual talents, tastes and needs, and save in a utopian society of unselfish individuals would entail strong coercion; but even short of this goal, there is the problem of giving reasonable recognition to different individual needs, tastes (for work or leisure) and talents. It is true therefore that beyond some point the pursuit of equality runs into controversial or contradictory criteria of need or merit."
^ Stiglitz, Joseph (January 1996). Whither Socialism?. The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262691826. .

Lycurgus (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So the title is unavailable in electronic form, I've ordered it with expedited shipping. There's no page reference but if someone has a copy ... . Lycurgus (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The base thing I think that it was attempted to say here (the part about equilibria anyway) though is cogent. You can't base models of the new society on the assumed basis of the old. Pareto optimality less so or not at all, expect that to be totally reversed. Lycurgus (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So this has arrived and in fact p7 where the fundamental theorems of welfare economics and pareto are highlighted (i.e it's a used text) correspond more or less to the sentence but the entirety of the work to some extent is relevant. Apparently where the original sentence had the weasel collective there's an actual codification of some body of economic thought in this specific work so that will be the nature of the redact. Lycurgus (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Replaced this with the indicated redact. Lycurgus (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

We should delete the section. Criticism should be entered in appropriate sections rather than be in a criticism ghetto. The British Labour Party for example embraced neo-classical economics before the Conservatives, so the criticism makes no sense. TFD (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In this case that seems to be contraindicated, inasmuch as opposition/criticism of socialism is on a scale comparable to the thing itself and there is a main article. Not sure how UK politics are determinative of anything outside the UK or to what extent it (Labour) should be considered a voice worth hearing either way on the (general) matter of socialism. Lycurgus (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

However there's a redundant critique section which a) is a candidate to merge into this section and b) fails to mention Sartre's critique (of dialectical reason). Lycurgus (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

[1] Klein, Naomi (2008). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Picador. ISBN 0312427999 p. 276

[2] Bialer, Seweryn, and Joan Afferica. "The Genesis of Gorbachev's World", Foreign Affairs 64, no. 3 (1985): 605–644.

[Self-3] Self, Peter. Socialism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p. 339 "Extreme equality overlooks the diversity of individual talents, tastes and needs, and save in a utopian society of unselfish individuals would entail strong coercion; but even short of this goal, there is the problem of giving reasonable recognition to different individual needs, tastes (for work or leisure) and talents. It is true therefore that beyond some point the pursuit of equality runs into controversial or contradictory criteria of need or merit."

[4] Stiglitz, Joseph (January 1996). Whither Socialism?. The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262691826. .

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]