Talk:Socialism/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Definition of socialism

As far as the definition of socialism that user TFD was brought us i can say that it coincides with the three basic elements of the definition also given by the book Socialism: a very short introduction by Michael Newman. He identifies 4 main characteristics of socialism:

the most fundamental characteristic of socialism is its commitment to the creation of an egalitarian society...To varying extents, all socialists have therefore challenged the property relationships that are fundamental to capitalism, and have aspired to establish a society in which everyone has the possibility to seek fulfilment without facing barriers based on structural inequalities...A second, and closely related, common feature of socialism has been a belief in the possibility of constructing an alternative egalitarian system based on the values of solidarity and cooperation. But this in turn has depended on a third characteristic: a relatively optimistic view of human beings and their ability to cooperate with one another...Finally, most socialists have been convinced that it is possible to make significant changes in the world through conscious human agency...These common characteristics help to distinguish socialism from other doctrines, ideologies, and systems, but it is also very diverse. This is not surprising when its evolution and development are considered. If modern socialism was born in 19th-century Europe, it was subsequently shaped by, and adapted to, a whole range of societies.

I will note on this definition that the author says socialism wants to create a different society. There is no emphasis here on the economic system and also clearly not a mention that they agree on a single different economic system and not a mention of "economic system". Also in the definition provided by a reference brought here by user TDF there is also not a mention of the socialist economic system. But also Newman says from the 20 century onwards there are 2 main dominant types of socialism:

"Chapter 1 looks at the foundations of the doctrine by examining the contribution made by various traditions of socialism in the period between the early 19th century and the aftermath of the First World War. The two forms that emerged as dominant by the early 1920s were social democracy and communism...Chapter 2 analyses the experience of Sweden in relation to the former and Cuba in relation to the latter. Despite their dominance, both communism and social democracy were increasingly challenged from the 1960s"

But i will also note how both definitions coincide on the fact that socialism wants an egalitarian society. That element is not included in the definition of our wikipedia article and i propose that we include that.--Eduen (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: By what means will socialists realize their commitment to creating a different, egalitarian society? Vrrajkum (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User Vrajkum proposes this text for a definition: "Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish a socialist economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production." We can further flesh out the rest of what your source suggests in succeeding sentences, e.g. "The goal of such a system is to solve problems traditionally associated with capitalism and private ownership, producing a more just and satisfying life for most people."

The two definitions brough here by me and by user TFD define socialism as also wanting an egalitarian society and do not mention a "socialist economic system as such. So instead i propose the following which will syntehsize all of this:

"Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish an egalitarian society through the means of social ownership and/or social control of the means of production."--Eduen (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: "Socialist economic system" is needed as that is what is implied by "social ownership and control of the means of production", including by TFD's source. That is, a system involving social ownership and control of the means of production IS a socialist economic system, and it needs to be delineated as such. Furthermore, I asked you the question that I did in order to try and lead you to realize that establishing a socialist economic system is the means by which socialists will achieve a different, more egalitarian society.

My proposal was influenced by the Communism article, which uses this phrasing:

"In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]"

This article uses the word "order" which makes sense for communism, but in the context of socialism the word "system" is more fitting. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: I further note that your source says that "all socialists have therefore challenged the property relationships that are fundamental to capitalism"--in other words, people who advocate for the maintenance of capitalistic property relations, such as contemporary social democrats (not 1920s social democrats), are not socialists. Nor does contemporary social democracy produce a fundamentally "different" society from capitalism. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that there is not consensus within socialism on a single system. The only thing we have is a tendency to advocate "social ownership" and/or "social control of the economy". For example Pierre Joseph Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker did not want a state but did not want large capitalist enterprises either or at least they did not want them to have a dominant effect on politics and economics. They wanted small enterprises of selfemployment and cooperatives. Anarchists as a whole see that social control of the economy is achieved by not having a state which is what usually enlarges enterprises through state privileges given to some over others, but they disagree on having an economy of communal property (anarcho-communism/council communism/autonomism), workers owned cooperatives (bakuninist collectivism), and small self employment and cooperatives in a non-capitalist market (mutualism and individualist anarchism/left wing market anarchism). Their "anarchists without adjectives" advocate a combination of all of these recognizing the practical troubles and the restriction of choices implied in trying to impose a homogeneous single economic system.

As far as your insisting on democratic socialism/social democrats not being "real socialists" i remind you that he says afterwards "Chapter 1 looks at the foundations of the doctrine by examining the contribution made by various traditions of socialism in the period between the early 19th century and the aftermath of the First World War. The two forms that emerged as dominant by the early 1920s were social democracy and communism. (pg. 5)" As such obviously he thinks social democracy is part of the socialist movement and he proceed to deal extensively on european social democrats in his book.--Eduen (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: I never suggested that there is consensus within socialism on a single system; a system characterized by "social ownership and control of the means of production" encompasses all of the different socialist systems, including all of the ones that you just touched upon. In other words "social ownership and control of the means of production" is shared in common among all of the different socialist systems, and is what qualifies these different systems as being socialist.

I also just very clearly said that it is contemporary social democrats who are not "real socialists"; pre-World War II social democrats, such as the 1920s social democrats that your source treats, were indeed "real socialists". Vrrajkum (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I will remind user Vrrajkum for the 1000th time that also neither the Chinese nor the Cuban Communist parties advocate an economy on complete "social ownership" of the means of production anymore. The case of the Chinese Communist Party matters here especially since it is the contemporary largest socialist party in the world. As far as the particular case of the british Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn has said that his party lost its way after the 1980s. So he could be considered according to you logic also a socialist. The fact is that european socialist and social democrat parties are in a big way composed of people like Corbyn who have not liked the way their parties have behaved in recent decades but they will both stay in their parties and call themselves socialists. The article deals with the so called social democrat "Third way" so this issue is dealt well within the article. --Eduen (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Besides the libertarian socialists will think leninists are not socialists but "state capitalists" so this is not the only controversy within socialism on whether some tendency is "socialist" or not. There is also a book called The Cleanest Race which argues that North Korea is not a socialist or communist country anymore but that it has to be seen as a fascist regime.--Eduen (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I will remind user Eduen for the 1001st time that "social ownership" does not mean "state ownership" and also includes other forms such as "cooperative ownership". You are right that the Chinese and Cuban Communist parties are not advocating an economy of complete "social ownership", because they are not advocating for socialist economies. Also, I'm not sure what "logic" of mine you are referring to, but as I have had to try and impart to you the correct definition of "social ownership" countless times now it's clear that you don't understand much of what I say. Vrrajkum (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Vrajkum, some ways "socialists [have] realize[d] their commitment to creating a different, [more] egalitarian society" is to support universal suffrage, universal health care, old age security, minimum wage laws, and ending slavery and child labor.

The Labour Party constitution reflects that: "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

As Eduard Bernstein wrote, "I have extraordinarily little interest or taste for what is generally called the "final goal of Socialism." This aim, whatever it be, is nothing to me, the movement is everything."

And you never answered the question of how to treat the Communist Manifesto. It does not advocate socialism as you define it, which means that the Socialist movement predates advocacy of socialism by Socialists.

TFD (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

By this point it seems that according to user Vrrajkum socialism has never existed anywhere.--Eduen (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If user Eduen insists on including "or social control" in the lead sentence, then by the same logic I can insist that we amend "social ownership" to say "social and/or state ownership" since we have reliable sources citing state/public ownership of the means of production as the definition of socialism. Of course, that would not encompass all the models of socialism... but nether would "social control" (which is ambiguous and isn't even discussed or given a meaning in the body of the article!). Eduen is clearly trying to push a non-neutral point-of-view and has become a roadblock to improvements to this article. And to answer user Eduen, unless one considers the Soviet-type economic model or Yugoslav economic to be socialism, then no socialism has thus far not existed on any meaningful scale. -Battlecry 00:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The goals of universal suffrage and greater egalitarianism within capitalism have not been achieved by social ownership or a socialist system, so we cannot say that these are achievements of socialism per se. Socialism requires that certain ends be achieved using distinct socialist processes (commonly identified as "social ownership" and/or as "production for use" in place of the profit system). Furthermore, the fundamental goals of socialism - eliminating inequality based on capital ownership (or eliminating class distinctions, in Marxist parlance) and creating a superior economic mechanism as the basis for a society free of wage labor has yet to be achieved in any large scale. I refer you to the following source to highlight my first point: -Battlecry 00:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that you have a sentence after that saying that social ownership is not the same as state ownership. User Battlecry keeps on wanting to sell socialism as communism either of the no-state or of the statist type. On the other hand just because someone comes and proposes something, it does not mean it necessarely is an improvement. It could well be something that will ruin a good article. As far as the ONE socialist economic system user Battlecry has accepted that it has never existed. As such what has existed is the socialist political movement and so this article should focus on that but also it should mention the economic debates inside it. It already does that.

As far as "it certainly presupposes, at a minimum, the belief that these ends and values cannot be achieved in an economic system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production" i will say that both social democracy and mutualism/left wing market anarchism defend small businesses and self employment as good sane forms of earning a living. These are also "private ownership" in a sense yet in a big part they are family or small societies. Even according to Mr. Marx, capitalism does not exist merely where there is private property and a market. Capitalism needs also the salaried relationship. If that is not present it is not capitalism. Also many places in countries where there has been an agrarian reform have small peasant farms with no or very few salaried situations as the main form of working in the rural areas. They will then sell their products in small markets. That is not capitalism either. Is that "social ownership"?--Eduen (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I never claimed that socialism equals communism. The sources indicate that contemporary social democracy is not socialist because it does not advocate a socialist system to achieve its ends. Further, "social ownership" refers to a wide variety of forms, but Marx and many other economists initially took this to imply that market exchange in the means of production would cease and be replaced by some form of "planning" (or non-market allocation) under the view that a single entity cannot engage in "market exchange" with itself. Market socialism then arose as a distinct and widely-accepted concept, either as a transitional form and later as full-fledged model of socialism, which had a role for factor markets for allocating capital goods between socially-owned enterprises. And yes, according to Marx capitalism is not simply defined as "market exchange". It involves the existence of capital and the process of capital accumulation directing production (aka, the profit system) which in his view (and in the view's of his critics such as Mises) entailed private or sectional ownership of the means of production. The article already touches upon these two forms of socialism (market and non-market). But it is clear that you have no idea what these terms imply and what "social ownership" historically meant how its definition broadened to become inclusive of autonomous cooperatives. You also fail to understand that the term "control" or "controlled economy" refers to a command economy and NOT to worker cooperatives... there are no sources I can find that defined "control of an economy" or "control of the means of production" (See Abba Lerner's The Economics of Control: Principles of Welfare Economics) or "social control" as cooperatives. -Battlecry 01:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You cited The Necessity of Social Control by István Mészáros, unfortunately the source material provided does not define "social control" as any form of ownership. The author is using it to refer to a sociological concept of social control that exists within capitalism in some form, and will also continue to exist in a new form under socialism. This is hardly suitable to include as the definition of socialism. -Battlecry 01:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have never suggested that "social control means worker´s cooperatives. Social control will also happen in a totally statizised economy since they will have to plan and direct the enterprises towards certain goals. Also i advice user Battlecry to go to other sources besides those of socialist economics. Since you have admitted that your "socialist economic system" has never existed then we can very well know that the focus should be on the politics.--Eduen (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Battlecry, you are correct that "The goals of universal suffrage and greater egalitarianism within capitalism have not been achieved by social ownership or a socialist system." That's because socialism is not social ownership or a socialist system but a political movement and ideology that identifies social problems, sees them as caused by capitalism and seeks collective action to address them. Socialists believe that ending slavery and providing universal suffrage would make society more egalitarian, which is the primary objective of socialism, at least in theory.

Also, while you think it is revisionism that causes mainstream social scientists the way that they do, that is your opinion. Can you please tell me whether the Communist Manifesto was a socialist document and why.

TFD (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Social democratic parties participated in the governments of the Scandinavian countries and helped contribute to the emergence of the Nordic model. But this model is not universally recognized as a "socialist system", it is recognized as a form of capitalism. Further, these policies failed to create a truly distinct form of society or economic system than those of capitalism. As for your question regarding the Communist Manifesto, I am not sure why my views on that document have any relevance to this discussion. -Battlecry 02:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No it is not a socialist system but it was government by socialists following socialist principles. But that is not the issue we are discussing. The question is "What should be the topic of this article?" You keep repeating your position without providing any justification.

The question about Marx is certainly relevant. Because your narrow definition will mean we have to exclude most of what mainstream sources consider socialist, including the Communist Manifesto, since the authors failed to meet your criteria for being socialists (at least when they wrote that book.) So when did the Marx and Engels become socialists? We need to know that for the article.

TFD (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So are you are asking for my personal definition of socialism? My understanding of socialism is a socio-economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and, in its more comprehensive form, a system that operates under a different set of economic dynamics than those of capitalism. I also include within the definition movements that predict, aim to bring about, or advocate for such a system. This is similar to the definition given on Wikipedia - it is also incomplete because we have to define what exactly "social ownership", "means of production" and (if we include) "social control" specifically mean. Hypothetically anyone who believes in the possibility of a post-capitalist economic system based on some form of social ownership is a socialist in my view; but I also recognize that even though many people may give lip service to socialism, in actuality they haven't truly grappled with the concept and ramifications of replacing capitalism with a socialist system, or even know how to bring it about. The Communist Manifesto is a document written by socialists criticizing capitalism, summarizing Marx's views of class struggle for a wide audience, and arguing for socialism/communism as the culmination of contradictions under capitalism. It is not a work describing a socialist system or what a post-capitalist society would look like, so if that is what you are asking, then no it is not a work about socialism in that sense. Marx's main contribution to socialist thought was his analysis and critique of capitalism - his understanding of socialism emerging from contradictions within capitalism as opposed to being an ideal envisioned by thinkers striving to create a "morally just" or "egalitarian" society. But it is widely understood that Marx offered little in the way of conceptualizing how socialism would function. -Battlecry 04:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You keep repeating your claim that socialism as you define it is the primary topic and never explain why you think it is. [Battlecry says, "socialism is a socio-economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production...." I heard it, I understand it, no need to repeat it.]

The Communist Manifesto presents a series of demands and says that the only difference between them and other working class parties is that they represent the whole working class in all countries. Most of these demands have now been met by most Western governments, such as free education, central banks and graduated income taxes. It does not meet your definition of socialism.

TFD (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to make it clear to others how more users dissagree with user Battlecry´s proposals yet he is threatening me in the next section and that i am just disrupting his editions. The fact is that he simply cannot get a consensus here.--Eduen (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The demands in the Communist Manifesto do not constitute socialism, they are practical reforms ("immediate demands") that Marx believed were applicable to the developed capitalist countries at the time. They certainly don't represent Marx's vision of the realization of socialism, which entailed an end to the capitalist law of value. Do note that a number of these measures - free education, for example, but excluding Marx's call for state ownership - have been advocated by thinkers as diverse as Adam Smith and most thinkers who favor a capitalist economy and subscribe to a classical or modern liberal outlook. To get a better idea of Marx's concept of socialism and communism (which he used interchangeably at the time, note that just because Marx uses them interchangeably doesn't mean that I do), you should read Marx's Vision of Communism by Bertrand Ollman, who gathers together all of Marx's major scattered works on the subject. -Battlecry 05:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Battlecry, you are still not answering the question. I asked you whether the Communist Manifesto should be treated as a socialist document. TFD (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

User Battlecry´s edit wars

User Battlecry says "You have no consensus for your changes in the talk page. This page does not exist for you to propagate your personal views."

If user Battlecry does not achieve consensus, he can definitely resort to edit warring. But i will have to remind user Battlecry that on this he only has "a consensus" with user Vrajkum. User TFD also has opposed reducing this article to communism. I will suggest user Battecry to stop lying in his explanations for supporting his edit wars.--Eduen (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to define socialism as "social control". I don't recall User:The Four Deuces agreeing with you specifically on that point either, and Vrajkuum and Helios932 were in agreement with my position on this. -Battlecry 01:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"...Socialism in one form or another has been one of the world's chief ideologies for almost two centuries now. To turn this article into some kind of variant edition of articles like socialist state or socialist mode of production would be grossly inappropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)"

You have no consensus for your reduction of socialism to communism.--Eduen (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No one here is trying to reduce the article to discuss Marxist-Leninist Socialist states or the specifically Marxian notion of the socialist mode of production. Those are words you continue to put into other editors' mouths. On the other hand, trying to reduce socialism to mean the policies of social democratic parties and their ethical doctrines is grossly inappropriate and tantamount to historical revisionism. -Battlecry 01:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Those are not just the policies of the socialdemocrats and the democratic socialists anymore. Those are the policies also of the biggest socialist party in the world, the Chinese Communist Party as well as those of the Cuban Communist Party.--Eduen (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, for the millionth time, this article is not about the policies of socialist parties which may have nothing to do with socialism or might simply reflect what is currently politically fashionable. The subject of the article is the concept of socialism itself. -Battlecry 02:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So we should delete everything in this article and just copy here what we have in the article "Socialist mode of production". What a great proposal. No wonder you cannot obtain consensus for your proposals.--Eduen (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No. We need to greatly reduce the History section and restore the lead as a start. If you do not cease continuously putting words in my mouth and accusing me (and other editors) of things I never proposed, as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks I will report you for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. This goes for your unilateral decision to delete material on the Soviet Union and your inclusion of "social control" as THE definition of socialism in the lead when most users in previous discussions on this talk page were in agreement that "social control" is vague and never clearly defined by any source. -Battlecry 02:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: Where are you getting the idea that anyone is trying to reduce socialism to communism? Vrrajkum (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

And now come the threats. You simply have to learn how to get a consensus. If you can´t get it you just don´t have to assume that it is personal. Just improve your arguments and your references. And remember that your dissagreements are not only with me so don´t focus on me. More users have come here to dissagree with you so don´t think that i am your only obstacle for your proposals and this can be seen by anyone. Both "social control" and "social ownership" can be seen as vague. And this especially if you and user Vrrajkum are suggesting that social ownership is not only state or community ownership but according to you also cooperatives even though i argued that whether something is a property of a single person or of a small group that thing is not of the community or of the country or of society and so clearly "social ownership" calls more to something that is owned by a society and not by a group or a person inside it. As far as your wishes for saying things about the Soviet Union first try to get a consensus on incluiding something on that and then try to get an agreement on the text that will go there. Simply adding what you wanted in the way you wanted brough you reversals and criticisms and they were not only by me. So i suggest you relax a little bit.--Eduen (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can check the previous section how user Battlecry also has dissagrements with user TFD. As such his threats and his edit warring are just a bad way of compensating for his failing to achieve consensus here.--Eduen (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The only person who has consistently failed to get consensus for your version of the lead is you. Almost every other editor has agreed that "social ownership" is more neutral, all-encompassing and better-sourced than the ambiguous "social control" for defining socialism; and as far as I can tell every editor aside from you has agreed that we at least need to mention the Soviet economic model in the lead due to its historical significance. -Battlecry 06:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: Social ownership is by no means vague, and is, in fact, very clearly defined by the following sources to include cooperative ownership:

"A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialized or cooperative enterprises."

"In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialised ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity."

I have now presented these sources which irrefutably refute your absurd, unsourced claim that "social ownership" is limited to state or community ownership multiple times. Your continued promotion of your own unilateral interpretation (which you have not provided any sources for) in defiance of these sources could indeed be construed as disruptive.

Social control is not clearly defined by any sources, but TFD provides us with a definition that is intuitively logical:

"Social control means control by the people, not necessarily the government and certainly not the government if the government itself is not socially controlled."

This is why I prefer "social ownership and democratic control," as it's less confusing for readers. Socialist journalist/activist Upton Sinclair, among others, defined socialism as such.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Your own interpretation of "social control" and the sources that you have brought for it treat "social control" in sociological terms, not in the economic sense of "social control" over the means of production. We have some sources which suggest that socialism necessarily entails (economic) social control over the means of production, and if we choose to include "social control" in the definition of socialism then TFD's definition is the definition that we should use.

With respect to the Soviet Union, myself, Battlecry, Helios932, and Capitalismojo agree that it should be mentioned in the lead. You and TFD disagree. Orangemike's position is not clear. This gives us a 4:2:1 consensus that the Soviet Union belongs in the lead and I have reinserted it. Vrrajkum (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Eduen, the sources are clear that social ownership can include cooperatives as mentioned in Busky's book.[1] He provides the examples of housing co-ops and credit unions. Cooperatives were a feature of Communist states and the Soviet Union had collective farming. You are right though the terms can be seen as vague. One can argue whether any of these examples are really socially owned. Cooperative ownship also featured in capitalist states - mutual insurance companies, parterships of lawyers, accountants and even bankers, and luxury flats, but would not be considered socially owned.

You are right that social ownership can be seen as vague. But we do not have to determine which co-ops are socially owned. We only need to explain what various sources said about them.

I think too the Soviet Union should be mentioned in the lead, I just question the extent. Sources generally treat Communism as separating from Socialism between 1912 and 1919. So this article should concentrate on Socialist parties, while the Communism article should concentrate on Communist parties.

TFD (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So then if we are going to include a small mention (make it smaller than the proposal by Battlecry, this intro is very long), then we have to reach a consensus as far as the text that will go. Battlecry´s text pays to much attention to the particular views of (certain)economists when something good can very well come on the Soviet Union from more general works on socialism.--Eduen (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Communism is historically "scientific socialism", it would be absurd to attempt to remove the (arguably) largest branch of socialist thought from the socialism page. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Libertarian communists says the Soviet Union was never a communist situation but state capitalism. Anyway, if we are going to mention the USSR in the intro it will have to be as small and as neutral point of view as possible.--Eduen (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: You are the only one who objects to the treatment of the Soviet Union that Battlecry and I produced. Bear in mind that just because you object does not mean that there is not a consensus, as we established with the discussions about Encyclopedia Brittanica and whether or not the Soviet Union belongs in the lead. Vrrajkum (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: With respect to what you put to me a bit further up:

"Vrajkum, some ways "socialists [have] realize[d] their commitment to creating a different, [more] egalitarian society" is to support universal suffrage, universal health care, old age security, minimum wage laws, and ending slavery and child labor."

This is indeed a more egalitarian society, but it is not a fundamentally different society. Again, the achievements of people who label themselves "socialist" while advocating for the maintenance of capitalistic property relations encompass exactly the destruction and dilution of the word "socialism" that Ulli Diemer was referring to when he said that "‘Socialism’ has become another name for capitalism, another form of capitalism: in ‘victory’, socialism has been more totally buried than it ever could have been in defeat," among some of his other remarks. Consider this other source:

"[Socialism] is harder to define, since socialists disagree among themselves about what socialism ‘really is.’ It would seem that everyone (socialists and nonsocialists alike) could at least agree that it is not a system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production…To be a socialist is not just to believe in certain ends, goals, values, or ideals. It also requires a belief in a certain institutional means to achieve those ends; whatever that may mean in positive terms, it certainly presupposes, at a minimum, the belief that these ends and values cannot be achieved in an economic system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production…Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system."

In other words, this source contends that being a socialist necessarily involves advocating the establishment of a "socialist economic system" as an "institutional means to achieve [socialist] ends", and that "[socialist] ends and values cannot be achieved in [a non-socialist economic system]". Busky also suggests that the establishment of a socialist economic system must be the ultimate goal of the socialist movement: "Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy."

With respect to The Communist Manifesto, I am still working through it but note that it contains this sentence:

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

Which is incompatible with any sort of retention of capitalistic enterprises and does indeed imply the establishment of a socialist and/or communist economy as the culminating goal of the ideology. Vrrajkum (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen, Vrrajkum, The Four Deuces, C.J. Griffin, and Capitalismojo: Given that "social control" is not clearly defined and can be misconstrued to mean a variety of entirely distinct concepts (ranging from workers' self-management of enterprises to society-wide economic planning or even government regulation of a capitalistic economy, or most confusingly to a sociological concept) and the fact that we don't have any sources clearly defining "social control", I propose we amend the opening sentence to read as "social ownership of the means of production". I am also open to User:C.J._Griffin's suggestion to replacing "social control" with "democratic control" or "democratic management" - or even "self-management" (since we have a page on Workers' self-management that defines the concept as a broad category of management practices that have historically been supported by socialists ranging from anarchists to Communists), but I would like to hear other editors' thoughts on this.

I also want to make something clear about mentioning the Soviet-type economic system in the lead: I am not talking about mentioning specific political views, or disputing the Soviet state's ideology. I am talking about mentioning only facts - that the Soviet Union was the world's first official socialist state, that socialism came to be associated with its economic system, and that many intellectuals and economists have pointed out that, regardless of the aims of the Soviet state, the Soviet-type economic system actually functioned on a hierarchical basis, with informal bargaining among enterprises as opposed to any model of consistent planning, and lacked meaningful worker participation. This is not an ideological statement and does not take any side in the ideological dispute between Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists, or between Libertarian socialists and Social anarchists - which I would argue is inappropriate for the lead. My approach to writing the lead sections of articles is to provide descriptions of the concepts and briefly cover major developments that are relevant to the concept (such as the USSR's economic system), while leaving further expositions of controversies to be discussed in the article's body. I thus propose the following for the lead:

While the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally socialist state led to socialism's widespread association with the Soviet economic model, many economists and intellectuals argue that the Soviet economic model actually represented a form of state capitalism or a non-planned "command" or "managed" economy in practice. -Battlecry 06:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Vrrajkum, being a socialist does not mean adhering to what you think socialism is. TFD (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Being a socialist requires one advocate socialism in place of capitalism. But being a member of a Socialist party does not require one be a small-s socialist. -Battlecry 08:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@TFD: Does being a socialist mean adhering to what you think socialism is? Vrrajkum (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No it means adhering to what socialism is defined as in reliable sources. And to be included, we need reliable sources that identify groups as socialist. I have provided sources and you have provided none. We need to adhere to policies and guidelines which require that we use sources and do not invent our own definitions. TFD (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@TFD: Busky's Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey and Arnold's The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study are not sources? Vrrajkum (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Againt user Battlecry. Social ownership is just as vague as social control. If cooperatives are "social ownership" then corporate law firms which are associations of lawyers are "social ownership". As such socialism means social control on the use value of enterprises and their service to society, whether owned by a private group or by an private individual or by the state. Also i oppose the specific proposal of mention of Soviet Union by user Battlecry since it is not in neutral point of view since it does not include the points of view of democratic socialists/social democrats and since it gives too much importance to the single views of economists.--Eduen (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

My proposal for the definition of socialism is as follows: "Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish an egalitarian society through the means of social ownership and/or social control of the means of production."--Eduen (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Arnold writes, "The definition of a socialist economic system also requires the socialization or social ownership of the means of production." He does not say socialism requires the advocacy of a socialist economic system. Busky writes, "Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy." But he does not say how, when or how much. Presumably New Labour's "stakeholder democracy" would fit the bill. His book includes all the non-Communist Socialist parties.

But we have already agreed that socialism can have different definitions. What we need is a source that explains which definitions are most often used, which the Historical Dictionary of Socialism does.

TFD (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: We have sources clearly defining social ownership. Social ownership does imply that the surplus product accrue to society as a whole or the workers of an enterprise; that's what distinguishes social from private ownership. "Control" tends to refer to management of the economy or individual firms. You have yet to provide us with a source clearly defining "social control". Private ownership with "social control" (egalitarian management? state regulation?) does not constitute socialism, which implies social ownership (the surplus product belongs to society/workers). Again, I will ask you to refrain from re-inserting "social control" into the lead until you can gain a consensus. As it currently stands, you are the only user pushing for this definition. In response to your comment on my proposal for the Soviet Union's inclusion into the lead, we are not going to include your personal "social democratic" view of the Soviet Union into the lead. The proposal I provided is neutral and only describes the processes of the Soviet system, and does not succumb to any political tendency (this is another reason we need to focus defining the lead as socialism as a concept and system and leave political controversies out of it - we can't possibly satisfy every single so-called "socialist" perspective, we have to focus on facts and describing processes and characteristics, leaving expositions of major controversies to the body of the lead).

@TFD: "Socialism" is used synonymously with "socialist system" and "socialist economic system". We should avoid confusing terminology like "egalitarian society" in the lead - that is an ideal socialists hope to achieve, but note it can mean a range of different things from absolute equality to the Marxian notion of a classless society (which is not egalitarian, as Marxists reject egalitarianism as a liberal concept). Discussion of the various goals of the socialist movement should not be presented as the definition of socialism or a socialist system, though they do need to be mentioned in the body of the article. -Battlecry 00:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that we should ignore sources that define socialism and re-define it as "socialist system." Since you brought up Busky's book above as a source (00:09, 26 August 2015,) why do you reject his enumeration of socialist parties? TFD (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, all definitions highlight an economy based on social ownership of the means of production as the defining feature of socialism, and this form of society/economy is what the socialist movement aims to achieve. This is the common defining feature in all our definitions, regardless of whether or not the system/society or the ideology/movement is emphasized more. -Battlecry 01:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@TFD: The citation of Busky's work does not specifically mention socialist parties, it mentions the socialist movement. The movement is currently mentioned in the first sentence of the lead as a definition of socialism alongside mentioning the economic concept and I have no problem with the inclusion of the socialist movement. Right now I would like to seek consensus on the wording used to describe socialism - social ownership and control, or social ownership and "democratic control" - and see if someone can provide a well-souced definition of "social control" and its relation to socialism. -Battlecry 05:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You are taking a quote out of context. You obviously did not read the book, do not care what it says and are only quoting it because it appears to you to support what you believe. Busky identifies the Labour Party and other socialist parties as socialist, but obviously you did not read the book beyond your cherry-picked sound-bite. Incidentally, I have read the book and brought it to RSN four years ago. See Greenwood Publishing Group and Further call for comments, Busky on American Left. TFD (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what the classification of the Labour Party (as socialist or social democratic or anything else) has to do with anything. The Labour Party may very well be a de jure socialist party, but that doesn't mean this article needs to discuss their major policies or the divisions within said party because that is irrelevant to discussing socialism (either as an economic system or a political movement). Again, the policies of a self-described "socialist" party don't represent socialism anymore than the policies of the US Democratic party define the concept of democracy. -Battlecry 10:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Busky'a book does not describe Labour as merely "self-described" socialist, it says it is an actual socialist party. And Busky devotes most of the chapter on "Democratic Socialism in Great Britain and Ireland" to it. If you think your source is in error, why do you insist we use it? TFD (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The definition of "social ownership" is so unclear in this intro that the current text says is "public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity". So social ownership clearly is a very confusing concept in this intro. As far as "citizen ownership of equity" clearly is a word of intellectuals and something no social or political movement uses. And so still user Battlecry has not given a good reason why we should not think of corporate lawyer´s firms which have a form of equal association as "social ownership". According to Battlecry those corporate lawyers are "socialist". The important category here is social control since even Cuba and China have stopped putting in practice an economy of total "social ownership". User Battlecry seems to want to suggest the only true socialists are North Korea. And on top he keeps insisting in his economicistic and idealistic definition of socialism with all this talk of his non-existing "socialist economic system" even though he has also accepted that each socialist tendency has proposed a different one. Lets also remember that not even the anarchists on themselves agree on a single one and also clearly the marxists don´t have a single one either. As far as the mention of the Soviet Union in the intro, lets see more proposals from other users since the particular one by user Battlecry is very restricted and wants us to put economists in an altar where we can honor them as the only ones who have reliable knowledge in social and political matters. If we don´t see another proposal i don´t think we can have a mention of that in the intro. Anyway that will be great in my opinion since this intro is already too long.--Eduen (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: You astound me. You are literally the ONLY individual who is confused by the term "social ownership", despite having MULTIPLE people explain it to you MULTIPLE times. It is very clearly defined as "public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these", which is by no means confusing and is very clear to everyone except you. With respect to corporate law firms, they are not cooperatives if secretaries, paralegals, and other subordinate staff are not joint owners of the firm and are instead subject to capitalistic relations.

You mind-bogglingly continue to ignore the fact that "social ownership" is well-sourced as the defining characteristic of socialism and insist on promoting your unsupported viewpoint that socialism is instead vaguely defined by "social control," which you have not provided any definition for and are instead using in a manner that contradicts the definition that TFD gave us. Cuba, China, and North Korea NEVER had economies of "total social ownership," as I will adapt TFD's definition of social control to read that 'social ownership means ownership by the people, not necessarily the government and certainly not the government if the government itself is not under social ownership.'

You also do not appear to understand the very simple fact that although there are many different socialist economic systems, they all have social ownership and democratic control of the means of production in common. Furthermore, if not for you, we would have a unanimous consensus to include the Soviet Union in the lead; you are the only one nonsensically objecting to Battlecry's treatment and the only one who continuously removes it from the intro.

You are beyond any doubt a disruptive, rogue editor who does not appear to read what anyone else writes, has no interest in the consensus of other editors, and simply seeks to impose your own ludicrous views on the article, despite the fact that NO ONE else agrees with them. Vrrajkum (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Basically the problem is that users Vrrajkum and Battlecry want to make this article more or less the same thing as the communism article. But also they want to impose an economicistic point of view to a subject which is mainly a political movement.--Eduen (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

"Ownership by the people". That is a vague as one can get. The "people" have to be represented by something, either by the communal government or by a state. Still clearly cooperatives are not owned "by the people" but by a particular group of persons, not by "society". As such social control is the key term here since cooperatives can exist even in an environment of total neoliberal deregulation since cooperatives are mainly for profit organizations just as any other private enterprise. As far as user Vrrajkum he decided to "disagree" with the Encyclopedia Britannica thinking we should trust him more on a subject.--Eduen (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

But lets also take into account what is happening here. User Vrrajkum says i am the only one not agreeing with him and user Battlecry yet anyone can see in this thread of discussion the dissagreements that he and user Vrrajkum have also with user TFD. As such he should be more careful in analysing situations here. The last disagreement between user TFD and user Battlecry is on the nonexistent single socialist economic system that user Battlecry says that it exists.--Eduen (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree there is ambiguity in what constitutes social ownership, but that is a general problem with the definition of socialism. There is also ambiguity about social control. Liberals could argue that there already is social ownership and control of the means of production in the U.S. But that is a problem with the definition of socialism, not something we can resolve. Where I continue to disagree with V and B is that I do not see mainstream definitions of socialism as requiring any threshold of the amount of social ownership and/or control they must advocate. TFD (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Nove's source states that a society may be described as socialist if the major part of its means of production are socially-owned. That's typically how I think of socialism and capitalism - that the major part of the means of production be owned socially (or privately in the case of the latter), not that either system requires total social/private ownership.

In economics there is a distinction between ownership (income rights) and control rights (management). If we are taking "social control" to mean management (we still don't have any source specifically defining "social control"), then social control in this sense by itself does not constitute socialism. An enterprise might be privately-owned but controlled/managed by its employees or the state, but this is not socialism. On the contrary, an enterprise might be owned by its employees or the state but not managed by its workforce or the state (with autonomous management) and still be "socialist". Social ownership by itself (or social ownership AND control) are clearly more relevant to socialism than "social control" in this sense by itself. -Battlecry 02:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, it will always be a matter of opinion whether there is social ownership and/or control. Nove says for example, "Trotsky, too, spoke of ‘the lower stage of communism or socialism’, even while denying that Stalin’s Russia had reached that stage." But the issue we have been discussing is the topic of the article, whether it should be about the socialist ideology and movement or a hypothetical state that is a transition between capitalism and communism. As I already mentioned, we have the anomaly that socialism can refer to an ideology or a system, while we have separate terms for liberalism and capitalism. TFD (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@TFD:

"On the face of it, the dispute [between capitalism and socialism] seems to be about economic systems. However, some writers have used the terms 'capitalism' more broadly to refer to a society in its entirety or even to a culture. 'Socialism' has sometimes been used in a similar way, and it has also been used to refer to a social movement. Using these terms in such broad ways serves to emphasize the interdependence of social institutions and the interconnectedness of social phenomena generally. Though these interrelations and interconnections can hardly be denied, one problem with understanding these terms so broadly is that the dispute becomes very difficult to evaluate, since the objects of discussion are entire societies, cultures, or social movements and not just economic systems.

The most natural alternative--and the one that will be adopted in this book--is to think of capitalism and socialism as economic systems. This way of understanding the subject matter of this dispute has a long and impressive historical pedigree and a high degree of contemporary relevance. On this understanding, the dispute between those who favor capitalism and those who favor socialism is a dispute about economic systems..." [The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism]

Arnold suggests that the word 'socialism' is primarily used to refer to an economic system, but that socialism as a movement and socialism as a system are interdependent (which is what Battlecry and I argue); he further contends that if the socialist movement and socialist system are not treated jointly, that treating socialism as an economic system is "the most natural alternative." Also, I am not sure whether or not you read above that Arnold also argues that "To be a socialist is not just to believe in certain ends, goals, values, or ideals. It also requires a belief in a certain institutional means to achieve those ends... belief that these ends and values cannot be achieved in an economic system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production," which implies that being a socialist requires advocating that the majority of an economy be under social ownership and control. Nove explicitly says this as Battlecry noted, and furthermore The Communist Manifesto does indeed advocate that "capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society."

Also, I reiterate that socialism does not imply that a state would exist in some form. Busky notes that social anarchism is "a nonstate form of socialism", a point which I've already made. Furthermore, socialism being an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism is a Marxist notion; there are non-Marxist socialists who believe that socialism is a final stage in and of itself. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

More broadly, Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines do not necessarily compel us to separate socialism as an ideology and socialism as a system. As Arnold notes, they are interconnected and intertwined; they are not two discrete entities that merely have a name and/or other characteristics in common the way that American football and football (soccer) are. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ou quote Arnold as saying socialism sometimes is used to refer to a society in its entirety. Quite true. The issue is which use is more common. See for example a Google books search for socialism. The majority of hits are for socialism the ideology and movement. Even Busky, whom you quote, devotes his entire book to socialist parties that do not meet your version of socialism. DISAMBIG says, "Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics...the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic." Certainly the socialist society is a subtopic of socialism. It should be mentioned here and have its own article. But this should not be the primary article. TFD (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no single socialist economic system. There is only a very plural socialist political movement. As far as user Vrrajkum reverting my edition i don´t know why he wants to unite the sources for social control and social ownership. Each of these things has their own source yet he keeps reverting my editions suggesting that i am deleting social ownership. This is simply lying.--Eduen (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@TFD: I quote Arnold as saying that an economic system is the salient conception of socialism, and that "societies, cultures, or social movements" are less notable usages of the word 'socialism' than an economic system is. Therefore a socialist economic system should be the general topic for an article on the term 'socialism'.

@Eduen: If you would actually read what anyone else writes you would see that nobody is arguing that there is a single socialist economic system, as well as why I reverted your change. Vrrajkum (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This is what user Vrrajkum put as a reason for his edit warring with me: "There is consensus on the talk page that "social ownership" includes cooperatives and is the defining characteristic of a socialist economic system, as supported by cited sources"

I ask this user ¿where in the text there is being said that cooperatives are social ownership? Nowhere. And so if that is not being said it is impossible that i erased anything mentioning that in the text on the intro. As such you are lying or you simply were not paying attention to what you were writing. I only wanted to keep the references separate for "social ownership" and for "social control" since this has been an important subject of debate here. Nevertheless user Vrrajkum wants to unite them for some reason which he should explain to us here.

On another subject if you are accepting up here that there is no single "socialist economic system" then how can you support keeping the current text which defines socialism primarely as an economic system. Which economic system of the various proposed by the different tendencies are you talking about? And if we are talking about the system proposed by the anarchists and by the stalinists we are talking about almost contrary systems since the first want no state and the second want everything to be owned by the highly centralized state. As such my proposal is : "Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish an egalitarian society through the means of social ownership and/or social control of the means of production." This also since the subject of the political system under socialism is also an important matter of debate inside socialism. As such the stalinists want a personalistic totalitarian hyperstatist regime while the libertarian socialists want federations of communes while the social democrats want a parliamentary democracy. This is whay we should not reduce this subject to an economicistic definition. The issue of the political system is just as important and in some cases more important than the issue of economics.--Eduen (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You are misquoting Arnold. He does not say the socialist movement is less notable than the socialist society, he says it is a broader concept. Certainly the writings of Marx and Lenin, and political parties from the CPSU to New Labour are more notable than the hypothetical society and anyway DISAMBIG says the primary article should be about the broader concept. And certainly the election in Burma is more notable than obscure debates about the socialist society. TFD (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The article has to address both the economic concept/system of "socialism" as well as the political movement and economic/political ideologies associated with "socialism". Marx and Lenin clearly distinguished between the socialist (post-capitalist) social formation and practical reforms within capitalism, even though they argued there would be some overlap during the transition period, it would be highly NPoV to overly focus on the practical reforms and policies implemented (or advocated) by social democratic/socialist parties. Whether we are discussing the economic concept or the political movement, "socialism" centers around the notion(s) of social ownership and post-capitalist socioeconomic formations.

In response to Eduen, aside from addressing your same nonsensical rants ad nauseum, you are trying to define socialism by hoped for outcomes. We don't define systems by what some of its advocates hope will be the outcome of said system - we define them by their actual processes and characteristics. "Egalitarianism" or "equality" is a highly contentious term that can mean many different things, many of which socialists disagree with (Marx for example rejected egalitarianism as an idealistic concept). Because there are so many different possible reasons people have advocated socialism, this discussion and its controversies are best left to the body of the article. It would be highly NPoV to define "capitalism" as an economic theory that aims to establish a 'free society' through private ownership, for example, since that is not a universal defining characteristic of capitalism many advocates of capitalism would probably disagree with this hoped-for outcome that right-libertarians and economic liberals believe is essential to the definition of capitalism. -Battlecry 01:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course it must mention both. The problem is that you define it narrowly so as to remove most socialism. And Marx did support egalitarianism. TFD (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)