Talk:Socialism/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Abuse of "socialism"

Rescue deleted text from intro, may be useful somewhere:

In 21st century America, the term socialism, without clear definition, has become a pejorative used by conservatives to taint liberal and progressive policies, proposals, and public figures.

--— Erik Jr. 13:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2019

There is a stray quotation mark in '...working-class movements like the Chartists in the United Kingdom".' 131.123.50.19 (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Criteria/ minimal level of influence/thought/significance before an individual is listened in the "individuals" sidebar for socialism?

Basically, I think it would be a good idea to lay out some sort of minimum criteria for an individual to reach before they can be listed on the individuals section on the socialism sidebar. Here would be an opportunity to lay out this sort of criteria. I honestly have no idea where to start, but it's obvious people who have their own tendencies, e.g. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, should be in the sidebar but some less known figures should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatjakelad (talk • contribs) 18:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Have decided that someone must have at least 20,000 bytes on their individual page before being added to the sidebar. feel free to argue for lower/higher bar below, but so far 20,000 seems about right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatjakelad (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Nordic model is still not socialism

Nordic model is welfare capitalism, not socialism. — Erik Jr. 20:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Erik den yngre: Yes, and the Soviet economic model "in practice [...] functioned as a form of state capitalism,[34][35][36] or a non-planned administrative or command economy."[37][38] Why don't you also say that isn't socialism? "Socialism is [...] characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management", yet the Soviet economic model had neither of that; there was still wage labour, capital accumulation, commodities exchange, etc. Lenin and many Bolsheviks knew and realised that. It was Stalin (who else could have been?) who first articulated that the Soviet Union achievied socialism with the 1936 Constitution (the same year the Great Purge started, nonetheless); how the law of value still operated within a socialist economy; and also that the state would remain even if the Soviet Union reached the communist mode of production, if it was still encircled by capitalism. So I have to agree with @Aquillion: that "there's no active dispute on talk" beside you, as stated here. I have also added more informations here that can help close this dispute.--Davide King (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no support for the notion that the Nordic model is a form of socialism. And there is no support for the idea that the Nordic countries has a socialist form of government. There is no one sentence: "In the 1950s, popular socialism emerged as a vital current of the left in Nordic countries could be characterised as a democratic socialism in the same vein as it placed itself between communism and social democracy." That some political parties subscribed to socialist ideology at some point in time does not mean that these countries were or are socialist. Confusing substantive (real) history with the history of ideas is common, and that is the case here. The section is not about socialism as an actual form of government in the Nordic countries, instead the section is a fragmented discussion about socialist ideas in the Nordic countries, these are fundamentally different things. The heading of the paragraph should be changed to correct this obvious error. --— Erik Jr. 16:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The article mentions that the labour parties (social-democrats) held power for long periods in Sweden and Norway. Correct, but these parties abandoned the socialist ideology around 1930. In any case, they did not implement a socialist form of governement. In fact, Gerhardsen's aim was to keep socialists out and the purge of socialists were implemented under party strongman Haakon Lie. — Erik Jr. 16:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Erik den yngre: Thanks for your reply. I would redirect you to this comment by @The Four Deuces: Also, there's nowhere in that section sayig that's a "form of socialism"; it literally says it's a "form of social democracy" (do you disagree with that? Still, it was the labour and social democratic parties that pushed more than any other the welfare state and built them). Nor does it say that "the Nordic countries has [sic] a socialist form of government"; and your "That some political parties subscribed to socialist ideology at some point in time does not mean that these countries were or are socialist" could be just as well used to make the same comment about so-called socialist states. Furthermore, we don't have sections like "Socialism (or socialist ideas) in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe/in the Third World"; so I think "Nordic countries" better is sufficient and I thought it was already a good compromise since "Nordic model" would have been more ambiguous. Either way, just because may social democratic parties may have endorsed "welfare capitalism" and Keynesianism, they did it mainly as a compromise, which was abandoned in the 1970s and 1980s.

Indeed, it's only "[s]ince the 1980s [that the Norwegian Labour Party] has included more of the principles of a social market economy in its policy, allowing for privatisation of state-owned assets and services and reducing income tax progressivity, following the wave of economic liberalisation during the 1980s", basically rejecting social democracy and what they stood for. Do you also realise, as stated here, that "[i]ncidentally, the economic system of Venezuela is capitalism. The generally accepted reason for the current economic crisis is that oil revenue was spent on social welfare rather than invested in diversifying the economy or saved for bad times.[1] That's not the failure of socialist planning but lack of planning"? Or how "Ceaușescu desired to repay Western loans, and thus enacted a harsh austerity policy, including rationing of food, gas, heating and electricity" (and that was in "Communist" Romaniaǃ); and we literally have an article about it? Or how Mugabe "of course [...] didn't actually practise what he preached, did he? Once in office he became a capitalist" and "Mugabe's policies were "broadly-speaking" social-democratic"? I'm saying this because you seem to reduce socialism to state ownership and socialist states; social democracy, not including the Third Way, is also a form socialism, reformist, gradualist, evolutionist but still a form of socialism, hence why it's included here, like liberal socialism.

So I'm going to be bold and remove that tag (like @Aquillion: did, who I invite to discuss here, if there're any issue with me removing the tag) since I'm not sure there's a real dispute; it's simply you disagreeing, but I don't see other users. Until then, I think we should keep it as it was.--Davide King (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The tag is still relevant because the section is quite confused, and you can not just remove the tag because you think I am wrong. A dispute means that we disagree.

(1) Why are the Nordic countries included if there is not a socialist form of government? The Nordic countries certainly have extensive welfare states, and so does many other countries such as Japan, Germany and France. Welfare state is often associated with socialism or socialist ideology, but modern the welfare state was invented by Bismarck and in the case of Norway key refoms where in fact implemented by the conservatives. The major reforms in Norway were mostly grand compromises across the political spectrum. Norway is instead governed according to what Hall & Soskice call coordinated market economy.

(2) The section confuses substantive history (how the countries are/were actually governed) and history of ideas (ideas about how countries should be governed). There has been various political movements in the Nordic countries. The fact that these existed and during some periods held cabinet positions, can not be taken as proof that countries are socialist or social democratic. Olof Palme was perhaps a socialist, but Sweden was still a capitalist country. Now the section mostly contains information about socialist or social democratic ideas/parties in the Nordic countries. Information about ideologies should be removed section. The section should instead focus on the actual form of government. — Erik Jr. 18:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Erik den yngre: Well, you seem the only one to have a problem with this. Many users also seem to have a problem with describing fascism as far-right or Nazism as a form of German fascism rather than socialism, yet we don't put tags just because some users disagree. Socialism is both an economic system and an ideology; it's not a form of government, so what are you talking about? You're confusing socialism with Communist states and you're confusing social democracy with the Third Way. Just because they have a capitalist economy, it doesn't mean thay aren't ideologically socialists. Why are the Soviet Union and company included when they too were just ideologically socialists and in practice just as capitalist as the West (although in different ways, rejecting their liberalism, but in practice both being a form of state capitalism, because capitalism is lost without the state and only American libertarians disagree with that, so I disagree with describing the West as capitalist and the Soviet Union and company as state capitalist) and when they didn't have a planned economy in the Marxist sense but a planned-market economy based on administrative commands? They all had capital accumulation (they basically used socialism the same way liberalism was used to support capitalism; see "socialist" primitive capital accumulation, etc.; indeed, Lenin and the Bolsheviks aknowledged this; it was Stalin who claimed Lenin's state capitalism was socialism and that the Soviet Union had achieved "socialism", etc.), wage labour, commodity exchange governed by the law of value, producing things on their exchange value rather than their use value, extracting surplus value with the state acting as the capitalist/mega corporation, workplace tyranny, etc. Either way, @The Four Deuces: can explain you it better than me and I also invite @Aquillion: to partecipate.--Davide King (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

These are some relevant The Four Deuces quotes from Talk:Social democracy. "Socialist, democratic socialist social democrat, are usually interchangeable terms, although some writers distinguish between the three. [...] First, socialism can mean either an ideology or an economic system, while capitalism is not an ideology, but an economic system. [...] You are not describing socialist ideology, but the system that Communists implemented. IOW the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity test."--Davide King (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The philosophy of the Social Democratic Party of Sweden was that if people were healthy, well-educated and had a decent standard of living, that they would seek to develop a socialist society. They did not consider the welfare state to be socialism but a necessary condition for its development. However, as the Swedish Social Democrats built the most comprehensive welfare state, the welfare stat is sometimes referred to as social democracy. Of course socialism/social democracy as the Social Democrats understood it did not happen and right-wing parties in Sweden also came to support the welfare state. The problem with all these articles is that they confuse different topics that sometimes described using the same names. TFD (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Thank you for your comment. That's exactly what many people miss about social democracy. Social democratic policies are confused for social democracy itself. By the logic of Erik den yngre, the great conservative Bismarck, the one who banned the actual social democrats and only adopted several of their policies to detract workers support for socialism, was a social democratǃ Everyone is a social democratǃ What many seems to miss is that social democrats believed that capitalism would lead to socialism (one criticism of the October Revolution was that the Bolsheviks couldn't have socialism without capitalism; and indeed, Lenin and the Bolsheviks aknowledged this fact itself and in practice continued the capitalist development under the state, before Stalin claimed all these policies were socialists and thus the Soviet Union reached socialism) and that the welfare state was seen as a "necessary condition for its development"; on ther other hand, conservatives and liberals supported the welfare state only insofar it made the workers content enough not to revolt or start a revolution; and it's no coincidance that starting in the 1970s, more intensively with the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, that the welfare state has been reduced and harsly attacked. Just because many Social Democratic parties fell to neoliberalism and adopted the Third Way, it doesn't mean social democracy did it too. How could that be considered social democracy when in many cases it was the Social Democratic party itself that dismantled the welfare state they themselves built as a necessary condition for socialist development? Even in the Nordic countries, where the welfare state is more popular, it's exactly its popularity that forces right-wing parties not to be so critical of it because it wouldn't be politically viable, at least for the time being.--Davide King (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Issues like these are not solved by voting. The discussion above is interesting, but on Wikipedia we dont reach conclusions by discussing the substantive issue - that would be OR by synthesis. The main issue is still the same as I pointed out above: The Nordic section of the article does not distinguish between (1) socialism as form of government or way to organize society as a whole (i.e., Nordic countries as socialist societies) and (2) socialism as an ideology or set of political ideas supported by parties or movements in those countries. This issue is a minimum of what must be resolved to make the section acceptable. In addition, the section gives undue weight to popular socialism. Presentation Meidner-Rehn-model is not clear at all, for instance it is not clear if it is merely a model or if it was real policy, and it is not clear if and why it is an example of socialist economic policy. — Erik Jr. 21:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Erik den yngre: Who even talked about voting? You seem mainly concerned about things that you don't see as socialist or socialism, when nowhere there it's stated that these are socialist policies. In other words, "the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity test". And popular socialism is talked about in literally just a phrase, how is that undue? The thing is that social democracy is part of socialism and that in the 1970s Sweden was moving more towards socialism in its development but this was defeated. @The Four Deuces: said it well. Socialism isn't a form of government but both an economic system and ideology, including both revolutionary and reformist socialists. You seem to reduce socialism just to an economic system, not considering social democrats that saw the welfare state as a "necessary condition for [socialist] development".--Davide King (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

You hint at some kind of voting by pointing out that I am the only contributor objecting to the way things are presented in that section. Please dont do that. And please stop talking about what I am concerned about and let us focus on improving the article. The key issues are: (a) Why mention the Nordic countries specifically when these are not socialist systems? This way of presenting implies or suggests that they are. (b) The section confuses ideology/political movements on the one hand and facts on the ground on the other - my students would get an F for fail if they presented anything like this. I think the section is in such a bad state that should be removed. But the section can perhaps be saved if we clarify that the section is about ideas or political agendas. I will begin rewriting now. — Erik Jr. 13:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Erik den yngre: That's not what I meant, but I'm fine with your edits. Once again, just because they may not be a socialist system, it doesn't mean that the ideas and political movement related to it shouldn't be discussed; @The Four Deuces: said it well here. Again, I point out that so-called socialist systems (the Soviet Union et all) weren't socialist either, but you had no problem with them being included. Anyway, your rewriting of the section was fine, so we're cool?--Davide King (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not OR to discuss whether social democracy as used to describe the Nordic model developed by the Social Democratic Party of Sweden and social democracy as used to describe the ideology of the party are the same thing. The same applies to the Soviet Union. While their system is frequently referred to as socialism, only Marxist-Leninists consider it to be so in reality. The issue is whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way. And the same applies to Bismark's state socialism or to reference any other capitalist society as socialist. TFD (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: This 100%. Thank you again for saying it in a better and concise way.--Davide King (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020

Within the section Social and Political Theory under the heading of Criticism of Capitalism article states:

Excessive disparities in income distribution lead to social instability and require costly corrective measures in the form of redistributive taxation, which incurs heavy administrative costs while weakening the incentive to work, inviting dishonesty and increasing the likelihood of tax evasion while (the corrective measures) reduce the overall efficiency of the market economy.[338]

However, studies have shown that redistributive taxation in the form of a universal basic income does not have any proven links to weakening the incentive to work. In the book Utopia for Realists, the author Rutger Bregman cites studies from the US and Canada (p 61-65 http://www.basinkomstpartiet.org/uploads/5/3/4/7/53471687/utopia-for-realists-by-rutger-bregman.pdf) where money was given to people with no strings attached and the effect on hourly work was left mostly unaffected. In fact any reduction in working hours was most likely attributed to the fact that people were now free to pursue education and better jobs. I think if the article is going to make the claim that "redistribution weakens the incentive to work" there should be a citation to counter the evidence that plainly says otherwise. 162.217.209.19 (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make, other than maybe adding a {{cn}}, but there already is a source attached. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Jargon

• Socialism is about social, public ownership. This article tells the tale of "public" ownership, i.e. "government/state ownership".

• The welfare state is a concept of civilisation focused on "social protection". At least in some places, this article refers to "the welfare state" as though it is a separately existing "state" within a contemporary government.

• These are forms of perspective espoused by proponent of socialism. While we should carefully respect these perspectives, we should follow them as little as possible, if at all, in the course of describing, in this case, socialism. Right? ~ R.T.G 23:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Redundant opening sentence

The article begins with "Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production [...]". The linked to article on Social ownership begins with "Social ownership is any of various forms of ownership for the means of production[...]". This strikes me at best tautologous, at worst redundant. Broken out, it says "Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production of the means of production". Or is my brain working against me? Anastrophe (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

We seek to write an article as though the reader has a very good grasp of the English language, but has never heard of the subject before reading it here. Try reading it again with that intention. Remember, Wikipedia is about disseminating new and forgotten knowledge, to the reader. ~ R.T.G 05:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yugo/Warsaw Pact and the whole Russia/East bloc section in general

Hi, all of this concerns the short "Soviet Union and Eastern Europe" era in the "Mid-20th century" section. I'm not a native English speaker, but as it stands, the list of members of the Warsaw Pact reads like it does, or did, include Yugoslavia. AFAIK, that is not correct; at least, that is not what it says in the Wiki article on Yugoslavia. I (personally and privately) would also question the unquestioned inclusion of the whole section in the article. The status and nature of the economical and political system of the USSR and the East Bloc is a matter of dispute, no? Like the difficulties in a straightforward placing of - if you forgive the unforgivable comparison - the NSDAP on a straight left/right axis, the USSR could be outlined by a list of traits which are internally inconsistent compared to the definition of a socialist state, such that only a discussion of the presence or not of specific traits would allow the reader to make any sense of why the USSR is included, except for esp. US historical tradition. I would say that the section needs some elaboration, perhaps even expansion, where the description of the Soviet system is based on its properties, not the self-description of its propagangda units, or the opposite. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"Cosialism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cosialism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Split

The article is way too long for our audience. It needs to be split into multiple articles of readable size. Thoughts? Lfstevens (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The history section is too long and full of information hardly relevant to understanding socialism as a system, philosophy or its political development and should be pruned. Less relevant content can be moved to an article specifically focusing on the history of the socialist political movement; this article should strike a balance between describing the theoretical history of socialism as a system/proposal with historical manifestations as well as its political history. As it stands the political history section is given too much weight and containts content of questionable relevance. -Battlecry 13:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The History of Socialism is already longer than this article. I think we're safe to condense. Lfstevens (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Overly technical language

See WP:TECHNICAL. I came to this article for a general overview of what socialism is about, but despite my university degrees (not in politics), I have no idea what many of the terms in the opening paragraphs mean. Can the introduction be made more accessible with simpler language and an explanation of political terms? — SimonEast (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2020

In the "Criticism" section, I would like to change "by examining historical attempt to" to "by examining historical attempts to", adding an "s" after "attempt" Thedragonking444 (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Citated work not in support of statement regarding criticism of unions

In the section "Socialist politics has been both internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organised through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions and at other times independent and critical of them;and present in both industrialised and developing nations... " the cited source does not support the statement that Socialist politics was critical of trade unions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:280:530A:18C3:6BC7:8387:EAE0 (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Confused

From the lede of the article:

< Socialist systems are divided into non-market and market forms.[15] Non-market socialism substitutes factor markets and money for integrated economic planning and engineering or technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind >

and from wiktionary

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/substitute

substitute (third-person singular simple present substitutes, present participle substituting, simple past and past participle substituted)

   (transitive) To use in place of something else, with the same function.

       I had no shallots so I substituted onion.

   (transitive, in the phrase "substitute X for Y") To use X in place of Y.

       I had to substitute new parts for the old ones.

given which, I think, although it's not at all clear without reading further, which rather defeats the object of the lede, that the article says the opposite of what is meant. There really should not be this sort of confused writing in the lede, or elsewhere, come to that.

86.130.154.59 (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Um, look at the third entry on the Wiktionary page you're quoting from -- it's exactly the usage you're saying doesn't exist. You quoted the entire Wiktionary entry right up to the thing you were trying to say doesn't exist, and then stopped as soon as you got to it! But yes, the sentence could be clearer. What do you suggest replacing it with? - Astrophobe (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

For now I brought it exactly in line with the usage on wiktionary, as a temporary solution - Astrophobe (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. I did not say that the third usage "doesn't exist": I made no reference to it whatsoever. I merely pointed out that the lede as it stood was at variance with, or even from, the first two, which are presumably the more common, usages.

I know nothing about socialism sufficient to qualify me to comment further, other that to say that the verb 'substitute' has evidently been irretrievably corrupted. I would if pressed use the rather less ambiguous word 'replace'. 86.130.154.59 (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I think "replaces" is not quite the intended meaning because it suggests that those properties existed before, which may or may not be the case; I don't think it's necessarily true that a factor market must exist prior to the establishment of a planned socialist economy (and I think that's a historically important point of contention) I think "substitutes" here is precisely intended to mean "swaps out in the abstract". But there's probably a way to use "replaces" to get at that meaning so I'll keep my ears open for ideas - Astrophobe (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

On the particular point, 'supersede'?

I regard a general point as rather more important. Look at the lede: it is shot through with wikilinks, more that 50, many of which I for one have never heard of. Consider the WP target reader; AIUI a high/secondary school student or thereabouts, more interested in girls/boys (delete as appropriate), music, alcohol &c. than this tiresome homework assignment. Is he/she really going to struggle through the lede as it stands saying to itself 'this is good, useful because comprehensible, stuff. Thank goodness for WP. Praise be to Jimbo'. I suggest not: the lede needs to be altogether more concrete. I notice that Simon East made a similar point on 22nd April 2020 86.130.154.59 (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Introduction is too dense and too long.

I'm continuing an opinion voiced on many of the archive pages. When you come to this article you are greeted by a massive wall of text as an intro. I'd imagine this article is being visited a lot right now due to the public debate about what 'socialism' actually means (it's being used both as a synonym for full state/public ownership and for capitalism with progressive tax rates). IMO the intro is too confusing. Arrowmouse (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Lede

Per MOS:LEAD "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs." I have reverted the lede to an earlier version that had a hard-fought consensus appropriately. Vrrajkum (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing?

Fox News recently accused this article and several others related to it (including articles about socialism and communism) of being whitewashed and biased. Thoughts? X-Editor (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It's Fox News. We don't even accept Fox News as a source here because of the long story of unreliable information they provided throughout the years. BeŻet (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Fox News wasn't making the allegation. They reported that one of the founders of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, had criticisms of the site and its left bias. He said this during an interview. 1 His criticism seems to be valid, on its face: where, in this article, is there ANY mention of the tens of millions of deaths by starvation and murder that have their roots firmly in socialist and communist doctrine? Even the article "Criticism of socialism" makes no mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimoblues (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That's because no responsible historians make any such attribution to socialism. A strong case can be made for the Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist variants of communism, but that's an entirely different article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

You want to claim that CNN or the NYT are more reliable? Seriously?? And no, I didn't vote for the orange clown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F7:6F0B:4FD4:3045:F2C4:D3D8:2403 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Fox News is considered unreliable on topics relating to politics and science, due to their obvious bias. CNN has been rated "generally reliable". The New York Times has been rated "generally reliable". Dimadick (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Soviet Union and Eastern Europe missing information on lack of consumer goods, black market and use of forced prison labour

Soviet Union and Eastern Europe

There seems to be lack of mentioning on some distinctive economic problems in USSR and Eastern Block. First of all, widespread bribery resulting from lack of consumer goods which were in constant shortage (exotic fruit, meat). Later in the 1980s this was also the case for toilet paper as one factory burned down and due to the nature of the five-year plan, nobody allocated capacities to build a new one. A Similar situation was present on car and real estate markets. With close to 10 year long waiting lists people bribed left and right to get their hands on stuff sooner.

I'm really surprised that article didn't mention use of prison forced labor. Especially when the topic is well-known in the west as well due to Gulag Archipelago. There were forced labor camps all over the eastern block, sending mostly political prisoners to do dangerous jobs like mining uranium (Jachymov, Pribram mines - Czechoslovakia).

I'd write a few paragraphs, but the article is closed until October, so I guess this is a good time for discussion.

https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817939423_189.pdf https://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/items/show/272 https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/1992-900-03-Rutgaizer.pdf (59 onward) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicmanma (talk • contribs) 20:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about socialism, I think you want to look at articles: USSR and Eastern Bloc. BeŻet (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Upton Sinclair

I removed the cite to Upton Sinclair for "democratic control" in the definition of socialism. The USSR and Maoist China were not democratic but no serious scholar disputes they were socialist. We should stick with modern, secondary sources. LittleJerry (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Sinclair's definition is notable and restored it as a quote in the appropriate sub-section (Self-managed economy) where economic democracy is discussed. It's Upton Sinclair after all, one of the best known socialists from the United States, not a rando from some blog. I moved Einstein's quote to beginning of section on economics so they weren't right on top of each other.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Definition

State socialism is a political and economic ideology within the socialist movement advocating state ownership of the means of production, either as a temporary measure or as a characteristic of socialism in the transition from the capitalist to the socialist mode of production or communist society. It is a form of socialism that does not require workers' self-management of enterprises - it simply requires that the means of production be owned by the state. Since not all socialist systems require "worker's self-management of enterprises", the first sentence should be changed to say:

"Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of production[4][5][6][7], sometimes with workers' self-management of enterprises." JustStalin (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

We already state "[s]ocial ownership can be public [redirecting to state ownership], collective, cooperative, or of equity." Even if in practice public ownership did not results in workers' control and management, that still remains the goal. Davide King (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

"That still remains the goal" according to who? The point is that not all socialists support worker control and management, so the lead sentence should reflect that fact. JustStalin (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

JustStalin, the point is that democratic control or workers' self-management remains an important concept of socialism and many types of socialism. As we state, there is no single, common definition for all types of socialism but several important sources such as the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Readers Guide to the Social Sciences especially emphasise the democratic control of the means of production by the workers. We already say there are several types of social ownership, not all of which entails workers' self-management but that is nonetheless an important concept for many types of socialism and as reported in reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree that not all forms of socialism entail workers' self-management of enterprises. I have reverted the lede sentence to a longstanding phrasing that uses "democratic control" instead. Vrrajkum (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Nope. It's well established that not all forms of socialism are democratic. In fact, not all forms of socialism have workers' self-management of enterprises. That should simply be struck and the lead sentence should say, "Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production". JustStalin (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

JustStalin and Vrrajkum, this is not consensus, so I suggest you to refrain from edit warring, you do not even agree among themselves. The bottom line is that worker's self-management and democratic control is an important characteristic of socialism, although in practice there have been notable instances where this was not reflected, hence why there is a distinction between democratic socialists and Marxist–Leninists. You both seem to conflate state capitalism for socialism. While state capitalism has been adopted for various reasons by socialists, they never claimed it was an actual socialist system but that it was a pragmatic solutions to material conditions or that it was necessary for the development of socialism, not that it was itself socialism. Davide King (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

And you are the reason Maxim Lott wrote his article. Can you see how you are biased towards socialism, and you all your wikipedia tools at your disposal in order to quash any attempt to paint socialism in an historical light? You, along with dozens of others, are forcing socialism into a positive light and by tyranny of the majority (look up this fallacy), it is impossible for other intellectually honest contributors to put socialism in a more neutral light because you wont let it happen. Agendas, agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:880:B670:81E7:C571:EC54:5BCA (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

But Davide King is "painting socialism in a historical light". If there are any historical inaccuracies, you are completely free to provide quality sources that can improve that. BeŻet (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You are a confirmed and admitted socialist, it is right on your user page. Of course you will filter out any content that doesn't elevate socialism, no matter what source is used. What you are doing is called confirmation bias, and people at even the highest levels of education are capable of it. Wikipedia is a cesspool for teams of editors (in this case, you along with all the other pro-socialists who control this article) who guard-dog an article and sterilize it against any edits that would reflect the topic negatively. You are why Wikipedia is a terrible place for controversial information because you have already approached a subject with predefined suppositions (in your case you already have confirmed that socialism is a great system of government and you have already concluded that historically socialism is great) and so any insert of information that negatively impacts your view of socialism isn't going to be "historical" and you have your sources to back it up and other sources will simply be dismissed. You know how it works, because you do it, and yet there is no way you will ever change it. Kind of like how socialist governments work for those in power :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:880:B670:59CE:E42D:906A:3E43 (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to provide sources to add the content you like, although I'm not even sure what is the change you'd like to make. If you are disagreeing with what Davide King is saying, then please provide sources to the contrary. None of the socialist states have ever claimed to have achieved a socialist mode of production, because a "socialist state" was just a strategy employed by certain socialist fractions which was supposed to lead to establishing a socialist mode of production. Whether that strategy was good or bad is debatable, and you're more than welcome to talk about it in the appropriate articles. Moreover, socialism and communism can only be achieved on a global scale - this is why scholars discuss the concept of socialism in one country and the fact it was never intended to have it in just one country, because it was always intended to have a global revolution. The end goal of socialism and consequently communism is to abolish states, and create a stateless, moneyless and classless society. You seem to have issues with specific countries and specific strategies employed by specific political groups, so please feel free to add anything you want in the relevant articles instead. BeŻet (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

At some point the opening sentence of this article was changed to a more convoluted definition defining socialism as a political ideology/movement containing an economic system as opposed to an economic system (or socioeconomic system) and the political movements aimed at achieving said system, which was more in line with most common definitions.

I agree that the emphasis on workplace democracy in the opening sentence is unwarranted; not all proposed forms of socialism entail "democratic control". Socialism has always had a strong technocratic wing starting with Saint Simon. -Battlecry 19:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

want to add into the section "Further Readings" one most recent important scholarly monograph on the history of socialism: Andrei Znamenski, Socialism as a Secular Creed: A Modern Global History (Rowman & Littlefield, 20021) Boriszorro (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This book does not appear to be recognized as an important scholarly monograph. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Famine

Surely the Holodomor and broader famine are WP:DUE in the article. Millions of people perished, making the famines a major historical event. I had placed them in the section of the article that covers the 1930s, but I am open to different placement. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the Holodomor belongs more in articles about the Soviet Union, the Bolshevik party etc.. You have placed it in the section about the Third International, which had nothing to do with the famine. Moreover, we don't, for example, mention the Great Famine in the article about capitalism, even though its causes are more tightly linked with the economic system than it was in the case of the Holodomor. BeŻet (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but BeŻet, surely you know that if something bad happens within 5,000 miles of or within 100 years of someone even uttering the words “socialism” or “communism” or “social democracy” or “leftism,” even if there is no evidence of a causal connection, even if there is definitive evidence of some other cause, that bad thing is a result of the essential evil of socialism, etc. Since we all know how through-and-through excellent capitalism, colonialism, imperialism, and fascism are, anything bad that happens apparently as a result of them is also socialism’s fault. It’s simple economics. Thanksforhelping (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes it definitely needs to be mentioned on this page. Perhaps the planned economy section would be appropriate. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Pelirojopajaro, I disagree but I see where you're coming from. Famines are a repeatable feature of totalitarian Communist governments (Soviet Russia, the Khmer Rouge etc.), but only right-wing ideologues contend that socialism and Communist dictatorship are one and the same. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pelirojopajaro: I disagree there is a definite need to mention it. It is not an element intrinsic to planned economies: there are plenty examples of planned economies where famines weren't an issue, and at the same time, there are plenty of examples of famines that occurred in free market economies, like the aforementioned Great Famine, which was one of the deadliest in history when looking at the percentage of the population affected. If we mention famine in this article, we should then also mention it in the article about capitalism. BeŻet (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Tariffs such as the Corn Laws are a mechanism for central planning so, perhaps the tariff article should mention the famine. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Are they? The article about planned economy doesn't even mention tariffs. The Corn Laws article already mentions the famine. BeŻet (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

When Fox News, of all sources, writes this, it actually means we are doing a good job in being accurate and neutral as possible in describing socialism. Compare it with the lead of Liberalism: "Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy." It says what liberals believe in and support. I have changed democratic control and workers' self-management of enterprises to democratic control, such as workers' self-management of enterprises as one example of democratic control advocated by socialists, and clarified that some socialists favour a party, state, or technocratic-driven approach. But socialism, understood as described in academic sources and not in news sources such as Fox News, is about democratic control; in countries such as Britain, the modern (19th century) socialist movement came from the working-class Chartists, who wanted to expand democracy. Socialists want democracy to be extended to the democratic sphere. That this has not happened yet, it does not mean it has changed their goals; we are stating their goals, just like we do for liberalism and many other ideologies.

So what is the problem when we do the same, using secondary and tertiary sources, for socialism? Perhaps because reliable academic sources paint a much different picture? In Europe, socialism is what the socialist parties, i.e. the mainstream centre-left parties do, even though they have moved to the right since the 1970s, do. It is not what Communist states did or other constitutionally socialist states did. In Latin America, left-wing leaders draw just as much populism, and most reliable scholars see their policies, including those which went wrong, as populist, not socialist. Because they do actually use an accurate definition of socialism, rather than price controls, famines, tariffs, and the like being inherently socialist policies. Academic books about socialism do not discuss famines because they did not just happen 'because of socialism', and there is a distinction between socialism and Communism; only right-wingers and the uniformed conflate the two. You want to deny the socialist character of social democracy (the movement, not any welfare state), so as to conflate it only with authoritarianism and Communism.

"If the contrast which 1989 highlights is not that between socialism in the East and liberal democracy in the West, the latter must be recognized to have been shaped, reformed and compromised by a century of social democratic pressure. ... social democratic and socialist parties within the constitutional arena in the West have almost always been involved in a politics of compromise with existing capitalist institutions (to whatever far distant prize its eyes might from time to time have been lifted). ... if advocates of the death of socialism accept that social democrats belong within the socialist camp, as I think they must, then the contrast between socialism (in all its variants) and liberal democracy must collapse. For actually existing liberal democracy is, in substantial part, a product of socialist (social democratic) forces." —Christopher Pierson

Davide King (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius: The article is huge

We could break it down into "socialist philosophy" and "socialist politics" (for example: here). What about? 2804:14C:5BB1:9AC7:AADA:696:2BE1:D9EB (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That could also be helpful avoid conflation of socialism only as an economic system, but I would like to see first a draft on how it would be structured. Davide King (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, would it be appropriate to tag this article with Template:Very long. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

According to xtools, it is at 131,972 characters and 19,549 words. Featured-article Barack Obama has even more bytes at 374,920 but 88,249 characters and 14,102 words. I think Contemporary socialist politics can boldly be moved at History of socialism, since it may suffer of recentism and is more appropriate that; in 10 years, we may make a summary of that without occupying all this space. Just doing this should be enough to fix most issues. Davide King (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

With removal (moved at History of socialism, it reduced −43,865‎ bytes to 297,950 bytes, and 114,495 characters and 16,915 words. Davide King (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Why is it that the article details the efforts by Suharto in Indonesia to crush communism, with mention of the 500,000 to 1 million lives lost, but never mentions any of the tens of millions killed in the name of socialism, in such nations as the Soviet Union (up to 61 million), China (up to 77 million) and Cambodia (2 million, in a nation with only 8 million people)?

Also, why is it that advocates of socialism (who are, universally, harsh critics of capitalism) are allowed over 3000 words in this article to have their say, including a roughly 500-word section devoted entirely to "Criticism of capitalism," but there are only four lines at the bottom of the article titled "Criticism [of socialism]," unsourced?

Can we balance this out? You know, try to actually achieve WP:NPOV here? Flavor of the Month (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

"but never mentions any of the tens of millions killed in the name of socialism" You are in the wrong article. See Mass killings under communist regimes. Dimadick (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

These topics are already discussed in the appropriate articles. BeŻet (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. So why are the efforts by Suharto in Indonesia to crush communism, with mention of the 500,000 to 1 million lives lost, mentioned in this article? After all, they are already mentioned in the appropriate article here: Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66. Another 3000-word article. Why are 1 million lives lost in Indonesia's anti-socialism efforts mentioned here, but not roughly 100 times as many killings in pro-socialism efforts? This is like a divorce court judge shouting about the ex-wife's parking tickets, while ignoring the ex-husband's armed robbery conviction. Flavor of the Month (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court and volunteer editors are not judges. We cover only what is covered in reliable sources, and only with WP:DUE weight. The contents of other pages is not relevant, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. What specific sourced changes are you proposing to the article? - Astrophobe (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Upon further review, I can't even find a link to the Mass killings under communist regimes article anywhere in this one. It's as though not even one person was ever killed in the name of socialism, throughout history, when in fact roughly 100 million were killed. We're all NPOV here, right? No bias here, right? Flavor of the Month (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Your numbers are highly debatable. Moreover, the article about capitalism does not mention any mass killings either. Mass killings under communist regimes talks about the activities of so-called communist states, and like I said, those are discussed in the appropriate article. BeŻet (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any room for debate that between China, the Soviet Union and Cambodia, the numbers are 100 times the 500K-1M range cited for Suharto. (In other words, 50M-100M.) The lower end of that range (50M) is effortlessly documented. And I don't believe you're getting the point. If Suharto's killings can be discussed HERE (despite a 3000-word separate article), why can't Stalin's, Mao's and Pol Pot's killings, which are 100 times as WP:NOTABLE and 100 times as shocking to the human conscience, be discussed HERE (despite a 3000-word separate article)? If you can't accept the idea of bringing in the killings by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, then let's take out the killings by Suharto. I am perfectly comfortable with either of these "cures," but WP:NPOV demands one or the other. Flavor of the Month (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Flavor of the Month: I disagree, I think there's plenty of room for debate. Starting from what you consider as "killings", because anyone who comes up with the 50-100 million range includes deaths from famine and other reasons; moving on to what is considered "socialism" or killings "due to socialist ideology", because for instance the massacres commited by the Khmer Rouge were more on ethnic/religious grounds; and finally the actual accuracy of said numbers, which are often expressed in ranges, but extremely exagerated by people claiming the 100 million "death toll". If we were to treat capitalism and capitalist countries the same way, we would end up in an even larger death toll - 100 million people die from hunger under capitalism every dozen years or so. BeŻet (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The estimate for Indonesia, from 500,000 to about 1 million killed, is far and away the consensus among scholars who study the issue. By contrast the numbers you provide for Communist states, like 61 million for the USSR, are clearly not the consensus view and no doubt come from Rummel's work, which is not taken seriously the majority of scholars. The death toll for the USSR hardly breaks 10 million now in light of archival evidence and is probably much lower than that when direct killings are considered the sole criteria, and probably closer to the numbers killed in Indonesia in fact ("the Stalinist regime was consequently responsible for about a million purposive killings" - see Wheatcroft, 1996). Furthermore, the killings in Indonesia are relevant to this section of the article as they destroyed the development of socialism in Indonesia and shifted the balance of power in that region towards the West during the Cold War; it is WP:DUE material backed by numerous reliable sources. The article MKuCR is a highly controversial article with its content disputed, and some of the killings you mentioned, such as those in Cambodia, have little to do with socialism at all.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Griffin, you are welcome to include all of these concerns in the mainspace of this article. The Holodomor in Ukraine killed tens of millions. The officer purge in the Red Army killed hundreds of thousands. Sure it's debatable, because anyone can debate anything, but the piles of skulls with 7.62mm holes in them in Cambodia are difficult to explain away. Also, communism is a form of socialism, and Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are all discussed at great length (except for their murder of millions, which is carefully avoided) right here, in the Socialism article. Please don't try to distinguish between communism and socialism as an excuse for excluding this one subject area. Thanks for that. Finally, Mr. BeŻet mentions the Capitalism article. I respectfully invite Mr. BeŻet to edit that article, with links to reliable sources, describing the killing of millions of people on behalf of capitalism. This should be entertaining. Go ahead. 15:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Unlike the killings in Indonesia which directly impacted the development of socialism in that country and had major impacts on the Non-aligned movement and the Cold War itself, what you mention has little to do with socialism or the development of socialism. Pol Pot is hardly referenced in the article because he is hardly considered a socialist, but a monstrosity created by the Cold War and the violence it unleashed in Southeast Asia (without rampant US bombing of that country, his regime would never have seen the light of day). And the famine in Ukraine did not kill "tens of millions", but somewhere between 3.5 million to 6.5 million (see Davies and Wheatcroft, 2004 and Timothy Snyder, 2010). And of course these are not direct killings either.

How many people in the US die for lack of healthcare every year? One study from 2009 put it at 45,000 annually. And what about deaths of despair and the opioid epidemic (courtesy of Purdue Pharma)? Could these examples, and I'm sure there are many others, be considered excess deaths under capitalism and neoliberalism? Regarding direct killings, how many people died as the result of US Wars and coups abroad? How many people have US backed military dictators killed around the world (you know, Yahya Khan, Alfredo Stroessner, Jorge Rafael Videla, Hissène Habré, Efraín Ríos Montt, etc, etc, etc.)? How many were killed in Vietnam and Iraq and now Yemen? (There is mass hunger in the latter right now thanks to Saudi Arabia and its Western allies). And shall we go back even further and look at the casualties of slavery and Jim Crow and the eradication of indigenous cultures in the West, or workplace fatalities and deaths during labor conflicts during the age of industrial capitalism? All told, such numbers would easily rival if not surpass your grossly inflated estimates of deaths under communism.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Arguing about how many millions were killed in the name of socialism is an exercise in hairsplitting. Even you will agree many times more killings occurred under Mao and Stalin than under Suharto. Therefore either Mao and Stalin's killings should be included, or Suharto's killings should be excluded. And I don't even know why you think this point is arguable. You are more than welcome to edit the appropriate articles, concerning all of the many millions who have been (allegedly) murdered in the name of capitalism. And I'll bet, without even looking, that those articles already mention those killings. I'm talking about the alleged NPOV of THIS article. It isn't. For this painfully obvious reason. Flavor of the Month (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I actually said the opposite of what you claim I said, that "when direct killings are considered the sole criteria," Stalin's killings are "closer to the numbers killed in Indonesia in fact ("the Stalinist regime was consequently responsible for about a million purposive killings" - see Wheatcroft, 1996)." The same could probably be said of Mao as well, when indirect deaths are excluded, although his probably would be higher to an extent (i.e., 2 million during land reform, 500,000 to 1 million during GPCR). Nevertheless, the material you wish to exclude is longstanding and therefore the consensus here, and I further established why it is relevant to the article and especially the section in question. If you wish to include deaths under Stalin and Mao I would find consensus here on what exactly to include, and what sources to use (yeah, probably not Rummel) so as not to make this article another hotbed of controversy and edit warring that MKuCR has been for over 10 years now.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, arguing about how many millions were killed is an exercise in hairsplitting. Anything over 500,000 should be included, according to what I will now describe as the "Suharto Precedent." Also, since you bring up war dead under capitalism, in WWII the US fought a two-front war for almost 4yrs with 400K military dead. Stalin fought a one-front war for only a few months more than that, and had more than 10 million military dead. How many of those were excess deaths due to Stalin's direct mismanagement, or the indirect effect of his officer purge in 1939-40? Flavor of the Month (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"Anything over 500,000 should be included, according to what I will now describe as the "Suharto Precedent." - you will definitely need to find consensus for this, just as you will need to find consensus for including death tolls for various Communist regimes and the deletion of long-standing and reliably sourced material that you don't like.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin, I didn't say I don't like it. It's accurate, therefore I like it, but we have to include all socialist related mass killings if we include that one. What I said is that if you insist on including it, then I insist on including every pro-socialism death toll that exceeds 500K, per the Suharto Precedent. Each and every event, including Pol Pot's. Starting with the Holodomor, and including every socialism-inspired mass murder and purge since then. Otherwise, it's an obvious WP:NPOV violation. Flavor of the Month

Once again, you are conflating actual anti-socialist mass killings with mass killing commited by so called communist states (Marixist-Leninist states). There is no WP:NPOV violation here for the same reason why we don't mention The Great Famine, the Bengal famine of 1943, the Tulsa race massacre, the Jeju massacre, the Bodo League massacre, the Marichjhapi massacre, the Andijan massacre or many other events under capitalism. BeŻet (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I will add that we will need to include multiple links to MKuCR (or sections thereof) wherever it is appropriate. That link still remains conspicuous by its complete absence from this article. (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Flavor of the Month (talk · contribs) removed a paragraph about Suharto from the article. I reverted the change as the edit summary did not give a reason for removal. However, Flavor of the Month has informed me that the paragraph was an WP:NPOV violation. I'm not familiar enough with Suharto to tell whether this is the case. It would be nice if someone more knowledgeable in this area could look into this. Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I removed references to mass killings and death estimates, which seems to be the issue here, while retaining the relevant long standing material on the social upheavals the purges and killings triggered, and added further context. I hope this resolves the issue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Your change looks good to me. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m really hesitant to wade into this but it’s definitely true that the article just has a ton of only tangentially related and UNDUE stuff in it, particularly stuff that’s not about socialism but about anarchism or communism. It really is in need of clarification of scope. Volunteer Marek 01:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: ...but anarchism and communism are types of socialism. BeŻet (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

If that is the case the editor above is correct - this article is a complete white wash. If communism is a type of socialism and the article discusses societies which were “communist” (or regarded as such) then it needs to discuss all the less savory aspects of these societies. Otherwise it’s not NPOV. Volunteer Marek 02:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the disputed para on Indonesia can go, as it is too much detail for a global encyclopedia about socialism. I think socialism and anarchism should be included in this article to some extent, as part of the broad family of socialisms, but not in great detail as there are more appropriate articles. It might be sensible to create new talk page sections on sections of the article that editors feel need trimming. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The material the OP objected to, which referenced "the 500,000 to 1 million lives lost" in the Indonesian mass killings was removed and the paragraph reworded for NPOV. This rewording was also necessary to prevent the article from becoming a dumping ground of duplicated material from Mass killings under communist regimes, as the OP seemed to be using that version to justify possibly shoehorning ridiculously high death toll estimates for the "Soviet Union (up to 61 million), China (up to 77 million) and Cambodia (2 million)" into the article. Ixfd64 approved of the changes and the OP has been absent ever since. I see no reason to remove it now as these are significant events in the history of socialism in "Asia, Africa, and Latin America" (hence it is in the appropriate section) and the Cold War in general.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: On the contrary; since socialism encompasses a wide variety of ideologies, it would be NPOV to fixate on negative actions of Marxist-Leninist states as a defining factor of those states, let alone socialism as a whole. Moreover, there were never communist societies - this is an encyclopedia and we should be precise with our terminology. Regardless, this of course could me mentioned in an adequate way, but not in a way that will make it sound like Red Scare propaganda. BeŻet (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The obvious problem is that there's a bit of switcheroo going on here. If someone objects to excluding repressions against communism, then that gets restored under the reason that "communism is a type of socialism". But then if someone say "ok, then let's include some of the nasty things done by the communists states" then the objection is "that's not a defining characteristic of socialism!". Stop it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either we include BOTH the repressions against communists AND repressions BY communists, or we define the scope of this article more narrowly and exclude both. Anything else would violate NPOV.

And that is the current problem with the article - it serves as a WP:COATRACK for whitewashing communism and presenting only in positive light (Soviets invented space flight!) and to accomplish this POV approach it goes off topic. I agree with Bobfrombrockley's proposal above. Volunteer Marek 23:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The material was reworded to deemphasize the mass killings themselves and to emphasize the toppling of Sukarno, president of Indonesia, a socialist (but not a Marxist-Leninist) and a leader in the non-Aligned Movement (which is mentioned in a preceding paragraph in the same sub-section, which would make this somewhat relevant) and the massive impact it had. The purges (which targeted the entire left in Indonesia, including socialists, feminists, trade unionists etc., not just card carrying communists) and Suharto's ascension halted the development of socialism in Indonesia, and had significant impacts on the non-Aligned movement and the Cold War itself. And this is somehow not significant enough to include in the sub-section "Asia, Africa, and Latin America" in the section "Mid-20th century" in an article on socialism? Ridiculous. Not only is the material long-standing, this paragraph is by far the best sourced paragraph of the entire sub-section. The NPOV rewrite should have put this to rest, as the issues the OP had - the emphasis on mass killings including estimates - were written out of the disputed material and appropriate historical context added. The new argument that it is too detailed for a broad article on socialism is nonsensical. The establishment of the New Order under Suharto is now considered by historians to be one of the most significant events of the Cold War.

As there is yet no consensus for removal, I have restored the material.

If one must insist on adding material on mass killings under communism to this article, which I think would be unwise for reasons I stated previously, I would say that the Communism article as it exists now could be a good model for that here, much better than the highly controversial MKuCR.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This one particular topic - Indonesia - is indicative of much broader problems with the article as a whole. The fact that the entire article is not actually about Socialism but serves as a WP:COATRACK for a POV treatment of Communism. Yes, “Socialism” can mean a lot of things but this article gives huge weight to Marxist-Leninist and Communist movements. Where is the section on German socialist parties? Where is the section on Leon Blum? Where are the sections on other mainstream socialist parties? Instead there’s a whole ton of undue stuff on the Bolsheviks, Rosa Luxembourg, communist economic planning, anarchism, Leninism, Chinese Communist Party, Soviet Union, Cuba etc. We already have a different article on Communism so why is all that info here? I swear, it’s almost as if this article was hijacked by one of those far right wingers who argue that all “socialism” is same as “communism”. Volunteer Marek 06:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I took the liberty of fixing your markup as we ended up having the rest of the text underlined. BeŻet (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that all those things could and should be included in the article. But the article does include sections on the Nordic Model, Self managed economy, syndicalism, market socialism, democratic socialism, etc. so I don't think it's as slanted towards Marxism-Leninism as you seem to think it is.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Then include them rather than edit warring to include OTHER, irrelevant text! Volunteer Marek 02:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

You could have included them since you brought them up, instead of arbitrarily removing well sourced material under discussion on talk, with no consensus reached for removal.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin, exactly. Indeed, socialism is dismissed as whatever the Communist regimes and those more moderate, centre-left socialists are dismissed as 'capitalism', ironically enough by both those to their left and the right; even though it could be argued that both Communist and left-leaning Western governments did not establish socialism, only for the latter it is done because socialism must be associated with command economies, famines, and failure. Clearly, anarchism, communism, and social democracy are all relevant to socialism, e.g. Socialism: A Very Short Introduction (2005). We may argue about giving too much weight to one socialist side or not enough to the other, but they are clearly relevant. This is what several scholarly books I have read do; when they discuss communism in socialist books, they do it within the context of socialism, i.e. the schism between reformist and revolutionary socialists, and debates within the broad socialist movement, etc., not the killings, famines, etc., for which we have plenty of other articles, so I think this arguments fails, though I can sympathize with the argument of too much focus on communism, mainly as represented by Communist states, though they did defined themselves as socialist, not communist, states.

Either way, it would be better to work on a sandbox and find some common ground and consensus before just removing stuff and engaging in edit warring; while the article is not good article status, it is decent and neutral enough in describing what socialists believe, etc. I recall recently an argument, I guess from Jimmy Wales but I could not remember the link, where essentially posited that we should say what laissez-faire capitalists (this was the example given, I am sure of it) believe (according to reliable sources), which is what we do, and should be doing, here and for similar articles. There are plenty of articles for where further and more in-depth analysis can be done on any positive, mixed, and negative aspects. P.S. I believe that C.J. Griffin gave a valid argument for why the Indonesian event is relevant, i.e. Suharto's ascension halted the development of socialism in Indonesia, and had significant impacts on the non-Aligned movement and the Cold War itself, while others (for which, again, we have whole articles about them) are not. Davide King (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: If you're grouping together the Bolsheviks, Rosa Luxembourg and Anarchism, you are encompassing a really wide variety of ideologies and viewpoints. Looking at your comment I think what you mean is that there isn't enough information about social democracy, which, of course, you are welcome to improve. BeŻet (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The article is neither “decent” nor “neutral enough”. It’s a POV WP:COATRACK for Communism, rather than Socialism. Volunteer Marek 02:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Marek, listen. First of all, capital 'C' Communism has been the largest socialist movement in history, therefore it isn't surprising that there are larger sections about it (which aren't that large at all!). Secondly it isn't WP:COATRACK because it literally talks about socialism, while talking about Communism. I think you seem to be confused about what socialism and communism actually is. BeŻet (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, if you want to turn the article on Socialism into a WP:COATRACK for Communism (for which we have a SEPARATE article) whatever. I don't think that's a sensible approach but I'll just roll my eyes and go along with it. However, IF we're going to do that, you can't just cherry pick only positive aspects of communist countries like Soviet Union (they gotz spaceflight!... as if capitalist countries didn't) and completely ignore the negative aspects, the ones that reliable sources actually discuss. You have NOT addressed a single point I have raised, just waived your hands and said "it's important, it's not important" without bothering to provide any support or rationale for your stance. Volunteer Marek 12:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Another problem - the view that “Soviet communism was really just state capitalism” is about as WP:FRINGE as the (usually but not exclusively right wing) view that “Soviet communism was just a version of fascism”. And both are off topic! Neither should get much, if any, representation in the article. Volunteer Marek 02:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

And another. This one is almost hilarious. The entire section about socialism “during late 20th century”, while, it spends a lot of text discussing communist regimes and movements somehow manages to mention… the collapse of communism in the … late 20th century. A previously uniformed reader might very well walk away from reading this article thinking that communist societies are alive and well across the globe. This flagrant omission is another illustration of just how skewed and bad this entire article is. We need major clean up here. Volunteer Marek 02:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Please read the article. It clearly talks about the collapse there: With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the economic integration of the Soviet republics was dissolved and overall industrial activity declined substantially. It's literally there! BeŻet (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep. And the Eastern Bloc is included later in the text: The transition to capitalism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't talk about the collapse it talks about what happened AFTER the collapse. This collapse of communism in Eastern Europe just seems to appear out of nowhere. If anything the text, quite hilariously, implies that the Soviet Union collapsed because "Gorbachev wanted to move it to Nordic-style socialism". Seriously, I burst out laughing when I read that. It's beyond mendacious. Come on guys. If the article on Socialism, is going to cover the Soviet Union, then it HAS TO cover WHY it collapsed.

Same thing for the Eastern Bloc. Only the "shock therapy" (which wasn't even implemented in all these countries!) and the rise of oligarchies (which was also mostly a Soviet phenomenon though the article pretends it applied to all these countries!) is mentioned but not the situation leading up to the fall of communism there or why it fell. This is what I mean by the fact that the article is full of cherry picked facts and complimentary omissions.

Honestly, there should be a separate section on stagnation, economic crisis and collapse of "socialism" in Late 20th century - that's how most sources on the subject treat it. Volunteer Marek 07:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Marek, you need to work on your tone, and also realise that perhaps you are just viewing things from your own point of view. You have clearly said above, and I quote: This one is almost hilarious. The entire section about socialism “during late 20th century”, while, it spends a lot of text discussing communist regimes and movements somehow manages to [not] mention… the collapse of communism in the … late 20th century. A previously uniformed reader might very well walk away from reading this article thinking that communist societies are alive and well across the globe. This flagrant omission (...). You have been proven wrong. What you said was false as this was clearly not ommited. You didn't say that the reason behind the collapse is missing, you clearly said that it is not mentioned that it has collapsed - which was false. Therefore could you please start behaving in a more respectful manner. BeŻet (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

BeZet, how about instead of trying to lecture me about my "tone" you actually address the issue? Instead of accusing me of having a "point of view" you acknowledge that your own "point of view" has resulted in a ridiculously lopsided and WP:FRINGE article? How about you stop with silly grade-school assertions like "you have been proven wrong"? What is this, "I know you are but what am I"? You haven't proved anything wrong. You. Just. Evaded. The. Question. The article is missing key crucial information on why these communists states collapsed and no amount of hair splitting or semantic games on your part is going to remedy that. Volunteer Marek 14:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I am just pointing out that you made an invalid accusation about the article. What's more to discuss here if your point is wrong? And if you would like to add more details about the causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union, I will welcome those additions, but doesn't that conflict with your previous accusation that there is too much focus on the Soviet Union? Help me understand what the issue is here. BeŻet (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Soviet technological achievements

@Volunteer Marek: could you explain why you think mentioning Soviet technological achievements is "off-topic" and should be removed? It feels very on-topic if the section is literally about the Soviet Union. BeŻet (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Because it doesn't have anything to do with the topic of this article. Socialism. Do we mention that the USA was the first to land a person on the moon in the article Capitalism. No. Because it makes no sense to include it.

And yes, the section is on the Soviet Union. But if we are going to include more stuff about Soviet Union there then how about we actually mention the things which are usually associated with Soviet style "socialism" - the gulags, the purges, the economic breakdown. Space stuff is just random attempt to include something "positive".

Also re this. "Truth-out" is simply not a reliable source, except for claims about itself. And you have been here long enough to know that just because it's not listed at "perennial sources as unreliable" doesn't make it reliable (a whole bunch of junk is not listed there). Please stop restoring this source - it's note even needed! Volunteer Marek 22:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Truthout source has become an issue over at the Communism article as well, and I believe User:Davide King resolved it with this edit. I have imported that citation here. Given Truthout has won awards for its journalism, I don't consider it an unreliable source, especially in this case given Richard D. Wolff, a notable academic, is the author of the piece. Perhaps it should be taken to WP:RSN?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The UMass source is better. But there’s also the issue of DUE. Chomsky’s area is linguistics and he’s not an expert here. Other than that, these are cherry picked sources which may not represent general consensus of reliable views. Volunteer Marek 06:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Chomsky is probably the most influential public intellectual and well known advocate for libertarian socialism on the planet right now, and his writings on politics and social issues are widely cited. Richard Wolff is a well known Marxian economist and socialist. I would say they are both notable enough to be included in a broad article on socialism.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

He might be "well known" but this is simply not his area of expertise. You can't cite him for claims of fact. Wolff could be cited (also with attribution) but WP:BALANCE means we shouldn't cite ONLY him (given the fact that he's like one of the four Marxist economists left in this world). Volunteer Marek 07:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning at all - somehow technological achievements are not relevant, but gulags, the purges and "economic breakdown" are. That's just plain silly. The Soviet Union as a whole has witnessed huge economic and technological development. The gulags and purges are only relevant to the Stalinist era, and the "economic breakdown" to the late 80s/early 90s. BeŻet (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

There’s nothing silly about it. As I said, we don’t put “USA was the first country to put a man on the moon” in the article on Capitalism so why are we doing similar here? There’s nothing exceptional about a country “witnessing” huge economic and technological development. Lots of countries did. How in the world is that relevant to a reader’s understanding of “socialism”? It’s not. It’s just a sad attempt at trying to tell the reader “see, the Soviet Union wasn’t all bad”. Which aside from being POV, is just not relevant to the topic here.

Otoh, when people, and more importantly, sources, discuss “socialism in Soviet Union” they discuss gulags and purges. Like it or not that’s a key characteristic of Soviet style socialism. You want to include a Soviet communism under the umbrella of “socialism” (and I’m not sure that’s a good idea, except very briefly), then that’s what needs to be in here. Volunteer Marek 02:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

They're not a key characteristic. BeŻet (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Lol. Gulags and purges are not "key characteristic" of Soviet version of "socialism" but space flight is? Seriously? According to whom??? Please actually address the issue rather than evading it. Volunteer Marek 06:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Can you please actually address this issue in a constructive manner rather than just dismissing it? Like, can you provide some sources which actually state "gulags and purges were not a key characteristic of Soviet society but space flight was" (good luck with that, lol). Volunteer Marek 14:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to justify your change. I have never said that space flight is a key characteristic of the Soviet Union, it is merely one of their technological achievements. BeŻet (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this terrible exchange. I do wonder if anyone ever acts in good faith in these articles but here goes. Obviously a discussion of technology is important for a discussion of an economic system although I am not sure why this needs to be framed as achievements. I think it is a little bit silly to think we need to speak about gulags when discussing socialism in the Soviet Union. Slavery is (rightly) not mentioned in the Capitalism article despite it being crucial important to the development of world capitalism and economy. Of course, technological development is mentioned in the Capitalism article. There are some very nuanced discussions of the gulag and prison system and its relation to Soviet socialism and economics (I'm thinking of Lewin's's The Soviet Century) but this is probably UNDUE. Anyone constantly returning to gulags, prisons, freedom of speech in the Soviet Union for unrelated arguments probably needs to step away from the topic for a little while. The Soviet Union existed for the best part of a century and was not a static economic and social system. We would not judge the entire 20th century British political and social system based on her pre-WWII colonialism. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)