Talk:Socialism/Archive 8

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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Criticism Section

I really wish the sentence stating that critics "use records of communist states" as criticism of Socialism would be either deleted or reworded and that it would stay that way. Socialism and Communism are not in simple terms the same, and to imply that they are as this section has done goes against neutrality rules. (EnglishEfternamn 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

I am convinced that the content of this particular section is being compromised by ideology-motivated edits by about four users here who, as can be seen in their user pages, identify with right-leaning creeds. I must make it clear that we all have the right to our own ideological preferences, but these preferences are influening the content of this article. I request that at the very least, the sentence regarding Communist state records, the weasel-worded statement which these users are trying so hard to make known, be accompanied by a {{Fact}} template. In its present form it leads people to believe that Communism and Socialism are the same, they are not, and to imply they are are indoctrinating our readers to believe a certain notion. (EnglishEfternamn 19:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

How can they be different? even if socialism is an ideology, when applied in practice to its full extent, you get communism! I believe you are arguing over semantics, and a case could be made that you are the one trying to confuse the reader by making it sound like socialism doesn't lead to communism. Dullfig 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Socialism is thought to be different things depending on one's ideology. Communists see Socialism as the bridge from Capitalism, while some socialists see it as the happy medium. I for one, don't consider myself a communist, and I believe in retaining private property possibly as much as you guys. But our own political views are irrelevent in the matter. The problem is that some of you are attempting to make it relevant, which goes against the rules.

And to say that Socialism "always leads to communism" is an absolutist notion that doesn't take into account the dynamics of sociopolitical complexity. Countries like Sweden, and the Netherlands are thought to be socialist, at least partially, are they headed for communism? Probably not. Should you go to these articles and speculate that they are? Is that logical? Probably not. Besides, true communism has never been accomplished and probably never will be as it requires the absence of the state.

At the very least, the sentence is misleading and should carry a {{Fact}} tag. Until that is accepted, I will not cease to change your revisions. Neutrality comes first. (EnglishEfternamn 23:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

Honestly, arguing over a sentence is a tremendous waste of time and effort. EnglishEfternamn, it is true that Communist leaders called their countries socialist states, since they claimed to be passing through the socialist stage of history according to Marxist-Leninist ideology. -- Nikodemos 22:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, what troubles me is the key factor influencing what goes into this article and what does not, IDEOLOGY IDEOLOGY IDEOLOGY. No one seems to understand that the key users that manage this page, are conservatives, or otherwise right-leaning, and thus they take part in editing, from an incourrigibly subjective point of view, an article explaining an ideology they are opposed to. Is this not a concern for neutrality standards, and if no one thinks so, how is that fair? (EnglishEfternamn 19:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

So what are you trying to say? that socialism should be interpreted as a bad ideology, that can only be edited by right wing editors? I'm not sure I understand :) Dullfig 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that it should not be taught as good OR bad, but from a neutrality point of view, conforming to the content rules that all articles on this website must adhere to. The problem at hand is that these "right wing" editors are prepetuating an imbalance of Socialism's characteristics, therefore INDIRECTLY teaching against the ideology.(EnglishEfternamn 21:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

The phrasing of "opponents of socialism often criticize the human rights records of communist states" implies that no kind of socialism is relevant other than Soviet communism: Hayekians and Stalinists alike want people to believe that. Or worse, it falsely implies that most people who call, or called, themselves socialist did not also make the same criticisms of Soviet Communism. We should make any such assumption explicit.

We should make the point objectively, how about: "many opponents of socialism contend that it inevitably leads to Communist dictatorship and suppression of human rights." 58.137.48.4 06:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 06:35 17 January 2006 [UTC]

That would sound much better.(EnglishEfternamn 19:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

I can't believe I'm writing this but I find myself in agreement, for the most part, with EnglishEfternamn in what he is saying, if not in the way he chooses to say it. As a Political Scientist, I have to say that Socialism and Communism, while inter-related, are not the same and at any given time, a community can be Socialist and not Communist. Whether Socialism leads inevitably to Communism is a matter of analysis and any mention of that has to be from a citeable source. Looking to records of communist states to criticize all aspects of socialism is not appropriate.--WilliamThweatt 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there communist states that are not socialists? -- Dullfig 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head, none that I can think of. But that is a logical fallacy. Just because there are no communist states that aren't socialist doesn't mean we can equate communism with socialism. Are there any communist states that are not despotic? No. Do we therefore equate all despotic states with communism? Of course not. Socialism is an ideaology. Communism is one of many methods in which that ideaology is put into practice. The fact is that there are nations that employ socialist economic systems that do not have a communist form of government. Therefore, it is not justifiable to use the failures of communism as proof of the failures of socialism. For that, I believe there is plenty of evidence of the failures of socialism and it is especially evident in precisely these non-communist socialist states, such as Canada and various European Socialist Democracies. That proof, in part, lies in the statistics, such as overall satisfaction with state-run healthcare, overall success of small business, unemployment rates, rates of alcoholism, rate of taxation vs. cumulative benefits recieved per capita (i.e. loss of capital to inefective buearocracy), etc. There is plenty wrong with socialism (a strictly economic system), but it won't be brought to light by criticizing communism (an all encompassing politico-economic system).--WilliamThweatt 22:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is all nonsense - socialism and communism were used interchangeably until well into the twentieth century - social democrats and Leninists were the driving force between the destinction between the two based on their faction fights - look to the Socialist Party of Great Britain for some hardened communists.--Red Deathy 08:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Socialism and communism are not used interchangeable terms because certain groups use them together. Socialism is most often (note I don't say always) framed as an economic theory while communism is usually a political system. That's why you can have a social democracy (less socialist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy) or a democratic socialism (more socialist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism) where the economic system is based less (or not at all) on capitalism and a democratic political system oversees the socialist economy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.166.32.179 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

In USSR, Communists said that the Socialist state is a tool to build Communism. For them, Socialism was political and economic system of the state, by which they wanted to create truly egalitarian society, or Communism. I want to say: A. Socialism is not just an ideology - in USSR it was regarded as a system. B. From Socialist point of view - there is no such thing "Communist State", even in the USSR Communists said that Soviet Union is a Socialist State, not Communist one. C. Socialism is not Communism, but it can be both an ideology and a system. When Socialism is regarded as a system, it is a tool to create Communism.

Suluguni 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

Filled with so many idiosyncratic off-topic tangents and lacking any coherent organization, the old article was unsalvageable. I replaced the old scattered mess with a more concise and tightly focused new article. Various sections of the new article still need expansion. I will be expanding them shortly. I will be watching this article closely to address any comments and concerns. 172 | Talk 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Woah, that is a big change! The relevant diff is [1]. --Nema Fakei 12:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's a rewrite. 172 | Talk 12:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Great rewrite! Much better. Easier to read. More accurate. Hooray! Thanks 172.--Cberlet 12:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a bit on the brief side; but at least it's a much better basis for expansion than the old mess. 172 | Talk 13:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nice 172. My only concern is that this rewrite seems to concern itself more with the history of socialism than with socialism as it exists in theory and practice. All the same, explaining socialism by tracing its history in this way is, I think, an excellent way of explaining in a simple, easily understandable way, the basic ideas behind socialism and its various schools of thought. So perhaps my concern is unfounded. Perhaps if you intend to expand a little on the non-historical sections it might help to round it out a bit. Other than that, my congratulations :) Gatoclass 18:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I intend to expand the last three sections. I think the history section is the proper length. To understand the various schools of thought of socialism, one must understand the history of how the different movements branched off from each other. 172 | Talk 22:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, great work. I especially like the history section and introduction because they accurately and concisely describe the heterogeneous nature of the ideology. In particular, you've done an excellent job explaining how socialism (both in theory and practice) has deviated from its roots over time. -- WGee 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing's objections

History section is just too long. Section "History of socialism" should be a short summary of the main article and not an article itself. -- Vision Thing -- 08:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. See the comments by WGee and me above explaining why this article needs a particularly detailed history section. Further, the new history section is already a short summary. It is much shorter than the 58 kilobytes long history of socialism article. The difference in length between the socialism main article and the summary is roughly standard for coverage of history on Wikipedia (compare, for example, the history section in Cuba to history of Cuba). Please stop restoring substandard sections found in the old version of the article. 172 | Talk 09:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If folks want to change paragraphs and discuss them, that is one thing, but this childish revert war must stop. 172 did a major edit that much improved the article. Simply reverting it back to previous versions, or plopping in huge POV sections from past versions, is not constructive editing.--Cberlet 14:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't noticed that 172 discussed anything and, anyway, imported section on "Types of socialism" was a concensus version from old article. -- Vision Thing -- 14:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The old section "types of socialism" was a terribly written, scattered, disorganized mess. Please don't take offense-- perhaps you don't realize this because English is not your first language. The discussion of the different types of socialism is now subsumed under the discussion of the history, as the historical context is key to understanding the various splits in the movement over the years. 172 | Talk 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Different sections do exist for a good reason. If someone is not interested in history of socialism but it is interested in different types of socialism he shouldn't be forced to read whole History section for that. Someone might even give up from reading the article believing it doesn't contain information relevant to him. -- Vision Thing -- 16:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Britannica and Encarta organize their socialism articles like the rewrite, with long history sections. The more influential types of socialism are described better in historical context. They are not described well in the previous version... And as a historian, I do have a good idea about how flawed the previous version was. Just about every few sentences in the old version contained an inaccuracy, nonsense, or a sweeping generalization. There are so many problems with the old version I don't have nearly enough time to point them out. The old article was completely unsalvagable. The old sections need to be dead and buried. 172 | Talk 02:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Encarta didn't organize their socialism article like you organized the rewrite, and anyway don't try to use appeal to authority argument. Nobody had objections on that section in previous, erased, article. -- Vision Thing -- 07:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You are the only editor so far who does not acknowledge that the rewrite is a vast improvment. And yes, Encarta does include a long overview of the history of socialism; Britannica's is even much larger. And I am not making an appeal to authority. I have already explained to you why it makes more sense to subsume the discussion of the different types of socialism under the history, as have other editors. 172 | Talk 07:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You are making an appeal to authority:

1) Britannica organized it's article with long history section,

2) Britannica is famous encyclopedia,

3) therefore this article must be organized with long history section.

And I have already explained to you why it does make more sense to have special section for types of socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 08:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If I'm making an appeal to authority, that's neither here nor there. What do you think citing a source is? Wikipedia editors are supposed to cite solid sources like Britannica. And while you have made your point, it has been rejected by all the other editors; your attempt to restore the old article is against the consensus here and isn't going to fly. 172 | Talk 17:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Which editors? Britannica has "Types of socialism" section [2]. -- Vision Thing -- 23:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You linked to their student encyclopedia. There main article builds itself around the history. Sorry, we're not dumbing down the article. (And by the way, Britannica's student encyclopedia entry on "type of socialism" in content looks a lot more like the history section in the rewrite than the trash from the old version you keep on reverting back to.) 172 | Talk 03:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with wholesale reversions with no explanation, I'm impressed by the response to 172's new version and intrigued by his comments on his "History of socialism" approach. I say, let's bear with him for a few days and see what becomes of it. Perhaps he'll take a crack at revising History of socialism, too, eh? --Uncle Ed 17:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

History of socialism is already a pretty good article. It just needs an intro. 172 | Talk 02:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, "History of socialism" section should be summary of main article, not a completely new article, unconnected with main one. -- Vision Thing -- 07:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It already is a summary of the main article. And it is not the only section in the article. 172 | Talk 07:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at yours subsections and look at subsections of "History of socialism". Your version certainly doesn't look like a summary. -- Vision Thing -- 08:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there. The structure of summaries and main articles does not have to be identical. Compare Cuba and history of Cuba. The history section here is a summary. It is only about 1/3 as long as the main article, and brings up all the key points in the main article but in less detail. 172 | Talk 17:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Do I really need to point out other articles with completely different structure? Also, if I remember correctly, Cuba is another article in which you are heavily involved. -- Vision Thing -- 23:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care which articles you point out with a different structure. The consensus is now in favor of the new history section. Your attempts to remove it aren't going to be supported. And I did not write the history of Cuba section in the Cuba article; Adam Carr wrote it. 172 | Talk 03:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about the article, instead of (a) accusing others of "plopping in huge POV sections" or (b) making personal remarks like "you don't realize this because English is not your first language".

And let's also define the term "social control" used in the intro but not defined anywhere in the article. It's a key concept. There is much dispute over whether Soviet-style command economies do or do not provide social control, even if there is widespread agreement that they result in government control. The question is whether (1) "the people" are empowered via the Dictatorship of the proletariat, or (2) a new ruling class is simply created that enjoys top benefits at the expense of everyone else. This is discussed in the Nomenklatura article. --Uncle Ed 15:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence in Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on socialism states that the term refers to a "system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control." I trust Britannica over original research. At any rate, your dispute with the first sentence does not support the vast amount of changes you made in your edit. Please revert your own edit while you become familar with what kinds of changes have been taking place on this article. 172 | Talk 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Pasting remark left at User talk:Ed Poor

Still, I don't think the scare quotes are necessary, as the term "social control" is not a socialist slogan, but a technical term in Western sociology. Notice that Britannica doesn't include the term in quotations. 172 | Talk 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If we're quoting EB, then we can't use scare quotes. But we're not quoting them, are we? I tried to google the quote you attributed to them. --Uncle Ed 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Do a Google search for "Britannica socialism" and you'll see the article. If you don't have a subscribtion, you won't be able to read the article, but you will see the relevant sentence. (Britannica lets people preview the first few setences of their articles for free.) 172 | Talk 15:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Eureka, it worked! [3] Thanks, 172. --Uncle Ed 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing, why did you insert a NPOV dispute tag? The most prominent and influential types of socialism are described better here than in the previous version — in their historical context, as they should be. I do not understand how the removal of the "Types of Socialism" section is an NPOV violation, anyway. Please explain in further detail why you dispute the article's neutrality. -- WGee 23:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing also seems to be making reverts as an anon 72.139.119.165 in order to get around the 3RR. I'm beginning to think this user should be brought to the attention of administrators. 172 | Talk 02:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind WP:AGF. -- Vision Thing -- 07:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

All types of socialism should be described or at least mentioned in this article. -- Vision Thing -- 07:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet, another expert editor, has already told you "Simply reverting it back to previous versions, or plopping in huge POV sections from past versions, is not constructive editing." The rewrite can be expanded, as I already stated in my 13:09, 24 May 2006 post: "[The rewrite is] a bit on the brief side; but at least it's a much better basis for expansion than the old mess." To act as a constructive editor, you can make suggestions for expanding the rewrite, as opposed to reverting back to previous versions that are far to inaccurate and disorganized to be saved. And by the way, I can start really assuming good faith if you revert your own edit restoring the old mess so that another editor does not have to clean up after you. 172 | Talk 07:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing, WP:AGF does not disallow editors from announcing or investigating possible rule violations. -- WGee 17:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't encourage posting unsupported claims on talk pages. -- Vision Thing -- 23:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. It looks like more than a coincidence that an anon IP with an edit pattern similar to your interests is making the same reversions on the same page at the same time. Do you want me to take this matter to WP:ANI instead of brining it up on the talk page? 172 | Talk 03:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. -- Vision Thing -- 08:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to apologize for false accusation?. -- Vision Thing -- 13:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I said someone should figure out if you were making edits as 72.139.119.165. I eventually ruled that out. That's sufficient. Now are you going to address the specific objections to your repeated text dumps? 172 | Talk 13:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph needs Revision

The constant desire of editors to revise and qualify the opening paragraph means the definition of socialism drifts into complete and total meaningless double talk. The opening sentence of an encyclopedia should not read like a paragraph midway through the methods section of a journal article. Start with a definition based on common usage. Add additional paragraphs for jargon or details and qualifications. If there are disgreements and they represent minority views, add them in another paragraph. Mrdthree 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Heres my critique:

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines, and may also refer to political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice. These movements generally envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control."

Apparently this is the entry definition for socialism and the second sentence in the Encyclopedia Britannica, only in reverse:

" socialism - system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces."

"Socialism refers to both a set of doctrines and the political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice."

Now the topic sentence is confusing instead of enlightening. Since it is plagarized someone might as well just put it in quotes and attribute it to the encyclopedia brittanica. Mrdthree 15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC) I think there is a better fix than what I did, but you cant say:

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines, and may also refer to political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice."

This is a meaningless sentence and does nothing to define socialism. At least in the encycl;opedia britannica article the 'doctrines' referred to the prior sentence where they were defined. Here I could just as easily say:

Sleeping refers to a broad array of doctrines, and may also refer to political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice.

Mrdthree 16:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this counts as a multiple post: I am just getting the hang of this:

Socialism is a socio-economic system or ideology that envisages people undertaking economic activity for collective benefit rather than private profit. This normally involves state, community or worker ownership of the means of production, and often state or collective control or intervention in the market.

I think that that avoids the impression that all we've ever read about socialism was in Hayek, van Mises and Ann Rand, while admitting that we have actually read them as well. 58.137.48.4 06:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC) (no login) 07:00 17 January 2007

Socialism

I do not understand what you are trying to tell me

Uhm

Just an anon that uses wiki

the Historical examples of Socialism is a joke eg. The Castro regime in Cuba

The Khmer Rouge headed by Pol pot in Cambodia The Baathist Party, formerly ruling Iraq, headed by Saddam Hussein under whom between 200,000 and several million were murdered The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Lenin, and later Stalin, under which 61,000,000 people were murdered [7]

-The Communist Party of China, originally headed by Chairman Mao during the famine years of the cultural revolution, and under whom 80,000,000 have been estimated to have been muredered [8]

i mean, why go into the numbers and why not talk about the socialist governments that have been successful?god, no wonder people criticize wiki.

and all your pictures are of murderous thugs hmm, I wonder what wiki is trying to tell me?

i have read so many good articles on wiki, but this article is terrible bad writing style, very strong language bordering on POV the whole thing doesn't read well at all it reads like it was written by a 100 people with a hundred different writing styles it shouldn't

I'm afriad that's a vandal's work.--Nema Fakei 09:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Misguiding Sentences

Stalinists insisted on the creation of Soviet-style command economies under strong central state direction. Others advocate "market socialism" in which social control of property exists within the framework of market economics and private property.

This seems just a little bit dodgy, as if either you're a Stalinist or a Market Socialist. I can't think of a good way of rewording it, though. Anyone got thoughts? --Nema Fakei 20:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Socialism

I live in Spain and the Socialist party is the majority party and have won 4 of the last 5 general elections.

My interpretation of socialism is as a consevative left wing party, with emphasis on sustaining the welfare state and defenitely market oriented.

I have studied economics at the LSE and, it is my impression that socialism as is being practice, is founded in economic theory, known as Welfare Economics, and that major issues have been ruled by economic debate i.e. Nationalisation v.s. Privatisation.

However, just glancing at the article and talking with americans, I get the impression that you equate socialism as a branch of comunism.

You may think that I am mistaken, but nowaday, socialism is the main political trend in Europe.

If this issues are not addressed we will not be able to communicate effectively between europeans and americans, as when we talk of socialism we would be thinking of a conservative ideology whereas americans will think or the red menace.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 16:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the main trend socialism, or is it actually social democracy? The two can theoretically go together, but you can be one without being the other as well. In fact it is my observation that many parties in Europe today referring to themselves as "Socialist" are actually better described as social democratic. Most of us are not "pure" socialists anyway, since that implies advocating the complete eradication of capitalism, which might not be possible today, and admittedly I say, it might not be practical either.(EnglishEfternamn 18:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

This varies a lot, though. In the UK, it's common to use "socialism" to refer to quite radical movements, and "social democracy" to refer to conservative market socialism in Europe. And in America, "socialism" is used to refer to the European model as well as anarchist/libertarian/communist forms of socialism. Cadr 06:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been told repeatedly by Europeans that I "don't understand" socialism. Perhaps the part I don't understand is the non-Marxist types of socialism. Let's expand the article so that it is not only about the ideas of Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.

I'm particularly interested in blends of "socialism" and the "market economy" (or free market economics). That is, everything other than the kind of pure command economy that exists in Communist countries. --Uncle Ed 16:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You should be careful to distinguish Marx (and Marxism) from Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, since Marx was pretty anti-authoritarian. Although it wouldn't do any harm to have more material in the main article, I think most of it is already present in Socialist economics and the articles on various different specific forms of socialism/communism which fall outiside of the Stalinist/Maoist model (e.g. libertarian socialism and council communism). Cadr 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I would like to draw your attention to the following comments:

European pragmatism The one crucial difference between the US and Europe is the extent of the Welfare State. Surprisingly, government intervention in the economy is not question, only the degree to which it has to be exerted. This intervention is not necessarily done by elected governments, i.e. the Federal Reserve is independent of Washington.

As an economist I have studied in depth many issues regarding society and the economy and I cannot but conclude that economics, through rational scientific approach and pragmatism on the part of society and its political system, has shaped current political - economic systems. The main examples would be: 1. Welfare Economics. 2. Independence of Central banks 3. Privatization v.s. Nationalisation. These topics form the core of economics and most of the issues they presented were addressed specially during the 60s, 70s and 80s, particularly the last two. By the 90s Economics as a science had developed a strong body of evidence ready to answer the questions, and this scientific background, together with the demise of the Soviet union, is what in my opinion has led to the unprecedented economic development the world has experienced during the last 15 years. For one long are gone the boom and bust economies and hyper inflation of the past.

Welfare economics deals with the way the markets work through the price system and discuses to what extent the outcome is desirable according to differing value systems, i.e. as a policy maker you may want to maximize happines (utility in economic terms) in aggregate, rich and poor, or maximize the minimum level i.e. have the richest poor. Economics does not make a value judgment of what value system has to be used but does analize the consecuences under a market - price system. One of the conclusions, is that externalities exist that are not taken into account in a price system, i.e. a business man that does not have to pay for the polution its factories have on the enviroment will not include such cost in its price, and would therefore give the wrong signals to the market, a low price, resulting in more consumption that would be desirable. Another issue is that of public goods, like road infrastructure, if it was left to the market, roads would be built to the extent that revenues would be collected from tolls, but this would not take into account that once the road is built, the more people who use it the better for the society. Similarly, can you imagine if a countries army, a public good, was arranged through the market? People and companies would be defended in as far as they would pay for it, and it would not be profitable to defend those (people, companies, regions...) who could not pay...

Hence Welfare Economics clearly states that intervention by a "public" body is necessary to address the short comings of a purely price driven economy. This, in my opinion, is the sole justification for governments and if the market alone delivered the "first best" solution there would be no need for government and we would all agree anarchy (each on their own) would be desirable system.

Welfare Economics started to be develop around the half of the 19th century, and its results in turn fueled socialistic views that governments had to interviene in society to address short comings, particularly in workers conditions: work risks, health cover, education, unemployment... These socialist views are not, contrary to what many think, left wing, they are infact just as part of right wing politics. For example the Nazi party was the NSDAP or National Socialist German Workers Party, and as other t and right wing parties endeavoured to favour the working classes through government intervention as described by Welfare Economics. In Spain, for example, the "welfare system" was introduced in the 60's by Franco's t/catholic/military regime. The difference between t and Communist dictatorships does not lie in their social agenda, the centralisation of government under one rule or the extensive use of propaganda, it is rather in the particular ideologies behind it, ts concentrating on patriotic values and communist on the working classes, with the first tending to favour control of the economy by industrialist, and the second wanting this "class" of industrialists to be wiped out. But in the end, they both propose solutions to the "social" problems of a purely market - capitalist system as addressed through Welfare Economics.

Coming now to the second half of the 20th century, Economics has continued to make progress, in particular, it has been clearly stablished that Independent Central Banks are required to avoid the risk of inflation. Inflation raged in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, I still recall when Spain used to have inflation above 10% per year, and that is relatively low as inflation goes. The reasons for inflation have mainly been from irresponsible monetary and economic policy by governments, posibly wanting to boost the economy before elections and possibly due to the application of untested economic theories. The result of these unbalanced economic policies was either a fall in grouth or inflation and in the worst cases both (stagnation). Fortunatelly, economic theory has advanced considerably and know we have a pretty good idea of how government have to react to economic situations to optimize growth. The main tools to do this are interest rates and goverment expenditure, which are relatively related as goverments can only spend more than they get in taxes by borrowing and hence raising interest rates, and if interest rates are not allowed to increase because they are harmfull to investment, then inflation follows. The solution to this problem is to take the interest rate decision out of politically electy governments and place it in the hands of independent economist i.e. the Federal Reserve in US or the European Central Bank in the EU. Their independence is crucial and it is relatively recent, only since the 90s can we say that interest rate decision has been taken away from elected gorvernments and since then, not only have we enjoyed unprecedent growth, but low inflation, low interest rates and a disappearance of severe economic cycles, i.e. the old Boom and Bust economies.

Another matter that has been settled by Economics is the case for Nationalisation v.s Privatisation of key utilities. The argument has been settled when the private sector has shown that it can run these industries more efficiently than goverments. However this has not meant that "public" control has dissappeared, on the contrary these industries which we can refer to as Monopolies, are heavily supervised. Indeed, in the US this control is mainly applied through Monopoly law, whith the break up of AT&T into MCI, Sprint and modern AT&T as one of its most famous cases, and more recently the case against Microsoft for monopoly practices for integrating Internet Explorer with Windows. In Europe anti monopoly law is also practised, though as privatisation is a more recent proccess governments still hold considerable control of private companies. For example, the spanish goverment holds a "golden share" in telefonica, which allows it to veto any decision, and a telecomunications board oversees the industry and its prices, with the power to force companies to set cealings on these to ensure competitiveness between rivals and to consumers.

Spanish Politics

The main example I bring forward is my own country Spain, where power is alternated between PP I(popular party), the right wing, and PSOE (Socialist Spanish Workers Party), the left wing. In the last few years their main differences have lied with their aproach to regionalism / patriotism and issues like religion and gay rights. The right wing represent conservative catholic values and a glorified idea of patriotism a la Bush, whereas the left wing socialist party is more accomodating to regional attitudes and more liberal. In 1996 PP won the elections after 12 years of PSOE rule because of repeated corruption and they proved to be a more controlled party internally. However PP became very authoritative in their approach, specially in 2000 - 2004 term, when they had full parlamentary majority, and was seen as diverting from a centre consensus party towards more militant right wing conservatism. Though there had been several events in the year previous elections, such as the Prestige oil tanker in Galicia, or the Yakolev accident in Turkey, which brought a lot of criticism and galvanised much of public opinion, they were relatively unlucky when in March 11 islamic fundamentalist set the worst terrorist attack in Spain as a result of the largely unpopular move to support the US in its invasion of Iraq. This decision was very risky as it was not passed through parliament, the constitution has now been amended, and polls suggested over 70% of the population was against. Unfortunatelly for PP, only about 40% of spaniards are "patriotic catholics" and the Socialist, being more liberal and consensus driven, has wider support. In addition they are very willing to form coallition governments with regional parties and have recently come to power in Galicia, which had been ruled for 20 years under PP, and Catalunya, which was ruled by CiU with minority support of PP.

So you see, politics is not anymore about economics, PP started the privatisation of many utilities and it has not been opposed by PSOE. Infact many of the decisions about crucial economic or social aspects are taken by consesnsus between the main parties, after they have special talks. Among which are a consesnsus on pensions under the current welfare system or a common stance on ETA.

However, I cannot avoid considering Spain a "Socialist" country, by virtue of it welfare system, the intervention of the state and the main Socialist party, PSOE, who have won, 4 of the 6 elections, and is a member of the International Socialist Organisation. Furthermore, though we have a considerable catholic conservative population, the majority of spaniards are quite liberal and antiwar, feeling partly as a result of the terrible Spanish Civil War, that violence is not the solution and we have to try to accomodate as many people as possible. Furthermore, the catholic conservative part of the population which fueled Francos military coup and regime, is now dying off and though 87% of Spanish are Catholics by Baptism, only 14% claim to attend services regularly. Similarly the Comunist Party used to be the main minority party, with close to 15% of votes, and nowadays barely manages to get a couple of seats in parliament.

conclusion

What I have tried to point out is that Economics as a science has succeeded in providing scientific answers to question which have long been considered ideological and that gradually it has narrowed down the range of acceptable economic policies and practises. Thanks to this science there is now a considerable consensus among differing ideologies about economic policy, and their differences point to different social aspect.

Modern Socialism in europe is no longer about the economics of the means of production, it is about having liberal attitudes towards social issues in a market driven economy supported with the necesary public intervention to ensure minimum welfare and competitiveness.

-- EU and US. The US in my opinion places too much faith on the private sector and allows to participate too much in the political system i.e. Enron and the Energy Crisis in California or Farenheit 9/11. You have still to pick up where Roosevelt and his "new deal" left. With Bush you have turned from The Superpower to a modern imperial power. We in Europe are surprised by your high economic incomes and the poberty in many areas, by your racial diversity and persistent racist attitudes, by your love for liberty and having highest prison population, by your war on drugs and extensive drug use, by your faith in God and in Guns, by your puritans and New Orlean's Madi-Gra, by your fight for freedoms and the persecution of comunists...

The US defenitely warrants both my highest admiration whilst holding unimaginable aberrations. I have made an effort to understand the US, I hope many americans will make an effort to understand the EU.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 05:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What you're actually giving is not a change in socialism per se, but a shift of once-socialist parties across Europe to solely social-democratic values. Perhaps this needs to be pointed out better in the article on Socialism. It looks like your input might be more useful at Talk:Social Democracy.

On a very much separate point, I'd argue that, for the most part economics has focused on studying market economies and mixed economies, and has never really tried to tackle the issue of describing the processes involved in alternatives, much less make comparisons. But the thing is, it's not really for us to say - not in this article, certainly. --Nema Fakei 09:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

~

Thanks for the comments. My main reason to post here is that in several articles where PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers Party) is discussed, there is a link to this article. Maybe the article warrants a disambiguation heading to avoid modern social democratic parties to be related to what seems blatant communism.

Please note that notable Soviet Economists tried to devise and alternative to a price (market) driven economy and failed to do so. there is just too much information enbodied on prices to do away with it. Only if NOTHING changed could alternative systems work, and for one, time passes for all of us.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that g del h has a point. Why should the article say what 350 million Americans mean by the word "socialism", and ignore what some 400 million Europeans mean by it? To say nothing of the hundreds of millions of Indians, Russians, Chinese, Africans and South Americans, many of whom regularly vote for parties who aim for some European-style "socialism"? 58.137.48.4 07:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Libertarian socialism"

Cadr, I have three comments to make about your recent edits. First, you wrote in an edit summary, "Libsoc really ought to be mentioned in the intro. There's nothing particularly "contemporary" about it -- it's arguably been around at least as long as Marxism." The term "libertarian socialism" itself is contemporary. One is rewriting history when classifying a group of 19th century thinkers in the anarcho-syndicalist tradition under a term that they would not have understood themselves. The term "libertarian socialism" should be used only in reference to the relatively recent thinkers who explicitly use the term (e.g., Chomsky) to (1) describe themselves and (2) to describe their dichotomization or categorization of earlier socialist thinkers. Second, as for your edit summary, "No citation needed -- see the linked article," normally I'd agree with you; I don't see a need to back elementary facts up with citations. In this particular case, however, the libertarian socialism article is such a mess I don't think we can rely on the article in place of a citation. Third, I disagree that "libertarian socialism," or anarcho-syndicalism, ought to be mentioned in the intro. The most notable strains of socialism to mention in the intro are the ones that became state ideologies or ruling party ideologies. "Libertarian socialism" has never had that distinction for any significant period of time. 172 | Talk 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The term libertarian socialism may be recent, but it is used to refer to a group of ideologies that have existed for centuries, so, in this case, I would ignore the term's etymology. Also, I disagree that a movement's notablity should be determined solely by its influence on states. Libertarian socialism (by which I mean anarchism, its strains, and council communism) is notable because of how prevalent it has historically been among academia. Libertarian socialist theories have been well-established by eminent philosophers of the 19th century. -- WGee 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

First, since the term is recent, it makes sense to use the term more historically recognizable terms. We cannot ignore the term's etymology, as that would constitute historical revisionism in the pejorative sense of the term "historical revisionism." Second, I think you're over-stating the influence of anarchism, syndicalism, and council communism on academia. The New Left academics of the U.S. and UK broke ranks with Soviet Communism, but they were for the most part rooted in the Old Left. In France, structural Marxism did not even represent a break with the PCF. Its leading proponent, Louis Althusser, defended Communist orthodoxy until the end. Sarte, unlike many structural Marxists, broke with the PCF, but he cannot be reasonably described as a "libertarian socialist," since his roots lay in existentialism, not in anarchism or syndicalism. In Germany, the Frankfurt School represented the leading current of socialist thought in academia, and it firmly established itself within the social-democratic orthodoxy of the postwar period. In short, communism and social democracy not only are clearly more notable than "libertarian socialism" in terms of their influence on states, but also on academia. 172 | Talk 03:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with using a more "historically recognisable" term. However, I do object to a significant strand of socialist thought being entirely excluded from the introduction (and indeed virtually excluded from the article). Currently, the introduction seems to suggest that Stalinism (or some other kind of command economy) and market socialism are the only options. Given that Marx arguably advocated neither kind of economy, and given that there's a long historical tradition of libertarian socialism (whatever you want to call it), this just can't be right. Also, even if libertarian socialism was a genuinely new intellectual development (which it isn't of course), this would be no reason to exclude it from the intro. Cadr 16:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I agree with WGee on the issue of notability. The threshold of notability for a one-sentence mention in a fairly long intro is low. Libertarian socialism (and variants and antecedents thereof) are quite important in the intellectual history of Socialist thought. Other strands of Socialism may well be more important, but that's not really the point. Cadr 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

To be clear: I don't care at all whether or not the phrase "libertarian socialism" appears in the intro. I would just like to see some (brief) explicit acknowledgement of socialist theories which do not require state control of the entire economy or some kind of market system. Cadr 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I see the rewrite only as a basis for expansion (and a much better basis for expansion than the old article), by no means yet a complete article. I'll figure out a way to best incorporate anarchism, syndicalism, and council communism in the intro and elsewhere in the article, if no one else beats me to the job. 172 | Talk 23:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism (or left libertarianism - Bookchin) is only a new term because a distinction between the original libertarianism (which was socialist and basically a synonym for anarchism) and the new right wing libertarianism in the US was needed. Thus, it's not really a new term, it's just the original term with a clarifying qualifier. I'm happy to help out including all the strains of socialism in anarchism - from mutualism to anarcho-syndicalism and anarchist communism. Donnacha 13:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha is correct. Libertarianism was a form of socialism that has existed for roughly the same time as Marxism; possibly longer. It has almost constantly been a fairly prominent part of socialism, although Marxism has dominated. Following the recent appropriation of the term by individualist capitalists, the socialism qualifier was added, but this is only a clarification of an older term because of its recent use by a different group. -Switch ^t 15:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Something to consider.

I think that Middle East Conflict Man should be un-banned. He has not been responsible for almost all the acts of vandalism. I think he should be allowed back in, as long as he doesn't cause any trouble. There is no evidence that the sockpuppeting that has been taking place is his work. I think that the fact that many users BELIEVE that he has been doing the sockpuppeting is the only reason why he's blocked. At least give him a chance to clear his name if he's innocent. -130.216.191.184

When 30 accounts come in and all start making the exact same edits, that's all the evidence that's required, as ruled by Arbcom. "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." [4] --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I just unblocked the IP who posted the above, after it was autoblocked for creating an account with the charming name Blanning is a moron. Stupendous coincidence? YMSTICPC. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you're a bit of a fan of "house of cards" eh blanning. Me too. - 60.234.157.64

Nice work, people

I've been away for two months, but coming back, great job on the article, people. It's a lot less bloated and much more readable than before. I've just had a glance through it, will make further comments. :) -- infinity0 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Socialism and social and political theory" could do with a bit of expanding, but that's all I can think of. Again, good work! :) -- infinity0 20:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article is quite good. It does a good job of maintaining NPOV. Thank you to those working on it. I think it would be even better if it had more citations for hings in need of them, Especially when uotes are used. If i get a chance i will mark those spots as "citation needed" and hopefully find some citations. ThePedro 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Socialism as transitionary stage

Marx and Engels nearly always used the terms "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably. The source of the misunderstanding appears to be Lenin. He evidently equated the "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" cited as a transitionary stage by Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme ([5]) with socialism. Capitalism->Socialism->Communism is therefore not a feature of Marx's own thought.--Eric 08:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

umm

I remember that statement by Marx well. Too bad states don't just wither away. Quite a notion isn't it? A big huge power just withering away. Pretty funny if it wasn't so terrible! PatriotFirst 10:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. Not so long ago, Republicans were talking about whittling the government down to the point they could "drown it in the bathtub". Then they got control of the White House, and now the entire country is drowning in debt instead. Gatoclass 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User 60.234.157.64

This user has been vandalizing this page (and others) with rw drivel for months now. Surely it's time his IP was blocked? I'd do it myself but I am not 100% sure of the procedure. Can someone please take the appropriate action? Gatoclass 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:60.234.157.64 was blocked for a month 12:01, 17 June 2006.[6] // Liftarn

Glad to hear it, thanks for letting me know.

There seems to be one or two other serial idiots who require the same treament though. Like 130.216.191.184.

Edit: the last one seems to be an IP of Auckland University. Are these two the same guy? I suspect they are, since they both hail from NZ.

Maybe someone should contact his service provider and inform them of his vandalism. Gatoclass 11:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

71.113.213.107 is another one. --BobFromBrockley 12:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Socialist economics

I edited the socialist economics section last week so that it reflected the range of different economic theories called socialism. I replaced the opening sentence ("The term "socialism" is often used to refer to an economic system characterized by state ownership of the means of production and distribution.") with this paragraph:

"The term "socialism" is often used to refer to an economic system characterized by some level of social control of the economy. This might mean direct workers' control of production or distribution, some form of collective economic enterprise (such as a worker or consumer co-operative, kibbutz or collective farm), or some form of state intervention. The type of state intervention varies from more minimal conceptions of state regulation and redistribution, through nationalization of key industries, to the abolition of private property and full state ownership of the means of production and distribution."

My edit was removed by 172, on the grounds that "the new detail in the section on economics was already established in the intro". Although I see the point, it means that the economics section is once again simply a discussion of Soviet economics, which, I strongly believe. What do other people think? --BobFromBrockley 12:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Structuralism

How relevant is structuralism in this article? It seems very off-topic to me. --BobFromBrockley 12:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Communism with a big C or little c

The wikipedia page on criticisms of communism, this useful distinction is made:

In the English language, the word communism and related terms are written with the uppercase "C" when they refer to a political party of that name, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party. When written as a common noun, with a lowercase "c", they refer to an economic system characterized by collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members; or to the position that such a system is possible and desirable. Thus, one may be a communist (an advocate of communism) without being a Communist (a member of a Communist Party or another similar organization). This distinction between communism (lowercase "c") and Communism (uppercase "C") is used throughout the present article.

This advice is no longer adhered to on the communism page itself, but I think it is very good practice. A clear analogy would be the difference between Republican and republican - republican thought is not synonymous with the Republican party - ditto Conservative and conservative, labour and Labour, etc.

I think this usage would make the socialism page clearer. However, when I turned some little cs into big Cs, they were turned back immediately. What do folks think? --BobFromBrockley 12:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What working class movement originated the modern socialist movement?

What was the name of that movement? What are the names of the working class persons that started it? I am unfamilar with this, as I had thought, as is Russia, that it was middle class intellectuals who organized these movements. KarenAnn 20:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is probably truer to say that the socialist movement and the working class movement had intertwining histories in the nineteenth century, rather than saying that one gave birth to the other. However, in Britain, there was a strong working class radical stream within the republican or reform movements of the late eighteenth century onwards, as documented, for example, in EP Thompson's Making of the English Working Class or Dorothy Thompson's Outsiders. The London Corresponding Society, formed, I think, in 1792, can be seen as the birth of both the socialist movement in Britain and the working class or labour movement. Trade unionism was obviously a working class movement, and it overlapped with the socialist movement, while Chartism had a strong working class element within it, which articulated socialist positions, for example in the newspaper Red Republican. If I had my copy of EP Thompson in front of me, I would name some of these activists, but I don't and, of course, EP Thompson's argument is precisely that posterity's condescension has forgotten the plebian rank and file while remembering middle class leaders.

I am less familiar with France and Germany, but I do know that there were working class socialist activists in the both places in the nineteenth century, people like Wilhelm Weitling or the working class followers of Charles Fourier that Jacques Ranciere writes about. The Communist League that Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto for was, I believe, mostly working class.)

In the early nineteenth century, it was mainly skilled workers (e.g. in the print trades) rather than factory workers involved in socialism, but that changed from the late nineteenth century, and we can see important working class leaders for example in the period of the New Unionism, such as Tom Mann or John Burns.

Finally, Russia was an unusual case because it had a very undeveleloped working class because its industrial revolution came so late. (Hence the whole problem of an essentially middle class leadership who took up Kautsky and Plekhanov's ideology that the working class can only be brought socialism from outside by the intellectuals... But maybe that's just my POV.) However, the story of the Bund (General Jewish Labor Union) is a story of working class Jews in Russia coming to socialism without much middle class leadership. --BobFromBrockley 08:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It was very helpful. KarenAnn 14:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits by user 138.37.246.26

I understand that it's vandalism, but I like his explanation MUCH better than the standard one :) Dullfig

Socialism worldwide article

There is article Liberalism worldwide.Should we create such article about socialism? BoDu 31 July 2006

Good idea. --BobFromBrockley 09:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Socialism is still alive and still intellectually bankrupt.

Couple of changes

Just to defend my changes - marx did consider socialism to be without money, technically you could have money and no markets, so it's worth mentioning the abolition of both (I cite critique of the Gotha programmme, leaving aside the arguments about stages, he clearly talks about the lower stage of communism/socialism as having abolition money).

As for the use of the two terms socialism or communism, I think it deserves prominence because until the early 20th c. they were used intrechangeably and Williams' explanation is the only one I've seen for why some preferrred one over the other.--Red Deathy 07:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the para on the term socialism, since this is an article about that term and its referrents, IMNSHO it is more relevent ehre than in the history article.--Red Deathy 09:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd don't believe I'm being unreasonably obstinate about this - and will back down if a third party indicates their preference on whether that para should stay or go. This article has a section on history of socialism, and the origin of the term is broad enough and relevent enough to this article to waarrant at least some mention.--Red Deathy 08:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Red Deathy, I am very troubled by your changes and behavior on this page. You will not become a constructive Wikipedia contributor unless you learn how to work the content you upload into the framework of the existing structures of articles. For now, I will cut you some slack because you are a new contributor.

Given the present structure of the article, a specific section distinguishing the terms 'communism' and 'socialism' is extraneous. Expand existing sections of the article addressing the distinction in order to avoid redundancy and undermining organization. For example, the first sub-section of the history section opens with a sentence stating, "The term 'socialism' was first used in the context of early-19th century Western European social critics." This part of the article would have been a better place for you to start expanding the coverage on the etymology of 'socialism.'

Further, in addressing the etymology, keep the priorities of an encyclopedia in mind: creating a very general overview for non-specialist readers. In describing topic as diffuse and complex as 'socialism' in an encyclopedia, the writer must start by laying out general, well known facts about the topic, and then work his way down to more academic discussions, such as your point about Raymond Williams. Williams' work is not prominent enough to justify the prominence your edit gave his work in the article. Williams is merely one of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of academics and/or socialist critics who have offered their insights into distinguishing socialism and communism. His thesis does not warrant mentioning in an introductory paragraph of this article. 172 | Talk 00:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:172 I have been equally disturbed by your practice of refusing to discuss what seemed to me to be a simple matter of disagreement - I have already stated I'll back down to the judgement of a third party. To me discussion of the term socialism belongs in this article, as I have explained, as this is the article about socialism - we may disagree on that, but that's by the by. Logically, such a mention deserves an early position in the article, by ay of setting the scene for readers. Now, as for William's that just me working my citation into the text, really, but over here he is widely anthologised and given prominence in academia, so his views are credible. It is not a citation distinguishing communism/socialism, rather showing that the difference between teh two words was once quite arbittrary - a worthwhile fact that deserves a mention, I'd have though, in an article on socialism. I'm not a new user, I've been around a while, and I take as my example the single transferable vote page I've worked on so much, where there is a degree of overlap between that page and a separate extended page counting single transferable votes. I haven't wanted an edit war, and would have backed down to soundly put forward reasons in discussion, as yet I can't see any otehr than your taste. If you think the para belongs elsewhere in the article, move it.--Red Deathy 08:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

red deathy- while I find the new placement of your recently added info on the religious connotations behind socialism/communism better than the previous independent subcategory you created, I still feel that, while the information is worth noting, you need to do a better job of making that first part of the history category more fluid now that your info is in it. Also, you don't need to tell us who the info is attributed to in the paragraph itself, just start out with the facts, as we can see they are attributed to Raymond Williams in the footnotes and references.--Jackbirdsong 20:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No mention of Kibbutz

I am surprised the only successful socialism, the Israeli Kibbutz, that didn't end killing its own people or going bankrupt is no where to be found in the article. 210.84.44.23 07:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be more appropriate with a general reference to co-operatives generally?

--Red Deathy 07:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Move from article to talk

On 21:55, 3 August 2006, 12.159.43.115 added the following to the article, then it was removed. I moved it to talk. The material is:

Socialism One of the central questions of any political ideology or "-ism" is "Who should own and control the means of production?" (Means of production refers to factories, farmlands, machinery, office space, etc.) Generally there have been three approaches to this issue. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which disbanded the traditional ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; many workers are excluded. The third approach is socialism, which is defined as "the collective ownership and control of the means of production." That is, everyone owns and controls productive wealth, which is accomplished through the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to many owning it at the other. - - Socialism has quite a variety of forms. The primary feature is actually worker ownership of production. This point is probably the most confused and misunderstood aspect of socialism. "Collective ownership" does not necessarily mean "government ownership," as the case of anarcho-socialism shows. For those who automatically equate socialism with big government, the mere existence of an ideology called "anarcho-socialism" is a direct refutation of that belief. It is also a logical impossibility to have "collective ownership" by any dictator or dictatorial party, no matter what the dictatorial few claim by the name.

Requesting article "Tribunite"

Does anyone feel able to create a stub on Tribunite (sub-set of the mid-20th century British Left)?
The only sources I have are

http://www.allwords.com/word-Tribunite.html

(and other pages with identical text)

and this from Guardian

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1530801,00.html

"According to his biographer, Professor Bernard Crick, Orwell saw himself as a Tribunite socialist whose experiences in the Spanish civil war had left him sharply disillusioned with Soviet communism."

-- 201.50.123.251 12:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See Tribune - I'll create a re-direct...--Red Deathy 13:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This sentence

The words socialism and communism were used almost interchangeably in the beginnings of the socialist movement, prior to the formation of communism as a unique type of movement, separate from the greater socialist movement: uses the word 'movement' three times. Whis key Rebel lion 00:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Then fix it. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 00:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

ok. Whis key Rebel lion 01:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I ran this statement around and around in my head, and I can't make heads nor tails of it. I guess someone else should fix it. Plus, I don't believe it actually makes any sense, sorry, so I would feel like a hypocrite if I pretended to understand it and to fix it. Whis key Rebel lion 01:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, though perhaps the commas have confused you. I'll try to make it easier to comprehend. -- WGee 23:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My revision: The words socialism and communism were used almost interchangeably in the beginnings of the socialist movement, prior to the formation of communism as a distinct movement. I removed the redundancy to remove the confusion. -- WGee 23:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Social control?

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. Now, I know it would be hard to come up with a def for socialism (especially) as there are so many and disputed of them - hwoever social control strikes me as a bit weak because it would include any form of regulation In realise the ref. comes from the Battelstar Britaninica, but I'm sure I could come up with a much different ref. from the great Soviet Encylopedia or somewhere else - does anyone know a better def, or where there's something we could cite to build one? (Wording our own def. is not OR).--Red Deathy 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition is intended to be broad in order to accomodate the many varieties of socialism. -- WGee 23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm just wondering if it could be worded better, as it stands 'social control' could refer to government regulation, which is not a sole purview of socialism - admittedly, I'm wracking my brains and can't come up with anything (perhaps I'm blindsided by overly trying to avoid my own POV on this).--Red Deathy 07:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think that the current definition is fine. Social control essentially means control by the community (or control by society, literally speaking), which is not necessarily equivalent to government regulation or nationalization. Social control can be exercised by non-governmental entities such as cooperatives, workers' councils, and trade unions, for example. The phrase "social control" was chosen ultimately because editors could find no other accurate, non-verbose, and neutral phrase to describe the broad ideology that is socialism. The subsequent sentences expound the concept of social control, anyway, so there shouldn't be much confusion. -- WGee 05:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, control by the community may be a bit clearer--Red Deathy 07:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Social control is clear enough, in my opinion, and that the Encyclopædia Britannica uses it gives it some legitimacy. We should let sleeping dogs lie in this case, lest another troublesome content dispute will ignite. -- WGee 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As you may have seen on the Anarchism talk, it is controversial because it excludes Mutualism (economic theory) and thus backs the "anarcho"-capitalists claims that anarchism isn't necessarily socialist. Socialism is about redistribution of wealth and egalitarianism at core, mutualism is a theory about how that can be achieved without anything other than individual control over property. Donnacha 00:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. I'm very unhappy with that too. "Social control" sounds a tad too much like the only sources of relevant information on socialism are Hayek and Van Mises. That kind of POV belongs in the criticism section. I would suggest:

Socialism is a socio-economic system or ideology that proposes economic activity be done for the collective benefit rather than private profit. This normally envisages state, community or worker ownership of the means of production, and often state or collective control or intervention in the market.

I definitely think that Marx's dictum "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" should be here somewhere, as should the Soviet claim that they had "actually-existing socialism", alongside Western European claims that social democracy is/was a competing and democratic form of socialism. Co-operative socialism, such as kibbutzim, the British co-operative movement, and the Mondragon councils need a mention too. The doctrine espoused here: "communism = economic system -- socialism = ideology" is very much a contentious POV. You can have a communist ideology or a socialist economic system, and people talk of them often, and distinguish them from their relevant other. (no login) 58.137.48.4 06:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 07:33 17 January 2007 [UTC]

Deleting "See Also" section

I deleted the "See Also" section because it is way too long, and there are enough links within the article and in the Socialism box for people to find more information about socialism. The "See Also" list cluttered up the article, and most people won't trudge their way through all those links anyway.Spylab 12:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

The See also section must remian because it is a navigational aid and it is mandated by Wikipedia's guide to layout. If we simply place the links in two columns, the section will be shorter and will waste less space. -- WGee 22:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you happen to know how to arrange the section in columns? -- WGee 23:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The See Also section does not have to remain, and in no way is it mandated by Wikipedia. When articles have boxes or templates with important links, there is no need for a See Also section, especially in an already overly-long article such as this. If there are links that you think are important enough to be included, put them into the Socialism box, and then every article with that box on its page will have those links. Also, there's no need to have links to every other non-socialist ideology out there. If people want to find out about them, they can find them on Wikipedia easily enough.Spylab 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I think it should remain, but perhaps should be editted a little to keep to the top of the tree - users should cascade through the articles rather than treating this one as a comprehensive index.--Red Deathy 11:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I reduced it to Types of socialism & List of socialist ideas because they list every kind of socialism hat was in the See Also list. If someone is too lazy to click on those links, then I doubt they would bother going through the extremely long list that was there already. However, this is still unneccessary because those links are in the Socialism box. Spylab 12:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

A See also section is a "standard appendice"; thus, it is de facto required for all non-stub articles and de jure required for all featured article candidates. Once again, I don't see any problem in having a long See also section. Firstly, it is not difficult at all for even the laziest of users to browse through a bulleted, alphabetized list of 50 or so links (it is much easier than trying to find the links within the main prose). Secondly, this article is not "overly long" (please read WP:SIZE before alleging that); it is not comprehensive enough, if anything, and hence not long enough. Thirdly, most of the links you deleted cannot be found (nevermind "easily") in the two articles to which you linked. Thus, your reduction of the See also section is too drastic; many navigational links are needed for an article that deals with such an essential and broad subject as socialism. -- WGee 17:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate, a See Also list is in no way required in a Wikipedia article, especially if there is a template or box with relevant links. There are many articles with no See Also section. A See Also section with 50 or so links would be rediculous and totally unjustified, and not the standard format for a Wikipedia article. If there are important links that aren't already in Template:Socialism sidebar or in List of socialist ideas, add them there instead of cluttering up this article. Spylab 18:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I've told you precisely in which cases a "see also" section is required. All non-stub articles (even ones with templates) are expected to have one, hence it has been declared a "standard appendice". I even shortened the list to remove links already mentioned in the template, yet for some reason you still want to shorten it further. Please read and abide by Wikipedia guidelines, especially WP:CONSENSUS. -- WGee 18:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The "See also" section is supposed to be a list of socialist ideas in and of itself; thus, it is nonsensible to link to List of socialist ideas. In fact, that list is redundant and should be deleted, because it is the purpose of templates and "See also" sections to list socialist ideas. -- WGee 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree, and so does the person who created the List of socialist ideas. See Also lists are not supposed to be very long. They are supposed to provide links to a few related articles. If they are extremely long, they should probably be turned into a separate article, in the form of a list. Also, it is unneccessary to have the Political ideology entry points, box, because not all of the ideologies are socialist. If people want to learn about other ideologies they can look them up themselves. Also, that box is very ugly and distracting. Spylab 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I have included only links that are not mentioned in the List of socialist ideas or in the Socialism template, so that you cannot delete them on the grounds of "redundancy". Nor can you delete them on the grounds of "clutter", because there are only eight of them. Two editors have expressed disapproval of your edits, and I have even included a policy-based rationale for my position; still, you delete the links, showing utter disregard for Wikipedia guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Consensus.

I will not relax my position any more, so please don't delete more links. There is no need to ignite a revert war over a relatively insignificant See also section. That being said, I don't know why you are so preoccupied with it. Perhaps you should do something more constructive than delete information against the will of the majority.

-- WGee 02:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that if Red Deathy wants to restore the previous, more comprehensive version of the section (or a variation thereof), I will support him. -- WGee 02:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As I asked in my talk page, where is this "will of the majority" you speak of? And if you read what Red Deathy said, he does not want the full "comprehensive version" restored. And yes, deleting the Political Ideologies box because it is not specifically about socialism — and because the colours are garish and an affront to people with fully-functional eyes — is justified. And no, that box is not "vital." People can look up those non-socialist ideologies on their own without the aid of a handy-dandy USA Today-style chart. Spylab 14:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

The template doesn't have to be specifically about socialism; it merely has to be associated with socialism. And it is associated with socialism because socialism is a political ideology, hence socialism is mentioned in the template. -- WGee 02:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

the nazi party

The Nazi party's official name was the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), although it was not actually a true socialist party, in the sense that Nazism rejected the policies of internationalism, egalitarianism, class struggle, and common ownership of the means of production, which are the main tenets of socialism.

I'm not really an expert on the subject, but I think that it is not totally correct. Albeit nazis were not egalitarians and internationalists, I think that even some other "real" socialists weren't totally, and yet are considered socialists. To me the formation of USSR is pretty much non-internationalist as what the nazis where doing while trying to "reconquer" what was "originally" territory of the "aryan race" (sensu nazi). The imposition of atheism over all religions (despite of atheism not possibly be considered a religion itself) does not seems much different of nazi's anti-semitism, and also isn't quite egalitarian, is it? Also, traditionally accepted socialists were in some instances anti-semitists themselves, weren't them? I think that the class struggle and common ownership of means of production were also implied in nazism, even though not to the same extent and obviously withouth nazi leaders quoting Marx; see the Nazi 25-point program to more details. Some more relevant items:

- We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

- Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

- We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

- All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

- The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

- Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

- We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

- We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

If it is not socialism, I think that it is quite close. But as I said, I do not really understand much of the subject. --Extremophile 21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This was propaganda just to attract votes. Although it was in the program, the nazis did not nationalize industry. They regulated it, for the benefit of German industrial corporations and the military. 72.139.119.165 21:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth asking an expert on the Nazis to expand the par a bit, perhaps mentioning Otto Strasser and the socialist strand within the Nazis that was quashed by Hitler. Donnacha 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If one looks carefully at the list of Nazi "demands" it is clear that they are essentially a populist collection. Take, for example, Zerbrechung der Zinsherrschaft, which means "smashing the domination of interest". There's no indication anywhere, with any of these demands, how to get to get from where they were in early 1920 to where they purportedly wanted to be. In the absence of actual plans for the abolition of interest, it seems to have meant little more than "cheap loans". The demand that everyone should be entitled to the "opportunity of a livelihood" (even if an alcoholic?) is also meaningless unless there are concrete plans for making this a reality. As a demand it was very much "in the air" at the time and the right to a job had even been included in the Weimar Constitution. This kind of stuff is empty rhetoric, nothing more. As can readily be imagined, the sheer meaninglessness of this became glaringly obvious in the Great Depression. The reference to equal duties and rights is standard liberal stuff, possibly with a populist edge here against "privilege", but it's not socialist. Moreover, not long afterwards, Hitler took over the party, and he had no time for this kind of populist rhetoric and made a point of getting rid of the party's populist wing(s). Norvo 23:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Postone in his National Socialism and Anti-Semitism makes a case that the Nazi ideology could be taken as a privilleging of use value over exchange value - a desire to concretize value (and thus Jews, synonymous with finance capital and with a large, universalised diaspora symbollised this and were thus industrially destroyed). Dunno how far that gets you. Bernard Shaw saw m as just a form of radical reformism, and Paul Mattick in his essays Kautsky: From Marx to Hitler noted that the NSDAP realised most of the demands of the SPD. I'd also note that it was communist transfer votes that gave Hitler his final election victory. In the UK, during the war, the BBC broadcast lectures explaining why Fasicsm had nothing to do with socialism, as part of wartime propaganda--Red Deathy 07:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a fine line between explaining the genuine quasi-socialist (or, as Norvo would prefer "populist") elements within Nazism, and going into silly libertarian type ideas that Nazism is a form of socialism. Doing the first is generally worthwhile, while the second only confuses things. I think it's worth mentioning the Strassers and the quasi-socialist nature of the Nazis' official platform, but only if we also note that none of this stuff was actually put into effect, and that the wing of the party which supported it was purged. The formation of the USSR is not comparable to the Nazis' rabid nationalism. The former implied the consolidation of Leninist socialism within the former Tsarist Empire, but did not imply an abandonment of internationalism, and, indeed, communism remained an international movement throughout its existence. Red Deathy - I assume one of the demands of the SPD which was not realised was, er, the existence of independent trade unions? And "communist transfer votes" as an explanation of Hitler's victory in March 1933 seems dubious. Hitler's victory was a result of banning the Communist Party and basically intimidating all the others. It was not a fair contest in any respect. The last free election, in November 1932, had shown a leak of Nazi votes back to the DNVP and a leak of SPD votes to the Communists, as well as a leak of NAzi votes to the Communists. john k 11:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with nearly everything above except for the claim that "communism remained an international movement throughout its existence". Stalinism was opposed to internationalising the revolution, particularly in relation to the German and Spanish social uprisings. The post-WWII expansion of the USSR was not internationalism, but protectionism. Donnacha 23:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I vaguely meant, but perheps with historical flaws, in one part of my comment... but anyway... this rule of "socialist in theory but not in practice is not socialism" applies only to nazism, or to other parties as well? Such as this thing of post WWII expansion of USSR... and also the national bolshevism, which is strikingly nazi looking, but carry the hammer and sickle insted of a tetraskelion inside the white ball in their flag, other eventual symbols being sinistroverse swastikas[7] (or sinistroverse "n-skelions" [8]) with communist symbols in each edge. --Extremophile 06:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Mel Brooks put it best, in Springtime for Hitler. "Don't be stupid, be a smarty: Come and join the Nazi Party." ;-) --Christofurio 19:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism

What the hell is that doing in the recent developments section? The use of libertarian as a term for anarchism dates back to the early 19th Century and Joseph Déjacque. The development of the terms libertarian socialism (Chomsky) or left libertarianism (Bookchin) as simply a clarification due to the recent association of libertarianism with the right in the US. Its high-point in the USA was in the early part of the 20th Century when the IWW was at its height. In Europe, the high point was the Spanish revolution. Donnacha 23:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some people who like to pretend to be anarchists while demanding "more government" -- of course only as a temporary measure. That sort of thing has probably been around since the pyramids were built. "Once we get this big building project done, Egyptian statism will just wither away." Nothing new, just as lying for the sake of power is nothing new, and the unscrupulousness of the worshippers of violence is nothing new. --Christofurio 19:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what you're saying, but I've edited the recent developments section in line with the bit of your criticism which I do understand. BobFromBrockley 15:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The def (Again)

There's something about Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.[1] that niggles. I think as it stands that def. encompasses simple regulation or even feudalism (with its social control on wealth and activity) - I was wonering if changing it to conscious control or conscious (collective/social) control. I think the element of consciousness/intentionality contrasts with the invisible hand, etc. Sorry to keep banging on about this, but while the current def. isn't wrong as such I can't help feeling it is a little off--Red Deathy 07:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, that definition would exclude Mutualism (economic theory), which is based on individual ownership generally under the "occupation and use" principle. Proudhon's distinction between possessions and property are hugely important in socialist theory, yet Proudhon rejected anything but individual control of their possessions. Donnacha 08:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think conscious excludes mutualism, since mutualism relies on co-operative exchange of goods by private individuals for just ends, rather than the power driven war-like capitalism. Mutualists are consciously co-operating agents (I've spent a long while reading Kevin Carson's blog....).--Red Deathy 09:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's semantics, I agree, but the problem is the word "control". While anarchist communists and collectivists voluntary enter into a situation of collective/social control, mutualists (and individualists) retain individual control based on more egalitarian distribution and choose to co-operate or not to as the case may be. This is the primary difference in emphasis between individualists/mutualists and communists/collectivists within anarchism. To encompase all of these, the definition needs to move the emphasis from control to the principle of egalitarianism. It's a difficult one, but the current definition is causing problems on the anarchism page as the "anarcho"-capitalists can argue that, because the Individualists do not meet the definition of socialism here, they're not socialist in the same sense. Fundamentally, socialism and communism are not strictly political ideas, as they are part of a variety of political ideas. Socialism is the economic theory around which a number of very different political ideas have been built. Donnacha 10:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, control is already there - I would argue the conscious element is more important, or rather, thatmorality/values/human ideas are no longer subject to market forces as a perceived external force. Ia gree that egalitarianism may need to be more central, however, the problem is then we lose stalinists and labourites - the likes of Bernard Shaw et al. who (NPOV-wise) belong in the tradition (whether we like it or not, this is wikipedia, not a propaganda page). The only thing they have in common is raising human principle (of some sort) above alienation of the market.--Red Deathy 10:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the current definition is correct: Socialism is a class of ideologies favouring collective ownership of all or most productive resources, either through the government or through cooperatives or workers' councils. It similarly restricts private property and prioritizes the common good over the wants of the individual. Thus, one cannot attempt to reconcile socialism with individualist ideologies such as Mutualism and individualist anarchism, which prioritize individual freedom and private property even when they conflict with the common good. -- WGee 03:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, I don't think that any branch of anarchism fits the definition of socialism, because they all hold that individual sovereignty is primary, whereas socialism curtails individual freedom when that freedom would conflict with the common good. Also, some reliable sources, such as this one, define socialism as an economic system based upon government ownership of the means of production, thus excluding anarchism. -- WGee 04:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, WGee, but you're sounding like the right-wingers on the anarchism talk page - just coming from the opposite side. Anarchist ideas predate the Marxist interpretation of socialism you're using. Proudhon's ideas influenced Marx, the Diggers (True Levellers) were among the first socialist/communists and they predated Marx by many years, Bakunin and the Jura Federation were kicked out of the First International over this same dispute. By defining socialism as "curtailing" personal freedom, you are defining authoritarian socialism, not socialism. Socialism is any system that seeks to bring economic equality to society, anarchists of all kinds have argued (with considerable historical support) that equality without freedom is impossible, as much as freedom without equality. Anarchist ideas about freedom and equality have infused political movements since Proudhon's time and are the dominant idea in the "anti-globalisation" convergence. To argue, as the right-wing libertarians do, that socialism is authoritarian, thus individualist/mutualist anarchism is not socialist is sectarian and inaccurate. Donnacha 11:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the definition at this site is that reliable; it seems a rather non-neutral and anti-socialist. Socialism is about SOCIAL control of the means of production, not GOVERNMENT control. The clue is in the word "social" carefully hidden within the word "socialism".

Historically, the anarchist movement was an integral part of the socialist movement, and it is anachronistic to say that Proudhon is anarchist and not socialist or vice versa. Rudolf Rocker, one of the most representative figures in anarchism, makes it clear anarchism should be seen as part of the socialist family:

"In common with the founders of Socialism, Anarchists demand the abolition of economic monopoly in every form and shape and uphold common ownership of the soil and all other means of production, the use of which must be available to all without distinction; for personal and social freedom is conceivable only on the basis of equal economic conditions for everybody. Within the socialist movement itself the Anarchists represent the viewpoint that the struggle against capitalism must be at the same time a struggle against all coercive institutions of political power, for in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with political and social oppression. The exploitation of man by man and the domination of man over man are inseparable, and each is the condition of the other.

As long as a possessing and a non-possessing group of human beings face one another in enmity within society, the state will be indispensable to the possessing minority for the protection of its privileges. When this condition of social injustice vanishes to give place to a higher order of things, which shall recognise no special rights and shall have as its basic assumption the community of social interests, government over men must yield the field to the administration of economic and social affairs, or, to speak with Saint Simon: "The time will come when the art of governing men will disappear. A new art will take its place, the art of administering things." In this respect Anarchism has to be regarded as a kind of voluntary Socialism." Source:http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-and-anarcho-syndicalism-rudolf-rocker]

Similarly, Daniel Guerin, one of the most authoritative historians of anarchism, takes this position. I think it is more helpful to think about anarchism as including an individualist tradition (which is not socialist) and a socialist tradition, which historically has been the mainstream of anarchism, if it can be said to have a mainstream. BobFromBrockley 15:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Two fundamental principles gave Socialism its life and strength: the wage system and its master, private property. The cruelty, criminality, and injustice of these principles were the enemies against which Socialism hurled its bitterest attacks and criticisms. Private property and the wage system being the staunchest pillars of society, every one who dared expose their cruelty was denounced as an enemy of society, a dangerous character, a revolutionist. Time was when Socialism carried these epithets with head erect, feeling that the hatred and persecution of its enemies were its greatest attributes."

Emma Goldman. Or, if you want to see one of the most perfect definitions of socialism, read the quote on my user page. Donnacha 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A point of disagreement, the anarchist individualist tradition has also been socialist and defined itself as such. What does "social control" mean? For the individualists, socialism was each individual's right to own their own possessions and do with them what they wished. Social control that prevents people doing that is authoritarianism. All forms of anarchism are based on voluntary co-operation, not just the individualist trends (all forms have elements of individualism). All true anarchists oppose wage slavery and capitalist domination of the means of production. Their theories of post-revolutionary organisation vary, but all are based on a wish to maximise egalitarianism and freedom. Some predict people will form communes, others that people will form collectives, others again that people will prefer to maintain personal holdings and have the choice of co-operating or not. The reality, should anarchy be achieved (which, I should point out, is also the stated aim of Marxism), is that a wide variety of social and economic organisations would exist. Socialism is about the removal of inequality and exploitation, not the removal of individual freedom in the individual's own sphere. Donnacha 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I challenge anyone to read Mutualism (economic theory) and say how it's not part of the socialist (rather than narrow Marxist) socialist tradition. Donnacha 16:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not propagating socialism according to Marx; I'm merely relaying the opinions of some reliable secondary sources. Many of them say that socialism "is associated with collective ownership of the means of production"; I ask, therefore, how Mutualism and individualist anarchism (which endorse private property and stress the importance of the individual rather than the collective) can be socialist. Remember, our goal here is to find the most common definition of socialism amongst political scientists, not amongst socialists themselves. If you disagree, then, with the current definition, you should be refuting it with secondary rather than primary sources. -- WGee 01:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "associated with", which is true, and what it always is. It's the first line of the article that's problematic. Of course it's normally associated with its most common form (social democracy these days, with nationalised industry), but that doesn't mean it's exclusively in that form. I'll hunt for some sources, but it'll be difficult as political academia tends to be dominated by Marxists and opponents of socialism, which doesn't tend to give any form of anarchism much of a look-in. There is the Anarchist FAQ of course. Donnacha 02:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Does socialism necessitate collective ownership of the means of production or not? That's one question you should answer through your research, since the article is ambiguous about the issue. Sorry I can't do much research on my own, but I'm over-burdened with homework right now. -- WGee 02:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily - the fundamental principle is occupation and use. What's opposed is someone owning the means of production and paying others a wage to work and keeping the profit. Thus, workers in a factory could own equal shares in the business, thus maintaining individual ownership but on a socialist basis. I'll try to dig out some quotes on this over the weekend or next week. Donnacha 02:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

While it's true that the anarchist movement had, for a long time, run parallel with the socialist movement. Take note that during the First International, the two ideologies split from the overall workers' movement. And after this split, anarchism began to be defined along the lines of Bukanin's theories. And Marx's definition of socialism became the accepted definition. Though it would be somewhat unfair to define socialism on wiki according to the ideas of one man, the currently we define socialism as not a concrete idea, but simply a group of ideas and concepts. Our method has simply become, "if it calls itself socialism, then it's socialism." (Demigod Ron 20:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

m + party

user: Vision Thing has deleted the following: "Despite the fact that the Nazi party's official name was the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), it was not actually a true socialist party, in the sense that Nazism rejected the policies of internationalism, egalitarianism, class struggle, and common ownership of the means of production, which are the main tenets of socialism." While I think the motive for VT's edit was likely brevity, this nonetheless seems to me an important thing to mention in an article on socialism, especially given the oft-used anti-socialist argument that Nazism was tantamount to, or a form of, socialism.--Jackbirdsong 04:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)(forgot signature initially).

I'm glad that Vision Thing removed that, because a discussion about m and an analysis of the name of the Nazi Party are extraneous in an article about socialism. Since the article did not attempt to liken socialism to m in the first place, there was no need to make an effort to distance the two. Also, the preponderant opinion in academia is that Nazism is not socialist (for various reasons that we need not discuss now); thus, we should not be giving undue weight and legitimacy to anti-socialist arguments that have no significant following among reputable scholars. -- WGee 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the opinion in academia, and in most unbiased circles for that matter, is that Nazism is not truly socialist. My logic was to cut the nazism = socialism presumption off at the pass for the benefit of the non-academic, less scholastic idividual, as the official name of the party was the National Socialist German Workers Party, and any uninformed but otherwise well-intentioned person might therefore conclude for obvious reasons that it was in fact socialist. However, I am fine with leaving it out if that is the general concensus.--Jackbirdsong 04:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

NAZI Germany was socialism. Socialism doesnt require that the state OWN the means of production. A socialist economy can be one where the state CONTROLS the means of production by telling them what quantities of things to produce,etc. In other words, a command economy. A command economy IS a form of socialist economy. Working Poor 19:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. A command economy is only socialism if it is controled by the workers (through the state) and if it is for their benefit. A state where a small group of people control the economy for their benefit is command economy, but not socialism. m/Nazism said that a dictator and an unelected body should control the economy by co-operating with capitalists and class collaboration. Hitler was an extreme anticommunist. Massive industrial corportaions like BASF actually thrived under Nazi Germany. In fact, Facsism/Nazism was based on inequality, hierarchy, nationalism, racism, imperialism, dictatorship, capitalism (in a corporatist form), anticommunism, and militarism. It is among the most anti-socialist views in exitence. There where some more populist elements in the party (see above discussions), but they were purged. Nazism (and m) was in no way a form of socialism. The name "National Socialist German Workers Party" was for propaganda purposes only. 72.139.119.165 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, it might be worth writing a little bit about the Otto Strasser socialist-influenced populist faction within early Nazism and its subsequent squashing by Hitler. Of course, your argument here disqualifies Stalinism as well, as there's no way you could argue that it was controlled by the workers nor for their benefit. Donnacha 01:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

When the state controls the means of production in any socialist economy, it is not for the benefit of the workers. It is for the benefit of the state. The state SAYS it is for the benefit of the workers, but Hitler also said that. "I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property." -Adolph Hitler. Of course NAZI Germany was socialist. Working Poor 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I had hoped to circumvent this old ridiculous debate, this discussion is a good example of the precise reason for my desire to include in the article the following paragraph, once again: "Despite the fact that the Nazi party's official name was the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), it was not actually a true socialist party, in the sense that Nazism rejected the policies of internationalism, egalitarianism, class struggle, and common ownership of the means of production, which are the main tenets of socialism." This makes clear the major divides between the Nazi controlled government (as it truly was in action) and true socialism. The differences go beyond who precisely controlled the means of production - the fact that real German socialists were primary enemies of the Nazis obviates the divide further - to the very fundamental tenets of socialism. -Jackbirdsong 04:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need thos old debate again? Nowdays the nazis call themselves things like "national democrats", but that doesn't make them democratic. They just use a buzzword to make their ides sound better. // Liftarn

Well, it does need addressing somehow. Partly it's the result of the weak definition of socialism at the top of the article - social control would include Nazi style govt. control whether you like that style or not. It also includes Soviet state capitalism. A good many from the SPGB to Paul Mattick (i.e. screaming ultra-lefts) to Bernard Shaw saw Nazism as a species of radical reformism (at the time), so it's not an entirely all-right wing view. --Red Deathy 09:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats not true. If you had a democraticly elected socialist government that kept it's origanal beliefs instead of becoming facists, you would end up with a state that does whats best for the workers. It's all very well trying to keep the rich minority happy, but at the end of the day it doesn't keep the 'masses' happy. Nazism is completly different. It is one madman's veiw about how the world should look and if the different peoples don't fit that mould, they will be killed. Socialism is a type of government that has been exploited by men with there own ajenda's in times of need. It is easy for just anyone to join a party and become the head and eventually get what he wants. Hitler did this in the depression, Mau did it in the culural revolution and Lenin did it in the Russian Revolution. Franklin D. Roosavelt ,however, kept his word and brought the U.S.A out of the depression. So Socialism doesn't have to be Communist or Nazist. The point is there needs to be an outlying point on the differences between Nazism and Socialism. --reds4eva

Agreed! You cannot place socialism and communism in the same box as nazism; they are almost opposite ideologies. Socialism involves a government appointed by the people, and nazism is a self-imposed dictator with little incentive to help the 'masses' as you say. They are at opposing ends of the political spectrum. I'm sorry, Red Deathy, but I strongly disagree with your anti socialist views. --Earl of Wellington

Earl, I am a socialist, and if I were arguing politics I would claim that Nazis, Stalinists and members of assorted Labour parties and so-called socialists parties (as in France) were not socialists, I would also argue that socialism is a stateless classless moneyless society in which the means of production and distribution were owned and democratically controlled in common. Sadly, this is Wikipedia, where we have an NPOV policy in which we have to try and accomodate the views Stalinist wingnuts and Looneytarians. My point is, without special pleading, given the weak definition of socialism in the article, you cannot exclude the NSDAP, and that there were historical and contemporary critics (opponents) who did draw comparisons between the Nazis and leftwing reformism. As for the Nazi government, it had considerable popular support, and was the acme of mobilised dictatorships.--Red Deathy 10:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

male suffrage

Shouldn't that be "universal female suffrage," in the Moderate Socialism and Communism section (second paragraph, second sentence)? --michael 15:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Female suffrage lagged behind quite considerably. "Universal" suffrage at the start of the 20th Century tended to be male-exclusive. Donnacha 16:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Right-wing wreckers

I added links to the introduction for libertarian socialists (the blanket term for all those who support "decentralized collective ownership") and mutualists (the primary form of market socialism started by Proudhon) and two right-wingers ("anarcho"-capitalist POV-pusher Vision Thing, who is clearly watching my edits, and new one) have been reverting my edits. Just so you know what's going on. Donnacha 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For those who want to argue about "neologisms," socialisme libertaire goes back to at least 1894, and was common by the turn of the century. Based on the evidence in WorldCat and those full-text works available online, it seems to caught on in the 1890s. I can't access all of the full-text periodical databases to check those at the moment, but the New York Times picks up the term in 1919. Libertatia 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the term - does not strike me as undue weight, and the age of the terminology is frankly irrelevent...--Red Deathy 08:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:NEO neologism should be avoided, while mentioning mutualism in the introduction is undue weight because they are tiny minority. -- Vision Thing -- 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"With the development of industrial capitalism, a new and unanticipated system of injustice, it is libertarian socialism that has preserved and extended the radical humanist message of the Enlightenment and the classical liberal ideals that were perverted into an ideology to sustain the emerging social order." (my emphasis) - ["Notes on Anarchism" in For Reasons of State]. Noam Chomsky, 1970

This Chomsky article is one of his most famous and is probably the one that revived use of the term. Thirty-six years is far too old to be a neologism even if this was the first use ever of the term. Donnacha 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I unknowingly made my last edit without signing in first, it was indeed i who readded Libertarian Socialism to the list of various forms of socialism in the intro. I don't think Libertarian Socialism qualifies as a neologism becuase it describes an ideology within socialism that is historical and important. that the term had to be adapted to differentiate left libertarians from "right libertarians" and the political party which emerged in the US is undoubtable, previously socialist libertarians were simply known as libertarians. Vision Thing, do you think that the ideology and people that the term libertarian socialism describes is not worthy of inclusion in the intro or is your problem purely a semantic one? do you have some other agenda i can't think of? Considering that libertarian socialists played an important part in the rise of socialism and continue(d) to be of consequence leads me to assert that it warrants mention in the intro. Blockader 20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

When I looked at the Libertarian socialism article the other day, it almost had no sources. Whole article looks like an original research, and it lacks any credibility. There is no clear definition of libertarian socialism, and that is one of main problems with neologisms. -- Vision Thing -- 20:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The info in the libsoc article seems mostly right to me, whatever thats worth, but is certianly not fully cited. you don't seem to dispute the historical or contemporary existence or relativity of the various ideologies described by the term libertarian socialism, right? well, i don't think there exists a better general term that describes them, do you? Blockader 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This issue was very well explained by 172 to Donnacha:

The term "libertarian socialism" was very rarely used in publications before the last third of the 20th century. A good test is taking a look at a search on Jstor for instances of the term "libertarian socialism" and then sorting the results by date, oldest to most recent. Few entries appear even for all dates. [9] Hardly any appear from the early 20th century; and the ones that do appear to use the term much differently from the way you use "libertarian socialism." [10] [11] This is what I mean when I point out that you are not using terms that are widely socially familiar. They are still concepts that have not entered a large social lexicon. In this sense the terms you use are neologisms.

There is no harm if we just say some socialist. Btw, formulation "some...while others" implies majority, and that is not the case. -- Vision Thing -- 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And Libertatia very well refuted 172's statements above when she wrote, "For those who want to argue about "neologisms," socialisme libertaire goes back to at least 1894, and was common by the turn of the century. Based on the evidence in WorldCat and those full-text works available online, it seems to caught on in the 1890s. I can't access all of the full-text periodical databases to check those at the moment, but the New York Times picks up the term in 1919." I don't know what you are referencing with the comment, "Btw, formulation "some...while others" implies majority, and that is not the case." Blockader 23:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the formulation last seen in this edit, and look who it's by! Donnacha 23:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon and possession

Proudhon did not limit the concept of "possession" to land alone. ""The satisfaction of a natural right always gives rise to an equation; in other words, the right to a thing is necessarily balanced by the possession of the thing." Thing, not property. Perhaps "occupation and use" is not the best term, but it is completely inaccurate to say that mutualists accept private ownership of the means of production - it's not that simple. Donnacha 13:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mutualists don't apply "possession" to everything. For example, if you build widgets with your machine, those widgets are truly your private property. They don't become available for the taking for free by others just because you're not using them. You can offer them for sale in the market. That is the normal conception of private property. And you can store that machine (your means of production) in your garage and keep others from using it. It too does not become avaiable for the taking just because you're not using it. It's normal private property.Anarcho-capitalism 13:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(Just talking to you because this is important) Et voila - a perfect definition of "possession" - its yours once you have it in your possession (occupation). The flip is the use side. If you rent it out to someone else who needs it, they have possession of your property. Thus, there's an issue ("the right to a thing is necessarily balanaced by the possession of the thing"). Thus, mutualism does not accept private property of the means of production by an individual who has not got possession of them. My original formulation ("limited private property") is accurate, you're the own who insisted on expanding it. Mutualism is a form of "market socialism", just a different form to that advocated by reformist Marxists. Donnacha 14:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand "possession." You're mixing up Proudhon's definition with the literal meaning of "possession." "Possession" for Proudhon means occupation or use. If you store your corn in a silo, you're not using it, but you still have a right to exclude others from taking it. It's your private property in the fullest sense. That would not be allowed for land. You could not stop using your land and leave in storage and exclude others from using it. BUt, you could do that for your machine. You can leave your machine sitting idle and keep others from using it.Anarcho-capitalism 14:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you please read the quote. Mutualists oppose rent, they oppose private ownership of the means of production when they are used by others. Yes, you can leave your machine idle because its in your possession. However, they do oppose private ownership of the means of means of production when they are not in the possession of the owner. Really, how hard is "the right to a thing is necessarily balanced by the possession of the thing" to understand? Land is not the only thing. The specific focus of "What is Property?" on land is because that was a disputed issue among early activists, who opposed capitalism, but not the ownership of land (particularly by the gentry and aristocracy of the day). Donnacha 14:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You still don't understand "possession." "Possession" as Proudhon defines it does not mean the same thing that "possession" means in normal parlance. Possession, for Proudhon, means occupation or use. Leaving your machine idle, even though it is in your "possession" by the normal use of the term, it is not in "possession" by Proudhon's use of the term. But, in mutualism you cannot do that with land. If you fence in some land, it is in your "possession" by normal of the use of the term, but it's not "possessesion" by Proudhon's use of the term. "Possession" is by definition occupation or use. It doesn't mean that is simply in your possession.Anarcho-capitalism 15:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me why I don't bother arguing with you. You can repeat yourself all you like, but it still doesn't change the fact that you don't get the fact that the quote contradicts you. I give up (again). Donnacha 15:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, go "report" me to the authorities then. *laugh* Anarcho-capitalism 15:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mutualism is so obscure, it probably doesn't deserve mention in the intro anyway.Anarcho-capitalism 18:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro

The term "libertarian socialism" does not warrant mentioning in the intro. 19th century Marxian socialism, social democracy, and communism-- for better or worse depending on one's point of view-- are far more notable subjects for a general readership than a couple of 19th century Russian anarchists who failed to establish lasting political movements. Further, the term "libertarian socialism" itself is inappropriate. The 19th century anarchists did not use it themselves. Chomsky popularized it in contemporary times-- a few decades ago may be a long time for you kids but not me-- to help classify the many different types of socialism that have profiferated and diverged over the course of nearly 150 years; the political theorists and organizers getting classified did not use the term themselves. An encylopedia should try to stay as loyal to the actual historical record itself, rather than promoting the taxonomy of a particular contemporary political writer. 172 | Talk 22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Apart from bring an anachronism, the term "libertarian socialism" is ambiguous: Chomsky says it is a synonym for anarchism, whereas this essay says that it also encompasses council communism and western Marxism. This uncertainty is compounded by the fact that the term is not widely used in academia, which on its own is a reason not to use it. -- WGee 01:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, most people, including Chomsky, absolutely acknowledge that it is a broad term usually used as a synonym for anarchism. Donnacha 19:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You may think the example WGee is pointing to is "wrong," but that's your own ideology. The term is too new, and can be definined in a variety of ways depending on the ideology of the author. More clear terminology should be used. 172 | Talk 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I was saying he was wrong about Chomsky, please read what I actually write. And, if you had suggested the current (pointless) compromise a while ago, there would have been no problem. But, what kind of historian refers to a term most famously used in the modern sense 36 years ago as new? You have consciously and deliberately ignored all examples that contradict you. Donnacha 20:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks. 36 years ago may not be recent in the history of (say) the internet, but it is relevativley recent in the history of socialism. Further, Chomsky is a contemporary thinker who is still alive and publishing books. 172 | Talk 21:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What personal attack? You are ignoring what we're saying. What exactly is your point about Chomsky? I know well that he's alive, I've spoken to the man. If you read his material (which I have), it's clear that he uses libertarian socialism in the broad sense, though it's often seen as a synonym for anarchism. He used it in a hugely influential article in 1970, as I pointed out above. For the umpteenth time, 36 years is far too long for the term to be a neologism, even if you ignore the uses from the beginning of the 20th Century (which you continue to do). Anti-globalisation, World Social Forum, these are accepted political terms that are less than a decade old. Donnacha 22:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The attack was implied in sarcastically asking me "what kind of historian refers to a term most famously used in the modern sense 36 years ago as new." An article on socialism deals with a very wide spatial and temporal frame. The focus is global, covering nearly 200 years. Looking from a broader time horizon, our own lifetimes can be seen as relatively recent. Whether or not we call the term a neologism is not too important. The point is that the term is not nearly as well established enough to come up in other encyclopedias. The term is jut not woven into the fabric of a more general, wider public discourse outside leftist circles. 172 | Talk 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless it's dodgey translation Bakunin seems to have used the term himself[12] - Marxists.org has the following for a search for the term [13] including Paul Mattick - so that's going back to an early 20th Century use. That plus the Jstore illustrates that there is a tradition of using the term dating back a long way - if it is obnscure it's possibly because it is in the marginalia of the socialist movement, some parts of which are obscure to the lay public and if we are seeking comprehensiveness we m,ay need to consider being very inclusive. I'll note even Trotsky seems to have used the term. If those are all hooky translations, we could posit that the term is mainstream enough in specialist discourse to support such persistence of mistranslation - personally I trust MIA.--Red Deathy 08:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll also note 10,500 hits on Google Scholar [14] Including one by Hayek always good to have him on your side...--Red Deathy 14:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is absolutely appropriate for libertarian socialism to be in the article, and see no reason it shouldn't be in the intro. Libertarian socialism refers to a family of different views, ranging from council communism and social anarchism to Peter Hain of the British Labour Party who wrote a book a couple of years ago (Ayes to the left) advocating what he called libertarian socialism. This heterogeneity does not make it less worthy of inclusion, it makes it more important. It also means to talk about "socialists influenced by anarchism" does not make sense - that may be true of Chomsky and Bookchin, but obviously less so of Peter Hain or Paul Mattick. In fact, I can't understand what's contentious about this. BobFromBrockley 11:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And, as for Murray Bookchin, his wikipedia article says he broke with anarchism in 1999 and describes him above all as a libertarian socialist, so I'm going to change that too. BobFromBrockley 12:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky - obscure?

Most ridiculous and unsubstantiated edit yet

the clintons

because bill and hillary wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for social programs for lesser income groups, could they be considered socialists? Keltik31 16:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In Europe they'd be described as social democrats I suppose, though over here that's now a Tory policy, which means it's acceptable to some flavours of liberal. There's nothing socialist as such about the welfare state.--Red Deathy 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't put them in the article as socialist if they don't explicitly say they are. --fanturmandos 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Worker ownership of the means of production

The first paragraph says that socialism is associated with "worker ownership" of the means of production. If that's the case, then the U.S. is socialist, because "About three quarters of all U.S. business firms have no payroll." As of 2002, the number of firms in the U.S. with no employees is 17,646,062. The number of firms with employees is 5,696,759. [15] Improper Bostonian 19:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you look up the stats for ownership of productive wealth, I suspect you'll find that a much smaller proportion own that - many small businesses are capital light--Red Deathy 09:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing a point: capitalism is ultimately about who has access to ownership of the means of production. Under communism, no one has access the ownership. During the industrial revolution, only the upper class had access to ownership. But when you have that many people owning their own business, it is patently obvious that (at least in the US) ownership of the means of production is open to anyone. And that is freedom. Dullfig 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually my point is that the statement in the article is wrong. Socialism is opposed to private ownership of the means of production, whether the owner is self-employed or employing others. Improper Bostonian 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was responding th Red Deathy :-) Dullfig 21:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

From my POV, User:Improper Bostonian you're right, Socialism is the abolition of private property in the means of production. however, this is Wikipedia, we must be NPOV and some socialists do not deny the right to won private property in the means of production, hence why our opening paragraph is so vague and contains a non-definition. User:Dullfig if there is an enormous concentration of ownership of the MoP, that means there is highly restricted access - a worker owning their own mop does not equate to owning the MoP.--Red Deathy 08:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What socialists support private ownership of the means of production? And what do you mean "a worker owning their own mop does not equate to owning the MoP." Of course it does. Improper Bostonian 12:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the British Labour Party, UK has never opposed private ownership in principle, just the the commanding heights of the economy - now, I don't consider the labourites to be socialists, but many of them do, so NPOV means we have to incldue their POV in our writings - and owning a mop is no use without a floor on which to clean, just as owning a hammer is no good without nails so long as a market relationship intercedes between the ability to do the work and doing it.--Red Deathy 13:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

where i come from, nederland, the labour party are deffinitely not communists. if socialism does technically imply a ban of private ownership whilst some socialists do not think of it as such, it should be added as such, but socialism does not include that at al, socialism is not communism.--Lygophile 04:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You're still not explaining why "a worker owning their own mop does not equate to owning the MoP." My father owns his own business and building and he's the sole employee. Why does that not equate to owning the means of production? Improper Bostonian 13:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, mop was just a bad pun, but back in the day miners were expected to own their own shovels (or at least the price of digging tools was deducted from their pay), but they were still employees of the mine. If the mine owners didn't hire them, those tools were next to useless. Likewise a wood cutter who owns the axe but not the wood, I don't know what your father does, but if he owns a business in which effectively he is a subsidiary of a larger business - like the logger, they don't own the means of prduction - he might own some, but as I've said self employment tends towards the less capital intensive parts of the economy, the bits that don't mass produce cars--Red Deathy 14:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No my father's business in not a subsidiary of a larger business. He is a worker who owns his own means of production. That is private ownership of the means of production. Improper Bostonian 14:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair do's - but one of my mates was a 'self employed contractor' which meant he worked for otehr people, effectively as an employee but had different tax arrangements. A trucker might own their own truck but still be an effective subsidiary of the warehouse chains in their area if there is a restricted market in which they can ply their trade--Red Deathy 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but by being an independent agent, he gets to decide who he works for, therefore obtaining as much money as he can from his work. The people hiring him, of course, try to pay as little as possible, but it all works out. If being a trucker for example, pays little money, not to many people will become truckers. There will be a shortage of truckers, forcing the trucking companies to pay more to attract truckers. So private ownership of the Mop ensures you get paid the most money the market will bear.

As a side note, if you look at capitalism and employment from a return on investment (ROI) point of view, unskilled labor has a really high ROI: the worker hardly puts any money of himself, yet he gets paid anyways. I would have to dig up the article, but a couple of years ago the trade magazine American machinist [16] did a study, and they showed that college graduates have a lower ROI because, even though they make more money, they spend vast amounts of money to aquire their education, while on the other hand a machinist gets a huge ROI because they don't need to go to college, most big manufacturers will train you, and you usually are already drawing a paycheck during training. Think about that. Dullfig 17:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

All of us tend to talk about property as if the current, capitalist form of "private property" is the only way property can work. Remember that for much of human history there have been forms of property of land (in particular) based on actual occupancy and use that still didn't extend to the point of being exclusive (the biblical system of the needy "gleaning" the fields, common grazing, hunting, wood gathering rights in pre-capitalist England, etc.). This ownership concept is still fundamentally important to human freedom because it implies autonomy and self-direction in the sphere of productive activity (most of one's waking life is spent in labor in in the act of reproducing labor power) while also allowing one to collect the entire product of one's labor (Marxism may not like to make these type of ethical statements explicitly but they are always present in all socialist ideas--we are talking about freedom from coercion and an attendant freedom from theft, both very essential liberal values). I think it is important to note that socialists and liberals share a lot of common ground with regard to the importance of "liberal property rights" to human freedom. What socialism is essentially arguing for is a system of property which allows for the continuation of real, effective ownership (that is control over the use of property--which in an industrial setting amounts to a democratic voice in the day-to-day operations of the workplace as well as the distribution of tasks--as well as an amount of income equal to one's share of the market value of the firm's output. [[[User:74.192.158.65|74.192.158.65]] 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Amos]

utilitarianism, egalitarianism

exactly how is utilitarianism an influance, and egalitarianism an idea? i thought they were both in the same catagory, as a philosophical moral view based on equality of worth of people.--Lygophile 01:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated error regarding Marx

In the rise of Marxism section, it states:

"For Marxists, socialism is viewed as a transitional stage characterized by state ownership of the means of production. They see this stage in history as a transition between capitalism and communism, the final stage of history."

Regardless of how you wish to define socialism and communism, neither Marx nor Engels differentiated between the two in this way (if at all). Nor did they suggest there would be two phases. This is made very clear in chapter one of Critique of the Gotha Programme. If anyone believes otherwise, please provide a reference.

This section was introduced by 172 who made the same error in the communism article (which has been slightly improved since). To be honest, given that 172 is an historian focusing on political economy, I'm surprised that he/she has made such an elementary mistake. Hydrostatic 09:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem being, as with NPOV re: Stalinists, many self-described Marxists do hold that view, following Lenin's clear propounding of that view. I suppose inserting Leninists in place of Marcists may suffice, but....--Red Deathy 09:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be a NPOV problem at all, RD. After all, if the claim doesn't apply to Marx, you cannot really attribute it to Marxists. A view isn't automatically Marxist just because many Marxists hold it. Regardless of this, it's extremely misleading as people can only assume that Marx held this view. Therefore, I see no justification for it.

Changing "Marxists" to "Leninists" is OK, but then it shouldn't really be in the "rise of Marxism" section. Hydrostatic 10:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Socialism and the State

On several occasions, I have attempted to edit the opening paragraph. As of 8:00 EDT, the last two sentences now read:

"As an economic system, socialism is often associated with state, community or worker ownership of the means of production. However, most socialists nowadays would agree that issues of democracy are crucial with regard to the state."

I have attempted to attach something equivalent to the final sentence many times. As a life-long socialist and as an active socialist debater I have observed on numerous occasions how right-wingers, and those who just are unfamiliar with socialist theory, equate state ownership, per se, with socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth: the issue of democracy, to put it in simplest terms, not even dealing with questions of class democracy, counsels, etc., is absolutely crucial.

To omit a reference to democracy in a reference to socialism and the state is foolish, to say the least.

RED DAVE

As I said in my change, numerous socialists, from Stalinists to the likes of Bernard Shaw have been unconcerned with democracy - whilst I agree with you as a socialist partisan, Wikipedia should have Neutral point of View and we need to include anti-democratic socialists (I'll throw in bordga as well here). Sucks, I know.--Red Deathy 13:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Dave has a point in terms of definitions. I mean, if I were to say I was a Christian who didn't believe in god, would we have to avoid calling christianity theistic at all? WP has to acknowledge the fact there is no one definition of socialism, and trying to find one that's NPOV is impossible. WP's responsibility has to be to report that debate, namely to say that many believe that democracy is essential and inherent in socialism, but that others define it more broadly. I'd also say that democracy is such an important issue in socialism we simply can't leave it out of the first paragraph. --Nema Fakei 00:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is more a case of trying to include trinitarianism in the definition of Christian - whilst a vast majority of Christians are trinitarian, a good number aren't (although POV-wise the former would deny the latter are really Christians). WPhas to take that into account in upholding the NPOV policy - it's our Prime Directive...--Red Deathy 08:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Socialism doesn't work

There should be this mentioned in the article since everwhere socialism has been tried it has failed and also, that despire this failure, socialists still try to cover up this fact by naming themselves something else or taking credit where it doesn't belong. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

this is not the place for political discussion, and your comment totally redundent, and also untrue. there is always a certain amount of socialism, without it, there would still be slavery and childlabour. the point is just that people dont seem to agree on the desired exact amount of socialism--Lygophile 09:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just can't let this one slide. The left has never represented individual freedom. Socialism has always held that the individuals must bow to the will of the majority. It is the right that keeps insisting that each individual counts by himself. After all, it was the Republicans, not the Democrats, who went to war with the south during the American Civil War. Read your history book. Dullfig 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

i know very little about american history (why does every american keep assuming every internet user is american), but i totally miss any point your trying to make, nor do i see relevance with what was said. by neutral standarts, both republicans and democrats are right winged, republicans just absurdly right winged. at absolute deprevity of socialism, lot of families couldnt afford school and would be forced into engaging in child labour. it is the rise of socialism, that made an end to childlabour.--Lygophile 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

These are just plain falsehoods. Socialism has caused more human suffering than capitalism ever has. Capitalism gives you the opportunity to better yourself. Socialism lowers everyone to the lowest common denominator. And child labor disappeard because the conditions were right, not because of some law. You cannot legislate prosperity. Case in point: minimum wage. If minimum wage is so great, why stop at $8.75 an hour? Heck! let's make it $100.00 and hour. Why not? there is no real basis for setting it at where it is now. At $100.00 an hour, everyone would be instantly rich. no more poverty. But you know it can't be done. The economy won't support it. So you'd rather have everyone poor, as long as there are no rich people. Sounds like envy.

After thousands of years of surviving on the occasional bison, humans are hard-wired for energy conservation. If you hold a race (say the 100m dash) and you guarantee there will be no winner (somehow you give no recognition to the winner), you probably will get no one to run. But give out a trophy, all of a sudden everyone wants to run their fastest. And even the last guy in will be better off because all that training has made him a better runner.

Same with capitalism: by allowing everyone to compete and try to make it to the top, even the one at the bottom becomes a better earner than he would have been under socialism. Notice I said earner not worker. You make more money under Capitalism. Even the ones at the bottom. Check it out for yourself. Dullfig 03:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I can't see the argument for all the straw. Anthropology 101 is that humans mentally adapt to their conditions; there is no "human nature" that makes people competitive. How else do you explain noncompetitive people existing still after all that hardship humans went through a few million years ago? In fact, an argument can be made to the opposite effect; in pre-feudalist societies, people are mostly noncompetitive and live harmoniously in what could more or less be called socialism. -Switch ^t 05:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And we all know what a swell period of history the Middle Ages where. Dullfig 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

...And the Middle Ages came before feudalism. And that's what I was clearly referring to. -Switch ^t 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

would you please stop confusing socialism with communism? because of the large scales of operation in this modern age, absolute communism would require force to get people to work, because of the egoism of the lot, unless it be a communalism. an absolute capitalism would provide such a force by abusing the fact that people would then need to work to prevent starvation. fine and all, but those that are incapable of work need food to survive as well. if there are no social provisions at all, children in poorer families wont have the money to go to school, and would be forced to chldlabour. thats simple math. you devide it in two possibilities: the way it is now, which is a capitalist system, with slight touches of socialism, and you call that capitalism, and absolute communism, which you call socialism. i wont keep repeating that it is a line, and that everyone wants it at another coordinate on that line, and that the absolute right end would necessitate childlabour, and the absolute left end authoritarial force or something or other. socialism kind of brings the absolute right somewhat closer to the middle. so one could never say that socialism has ever failed or caused suffering. communist dictatorial states may have (just like rightwing fascist states), but you cant credit that to the whole concept of socialism.--Lygophile 10:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC) -also nederland is (relatively) a socialist country. we dont have the red on top our flag for no reason. but we sure as fuck arent communistic. and i fail to see any suffering our socialism has caused10:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me play the devil's advocate here: you say that poor families would have to send their children to work. Let's say that that is so. With more people working in a family, wouldn't that family be less poor? By preventing the children from working, aren't you condeming the family to have less money than they could earn? Kids used to run paper routes (deliver newspapers), and cut the neighbour's grass. It gave them spending money, and it taught them responsibility. Now kids get money from their parents for doing nothing, which teaches them that in life you can get something for nothing. These kids in turn grow up to become adults that think that if they aren't earning enough, that it is right to expect the government to just give them money for nothing. I fail to see how child labor is all that bad. Dullfig 16:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

fail to see....you havent been paying much attention in history class have you? ow wait...your an american, you dont get any history besides the couple of centuries of american history. probably the same thing counts for...i dont even know the english word.....but in countries where childlabour does exist it aint such a pretty picture. children can still do the jobs your describing, thats not actually childlabour as such. having them work in a factory, thats childlabour. i agree that the way children are raised these days (or any other 'days') is wrong, but that doesnt have much to do with the abolishment of childlabour. but mostly the problem is that childlabour is taking away the most importend thing, education.--Lygophile 17:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, you don't suppose that there is no need in the US for childlabor because it is the most Capitalist nation on earth, do you? But that would be a contradiction. You say that the more capitalism, the higher human misery will be. But it doesn't work out that way. So, it must be that your premise is wrong. Dullfig 17:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

you really dont know much do you? when has childlabour ever been necessary because a country was too socialistic? of course, less kapitalistic (compared to USA) 'western' countries are full of childlabour hmm? America is a country with a very wealthy state, yet most of its people are very poor. i dont think theres any country in the world that has so much wealth combined with so much poverty. and theres sure no western country where the 'lower class' has so little oppurtunity (since good education is very expensive). maybe if thered be a democracy, and less corrupt media propoganda bs, it would make a change hmm....when theres an actual multiparty liberal democracy, instead of a biparty dictatorship. and a fair direct voting system io the outdated sick statevote system they have now.--Lygophile 06:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Have you been to Rwanda lately? Or Somalia? Or Haiti? Or (Insert country here)? You have made the silliest comment I have heard in a while. Dullfig 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And are those countries socialist? Are they, in fact, capitalist countries? (hint: the answer is "yes") Have you ever lived in Appalachia? Why am I so sure you haven't? Are there several socialist countries with better quality of life than the United States? (hint: the answer is "yes" again) -Switch ^t 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rwanda and Haiti are not capitalist. A capitalist system has adequate protections for private property, private ownership of the means of production, and the state doens't confiscate all or most of the profits. Somalia, however, is capitalist and only recently so. Protection of private property is performed by private contractors and there is no state to confiscate profits. That's why it's doing pretty good today considering where it came from, which was a system of "scientific socialism" and a bloody civil war. See more in the Somalia article. Improper Bostonian 20:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the people in the U.S. are poor? What?! LOL. I'm sorry but I just to laugh at that. I'm in the U.S. and almost everybody looks pretty comfortable to me. In, fact most of those that are considered "poor" are actually rich by the most of the rest of the world's standards. For example, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46% of those in "poverty" in the U.S. own their own home (with the average poor person's home having three bedrooms, with one and a half baths, and a garage. Understanding Poverty Improper Bostonian 17:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I always say: when your biggest problem is obesity among the poor, you must be doing something right :-0. Dullfig 02:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah, in the vast country, where there is so much emtpy space (since the 'americans' whiped out the original inhabitants), of course you dont need much money to have a big house. many of the poor people cannot afford good education, and thats where the biggest problem lies. this "something right" that they have done was genocide· Lygophile has spoken 11:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are large parts of the Democratic Party that are no more right wing than any other mainstream center-left party in the developed world. Is Nancy Pelosi really more conservative than Tony Blair or Ségolène Royal or Gerhard Schröder or Romano Prodi? There are fairly conservative elements within the Democratic Party, but they are much weaker than they were even 15 years ago, due to the near death of the Southern Democratic Party. I get rather tired of this claim. john k 02:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To everyone arguing above: Define your terms. So far you've been arguing about "socialism" "capitalism" without explaining what you mean by those words. What objective features make a nation more or less capitalistic? What countries are "socialist"? What countries are "capitalist"? -- Nikodemos 09:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the socialists are using the standard definition of socialism, and Dullfig is using (roughly) Leninism or something approaching it.

The giding principle to build a just society should be this:

-- No one should be required to give up their rights, so that others may benefit --

Social control of private property is in itself a tyranical concept. Private property is intimately connected to the excercise of human rights. Take for example the right to life. Rights do not exist as mere concepts, but have to be expressed in order to exist. In a gatherer tribe, for example, the right to life would mean that you have a right to gather food from the land, and no one has the right to stop you. At the same time, no one has the right to demand that you gather food for them also. The food you have gathered is your property. The act of expending your time and effort in gathering food to support your right to life is what made it yours.

Of course, you are free to gather food for someone else if that is what you choose to do. But there cannot be coersion, or you are being denied you rights. You may also choose to exchange some of your food for something of value that someone else offers you. That would be commerce. But the choice to enter into such an agreement has to be yours. If there is coersion involved, you are not free, and your rights have been denied.

That is why I don't bother to define what I mean by "socialist country". When there is social control of private property, your rights as a human being have been denied at some fundamental level. Sometimes it's more pronounced, like the soviet union, and sometimes it is less so, as in other countries, but your rights are being denied nontheless.

Dullfig 00:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. The reason you come to this conclusion is that you use too narrow a definition of socialism. If you use this argument to defend your definition, you are using circular reasoning, which really does not lend you credence. -Switch ^t 12:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defining socialism too narrowly; you are defining it too broadly. You can't say "socialism is whatever I want to consider socialism to be". We are talking about socialism as it is defined in this article, namely a social system where property is under social control. And that is what I am basing my coments on. The nazi party called itself socialist as well. Doesn't mean they where. From my point of view, individualist anarchist are closer to laissez-faire capitalists than to socialists. You cannot include in the definition of socialism, any group that calls itself socialist. Dullfig 19:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Social control" is vague enough to include just about any sort of anarchist cooperative economic system, I would have thought. And the definition in the intro is supposed to be concise, not to include every philosophy which can legitimately be called socialism. Really, the term is used in so many ways it's futile to argue over whether any particular application of it is correct or not (except in really extreme and obvious cases of misuse). Cadr 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. But the problem is, socialists don't believe in individual human rights in the first place. The individual is obligated to serve others, and that's OK with them. It's OK to force people to serve the community because they don't have individual rights, according to them. Improper Bostonian 01:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are using too narrow a definition of socialism. The first individualist anarchists considered themselves socialists, and they (obviously) strongly opposed coercion and infringement of personal rights. -Switch ^t 12:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary. If you include them as socialists then you have too broad of a definition. This article says "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control." Obviously the "individualist" anarchists were opposed social control of property and distribution of wealth. That's what makes them individualists. If any of them called themselves socialists it was obviously an extremely non-standard usage of the term. Improper Bostonian 17:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is all hopelessly vague and abstract. Clearly, there is always some form of social control in any society consisting of more than one person. Arguably, socialists do not necessarily desire more control, but want what control there is to be based on democratic principles rather than (say) control by the wealthy. (I don't wish to argue whether or not that's a legitimate point, since it's not going to do anything to improve the article.) Cadr 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, everything that is discussed here, even if only slightly, helps improve the article. There is a great deal of misunderstanding for that these various terms mean. "... socialists do not necessarily desire more control, but want what control there is to be based on democratic principles rather than (say) control by the wealthy ..." is a classic example of confusion. If this is the case, then this is not socialism at all, but classic democracy which alone suffices to limit control. The Greeks used democracy precisely to this end, to prevent any type of wealthy or military power from assuming control. Sorry, but socialism is not needed at all for this, as defined by Marx. And because of the Nazis, socailism, even with good intentions, will suffer from its historical use as a word. And then there is "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control." Well, the same can be said of calitalism or any other ideology or economic system. Capitalism use to just means what John Locke and Adam Smith argued, but has long since exploded into a new form of aristocracy. This is not good enough. Everyone needs to define what form of socialism one is discussion for this to be effective. Jcchat66 18:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a confusion, it's an opinion held by many socialists. I.e., that in an economy run on co-operative principles, power would be with the people rather than in the hands of the wealthy, big corporations, etc. Again, I will not argue for the correctness of this position; I'm just pointing out that it's quite widely held. We aren't talking about socialism as defined by Marx or any other single person -- we're talking about the (inevitably hard-to-define) spectrum of socialist opinion. To be honest I can't see what relevance your comment has to my original comment after about the first five sentences, which is why this is a short reply. Cadr 18:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The revelance is quite obvious, Cadr. But what you argue for was already accomplished by other systems without what is currently defined as socialism. Power is already with the people regardless of what system is in place. No government can exist, not even an autocracy, without the willing acceptance of the people. And it should not be hard to define at all. Socialism, as a word, is meaningless, and all the good intentions of socialist will be wasted if something else is not chosen. Quite simply, socialist that are not Marxist or communists are better described as liberals ... those that believe in diffusion of power. By definition socialism calls for MORE power over people, not less, and therefore negates itself. Is that not confusing? Jcchat66 03:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Quite simply, socialist that are not Marxist or communists are better described as liberals"

What about anarchists? And why are you conflating "power" and "willing acceptance"? Your arguments are just groundless. ~Switch ^t 11:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What about anarchists? Why would my argument be groundless? Are you saying the dictionary is groundless? These words have been pretty well defined for quite some time. Jcchat66 07:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Anarchists are socialists. Anarchists are not "liberals". Hence, your assertion above was wrong. Similarly, when power was being discussed, you retorted - by substituting willing acceptance in place of power. ~Switch ^t 10:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I never mentioned the word anarchism at all, and nor do I intend to, because that had nothing to do with this article. Anarchism is jusy anarchism, and cannot be applied to either liberalism or socialism, or any other word that implies some sort of structured society. When I speak of power, I means power over others, thus slavery, unwilling acceptance, forced labor, forced anything. If one can force another to do something against their will, that is power. By willing acceptence I mean people that go on with their lives and let others gather more and more power over them, without questioning it, voting against it, or in extreme cases, revolting against it. If people do not care about that laws are being passed, or where the wealth is being concentrated, then they willingly accept it. I did not use willing acceptance in place of power, for those are two different concepts. Power can be obtained willingly, such as in employment, where the supervisor has necessary power over the worker. Or unwillingly, in which power is seized in various ways, violently or through fruadulent and secretive means. (See the history of Rome for a case study in that art.)

Do socialists seek more power for their government, or less power? Or do they seek to reduce the power of all people, including government and special interests? That is the question. Would someone care to answer? Jcchat66 20:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

anarchism is a socialist ideology. and i bet there pretty liberal as well. and not every noncommunist socialist is necessary a liberalist, and liberalist is certainly not a better term for that. probably most of them are social liberals though, but so are many communists. do not box such terms in a narrow corner that easely· Lygophile has spoken 11:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Economic Democracy

I have always used the word "socialism" to mean economic democracy, an economy of, by and for the people.

This means that every working person has an equal voice in how the economy is run, whether through direct votes or through electing economic representatives or workplace managers.

It would probably mean that most larger businesses would have to be worker-owned and governed on a "one employee one vote" basis. It does NOT mean every employee would be paid exactly the same regardless of effort or skill.

A labor-managed socialist economy could utilize "market forces" to a pretty big degree, since it would allow each cooperative to maximize its collective income and provide a better living for ALL its employees. Even government-run services and utilities could sometimes implement quasi-market pricings and such, especially for consumers who use more than bare bones.

This sounds like a compromise. But it is a compromise worth taking if it moves us closer to the socialist ideal of economic democracy. Comrade Sephiroth 21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying that everyone would have equal vote, makes it sound like everyone is equal; but that is far from the case, as what you are proposing means that you no longer are free. Indeed, you are subject to the decisions of the majority vote, and if the majority decides you no longer need a house, tough luck! "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" will always mean that some people will work more than they get in return. Now think about this carefully: isn't that the definition of slavery? one who works for nothing? After you have worked enough for your own subsistence, the rest of the time you are working is being confiscated from you, you are working for someone else for free. Think about it. Dullfig 04:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Could I remind ediors this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not debating about socialism, which I'm sure we could all do and I'd wipe the floor with the lot of youse. Cheers.--Red Deathy 08:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Red Deathy (would the Red Death be what happened to Russia?), discussion may include anything relating to the article, including the very merit of its existence, which always will be, and always had been extremely questionable. Dullfig's point is absolutely valid, and a fine example of why socialism has failed in all historical examples. Jcchat66 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

red deathy is deffinitely correct. dullfig never said anything about socialism. in the first bit he counterargues democracy, and indeed that is the disadvantage democracy brings, but its better then any practically managable alternative (besides maybe a form of demarchy, maybe). in the second bit he starts on about communism. why on earth he would do such a thing if it hasnt been mentioned anywhere here before is beyond me. and yes, the talk pages are to help or potentially improve an artical, he wasnt doing that.

and sephirot, that sounds more like syndicalism then socialism, at least economically. its an idea similar to socialism, or maybe a form of socialism, that holds relation to marxism.--Lygophile 13:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this section began with the dicussion of economic democracy and socialist economy, and went from there. Socialist and communist alike try to latch onto concepts of democracy to justify their point of view, using such phrases as "social democracy" or "democratic socialism." Yet both concepts are clearly incompatible for the very reasons (and many more) that Dullfig mentions above. Democracy, no matter what type, cannot be established in such a way that people may vote their rights away, because then it would quickly cease to be a democracy, a textbook fact. Socialist do not generally acknowledge free will (though they often claim otherwise without success) because socialism does not leave people with the will to NOT be apart of the system. Socialism requires the use of force to exist, for it is against human nature to support the state before supporting themselves and those they love in a family ... which was why Marx wanted to remove the notion of family in his Manifesto. In essence, the perfect socialist state would require the complete supression of free will, selective love, and the right to that which they create with their own labor to function at all. Ironically, the ideal that Marx and Lenin appeared to seek was more like how the ancient Celts, who were educated, civilized, hardworking, and still contemptuous of tolerating an aristocracy or ruling class (which Marx rightfully argued against), which is evident by the fact that they resisted becoming imperialistic, and yet still managed to unite in war against those that attacked them. Unfortunately, that type of thinking was more along the lines of the American Revolution, not any of the socialists revolutions of Europe.

The only improvement to this article, logically, would be for socialism to be acknowledged for what it really is, evident in all historical examples as fact and not opinion, as a completely baseless social cause ... and a social cause which has caused the death of untold millions of people and at least more than one holocaust. This cause has no place amongst intellectual free-thinkers and academic study, but needs to be put to rest as as one of many dogmatic, fanatical, and overzealous ideologies worse than any of the crusades or jihads combined. Jcchat66 20:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

discussions like these are not what wikipedia is for, neither will this ever end, especially with participation of such utter stupidity as is coming from you. you divide the world in complete communism and complete capitalism, and fail to see the middle ground. this middle ground is a very long line ranging from complete opression of capitalists and equal distribution of wealth (or according to need), and utter elitist plutocratic terricracy, with exploit of labourers, slavery and childlabour. lcukily we are at neither end but somewhere on that line in between. in reality, we are VERY close to the right end, as our system is that of wage and kapitalism. some people wish it to go even farther to the right, and some wish it more to the left. socialism, that is, social securities, progressive taxes, and labour parties and such, is just that, which is added to the capitalist system to shift it more to the left on that line. nobody wants it at the absolute right end (except dangerous madman that didnt take his medicine). hopefully i explaned it in a way even you can understand. so you cant say socialism never worked, this is the most stupid thing utterable. you may say communism has never worked. i would refute, and say that just cause it has corrupted into state capitalism in dictatorial regimes doesnt mean it inherently cannot work, its just not as refined as the aged capitalist system.

and in your 'textbook' example democracy would not cease being a democracy, but it would be ruled by consensus, hence it being called consensus democracy. and what, you want to abolish democracy now? like i said, there would be no alternative outside of dictatorship or anarchy. or maybe demarchy. so what do you suggest we substitute democracy with then? also i still see no reason to bring up communism, as socialism and communism are not synonimous. and as for human nature..yes human nature is egoism. such as plundering rape and murder. what your talking here is primitivism. luckily we have come a long way since then.

i see two axels: one between complete authoritarianism and pure anarchy. luckily democracy has been invented to bring the two together in a middle ground (may not be absolutely perfect, but in the big picture its brilliant. unluckily, america is hardly democratic). probably just such a middle ground would ideally be found on the axel between complete egalism and pure, absolute kapitalism. socialism could bring us close.--Lygophile 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Those who think that people on the right are dangerous madment that didn't take their medicine, are dangerous madmen that didn't take their medicine. It is interesting to observe how some people ascribe to themselves the noblest of intentions when they ram-rod their opinion through, but always assume that anyone with contrary views can only be motivated by personal greed, ulterior motives, or downright evil. Dullfig 00:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

if you would learn to read, youd see that i didnt say that every right winger is a dangerous madman, but only those, that want it at the absolute end. that would tolerate that if one gets sick and is unable to work, he would no longer get any pay nad would rely entirely on family if hes lucky, or starve if hes not. that if you get a sick newborn that needs a lot of care, your forced to kill it or starve. that sociaty is reliant on charity of the church in a lot of cases. this has been trueth before, when there was near absolute deprevity of socialism. anyone prefering that is a madman. just as i consider fascists mad. madman can probably be found at both ends though. you sound like a libertarian or something.--Lygophile 04:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Lygophile, what a passionate outburst of assumptions and blatant character attacks. You have no idea what I stand for, which is certainly not capitalism, or any of the other countless isms of the world. Do you dictate what Wikipedia is for? An encyclopedia is for the purpose of spreading knowledge, and that is precisely what I intend after studying history, sociology, and political science for over fifteen years. Yet you assume that because someone does not agree with Marxist principles that they are automatically a capitalist, or a Republican, or just plain stupid. And I never said anything at all about abolishing democracy, where did you get that? Calling people names is definitely not what Wiki is for, so I expect an apology from you for such distasteful comments. You accuse me of dividing the world into capitalism and communism? When it is you that divide into leftist and rightist thought, or authoritarianism and anarchy? Wow, impressive display of hypocrisy there. Sorry, but the world is not divided so, and have been abused to the point of being meaningless. There is no middle ground between countless ideologies and beliefs, only politics and the age-old aristocratic struggle for power. What does it matter if there is capitalism, or communism, or religion, or socialism? As long as there are aristocrats dictating what goes where, whether it be the Aztec kings, Sumerian priesthood, or Red Army, then tyranny and slavery become a high risk. Most wars and struggles in history where not for land, or money, or ideology, they were for power, and used those things to that end. So where we are, making all of these isms to try and limit land, money, and ideology, when we could just concentrate on limiting people from gaining power. In all of history only a few people have come close to accomplishing that, the Hebrews and Jews and their various struggled against tyranny, perhaps the first people in all history to do so; the Greeks and those they influenced; and the various Britannian peoples. Land, money, and ideology can either be used to liberate people from power, or enslave them to it. I know very well that most socialists have convinced themselves that they are trying to liberate the world from some perceived inequality, or from the resources being controlled by a limited few. Good! But many ancient thinkers have already done so far more successfully than you argue for. Democracy is a tool that was meant to prevent any one person, or small groups of people, from gaining power over others. But don’t take my word for it. Open your eyes to all of history, and it will become quite self-evident. Jcchat66 20:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry all, but please, if you want to debate socialism in the abstract, do it in user space, if you want to discuss the article, please do, and remember the Neutral Point of View policy, I assume the critics here are implicitly suggesting we beef up the criticisms sections? And, no, Red Death is not what happened in Russia, a capitalist revolution lead by the bolshevik party is what happened in Russia :) We could go on like this forever defending our own ideological patches, or we could make a great encyclopaedia article about socialism.--Red Deathy 08:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

i do apologise for my tone in my former edit, i thought yours was a respons to something including what i allready said but did so in the, uhm, 'topic' above this one instead of here. never called anyone any name though. but here you come up with all new sorts of stupidity. i figured you sound like a libertarian (i thought i was repsonding to you, but it was dullfig, my mistake) mostly cause of your criticism on consensus democracy and your view of socialism as antiliberal. i still find you sound like one, or else an antisocialistic libertarian socialist, which is quite confusing. anyway, you keep criticising consensus democracy and communism but calling these things 'socialism'. and you keep absolutifying. but whatever, red deathy is right (again), im done with this arguement--Lygophile 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the labels? It is precisely these labels that make things confusing now. Did the revolutionaries of history care much for all this ideological nonsense? Only the revolutions of the 1900's seemed to use labels, yet prior to that it was simply liberalism, which meant anything opposed to absolute government. The American Revolution was a liberal revolution, and so was the French and the various Spanish revolutions. Washington, Bolivar, Ludwig von Mises, were all liberals. Liberals stood for freedom, democracy, the right to private property, a free economic system, etc, etc. And yet now we confuse capitalism with fascism, liberalism with socialism, Marxiam with libertarianism ... it's rediculous. Capitalism does not mean what it use to, which was strictly a free market economy inspired by Adam Smith, and most notably endorsed by Ayn Rand. Today's capitalism is nothing like what she or Smith wrote about, and she would have probably rejected the modern day trend towards corporate fuedalism ... that's right ... corporate fuedalism, for that is the best way it can be described. The corporations of today have become fiefdoms ruled by lords, the few elite that run everything in contempt of liberal rights, or social freedoms, and profit the most controlling the means of production and distribution ... but WAIT. Isn't that fascism?

If as a socialist you stand for the teaching of Marx, than that is a radical ideology, influenced in a German aristocratic atmosphere of racism that has seldom existed in most other parts of the world. What he had to say was valid for his unique situation in that land. One will notice that most ideologies that come out of German countries either stood for the defense of some kind of aristacracy, or against it, and even (I dare say) tried to justify a master race. Compared to the series of German dictatorships of that region (Prussia, Austro-Hungary, Nazi Germany, etc), socialism and communism of ANY kind was preferable! But its like they look liberal ideas, twisted them into something that would justify the violent extermination of that aristocracy, and spit out a host of new frivilous ideas that are, or were, by definition incompatible. Because of this, socialism is meaningless as a functional word to use if you stand for freedom of any kind. Thanks to National Socialism of the Nazis, I don't think the word will ever recover.

Thus, my point. The word socialism carries too much dead weight and baggage, and the article does nothing to clarify or educate the casual reader. If your against corporate monopolies and commercializion of society, well then, SO ARE MOST PEOPLE! But private property and the rights of the individual has been, and will be the only thing, that limit the power of all types of aristocratic power, whether it feudalism, capitalism or any number of the flavorful isms.

Besides, Marx was both right and wrong. All of history is defined by a stuggle ... but not for materialism though. It was for power. This is evident in almost every observation of society, even in fictional works. All dictators and warmongers seek resources as an end to a means ... slavery, power over others. They do not seek the resources for themselves, for money, by itself, is meaningless. Land is meaningless. All materialism is meaningless ... unless it frees you from men, or allows men to rule over you. Do you think Mr. CEO of Corporate America wants money? Land? His big yacht? Sure, but deep down, he is greedy not for any of those things. Mr. CEO is greedy for power over others, which he has a great deal of in his position, more so even than most government officials. Not all of them of course, but it only takes one really power-hungry CEO to make them all look bad. Therein lies the problem. In 1800's America there was a simple solution to this ... corporations (or any artificial person) could not own land at all except with an act of congress. That utterly prevented most companies from getting too big, because how could they when the land could be ripped out from under them by some poor widow who decides to give her land to a local charity? You don't need an ism to define this ... it just IS. Remember, lack of private property was the defining mark of fuedalism, and no matter what ideology is used to remove private property, feudalism will always be the end result. Welcome to the Neo-Feudal Age! Jcchat66 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

shut up. no one but an idiot will sociate socialism with nazism. right-wing socialism lol. and capitalism technically means the pursue of wealth, why do you think they called it capital-ism? and just because marx's ideas were sprung from necessity doesnt mean the ideology is inherently invalid in any other situation.--Lygophile 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, aren't you a pillar of self-righteous arrogance and hate. Shut up you say? Isn't that exactly what most socialists governments tell their citizens to do when they complain? Usually at gunpoint. Oh, and a total lack of respect for freedom of speach, bound up in that single statement "shut up." So only an idiot would make a connection between Nazism (National Socialism) and socialism? Even though that's what Nazism meant? Why don't you assert your opinions with some facts for a change? Jcchat66 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

just look at the freakin nazism page. nazi's were sure as fuck no socialists. not a socialist an earth associates with nazi's. and your just bullshit anyway, cause you allready know nazi's have no relation with socialists, you cant be that stupid. Lygophile has spoken 22:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So, is this how to defend or debate your points of view? With profanity and anger? If your going to act like a child, take a recess and face the wall. Anyone that uses such terms as right-wing or left-wing is an idiot. So the National Socialists were not socialists? Well then, that is my point exactly! Socialists are probably not even socialists! Then again, socialism is usually a venue for distatorships and fascists regimes anyway, for in the name of freeing the exploited, they enslave them. (Religious fanatics have done that for centuries!) Are you using a different dictionary or something, Lygophile? If power is not concentrated into the hands of a few, an aristacracy, then it is a liberal society. If it is concentrated into the hands of a few, it is aristocratic. From liberalism we have freedom, rule of law, constitutional government, democracy, etc. From aristocracy, an elite few, and rule by government above the law, we have fascism, capitalism, nazism, communism and socialism. Of course aristocractic countries can choice to be liberal, but most often they degenerate into despotic regimes. (There are such things as socialists kingdoms, after all.) Historical citations? World history. Ancient liberal nations: Greece, Estruscans, Lydians, early Romans, Carthaginians, Gauls, Britons, Old Kingdom Egypt, Hebrews, Gataens, Phoenicians, and probably many more such as the Parthians and Bactrians, and at least some Asian cultures. Ancient fascists and/or socialist countries include: Mesopotamia, New Kingdom Egypt, Persians, Chinese, Germans, Later-day Romans. Liberals generally are not racists, mix well with others, open their arms to foreigners, believe in free society and rule of law, and most of all, FREE WILL. All the rest generally become racist, extremist, openly disregard other people, and believe that might is right, and use destiny to control the masses and to justify some sort of caste system. It would be interesting to note that the Hebrews, and later the Jews, fled from most of these fascist empires, but contributed culturally to all the rest. But don't take my word for it, just read history ... its all there. Jcchat66 23:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

what anger? nad i sure hope your talking classical liberalism, cause if your talking neoliberalism you really got the wrong idea about them. – "Anyone that uses such terms as right-wing or left-wing is an idiot." "Socialists are probably not even socialists!" "Then again, socialism is usually a venue for distatorships and fascists regimes anyway" "Liberals generally are not racists, mix well with others, open their arms to foreigners, believe in free society and rule of law, and most of all, FREE WILL. All the rest generally become racist, extremist, openly disregard other people, and believe that might is right, and use destiny to control the masses and to justify some sort of caste system." obviously socialism is by deffinition unliberal and is connected to fascism, yeah. i rest my case. Lygophile has spoken 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, usually when one uses the word "fuck" as often as you do (A search of this page will link all words to you) that generally is regarded as angry. Neoliberalism, huh? I love how socialist and fascists hijack words for their own biased ends. And since you clearly have nothing to offer, I rest my case as well. "Lygophile has spoken." No, you typed. And you demonstrated even more arrogance. What a refreshing way to support your heroic cause! Jcchat66 01:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

typical. i used the word fuck twice, both times in the phrase 'sure as fuck'. you whiny little bitch. and "i have spoken" is just an ironic signature i often use in fora. and "no you typed", i mean really did i? what a clever thing to notice. and by the way, have you noticed your own attitude: 'everyone with another stance as me is an idiot, a racist and militant'. and then you call me arrogant. get your head out of you ass adn quit bittering. its wikipedia, not a 'lets be an arse' forum. Lygophile has spoken 03:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Lygophile: tone down your rhetoric. Writing WP articles is about reaching a consensus between diverging factions, not about belittling, putting down, or insulting other editors. If you cannot argue your point in a civilized manner, perhaps you should look for something else to do. Dullfig 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

blah blah. i am toned down. if some fascist nazi shithead would come up and start talking white power ill tell him 'fuck off asshole'. i just give people what they'v got coming. i never directly called jcchat by any name except just now i called him a whiny little bitch which he is. if someone is being a whiny little bitch its only fair to inform him/her of that. and surely anyone that associates socialism with nazism is an idiot. you know, he called every follower of every other ideology but his a many number of things, thats enough grounds for me to call him a shithead, and i dont mind if i do. i was too aggro before for which i had apologised, but i am not ungrounded in whatever i have given him since. your just giving a biased comment on our discussion. Lygophile has spoken 17:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

i do probably use too much powerterms though. thats because i usually speak in a very calm manner. in written text i may sound more aggressive then i intend to. Lygophile has spoken 17:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Much fear in you, I sense. The way to the dark side, fear is. Control anger, you must. Yoda (not really) Dullfig 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

lol. yeah probably "anger, i must control". lol. Lygophile has spoken 01:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lygophile, don't try and get out of it, you're clearly expressed your asshole nature calling people names in the first place. You initiated it, and now you can handle it? What goes around comes around. If you'd get your head out of the arse you read what I was writing instead of just going off into cyber-rage. If you cannot accept the absolute fact that nazism was a form of socialism then that is you problem. Nazi means National Socialism, period. It is merely a form of socialism, not associated with all forms of socialism. Once again, the only connection is concentration of power! Socialism requires the concentration of power into the hands of the few to occomplish its goals. That is why it is an easy venue for asshole dictators to use it to their advantage. Does that mean socialism is wrong or evil? No, not at all. It just means its flawed just like everything else. For crying out loud, even America is a socialists country, yet it could hardly be called fascist or communist. But apparently you're too simple-minded to look beyond the stupid labels of right-wing left-wing bullshit, beyond the meaningless names, and see what the real issue is. While I see a reason for socialists and libertarians to unite, you see a reason to remain divided. But until the whole world sheds these stupid labels, it's never going to happen.

Either you want to disperse power evenly across the population, or concentrate it into the hands of the few. Which is it, Lygophile? It's a simple question, and politics is not nearly as complicated as everyone makes it out to be. Jcchat66 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

america a socialist country??? yeah right. sure it is... and i wouldnt call them fascist no...but you were the one arguing that everything outside of liberalism ends up in a whole lot of bad stuff you mentioned. also one could call america empirialistic, which is only a door away from fascism. and i see reason to devide? your the one combining and seperating labels wherever you please, throwing them around wildly. and your the one acting like socialism and liberalism oppose eachother in some or other way. there is lots of social liberalism, just as i can surely be called both probably. so i guess, we at least agree that socialism and liberalism should come together...so it seems. Lygophile has spoken 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as socialism implies a disregard for private property, a slant towards more powerful government, or any of the number of changes needed to control the means of production, it has little to do with liberalism. Once again we seem to have a definition issue here, Lygophile. Does not socialism require more powerful government to achieve their aims? As for America, the US government controls more of the means of production than ever before, thus falling within the scope of a socialist economy. Look up liberialism and you get a very different definition. More powerful government? Less powerful government. Liberalism usaully stood at teh center between autocracy and anarchy, which oncee again ranges from total government to no government. Socialism has always advocated more government power than liberalism as the center. So which is it? Jcchat66 02:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

i have no idea what your talking about but im talking about socialism. america is not socialistic. socialism is not totalism or whatever something your thinking of. anwyay, since were discussing nonsense here, and this is in no way benificial to the article and has no place in this discussion page (though it took up bout half of it) lets just call it a stalemate. Lygophile has spoken 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea what I'm talking about? Have you read any book on socialist doctrine at all then? The definition and meaning of socialism is well established, and defined EXACTLY as I have mentioned above. Your refusal to accept the definition of a word is not pertinent to this argument. And this article remains deminished as a result of precisely this lack of understanding of words being used. I think you need to read more books on the subject or something, Lygophile, instead of trying to push your own theories. Jcchat66 20:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

if i build a hospital, is it then the structure i create that defines my hospital?· Lygophile has spoken 12:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to socialist websites

WGee removed links to various socialist websites. I agree that personal pages by undergrads shouldn't be here (e.g. http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/) but think that major socialist webpages like World Socialist Web Site and Socialist Party and World Socialist Movement have a place. So, we should either remove ALL of these links OR find a good selection of representative socialist websites.BobFromBrockley 11:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Links to socialist websites are not appropriate external links - Wikipedia is not a directory. On an article like this, external links have to add content that we haven't got somewhere. Of course, many of these sites do appear to contain some historical information, so I haven't tried to purge such links myself. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think linking to socialist web pages certainly comes under adding information that would not be included were this a featured article and going beyond the detail reasonable in an encyclopaedia article. However, the problem is one of NPOV and given that we've had to broadly define socialism I think we can't really single out any group or tendency as representative, even SI is partial. On that grounds I think we should remove any links to socialist organizations (they'll be linked to in their own pages, anyway), and only link to things like MIA and artcle archives...--Red Deathy 13:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I removed those websites not primarily because they are biased, but because they do not help the reader gain a deeper understanding of socialism than is possible through this article. The websites under "Critical appraisals" and "Introductory articles", meanwhile, are great resources for people who would like to learn about the details and schools of socialism that this article omits. And, considering that this is an encyclopedia dedicated to self-education, the latter websites are preferred. -- WGee 06:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some socialist sources that are informative, critical, scholarly, and thus suitable to link to: New Left Review, Monthly Review, The Socialist Register, Review of Radical Political Economics. If somebody has the time, he/she could scour those sources for some suitable articles or essays about socialism; otherwise, we can link to the websites themselves. -- WGee 06:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. Having the link to my page removed will at least motivate me to get involved with this topic. BTW I'm not an undergraduate. What a cruel thing to say. See you in the new year. -- DMcM 04:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WGee, I agree that linking to specific articles is the way to go, and leave links to socialists oranisations main pages out, I'll strip SI away for now - maybe replace with a Wiki link to a list of Socialist organizations on WP? Hmmm. --Red Deathy 08:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And sorry about repeating "undergraduate" slur! BobFromBrockley 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of fair criticism

EnglishEfternamn, you restored the phrase that says that socialists don't consider the criticism of communism to be a fair criticism, as they don't consider communism and socialism to be the same thing. Out of curiosity, is there any criticism comming from the right that socialist DO consider fair? Otherwise we could just include a statement in the intro to the effect of "Socialists do not accept any criticism of their system". This would save some typing. Dullfig 07:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

IMNSHO, criticism in criticism sections should generally be placed without rejoinder - the main text of the article essentially puts the "pro" side of the argument anyway; I'm very much against WP pages being turned into back and forth arguments. Dullfig is absolutely right that it goes without saying that socialists don't accept the criticisms, otherwise they wouldn't be socialists - including such rejection amounts to POV pushing and is unencyclopaedic and redundant.--Red Deathy 09:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Red Deathy that we should omit the socialist rebuttal. Like it or not, mainstream political scientists and historians believe that Communist states practised a form of socialism, and it is their opinion that matters most. But in order to avoid controversy between New Left socialists and the less "radical" users who edit this page, the following sentence would be best: "Opponents of socialism often criticize the human rights records of Communist states." Because it makes no comment as to whether or not Communist states actually practised socialism, readers can decide the truth for themselves, which is really the essence of WP:NPOV. -- WGee 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, RD, you just went up a notch on my respect-o-meter :-) It's nice to see there's some inteligent life on the left. Dullfig 02:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto! Elodoth 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert was necessary

The old version of the article (that posted by the anonymous user) was extraordinarily biased. Simply read the introduction and you'll understand why a revert was necessary. Prime example: "Socialists hold that capitalism is an illegitimate economic system, since it allows far too much human freedom and serves the interests of the wealthy and allegedly exploits an unlucky minority of the population. As such, they wish to replace it completely or at least make substantial modifications to it, in order to create a more just society that would enforce hard work, guarantee a certain basic standard of living, and extend mediocrity and uniform outcome and success to all[3] [4]

Socialist theory is diverse, and there is no single body of thought that is universally shared by all socialists. Rather, different socialist ideologies have arrived at similar conclusions by different paths. However, there are some common themes. One such theme is the idea that humans are inherently stupid animals which cannot be allowed to roam free, for risk that some people may achieve more than others. See tall poppy syndrome.[5]."

Along with the picture Saddam Hussein right at the top, every picture was negative, showing Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jung Il. No pictures of Marx, Lenin, or any other major socialist thinker. So, in order to eliminate a severe case of vandalism, I reverted the page to the newest version which did not appear to contain vandalism. Nanite1018 19:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a serial vandal, see WP:LTA#The_Middle_East_Conflict_Man. You don't need to explain, just revert him. I've blocked the IP for another 6 months (he's only able to edit because previous blocks expired). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to play the devil's advocate here, it is difficult to find pictures of socialists that are actually positive. Come to think of it, I can't name one :-) (it's a joke, lighten up) -- Dullfig 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not just pictures, Dullfig, but historically as well. There have been no success stories for any nation that practiced socialist doctrines. Unless, of course, someone would like to argue this politely. Jcchat66 20:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sadaam? what?

Why is that Picture of Sadaam Hussein relevant at all to Socialism? Ok so he was in charge of the Baath party but it seems a little unnessary and maybe a little biased since it adds how many people he killed. I dont think that Picture belongs there.

Please see section above this one. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)