Talk:Socialism/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10

←

Archive 12

→

Lead

Large part of the definition in the lead is based on POV sources that are not identified as such. Article's definition of socialism should not be based on definition that comes from World Socialist Party or Socialist International but on academic sources. -- Vision Thing -- 20:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but we need to avoid giving undue weight to POV sources - there will be a lot out there, and we'll need to sort the wheat from the chaff - ISTR I sourced from the SI many moons ago to avoid the POV of a rrrrrevolutionary editor. I'll have a think on for 3rd party sources, but we will need some sort of consensus before we make the change, IMNSHO.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I will also add suggestions on talk first. -- Vision Thing --

etymology, earliest known use of socialist

The word appears next to the words empire, republic, and feudalism, 1744. Introductio ad ius publicum imperii Romano-Germanici By Dietrich Hermann Kemmerich, Gleditschius, 1744, page 935, last line. [1] Darkstar1st (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. This is a Latin text, not English; and the word is "socialis". I think this means simply "social". Any Latin scholars here? RolandR (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Been a long time, and am terribly rusty but if I recall it means "united" Social wa derived from two words, this was one of them. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

according to social reformer James Bailey it means socialist. [2] The word Socialism is derived from the Latin Socialis or Socialibis, signifying friendly, apt to be joined, of, or belonging to allies, confederates, or friends. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Did Marty McFly use the Deloreon to go back in time and tell this to Kemmerich? I don't understand your logic here. The piece is about the Holy Roman Empire and what is and is not within sum of powers of the Emperor's and/or Empire, in individual German States. The translation definitely does not equate to 'socialist'. Dave Dial (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar no, those words became combined to create the word socialism neither mean socialism by themselves. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

what do you think he meant by putting the word socialis opposite feudalism? Socialism: a summary and interpretation of socialist principles, page 9 [3] I refer not merely to its etymology, but also it's spiritual import. Derived from the Latin word, socius, meaning a comrade. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The OED etymology page does suggest a Latin link, but gives the following quote: "Fact without Fallacy 41 A very slender vocabulary enables the savage to transact the business of life. Voluminous dictionaries enable the socialist to misinterpret the transactions of his neighbour." 1793 - they give the definition being used there as "†1. A person who lives in (civilized) society. Obs. rare." --Red Deathy (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"derived from" is not the same thing as "means". Socialism derives from the latin root. That does not mean the translation of the root word means socialism. It does not. For example, the auto in automobile is derived from the Greek autos. However, that does not mean the Greek "autos" means "car". Derivation is a one way street, it is not backwards compatible. 204.65.34.23 (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

External links to party sites

Under External links, an IP editor added a link to one British party's website and definition of socialism. I was about to revert this as inappropriate when I noticed that there were several more such links. I do not think that these are appropriate here. There are very many socialist parties around the world, many of which put their definition of, and an introduction to, socialism on websites. It would be invidious to link to some of these but not others; and this article is not List of definitions of socialism. So I have removed all such links that I could find, leaving only (as far as I am aware), non-party and non-sectarian links. I am concerned that including party links would risk turning this article into a bear garden, with different groups parading their differences and belittling others. This might be entertaining to some political train-spotters, but would not help Wikipedia readers to understand the subject. RolandR (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Links to party websites should appear in their party's articles, but selecting individual sites for inclusion violates WP:EL. TFD (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Definition

According to the introduction socialism is "an economic system in which the means of production are commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system". This seems to me to be a very narrow definition. According to this a political party would only be socialist if it was supporting the total abolition of capitalism. In reality it is possible to support many degrees of state involvement in the economy without necessarily wanting a planned economy. Many parties left of social democratic parties calling themselves socialist in practice supports a mixed economy, but one that would imply much more capital control than in the present-day world-economy. This is, as far as I can see, also the sort of policies that e.g. Attac is supporting. --Oddeivind (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In the introduction, the author makes an incorrect statement regarding the distribution of wealth. In the introduction it says "distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit/individual contribution." The source used is Critique of the Gotha Program, which is a letter written by Marx. Marx supported distribution of wealth according to need, while the former system is a stepping stone to the more advanced system. "The Critique is also notable for elucidating the principle of "To each according to his contribution" as the basis for a "lower phase" of communist society directly following the transition from capitalism, and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as the basis for a future "higher phase" of communism society." Tequila guerrilla (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Oddeivind, you are confusing core beliefs with policies, the difference between what is ideal in the distant future and what is best in the present. The definition of socialism btw does not require either state involvement in the economy or a planned economy. TFD (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

How then would you describe someone who supports a mixed economy, but one that was based on a much more controlled capitalism than we have at the present. If the property should be commonly owned, that would mean that some sort of institution should control it, at least if the collective was quite large (which I assume is the point, otherwise it would approach capitalism). By the way, Teqila guerilla is right. In the second paragraph we read: "Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit/individual contribution". Clearly this is the definition of classical liberalism rather than socialism. --Oddeivind (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The definition of socialism btw does not require either state involvement in the economy or a planned economy, what is your specific source for this definition? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I am commenting on the definition provided in this article which was quoted at the top of this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oddeivind, there is no contradiction in socialists sharing some principles with other ideologies. Also, we actually live in a mixed economy already, but that does not mean that we are all socialists. And whether or not socialism would ever be viable is irrelevant to whether or not there are socialists. TFD (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

First, about the second paragraph: "Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit/individual contribution". Is not the point with socialism rather that goods and services are not distributed through markets? This brings me back to my first point (and I might seem to contradict myself to some extent here), whether it is possible to be a socialist without nessecarily supporting the total abolition of capitalism (and then also markets). As far as I understand markets are typical for capitalism, but not for socialism, but that it is possible to be a socialist without nessecarily wanting a total abolition of capitalism. My point is that one might look at socialism and capitalism as a question of degrees, where the end points could be seen as ideal typical (in Max Weber´s meaning of the word) versions of socialism and capitalism. I hope I have not been to unclear above. So, to take an example, what about a person who would support a nationalization of banks, but not necessarily of all industry. This would still be a mixed economy, but one that was much more left-wing than any present Western countries. Would such a view qualify as being socialist? --Oddeivind (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at the introduction to the Norwegian bokmål version of Wikipedia. I noticed that it had a more "open" definition than here on the English version. I translated it into English and my translation follows here: "Socialism is a political ideology that emphasizes economic equality. Proponents of socialism see increased state involvement in the economy as a means to achieve justice. Socialism promotes an optimistic view of the possibility of political control of the economy, but are wary of private business interests and profit motives. Supporters of socialism, in contrast to the supporters of capitalism and liberalism have a negative view of free markets, because they consider them to create untenable distinctions between rich and poor". --Oddeivind (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That mightn't sit well with some mutualists, who oppose state intervention or political control of economies and support free markets, but consider themselves socialists. There are free-market socialists and anti-government socialists, so that lede is not more inclusive of different types of socialism; if anything, it excludes historical and radical socialists in favour of democratic socialists/social democrats. The most common definition of socialism throughout history relates to the control of the means of production, not to trade or planned economies. In fact, this is mostly discussed in the lede anyway, which distinguishes but includes social democrats, Marxist-Leninists, non-Leninist Marxists and anarchists. I see no reason to change this structure. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 13:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand you. Free market socialists supporting common ownership? By the way, what about the famous statement: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? --Oddeivind (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I may have been unclear: The proposition relates to control of the means of production, not to restricting trade or ownership of property per se (this is also confused by varying definitions of property), and not to planned economies. Both are techniques of democratising control of the means of production in a way, but are not the only ways envisaged by socialists. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 10:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I second the argument that the given definition in the article is too narrow. Socialism should be categorized under "political ideologies" because it adresses a form of society, where it carries economic, political and social traits. Especially under the light of "mixed economies", the definitions of the major political ideologies should be more precise. 194.55.1.242 (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between the socialist belief system and policies advocated to achieve those objectives. See for example To each according to his contribution. Lenin wrote, "he who does not work, neither shall he eat", which strangely was repeated by Michelle Bachmann at the Republican convention. TFD (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This thread is brushing up against WP:NOTFORUM. Can we keep discussion focused on what (if anything) can be done to improve the article? causa sui (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The question is the definition, whether it covers the topic or not. --Oddeivind (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There are so many misconceptions about socialism. Including misconceptions about claims of continuity in socialism. There is an argument going on between me, along with a few other users, versus someone who claims that socialism has always and will always involve total social ownership of the means of production. The original socialists, the Utopian Socialists, were not unanimous on that. Utopian Socialist Charles Fourier supported private ownership. What the Utopian Socialists did agree on was that there needed to be rules on private ownership and that capitalists should not be able to dictate economic policy. Orthodox Marxist interpretations of total social ownership of the means of production as being the definition of socialism have been challenged. I believe the Greenwood Encyclopedia has the widest and most applicable definition of socialism, it states that socialism is "an economic and political theory or system which advocates heavy regulation of economic and political affairs with the fundamental aims of more equality in wealth distribution and ending class distinctions and privileges." It goes on to say "Few if any modern socialists entirely reject private property." [4]. This challenges orthodox Marxist hostility to private property that is not necessarily supported by all socialists, as can be demonstrated in the case of utopian socialists.--R-41 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The page is no longer available on Google books. But this source. Political ideas in modern Britain explains it differently. "Socialism, it had been insisted by some of its defenders... was inseparable from common ownership.... [Socialism was defined as] public ownership under the control of the state." But that does not exclude other, broader definitions of socialism." Even then "public ownership" can have a variety of meanings. TFD (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue that has arise on the talk page of Social democracy is that a user claims that because social democracy supports a mixed economy rather than a completely socially-owned economy that it is not socialist. But the utopian socialist Charles Fourier, one of the major original socialists, supported private ownership provided that rules be put on it. I agree that since the arrival of Karl Marx, social ownership over the means of production has become a major theme of socialism influenced by Marxism. But Fourier, one of the original socialists, defended private ownership. Plus that British political encyclopedia's interpretation of socialism as public ownership "under the state" would exclude every anarchist socialism. The opening sentence of the Greenwood Encyclopedia has a very widely applicable definition of socialism. It's definition can apply to Fourier's utopian socialism, whereas the Oxford Dictionary's definition that emphasizes social ownership over the means of production as being the catch-all definition of socialism cannot be applied to Fourier's utopian socialism.--R-41 (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Socialism may include private ownership. TFD (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for the introduction's definition of socialism

I have re-written the intro of this article in a rough draft to replace the current intro. I have removed the inaccurate assertion that socialism requires complete social ownership over the means of production, and added material that shows a diversity of positions on property ownership. It describes socialism in a broad scope. Also, the rough fraft intro I have made uses more neutral sources and more sources in general. The rough draft I've made for the proposed new intro to this article is located here: User:R-41/my sandbox4/Socialism.--R-41 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Your first reference is from an explanation in Greenwood Encyclopedia? I think the current article is much more accurate. Your definition sounds more like social democracy. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the first reference is paraphrasing the definition in the Greenwood Encyclopedia. It is a broad definition of socialism. Social ownership is not a necessity for socialism, and this is not only an issue of social democracy, of the original socialist leaders - the utopian socialist Fourier did not support social ownership and supported private ownership and Saint-Simon did not support complete social ownership and accepted private ownership, mutualist socialist and anarchist Proudhon did not support complete social ownership he accepted private ownership all three accepted socially regulated private ownership.--R-41 (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members." from the Encyclopædia Britannica

Although you refer to the French anarchist tradition, you may be influenced mainly by Socialism as filtered through the eyes of the English speaking (non-marxist/USA) socialist tradition. This is quite an isolated empirical tradition, now abandonned by the UK Labour Party almost entirely.

Internationally, Socialism has been focused around Marxism (scientific socialism) in various forms for a century and a half, and half the world has been labeled socialist (rightly and/or wrongly) for a good 70 years of that time (wrongly in relation to its political system, rightly in regard to the fact that capitalism had been expropriated and there was social owbership and a plan of production). Once Marx conquered socialism scientifically on the continent of Europe, almost all traditions flowed through these thoughts.

The major assertions made in the article could easily be backed up (and should be, you are right), and many follow typical encyclopeadia definitions which are considered uncontroversial, as quoted above. Andysoh (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We should not be using primary and tertiary sources, but should use good secondary sources, e.g., upper year political science textbooks. TFD (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Andysoh, your argument assumes that Marxian socialism is the natural form of socialism. This excludes all other forms of socialism. As I included, the original socialists, the utopian socialists were divided on the issue of private property, the utopian socialists Fourier and Saint-Simon accepted private property while Owen opposed private property - also, to your point that what I proposed is biased towards English reformist socialism - Fourier and Saint-Simon were of course French socialists who supported autonomous utopian phalanx communities - very different from mainstream English reformist socialism. The original utopian socialists are an important example of socialism because of course they were the recognized original socialists. The idea that Marx "conquered socialism" is not a valid argument, there have been many significant non-Marxist socialist movements both present and historical, such as anarchist socialists, Christian socialists in Europe and South America, there is Arab socialism that was historically a strong movement that is non-Marxist, and others. The source that I provided for the first sentence of the proposed new intro is from a reputable encyclopedia and this source is wide in scope to account for a variety of forms of socialism.--R-41 (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As for your comment TFD, there are a number of scholarly secondary sources included in the proposed new intro - particularly on the division of the original socialists' (utopians) division on the issue of private property.--R-41 (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is another prominent example of socialism not conforming to the Marxist definition of socialism as requiring social ownership over the means of production. It is the official conception of Arab socialism as promoted in Egypt under the Nasser government: it states that "the people should control the means of production" but states that public control "does not necessarily require the nationalization of all means of production, the abolition of private property, or encroachment upon the legitimate right to inheritance following therefrom".[5]. Nasserist Arab socialism also states that it supports a planned economy that would have a public sector that would be supported by the "continued existence of a private sector that would, without exploitation, participate in the development within the framework of its overall plan".[6]--R-41 (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, new sources that are being added, have included www.marxists.org on issues such as Anarchism - marxists.org is a political advocacy website that is dedicated to promoting a cause, as well as anarchist political advocacy websites are self-published sources and unreliable sources. Currently this article is so poorly written with few references and unreliable references that I seriously stress that it is in desperate need of a total rewrite, as this article as of me writing this is one of the worst and poorest quality articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Marxists.org isn't an advocacy site, but is an archive of Marxist writers, so it is chiefly a primary source resource on what particular Marxists may have said.--Red Deathy (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

We need to rely on secondary sources by scholars, not primary sources - using primary sources for a Wikipedia article typically is original research unless it is a direct quote of what a person said. Even so, it is better to reference the original source than a third-party website.--R-41 (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made a new draft for the intro for this article, I have addressed issues held with the original first sentence by removing it and having a new first sentence. It states that all socialists call for social control over the means of production and states that the forms of social control vary amongst different socialist movements, from instituting complete social ownership over the means of production, to regulations over the means of production, to the creation of a socialist form of private ownership. It mentions specific examples of the variations of socialist movements' position on private ownership. See here for the new draft: User:R-41/my sandbox4/Socialism.--R-41 (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What about socialists who support private ownership? Tony Blair, David Lange, modern China? TFD (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The definition in the new draft of the proposed intro states that socialists want social control over the means of production. It goes on to state that the forms of social control can vary, from social control through complete social ownership as advocated by Marxists, to social control through regulation of the economy and prevention of establishment of oligarchies as advocated by social democrats, to social control through the creation of a socialist form of private property - as advocated by modern social democrats, as well as Proudhonist anarchists who accepted private property though opposed capitalist private property, and perhaps in the case you mentioned China's economy - China has huge regulation over the economy and property but also accepts private property now within the context of its policy Socialism with Chinese characteristics. I should mention that the Soviet Union in its later years supported a socialist form of private property. But as I said, the issues you have mentioned are addressed in the new draft of the proposed intro.--R-41 (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's another definition:

SOCIALISM, an economic philosophy and political movement which aims to achieve a just, classless society through public ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution of goods. Within this framework it has many forms, the principal two of which are, in common usage, social democratic ("reformist") and revolutionary.<reference>The New American Desk Encyclopedia. Signet. Fourth Edition. 1997. Pg. 1191.</reference end>

R-41 seems to be attempting to re-invent what socialism means. He's obviously very capable of doing research but this is an issue of weight which is where the problem is. It's my opinion that most people don't share his definition of socialism. I could probably find another five explanations of socialism similar to the one I provided above which would mean that this is the common understanding and should carry the most weight. Let's wait for some other editors to provide alternatively sourced definitions. This is an important article and should be as close to accurate as possible. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not reinventing what socialism means, I provided multiple sources to verify that there are variations amongst socialists' stance on private ownership, this cannot be denied. It is not only me who is addressing this either, TFD has brought up examples of socialists who have supported private property. The original socialists were divided on private ownership, two leading figures - Fourier and Saint-Simon (who created the very term "socialism") supported the continued existence of private property; the anarchist figure Proudhon supported a socialist private property and attacked Marxism for what he perceived was its unjust attack on the very concept of private property rather than the capitalist form of private property; social democrats have supported a mixed economy of public and private property, Christian socialists have supported private property; Arab socialism has suported private property; and as I and TFD have pointed out - Marxist-Leninist states such as the Soviet Union and China eventually supported private property in the context of a socialist economy. As for the issue of weight: bear in mind as I said earlier that Saint-Simon created the term "socialisme" to describe the ideology that he supported and he accepted private ownership. Also in regards to weight, as Somedifferentstuff knows from the social democracy article, that social democrats declare themselves to be socialists, and they accept private property, so that is a major challenge to the assertion that weight is favoured in support of a Marxian-leaning definition that socialism requires social ownership. Plus the first source is makes it clear that the issue is social control over the means of production that is the main issue held common by socialists. Many encyclopedias just transpose the Marxist definition of socialism as being the definition of socialism itself - this ignores non-Marxist socialism; there is an article Socialism (Marxism) for Marxian definition of socialism that advocates complete social ownership over the means of production.--R-41 (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Socialism is a complex ideology with many variations that is highly difficult to define as a whole. I have found a source by famed sociologist Émile Durkheim on the topic of socialism on Google Books, Durkheim states that many of the common definitions given for socialism are either inaccurate, hypocritical, limited, or too broad. The author criticizes those who simply define socialism as the "negation of private property".[7] The author mentions a "M. Janet" in page 2 of Janet's book Origines de socialisme that asserts that socialism as a whole "has not violated the principle of private property".[8]. Durkheim considers this to be too extreme in the other direction as it contradicts other socialists. Durkheim makes a distinction between communism and socialism as a whole and is critical of a hypocritical point of communism regarding inheritance - as inheritance has been historically a communal concept, and as socialists generally oppose inheritance, he finds communism's root call of communal life as holding some non-socialist heritage. I think Durkheim might be stretching it a bit to connect communism with communal inheritance ideals, but overall the book is very cautiously and meticulously written. Here is a quote from Durkheim on socialism in relation to private property, it is quite detailed (the "[...]" are my additions to focus on the key issues):

[...] far from denying the principle of individual property, socialism, not without reason, can claim that it is the most complete, the most radical, affirmation of it that has ever been made. In fact, the opposite of private property is communism; but there still is in our present institutions a vestige of old familial communism—that is inheritance[...] But one of the propositions that which appears most often in socialist theories is the abolition of inheritance. Such a reform would have the effect of freeing the institution of private property of all communist alloy, as a consequence rendering it more truly itself. In other words, one can reason thus: in order that property may be said to be truly individual, it is necessary that it be the work of the individual himself and of him alone[...] Private property, one can say, is that which begins with the individual and ends with him; but what he receives by the right of succession existed before him and was made without him. In presenting this reasoning, I do not intend to defend the socialist thesis, but to show that there are some communist doctrines among its adversaries, and consequently it is not through this that it is possible to define socialism. Émile Durkheim. Socialism and Saint-Simon. London, England: Routledge & Kenan, Ltd., 1959. Page 13 (Translated from French, originally titled: Le Socialisme, first published in 1928).--R-41 (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are using tertiary sources, primary sources and arguments to develop a definition, when we should rely on an upper year political science textbook. TFD (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

TFD, you wish for a political science textbook to be used as you assume that they will be accurate: but here is one with an extremely poor and limited definition of socialism, it says that socialism "Socialism often contrasted with capitalism, advocates state ownership of the means of production" [9] and then awkwardly mentions that there are many varieties of socialism - but on the assumption that they follow this definition that necessitates state ownership - this completely ignores anarchist socialism, and forms of socialism that advocate decentralized cooperatives, and as mentioned forms of socialism such as Saint-Simonian and Fourierist utopian socialism, original socialists that supported a form of private ownership. In contrast, the bolded quote above that I showed you is from a source written by a very reputable scholar, Émile Durkheim - the famous sociologist, and the book is a book about socialism. It represents a serious academic viewpoint on socialism. Durkheim in the book directly refutes the common generalization that socialism naturally negates private property by showing that claim's inconsistencies. "Common" usage does not necessarily mean accurate - here's an example: many people believe that a tomato is a vegetable - even according to the documents of U.S. customs officials - even though science demonstrates that it is a fruit; another example: many books have claimed that the Great Wall of China can be seen from outer space - this is a common myth that was confirmed as a myth by China's first astronaut who reported it to be invisible from the eye from space in orbit around the earth; the point of these examples being is that common usage can be invalidated if that usage can be proven to be seriously inaccurate. In this case, the definition of socialism as contrieved by Karl Marx of a specific form of socialism that he advocated, communism, is being applied to the whole of socialism on the assumption that Marxian socialism is "true socialism", there is the article Socialism (Marxism) for Marxian socialism where such views should be considered. But in this article, there is clear evidence presented by multiple scholars that Saint-Simon - the founder of the term socialism, supported private ownership. Secondly there are multiple major examples of socialists supporting a form of private ownership - ranging from Proudhonist anarchism, to social democracy, to Arab socialism - these are included as examples to back up the statement in the first paragraph by a source that states that socialists support social control over the means of production, though the methods of doing so vary. I don't see a problem with a tertiary source if it can be backed up with evidence by suplementary sources, I don't believe there is any Wikipedia policy against tertiary sources.--R-41 (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You're not grasping the concept of weight. Let's wait to hear from some more editors. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I've looked up the Wikipedia concept of weight to clarify what it means. So the issue is that there are many who regard social ownership of the means of production as the key component of socialism and you are asserting that alternative views are a small minority, and thus do not deserve equal weight. Social ownership may be applicable if the definition of social ownership can account for the existence of substantial private property in a socialist economy as accepted by multiple socialist movements as I have mention such as Saint-Simonian and Fourierist socialism, Proudhonist anarchism, Arab Socialism, Chinese Market Socialism, etc. that accept private property. The Wikipedia article "Socialization" currently defines social ownership as "socialization" and claims "Socialization has also been used to refer to social ownership, a form of ownership distinct from employee-owned cooperatives, public-ownership and private-ownership". I think this definition on Wikipedia of socialization is extremely flawed, it excludes multiple socialist groups, including state socialism, socialists who promote cooperatives, etc.--R-41 (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

R-41, I clearly said "we should rely on an upper year political science textbook" and you then submitted a quote from a first year polisci textbook. BTW can you please keep your replies short. TFD (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of using polisci textbooks. Maybe if we can find 3 or 4 (on google books) and then come up with a general definition. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If the textbook is reliable. TFD is opposed to using tertiary sources but supports an upper level textbook definition - which is a tertiary source. Also, be warned as the quote I provided from Durkheim pointed out - there are many commonly given definitions of socialism such as the idea that socialism is opposed to private property, that are woefully inadequate and hypocritical with the history of application of socialism.--R-41 (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No, an upper-level political science textbook is a secondary source. See WP:TERTIARY: "Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources." Upper year textbooks have undergone more rigorous fact-checking, often chapters have already been published in peer-reviewed journals, one may distinguish between opinions that are those of the author or are generally accepted, the use of footnotes and the fact that the book has entered the academic mainstream allow us to weigh the opinions presented. If there are different definitions of socialism then a good source will explain that. TFD (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find a specifically upper-year political science textbook, but this is a textbook with a wide definition of socialism: [10]. Perhaps finding a upper level source with a broad definition such as this would be acceptable.--R-41 (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, I am getting pretty tired of all the criticisms of the sources I have proposed when no one is presenting an alternative. I've searched for an upper level political science textbook and have not found one. TFD - you proposed the idea, it's your responsibility to present such an upper level political science textbook source that you are demanding. Otherwise your proposal will become moot.--R-41 (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Key concepts in politics is an introductory textbook. It is up to you to find sources to support changes you wish to make. Ask yourself if when you write your PhD thesis you would rely on a book written to introduce a topic to first year students that did not have footnotes or explain differences in opinions among scholars. TFD (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It is easy to criticize, it is harder to make something. I told you that I have searched and have not found any available upper level sources, the current article is very badly sourced, it includes sources throughout it that are from third party websites, including anarchist political advocacy websites, it needs to be re-written. You are demanding that an upper level political science textbook source for the definition of socialism is necessary, I took your request and cannot find one - so take up the responsibility for your demand and find it so that this article can be improved.--R-41 (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC) yourself.--R-41 (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The definition is discussed in the introduction to the Historical dictionary of socialism, pp. 1-3.[11] That sources says there is no agreed definition but explains different approaches that have been taken. I suggest we follow that example. TFD (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that we should have a statement that says there is no agreed definition, that is like saying "there is no agreed common definition of what a bird is but there is such a thing as a bird", the reality is that there are basic common characteristics, amidst a vast array of variations in other areas, that combine to form an entity or idea. In the case of socialism I have found from the same source you have proposed to use, The Historical Dictionary of Socialism, that I have used for the first sentence of the proposed intro that that states that socialism "is an economic and political ideology or system that advocates the creation of a society based on cooperation, social justice, and social responsibility with an economy based upon social control over the means of production, distribution and exchange." As derived from information from pages 1-2, and 388. Based on information on page 70 of that same source, I also have included in the proposed intro that "The methods of social control over the means of production and the degree of control vary among socialist movements". This demonstrates that there are basic common threads within socialism but that there are differences between socialists on the methods to achieve them.--R-41 (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Birds are defined as part of a family and while there are common characteristics, none of these define what a bird is. For example although all existing species of birds have wings, the Moa did not, but was still a bird. The common characterists are based on observation rather than an a priori definition. Socialism too is a political family, but its boundaries are not clear. TFD (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course there are examples of extreme deviations from the norm - especially in early examples of something's existence that has evolved since then. An example of a deviation in early socialism was that the original utopian socialists Fourier and Saint-Simon accepted hierarchy - but they believed that there were socially just hierarchies and socially injust hierarchies (i.e. in their view capitalist society). However socialism has evolved to include advocacy of greater equality as a very strong issue. The definition in the proposed intro I made includes material from the Historical Dictionary of Socialism that I have paraphrased that socialism "is an economic and political ideology or system that advocates the creation of a society based on cooperation, social justice, and social responsibility with an economy based upon social control over the means of production, distribution and exchange." I agree with you though, that beyond this definition and a few other issues, that socialism is divided into multiple forms.--R-41 (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say that that is the definition of socialism, merely that those were common features of earlier definitions and even then you exaggerate the description. You can find one definition you like then argue with other editors who can find alternative definitions. Or you can accurately report how the source describes opinions about how socialism has been defined. TFD (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well then, can we at least have an intro that says "Socialism is an economic and political ideology or system that advocates a society based on cooperation, social justice, and social responsibility with an economy based upon social control over the means of production, distribution and exchange. Beyond these issues there are many differing definitions of socialism." Perhaps also a sentence included that says that socialism is opposed to capitalism, but beyond these issues, it would agree that there are many differing definitions. The different definitions can be put in a "Definitions" section of the article.--R-41 (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You are not following the points I have made. The source says there is no agreed definition of socialism and it would be wrong for us to claim there was, and a distortion of the source used. TFD (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that we can not even provide a sentence that is sourced from the Historical Dictionary of Socialism that speaks of basic tenets held by socialists? So according to you, all that we can have an article that could say "There is no agreed upon definition of socialism. There is no agreement on its basic tenets. There is no agreement on its objectives. But here are multiple definitions, bearing in mind that there are no common basic tenets between them. The end." That doesn't make any logical sense - of course there are basic tenets held between socialists and the Historical Dictionary of Socialism states them as I paraphrased these basic tenets: (1) advocacy of a society based on cooperation, social justice, and social responsibility; (2) advocacy of an economy based upon social control over the means of production, distribution, and control; and (3) opposition to capitalism for allegedly causing social injustice. After stating these basic tenets, then we should state that "beyond these basic tenets there is no commonly agreed upon definition of socialism".--R-41 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say there are basic tenets. You are not even correctly phrasing them. The book does not say "advocacy of an economy based upon social control over the means of production, distribution, and control", but "there was a general view that the solution to these problems lay in some form of collective control (with the degree of control varying among the proponents of socialism) over the means of production, distribution and exchange". TFD (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What I was doing is called paraphrasing, rather than just grabbing the quote and using it verbatim. That paraphrasing of the text is what I am proposing for the article. But yes, the quote from the text is what I am talking about. Call it what you will, basic tenets, or elements, or whatever, you now see for yourself that there are points commonly advocated by socialists and that is what should be put in the intro, followed by a statement that beyond support of these issues there is no commonly agreed-upon definition of socialism.--R-41 (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The source was reviewing descriptions of socialism in 1924, and never claimed that these are basic elements. TFD (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is from 1924 or any year, it has been included in a modern source that deems it to be relevant to mention, and does the 1924 source's description of socialism - even if it is not a definition of socialism - seem accurate? If the 1924 source is not describing the basic themes of socialism what else could it possibly be describing? Is it just saying meaningless jibberish then?! I doubt it. I simply can't understand why we can say nothing about socialism's basic themes - that's defeatist - and by that defeatist approach, it could be argued that we might as well shut down the whole article or turn it into a disambiguation page to direct to various ideologies titled "socialism" on the basis that "there is no commonly accepted definition of socialism, therefore there is no agreement on what socialism is, and therefore there is no way to confirm if an actual ideology of socialism even exists, but it has been used to define any of these ideologies:...". That appears to be the only option left, considering that you will not accept a basic description of traits of socialism. We need a basic description of the basics of socialism - that does not need to be an indepth definition - in the intro, if you will not accept anything that I have put forward, then it is time for you to present something that can be put in the intro.--R-41 (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

He is explaining early attempts to define socialism, then introduces a modern one which you for some reason overlook. He does this among other things to demonstrate that there is no agreed definition of socialism. To use his writing to back up your personal definition is plain wrong. Any I have explained all of this to you several times and if you are unwilling to accept my points then this conversation is futile. TFD (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I have run out of sources to use that you will accept. I am not developing a personal definition of socialism, the 1924 source that the author noted presented an overall description of socialism. You say that he had a modern definition, what is his modern description then? Plus, as I said, improving this article does not simply require one person to present ideas, and another person to criticize. I am willing to accept your points, if you are willing to cooperate and recognize inconsistencies in your efforts, as I have recognized in mine. You have become defeatist on this topic, maybe you are worn out, I don't know, but it is reasonable for this article to have a basic description of socialism. I presented some sources for such a description, even if it is not a definition. Saying that there is "no agreement" on what socialism is, is almost reductio ad absurdum, in that that argument could go on to say that socialism in effect does not exist because there is no common beliefs or stances held by socialists, it is ignoring that while there is no common comphrensive definition, there have been things in common: such as opposition to capitalism on the grounds that it produces economic inequity, and advocacy of some form of social control or ownership over the means of production. Please, let's work together to find a basic description of socialism and spend less time being overly critical, I am frustrated because I don't know where else to look now, so I am opening the task to you to find a source that can account for basic commonalities of socialism.--R-41 (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, TFD, now that I have looked again at the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, on page one it says that "socialism eludes simple definition", it does not say that definition is impossible. Plus the author notes that the 1924 source included forty different definitions of socialism that it analyzed to produce what it deemed the "common elements" of socialism, aka the basic themes that I mentioned. But he does include two modern sources, by Freeden and Parekh that focus on describing five themes (in the case of Parekh four plus Freeden's additional theme) of socialism. Forgive me for this excessively these long posts, I deemed them necessary to reorganize and restart the discussion.--R-41 (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Tagging

Stubbing this for the process as there doesn't seem to be one, if it's just a crank defacing the article, the tags should be removed. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The stubbing is excessive and nitpicking on a particular issue. More citations might be needed, but some of the deleted but obvious content on the subject should be restored and the dubious tag removed from the definition of socialism. The concerns are simply those of a crank trying to push his PoV. 24.80.229.76 (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Right the social process that is wikipedia carries an implicitly fundamental and explicitly codified requirement for such actions to be constructive of the creation of better articles. If there's no comment explaining the connection of the tags to that process, I'll remove the tags (as Lycurgus). I think there should be a standing committee with open membership to any registered editor to rewrite and maintain the lede. Lede rewrites are sort of my specialty so happy to participate if I can. BTW, my input on topic in thread(s) above in the archives. Suggest that the current lede and the heavily tagged current "Philosophy" section be input to that and the latter be eliminated or completely redacted. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the discussion above this section, in the section that calls new proposal for the intro, I presented the dubious point, I am not a "crank", I have presented multiple sources on this issue that demonstrate that socialism does not require complete direct social ownership of the means of production as is the orthodox Marxist position, the original utopian socialist leadership figures including Saint-Simon and Fourier accepted private property, anarchist and mutualist socialist Proudhon attacked communism for opposing private property in itself, and supported a socialist private property, then there are social democrats, and others. Look at the discussion above.--R-41 (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the archives of talk and the start of this thread, my involvement with this article, mostly in the community discussion goes back 4-5 years. It appears you are pushing the POV you state, and which I've glossed over without taking an impression of it, which is fine, that's what the community process is about. However none of the this POV haggling is directly germane (SFAICT) to either the current multiple issue tag content or (from first principles) the lede rewrite, whose result need not push either the position you just stated or the (presumably extant) opposing POV. Also there's a broken cite, but today's my birthday and I'm not cleaning up anybody else's mess :) Lycurgus (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The article currently has a definition that limits the definition of socialism to exclude Proudhonian anarchism, utopian socialism, and social democracy, among others. The current article has a POV, it does not present a full broad picture of socialism but a POV tending to a Marxian definition of socialism or capitalists' criticical definition of socialism that focuses on the Marxian version, that requires that socialism must involve complete social ownership of the means of production, when as the above examples of Proudhonian anarchism, utopian socialism, and social democracy have shown that socialists have not always advocated social ownership - but they have advocated social control - it does not necessarily have to come from ownership but from regulation to create social control. We have discussed the inclusion of material from the Historical Dictionary of Socialism that has a broad description of socialism that emphasizes social control over the means of production.--R-41 (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

My POV is clear from my POV page and the Length and Semantics thread at the start of the Archive, but not advancing it. Rather suggest that some principles be established and with a sufficient time for them to gain consensus and then apply them, just focusing on the lede. Of course don't mean that this process would not be subject to review, an additional principle added and then the lede redacted accordingly should the occasion arise but this task been milling for years without resolution or the apparent hope of one. I think there's probably talk header tools that could support such a process. Lycurgus (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

For one, nowhere does the definition of socialism given in the lede state that socialism means the “abolishment” of private property. All it says is that the means of production be socially owned while saying nothing of how this arrangement needs to come about and nothing about restricting private property. This is just a general definition; in practice realistic socialism may entail a degree of private ownership alongside a largely socialized/nationalized economy in the same way realistic capitalism entails a degree of social ownership within the framework of a largely private economy. Furthermore, social ownership is not exclusive to the “orthodox Marxist” position – Robert Owen and even Proudhon advocated for cooperatives of some sort in place of private enterprise. The wikipedia page on Proudhon states this much: “Proudhon favored workers' associations or co-operatives, as well as individual worker/peasant possession, over private ownership or the nationalization of land and workplaces.” I fail to see how the current description excludes mutualism, market socialism and traditional (Kautskyist / Bernstein / Luxembourgist) social democracy...unless you consider contemporary Sweden to be a shining example of “social democracy”. Battlecry (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

We have gone over this issue many times in the intro above. Proudhon supported private property in housing, retailing, and other areas provided that it was open to all people. He supported community ownership in a number of areas and a socialistic private ownership in others, but rejected the Marxian notion of abolition of private property. Now as for the the issue is the meaning of social ownership. This is the key issue, the Wikipedia article on socialization has a vague intro on it, suggesting that cooperative ownership and public ownership are not social ownership. So what is social ownership precisely, does it require direct ownership of the property of the means of production or does it require social control through either ownership or regulation of the means of production? Please give a response, because it is currently confusing to me considering what is said on the Wikipedia article on Socialization.--R-41 (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Socialization and social ownership are ambiguous phrases meaning different things in economic literature. The reason I used it to define socialism in this article is because it is inclusive enough in its definition to encompass anything from market-based cooperatives to complete state ownership. It is also true that some socialist economists, such as Pat Devine, have defined social ownership to mean something more precise and slightly different than public or employee-ownership, and the article on socialization should mention this definition while also acknowledging that other scholars and economists have used it in reference to to employee-ownership or state-ownership. The article on social ownership can be modified to clarify these conceptual differences.Battlecry (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Means of production/Private property

One of the main components of capitalism has to do with the private ownership of the means of production. The opening paragraph of this article needs to address the socialist view on this. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. One should be careful in drawing the distinction between the economic system of socialism and the various political philosophies held by different socialists. The opening paragraph defines socialism as a system, while the later paragraphs should address the other aspects of socialism, such as the philosophy held by specific socialist political groups. As for your suggestion, the third paragraph in the lead already mentions the socialist critique of private property: "Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society." Battlecry (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm patiently drawing your attention back to the matter of establishing principles by which you can resolve this first. By principles, I mean, such determinations as the overall length of the lede, relations of the treatment to that of other concepts such as Capitalism in their articles, etc. It may be that having a seemly process to resolve the article content is a hopeless cause but perhaps you can give it a try. Know that no particular POV, especially a sophomoric or contentious one, is going to long prevail. Only such a process is going to ever establish stable content here. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue of the inclusion of social ownership involves what the definition of social ownership is. Does social ownership require direct ownership of the property of the means of production, or can it include indirect ownership through overarching regulations over the economy? If social ownership requires direct ownership of the property of the means of production, then it is not able to be ascribed to all socialists, for example utopian socialist Charles Fourier completely supported private property rights and Henri de Saint Simon issued no statements against private ownership itself, both supported social control of the means of production through community regulation over the means of production.--R-41 (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please explain community regulation. If I own 10 factories in my town and have hundreds of workers, how does community regulation make this socialism. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do I have to explain and justify utopian socialism? That is the position of two prominent original socialist leaders, you are arguing with Saint-Simon and Fourier who accepted private property. This is not a forum about socialism and you are asking me a question in which my reply would be original research and thus pointless to this discussion. I have shown you the positions of two prominent socialist figures, Fourier and Saint-Simon who advocated community regulation over the means of production. There are other examples that disprove your point, as I have mentioned elsewhere there are socialists who advocate a socialist form of private property - such as anti-Third Way British social democrat Robert Corfe.--R-41 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"Why do I have to explain and justify utopian socialism?" This brings up a good point. This article is about socialism, not utopian socialism, which has its own article. Regarding your other info, post a link/s here and we can try and determine weight. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Utopian socialism is a form of socialism and it is the first recognized form of socialism. This article is about socialism as a whole, and certainly the original socialists have a significant role in creating socialism that should not be minimalized or ignored. If the definition cannot even account for the original socialists, how can it be supposed to be accurate. Also, as I mentioned, there are other socialists who do not hold supported direct ownership of the property of the means of production, such as anti-Third Way British social democrat Robert Corfe, who advocates a "New Socialism" that calls for the creation of a socialist form of private property, see page 20 of this source [12]. Also, China accepts a large role for private property in the economy under state supervision and regulation in what it calls Socialism with Chinese characteristics that supports "socialist private property" in the economy, see here: [13]. Nasserist Arab socialism supports social control over the means of production but states that social control does not require social ownership of all means of production and supports the existence of a private sector (See on Google Books: Sami A. Hanna, George H. Gardner. Arab socialism: A Documentary Survey. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1969. Pp. 117.). There have been Christian socialists who support a form of private property. British Christian socialists supported private property (see reference #8 at the bottom of the page 213 at this source: [14]); Catholic Bishop William Joseph Macdonald accredited Thomas Aquinas with developing a "socialized private property" that avoided "the extremes of selfish possession and violent dispossession".[15] So as you can see, there are many exceptions to the idea that socialism requires social ownership over the means of production - that is, as I have stated if the definition of social ownership requires direct ownership of the property of the means of production but excludes indirect ownership through the application of rules and regulations on the means of production by society - as the meaning of social ownership according to you appears to indicate. How can a definition of socialism be accurate if the original socialists - the utopians - are excluded, as well as other prominent forms of socialism.--R-41 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the belief that social ownership of the means of production in some way or the other was the key tenet of pretty much all early socialism. There wasn't really a distinction between socialism and communism - the title "socialism" was mainly chose as the name for the movement because "communism" had religious connotations. The philosophical basis for their argument was, of course, that the concept of property itself was unjustified, that property only existed because it was enforced by the state, and that it was simply a tool used by the upper class which inevitably lead to exploitation. The main disagreement was between those who thought that the state should direct this change (the reds) and those who thought that any form of government at all was inherently oppressive (anarchists). You shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that this was a debate between voluntarists (like the Kibbutz movement) and involuntarists (like the Bolsheviks) - although modern socialist anarchism is typically quite pacifist, anarchists of old had no bones with using violence to achieve what they wanted. It just (theoretically) wouldn't be the government doing the violence. There was also strife in the red camp between those who wanted to violently overthrow the government and those who thought that parliamentary means were enough to eventually establish a socialist state. The radical socialists who would eventually resurrect the title of "Communist" were not yet spun off from the movement. There were, of course, incredibly radical platforms by modern standards, and it tells a great deal about the times that they became so popular. After the Bolshevik revolution, the Socialists parties lost many of their more radical members to newly formed Cominterm allied parties, moderating them. Many did not drop the pretense of wishing for eventual social ownership of the means of production for a great deal of time (the SDP of Germany, for instance, didn't really drop such language until the Godesberg Program in 1959). However, when they got into power (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that any socialist government was officially formed until after WWI), they generally limited themselves to, at most, nationalizing a few key industries, and perhaps expanding the welfare state. Of course, governing a democracy is much different than being a dictator, so even if they truly wanted eventually abolish private ownership of the means of production, it wasn't practical to implement such policies. Over time, new generations emerged that largely tore down such rhetoric, and socialist parties largely just became a descriptor of the center-left. With the fall of Communism, even Communist and ex-Communist parties seem to have largely dropped such beliefs. I guess you could accuse them of deviating from the original theories, but it's not wikipedia's job to be the police of ideological purity. It has become firmly established in the popular lexicon that "socialism" means a moderate policy of promoting a welfare state and social ownership of only key industries (many socialist parties have even abandoned that, indeed, there are socialist parties that have been huge promoters of privatization), while the policy of taking control of the means of production is referred to as "communism". Although stating that socialism means taking control of the means of production could be correct in a historical sense, it's simply going to confuse any modern reader if you throw it in there without qualifications of historical context. And stating that it is the defining characteristic of all socialism is flat-out wrong. It's not wikipedia's place to take a position on whether or not modern socialism is truly socialism, and few socialist movements in the world today meet the description that wikipedia has set in its title.98.95.157.99 (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that in most of the world Socialist refers to political parties and agree with Herbert Morrison, "Socialism is what the Labour Party does". Sources I have read say that there is no agreed definition of socialism. The problem with any definition is that it will automatically exclude some members. Most of the policies typically associated with socialism today (e.g., the welfare state) are actually liberal policies that were originally opposed by socialists. TFD (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In discussion between me and TFD, the Historical Dictionary of Socialism has been identified by TFD as a source that could be used. It says that "socialism eludes simple definition", though it does not say that definition is impossible. There are three sources that the authors (Peter Lamb and J. C. Docherty) of The Historical Dictionary of Socialism describes as providing valuable descriptions of socialism that could be put in the intro: the first is from the Dictionary of Socialism (1924) by Angelo S. Rappoport, that included forty different definitions of socialism, Lamb and Docherty state that within the great diversity of ideas within socialism presented by Rappoport, it produced what it deemed the "common elements" of socialism that include a general criticism of private ownership and control over capital as being the cause of "poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security" and that the solution was "in some form of collective control (with the degree of control varying among the proponents of socialism) over the means of production, distribution, and exchange" And that the intention of "the outcomes of this collective control should be a society that provided social equality and justice, economic protection, and a generally more satisfying life for people." Lamb & Docherty are critical that this may be limited and mention two additional modern sources, by Freeden and Parekh that focus on describing themes of socialist society, these can be seen from pages 2 to 3 of The Historical Dictionary of Socialism, [16]. I suggest that all three descriptions of the elements and themes of socialism by Rappoport, Freeden, and Parekh, as described by Lamb & Docherty be included in the intro - these are scholarly and indepth research findings by experts in their field that address socialism as a whole, accounting for variations within the socialist movement.--R-41 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a source talking about the economic aspect of socialism:

"All socialists, ourselves included, agree that the one precondition of socialism is the elimination of the distinction between capitalists and workers based upon private ownership of the means of production by capitalists. However, beyond “socialization of the means of production” which is simply the creation of public ownership, there is considerable disagreement about what constitutes a socialist economic system. In one view, what is necessary is to retain a market structure and have worker’s management within economic units. Another more prevalent approach calls for a system of central planning under the leadership of a planning board subordinate to the 'worker’s state.'” (my emphasis) <reference>Albert, Michael & Hahnel, Robin. Socialism: Today and Tomorrow. South End Press. 1981. Pg. 33.<reference end> Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The source I provided, the Historical Dictionary of Socialism includes three large scale studies by scholars who are experts in the studies. The source you have provided is too limited by claiming that there is only the market and the state in economics, and as I've said, there are socialists like Robert Corfe who oppose public ownership of the property of the means of production but support a socialist private property to replace capitalist private property. The studies by Rappoport, Freeden, and Parekh as described in the Historical Dictionary of Socialism are indepth research into socialism by scholars that account for a broad interpretation of socialism. They account for the variations and produce broad encompassing descriptions of socialism, take a look at the source from pages 1 to 3, of this source: [17].--R-41 (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the source I provided fits the general understanding of what socialism means in the economic sense. And who are you to say that the authors don't know what they're talking about? This issue is a matter of weight. With that said, I think the opening should not only focus on the economic aspect of socialism but on the other attributes as well. I tried to look at the source you provided but it didn't show a preview function. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"And who are you to say that the authors don't know what they're talking about?" (Somedifferentstuff) - I said it was too limited - it has logical inconsistencies - there are more economic systems utilized by socialists than just the market and the state, that the source I provided is broad - it based on three major studies of socialism, why are you being so combative? The sources should show a preview function, I can view them, and I don't have an account on Google Books. As for the issue of weight, bear in mind that the source I provided includes three major studies - one of which - the Rappoport study - analyzed over 40 different definitions of socialism who come up with a common set of elements - these descriptions are encompassing and can include socialism involving direct social ownership of the property of the means of production and socialism involving methods of social control, other than direct ownership, over the means of production.--R-41 (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

When reading sources, we need to be clear whether they are stating their own opinions or explaining the consensus. If they are expressing their own opinions we cannot present them as definitive. It is clear the authors of Socialism Today are presenting their own opinions. Notice too the book is published by South End Press. They narrowly define socialism and conclude that most socialist parties are not socialist. TFD (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(interjected) If you don't like the publisher you need to take it to RSN. Here is what the Wikipedia article on South End Press says: South End Press is a non-profit book publisher run on a model of participatory economics. It was founded in 1977 by Michael Albert, Lydia Sargent, John Schall, Pat Walker, Juliet Schor, Mary Lea, Joe Bowring, and Dave Millikan, among others, in Boston's South End. It publishes books written by political activists, notably Arundhati Roy, Noam Chomsky, bell hooks, Winona LaDuke, Manning Marable, Ward Churchill, Cherríe Moraga, Andrea Smith, and Howard Zinn. South End Press is organized as an egalitarian collective with decision-making ability equally shared. The founders of South End Press have also been involved with two ongoing political media projects, 'Speak Out' and 'Z Magazine'. They have worked with a number of media and research institutions including Alternative Radio, Political Research Associates, the Committee on Women, Population and the Environment, and INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence. In 2009, South End Press moved to a new office in Brooklyn, New York, partnering with Medgar Evers College of the City University of New York.[1]

This is from their website: South End Press is an independent, nonprofit, collectively-run book publisher with more than 250 titles in print. Since our founding in 1977, we have met the needs of readers who are exploring, or are already committed to, the politics of radical social change. Our goal is to publish books that encourage critical thinking and constructive action on the key political, cultural, social, economic, and ecological issues shaping life in the United States and in the world. We hope to provide a forum for a wide variety of democratic social movements, and provide an alternative to the practices and products of corporate publishing. From its inception, the Press has organized itself as an egalitarian collective with decision-making arranged to share as equally as possible the rewards and stresses of running the business. Each collective member is responsible for core editorial and administrative tasks, and all collective members earn the same base salary. The Press also has made a practice of inverting the pervasive racial and gender hierarchies in traditional publishing houses; our staff has been majority women since the mid-1980s, and has included at least 50 percent people of color since the mid-1990s. Our author list—which includes Arundhati Roy, Noam Chomsky, bell hooks, Winona LaDuke, Manning Marable, Ward Churchill, Cherríe Moraga, Andrea Smith, and Howard Zinn—reflects the Press’s commitment to publish on diverse issues from diverse perspectives. To expand access to information and critical analysis, South End Press has been instrumental to the start of two on-going political media projects—Speak Out and Z Magazine. We have worked closely with a number of important media and research institutions including Alternative Radio, Political Research Associates, the Committee on Women, Population and the Environment, and INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not an issue of WP:RS but of WP:NEUTRAL. As you say, they "provide a forum for a wide variety of democratic social movements" and "publish on diverse issues from diverse perspectives". We cannot assume all opinions expressed in their books are factual descriptions and note that they do not appear to include writers from the mainstream of Socialist parties. Also, keep your postings brief and to the point. TFD (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Then take it to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. And you stated, "We cannot assume all opinions expressed in their books are factual descriptions" - so my question to you is "How do you decide what books present factual descriptions?" Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that the solution to the problems with the intro are resolved with the descriptions of socialism provided by the scholarly Rappoport, Freeden, and Parekh studies that are described in the Historical Dictionary of Socialism. They are studies focused on providing a broad description of the common elements of socialism based on analysis of multiple definitions of socialism. As Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we have a source that includes three major studies on socialism to describe common elements of it, the discussion has reached an effective solution to this issue. I am going to insert a summary of the material of Rappoport, Freeden, and Parekh into the intro and point out the authors in the intro to show that the descriptions are based on scholarly research.--R-41 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Using a single source is definitely not the solution to this contentious issue. I recommend at a minimum, 5 sources to establish a definition in the lead. I've provided one above regarding the economic aspect. Let's wait for some other editors to contribute. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this article neutral?

This article doesn't seem neutral to me (or at least not the 21th century part). It points out the countries where socialism is growing while it doesn't mention a classical socialism powerhouse (sorry for the wording) like Sweden where the Social Democrats (along with other socialist parties) is losing votes for each election. I'll read through the whole article to see if the whole article is lacking neutrality, but for the time being consider balancing the 21th century part. 95.209.112.225 (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The section on Europe only refers to Left parties, ignoring the Socialist International members whose popularity is at a low point. However for Canada, the Socialist International member, which is now the official opposition, is mentioned, but the Left party, Quebec Solidaire, which won its first provincial seat in Quebec is omitted. There is no consistency in the article for the subject matter. TFD (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Noticeboard

I have taken the dispute over the sources to be used for defining the topic to the neutral point of view noticeboard. See WP:NPOVN#Socialism. TFD (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the citation needed tags

To my knowledge, there are no rules that state that a general {{refimprove}} precludes the use of {{citation needed}} to tag specific information as unsourced/needing a citation. Therefore, I think a consensus should be established in order to solve any disputes concerning their use on this article. I see a few ways of solving this:

Remove any {{citation needed}} tags and use the {{refimprove}}.
Keep the individual {{citation needed}} tags and either keep or remove the {{refimprove}} tag.
Remove/comment out the unsourced information per WP:BURDEN.

Although I can see the reasoning for the removal of the numerous tags, personally I think they should remain in the article, as it is useful for both readers and editors. It shows readers exactly what is unsourced, as opposed to the general {{refimprove}}, which does not. It shows readers that the given information is unsourced, and that they should keep that in mind when receiving that information. For editors, it shows them exactly what it is they can improve, which {{refimprove}} does not. - Sudo Ghost 02:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Very correct. I also think this is the a better course of action, that is why I favour keeping individual tags as well as the general tag. -- Fsol (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a fine position, as long as there are a limited number of tags, if it gets to every other sentence being tagged it becomes a problem. Also, and this is something I've seen in other pages, people tag a sentence that might well be covered in a citation in the same paragraph. We shouldn't need one citation per sentence (or we should at most repeat the ref); but checking that existing cites might cover the apparently uncited sections might pay off before tagging.--Red Deathy (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It would be best to remove the {{refimprove}} tag in favor of retaining the citation needed tags for specific material that is unsourced or not common knowledge cited in another source. And if the {{refimprove}} tags are needed, I think they should be applied to specific article subsections that lack any sources for their content.Battlecry (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is any misunderstanding, many of these tags were not gradually added over time by various editors coming to the article. They were added by one editor as can be seen here [18] (Please scroll down and count how many tags he added during that time of the article's history.) There is no rule against doing this but my preference for this article is to have one general tag, in terms of the citation needed tags, at the beginning. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

R-41 added the general NPOV tag. I fail to see any significant amount of bias in the article; the lead takes into account all the major variations of socialism, and every major socialist political ideology is given a subsection elaborating its basic point of view. Is there any basis for retaining this tag? I think it should be removed.Battlecry (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead does not take into account all major variations of socialism. TFD (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TFD, if does not take into account all the major variants of socialism. Particularly due to its emphasis on complete public ownership of the property of the means of production. It ignores utopian socialism whose proponents were divided on the issue of private property, of the three utopian socialist founders, Saint Simon and Fourier accepted private property as a core part of an economy and Fourier was a staunch supporter of private property rights, Robert Owen however admonished private property. Liberal socialism including that of Carlo Rosselli and his followers in Italy supported a mixed economy of public and private property. Rosselli adopted this support of a mixed economy based on the theories of socialist economist Werner Sombart in his work Der modern Kapitalismus (1908) in which he advocated a mixed economy of public and private enterprise. And more importantly a prominent variant of it in Britain called ethical socialism of R. H. Tawney, T. H. Green, Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, and Tony Blair accept a mixed economy of public and private property - they emphasize that rules need to be made to demand social responsibility from private enterprise. Many other non-Marxist socialist governments have accepted a mixed economy including the Arab socialism of Gamal Nasser and Ba'athist ideologist Michel Aflaq. Then there's advocates of socialist private property such as anti-Third Way social democrat Robert Corfe that denounces state socialism and claims the need for the existance of a socialist form of private property as an individual right. I wish people would please pay attention to what I recently added at Wikipedia:NPOVN#Socialism that has sources much of what I have just stated.--R-41 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Major variants of socialism are included and documented in the lead as they should be. Fringe forms of socialism that include private property do not belong in the lead as they do not conform to the most widely accepted definitions of socialism. Fringe ideals should not be used in the general definition of this system, or at least not defined in the lead. Nowhere in the socialism lead is socialism defined as "total public ownership" to the contrary, it defines: autonomous cooperatives, state ownership, and common ownership as possible forms of alternative management for the means of production. This current definition meets the demands of the most widely accepted forms of management. As I've stated before, other fringe forms of management should be defined and represented in their own sub-section as they are, and according to their kind. In my own opinion, personally sided against public ownership, I see no bias towards public ownership in this lead. Rather, a clear definition of the accepted forms of ownership under a classic socialist economy are listed out according to their kind here. While there is validity in R-41's point, they should be defined as separate sub-categories rather than among the classical definitions currently defined in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios932 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Fringe forms of socialism that include private property do not belong in the lead as they do not conform to the most widely accepted definitions of socialism." - statement by user Helios932. Fringe forms! Nope they certainly are not. Utopian socialism is the original form of socialism, Saint Simon and Fourier never challenged private property in the means of production. Liberal socialism is a long-established form of socialism that advocates mixed economy - there were many followers of Carlo Rosselli's variant of liberal socialism in Italy, two of these followers became Prime Minister and President of Italy. A major variant of liberal socialism is ethical socialism that has been a strong variant of socialism in Britain since the 1920s - it supports a mixed economy as well - ethical socialism was developed by R. H. Tawney and T. H. Green and has been publicly advocated by British Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, and Tony Blair (in spite of him being routinely accused by Marxists and the radical left of being a capitalist). Plus Arab socialism that advocates a mixed economy is hardly a "fringe" form, Arab socialist governments governed multiple Arab states. Here is the Nasserist Arab socialist view: it believes that socialism requires public control over the means of production but claims that public control does not necessarily require nationalization of all means of production nor the abolition of private property but that private property should always be subject to public control. (Source: Sami A. Hanna, George H. Gardner. Arab Socialism: A Documentary Survey. Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1969. Pp. 117.). People rely too much on the Marxist definition of socialism that states that the only "true" form of socialism is that that has public ownership of the property of the means of production. Socialism is not just what Marx said it was, there are many non-Marxist socialist movements and this article needs to account for them.--R-41 (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There are many cheap, ignorant, unscholarly, or politically-oriented definitions of socialism as all kinds of ideology that neglect multiple examples of variants that don't follow overly simplistic definitions. The problem is that both capitalist and Marxist scholars both want to define socialism in the same way - as a complete rejection of private ownership of the means of production - it suits capitalist scholars who seek to portray socialism as the total and exact opposite of capitalism in every way - especially regarding property rights - by using the Marxian definition; and it suits Marxist scholars because that is the system they desire to see created. To show you how diverse and incompatible various individual definitions of socialism can be I will show you how the founder of social democracy, Eduard Bernstein defined it: he defined socialism as "organized liberalism" (Source: Manfred B. Steger. The Quest for Evolutionary Socialism. Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Pp. 5.) I doubt that Marxists and other radical leftists would accept Eduard Bernstein's definition of socialism. The Historical Dictionary of Socialism that I and TFD have advocated using says that there is no simple, easily cut definition of socialism - its history and variations are complex - the source shows that there have been entire scholarly studies devoted just to define socialism as a whole..--R-41 (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I also think the general POV tag should be removed. Since the direction now is more in removing than keeping, I will remove it. If this changes we can re-add it. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You can remove the POV tag if you are willing to accept the needed appropriate changes to the intro to account for the serious issues with the article that I have addressed above. Not all socialism is definable as public ownership of the property of the means of production - that is the orthodox Marxist definition of socialism. There are major forms of socialism that support a mixed economy or a socialist form of private property - as I mentioned above.--R-41 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Public ownership of the means of production is not the "orthodox Marxist" definition of socialism, it is a definition shared by many non-Marxist socialists. However, I do agree with you - not all forms of socialism call for public ownership, many call for autonomous cooperatives, common ownership, or some other form of social ownership over the means of production and distribution. This is already stated and sourced in the current revision of the article. Furthermore, an "orthodox Marxist" definition of socialism would preclude market-relations (a "commodity economy"), which are cited as being compatible with various forms of socialism in this article. It is hardly representative of an "orthodox Marxist" interpretation of socialism.Battlecry (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Utopian socialism has not been regarded as a major current or social movement since the mid-19th century. "Here is the Nasserist Arab socialist view: it believes that socialism requires public control over the means of production but claims that public control does not necessarily require nationalization of all means of production nor the abolition of private property but that private property should always be subject to public control." I do not see how this definition conflicts with the current definition of socialism, even if we accept that Nasserism can be regarded as a true form of socialism that seeks to go beyond capitalism. Nowhere does the article define socialism as "nationalization of all means of production and the abolition of private property". As for Marx, Marx never provided a detailed definition of socialism. The best we have would be the working-class collectively owning the socialized means of production and the end (or gradual withering away of) commodity-relations. This position is certainly not reflected in the current article, let alone presented as the "only true" form of socialism. As for the definition of socialism presented by Eduard Bernstein, it is largely irrelevant because it does not actually denote any substantial information. What exactly is "organized liberalism"? It would not make for a good opening to define socialism (or rather, the ideals of socialism) as "organized liberalism" in the article lead. In any case, whether one accepts that definition or not, it is irrelevant to the article because the lead does not say anything about liberalism. Furthermore, Bernstein accepted public ownership and collectivization over the means of production as a component of socialism. Battlecry (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

ISTM that R-41's concerns are covered in the first sentence by 'or controlled'. AFAICS the current lead covers co-operativist socialists, proudhonists, municipal socialists, and emphasises the fissiparous character of the term.--Red Deathy (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead fails to take into account socialists who do not support those views, for example socialists who pursue policies of private ownership, particulary modern socialist parties. TFD (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Or controlled" includes private ownership, that was the point I was making, i.e. regulation of private ownership. Also, my list wasn't exhaustive, the point it makes is that it is a varied term. The current lead could also cover Blairism, for example.--Red Deathy (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The current intro statement is too vague, what does "control" mean? Also I've seen many edits to the intro changing what the sentences say into statements not supported by the source - does the source say that socialism involves "social ownership or control of the means of production "?--R-41 (talk) 03:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is close to verbatim from that source. "Control" is wonderfully vague, and the source of much of the variation in the understanding of the meaning of the term socialism, covering as it does German style corporatism to mere state regulation. Anyway, just to quote the OED def. to show how pesky this has all become, the usually concise definition has been subject to clunky amendment: "A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy"--Red Deathy (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Any encyclopedic entry on the subject will define socialism as some form of social, collective or public ownership over at least most of the means of production for the purposes of distributing the surplus or profits equitably. All socialist economists and contemporary proposals for socialism by economists, whether market-based or planning-based, are centered on some conception of social ownership, and this article should reflect this fundamental and shared definition. Socialism is NOT economic interventionism, regulated capitalism or even welfare-state capitalism. In fact, these policies predate socialism and are perfectly compatible within capitalism (defined variously as an economy based on producing private profits, private ownership of production or a market-driven economy, indeed they are usually promoted by those who wish to safeguard capitalism) and are thus still firmly within the framework of capitalism. If we were to accept that mere regulation and social welfare policies are "socialist", then Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Barack Obama, Otto Von Bismarck, et al would be socialists. This is patently absurd, as it suggests that anything other than a pure, lassiez-faire capitalist economy is actually a form of "socialism".

There is much confusion about immediate demands, what socialist parties have and might advocate for as temporary solutions, remedial measures or progress under capitalism, and their commitment and ultimate goal of socialism. The immediate demands pushed forth are not inherently socialist nor are they exclusive to socialist movements; they are not the definition of socialism. Simply because a large number of social democratic and formerly-socialist labor parties have abandoned the goal of building socialism and instead choose only to focus on immediate demands does not in any way change the definition of socialism; in many cases socialism is kept out of tradition or redefined until it is devoid of any substantive content and reduced to a set of moral prescriptions. Insinuating that the United Kingdom was a socialist economy or a socialist country under Tony Blair's administration demonstrates an inability to separate political movements from social structures and economic systems. Does that mean all social democrats or all social democratic theorists have disregarded socialism? Of course not; but the policies these parties pursue (corporatism, welfare, economic intervention, regulation of private enterprise, etc) does not become the definition of socialism. Can socialists promote these policies? Of course. But does that mean these policies are socialism? Not at all.

As for the lead sentence, the sources cited do not define socialism as "social control", but specifically as social ownership AND control of the means of production; which supposedly refers to some form of collective-management of enterprises.Battlecry (talk) 10:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This once again shows that the intro is unacceptable - it is not even accurately sourcing its own references. But I disagree with Battlecry that there is a single, clear definition of socialism based upon social ownership of the means of production. Now the question is what does social ownership mean? Almost always it means public property ownership of the means of production - and not all socialists advocate this - there are socialists who do not agree with collective public ownership at all - like Saint Simon and Fourier who supported a private property-run economy, there are socialists who support a mixed economy, and there are socialists who advocate socialist private property, and oppose collective public property. Also, such a simple definition based on ownership of property assumes the validity of scientific socialism - and ignores non-scientific socialism, and there are too many failed and pathetic attempts in this article to equate socialism with scientific socialism - such as claims in the main body of the article associating socialism with materialism - many religious socialists explicitly reject materialism.--R-41 (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Erm, ref 1 states "socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control" so it is accurately sourcing its own references. I'm afraid we have to have a nebulous definition, since to many socialism, even for its proponents, is simply state regulation (per the OED def. I posted above). So far as I can see the lead does not give undue weight to any one strand of socialism, and admits the multiple meanings of the term.--Red Deathy (talk) 13:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't use the Oxford English Dictionary for ideologies. OED presents unscholarly, often stereotypical definitions of ideologies, every time I have seen OED used for ideologies it presents a very crappy, unscholarly definition. Remember it is a dictionary made by people whose knowledge is in language, not politics.--R-41 (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest you watch your use of imperatives. Anyway, I've always found OEDs succinct definitions very useful, and its definition of Capitalism is masterful. Is there anything in that definition above you actually object to? Or isn't it, in fact, saying exactly what you're saying?--Red Deathy (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the solution for the intro's problems

Socialization is an acceptable term to describe socialism's common goal of what it seeks for the means of production of the economy BUT socialization has to be defined broadly in the intro, showing its multiple variations. The intro should say that socialization involves either one or a combination of the following: (1) economic rules and regulations to have the economy serve social interests of society in opposition to the dominance of interests of individuals with wealth as socialists claim exists under capitalism; (2) social ownership of the means of production through either state ownership, cooperative ownership, communal ownership, or workers' self-management has been a popular policy promoted by Marxists, anarchists, radical socialists, and initially up until to the early to mid 20th century, by reformist social democrats; (3) a mixed economy stressing social responsibility, where economic interests deemed essential to society are socially-owned while others are privately-owned under significant economic regulation; (4) a socialist form of private property that replaces the capitalist form of private property.--R-41 (talk) 12:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The current lead almost says this already, all we'd need to do is remove the second para (which IMNSHO can die a horrible painful death) and tweak the first. I think 'socialisation' is a bit circular, and as nebullous and 'control'.--Red Deathy (talk) 13:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Socialization is what "social ownership" redirects to, socialization is a term used by socialists. We need to explain the variations of socialization. What I have proposed above clearly defines these variations of socialization.--R-41 (talk) 13:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My point was we already do explain those distinctions, esp. if we kill para 2.--Red Deathy (talk) 14:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see all of the disctinctions I described in the intro. Nowhere in the intro does it mention communal ownership or mixed economy or a socialist form of private property.--R-41 (talk) 14:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Common ownership rather than communal ownership is referenced, and mixed economy isn't mentioned by name but there is a sentence which states: "They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organized within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism." The lead does mentions communes, so maybe that could be hyperlinked to communal ownership? AFAICS at most you're looking at tweaks, rather than a wholesale re-write.--Red Deathy (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The current intro is vague and can be interpreted wildly differently according to perception - it is not clear. The intro only says "They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate" but that doesn't account for proponents of a socialist form of private property, nor does it account for mixed economy - where a substantial part of the economy remains privately-owned. Where it says the difference of "markets versus planning" - that sounds more like it is talking about market socialism versus a command economy - market socialism was pursued by communist states like Yugoslavia and China - it does not sound like it's accounting for mixed economy at all. The material that I have suggested adding - providing that I organize the sources that I have seen it - clearly explains the various systems. The current intro neglects to clearly and unambiguously state that mixed economy and socialist private property have been promoted by a variety of socialists.--R-41 (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Socialists have supported the same economic policies as other parties - classical liberalism, social liberalism and now neoliberalism. TFD (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and it needs to be vague because even R-41's list is not exhaustive. I'd say the phrasing does include mixed economy. As I say, there is scope for tweaking, but certainly not for wholescale revision (and I reckon the suggesting a POV problem is a touch unfair).--Red Deathy (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Socialists have supported the same economic policies as other parties [...] and now neoliberalism." post by TFD - Only if you take the commitment to socialism by the People's Republic of China seriously - almost everyone in effect acknowledges that China has abandoned Marxism and socialism in all but name and are now have a state capitalist economy interested in profit-seeking led by a government dominated by business people that seeks to maintain order, with no genuine socialist ideals.--R-41 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No they are still communist, but I was referring mostly to NZ, UK Labour parties, etc. Basically socialism is a political, not an economic, movement. In China btw, the Communists encouraqe privately owned businesses because they believe it will increase overall wealth and benefit all citizens. Capitalist ideology, i.e., liberalism, supports private enterprise because they believe private ownership is a right. TFD (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you go by what China officially is - communist, then by consistency you have to accept what the Labour Party of the UK under Tony Blair officially supported: ethical socialism that supports a mixed economy. Plus what you have described about China does not appear to be neoliberalism at all - neoliberalism intensely supports private property rights and privatization of public companies.--R-41 (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I said they are following neoliberal policies, just as socialists before them followed classical and social liberal policies. China has developed a legal system to protect property rights and has privatized state-owned industries. The country has also reduced social welfare benefits. The same is true of most governments. They were the first country to adopt neoliberal policies. TFD (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, what I proposed is far more clear. I also support restoring into the intro the material from the three scholarly studies on the definition of socialism by three major scholars that were described in the intro of the Historical Dictionary of Socialism - that I and TFD supported having in the intro. If what I have proposed is missing important major examples of socialist policies, please inform me what these are and I will work them what I have proposed for the intro.--R-41 (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just by way of trying to cut the Gordion knot, maybe Cripps (or was it Morrison) was right "Socialism is what the labour party does"? Or, more precisely, socialism is what the socialists do? Looking into the etymology, references to socialist seem to predate socialism. On a related note, I don't think it accurate to describe Owen, Saint-Simon et al. as the inventors of socialism, there seems to have been a current in the air outside the written record, and Marx at least learned his socialism from french workers (not the other way around). Also, I think we need to recall Williams' study in 'Keywords' that notes that Socialist and Communist were almost directly interchangeable for a long time (certainly they were in the OED cite from 1827).--Red Deathy (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)