Talk:Socialism/Archive 28

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

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Definition of Socialism is far too narrow to the point of misinformation

I totally agree with the comment below. It is totally disingenuous and deceitful to redefine socialism as having "democratic control of the MOP" -- no common definition of socialism includes that. Further, the meet of the article contradicts that point. Sure, there can be socialism with democratic control of MOP but it's never happened. And the article doesn't even described what the meaning of democratic control of MOP entails. Socialism is an economic system. Just as capitalism is one. I also edited out this phrase and it was put back in. Whoever keeps inserting democratic control should justify that and not just based on one citation. Socialism has been historically defined by what it has been. Zaqueryas50. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaqueryas50 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The article's opening sentence that defines Socialism as being "characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production" is far too narrow because it does not recognize there is also a strongly anti-democratic strain in socialism as historically practiced in the past 100 years. The socialist dictatorships that dominated much of the globe during the 20th century (and partly persist to the present day) cannot in any way be characterized by "democratic control." Indeed the very opposite was often the case. For the definition to ignore this central fact severely damages the credibility of the article.

My edit to correct this lack of balance in the definition was immediately removed with no explanation. If this small contribution was deemed unworthy on literary grounds, I urge others more skilled than I to do the edit.

Bws92082 (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)bws92082

Your edit conflated socialism, Leninism and Stalinism. Advocates of the two latter ideologies, by the way, will assert that they were practicing democratic centralism, a term which others consider utter bumfodder. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

To be blunt, your obvious anti-Socialist POV is displayed in your rhetoric. "Your edit to correct this"....not a good choice of words, were not here to promote anti-Socialist views. Were here to inform. You clearly have a POV.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 19:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Bws92082, anarchist Catalonia apparently resembled real socialism more than the eastern blocks state capitalism. Research it. Socialistguy (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My two-word edit (caps added here), "...characterized by social or state ownership and democratic OR DICTATORIAL control of the means of production...", was added to acknowledge the existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (and other such states) and their contribution to the history of socialism. If you want to dismiss this self-declared socialist state as not socialist, I suppose you can try to make that argument. But you can't ignore the issue.

It is not biased to say that socialism, like capitalism, can be either democratic or non-democratic. Denying this fact, however, is biased. --Bws92082 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bws92082 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Bws92082 how do you the USSR was socialist? Didn't Lenin say it was state capitalist? Socialistguy (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Bws92082, democracies can be dictatorships, but how bad they are and how much control the people have is the question. What reliable evidence is there saying that whatever Communist country in question is undemocratic-enough to be classified as a dictatorship? Socialistguy (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The real issue here is how we're defining "democracy", which is not synonymous with "liberal democracy" or multi-party democracy. Socialism is typically defined to include democracy within the economic sphere or at the workplace level; the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc officially considered themselves to be "democratic" in this way and progressing toward a socialist society (even though many scholars might dispute the claim that they were ever "socialist" or "democratic"). Likewise, non-Leninist socialists typically define social ownership to include some form of self-management (or direct "democratic control") of economic institutions. A better, more accurate phrase would probably be "self-management" rather than "democratic control", because the latter is confined to the economic or broader social spheres while "democratic control" can be misconstrued to mean liberal or multiparty democracy (which the Soviet Union and its satellite states never claimed to have implemented or aspired toward).

Most Americans define socialism as a society (like the USSR) run by government bureaucrats who tell everyone what to do, a society that lacks any democratic decision making. Most socialists, on the contrary, define socialism as the extension of democratic decision making into the economic sphere: a cooperative society where everyone is equal in power and decision making, and there is democratic rule over the economy by the vast majority (those who do the work). Socialism is sometimes defined as ‘public ownership’, so the question arises as to what is meant by ‘public.’ Suppose there is a dictator in a centrally planned economy. In this case, does public ownership and control simply mean government ownership and control, with the government controlled by the dictator? Many socialists argue that ‘public’ implies a democratic process of discussion and election by the entire public in both the political and economic spheres.^[1] -Battlecry 05:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Battlecry, don't we define it as a system in which people vote, and the majority usually wins (to keep it simple)? Socialistguy (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer to be more precise. The "democratic control" refers to "self-management" of the economy; we could adjust the wording accordingly. That would make the opening sentence more accurate while avoiding misunderstandings because, as you note, "democracy" is commonly understood to mean a political system based on elections and the majority vote. Furthermore, the phrase "democratic control" isn't well-sourced in regard to it being a defining characteristic of socialism, unlike the concept of "social ownership" or "collective ownership". In the body of the article we can articulate how and why socialists believe that social ownership necessarily implies "democratic control". -Battlecry 01:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

--

Thought Experiment: A capitalist nation is overthrown in military coup and state/collective control of MOP, imposed undemocratically by force, results in a socialist paradise.

This socialist economic system would not qualify as 'socialism' based on this Wikipedia article which erroneously characterizes socialism as being, by definition, inherently and exclusively democratic. -Bws92082

@Bws92082: If the resulting society (the "socialist paradise") is democratic, despite the lack of democracy during the transition, then there is no contradiction with the given definition of socialism. Furthermore, democratic management and workplace self-management within enterprises can exist in the absence of political democracy, so there is no inherent contradiction between socialism meaning democratic control of the means of production and the existence of a non-democratic political system. However, I am of the opinion that the wording needs to be altered to be more precise: "Democratic control" is very imprecise wording, and the term "democratic" conjures up images of multiparty liberal democracy in the popular imagination, which is not what the "democratic control" arguably inherent to socialism implies. -Battlecry 05:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Battlecry how do you know that most people think of liberal democracy when they see "democratic"? Socialistguy (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bws92082, Battlecry, and Socialistguy: 'Democratic control' of the MOP here is used in contrast to 'autocratic control' of the MOP, as is characteristic of capitalism. It doesn't necessarily suggest multiparty liberal democracy; Battlecry correctly notes that democratic control of the MOP can exist in the absence of political democracy, while most contemporary capitalist societies have autocratic control of the MOP within the framework of a (de jure) political democracy. I believe that 'democratic control' is the correct phrase; for example, many contemporary socialist cooperatives (such as Mondragon) actually do have internal elections, where the firm's workers democratically elect the firm's board of directors using a one-person-one-vote system.

@Bws92082: What you're describing sounds like state capitalism, not socialism. The Russian Revolutions of 1917 might interest you; in the February Revolution, the Tsarist regime was overthrown and de facto socialism began to develop in the form of factory committees (instruments of democratic, cooperative workers' control over factory production). In the October Revolution later that year, the Bolsheviks deposed the interim provisional government and placed themselves in power, proceeding to bring the factory committees (and thus the MOP) under state control. The resulting economic system is what was present in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc and is often referred to as socialism, but many people argue that it was actually state capitalism. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Vrrajkum: I don't see how "democratic control" is inherent to "social ownership"; my understanding is socialists are of the view that a socially-owned economy will operate in the interests of society as a whole and would thus imply a "democratic" society, which may or may not involve workplace democracy. Regardless, "democratic control" is not widely cited as being a defining feature of a socialist system and therefore shouldn't be included in the opening sentence. "Self-management" is a more precise term that can be used in its place, and is less susceptible to misinterpretation than the phrase "democratic management". -Battlecry 01:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Battlecry: "Self-management" is an improvement but it's still not quite right in my opinion. When an existing business, funded and built from scratch by a capitalist founder, is taken over by socialist intervention, I wouldn't characterize this as "self-management". Maybe "worker management" or "collective management" would be more accurate. -- Bws92082

@Bws92082: The phrase "self-management" is widely used in economic literature and is well-sourced. Self-management can mean either self-directed work processes or "democratic" collective decision-making, but the concept is as multifaceted as that of "social ownership". A self-managed society, or at least an economic system characterized by self-managed processes and free association in place of formalized social hierarchies is an end-goal of many socialist perspectives and systems, including those of Karl Marx; the idea being to grant individuals control over the direction of their lives as opposed to having the individual subordinate to the demands of capitalists and capitalist business processes. The issue here is terminological: the concept of "self-management" or "control" isn't as widely sourced as being a defining feature of socialism as is the concept of "social ownership", and socialism might exist in a hierarchical fashion out of necessity with a self-managed society being a future end-goal (as proponents of the USSR's economic system would testify). -Battlecry 10:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Battlecry: But isn't the central feature of socialism, as practiced today, its bureaucratism and top-down management style? Ideally, socialism would work from the bottom up but that is rarely what happens in the real world. It seems to me that socialist workers are simply switching from capitalist leaders of the economy to state leaders of the economy--and the state leaders are given the duty to act in the workers interest. These leaders don't really allow the workers act in their own interests directly. If the term "self-management" is used in the article, would it be defined in a way consistent with realities described above? -- Bws92082

@Bws92082: Socialism isn't practiced in today's world and arguably hasn't existed on any meaningful scale as yet, though one can make the argument that the Soviet-type economic system represented a form of "actually-existing socialism" when it was in existence (a debatable point touched upon in this article). The topic of the article is the concept of socialism (the economic system and form of social organization) and not the practical policies pursued by socialist parties in power, which may or may not have socialism as their end-goal. In the case of the Soviet economic system, it's true that self-management was relegated to a predicted future stage of development - but the fact remains that some form of "self-management", whether in the form of self-directed work processes or "democratic" collective decision-making in enterprises, is inherent to the concept of a fully-developed socialist system. Whether or not such a system can exist can, of course, be disputed. -Battlecry 19:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Battlecry: If your definition of socialism is of a system that has probably never existed on a meaningful scale in the real world, then I would consider that an important point to be emphasized early on. -- Bws92082

@Bws92082: The issue is different thinkers disagree on whether or not it has existed, and if it has, to what degree and on what scale. Therefore it's best to present it as an open question. -Battlecry 07:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Battlecry: Yes, I agree that question is important, as is the lack of agreement about its answer--so important that it should be emphasized early on (and then perhaps taken on in depth later). Because if it's questionable whether or not socialism has ever fully existed on a meaningfully scale, that leaves open the possibility that true socialism may be an unattainable utopian ideal at the nation state level. The question also helps to frame the article and remove confusion surrounding whether the definition provided is of what socialism is in theory, or of what socialism is in practice. -- Bws92082

References

^ Zimbalist, Sherman and Brown, Andrew, Howard J. and Stuart (October 1988). Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach. Harcourt College Pub. p. 7. ISBN 978-0155124035.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Right-wing socialism

This article pretty much entirely focuses on socialism as a left-wing ideology. However, there are several parties and movements throughout history that have been described by themselves and/or others as both right-wing and socialist. There is a wikipedia article addressing the concept of Right-wing socialism. If this concept does not require a place in the article proper, I see no reason why the right wing socialism article shouldn't be included in the see also section as a clearly related topic. I would be happy to hear any objections to this. Regards, Aardwolf A380 (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Socialism is a system in which the means of production are in social ownership and control, that is the definition of socialism, and movements that aim to achieve this system are called socialist. On the other hand, some right wing movements also used the term "socialism" to describe their philosophy, unrelated to this socialism, and for more about that see right-wing socialism. They are using the same term, but their definition of it is different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This page is about the political concept and/or movement known as "socialism", which is commonly understood as a movement of the left. As with all WP pages, this one should be about a broadly coherent topic, not about everything to which a particular term may happen to have been attached, especially when that term is being used very differently in each case. As for the Right-wing socialism page btw, that's a classic example of an entry which rather egregiously fails that requirement. I'd be wary of citing WP's own pages in discussions here at the best of times; in this case it's particularly inadvisable. That page should have been deleted as an incoherent and misleading mash-up years ago, but any attempts to do that have been effectively vetoed. N-HH talk/edits 15:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't the USSR state capitalist? Didn't Lenin say so?

What is the point of this statement, "...the political system of the Soviet Union, which some have argued operated in an authoritarian fashion." Really? Some have argued that? The statement comes across as sarcastic or facetious at best, ridiculous if intended seriously. Venqax (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Why does the article say it was state socialist? Socialistguy (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Socialistguy: The correct characterization of the USSR and Eastern Bloc's economic system is a point of contention, so both sides of the argument are presented in the interest of objectivity. The "state capitalist" hypothesis is touched upon in the lead. Vrrajkum (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Why are there no Criticisms?

A google scholar search for "criticisms of socialism" returns 144,000 results. There is actually an entire wiki article dedicated to criticisms of socialism and it's not even mentioned in this article. What on earth is going on here? Fawby (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sandwiching images in lead

As requested by CodeBadger, I'm bringing the discussion regarding these edits onto the talk page. MOS:SANDWICH is clear that it is not appropriate to sandwich text and I fail to see why this is an exceptional case, especially in the lead. Graham (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Graham. Much appreciated. In Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means it states: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” I believe we need to focus on what will improve a Wikipedia page, not let policies and guidelines which are meant to help us create good Wikipedia pages stop us improving them. I am not suggesting that you or other editors be ignored as decisions on how to change an article must be made by a consensus of editors roughly agreeing on an acceptable solution. I believe this quote by Che Guevara best sums up the essence and appeal of socialism, which is primarily about social justice, thus is rightly given prominence on the Socialism page along with an image of the author to maximize the importance of this quote. I would very much like to read what you and other editors have to say about this matter. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment. CodeBadger (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi CodeBadger, prominence is not generally given to quotations in an encyclopedia, which is a document composed of prose. For quotations, we have Wikiquote.

I am not suggesting that you or other editors be ignored as decisions on how to change an article must be made by a consensus of editors roughly agreeing on an acceptable solution.

A consensus was reached, hence the current form of the MOS. Provided that this is not an exceptional case, and no evidence for that has been presented, WP:LOCALCON applies. You are entitled to disagree with the guidelines, but if you want them changed, you would be best to raise that at WT:MOS.

As an aside, I do love the quote, though – I actually don't recall having heard it before. Cheers, Graham (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and the info about WT:MOS, I'll raise the issue with them. I love the quote too, though perhaps my favorite Che quote is this one: "Above all, always be capable of feeling deeply any injustice committed against anyone, anywhere in the world." Cheers. CodeBadger (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There are two problems with plonking this large image and quotation at the top of the page. Firstly, as noted, the aesthetic one: it does look bad to my eyes, as it squeezes the main text and dominates the top of the page, which is why MOS advises against it, presumably (sometimes there are good reasons for rules and guidelines). Secondly, socialism is a broad topic, and I'm not sure singling out Che Guevara (or indeed any one individual) and one quote of theirs as the key to defining socialism from the outset is a good idea. N-HH talk/edits 11:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I don't think the squeezing of the text at the top of the page is a problem so long as the image is not wider than 220px, while narrowing the text column near the top of the article makes it easier for people to get into reading it as it's easier to read narrow columns than wide columns. It seems to me that if they quote sums up the essence of the page then it's ok if it leads the article. Naturally the image/quote would have to be one that editors reached a consensus on, thus not necessarily the image/quote I currently prefer. We can limit the proposed sandwiching to the top of articles. Perhaps we could add the image/quote for a week and get other people to have a look and see what they think? CodeBadger (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, CodeBadger, there will not be any kind of a trial period for this. We can all see what it looks like already. N-HH and I have already opposed it in this discussion. You sought broader input at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Sandwiching and were unanimously opposed by the seven editors who commented there. There does not appear to be anything resembling consensus for the changes you have proposed. Graham (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Graham. The consensus appears to be that the proposed sandwiching is not a good idea. CodeBadger (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"the political system of the Soviet Union, which some have argued operated in an authoritarian fashion."

only some have argued this? I suggest us to be more assertive and change the sentence to "...Soviet Union, which operated in an authoritarian fashion." --Երևանցի ^talk 15:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Employee share/stock schemes

This addition to the lead was removed and then reinserted. It seems an obvious point to me, but given that it was put back, I'll bring it up here rather than just revert it out again. I agree with the stated reasons for removal: such programmes are not a type of socialism as commonly understood. Even if you could argue that they are, it's too much detail for the first paragraph of the lead. Indeed the whole sentence here – "Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, cooperative ownership or employee stock ownership program; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these" – is fairly convoluted and repetitive, and could probably be shortened further to simply say. more concisely and accurately, "Social ownership may refer to any form or combination of public, collective or cooperative ownership". N-HH talk/edits 09:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As the editor who first removed this addition, I of course fully agree with N-HH. Without going into a long political or economic discussion, it is sufficient to state that employee share schemes are emphatically not socialist, but a tool for regulating capitalism. Without reference to a solidly reliable source, such a claim cannot be added to this article. RolandR (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

What they are or aren't according to us is moot. The content should not be added unless sources are provided, and should not be added to the lead unless there is substantial treatment of the subject in the body of the article. TimothyJosephWood 12:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed (and I meant as commonly understood by authoritative sources as much as by me personally). Anyway, thanks for removing it again. It's always open to either of the two people who have added it to come up with a source suggesting such a connection and to expand on the material in the main body; although as I suggested, there's unlikely, surely, to be one that suggests it's such a key detail that it needs to be in the lead. N-HH talk/edits 15:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I follow a fairly draconian lead philosophy anyway. There are far too many people on here with a deep conviction that some detail is so vitally important that it must go into a lead, but lacking the motivation so include anything about that detail in the body. TimothyJosephWood 15:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with what has been said thus far and would add that if one were to attempt to make the argument that such programmes are socialistic (which is spurious to begin with), it would be hard (read: essentially impossible) to do so in such a way that they wouldn't already be covered under the phrase "cooperative ownership" already. (To be clear, I'm not meaning to suggest, however, that there is a reasonable argument to be made that such programmes are normally either socialistic or cooperative in nature.) Graham (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

How is that relevant in any way? Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

"Right wing socialism"

I don't disagree with this revert, as arguably the additional description is redundant, but its stated justification does flag up a long-running problem with the "Right-wing socialism" page, which is and always has been a horrific mess of misleading and confusing WP-invented synthesis, which attempts to define a term that sometimes happens to be applied to multiple, wildly different ideas rather than a discrete topic. If anyone thinks it needs another AFD, that can always be done. N-HH talk/edits 21:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Social democracy is NOT socialism

Social democracy advocates for capitalism, socialism doesn't. If there are no objections I will remove it. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but there are obviously objections, since the removal keeps being reverted. Nor have you offered any substantive argument, with reference to any consensus among real-world sources. You may personally not believe social democracy etc in the modern sense counts as "true" socialism, and that is not a lone opinion, but it is ultimately neither here nor there. This page is about the broad range of ideas classified under the term, and the content is all sourced and connected to that broad concept of "socialism" as the term is commonly used, which includes in standard definitions, for better or worse, what might otherwise be described as forms of ameliorated capitalism. You need to get agreement to redefine the topic of the page before hacking out great lumps of it. N-HH talk/edits 21:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The wikipedia pages of socialism and social democracy give sources supporting what I'm saying in the opening lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What matters here is not what any individual Wikipedia editor thinks, but what the sources say. The material you removed cites plenty of reliable sources which recognise social democracy as a form of socialism, so it should be included in the article. If you can find any reliable sources which dispute this, you are welcome to add something citing them challenging whether this identification is correct; but your repeated removal is against both policy and consensus. RolandR (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I know as I said sources are on the opening lines of the articles. No source in the social democracy section said it was a form of socialism.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The concept of socialism is not static, it has evolved over time and today - within the field of political science - there isn't a clear definition agreed upon by everyone; it remains a contested concept. However, the evolution of the concept has generally come to encompass a broad spectrum of ideological viewpoints which does, in fact, includ Social democracy. Moreover, even going back to the early roots of socialist theory, the concept of socialism advocated for a mixture of private (i.e. capitalist) and public industry. It was communism that did not advocate for any capitalist elements, socialism was the middle-ground between capitalism and communism. At different points in history, the concepts of communism and socialism became conflated though that was primarily in the USA and not in other countries. Among international organizations that advocate for different forms of socialism, the concept of Social Democracy remains one of the most popular approaches. The concept needs to stay. RememberToForget (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you got sources for these ridiculous claims? Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose removal of the section on social democracy from this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Simply read our articles about the Socialist International where you will see that a large percentage of member parties self-identify as "social democratic". Also read our article on the Social Democratic Party of Germany, founded 150 years ago, which has played a critically important role in the history of socialism. You are entitled to take a stance to the left but a massive number of reliable sources over a period of 150 years draw connections between social democracy and socialism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose removal of the section. A no-brainer. The section does not say that social democracy is socialism. It talks about SD in the context of socialism. As do others—see Google Scholar, Google Books. - DVdm (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose removal of the section. While it is true that contemporary social democracy is no longer associated with advocacy for socialism or a non-capitalist economy, historically social democratic parties and movements were socialist in character. Historically speaking, we cannot easily separate the two as political movements. -Battlecry 06:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose removal. Social democracy has roots in socialism and deserves to be in the article. Vrrajkum (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. There are libertarian socialists who argue that stalinism is not socialism also. Still all general works on socialism and all reliable articles on socialism will deal with socialdemocracy as part of the socialist movement. There are social democrat parties who call themselves "socialist" such as the PSOE from Spain. But lets also remember that Lenin himself was a member of a party called Russian Social Democratic Labour Party.--Eduen (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Distinctions in:

I haven´t noticed any of the individuals with knowledge ever having made the following simple distinctions:

Communism: Common Level parquo at social security levels, in pertinence to an army or military. (IE: All armies are defacto communist, lowering the costs to the most common level being the only form and manner to maintain a standing army [or navy], no matter if that is done through subsidiation or other simpler forms).

Socialism: Labour force, workers, wage level, including bonifications.

Capitalism: Those that go for it themselves, whom set up a venture, fail or make. (IE: commerce, small to medium industry. Large industry caters to communism, some, catering solely to the military).

These three simple distinctions are never removable and exist in all and every society, therefore there is no such a thing as a pure communist state (unless you count a nation whom has an ongoing waract, or is in the grasp of a fast depression cycle), nor a pure socialist state, nor for that matter a pure capitalist state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.74.111 (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

WWII has no beginning

This page describes Spanish War and the Victory. Censorship?Xx236 (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What about the NSDAP? Was is socialist or not?Xx236 (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722164645/http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?action=L2&SubjectID=1924nepmen&Year=1924 to http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?action=L2&SubjectID=1924nepmen&Year=1924

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

National Socialism

National Socialism (AKA Nazism) needs to be mentioned on this page, at least in some capacity. It was called socialism, the Nazis themselves referred to it as socialism, prominent Nazis frequently talked favorably about socialism, Hitler himself based many of his political ideas on socialist ideas and talked about his philosophy as being a fusion of both the left and the right, numerous similarities have been noted between national socialism and contemporary socialist ideologies like Stalinism (in fact, there's a whole article about this), and national socialism itself was an attempt to make a nationalist form of socialism. National Socialism was one of the most prominent brands of socialism in the early 20th century, and while it differed in many ways from Marxist conceptions of socialism, this page does not exclude much less prominent socialist ideologies that were not adopted by major powers like Nazi Germany.

The Nazis were very hostile towards the communists (and vice-versa), but they perceived their version of socialism as the "true" version, as is common in various schisms. But it isn't really Wikipedia's job to take a side in such cases, generally speaking.

| I put a bit about it in the history section, as it was a very prominent branch in the 1930s and 40s before it was more or less destroyed and discredited by World War II and the Holocaust, but another user reverted it on the basis of it not being socialism. Given that they reverted it, I felt it was necessary to discuss it here on the talk page. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic communion rite"

In Protestant England, the word communism was too culturally and aurally close to the Roman Catholic communion rite; hence, English atheists denoted themselves socialists.

This sentence doesn't make sense to me. The Church of England also uses the word "communion". If anything, the more "Catholic" term for it is Eucharist, but the CoE uses that too (though more often in the High Church). Hairy Dude (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2017

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

Hello.On the subject of The Czechoslovak invasion, on August 21 1968,you quoted the opposing communist parties of France and Italy but nothing about Nicolae Ceausescu's speech in front of the Romanian people,condemning the invasion. The Socialist Republic of Romania openly opposed the U.S.S.R. invasion of Czechoslovakia. Thank you.

  rvalahu Rvalahu (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Nihlus 15:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Etymology Addition

I'd like to suggest that I think it would be a good idea to insert Fredrick Hayek's definition of Socialism. Being a Nobel laureate economist, I think it is relevant and useful to insert his accurate observation of the modern definition of Socialism. In his book, The Road to Serfdom, Hayek explains how the definition of socialism has evolved in the twentieth century to mean the redistribution of income. And it is pretty reasonable to infer that when people use the word "socialism", they are not referring to the ownership of the means of production. (This is for a college assignment.) --Jahir333 (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not actually etymology and of course Hayek was very much against socialism as he supported a minimal state role and this is his personal view. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor change

I was scrolling through the page, and saw the image of Allende, which said "Salvador, whose socialist presidency was ended by a CIA based coup", and I don't know why that CIA coup thing is there, but if you're going to put it there: Salvador Allende's investigative, and militant, and wtv, force for socialism, was also ended, aside from his presidency, so I put the "and his life" comment there. Again, I'm not sure of the rationale for the text that was before. --152.170.59.246 (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Socialism and "modern progressive social movements"

This section does go someway to show the Marxism is opposed to bourgeois social liberalism (I don't know why we are calling sexual debauchery and attempts to divert from class struggle to wars between the sexes as "progress"??), but there are still some problems.

The information about homosexuality is extemely questionable. Yes, the early "utopian socialists" were certainly mired in homosexuality and all sorts of odd "free love" ideas, as were various American (largely rich, narcisistic, marjuana smoking student) figures from the 1960s and certain bourgeois pseudo-leftist elements in France, but this is not true for Marxist-Leninism.

This sentence is deceptive: "After the Russian Revolution under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, the Soviet Union abolished previous laws against homosexuality.[444] "

Lenin abolished the entire Criminal Code of the Russian Empire. This was not done to advocate for homosexuality, any more than it was done to legalise necrophilia (which was outlawed under the Tsarist codes), they were simply abolishing the entire legal system of the old regime. And when things had settled down, homosexuality was outlawed again in the Soviet Union.

I don't know why we are elevating Trotsky to "co-leader" with Lenin?? Also, even after the USSR outlawed homosexuality again under Stalin, Trotsky did not oppose this... he (like Lenin) never made a single solitary public statement in favour of homosexuality, nor did Trotskyism at the time state homosexuality as a factor in their opposition to Marxist-Leninism. It wasn't on the radar at all. All subsequent Marxist-Leninist governments have opposed homosexuality; it is illegal in the DPRK and was only legalised in China in 1997 after capitalism had taken over the country fully. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Absence of Content under Criticism

Why is this heading empty? One could argue that all the information you need on this topic can be found on the linked page. True as this may be, if we were to apply that kind of logic to every section, you would no longer have a page. It would all just be links to other articles with more links. In order to improve this section, put some content--gleaned from the other page(s) if need be--and flesh out this topic. MusicTree3 (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Socialism

This Wikipedia article is the most unreliable definition of socialism I have ever seen. The definition is very simple and Nazism was socialism too. 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.107.124 (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Your definition is pure bullshit. Greece spend a few decades under the political domination of PASOK (Panhellenic Socialist Movement), and the party advocated no governmental ownership, no restrictions on private property, and no Marxist-related reformations. It abolished a number of repressive laws, reformed Family law to ensure women's rights, abolished the Hellenic Gendarmerie and established the new Hellenic Police, and boosted wages for a while. Dimadick (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly dispute your own definition of socialism as well as this article's definition, but I would like to remind you and anyone reading this that Wikipidia is not about truth and Wikipedia is not a forum. Although a very interesting and potentially productive discussion can be had about the definition, nature, and criteria of socialism, this is not the place for any such discussion. Perhaps if you could find some reliable sources to verify your claims, and can determine where exactly specific improvements can be made to this article, they can be integrated into this article's contents. You could even add them and those sources yourself! Otherwise, simply complaining about this article will probably not be constructive. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Why are the failures of socialism, experienced during the 20th century excluded from this page? Where are the Nazi's, Ukrainian Genocide with-in the USSR and Khmer Rouge. By specifically not addressing these tragedies of socialism, this article presents an extremely biased viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.194.192 (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Simple labels never help people unwilling to look beneath the surface. Dictatorial regimes use dishonest names. Do you really think North Korea is "Democratic"? Nazis definitely were not socialists. Scandinavia is. Do carry on. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The same is true with the labels people apply to various regimes. For example, Scandinavian countries being socialist is hotly disputed and substantial disagreement exists within academia about it, especially among socialists and other radical leftists (who generally reject the claim). Some of the state governments of those Scandinavian countries also dispute it, as well, if I recall correctly. I know Denmark has, Sanders' and Rasmussen's own dubious understandings of the political theory notwithstanding. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

21st century socialism?

It seems someone's got an agenda on among the Wikipedia editors. The article states: Norway's economy in particular has been described as XXI century socialism because the state maintains ownership of key industrial sectors.[229] Some political commentators have characterized Norway as "more socialist" than Venezuela and China.[230]. Quoted are one Argentinian journalist and one American journalist/self-described blogger.

"In particular" the sentence claims, and continues with "some commentators". Two basically unknown journalists write opinion pieces, and suddenly Norway is defined a 21st century socialism (whatever that is), and is "more socialist" than China? As a Norwegian I'm not only amused by the ridiculousness, but also surprised by the lack of objectivism displayed. Wikipedia's own entry on socialism of the 21st century doesn't even mention Norway! Stop trying to push an agenda and be honest in your editing. I suggest the entire sentence is removed. Vomitmissile (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree, and have boldly removed that silly content. In some places, e.g. red states of the US, sources would say that anything to the left oF the Republican Party is socialist, but Wikipedia doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is the Nordic Model in this article in the first place? See separate thread. --— Erik Jr. 17:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Meanings of socialism

Socialism has more than one definition. In anti-communist and anti-socialist polemics, "socialism" is a label for a number of government types which favor inward development but eschew outward cooperation. As a word, it mainly means inward development and the idea of using national resources to support the national body of people, without mention of the outward cooperation aspect (as its secondary). These are two different meanings, which is why there is a tendency to get confused when talking about the "socialism" of the USSR, or the socialism of Israel or Norway, or the USA. In the case of Israel, its inward expenditures rely heavily on cooperation with the United States democratic economic alliance. In the case of Norway, the basis for its socialism is aristocratic, and it belongs to the alliance of aristocratic nations in Europe, some of whom claim the label of "constitutional monarchy," but that's a term that is not well-defined. Its socialism is inwardly populist and designed to continue its aristocracy, and outward trade with democratic nations is confined in accordance with stringent controls, mostly put in place by democratic nations, to limit graft and patent trolling. In the case of the USA, its inward ability to take care of its own people is hampered by political criticism from inward sources, who claim that US socialism leads to isolationism, and from outward sources, who honor the idea of the US being weak, to keep it from being a strong promoter of democracy. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

So... Do you have an edit you want to make to the page supported by reliable sources? Simonm223 (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The assertion Im making is that "socialism" is a word with different meanings, one simple and the other geopolitical. So the article needs those two things.

Also the article needs to mention socialism as a quasi-apt substitute for aristocracy, as socialist governments came about due to democratic-socialist revolution after all. Why socialism served as a replacement for democracy also, was because of two things, hardliners inward, and attacks from aristocratic strategists from outward. So the article needs to mention these things also. -Inowen (nlfte) 05:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The article isn't going to mention anything based on your own analysis--you'll have to get more specific, with citations. This isn't an essay on the term. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a page for discussing specific changes to the socialism page, if you don't have any you would like to propose, with relevant citations, I'm tempted to close this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Many social democrats refer to themselves as socialists or democratic socialists, and some use these terms interchangeably."

User:Clipboarder's edit summary included "Social Democrats and Socialists/Communists split at least 150 years ago and represent different political and economic ideologies." I find this confusing as it suggests that socialists and communists are the same. It isn't at all that simple. Eg [1]. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I myself use the term interchangeably to refer to myself. But I think the sentence is correct for other reasons as well. For example, the Party of European Socialists is translated as "Sozialdemokratische Partei" in German despite being called "socialist" in English, proving that they too use the term interchangeably. I'll revert them and add some sources. Regards So Why 13:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There's also still a fair bit of debate within socialism about the relative value of incremental reformist changes championed by social democrats, with some seeing them as being a useful stop-gap measure though not where we want to end up and others seeing them as being an impediment to revolution. I really don't think we can find something reliable, balanced, NPOV and definitive on this issue. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, the issue is how to characterize countries/societies, not really about how socialdemocrats define themselves. In any case we need to base this on scholarly sources, not on opinions. For instance Schneider etal (Schneider, M. R., & Paunescu, M. (2012). Changing varieties of capitalism and revealed comparative advantages from 1990 to 2005: a test of the Hall and Soskice claims. Socio-Economic Review, 10(4), 731-753): State-dominated economies (Turkey, Portugal and Greece per 2005, previously also Italy and Belgium), Liberal market economies (Switzerland, Denmark, UK, USA, Canada), hybrid economies (Italy, Norway, Korea, Japan per 2005), coordinated market economies or "CME" (Germany, Belgium, Austria, France). Norway, Denmark and Sweden has since 1990 actually left the CME group and become more capitalist according to this analysis. Schneider etal used the Hall & Soskice framework, a widely used framework to compare business across countries. — Erik Jr. 23:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

A comparison of welfare regimes can be found in Esping-Andersen's classic The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism where the nordic countries are described as social-democratic type of welfare capitalism (to be understood as a system, not as an ideology), whereas continental (western) Europe as a corporatist or conservative welfare states. — Erik Jr. 23:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The confusion stems from historical use of the term "social democrat" and the modern definition of "social democracy" as a corporatist welfare state regime. The former was definitely socialist even when it embraced reformism, but the latter refers to an entirely different concept that has nothing to do with economic systems or socialism specifically. -Battlecry 09:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

So. How should we fix this? — Erik Jr. 17:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

there are several issues with the statement that people use the terms "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" interchangeably. while historically, social democracy was synonymous with socialism at some point, there also was a clear split between socialist and social democrats at the beginning to middle of the last century. for example, in germany the "Godesberger Programm" redefined the SPD as a social democratic party in the modern sense.

by contemporary definitions, socialists aim for a socialist society through reform or revolution and social democrats operate within the context of a capitalist society. if you look at the platforms of "socialist" and "social democratic" parties in Germany you will see the stark differences on economic philosophy. the democratic socialist DIE LINKE (formerly: "Party of Democratic Socialism") still aims to transform large businesses into public property. the social democratic SPD does not include any such aims in its platform and instead seeks to balance free markets with social protections.

the references also don't really support the claim. the first reference simply doesn't address the claim. the second reference cites Tony Blair who interchangeably refers to his "socialism" as "my kind of socialism", "social-ism", and "new capitalism". he is hardly a good source. 3. the third reference is a NYT article about people's lack of understanding of the terminology. i agree that people misunderstand the terminology but that doesn't mean that they therefore get to define or redefine terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clipboarder (talk • contribs) 09:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2018

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

I think the "Reform versus Revolution" piece need to be split into something like;

==Transition theology==
*Reform - "brief on reform"
*Revolution "brief on "revolution"

or prose..

Transition theology ranges from Reform t0 Revolution, where reform advocates... 

==Varieties of socialism==
Varieties of socialism can be categorized in a variety of ways:...

or possibly remove the heading idea, however i feel we need to separate the transition form the system?

2404:4408:20C3:9800:ED83:B08B:469F:7F72 (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 16:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Reformism and Revolutionary socialism in the lede

@Battlecry: I only reverted one of your two very major overhauls, which I felt was trying to give undue weight to the reformist social democratic tendency, but I'm a bit concerned with your removal of any mention of reformism and revolutionary socialism from the lede. While I concur with many of your other restructurings in the second major edit, which was much more narrative, I feel this is an error; it's a major division within socialist political theory as to whether reformism is anything other than a life preserver for the bourgeoisie, and I'd suggest that it's a major enough conflict to warrant mention. I would rather not just re-insert the old para as it was clunky but I was thinking it'd be appropriate to invite you to discuss in case you had plans to re-include that material in a more narrative form sometime today. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Gert Hekma

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

It's a small change, but one of the refs mentions Gert Hekma, which could be linked to Gert Hekma. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Done NiciVampireHeart 06:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Missing discussion - Socialist States have all failed

The article offers no insight into how well Socialist economies have fared. The recent turmoil in Venezuela is a current example, but we have many examples of serious shortcomings in the former soviet block, North Korea, and China. We should provide more comment here on these issues. Mattnad (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mattnad: See Criticism of socialism which already covers the point about socialist economies. On the other hand, Vietnam is a declared socialist country for example that's doing pretty well economically. Same goes for China. Sure, one could argue that those are no true socialist states... (you see my point?) Regards So Why 16:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

In China, they moved to a market economy with private ownership in case you missed it. Both China and Vietnam allow for non-governmental investment and industry. Before the reforms, both countries lagged. China had massive famines.Mattnad (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This "argument" relies on redefining "socialism" as "does not allow non-governmental investment and industry" which is not the definition of socialism or socialist countries (which is clear from the article). Hence the "no true socialist state" fallacy. Regards So Why 17:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nordic model - please remove from article

There is no support in scholarly sources for including the Nordic model. To describe the Nordic model as socialism is clearly misleading. --— Erik Jr. 13:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see my response to the above debate about whether the Nordic Model is socialism in any way and thus whether it belongs in this article in the above discussion on the Nordic model. I believe the "Nordic Mode" should be mentioned in this article but we need to explain why it, not traditional socialism, why it's often described as such in the U.S., and so forth. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is still factually wrong. So I commented out this section until somebody moves it to a background section. --— Erik Jr. 18:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Which part do you object to? The section doesn't unequivocally describe it as "socialism" (Brandal et all observes how imprecise the term could be); I've added more sources to support the "social democracy" description, which seems to be the most common one, but those all make it clear that it's relevant to any discussion of the history of socialism - and the section is merely "history", not "list of countries that are definitely embodiment of pure socialism" or anything of that nature. It could go into more detail on the history and internal struggles - Byrkjeflot is clear that it was a movement in a particular era and not some eternal state of being - but it seems silly to suggest that it's unrelated to socialism given the sourcing. eg. Byrkjeflot describes their development as follows: All the Nordic social democratic parties had at some point in their history relied on the Marxist argument that the capital owners exploited the working classes, and that it was necessary to abolish property rights for the major capitalists and socialise the means of production in order to develop a socialist society. This position was gradually given up, and the idea of “functional socialism” was launched instead, i.e. the position that it is not necessary to socialise private property, but rather develop other ways to make it functional to the community at large. --Aquillion (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: The overall presentation (not the detailed content of the section) is still misleading (factually wrong) because it implies that the Nordic model, the current societal model, is some form of socialism. The social democratic parties clearly developed from socialist parties. But social democratic parties in the Nordic countries and the Nordic societies are two very different things, so I think there is a mix up of parties (ideology) and society (facts on the ground). If you can not produce sources that shows how or if the Nordic model is related to socialism, the section must go away. Alternatively the section can be relabeled "Social democratic parties in the Nordic countries", which is something very different. In Norway for instance, the most important "socialist" policy, the universal social security, was introduced by the conservative/christian government (just like the very conservative Bismark did in Germany). In addition, most major social reforms in Norway are "big compromises". --— Erik Jr. 14:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Nordic model

There is nothing in Socialism#Nordic_model about socialism. This short section is primarily based on Esping-Andersen, G. (1991). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Esping-Andersen's seminal book is actually called Welfare Capitalism, not Socialism..... So what is the basis for claiming that the "Nordic Model" is socialism? --— Erik Jr. 17:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Nordic model seems a more complete and fulsome discussion of the relationship between the Nordic model, social democracy, capitalism, and socialism. The truth is, with any system impacted by social democracy there's going to be the question of, "is this, in fact, socialism?" - as Wikipedia should stay neutral in the dispute between reformists and revolutionary socialists over who is and isn't a True Scotsman, I'd say we can definitely keep a reference to the Nordic Model in this article, linking back to the full article which provides additional context. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but still: the sources cited in this short section does not place the Nordic model within the socialist spectrum. Esping-Andersen uses the term "capitalism" or "welfare capitalism". So if no sources supporting the notion that the Nordic model is socialist, the section should be removed or modified. --— Erik Jr. 18:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I only can bring sources in Spanish about the subject in case they are any useful; (I'm not aware if Norway politics changed recently though)

https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/-por-que-noruega-siendo-socialista-se-convirtio-en-un-pais-rico--20145416210 (liberal newspaper from Chile)

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/1637298-noruega-el-unico-socialismo-del-siglo-xxi (conservative/right-wing newspaper from Argentina; title implies all other kinds of socialism outside Norway didn't work)

https://elpais.com/diario/2011/10/30/eps/1319956015_850215.html (conservative newspaper from Spain)

Is Norway the last socialist state in Europe? When asked, the finance minister, the Labourist Sigbjørn Johnsen, smiles and moves on to another topic. At the end of the interview, the director of communication puts things in place with an icy gesture: "Socialists, yes, but democratic."

Regards. --Agustin6 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

A section dedicated to the Nordic model is not appropriate in this article because it is widely recognized as a form of capitalism and not a form of socialist economy. Because social democratic parties in some Nordic countries (Sweden and Denmark) played a significant role in shaping the social and labor market policies of these countries, it would be appropriate to reference it in the history section as a partial result of social democratic politics from the 1930s-1980s. But an entire section devoted to it is unwarranted because it is not a form of socialism, and I suspect this section was added at some point to make a political statement. -Battlecry 10:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest we need to, per WP: NPOV cleave to what reliable sources have to say on the subject, rather than getting drawn into the debate between reformists and revolutionaries. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, reliable scholarly sources, opinion pieces in newspapers are lightweight in this context. — Erik Jr. 13:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Battlecry with regard to political statements. It's been happing to several articles on or related to the topic. The source provided doesn't support the idea of the Nordic model as being socialist. Sure the Nordic countries have been influenced by socialist movements, but it's a stretch to label them such today. For the section to make any sense, it needs to explain what makes its history influenced by socialism, which it currently does not do. I suggest a heavy modification. Justm (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Is the word of director of communication of Sigbjørn Johnsen (cited above) lightweight? --Agustin6 (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Very much so. The nameless aide is simply a spokesperson dealing with the press. I managed to narrow it down to Signe Bunkholt Sæter, which served under minister Johnsen for two years. She's a former journalist turned lobbyist. I think we can safely assume her words as pretty lightweight and heavily biased. Justm (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It makes no sense to single out the Nordic countries, in particular, to include a section for since there is no policy specific to the Nordic countries that aren't implemented elsewhere. The section also doesn't include anything defined under socialism in this article. It also links to another article that hardly mentions socialism at all. Hence, this section should be removed. 193.234.42.32 (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

can we detail that it is a mixed-model??2404:4408:20C3:9800:ED83:B08B:469F:7F72 (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

We should continue to maintain a section on the Nordic Model (AKA Social Democracy) though with substantial changes for the following reasons:

Many people mistake it for socialism and others view it as a mixed socialist/capitalist system. This stems from the modern idea that strong welfare, universal healthcare, and strong labor union systems are "socialist" in nature, view many people hold these days. So even if the Nordic Model is not a true socialist system in the traditional sense, it is seen as having socialist elements. Other disputes this idea since traditional socialism advocates ALL resources be owned by the people collectively, by way of the government, Social Democracies do not do this (for the most part).
Some modern politicians, such as Bernie Sanders, while describing themselves a "Democratic Socialists", have been characterized by others as being more "social democratist" (i.e. Nordic model advocates) rather then traditional socialists due to the policy positions being more along those lines (such as advocating for universal healthcare, strong labor unions, strong welfare states, strong regulation of corporations, etc.) without specifically advocating the government take over all sorts of industries.

As such I advocate we modify that section explain how the Nordic Model is commonly mistaken for socialism (in the traditional sense), how the terms socialism and democratic socialism have been used as a synonym for the Nordic model/social democracy. We can also address the debate over whether a mixed economy (capitalism combines with social welfare state) is in any way "socialist" or not and how the term socialism has expanded in meaning in recent decades, based on how many millennial have used the term as a synonym for social democracy. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The way the Nordic model is presented (as a variant of socialism) is clearly misleading. So the section should either be removed from the article (because there is no support for "socialism" as a label on the Nordic system) or substantially changed to address some common misunderstandings. The section must, however, be based on scholarly sources, without proper sources the section should be removed as soon as possible.— Erik Jr. 11:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, in his speech at Harvard in 2015, described is own country as "not socialist". Here is the link to one of the reports about it: https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist - so could you please stop the discussion if Denmark is socialist or not? It is not. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:2AC4:5901:752C:DDCB:F3D2:4425 (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the section in the article. I'm surprised it took this long to do it. It's pretty obvious that Nordic countries are not Socialist by definition. Yes they have welfare programs, but so does the United States (ie Medicare, Social Security, Tuition assistance etc.) It's just a matter of how much social welfare. All of the countries operate under free market conditions with some regulation which is typical of all.Mattnad (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that that quote supports what you're citing it for (a confusion partially caused by the misleading headline.) The full quote is Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. This already covered by our article; it is a mixed economy. That's not controversial and is worth the one paragraph we devote to it. But it is easy to find sources indicating its importance to the history of socialism and, if nothing else, the socialist roots of Nordic social democracy (eg. see the quote from Byrkjeflot below) which is all its inclusion in the history section implies. --Aquillion (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

But Byrkjeflot writes about parties, not how the Nordic model developed, these are two very different things. Byrkjeflot tend to confuse history of ideas and history of actual evens. — Erik Jr. 14:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Due weight in the North America subsection

I scrolled through the article and noticed that most of the information about socialism in the United States is exclusively about social democrats, the Nordic model, and Bernie Sanders. I see that I am not the only one on this talk page that doesn't think that the Nordic model should really be emphasized on an article about socialism.

Half (one of two paragraphs) of the entire subsection on socialism in all of North America is about the 2015 Bernie Sanders campaign. I don't that's due at all when Canada (which is also in North America and isn't exactly an example of socialism per the article's description of socialism) is one of the countries that the campaign looks to.

The article only briefly mentions Noam Chomsky (one of the most prominent American socialists) in this subsection, and the only mention of Murray Bookchin (another well-known American socialist) is outside of the North America subsection.

Would anyone mind if I at least swap the Bernie picture with a Chomsky picture? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 05:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Murray Bookchin was known for most of his political career as an anarchist although he objected to that label in the latter years of his life. Noam Chomsky is best known as a linguist and a philosopher, and his politics are best known as anarcho-syndicalist. If you poll Americans about the best known American socialist, Bernie Sanders will be the overwhelming choice, followed by Eugene V. Debs and Michael Harrington for the historically minded. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the contemporary exemplar. Sanders got over 13,200,000 votes in 2016, running as a socialist, and received donations of over $180 million in donations. Normal people have absolutely no idea what the "Nordic model" is, and this article should reflect practical day to day reality not some editor's notion of ideological purity. So, yes, I very much mind the removal of the photo of Bernie Sanders. That is a very, very poor idea in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see why you needed to point out that the two American socialist philosophers I mentioned are anarchists, considering that anarchists are socialists. With all due respect, should it be relevant that normal people don't know what the "Nordic model" is? This is an encyclopedia. Though I do not by any means question that Sanders is among the most influential politicians in the present-day United States, this subsection is about socialism in all of North America. Would it not be more due to display Canadian figures that actually implemented Sanders policies? Even more due would be to display the Cuban leaders went further. This isn't about one "editor's notion of ideological purity." It's our own geocentric biases as news-reading Americans that leads us to think Sanders is the face of socialism on the entire continent. At the very least, we should be displaying an American socialist philosopher that contributed to the political theory and ideology, but if not, we should be displaying someone from another country entirely. As you can see from the discussion above, I'm far from the only editor that is concerned with the emphasis on the Nordic Model in this article - not because it's not "pure" enough - but because the very first paragraph of the article is evidence enough that it's not a matter of opinion that the Nordic/welfare-state model simply doesn't fit the definition, and if it is in fact relevant enough to remain, it is currently given undue weight. As impressive as it is that Sanders was one of two major candidates in the party primary phase of the most recent US presidential election, that doesn't make him one of the most important socialist thinkers in North America, especially when - even if elected president - he explicitly intends to make the country more like Canada, which also happens to be a country in North America. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2019

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

"characterised" misspelled Jasonemry (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not. See National varieties of English. RolandR (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Public

Why does the word "workers" appear in the lede, when the term used in the [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] sources (inside of reference [10]) is not "workers" at all, instead they all use the term "public." -ApexUnderground (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2019

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

The article on question is missing the 1936-1945 Timelines where a group of People devised (or better, took an alternative vision of) the NATIONAL-SOCIALISM in Germany leading up to WORLD WAR II. It is absolutely shocking that Wikipedia has a full article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism_(disambiguation) and this info is, imho, clearly taken out as a NPOV Breach not to discuss this variable of Socialism. I would like the person who made this to clearly act to devise a text where he explains the national-socialism as concept, historical ramifications and effects, and then proceed to the pos-world war II point 2.5.1.; otherwise the now protected article will not be seen in a good light. As per another article with sources: "Drexler emphasised the need for a synthesis of völkisch nationalism with a form of economic socialism, in order to create a popular nationalist-oriented workers' movement that could challenge the rise of Communism and internationalist politics". So this belongs on the article. If you are inclined to mark this as an official suggestion for improvement, I accept it, as long as is visible on the page. Best regards Alban Lusitanae (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

National Socialist Workers Party

no sources provided, no edit change requested, tiresome nonsense WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am dumbfounded that the National Socialist Workers Party is deliberately ignored in this article. It had a major impact on the world stage and was the focus of the War in Europe from 1939 to 1945.

By the way - IMHO - this article so Soviet Socialist biased that it is almost like an advertisement. And the way the lede is written is more double speak and unclear than I have seen for quite a while. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The National Socialist German Workers Party murdered hundreds of thousands of actual German socialists and communists, and was no more socialist than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic or the White Identity Church of Jesus Christ–Christian is of Jesus Christ. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

As Voltaire said, "the Holy Roman Empire was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire". RolandR (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Just no. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

National Socialism is missing

Unless you want to rename page Socialism specifically to Class-socialism, it should include Nazis (race-socialism). Socialism is public control of economy (as opposed to capitalism - private control of economy). Every planned economy is type of socialism - even if it opposes Marxism (and derived types of socialism) like Hitler did.

As a sources, read: Reimann, G. “The Vampire Economy: Doing Business under Fascism.” Kindle, Mises Institute, 2007. Originally written in 1939. Hitler. A. “Mein Kampf.” Barkai, A. “Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy.” Yale University Press, 1990. Feder, G. "The Programme of the NSDAP: The National Socialist German Worker's Party and its General Conceptions." RJG Enterprises Inc, 2003. Feder, G. "The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation." Black House Publishing LTD, 2015.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler clearly states his politics and explains difference between Marxism and "real socialism" of his. The Vampire Economy (written by Marxist living in Reich) then describes how Hitler's economy worked and that it was, in fact, planned -socialist- economy. Arakan94 (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hitler's Mein Kampf, as well as Gottfried Feder writings are primary sources.
Mises Institute is a libertarian think tank with very particular views on socialism, and as such, it is not a reliable source for the topic. Also, economic planning does not equate to socialism.

They just released what was written in 1939 - it is reliable source that describes how Hitler's economy worked. Arakan94 (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't check Barkai's source, but according to this review, he could be pointing to something quite different: Barkai stresses consonance between Nazi ideology and practice, speaks of organized capitalism in which the economic elite prospered-and accepted the primacy of Nazi direction.
And this stream of single-purpose accounts coming here for POV pushing is getting annoying... --MarioGom (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, this editor actually has 2 edits, compared to the one before who only had half that many! Somewhere offwiki editors are being urged to come to various articles and make this argument. Ignoring inconvenient facts such as how well capitalists such as the Krupp family did out of WWII. Strange kind of socialism that. Doug Weller talk 11:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Why wouldn't Krupp do well after the socialism ended and control of property was returned to previous owners? Socialism isn't exclusively using nationalization - simple control through regulation or pressure is often enough. Key thing is the public control, which undeniably happened in Germany. Arakan94 (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

[1] Zimbalist, Sherman and Brown, Andrew, Howard J. and Stuart (October 1988). Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach. Harcourt College Pub. p. 7. ISBN 978-0155124035.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]

Definition of Socialism is far too narrow to the point of misinformation

Right-wing socialism

Wasn't the USSR state capitalist? Didn't Lenin say so?

Why are there no Criticisms?

Sandwiching images in lead

"the political system of the Soviet Union, which some have argued operated in an authoritarian fashion."

Employee share/stock schemes

"Right wing socialism"

Social democracy is NOT socialism

Distinctions in:

WWII has no beginning

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

National Socialism

"Roman Catholic communion rite"

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2017

External links modified

Etymology Addition

Minor change

Socialism and "modern progressive social movements"

Absence of Content under Criticism

Socialism

21st century socialism?

Meanings of socialism

Many social democrats refer to themselves as socialists or democratic socialists, and some use these terms interchangeably."

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2018

Reformism and Revolutionary socialism in the lede

Gert Hekma

Missing discussion - Socialist States have all failed

Category

Nordic model - please remove from article

Nordic model

Due weight in the North America subsection

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2019

Public

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2019

National Socialist Workers Party

National Socialism is missing