Jump to content

Talk:Socialism/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Re: Edits on the introduction

The concerns about the length of the introduction are valid and will be addressed.

@Eduen: As The Four Deuces noted above, we need to distinguish between de jure socialism and de facto socialism. The governing parties of China, the Soviet Union, and the other countries that you noted are indeed de jure socialist, but this does not mean that they are de facto socialist. We need to be cognizant of this objective distinction in writing this article, especially considering that this article is widely read by a lay audience. The Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam... none of them are or have been consistent with socialism or communism in any rigorous or otherwise meaningful sense.

For example, and with respect to your invoking of politicans, although contemporary American politican Bernie Sanders identifies as a democratic socialist, the media notes that what he advocates is actually social democracy--which, if you read Wikipedia's well-sourced entry on social democracy, you will see originated as a form of socialism, but that its identity has since morphed and it has since become very well-accepted by both academics and the media (as its usage in the Times article shows) as a form of capitalism. The South American and European 'socialist' countries that you noted, which are actually forms of social democracy, are therefore de facto capitalist and should be treated as such.

In addition, many academics and members of the media also contend that China is state capitalist rather than socialist,[1][2][3][4] which further undermines your approach to treating the concept of socialism based on the nominal designations of political parties. Vrrajkum (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: Please refrain from using ad hominems against me and putting words in my mouth. I never equated socialism with a communist system. Second, market socialism by definition includes social ownership of the means of production. In fact, many models of market socalism reject heavily interventionism (which is what I assume you mean by "social control") AND social planning.
You also removed a line describing Karl Marx's contribution to socialism, which by any measure, was the most significant contributor to the socialist concept in history. A single line in the lead hardly implies that we are treating him as a "prophet of socialism" as you claimed in your edit summary. - Battlecry 06:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually advocate both having a definition of socialist movements and parties and accepting self descriptions and socialists and academic and media labelings of socialist. Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn calls themselves "socialist". Some people both to the left or to the right of him say he is not a socialist but many people and the media label him a socialist and so they should be included within socialism because of self labeling and because an important part of the media and the academy will treat the that way. In Europe there are parties such as the Spanish Socialist Workers Party or the french Socialist party who are socialdemocratic but who are named "socialist" in their title and so they have to be included within socialism and this also points out to the fact that socialdemocracy belongs to the broad socialist tradition in politics. Those two parties are also members of the Socialist International alongside self named "socialdemocratic" parties such as the Swedish Social Democratic Party and German Social Democratic Party. In reality the Swedish social democratic party is more leftwing than both the spanish and french socialist parties even though it only names itslef "socialdemocratic" and not "socialist". All of these parties belong to the Party of European Socialists in the European parliament and this is yet another proof that socialdemocracy is part of the socialist movement. The same happens with the Soviet Union. Libertarian socialists say that the Soviet Union was not socialist but that it was "state capitalism". Still the Soviet Union self labeled itself "socialist" and the media and academic works label it that way.--Eduen (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Socialist parties and their actions, or the actions favored by their leaders, do not constitute the definition of socialism, just as the actions of Muslims or certain Islamic sects don't change the definition of Islam. By your criteria, we should include the Nazis as an example of "socialism" because at one point they claimed they were "socialist" in their party name. -Battlecry 06:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: You are arguing that identifying by a given label implies consistency with the definition or ideals of that label? By that logic, I could call myself a Dane, although I have never been to Denmark in my life. Vrrajkum (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen:Federal Express is an arm of the United States government because they label themselves "Federal"Helios932 (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
In the case of the german Nazi party the general tendency within the media and the academy is to label it "fascist" and far right and as such they are not included in general works on socialism as part of socialism. That is why i do not favour the inclusion of that thing as "socialist" in this article. On the other hand every general work on socialism will deal with and include socialdemocracy within it. And so also many socialdemocrat parties are named "socialist" while the communist party of East Germany also had "socialist" in their name, in their case Socialist Unity Party of Germany. As such both of them have to be included in the wikipedia socialism article.--Eduen (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Eduen:The job of the Media is to talk, just because they make a claim for something, does not mean that they are actually correct. The Media appeals to people's defintions about socialism because they are interested in ratings, time and views. They themselves also do not have any real definitions. Socialism, for most media outlets, is state ownership, social welfare, and big capitalist government. If the media started to call FedEx a government organization, would that make them a government organization?Helios932 (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The article conflates socialism as an ideology with socialism as a system. These are two distinct topics, and this article should be about the ideology. The Historical Dictionary of Socialism, while noting that there are numerous definitions, notes a commonality: socialists believe social problems exist, they see capitalism as the cause and they advocate varying degrees of social control and/or ownership. Furthermore they share a history and some symbols, such as the red flag. Of course it is debatable whether any of them have ever achieved any degree of social control or ownership or whether that is even possible or desirable, but the definition clearly includes groups as different as North Korea's leaders and New Labour, while excluding other ideologies such as liberalism. Liberals for example may advocate the same policies as socialists, but they identify the sources of problems as pre-capitalist or anti-capitalist elements. TFD (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
User TFD has pointed out to an important issue here and it is that socialism is not only a proposal for a system, or an existing system, but it is also a political ideology and a social and political movement. As such self labeled and labeled socialist movements and parties can only partially determine reality, even if they are in government, and so we cannot find here completely perfect ideal models of functioning socialism. We can only find socialist movements and parties and their actions in reality. It is a good thing that the user who has edited a lot of things in the intro did not erase the mention of socialism as a political movement. In the other editions of his he is forcing here the single point of socialism as a single economic system almost as if that existed somewhere we we can see what is "true" socialism and what is not. But we are not doing just that here but we are presenting the idea of socialism as a synomym with communism by reducing it to "social property". In fact this is an old discussion in which we reached a consensus before and i will advise new editors that they become informed on that by going back to the archives of this talk page. Otherwise we are coming back to old discussions and even worse we start having edit wars here on issues dealt here before. I remind the users who want to keep this article dedicated on socialism as a clear model of an economic system to check the wikipedia article titled Socialist mode of production which clearly is about socialism as an economic system and it is mostly about the view of Marx on that. Here we have to account for socialism both as a economic system and as a political and social movement.--Eduen (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The lead begins, "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production...." But very little of the article is devoted to that topic. Either we need to change the lead or remove most of the article. I would change the lead and note there is already an article called the Socialist state.
I think also that some editors want to make clear distinctions between socialists and social democrats, but there are none. Another is to confuse the policies advocated by Socialists with socialism. So the NHS is seen as socialist although it is actually social liberal.
TFD (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
This is the reason why i have been advocating keeping the mention of "social control" in order to define socialist policy. Not just "socialdemocratic" but even eurocommunist and other type of left wing democratic socialist parties are not really arguing for nationalization of the entire economy but for more state regulation, a bigger and better welfare state, higher tax rates for the rich and making capitalist enterprises acept national priorities under a state planning of the economy. Socialist policies can also advocate nationalizing things and so Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina and Bolivia have renationalized the oil industry just as the UK Labour Party nationalized mines and other strategic industries during the Clement Attlee government. So in that way socialist policy has an important plurality of possibilities and to reduce socialism to "social ownership" is both not doing right to reality and to reduce socialism to communism.--Eduen (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@TFD:[5]
@Eduen: Nobody is trying to reduce socialism to communism except you; it also seems that you don't understand what communism is, and are instead misconstruing it for a system where the entire economy is nationalized, which is the exact opposite of communism's conception as a stateless society (which has never existed, at least not in the post-Neolithic era). Socialization =/= nationalization (we went over this above), and an entirely nationalized economy in the sense that you are using it would be better described as state capitalism.
It is indeed accurate to characterize socialism as a system of "social ownership" of the means of production (which does NOT imply government ownership), and this in no way implies that socialism = communism (which has NOTHING to do with government ownership). Vrrajkum (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please sign your comments

Anyway. If you want to characterize socialism as only consisting of social ownership you are only reducing socialism to either a completely statizised economy or an economy which is owned entirely by the community. As such you are asking us to erase most of what has been written in this article leaving only marxist-leninism and anarchocommunism and we clearly cannot do that. On the other hand you simply have to accept the fact of socialdemocratic parties calling themselves socialist as well as latin american left wing governments calling themselves socialist. Wikipedia has to deal with reality and not with the wishes of a single user. Socialism is not just an economic system but also a political movement and an ideology. And within that political and ideological movement there is a big part, if not the majority, of followers who do not want to bring the whole economy under "social ownership" and who just want to have "social control" of the economy. Even China and now Cuba is leaving this view of complete social ownership of the economy. Here we have an excelent source such as the Encyclopedia Britnannica which talks about social control and so clearly that has to win over your personal opinion.--Eduen (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: I signed my comment above. You continue to misunderstand the definition of "social ownership"; it is NOT limited to state ownership and does indeed encompass cooperative employee ownership.[6] Furthermore, it IS valid to define socialism as a system of social ownership and control of the means of production.[7]
Do I also have to treat the Nazi party as a socialist party by virtue of it calling itself socialist? Contemporary social democracy is not socialism, and claiming that it is, in turn, is claiming that capitalism is socialism.[8][9]
You say that "Wikipedia has to deal with reality and not with the wishes of a single user"; however, you are the "single user", for example, insisting that social ownership is limited to state ownership and/or that calling oneself a socialist makes one a socialist, which is not reality. Vrrajkum (talk)
s your source (Routledge) says, "particularly since World War II, distinctions have sometimes been made between social democrats and socialists." "Sometimes" does not mean usually. Furthermore, it is out of context. It is part of an entry on "[1] social democracy" that says, "Ideologically, 'social democracy' has changed dramatically since it first emerged over a century ago. Although for most of its history it was synonymous with demands for state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and distribution of wealth, social democracy nevertheless represents a curious mixture of liberal and socialist traditions that are a product both of its history and development." Under "social democratic parties" it notes a distinction between the revolutionary and revisionist strands. "Socialism" in the two articles is used to refer to a type of state, rather than to any political groups. But most sources refer to these political groups as socialists.
Note that under the Routledge definition both Marx and Lenin were Social Democrats. They in fact both belonged to parties called Social Democrats.
I understand that different writers will use different terms but Wikipedia is not a dictionary and each article should be about a distinct topic. We are confusing three separate topics: social democracy/socialism, communism and the socialist state.
TFD (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
To user Vrrajkum i will have to remind him again that socialism is not only a social system but it is also a political movement. What i will need here from him is to answer yes or no to the question of whether socialism is also a political movement or not. If he answers yes then he is accepting that parties that call themselves socialists will have to be dealt with in this article and that is what happens with other general works on socialism and that will also include socialdemocracy and Labour parties since it organizes itself at an international level within organizations such as Socialist International (worldwide) and Party of European Socialists (european parliamentary group). As user TFD has pointed out both Lenin and Rosa Luxembourg were also members of parties called "Social democratic" but it seems that User Vrrajkum wants us to leave out both Rosa Luxembour and Lenin out of this article since those parties were not called "socialist". If he answers no then he is going againts all the bibliography which does in fact identify socialism as a politicial movement and as an ideology. So in that way he will be saying that Cuba is not a socialist country but that it is a capitalist country. In that case we will only have to deal with North Korea as the only example of socialism and even leave out of this article the Chinese and Cuban Communist parties since they have decided now to abandon the position of having an economy totally under "social ownership". So then i will wait for his answer yes or no from him since this is what we need right now to solve this disagreement.--Eduen (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
In order to talk here with sources and not only with philosophical arguments i will put here into consideration a book of political history that i happen to own called One Hundred Years of Socialism: The West European Left in the Twentieth Century by Donald Sasson. It includes within it social democratic parties such as the spanish PSOE, the greek PASOK, the Italian Socialist Party, the FRench Socialist Party, the swedish Swedish Social Democratic Party and the british Labour Party alongside the Italian and the French communist parties. On the other hand that book does not include as part of its object of study, which is of course "socialist parties", the Nazi party. It even has a section called "the construction of Welfare socialism, which deals with how welfare state were built in France and Britain. As such that book contradicts user Vrrajkum´s position.
On the other hand i have obtained the book Socialism: A Very Short Introduction by Michael Newman and which is published by Oxford University Press in 2008. It has an entire chapter called "Cuban communism and swedish social democracy". As such it is including both cuban communism and swedish social democracy as part of socialism. In the chapter called "Socialist traditions" it includes social democracy within it as one of the main "traditions" alongside anarchism and communism. At some point Newman establishes the following:
In general, social democratic parties experienced persistent difficulties in self-definition after the break with communism. As most of them had claimed to be Marxist before 1914, and had disputed the communist appropriation of the doctrine in the early post-war period, it was difficult simply to abandon it thereafter. On the other hand, it was clear that they accepted liberal democratic institutions as the primary route through which to implement changes. Some parties, particularly those competing for the allegiance of the working class with a large communist party, continued to claim Marxism as a doctrinal source long after it ceased to play an important role in influencing policy...The raison d’être of social democracy after the split with communism had been the claim that socialism could be implemented peacefully (pg. 49)....The failings of social democratic governments in the large European states bear no comparison with the crimes of Stalinism or Maoism, but it is difficult to argue that they ever created an alternative model of society reflecting socialist values. While no party has been entirely successful in this respect, Swedish social democracy and Cuban communism both attempted to implement the goals of equality, cooperation, and solidarity and both demonstrated significant achievements. It is for this reason that these two states have been selected as case studies. (pg. 52)
Since the main object of stydy of the book is "socialism" it is clear that these two "cases of study" are two cases of socialism in practice. As such i have two very good sources which contradict user Vrrajkum and which command us to include social democracy in this article. I will proceed to bring more sources but i can expect that they will continue to confirm to us that socialism includes socialdemocracy.--Eduen (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

TFD and Eduen: Social democracy indeed originated as a form of revisionist socialism, and pre-World War II social democratic parties and individuals were indeed socialist parties and individuals (and thus belong in this article), but in the post-World War II era social democracy's meaning shifted as it separated from socialism and took on its own distinct identity as a pro-capitalism ideology. Routledge notes that "'social democracy' has changed dramatically since it first emerged over a century ago", and I again said that contemporary social democracy is not socialism, and that claiming that it is is in turn claiming that capitalism is socialism.

@Eduen: With respect to including nominally socialist parties and individuals in the socialist movement, I will again use the example of Bernie Sanders. He identifies as a socialist, campaigns as a socialist, claims to advocate socialism, but he is not a socialist. In fact, this article describes him as "a statist, not a socialist" (statism and socialism are not the same thing; Cuba, China, and North Korea are statist, but they are not socialist).[10]. A broad treatment of socialist politicians would probably include Sanders by virtue of his self-proclaimed label and its impact on contemporary American politics, but this is not to be misconstrued for him being a socialist. In fact, although Sanders is registered as an Independent, he is campaigning as a Democrat (these are U.S. political affiliations in case anyone is not from the U.S.); as such, he is discussed in discussions of Democrats and the Democratic Party, but this does not make him a Democrat.

With respect to your source Socialism: A Very Short Introduction you say that its treatment of Cuba and Sweden makes it "clear that these two "cases of study" are two cases of socialism in practice", when the source itself contradicts that:

"The failings of social democratic governments in the large European states bear no comparison with the crimes of Stalinism or Maoism, but it is difficult to argue that they ever created an alternative model of society reflecting socialist values. While no party has been entirely successful in this respect [i.e., socialism has never existed], Swedish social democracy and Cuban communism both attempted to implement the goals of equality, cooperation, and solidarity and both demonstrated significant achievements. It is for this reason [attempting "to implement the goals of equality, cooperation, and solidarity"] that these two states have been selected as case studies [NOT because they are examples of socialism]. (pg. 52))

In other words your own source contradicts your position. In fact, your other source is also contradicted by this source, as One Hundred Years of Socialism seems to suggest that socialism has been successfully implemented when in fact Socialism: A Very Short Introduction above clearly says "no party has been entirely successful in this respect". Vrrajkum (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: I actually don't at all understand why you are arguing that China is socialist or has anything to do with social ownership when the first four references below clearly indicate that China is capitalist. Vrrajkum (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You are confusing socialists with the socialist state. It could be that there have never been socialist states and it could also be that all socialists are hypocrits. Nonetheless, there is a socialist movement and it is tendentious to deny it. The Historical Dictionary of Socialism identifies the key features: they identify social problems, they see captialism as the cause, and they see some degree of social control and/or ownership as the solution. That distinguishes them from liberals, conservatives and fascists. Clause IV explains their position:
"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."
Certainly Socialist platforms have changed over the years, but then so have Liberal and Conservative ones. We do not say that because modern liberals advocate democracy that that they are no longer liberals. (Democracy was seen as a threat to property rights.)
TFD (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: The platforms of socialist parties change, yes; and the party platforms of self-described socialist parties can include a diverse range of perspectives ranging from neoliberal economic liberalism to social liberalism. But this does not change the definition of socialism anymore than a self-identified pro-capitalist political party's political platform changes the definition and meaning of capitalism. The article's subject matter is not the political platform of self-described socialist parties, or parties with "socialist" in their name (which may only retain the name out of tradition); it is about the concept of socialism itself, which is an alternative or post-capitalist economic system. -Battlecry 01:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. The definition of socialism does not change just because platforms change, it remains the same. Incidentally, capitalism is not an ideology or political movement, it is an economic system. Indeed conservatives, like socialists, have come to accept capitalism, but that does not mean they are not conservative.
If Socialist parties are not socialist, could you tell me precisely when they rejected socialism and also when they initially adopted it. Would you say the Communist Manifesto was not a socialist document because it did not advocate social ownership of the means of production?
TFD (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: Socialism is, like capitalism, an economic system. Without the economic system, the movement(s) associated with socialism lacks any distinguishing feature as compared with other political movements. My point is not to dispute whether or not specific parties or individuals are -really- socialist, it is to point out that the policies they advocate and promote have nothing to do with socialism. Take, for example, Bernie Sanders. He might very well be a socialist (in the past he advocated public ownership, self-management and understood capitalism to merely be a transitional stage of human development), but the policies he advocates which he is now associating with socialism in his speeches (public goods, welfare provision and higher taxes) do not constitute socialism or even a fundamental critique of capitalism. -Battlecry 03:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed socialism can be a system, and we have an article about it called Socialist state. But primarily it is a political ideology and movement, just as liberalism and conservatism are. See for example the Historical Dictionary of Socialism.[2] The book begins, "Socialism has been one of the most resilient modern sociopolitical ideologies."
If one thinks this article should be about the socialist state, then all the parts about socialists should be removed and only mentioned in the context of how they advocated or attempted to establish a socialist state.
TFD (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: I think you are confusing the term "socialist state" with "socialism" or "socialist economic system". As I understand it, the concept of a socialist state is largely a Leninist concept. But terminological distinctions aside, yes, the article needs to focus more on socialism and the development of the concept as well as major contemporary forms being developed and proposed. As it currently stands, the article features too much bloat in the "History" section, which is full of content that has questionable relevance to the concept of socialism. -Battlecry 06:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
User Battlecry wants to turn this article historic section into "history of the debates on the non existing socialist economic system". I don´t know what does he have againts real political movements who actually make history but clearly that is what this article´s history section should mainly focus on and it clearly does that.--Eduen (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Can a system be "socialist" but still include private ownership of means of production in most industries?

Given that at least some reliable sources define "democratic socialism" in a way that does not require public ownership of the means of production (it may be that different authors disagree on their preferred definition of the defining features of 'socialism'), I think the opening paragraph needs to be substantially altered to make this more clear--do other editors agree? I have found a number of sources that say that "Democratic socialism" does include the option of private ownership of most industries, for example p. 426 of the textbook Sociology in Our Time: The Essentials says:

Sweden, Great Britain, and France have mixed economies, sometimes referred to as democratic socialism—an economic and political system that combines private ownership of some of the means of production, governmental distribution of some essential goods and services, and free elections. For example, government ownership in Sweden is limited primarily to railroads, mineral resources, a public bank, and liquor and tobacco operations

Similarly the textbook The New World of Politics: An Introduction to Political Science says on p. 159 that:

Democratic socialists, in contrast to orthodox communists, usually reject complete national or public ownership of the means of production and exchange. They are more favorably disposed to an economy that mixes public and private ownership. They are willing to leave in private hands much of the capitalist economy: agriculture, most small-scale industries, and almost al retail business. Some democratic socialists even make a strong case for what they call "market socialism."

In a discussion of the West German social democratic party (the SPD), p. 15 of the book Political Europe (a collection of articles from The Economist) says:

The policy declaration of the SPD in 1959 (the "Bad Godesburg declaration") contained no reference to Marx, and stated in as many words that private ownership of the means of production was entitled to "protection and promotion" so long as it does not hinder the construction of an equitable social order

In a later section on British social democracy, it says:

In Britain the concern was to counter the accusation that Labour was doctrinally committed to extending public ownership (or nationalisation) to an unlimited number of industries. The main intellectual influence was Anthony Crosland(1918-77) who argued persuasively in his major work, The Future of Socialism (1956), that the ownership of industry was largely irrelevant to socialist purposes, that social and economic equality should be the major priority and that nationalisation should be pursued only if it could be shown, in any particular case, to serve wider socialist purposes.

On p. 44 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism by libertarian theoriest Hans-Hermann Hoppe we find democratic socialism defined merely in terms of redistribution of some of the income from the means of production (obtained through taxation), not excluding private ownership:

What are the central features of socialism social-democratic-style? There are basically two characteristics. First, in positive contradistinction to the traditional Marxist-style socialism, social-democratic socialism does not outlaw private ownership in the means of production and it even accepts the idea of all means of production being privately owned--with the exception only of education, traffic and communication, central banking, and the police and courts. In principle, everyone has the right to privately appropriate and own means of production, to sell, buy, or newly produce them, to give them away as a present, or to rent them out to someone else under a contractual agreement. But secondly, no owner of means of production rightfully owns all of the income that can be derived from the usage of his means of production and no owner is left to decide how much of the total income from production to allocate to consumption and investment. Instead, part of the income from production rightfully belongs to society, has to be handed over to it, and is then, according to ideas of egalitarianism or distributive justice, redistributed to its individual members.

And in the textbook Politics: An Introduction to the Modern Democratic State, pp. 213-214 say:

The divorce between communism and socialism was originally rooted in difference over strategy: revolutionary or reformist. Both believed in the replacement of a private-property market economy with a socialized (collective or public ownership) economy under the direction of the state. Over time, though, democratic socialism came to accept the legitimacy of private ownership of property and ceased to call for collectivization of property. Even those elected socialist governments in the twentieth centruy (in France and the United Kingdom, for example) that nationalized private corporations in sectors such as coal mining and steel production made no attempt to replace the market as the primary means of allocating resources. Such partial (or sectoral) nationalization, long since reversed in most cases, is almost unthinkable today. Socialists still support collective ventures such as co-operatives or worker-owned businesses but are no longer committed to eliminating private corporations or restructuring the entire economy on an alternative basis.

These were just the first few sources I found searching for the keywords "democratic socialism private ownership" on google books, I'm sure plenty more can be found if we want to make clear that this is a common definition. Hypnosifl (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hypnosifl: The issue here is terminological. "Democratic socialism" in these instances is being used to mean "social democracy", which is not an economic system but a political ideology and set of policies. As has been discussed above ad nauseum, the policies of self-described socialist (or labor/social democratic) parties don't define the concept of socialism and the object of the socialist movement. Almost any economic textbook on socialism will define the concept of socialism variously as public, collective or cooperative ownership of the means of production. The sources you have provided appear to be using the definitions loosely. The New World of Politics: An Introduction to Political Science defines "market socialism" as an economy that mixes public and private ownership. This is incorrect, as most authoritative sources on market socialism (and all the proposed models of market socialism) replace private ownership with either the dominance of public or cooperative ownership of the means of production. The first source, Sociology in Our Time: The Essentials, is defining "democratic socialism" as contemporary social democracy - this would be a good source to add in the Democratic socialism article, but it is distinguished from the concept of the socialist system which refers to a non-capitalist social system. Tertiary sources usually associate the Bad Godesburg declaration as the point where the German SPD ceased to be a socialist party and became a proponent of post-war era social democracy as a distinct ideology that rejected transition to socialism as a core part of its program. Likewise, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism is describing post-war era social democracy, which is conceptually different from pre-war era social democracy (which aimed to replace capitalism with socialism).
Some of this information is relevant to include in the section about the history of the socialist movement, since it explains a particular historical current within one of the major branches of socialism ("democratic socialism"), but it would be grossly inappropriate and to attempt to redefine the concept of socialism to refer specifically to the post-war era Western European social democratic party platforms given that the "socialist bloc" (Eastern Europe, USSR, PRC etc.) operated under a different definition, and given that these perspectives represent but one tradition within the broader European social democratic / democratic socialist movement:
The experiences of the war, coupled with post-war economic prosperity and the onset of the Cold War, served to moderate social democracy in Western Europe. In particular, most social democratic parties either abandoned or toned down their commitment to the socialization of the means of production...The revisionist position, represented in the Bad Godesberg Principles and the work of Anthony Crossland, believed that the attainment of social welfare systems and a mixed economy negated the need to aim for a socialist state to alleviate inequality; the radicals, in contrast, believed that such achievements were merely triumphs on the path to a democratic socialist state.[11]
Most common dictionary and authoritative academic sources that explore the concept of socialism include, as a defining feature, some form of "social ownership" of the means of production. Contrary to popular misconception, the original concept of socialism has not disappeared merely because post-war West European social democratic parties rejected it. There are still papers and books being published about socialism and post-capitalism. -Battlecry 02:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It's true that the sources I pointed to were not academic sources from the field of economics, so if it's true that public ownership of industry is taken as a defining feature of socialism among virtually all economists, that does seem like a good enough reason for keeping the opening section unchanged, though I think something should be added to the democratic socialist article to suggest that academics in other fields like political science do define social democracy as a type of "socialism" even if economists do not. On the other hand, if your reference to "most common dictionary and authoritative academic sources" implies that there is some reasonably large minority of academic economists who define "socialism" differently, I think the wikipedia policies on neutral point of view would require at least a brief note that not all economists define socialism to require public ownership. Hypnosifl (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hypnosifl: According to Sociology in Our Time: The Essentials, socialism is defined as follows:

Socialism is an economic system characterized by public ownership of the means of production, the pursuit of collective goals, and centralized decision making. Like 'pure' capitalism, 'pure' socialism does not exist.
I would also like to clarify one point by citing The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, where socialism is defined as a system characterized by the dominance of social ownership, not total social ownership of the economy. Likewise, capitalism does not imply total private ownership, just the dominance of private ownership in the economy. The sources defining democratic socialism above are in sections defining the mixed economy (in the sense of capitalism with regulations and a minority of public ownership), associating them with a political ideology that is commonly called social democracy in Europe (sometimes used interchangeably with democratic socialism). Both the "mixed economy" and "social democracy" (when used to refer to the former) are distinct concepts from socialism and a socialist economy. Textbooks on comparative economic systems distinguish between capitalism and socialism based on ownership of the MoP,[12][13] and define existing mixed economies as variants of capitalism (for retaining the defining characteristics associated with capitalism - private ownership, capital accumulation, markets and wage labor). -Battlecry 03:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The Dictionary says "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." While that is probably a good definition for "socialist society", it is a poor definition for socialism. I notice that a recent Forbes column, which was commented upon by an editor called battler4cry, used this article to claim that Bernie Sanders was not a "democratic socialist." It's an odd definition because it excluses all democratic socialists as democratic socilialists.
Sociology in our Times is an illustrated introduction to sociology. In my experience editors present these sorts of sources not because they are the best available, but because they say what they think.
TFD (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hypnosifl: As Battlecry explained, the sources you have provided describe social democracy, not necessarily democratic socialism.
@The Four Deuces: This New York Times article also challenges Mr. Sanders' self-proclaimed label: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/upshot/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-capitalist.html
"The weirdest thing about this fight is that Mr. Sanders, a Vermont senator, is not really a socialist."
"“It’s not socialism, it’s social democracy, which is a big difference,” said Mike Konczal, an economic policy expert at the left-wing Roosevelt Institute. Social democracy, Mr. Konczal noted, “implies a very active role for capitalism in the framework.”"
Vrrajkum (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No one questions that some writers use a social democratic/democratic socialist dichotomy although they differ among themselves on where to draw the line. But we should use mainstream terminology. If we consult standard textbooks, such as Political Ideologies: An Introduction, we see that the term is used to refer to the broad movement, although mention is made that some writers try to distinguish between two the types of socialism with no agreement on how to distinguish them.[3]

Incidentally, the "article" in the NYT is an op-ed, therefore not a reliable source. The author Josh Barro is a journalist, not an expert in political ideology, and has a B.A. in psychology. He seems to be taking Konczal out of context. He does not say Bernie Sanders is not a socialist but that his platform is more consistent with a social democratic rather than socialist system. In fact it could just as easily been presented by a liberal or conservative.

TFD (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Hypnosifl was inquiring about socialism as a system, not any particular socialist ideology. Specifically he was giving sources that defined "democratic socialism" as the economic system that exists or existed in post-war Western European countries. This is an entirely different question about whether democratic socialism and social democracy are different ideologies with different goals. The economic systems of Western Europe are almost universally recognized to be forms of capitalism that differ mainly in their economic policies (their underlying allocation mechanisms, property rights regime, and wage-labor are capitalist). To analyze any system, we have to look at the fundamental processes which characterize it and not at hoped-for outcomes or the ideals that one hopes those processes will realize. If "democratic socialism" is being used to refer to specific social policies, then it is being used to describe an entirely different concept (one that more specialized sources tend to refer to as "social democracy" - though I do recognize that "social democracy" can also refer to reformism) from socialism as an economic system or socialism as a political movement. In response to user TFD, the article makes it clear that "socialism" is not only a system but has also been used loosely to refer to the political movement/ideology that aims to establish a socialist system/society. Both meanings are included in the first sentence.
Regarding Bernie Sanders, he is not a "democratic socialist" in the sense that his platform and the political values he outlined in his recent speech have nothing to do with advocating socialism. Whether or not one advocates reforms to capitalism or social welfare is completely independent of one's advocacy for social ownership; whether that implies a non-market or market socialist system. -Battlecry 07:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
As far as Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn, if they call themselves socialist then they clearly have to be counted as such in this article. Their notability is also something important to take into account here in wikipedia. Socialism above all is a movement and there is no single socialist system but mostly just different proposals for a system or simply for social policies and measures. User Battlecry has accepted that yet he keeps sometimes saying that there is some single "socialist economic system" somewhere. And these socialist proposals sometimes tend to be very different and contradictory between each other. And as far as someone being or not being a socialist that is simply something that happens in political debates: accusations and labelings between people in political discussions. If libertarian socialists say stalinists are not real socialists but state capitalists or fascists with red flags, some socialists say democratic socialists and social democrats are not "real" socialists. As such Sanders and Corbyn views clearly are part of the subject of this article.--Eduen (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I will also remind other users that someone like Benjamin Tucker also called himself a socialist yet he advocated no social or communal or state ownership at all. He advocated a market of small bussinesses without a state that will come to enforce things like patents or that will give privileges which will enlarge artificially some bussinesses over others. That is also part of socialism. As such user Battlecry, your single socialist economic system does not exist. What exists are people and political groups who are labeled and/or who self-label themselves "socialist".--Eduen (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
We have been over this issue ad nauseum before, socialism is a socioeconomic system and the movement aims to achieve this system. You simply cannot talk about the concept of socialism as a movement without addressing the definition of the system and form of society that movement is trying to achieve. That means we have to dedicate space describing "social ownership", "democratic management", "economic planning", "market socialism" etc. I would also like to remind Eduen that there is no one single "socialist movement" or socialist ideology either, just a range of proposals for how socialism might or should be brought about. And finally, one more point I feel I need to reiterate, using this article to describe the political positions and platforms of specific self-described socialist politicians is outside the scope of this article, regardless of their actual political ideology. This article should focus on socialism as both a concept (the economic system) and the broad political movement and its core dichotomies/history. -Battlecry 00:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
To user Battlecry i will remind him that we are not trying to write here a discussion of socialist philosophies but an article on socialism which is mostly thought of as a social and political movement and ideology. Politicians happen to be an important part of all that since socialism intends to have an impact in social and political reality and it has precisely done that. As such socialism is not just a literary phenomenon and clearly we cannot have a serious "socialism" article only paying attention to the discussions of intelectuals and their texts.--Eduen (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: What should be the topic of this article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus for option two. The majority opinion cite WP:PTOPIC or use its logic. AlbinoFerret 17:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Should the topic of this article be:

  • One A socio-economic system state where there is social ownership of the means of production and the ideologies and movements supporting it, or
  • Two The ideology and movement generally called socialist, which supports some degree of social ownership and/or control of the means of production.

TFD (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Survey

  • Two Most sources about socialism are about the socialist movement and its ideology. While most modern mainstream Socialists do not advocate the establishment of a socialist socio-economic system state, it would take a lot of surgical original research to determine which Socialists were pure and should be in the article and which do not belong, particularly over the history of the subject. Also, there are already articles about the Socialist state and the Socialist mode of production. TFD (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@TFD: What do you think of user Battlecry's idea to merge the socialist mode of production article into this article? Vrrajkum (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • One The socialist movement can only be understood in relation to the socialist economic system as that is what said movement aims to achieve. The concept of the "socialist state" is different from the concept of socialism as a socioeconomic system, referring specifically to a state or government that is run by a socialist/Marxist-Leninist party. The original title of the article "Socialist mode of production" was "Socialism (Marxism)", originally written to give an exposition on the classical Marxist notion of socialism. Either that article can be retained or the content merged into the main Socialism article. The current version of the Socialism article dedicates too much space on the "History" of the movement or parties and politicians, often simply because they have "socialist" in their title, irrespective of whether or not those actions relate to socialism as a concept. The article should instead be focusing on the key aspects of socialism and its various forms: an overview of the major economic models, methods of resource allocation, property forms along with an overview of the largest dichotomies within the movement (reformism vs. revolutionary socialism). -Battlecry 03:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • One A socialist SYSTEM (not necessarily a state) is how most laypeople conceive socialism and is what they come to Wikipedia to try and learn more about. Socialism is both a system and the movement, but the two are complementary and there is no reason that both cannot be treated.
For example, people expect the Wikipedia entry on capitalism to be about the capitalist system, which it is, but it also treats the history of capitalism and capitalist development. As such, the Wikipedia entry on socialism can meet people's expectations as far as being about the socialist system, while also treating the history of socialism and socialist development. Vrrajkum (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Exactly user Orangemike and thanks for sharing your opinion here with us. This simply shows yet once more that users Battlecry and Vrrajkum don´t have a consensus for their proposals for changes in the intro.--Eduen (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Orangemike: What do you think of user Battlecry's idea to merge the socialist mode of production article into this article? Vrrajkum (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Orangemike: Nobody is advocating reducing the article to discuss the purely Marxist concept of the "mode of production" or a "socialist state". What I have been arguing is the article needs to offer a broad balance between explaining the concept of socialism (the socio-economic system) and the major political currents as opposed to excessively focusing on the history and political exploits of self-described socialist leaders and parties, often simply because they have the term "socialist" or "social democratic" in their name. -Battlecry 04:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
So i guess user Battlecry wants us to do is to focus on the books and articles written by intellectuals instead of on politicians and their actions. We have to achieve a balance between both. Focusing only on one of those things will be a partial view of this subject. Now i will ask user Battlecry to bring us this book which show us what is the "real" socialist system or a description of a "real" socialist system put in practice which can represent all the socialist subsections which debate and engage in conflict with each other and which also give us contradictory views on that. I will be waiting for that since it really seems that user is very sure that those thing exist and that we can see them clearly in some book or article. If user Battlecry expect us to take his argument seriously he has to provide that and nothing less.--Eduen (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I have been consistently arguing for a balance between socialism as a concept and the socialist political movement/theory ever since discussion of reforming this article has come up. As for you insistence that there is only one "real" socialist system, I think you know as well as I do that there is no one socialist system but rather a set of different proposals and models for how a socialist economy would function. This article needs to do a better job describing the basic concepts to socialism (such as what "ownership" means in the context of the means of production, the forms of proposed resource allocation, and a brief overview of the history of the development of the concept) as well as major models of socialism that have been proposed and a brief overview of current research in the field. I -never- advocated removing all content about the major socialist parties and leaders; only that we have a balance between discussing the two. As it currently stands, the history section is far too long and actually only covers the history of socialist parties and leaders, so its length needs to be reduced significantly before I can implement new material on the history and major proposals for socialist systems. -Battlecry 02:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
We will need to see the sources which support these "major proposals for socialist systems". Frankly i don´t know what you will be talking about besides what already is in the article:social democracy, anarchism, leninism, market socialism, etc. Anyway here in wikipedia we do not work with secrets that will be anounced in the future but with sources and discussion for everyone to see. Returning to the main point of this thread i am glad that you are accepting that there is not a single "socialist economic system". Each of the socialist tendencies will propose a different system but sometimes a set of socialist policies and proposals is at the most that they can arrive since social systems are not like a painting or something that can be organized from above and with a preceeding plan without taking account on the wishes of the individuals and groups composing that society. But also remember that something proposed in a single book or by a single intellectual does not merit attention here in wikipedia. Those types of ideas must be supported by some sort of movement and have been influential in political and social movements and parties.--Eduen (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Two, with some amount of One of course being unavoidable. Called by bot. Socialism is a political theory with a long and complicated history, and this article should focus mostly on that theory. I think that various supposed implementations are important (and should receive some smallish treatment). However, any serious Wikipedia article on the theory of socialism will review how the theories interacted with historical events and politics. For instance, the development of communist theory must reference the events of 1848 and the later Paris Commune. The formation of the Third International is meaningless without some reference to the formation of the Bolshevik Party, 1905, disagreements over WWI, and the Russian Revolution. Trotskyism and Stalinism can only be understood through at least some discussion of Soviet policy in the 1920s-30s. And describing Maoism surely requires some description of Chinese policy and, among other things, the cultural revolution. Otherwise, I'm not sure what can be meant by this RfC. -Darouet (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Two. The first option is essentially taking one narrow definition of socialism and declaring it 'correct' in a way that I don't feel reflects the sources or current usage. While it's true that sometimes political parties call themselves "socialist" or "democratic" without any real concern for the meaning of the term, it's clear that there are a large number of socialist movements and political parties in the world today that genuinely consider themselves (and are generally acknowledged as) socialist without really fitting the description in the first option. Beyond that, when there's confusion over the term, its history, and its meaning, the best thing to do is to document that history and focus on (credible, mainstream, high-profile) usages of it; the core proposal here seems to be to trim down the broad, in-depth coverage of the history section (and the sections further down that go into the various movements that have called themselves socialist) in favor of highlighting one narrow definition of socialism. I'm not convinced that that definition is universal enough to justify this. --Aquillion (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Two. On Wikipedia, the policy principle is that we follow the definition of reliable, especially academic, sources. Socialism is what RS say is socialism. Anything else is Original Research. Therefore, we describe what scholars generally call socialism. LK (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • One But only because the word "ideology," while technically accurate here, carries a pejorative connotation for many people. This is particularly true on the left, since Marx himself defined ideology as "false consciousness." See this excellent article on usage of the word in in New World Encyclopedia.

Threaded discussion

You are misidentifying the first option (a state). The topic should be the concept of socialism as a socioeconomic system (NOT the Leninist concept of a "socialist state"), only featuring information about the socialist movement that is relevant to this concept or otherwise noteworthy. -Battlecry 03:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. The socialist state would have a socialist socioeconomic system, viz., social ownership of the means of production. I do not know of any examples of anyone who advocated social ownership of the means of production without advocating social control of the state. And socialism, as opposed to communism or anarchism, implies that a state would exist in some form. However, for you, I have changed it. TFD (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I want to reiterate another point in relation to determining who is or isn't a socialist - this is not what I am proposing. Socialism is usually juxtaposed with capitalism as a system. Without the socioeconomic system, the movement(s) associated with socialism lacks any strong distinguishing feature. My point is not to dispute whether or not specific parties or individuals are -really- socialist, but to have the article focus on socialism as a concept. This includes the economic processes, property rights structures and management practices that have operated in existing and hypothetical models of socialism, a discussion of the major political ideologies supporting said system(s), leaving it to the reader to determine whether or not any self-described "socialist" party or politician is actually socialist or not. -Battlecry 09:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@TFD: Socialism does not necessarily imply a socialist state. See libertarian socialism. Vrrajkum (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Vrrajkum, I can see nothing in "libertarian socialism" to say that. Can you be more specific?
Battlecry, while we juxtapose socialism and capitalism as systems, we juxtapose socialism and liberalism as ideologies and political movements. And when we speak about socialists we are referring to people who adhere to socialist ideology, while when we refer to capitalists, we are referring to people who benefit from the capitalist system. Liberalism is a ideology not an economic system, while capitalism is an economic system not an ideology. Socialism refers to both and the issue is which one should be the topic of the article. Since reliable sources write far more about the ideology and its supporters, disambiguation dictates that is the primary topic.
TFD (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
We have to accept as socialist, parties and movements that selflabel themselves as socialists and that are mentioned in the bibliography that users Battlecry and Vrrajkum don´t want to accept. That means also socialdemocratic parties such as The spanish PSOE and the French Socialist party as well as the latin american left wing governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Chile. We have to mention in the introduction that there are many selflabeled socialist parties heading governments all over the world. Also you have to accept that socialism is a political movement and a political ideology and not just an economic system. And also you have to face the fact that even the Chinese and Cuban Communist parties are not advocating an economy composed of just "social ownership" but also of social control. At this point i will also ask user Battlecry to bring us this golden sacred book which can guide us clearly on who is socialist and who is not. If he cannot bring that reference then we simply cannot take his opinions seriously in this context where we work with reference support and not with mere personal likes or dislikes of things.--Eduen (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@TFD: Perhaps see socialist anarchism. It's really interchangeable with libertarian socialism, but I was trying to make the point that there are socialist variants of anarchism. In other words, socialism does not imply that a state would exist in some form.
@Eduen: Neither myself nor Battlecry ever denied that socialism is both a movement and a system, but we need to take care not to lead people into thinking that anyone who self-labels themselves as socialist is working towards implementing socialism. For example, mentioning that self-labeled socialist parties who could better be described as social democratic or statist parties are heading governments around the world leads people to believe that these forms of social democracy or statism are forms of socialism.
But I actually have no idea why you CONTINUE to misunderstand the meaning of "social ownership" and the fact that it refers to multiple different forms of ownership including cooperative ownership. @TFD: could you please try to explain to Eduen where he is erring? Myself, Battlecry, and Helios932 have tried and failed. Vrrajkum (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Vrrajkum, instead of saying "See libertarian socialism" and "Perhaps see socialist anarchism", could you please explain what I am supposed to see. When I hear your arguments, my reaction is "see idiocy", but that does not further the discussion. TFD (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@TFD: You are supposed to see that there are stateless/anarchist variants of socialism.[14] By the same token, instead of simply suggesting that my arguments are idiotic, could you please explain why your reaction to hearing my arguments is "see idiocy"? Vrrajkum (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Anarchism is considered to be different from socialism. Anarchists were expelled from the First International. Communism is also a stateless society, but is distinguished from socialism. Anarchist socialists support some form of government that would be under social sontrol. TFD (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@TFD: "Anarchism is considered to be different from socialism" by whom? Marxists? Certainly not by anarchist socialists, who do not, in fact, "support some form of government that would be under social control." Anarchism necessarily implies the absence of any government.
The anarchists were expelled because they disagreed with the Marxists on the means by which to achieve socialism. However, they were just as, if not more, socialist than the Marxists, and anarchist socialism, as the name implies, is indeed a valid form of both anarchism and socialism. Communism is indeed distinguished from socialism, but not by the lack of government; rather, by the lack of ownership over the means of production altogether. Vrrajkum (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

An article on socialism (the concept) does not preclude a discussion of the major political movements and ideologies associated with it. But you cannot properly understand the movement and ideologies without explaining what it is they ultimately seek to create (a socialist system). My argument is the article needs to have a better balance between discussing socialist concepts and its major forms / proposals AND discussing the major political trends that have existed within the movement that aims to bring this system about. And with respect to Eduen, I believe I have already made my case about the inclusion of "social control" as the defining feature of socialism, but for some reason he refuses to comprehend what I wrote. -Battlecry 04:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to add that the core definitions seem to vary based on discipline. Economics and political economy define socialism as an "economic system" whereas history and political science sources tend to define socialism as a "political ideology and movement that aims to build a socialist system". However, regardless of which definition if employed, we have to discuss the system (and its various models/proposals/meanings) that socialists aim to achieve. -Battlecry 04:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

With respect to the discussion about the socialist movement and "socialist" parties, Ulli Diemer's "What is Libertarian Socialism?" is well worth reading:

"We call ourselves libertarian socialists. But why the adjective? Why libertarian socialism? Is libertarian socialism any different from socialism as it is generally understood?
The problem, and the reason for the adjective, is that there exists no definition of socialism that is “generally understood”. The dilemma of socialism today is first of all the dilemma of the meaning of socialism, because the term has been applied to such an all-encompassing range of persons, parties, philosophies, states, and social systems, often completely antagonistic to each other, that the very term ‘socialism’ has become virtually meaningless.
There are more variations of socialism currently in existence than there are varieties of soup on the supermarket shelves, more socialist parties with the correct line than religious sects with a monopoly on salvation. Most of the earth’s people are now governed by states calling themselves socialist, states displaying among themselves the familiar antagonisms usually held to be hallmarks of capitalist imperialism, as well as every kind of social system presently in existence, from declining tribalism to advanced industrialism. Can there be any meaning worth salvaging in a label that has been claimed by Kautsky and Lenin, by Mao and Brezhnev, by Gandhi and Hitler, by Ed Broadbent and Karl Marx? Does the term connote anything more than “just” or “good” to its proponents, “bureaucratic” or “bad” to its enemies?
The temptation is strong to abandon the label entirely, to adopt some new term to indicate the kind of social change we propose. But to do so would be to attempt to side-step a problem that really cannot be avoided. For the terminological confusion is not accidental. Nor is it ‘merely’ a matter of words. It is rooted in the fact that the dominant social system always acts to integrate that which it cannot destroy — movements, ideas, even words — and therefore destroys them precisely by integrating them, by claiming them. It denies the very possibility of an alternative to itself, and proves this impossibility by absorbing the alternative and emptying it of meaning, by adopting new forms and new language which create the illusion of choice and change while perpetuating the same essential relations of domination. Since the main challenge to capitalism has always come from that which called itself socialism, it is hardly surprising that capitalist social relations have survived in half the world by calling themselves socialist. ‘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. Capitalism has dissolved the socialist alternative by stealing away its name, its language, and its dreams. We have to take them back, for without words there can be no concepts, and where there is no language of freedom, there can be no dream of liberation."

Vrrajkum (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Ulli Diemer indicts Socialists by saying they are not really socialist. Instead of advocating any social control they either accept capitalist control or control by a Socialist elite. That is certainly a valid opinion and deserves mention in the article. But it is a minority opinion published on a fringe website. One could also argue that Canadian conservatives and liberals should not be mentioned in articles about conservatism and liberalism. TFD (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Battlecry, re your comments above. No one has suggested that we include groups "simply because they have the term "socialist" or "social democratic" in their name." The argument is that we should include groups that are considered socialist in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@TFD: You said above that "reliable sources write far more about the ideology and its supporters"; this is because a socialist system has yet to be meaningfully established. As such, the most that can be treated in any depth is the ideology and efforts to implement such a system, which, as Battlecry said, must be the "strong distinguishing feature" of the socialist movement. This is why socialism must be treated as both a system and a movement.
For example, if we lived in a socialist society, there could theoretically be a capitalist movement/ideology that seeks to implement a capitalist system, and this movement would have to be defined by its efforts to implement such a system. Vrrajkum (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
It does not matter why reliable sources concentrate on socialist ideology and its supporters rather than the socialist state. "Is there a primary topic?" says, "Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic.... A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."
People in socialist states who want to establish capitalism are not called capitalists, they are called reform socialists, liberals, conservatives, etc. No one called the ideology of Solidarity or Yeltsin capitalism.
TFD (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@TFD: It does matter; it gives context to this discussion.
"A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."
When a lay reader searches Wikipedia for "socialism", they are seeking a treatment of the socialist SYSTEM (I reiterate that anarchist socialism is a true anarchism, which is to say that socialism does not necessarily imply the existence of a state)--more likely than not the system that they associate with the Soviet Union and/or other Marxist-Leninist states. Some well-read individuals may gravitate towards viewing socialism as primarily an ideology, but most people do not (at least not in the U.S., where I live). Furthermore, myself and Battlecry are not in any way trying to exclude treatment of the socialist ideology or movement; we simply believe that the system and the movement are dependent on one another, and must therefore be treated as such. "The socialist movement can only be understood in relation to the socialist economic system" that it is trying to achieve, as Battlecry said above. Vrrajkum (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not know how you can speak for 300 million Americans. For most Americans, socialism means government regulation. And the Sanders campaign has inspired lots of Google searches for socialism and certainly the most relevant hit would be definition "Two." Even if what you are saying is true, the U.S. is only part of the world. In the rest of the world however, Socialists are usually one of the two largest political parties, and hence of more immediate relevance than definition "One." TFD (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I think now it will be very useful to us here in this discussion that users Vrrajkum and Battlecry, give us contemporary or historical examples both of "real" socialist movements on the one hand and of "real" socialist systems on the other. It is clear they only possess this truth which not even books can provide. If they existed in books they would have been able to bring those references which show us this system which can tell us whether something is socialism or not. I think if they cannot bring that system from a realiable source then i think we simply cannot take this argument of theirs that there exists this system and so then we can proceed with the proposal of user TFD that we have to see something as socialist when a good general source includes in it and names it that way. So i am waiting for this response from these two users. Again. What are real examples of socialist movements and systems according to users Vrrajkum and Battlecry?--Eduen (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
User Vrrajkum says the following: "Neither myself nor Battlecry ever denied that socialism is both a movement and a system, but we need to take care not to lead people into thinking that anyone who self-labels themselves as socialist is working towards implementing socialism." I think now we have a first consensus and it is that socialism is both a political movement and an economic system. Now on the other part of his proposal that we give readers this system through which they can tell whether something is a real socialist or whether that thing is lying i think he is asking for something that no political ideology article in wikipedia does. There is no sentence or paragraphs in any other political ideology article (communism, conservatism, fascism, liberalism) that give readers a system on how to notice if a self labeled movement of a political ideology is "real" or "fake". I think i could suggest user Vrrajkum to go write that book that gives us this system and to get it published. Until then we can only rely on inclusions and exclusions given in reliable sources. At this point if user Vrrajkum cannot bring that system published in a realiable good source then we should admit that such a system does not exist and that user Vrrajkum is asking for something which does not exist. But now if we took as our job to come up with such a system i can only tell him that we will be going againts wikipedia policy of no original research.--Eduen (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
It would be helpful in supporters of "One" would provide sources. TFD (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces, Eduen, and Vrrajkum: First I think we need to clarify the parameters of this discussion. Eduen is obviously talking about a different subject - he is talking about what terminology we should use to define socialism, "control" vs "ownership", and is trying to define socialism by the policies of existing or historical Social democratic parties. I feel like this topic has been discussed ad nauseam on this talk page before, but socialism is not defined by the practical policies or positions taken by labor and social democratic parties, irrespective of whether or not these parties are "socialist" or not. A consensus was reached by multiple editors where "social ownership" was decided as being the most well-sourced, neutral, encompassing and accurate term to define socialism as as opposed to "social control" (which user Eduen seems to think implies market socialism, when in actuality "control" might preclude genuine market socialism).
I feel I need to reiterate again that the socialism article should not be discussing the policies of social democratic and labor parties but should be discussing socialism itself, leaving readers to formulate their own opinion based on this knowledge as to whether or not ideas, policies, etc. constitute socialism or not. Further, even among "reformists" who advocate social democratic policies (like raising the minimum wage, workers' rights and selective nationalizations) like Seattle City Council member belonging to Socialist Alternative Kshama Sawant clearly distinguish between their reforms/policies and socialism as a system to be achieved:
"I wouldn’t call it “more socialist,” in the sense that it doesn’t make sense: It can be either capitalism or socialism. But what we can do, in the journey toward making the economy into something that works for everybody: We have to fight for major reforms under capitalism … We are going to be pushing forward for $15 an hour minimum wage in Seattle in 2014 …
But we also have to be honest … That’s not going to be enough. Because the system itself is a system of crises … Capitalism does not have the ability to generate the kind of living wage jobs that will be necessary in order to sustain a decent standard of living for the majority … So we have to have a strategy where we not only fight for every reform that we can get, including single payer healthcare, but … It can’t be in isolation from also thinking about fundamental shift in society …" [4] -Battlecry 05:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
From what i read in the wikipedia article on Kshama Sawant, she belongs to a US trotskist organization. As such her particular views can be said to represent a single point of view within socialism which is trotskism. For a view which defines or represents all of socialism we need a general work or definition or treatment and not quotes by a single socialist politician. But i will also remind you that things are not "pure" and that revolutions are not single "Jacobin" events but a succession of political and economic actions. And also that social and economic systems act on thousands and millions of individuals and as such they cannot be said to be able to become implemented without the views of all or at least some of those people. That is why talking about economic systems only make sense with a talk about social and political movements and processes.--Eduen (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed socialism is not defined by the various policies presented by Socialists any more than liberalism is defined by any of the various policies they propose. It is however defined by an identification of social problems, agreement that they derive from capitalism and an agreement that some degree of social control and/or ownership is necessary.
Battlecry, I asked you to provide reliable sources. A statement by a Seattle councilor is not a reliable source for a definition of socialism, any more than Vrrajkum's posting is a reliable source for what most Americans think. Have you read any textbooks or academic articles that mirror your views or are you just expressing your personal opinion?
TFD (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
What user TFD is denouncing here, presenting personal opinions as facts, seem to clearly be the case of user Vrrajkum. He has decided to be more reliable than the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com dictionaries saying that he has "Removed inaccurate sources". Amazing.--Eduen (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Eduen: Actually both users Battlecry and TFD also agreed not to use Encyclopedia Brittanica above:
"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)"
"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)"
It's treatment of socialism is indeed inaccurate and I have removed it again. TFD also does a good job of clarifying the meaning of "social control" and indicating that it does not mean what you think it means. Vrrajkum (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ "The Winners and Losers in Chinese Capitalism".
  2. ^ "We're All State Capitalists Now".
  3. ^ "The rise of state capitalism".
  4. ^ "China's Economic Empire".
  5. ^ Jones, Berry (July 27, 2001). Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy. Routledge. p. 1410. ISBN 978-0415145329. In addition, particularly since World War II, distinctions have sometimes been made between social democrats and socialists on the basis that the former have accepted the permanence of the mixed economy and have abandoned the idea of replacing the capitalist system with a qualitatively different socialist society.
  6. ^ O'Hara, Phillip (September 2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 0-415-24187-1. 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.
  7. ^ Busky, Donald F. (July 20, 2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. p. 2. ISBN 978-0275968861. Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy. It is this idea that is the common element found in the many forms of socialism. Yet having stated this as the common definition of socialism, one must necessarily admit that there are a wide variety of views among socialists of various stripes as to just what constitutes social ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
  8. ^ Jones, Berry (July 27, 2001). Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy. Routledge. p. 1410. ISBN 978-0415145329. In addition, particularly since World War II, distinctions have sometimes been made between social democrats and socialists on the basis that the former have accepted the permanence of the mixed economy and have abandoned the idea of replacing the capitalist system with a qualitatively different socialist society.
  9. ^ Barro, Josh (2015-10-20). "Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist Capitalist". The New York Times. Retrieved 2015-10-27. "It's not socialism, it's social democracy, which is a big difference," said Mike Konczal, an economic policy expert at the left-wing Roosevelt Institute. Social democracy, Mr. Konczal noted, "implies a very active role for capitalism in the framework."
  10. ^ Brooks, David. "A Sensible Version of Donald Trump". The New York Times. No, I don't mean the way Bernie Sanders is a socialist. He's a statist, not a socialist.
  11. ^ Jones, Berry (July 27, 2001). Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy. Routledge. p. 1412. ISBN 978-0415145329.
  12. ^ Rosser, Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr. (July 23, 2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0262182348. Ownership determines the distinction between capitalism and socialism, defined in strictly economic terms. In capitalist economies, land and produced means of production (the capital stock) are owned by private individuals or groups of private individuals organized as firms.
  13. ^ Rosser, Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr. (July 23, 2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0262182348. Socialism is an economic system characterized by state or collective ownership of the means of production, land, and capital.
  14. ^ "So, libertarian socialism rejects the idea of state ownership and control of the economy, along with the state as such. Through workers' self-management it proposes to bring an end to authority, exploitation, and hierarchy in production." "I1. Isn´t libertarian socialism an oxymoron" in An Anarchist FAQ
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialism/Archive_25&oldid=1235848338"