Talk:Socialism/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Socialism Lost

Not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is the obvious fact that socialism lost conveniently swept under the rug? I mean, even if you accept every argument for socialism as true and all the arguments against it as false that doesn't change the historical reality that socialism lost. I don't have a problem with different points of view, I do have a problem with being delusional. Socialism lost. Why is there absolutely no effort to explain this? CJK (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Was it extirpated, CJK, vernichtet, wiped? Anyway read the talkheader. Lycurgus (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC) I suggest you clarify your comment a little bit more. Anyway i will have to remind you that most of latin america is being governed by left wing governments. In the cases of Brazil, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Uruguay by ex guerrilla fighters. France, Greece and a big part of scandinavia are being governed by socialist and socialdemocratic parties. Leftist coalitions won the recent local elections in Spain and now they are governing the cities of Madrid, Barcelona, Seville and Valencia. China, the most populated country in the world, is still governed by a Communist Party while a socialdemocratic party in Canada is gaining power to the point of really becoming a threat to the usual canadian biparty system of conservatives and liberals. The world Financial crisis of 2007–08 has also taken force away from the positions of proponents of laissez fair capitalism and political parties in Europe and Latin America run on campaign proposals opposed to "neoliberalism" and conservative economic austerity. I will have to point out to you that not all socialism calls for the elimination of all capitalists. China is governed by a Communist Party and yet it has a lot of rich people while the state there regulates and directs the economy and has kept banking under direct state property. Old style soviet systems still exist in places like Cuba and North Korea and there are socialist and communist parties almost in every country in the world and many of them are governing countries or have very large followings.--Eduen (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC) And even in the land of the free, Bernie Sanders is doing better than any socialist contender for president in 100 years. TFD (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC) But that is my point. All the new "socialist" movements are not socialist by any classical definition of socialism. The heartland of real actual socialism, where capitalism was utterly abolished, collapsed like a house of cards in 1989-91. No explanation is given for this, either from a socialist or capitalist perspective. That is my problem with the article. CJK (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Can you make a specific suggestion on were the article needs improving. You seem to be misrepresenting the article when you say things have been 'swept under the rug'. For example, the Dissolution of the Soviet Union is mentioned and the relevant is article linked to, in the Late 20th Century section. Although, it is tacked on the end of a paragraph mainly about China - it probably should have its own paragraph. The lede could probably be improved to better summarize the content, although this a broad article so is tricky. Also note, the article isn't specifically or just about the History of socialism, so the Philosophy, Economics etc. sections need to be given appropriate weight. Socialism lost, although true by some definitions, is an over simplification. Worse it isn't very descriptive for people wishing to get deeper into the topic.Jonpatterns (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Well for starters there should be independent section describing in detail the collapse of the socialist bloc. One of the most important events in the history of the world, directly relevant to socialism, is treated as an unimportant afterthought. In fact the entire tone of the article comes off as somewhat delusional in view of the fact that... socialism lost. It is not an "oversimplification". The entire heartland of socialism collapsed, and no new governments are trying to nationalize the means of production. It doesn't get much more decisive than that. CJK (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC) I've reverted this edit. To call it an "oversimplification" is a polite way of putting it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC) I wrote following the collapse of much of the socialist world in the late 20th century orthodox socialism is no longer widely implemented. How is that statement untrue? CJK (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC) What is "the collapse of much of the socialist world"? What is "orthodox socialism"? What does "no longer widely implemented" mean, specifically? Where is the helpful encyclopedic content in that commentary? Where are your sources? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC) 1. The collapse of the socialist world refers to the Revolutions of 1989 and the Dissolution of the Soviet Union. 2. Orthodox socialism means state ownership of all the means of production. 3. "No longer widely implemented" should be self-explanatory. Only Cuba and North Korea are implementing it. 4. Stating the rather blindingly obvious facts would be rather helpful in an encyclopedia. 5. If you haven't done basic research (like not knowing the socialist world collapsed) you should not be editing this article. CJK (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC) All your arguments seem to be based on the assumption that socialism simply means the former communist states. That is quite untrue, as others have correctly said. And, again, where are your sources? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC) What are you talking about? The former communist states were socialist and they collapsed hence the collapse of much of the socialist world. This is not very hard. CJK (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Ghmyrtle is absolutely correct. Socialism ≠ Marxism–Leninism. Socialism predates the Marxist–Leninist states of the 20th century, which many prominent socialists nowadays, including Noam Chomsky and the late Howard Zinn, refer to as state capitalism. Even Eugene V. Debs, perhaps the most famous of all American socialists, declared shortly after Russian Revolution that the Bolsheviks were not socialists and refused to ally with the American Communist Party. What CJK seeks to push here is blatant American triumphalism, and a gross distortion of both socialism and history.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC) The Soviet Union should probably have its own paragraph in the Late 20th Century section. There could be mention of State socialism no longer being widely implemented. @CJK: Communism is not the only form of socialism. You are oversimplifying in that it doesn't help in the understanding of the subject. Your argument relies one specific narrow definition of socialism, and one specific framing of events. For example, you could equally say 'capitalism' lost, see mixed economy. BTW Cuba is a mixed economy ref. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Pretty much everyone else on record from the very beginning describes Marxists-Leninists as socialists, and they are mentioned as socialists in this very article! I'm sorry to burst your delusions but the opinion of (BLP infringement redacted) like Chomsky is the not word of God. You have serious issues if you accept him as a reliable source. Communism is certainly not the only form of socialism, but was without doubt the most influential manifestation of socialism in practice in the 20th century. Pointing out the collapse should therefore be a no-brainer. CJK (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Not only that, but Cuba has also done some amazing things in healthcare recently[1][2]. Hard to call that a failure...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC) What a ridiculous comment. So Cuba is Socialist but the USSR & co. weren't? I guess you are a Chomsky fan after all. CJK (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC) suggest you rethink this. You're gonna get a timed ban again if you keep headed in this direction. Maybe take a less high profile, more on-topic article for this such as those about the east block collapse. Lycurgus (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC) The Columbia encyclopedia says Recently, the collapse of Eastern European and Soviet Communist states has led socialists throughout the world to discard much of their doctrines regarding centralized planning and nationalization of enterprises. [3] That's pretty much the same thing I said, so what's the problem? CJK (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC) That is quiet different from following the collapse of much of the socialist world in the late 20th century orthodox socialism is no longer widely implemented. It states specifically, 'collapse of Eastern European and Soviet Communist states' and 'discard much of their doctrines regarding centralized planning and nationalization of enterprises'. Something along the lines of the Columbia encyclopedia sources would be okay I think.Jonpatterns (talk) From the Columbia entry above: 'In the past 150 years there have been innumerable differing socialist programs. For this reason socialism as a doctrine is ill defined, although its main purpose, the establishment of cooperation in place of competition remains fixed.' This is precisely why the article should NOT advance the fallacious notion that Marxist-Leninist systems constitute "orthodox socialism."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC) No, it's pretty much the same thing I said. But I can work with it if you can. In case you haven't noticed all the original socialist states were Marxist-Leninist, hence the "orthodox" label. Your contention that they were not really socialist is an utterly laughable attempt to rewrite history, sustained primarily by discredited radicals who have a vested interest in perpetuating said myth. CJK (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC) As far as I can tell no one is claiming the communist states weren't socialist, just communist states are not the entirety of socialism. following the collapse of much of the socialist world <> the collapse of Eastern European and Soviet Communist states.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Well, they were the majority of socialist states at the time. One last thing: my point still stands that socialism lost. If you abandon state ownership, that means you have private ownership, which means you have (gasp) capitalism. We're saying exactly the same thing just differently. CJK (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Just looking over the above conversation, the fact that you think non–Marxist–Leninist variants of socialism are "new" tells me you know absolutely nothing about socialism. You obviously have never heard of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Eugene V. Debs, Ferdinand Lassalle, Eduard Bernstein, Peter Kropotkin, Alexander Berkman, Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, and many other prominent socialist leaders and philosophers who were not adherents of Marxism–Leninism, and in many cases preceded it. Syndicalism and industrial democracy gained significant traction in the late 19th and early 20th century. Ever heard of the Industrial Workers of the World? I thought not. And then there were the social democratic movements which blossomed in Western Europe around the same time (which today provide much higher standards of living in places like Scandinavia, especially compared to the cutthroat neoliberal capitalism of the US, with high rates of inequality, child poverty and mass incarceration of marginalized populations. The exploitation of wage labor by big business is so bad nowadays that working class people are being described by sociologists as a "precariat", but I digress). Not only that, but no scholar worth his salt would declare that Marxism–Leninism is the "classical" definition of socialism. You're just making up total bullshit out of whole cloth. The classical definition of socialism would include the workers cooperative ownership and democratic control of the means of production (NOT ownership by an all–powerful state), and production utilized to satisfy human needs instead of accumulating private profit. That is what was advocated by socialist leaders of the early 20th century such as Eugene V. Debs. Conversely, workers didn't control anything democratically in the USSR, and military spending took priority over any social spending (like in the DPRK today). A notable exception might be Cuba, which has invested heavily in healthcare and education. Oh and as I'm writing this, democratic socialist Bernie Sanders is making headlines for attracting the biggest crowds of any presidential candidate, literally in the tens of thousands, and the far-Left Syriza party is making waves throughout Europe and their counterparts Podemos are poised to rise in Spain. So much for socialism being cast into the dustbin of history.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC) One last thing: my point still stands that socialism lost. If you abandon state ownership, that means you have private ownership, which means you have (gasp) capitalism. We're saying exactly the same thing just differently. Wrong on all three account. The phrase 'socialism lost' is pretty meaningless, and using equally selective definitions the phrase 'capitalism lost' would be as valid - see above. Capitalism isn't just private ownership, socialism isn't just state ownership - perhaps state socialism but not socialism. You are saying something quite different but seem unable see it.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Marxist-Leninist socialism was the main type of socialism that was implemented in real life as opposed to other various theoretical strands that came to nothing. The non-authoritarian socialism you seem to be championing does not exist anywhere in the real world. All the new variants of socialism you cite just want to manage capitalism, not abolish it as was the case with the Marxist-Leninist regimes. The past Marxist-Leninists regimes got rid of private property and capital accumulation, something the new "socialists" don't propose to eliminate. You need to look past shallow rhetoric and slogans to figure out what's going on. CJK (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry, but everything after that first sentence is literally false. Skimming the rest of the above conversation, you've evidently not read a single work by Proudhon or anyone else CJ Griffin listed above. And going off of your latest claim about private property and state ownership, I'd wager that you haven't read anything by Marx or Lenin either. If one doesn't investigate a question beyond shallow rhetoric and slogans, whatever one says about it will likely be nonsense. I agree with you on one other thing, though: that if you haven't done basic research (like knowing what socialism is) you should not be editing this article. →Σσς. (Sigma) 22:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy So which new, real life socialists are actually preaching or practicing social ownership of the means of production? Surely you could find one if I was wrong. CJK (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC) If you've read anything about organised labour in the US ever, you'd have heard of the Industrial Workers of the World. If you've read the news lately, you'd have heard of Podemos or Syriza. If you've looked into academia, you'd have heard of Noam Chomsky or Richard D. Wolff. I'm rather busy this week, so I'm unfortunately unable to dig up fifty quotes with page numbers. But it's been a whole day since this thread has opened and you have brought a grand total zero sources to the table that support your outlandish theories, and seem to show no sign of admitting that you haven't done your homework. That said, you'll have to clarify something for me, as I'm having trouble answering the following question for myself: what do you want from this discussion exactly? →Σσς. (Sigma) 23:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC) A simple acknowledgement of reality would due. Socialism defined as "social ownership of the means of production" is utterly dead. Most of the people calling themselves socialists today just want to "manage" capitalism, rather than abolish it like past socialists. You really don't see that? CJK (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC) from — JamesEG (talk) I don't know if this will be of much help, but look at the semantics. How are you looking at the problem? What would “socialism lost” imply? To ‘lose’ is to have something unfixed, or detached, or, well, loosed — gone, but as a result of active effort from the principle upon an object. Socialism is a concept either abstracted or idealized. As such, it's really best to try and keep references upon it near to its semantic heart: every so-called socialist state isn't entirely socialism, but a state which practices some form of ‘social - ism’, or an emphasis on society. This is silly. Polities and political entities can arguably lose (or win) efforts to practice socialism — socialism can't lose or win. Some of the above mentions this also. Note that I also avoid discussing much of what socialism is: that's not what any of you should be trying to argue here; or rather, I don't think that it would be sensible to mix the two. If, of course, you define ‘socialism’ to be the practice of an ideological concept, then go ahead and include arguments about failures or successes with regards to a clearly specified set of goals. Go ahead and detail the fluctuations in interpretation of the word, and in any expansion or detraction from recognitions or accepted definitions as to what constitutes socialism. Is this helpful for anybody? — JamesEG (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Speaking of Richard D Wolff, a preeminent Marxian economist, I recently added this excellent article to the "External links" section in which he lays out what socialism is and what it is not. In terms of such a concept operating in the real world, he penned another article a few years back on the successes of the Mondragon Corporation, which is one of the world's largest worker cooperatives. Worker coops are on the rise and are seen as one possible solution to the widening inequalities under savage, globalized neoliberalism.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC) I mean wow, you must be pretty darn sure of yourself to think that you, Richard D. Wolf, and Noam Chomsky know exactly what socialism is and not the thousands of other experts throughout history who think otherwise. Where do you get that sort of confidence? CJK (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC) We are extremely sure of our position CJK, viz, that as googling 'socialism' indicates, socialism is a follow-up as a life and political stance that recognizes that society is based on cooperation. We are sure that as this conceptual basis of the thing asserts itself primitive stages of human society based on competition will be, if you will, redacted, various failures on the way to that essential goal for the human race notwithstanding. That's what will surely win and has won to this point to the extent we have civilization and not the state of nature. Lycurgus (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC) According to the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, p. 2, one of the common elements of various definitions of socialism is a view among socialists that the solution to social problems caused by capitalism was "some form of collective control (with the degree of control varying among the proponents of socialism) over the means of production, distribution and exchange."[4] While CJK's definition would certainly be consistent with what the Dictionary says, it is certainly not the only one. TFD (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Civilization certainly requires some cooperation, but modern western civilization is not based on increased "cooperation" rather it is based on increased individual freedom, regardless of the consequences. I agree there is nothing economically wrong with socialism, my point is that it is not very compatible with individualism. That's why the socialist world collapsed. Instead of accepting the truth--socialism and individualism are incompatible--we have these ridiculous theories that the USSR & co., founded by the most fanatical socialists in world history, were really actually capitalist! The reality is that the USSR and Eastern Europe were far more faithful to socialism then all most modern movements touted as "socialist". CJK (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Do you think that Stalin was an selfless idealist who provided ownership of the means of production to the people? Or do you think he was a cynical egotist who gave ownership of the means of production to himself and his co-conspirators? You cannot have it both ways. TFD (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC) The answer is that he was a delusional idealist. He believed that state socialism would provide an eventual path to the abolition of the state in accordance with Marxist theory. He didn't understand that it was individualism that produced capitalism and that abolishing it was actually a reactionary step. The countries that had capitalism and individualism early and most vigorously--Britain, France, the U.S.--were the countries least affected by socialism. Socialism took over in Russia precisely because it was backward. Stalin and the Bolsheviks were under the delusion that this meant socialism was the way of the future, but in reality it was only successful in backward countries that had no individualist tradition. CJK (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC) If you can't close this thread, please stop feeding the troll, this is a gross violation of the clearly stated rules on this page.Lycurgus (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Engels To Eduard Bernstein

It might be helpful to mention this in the article somewhere. →Σσς. (Sigma) 22:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

What specifically did you have in mind? Jonpatterns (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in particular. Its most useful use is the last bit, where Engels rejects the sound bites of socialism that are so prevalent today. And that were prevalent in his day as well, apparently.

Long ago, I had the idea that the opening sentence should have gone something like "Socialism is not an economic system where everything is owned and controlled by the state", as the first sentence in coal ball once read "Coal balls are not made of coal". However that is no longer the case. But I digress. →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This article seems to have been vandalised

The opening line is wrong. This is supposed to be an article on socialism, not communism.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with the opening line, what would you replace it with?Jonpatterns (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Partly agree with you. This description is basically a type of state advocated by Communists as a transition between capitalism and communism, but also advocated by some non-Communist socialists. See for example the Regina Manifesto. This article should be about socialism as a political movement and ideology with the socialist state moved to another article per disambiguation. Incidentally, Communists call,led the systems they created socialist, while socialists rejected the description, but never created any socialist states themselves. TFD (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There's only one mention of communism (big C) in the lede now, it's at the end, and it was added this month, so was unclear what this was about. There are articles on state aspects of socialism and this article is about the concept, except for an appropriately sized politics section. The addition of the weasel worded sentence with the questionable ... OK, just checked the source given for that and there's no basis in it for the statement in the sentence, the source is a very poor one, so yeah, removing that sentence. Lycurgus (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

actually it was a clause tacked on to a larger sentence. Lycurgus (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080423002641/http://www.socialistinternational.org:80/4Principles/dofpeng2.html to http://www.socialistinternational.org/4Principles/dofpeng2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120104183313/http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-09-voa37.cfm to http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-09-voa37.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100716140329/http://www.worldsocialism.org:80/spgb/may10/page23.html to http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/may10/page23.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Too long" banner

About a year ago i argued in this space for joining the sections "Philosophy" and "Social and political theory" into one since they deal with more or less the same subject and because i argued then that the section "philosophy" has a lot of vague affirmations which are not even well sourced. When i proposed that, i was not able to get a consensus and so the article stayed as it is now. Perhaps now it is the time to make that change and so i will like to hear opinions on my proposal from other users. My proposal of text that will replace these two sections joining them into one is here for anyone interested to see. This single section will be called "Social and Political theory".--Eduen (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is too long, but the section that could use some pruning is the history section which is full of largely irrelevant facts about politicians, parties and their actions simply due to the fact that they had "socialist" in their name or constitutions. This does little to describe socialism itself - and its core dichotomies and its various models - and should be trimmed to focus only on what is most relevant, prominent and important for the reader to grasp the historical development of the socialist movement. A more detailed account of all the historical "socialist" movements and their actions can be described in a separate article focusing on the history of the movement. What the article greatly needs to be expanded upon is in the area of describing socialism itself - for example, why socialists advocate "social ownership" and what that actually implies, and a better overview of the major historical and contemporary models of socialism. -Battlecry 00:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Since no opposition to my proposal has been brought in here i proceed to make the changes.--Eduen (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Eduen, do you have a proposal for shortening the history section of the article? That section is too bloated and full of material that is of questionable relevance to the subject matter. -Battlecry 04:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

User Battlecry. I do not have a proposal for that. Bring your proposal. As i see it, it has a similar extention to that of other articles in wikipedia about ideologies like fascism, liberalism, conservatism and anarchism. It is of this extention due to the fact that socialism is just a big and worldwide phenomenon both in space and time considerations. About "models of socialism" that is mentioned in the intro and it is dealt more extensively in the "politics" sections where variants like democratic socialism, libertarian socialism, state socialism and other things are dealt with. The history section also accounts for that when it shows how things like fabianism, lenninism, eurocommunism, post maoist chinese socialism, and anarchism arose in their context of space and time. The existence of the "history" section protects us from writing an article about the discussions of intellectuals and the literature that they produce. We are writing an article about a political position which guides both intellectuals but perhaps more importantly mass movements and political parties and so we have to account for all of that.--Eduen (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As i check againt the Encyclopedia Britannica article on socialism, i have noticed that it is mostly a historical account of socialism due to the fact that it mostly follows a chronological narrative of things. In this sense i think our wikipedia article is more balanced by having individual sections on "philosophy/thought", "economics", and "politics". As such our article can hardly be accused of either too much historicism or of too much "idealism" due to the fact of centering itself on the ideas and discussions of intellectuals. It achieves a good balance of both things.--Eduen (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

This entire article is far too long and dwells on minor developments and contributions by obscure theorists. But I think the major problem with the article is the lead section. It needs to be short and concise, as the Manual of Style recommends; the lead section should draw in the reader and provide an overview of the article without overloading them with intricate detail and complex technical language. I have tried to cut down the text in the lead, but at the moment it is inevitable that a well-meaning editor will come along and double the length with a degree-level textbook overview of the historical development of socialism and methods of social ownership - oblivious to the fact that this is the last thing a casual reader wants to encounter.

I don't want to claim "ownership" of this article, since I'm not a great expert on socialist theory. I really think we need to set up a sandbox/subpage where various editors can come together to formulate a high-quality, concise introduction of around four paragraphs in length. Then the same can be done with the other sections. Hopefully this can be turned into a Good Article. -- Hazhk (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I can agree on improving the article lead section but i don´t think too much "simplification" of complex issues does justice to complex subjects such as socialism.--Eduen (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It will be very difficult to simplify concepts like social ownership and its major implications in the lead, partly because these concepts might be very foreign to those unfamiliar with socialism (or anything other than what they hear in the media), partly because as Eduen correctly notes, socialism is a very complex subject and has many different variations. -Battlecry 04:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Definition of socialism

This is the definition of socialism provided by the Encyclopædia Britannica visible here:

"Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members...This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses."

The significant issue which i want to point out to in this definition is something which is lacking in the lead section of this article. The fact that socialism can mean both direct collective ownership as well as collective CONTROL of economic resources. As such i propose adding this to the lead section of this article.

The enciclopedia britannica follows: "This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed."

This is another aspect which is lacking in the first paragraph of this article and it is the fact that socialism is criticism of capitalism. The lead paragraph emphasizes socialism as a system but forgets the aspect of socialism as CRITIQUE. This should also be added.--Eduen (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hazhk and Eduen: Socialism is mainly an economic system and the movement that has the establishment of this system as its ultimate goal, which includes a critique of capitalism. Socialism is mainly about social ownership of the means of production - not simply "control" or "regulation" of the means of production. Social ownership is about having the society, the public or the working class as a whole (in Marxian parlance) receive the surplus product generated by society so that the benefits of growth, automation, etc. directly benefit the population in the form of progressively reduced work hours and higher standards of living, and a society characterized by greater equality in its social relations. The point of "social" ownership in socialism is thus entirely different from the "mainstream" concept of controlling the means of production for the sake of stabilizing the market or regulating private enterprise to protect consumers and workers.

The very concept of "social ownership" requires greater exposition as it was classically understood to mean society-wide ownership of the means of production and some form of non-market relations, because it was understood that there would be no market exchanges if the MoP were owned by a universal "owner" but only internal transfers of resources. This implied that a socialist economy would operate according to different dynamics (or, again in Marxist parlance, different "laws of motion") than those which characterized capitalism. This is why socialism was, at least initially, understood to be a different system than capitalism and not just a different set of policy proposals. Again, this is an entirely different concept from government-run enterprises in capitalism or local farmer cooperatives as they exist in modern capitalism. The concept of "market socialism" grew out of the debate on socialist calculation and what "social ownership" actually implied. I only elaborate on these points to demonstrate that socialism - and "social ownership" - implies something quite different from mainstream capitalist conceptions of control, regulation, public goods, etc.

Personally I tend to avoid using the Encyclopedia Britannica as a reliable source in favor of more specialized encyclopedias on relevant subjects like political economy, economics, etc. which go into much more detail as to what concepts like "social ownership" imply. This might seem like a very complicated subject to describe on Wikipedia, but it only appears that way because comprehensive understandings of socialism (aside from histories of socialist and social democratic parties) are so sparse in mainstream politics, media and even in contemporary academia. -Battlecry 04:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Enciclopedia britannica is clearly one of the best possible sources available. My position has been proposed by that very good reference support and i will suggest user Battlecry to bring his sources that he talks about. Since my two proposals are supported by a very good source i think that we should hear any good counterarguments supported by other sources in order to continue debating that. If this does not happen then the procedures of wikipedia allow me to add these proposals to the article. I am also going to bring more sources which support these two points which i want to add to the definition of socialism: mainly the issue of control over the economy and the issue of criticism of capitalism.--Eduen (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"Social control" or economic regulation is too specific. Mutualists, anarchists and market socialists for example reject regulation in favor of relatively free and open markets, and socialists who advocate economic planning reject the free-market/regulated market paradigm entirely. The only people who define socialism as "social control" that I am aware of are conservative and libertarian critics of socialism who want to liken it to notions of "big government". The discussion as to how we should define "socialism" in the opening paragraph was settled on something vague that was inclusive of all major socialist viewpoints, which is the social ownership of the MoP, leaving out mentions of planning, markets, regulation/control to be discussed as part of specific proposals in the article. This source elucidates my point, it recognizes that "social ownership" is the common element of all major conceptions of socialism, but recognizes that there are different conceptions as to what constitutes "social ownership". -Battlecry 09:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Social control means control by the people, not necessarily the government and certainly not the government if the government itself is not socially controlled. So to socialists the Bank of Scotland is owned by a bourgeois government and controlled in the interests of the bourgeoisie. I agree too that EB should not be used. It is a tertiary source that does not explain where it derives its definition. Far better to use the Dictionary of Socialism which explains that there are different definitions then explains the common themes with include varying degrees of social control and/or ownership. Another problem with the EB article is that it confuses socialism as a doctrine and socialism as an economic system. We do not have that with other doctrines, because we have separate terms for the two. For example liberalism is a doctrine that advocates capitalism. Liberalism is not an economic doctrine and capitalism is not an ideology. TFD (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

So now we have two good sources stating that socialism can and has meant both social or common ownership as well as just social or collective control of the economy. I think we should proceed to add the mention of control of the economy in the intro then. On another issue brough up here i can say that socialism is clearly an ideology-political position and so a doctrine, as well as a possible or existing economic system. But socialism is also a political movement and so almost every country in the world has self labeled socialist parties and movements and many of these are governing those countries. As such overemphasizing one of these things is not doing justice to the subject but in my view the article is getting that balance right having subsections on economics, politics, theory/philosophy and history. As far as the views of market socialists of various types i can suggest that they are advocates of a socialist economic system. In the case of mutualists, they are advocating for a non-capitalist market system with no state regulation but based on the principle of the labour theory of value. They are taken into account in the definition of the article when we mention that socialism has also been a proposed or existing economic system. But i think they are also advocates for a sort of commons or communal or social system or property in some sectors of the economy when they oppose intelectual property rights while also favouring having sectors of the world under communal or no ownership existing next to cooperative or self exploying enterprises. On the other hand the views of socialdemocrats and democratic socialist of various types (eurocommunists, ecosocialist parties, latin american governing bolivarianist parties like the venezuelan PSUV or the ecuadorian Alianza País and others like the Chinese Communist Party) are accounted for best with the mention of the issue of social control of the economy. Those parties and movements mentioned are the largest socialist groups existing in the world and it is clear that they are not advocating for a system in which the entire economy is under state or another type of collective ownership. Those kinds of socialists advocate a mixture of both social control of the economy over capitalist enterprises as well as differing degrees of direct state ownership of certain strategic sectors of the economy such as banks, water provisión, hospitals, schools and universities, mineral companies and mineral extraction, some tv and radio stations, and other things. In that sense also the current US presidential candidate and self described socialist Bernie Sanders is a socialist and not in the sense of advocating for "social ownership of the means of production". That does not mean he might not consider if governing maybe nationalizing or creating a US state oil company or a state bank for easier credit to poorer and disandvantaged sectors of the US population or something along those lines. Also his proposal for a canadian style state universal healthcare insurance is more a proposal of social control of the economy than of social ownership of the economy even though he might also decide perhaps building state hospitals in disadvantaged neighborhood of US cities. So in order to conclude this we have to create a definition of socialism that accounts for all of this in order that everyone will be well represented in this definition and article from a total statizizing type like Mao Tse tung ; as well as anarchist market socialists like Benjamin Tucker or Pierre Joseph Proudhon; advocates of mixed economies like socialdemocrats/democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders or the greek Syryza party as well as leninist/one party states who also advocate that like the current Chinese and Vietnamese Communist Party; or non-communist libertarian socialists like Mikhail Bakunin as well as libertarian communists like Anton Pannekoek or Peter Kropotkin.--Eduen (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)--Eduen (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

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. That seems to cover everything, while excluding conservatism, liberalism, fascism and other non-socialist ideologies.

I do not see that socialism is both an ideology and a movement to be a problem. It is the same with other ideologies. But I do see it as wrong to confuse socialism the ideology/movement with a hypothetical socialist state that some socialists advocate. Again there is a parallel with liberalism. Liberals disagree over the amount of government control/ownership of the economy necessary. We don't say that unless they advocate a night watchman state they are not really liberals.

TFD (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as liberalism, there are the words "neoliberalism" and "economic liberalism" which tend to imply an economic viewpoint but also a regime of things which tends towards deregulated capitalism. Historical and sociological book today can very well feature subtitles like "the neoliberal years" and other things similar. "Neoliberalism" as something very close as an economic system/regime of economic ordering can very well be seen in a book like David Harvey. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. On the other hand social liberalism or radicalism can even imply policies similar to socialdemocracy amd as a matter of fac, that was the kind of "liberalism" promoted by the economist John Maynard Keynes. In the wikipedia article "libetalism" both views are well served bu the definition which states there that liberalism can mean both civil libertarianism as well as a promotion and a push for "programs" which favour "Free markets" and they also have a subsection focusing on "liberal economic theory" linking mainly to "classical liberal theory".--Eduen (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Socialists have pursued neoclassical, social and neo-liberal policies in office. But they have always been justified by socialist principles. TFD (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

TFD and Eduen, I think we need to limit the scope of the article to socialism as it is commonly defined as an economic system and a political movement that aims to achieve that system. Socialism is defined as a system predominantly characterized by social ownership and sometimes as "social ownership and control". Even if you focus on the political movement aspect of socialism, the fact remains that it is centered around the establishment of an alternative system to capitalism. I would argue that prospective readers would like to and should be presented with more content about these socialist alternatives to capitalism - a more comprehensive overview of the various models of socialism, as opposed to focusing too much on the history of the politics of the labor movement and socialist parties.

The problem with the term "social control" is that it is very vague and without clarification, invites misunderstanding. I have read sources that refer to "social control" as central planning, sometimes as regulation of a (capitalist) economy, and sometimes it just refers to control of enterprises by their workers. These are all entirely different concepts, and some are only applicable to certain variations of socialism. Granted, we already reference something similar to "social control" in the opening sentence by adding "and co-operative management of the economy" as part of the definition of socialism. Perhaps we can replace this with "and social control" with a basic overview of what that implies, if this is the commonly used phraseology used. In addition to the existing sources in the article, we have Busky who defines socialism as social ownership and social control, and Weisskopf who defines socialism the same way and gives a detailed description of two forms of "social control" as management by a public body or management by an enterprises' workforce. Here are two more definitions of socialism being identified with social ownership:.

We should be cautious about taking contemporary politicians' definitions of socialism since the context in which they are speaking or writing does not usually lend themselves much credibility for complex theoretical concepts. Further, I doubt most politicians have any comprehensive definition of socialism - even if they are sympathetic to its goals. Many parties or politicians might me sympathetic to the goals of socialism, but socialism often is irrelevant to their actual policies and immediate goals. Wikipedia should focus more on giving unbiased definitions and overviews of socialism (we can certainly mention notable socialist politicians in the history section of the article) so that readers can evaluate whether or not politicians, policies, etc. actually represent socialism or not for themselves. --Battlecry 00:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Certainly socialism can refer to both the ideology/political movement and an economic system. But disambiguation requires separate articles, and there is one about the socialist state. Notice that we have different words for liberalism and the economic system they advocate (capitalism) and separate articles. Also, advocating a socialist state is one definition of socialist, but I do not know of any sources on socialism that use that narrow definition. The Communist Manifesto for example does not advocate a socialist state, yet it is considered a socialist document. Do you think we can actually distinguish between Socialists who advocated socialism and those who did not? Social control means control by the people. It is not vague, it is just that there are different ways it can be achieved, and dispute over whether it has been achieved. TFD (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding. I never once mentioned anything about a socialist state - the subject of which is irrelevant to this discussion. By "socialism" I mean the socio-economic system juxtaposed with capitalism. It is problematic that socialists have often historically been vague about their terminology, and used "socialism" to refer to the socialist movement, which is a slightly different concept. Again, as I have proposed above, we can go into more detail about the "socialist movement" in a separate article focusing on the history of socialist politics. But it is important to note the difference between movements for socialism, ideologies that advocate socialism (e.g. democratic socialism, social anarchism, Marxism-Leninism, etc.) and socialism itself. The article should mainly focus on socialism, going over its basic concepts and major models as well as the basic movement/ideologies in support of such systems AND how they relate to socialism (the system). So for example, citing the policies or beliefs of Saddam Hussein's Socialist Ba'ath party would not be pertinent to this article. On the other hand, having a brief overview about the Swedish Social Democrat Meidner Program would be pertinent to the article because it was a policy to transform capitalism into a non-capitalist system.

Your question about distinguishing between non-socialist "socialists" and socialists is nonsensical. If an individual or group does not advocate socialism - a non-capitalist or post-capitalist system (please take note that I am NOT saying one has to advocate central planning or be a "Marxist" to be a socialist) - then they are definitionally not socialists. Socialists can advocate causes and hold positions extraneous to socialism (like unemployment insurance to aid the working class within capitalism), but that does not alter the definition of socialism. One point I feel I should reiterate is that the article should focus less on policies advocated by social democratic parties that are extraneous to socialism because they take up space that should be dedicated to content much more relevant to socialism. We have to be really careful about taking the words of politicians and popular (mis)conceptions at face value. If we go down the path of defining "socialism" as any political movement or politician that uses the label, then to be consistent we would have to include among major socialist parties the National Socialist Party of Germany - which clearly was not in principle and practice committed to the emergence of a non-capitalist economic system involving social ownership and control of the means of production. -Battlecry 23:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The Meidner Program was not a policy to transform capitalism into a non-capitalist system, nor was that its intention. It was however entirely consistent with socialist policies from the Communist Manifesto to Tony Blair's "democratic socialism" that there would be some social ownership and/or control of the means of production, even though none of them advocated a non-capitalist or post-capitalist system. The difference between the three was the extent of social control/ownership and how it would be achieved. And whether or not we exclude Saddam Hussein/Hitler (or Tony Blair) should be based on what reliable sources say rather than whether they meet your criteria. TFD (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I should have clarified. The Meidner Program was, as far as I understand it, a measure to gradually introduce social ownership of the Swedish economy. The end goal is what some socialists (particularly market socialists) would consider to be a non-capitalist market economy. The definition of socialism is that most of the economy be characterized by "social ownership", not selective parts of the economy. So simply advocating public ownership of public goods isn't socialism in the traditional definition per se. --Battlecry 00:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Rehn–Meidner model was not a measure to introduce social ownership, nor was that the objective of Swedish Social Democracy in general. If we define socialists as wanting most of the economy under social ownership, that leaves only communists. TFD (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Social control of the economy

I agree with user User:The Four Deuces that overemphasizing a definition of socialism as common or social ownership of means of production will only tak in account the views of communism but not of all socialism. A self described socialist like Benjamin Tucker was a strong critic of communism and his socialism was a view of a non capitalist market system of small private enterprises. Most self described democratic socialism is a program that calls for social control over the economy in the form of regulations to protect consumers, workers and the environment. Their programs also usually includes some nationalizations of perceived strategic sectors of enterprises. Their programs can also include a call to produce cooperative enterprises. That is what latin american socialist governments like the PSUV venezuelan government has done, the Alianza Pais ecuadorian government has done, the MAS bolivian government has done. It is also what both scandinavian social democracy and the post war UK Labour governments did. To user Battlecry i have to say that of course we should not give a definition which only takes into account the views of politicians but it is clear that they tend to disseminate the most influential views and conceptions of political positions. i have proceeded to add "social control" in the intro. I can agree with a user that has said here that it can be a vague concept and so perhaps we should try to account for clarifications of that in the "economics" section.--Eduen (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A good guide for the clarification of what "social control" might men can be found in the encyclopedia britannica article:

"This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

The second disagreement concerns the way in which society is to exercise its control of property and other resources. In this case the main camps consist of loosely defined groups of centralists and decentralists. On the centralist side are socialists who want to invest public control of property in some central authority, such as the state—or the state under the guidance of a political party, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Those in the decentralist camp believe that decisions about the use of public property and resources should be made at the local, or lowest-possible, level by the people who will be most directly affected by those decisions. This conflict has persisted throughout the history of socialism as a political movement."

An account of this internal debate can be summarized in one single sentence which could be added in the intro. A single paragraph account of this can perhaps be added to the "economics" section or perhaps replace another paragraph there.--Eduen (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

And as the Historical Dictionary pointed out, there is also disagreement over the extent of control. TFD (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of capitalism

The second point which i have been arguing that needs to be included clearly in the introduction. Socialism comes from a point of view critical of the capitalist system. Now this criticism has been presented in its longest form in Karl Marx´s Capital but after that we have had other long works doing that incluiding Toni Negri´s Empire and Thomas Pikkety´s Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Returning to the previous point of social ownership vs social control there is dissagreement on what to do with capitalists. As such we have had socialists which have advocated eliminating all wage labour-the main characteristic of capitalist relationships-and replacing them by worker´s cooperatives or individual enterprises owned by workers or self employed individuals and/or by all means of production owned and administered by states or organized communes. On the other side we have social democrats and democratic socialists who advocate tolerating capitalists as long as they abide to the strong laws and regulations protecting workers, the environment and consumers and to a general planification of the economy; but also anarchist mutualists like Benjamin Tucker and Kevin Carson who advocate tolerating the existence of wage work relationships in a situation where there is not a state which can give some privileges to certain enterprises over others, defend intelectual property rights and patents, build infraestructure which benefits capitalists and in fact no state protection of property which, in their view, will force a situation in which worker´s bargaining power will be so big that wage relationship enterprises will tend to guarantee workers high salaries and de facto co-management of the workplace with the capitalists. As such the socialist position can go from no toleration of any capitalist relationship at the workplace to toleration of some capitalist relationships as long as they fit in this general global socialist perspective or even "system".--Eduen (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of capitalism is crucial to the definition because it is really the starting point both intellectually and historically, and is the crucial difference between socialism and liberalism.

I definitely agree that criticism of capitalism from a specifically socialist perspective needs to be touched upon in this article, but we need to keep it concise as the article should mainly focus on 1) socialism itself, 2) the political movement/ideology behind said system. We shouldn't stretch the scope of the article, especially when a subject as broad as criticism of capitalism includes many non-socialist perspectives as well. Also, as far as I am aware, Thimas Piketty is not a socialist and does not advocate socialism. However insightful his critique of capitalism is, it is not a socialist critique. -Battlecry 09:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

People who think that Piketty is a critic of capitalism call him a socialist. But it is a stretch to call him, Keynes and Friedman, all of whom saw some role for the state in making capitalism run efficiently as critics of capitalism. In any case, the Communist Manifesto was primarily a criticism of capitalism, and the specific short-term demands were specific to the actual times. Most of them have actually been met. Certainly I do not think a detailed description of the criticism should be provided but the same appllies to the hypothetical socialist state. TFD (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I am only arguing for a small mention in the introduction of this article of "criticism of capitalism" as a main feature of socialism since the sources tend to point to that incluiding the Encyclopedia Britannica article on socialism. Nothing else. A subsection on "criticism of capitalism" is already present in the section of the article called "Social and political theory". As such that is already well dealt within the article.--Eduen (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Howard Zinn quote in "Criticism"

I have deleted the quotation from Howard Zinn at the end of the "Criticism" section, as it did not actually address any of the criticisms discussed in the rest of the section. One is almost inclined to say it was only there to ensure that a socialist, rather than a critic, got the last word. Of course, there is nothing wrong eo ipso with a socialist getting the last word in a section of the Socialism article, but it seems inappropriate for that last word to be a dismissal, rather than a proper rebuttal, of criticisms - and perhaps also for said dismissal to come from as dubious a figure as Howard Zinn, when there are many more widely-respected socialist commentators to quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.105.242 (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The criticism section itself should be deleted because none of them apply to socialism as a whole. For example one critic criticizes government ownership of the means of production, yet some Socialists actually privatized government owned companies, and few Socialists today advocate nationalization. TFD (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, Jeremy Corbyn has advocated nationalizations. The venezuelan and bolivian governments also have nationalized some things while the argentinian also re-nationalized the oil industry. Also the PODEMOS sponsored municipal governments in Madrid and Barcelona have mentioned municipalizing some things. If we continue like that even someone like Bernie Sanders might end up advocating a nationalization of something. Even a non socialist government like the Putin russian governmnet has done something very close to nationalization of the main gas enterprise. As such nationalizations are becoming a sort of trend.--Eduen (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

But New Labour and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party are also socialist. How does the criticism relate to them? And nationalization is not government ownership of the means of production. TFD (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed the quote once more because whoever reinstated it did not address my reasons for removing it in the first place, or even give a reason of any sort for the reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.19.172.12 (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Howard Zinn's quote is not a criticism. It is not even a "retort" to the criticism, as the lead in to the quote says. That fails verification. The ref clearly syays that this quote is about Zinn's views on the future of radical politics in America, not a response to criticisms of socialism. It may be suitable elsewhere at the article but not in the criticism section. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, I feel I need to reiterate my point that we should not be using the policy proposals of existing or past self-described socialist politicians as the basis for describing socialism in this article. This article is about the concept of socialism and thus the criticism section should focus on systemic critiques of capitalism specific to socialism. I agree that Howard Zinn's quote does not include a critique of capitalism and is not relevant to the section. -Battlecry 23:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits to lede

@Vrrajkum: I have reinserted the content about the Soviet-type economic model representing a command economy that lacked workforce participation rather than a planned or market socialist economy because this is crucial to understanding the critique of what this system represented. This does not imply that the entirety of socialism is defined as a planned economy - only that the Soviet model aimed to function as a socialist planned economy. I have also reverted your wording when describing the Soviet Union as a "nominally" to a "constitutional" socialist state. The former implies a non-NPoV perspective. Scholars don't dispute the USSR's status as a constitutional socialist state - what they dispute is whether or not its economy represented a form of socialism.

@Battlecry: I understand your argument of giving a broader critique of the Soviet Union's contrast to socialism, but as you noted that "planning was heavily associated with socialism" (copied below), I feel that the context in which you embed this treatment (a Wikipedia article that is widely read by laypeople) merely reinforces the misconception that socialism necessarily involves planned economy, rather than helping to dispel that notion as we should be trying to do. Furthermore, from a denotative standpoint, the words "nominally" and "constitutional" are interchangeable; but from a connotative standpoint, the word "nominally" better conveys that the Soviet Union's relationship to socialism is disputed. That is, the word "nominally" doesn't meaningfully imply a non-NPoV perspective, while still better accommodating the debate over the USSR's political-economic designation.

Regarding your edits to the second paragraph, you commented that a social dividend contradicts the principle of distribution according to one's contribution. This is not the case - a social dividend refers to society's appropriation of the surplus product, whereas the "contribution" principle refers to labor income. It is true that the former description is not entirely accurate for describing cooperative market socialism, which would not feature a social dividend - but my aim in writing this section was to keep it concise and easily digestible for the reader, more elaborate explanations of the variations of market socialism and non-market socialism can be described in the appropriate section of the article. You also removed important (and sourced) content about non-market socialism operating according to different economic laws/dynamics than those of capitalism - I reinserted this because it is crucial to understanding what socialism initially represented when it was described as an entirely different system to capitalism. -Battlecry 10:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Battlecry: I thought that the distribution of the surplus product is a characteristic of the contribution principle? Cooperative market socialism is indeed what I was trying to accommodate; extra attention to the treatment of market socialism in this article is warranted, because, again, many people are unfamiliar with market socialism and instead misconstrue socialism to necessarily involve a planned economy. With respect to the language about non-market socialism operating according to different economic laws/dynamics than capitalism, I felt that this point was sufficiently implied in noting the substitution of money for calculation in kind, and that the sentence was thus unneeded--I removed it with the same goal of keeping things concise and easily digestible. Vrrajkum (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Copied

According to Production_for_use#Contrary_socialist_theories, some market socialists seek to retain the principle of production for profit rather than production for use. This is supported by Socialism#cite_note-20.

In the context of the article, the question of whether the Soviet Union was socialist or non-socialist is more significant than the question of whether its economy was planned or non-planned, and suggesting that the USSR's economy not being planned is the reason that it was not socialist in turn suggests (to laymen) that socialist economies are necessarily planned. Your point is not invalid, but it distracts from the larger point that's trying to be made.

Vrrajkum (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That section was written by me a long time ago, and while it is true that market socialists don't seek to implement planned production for use, the content should be amended to say that market socialists believe that - given the right institutions - there is no contradiction between production for use and markets. Regardless, I think including a brief overview of the actual organization of the Soviet economy gives readers an understanding of why it might not have represented socialism - especially since planning was heavily associated with socialism, and a "command" or "managed" economy was certainly not advocated as a form of socialism (just as state capitalism wouldn't represent a form of socialism). It is also a more widespread view (held by non-socialist theorists as well) than the view that it simply represented a form of state capitalism. -Battlecry 11:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Nominally" is preferred to "constitutional." The first implies de jure while the second implies de jure and de facto. It would be controversial for example to say that the Soviet Union was a constitutional democracy. It would seem odd too to call Indian a "constitutionally socialist state" even though the constitution says it is a socialist state. It is not the same thing as saying New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy.

Also, I find the lead too weighted toward socialism as understood in the Soviet Union, and too focused on the socialist state rather than socialism as a movement.

TFD (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with @TFD: and have re-implemented the word "nominally"--it does not contradict that the Soviet Union was a constitutionally socialist state, but does not imply that the Soviet Union was de facto socialist as the word 'constitutionally' does (and which the Soviet Union was not). I also tried to address your other points, reinserting the paragraph about the history of the socialist movement into the lead but shortening it slightly, as I originally moved it to the 'History' section because I felt that the exposition was too long to comfortably read. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to add too that it is better to say that there is no consensus the USSR was socialist, rather than it was not socialist, because that is all that is relevant to policy. TFD (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

If TFD is correct, then I agree we should use the world "nominally" instead of "constitutionally" as a descriptor for the Soviet Union's claim to be a socialist state. I would disagree with the assertion that the lede focuses too much on the USSR - the economic literature and much of 20th century politics largely identified its economic system as socialist, so we should briefly note that. The controversy is not whether or not the Soviet Union was -really- a socialist state (that is a sectarian dispute among socialists), it is whether or not the Soviet economy represented a truly non-capitalist economic form.

Vrrajkum I want to be clear that "non-market" refers specifically to the absence of factor markets, and does not necessarily imply a "planned economy" by the definition that term has acquired. Socialism was and still is widely conceived as a non-capitalist economic order that operates according to a different dynamic than capitalism, even among many traditional market socialists (Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner were quite specific that the aim of their model was to provide an alternate mechanism to capital markets). -Battlecry 23:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Battlecry: As I understand it the Lange model was a hybrid of planning and markets, rather than a true market socialism? I am influenced by for example Socialism#cite_note-20, which suggests that market socialism can operate under laws largely similar to those of market capitalism (e.g., the law of value), merely with private ownership of the means of production superseded by (primarily) cooperative ownership.

Socialism as an entirely different economic order is indeed what was advanced by Marx, but the Marxist approach to socialism is not the only one and is in no way defining of socialism. Indeed, many socialists, including Noam Chomsky, believe that Marx actually hurt the socialist cause by providing a basis for the authoritarian systems of government traditionally associated with socialism and/or communism, which have in turn given many people (particularly in the West) a knee-jerk opposition to the concept of 'socialism' and a stronger affinity for what they perceive as capitalism.

Also, the usage of the word 'superior' in the second paragraph takes a non-NPoV. Vrrajkum (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Vrrajkum: This is not merely a Marxist perspective, it was again shared by many socialists of various persuasions as noted in the given sources. Also, the concept of different system to capitalism does not in any way imply authoritarianism - your comment about Chomsky's views on this matter are misplaced.

While "superior" might not be NPoV, the goal of a socialist system is to be a more productive and efficient than capitalism (however we define these concepts). What word would you use in place of "superior"? -Battlecry 04:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)