Talk:Socialism/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

characterization of the Mensheviks

The article says:

In 1903, there was a formal split within the Russian social democratic party into revolutionary Bolshevik and reformist Menshevik factions.

Describing the Mensheviks as Reformist seems misleading to me. The Mensheviks were not reformist in the sense of, say, Eduard Bernstein and Friedrich Ebert in Germany. They were orthodox marxists, and are much more comparable to, say, the left-wing of the German Social Democrats (Luxemburg, et al) than to the more conservative reformist types. The division with the Bolsheviks had more to do with party organization (the Mensheviks supported a more open party organization) and with the issue of how ready Russia was for revolution (Bolsheviks tended to think that action by the party could hasten the proletarian revolution; Mensheviks believed that Russia would have to go through a bourgeois revolution first, which is why they supported the Provisional Government in 1917). I'm not sure how to characterize the two parties, but "revolutionary Bolshevik and reformist Menshevik" is highly misleading. Both factions were revolutionary by comparison with, say, the British Labour Party or the right-wing of the German SPD. Neither was into active terrorism in the vein of the SRs. So, anyway, I'm open to suggestions as to how to revise, but I think some revision is necessary. john k 06:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the bolsheviks were into "expropriations" (i.e. banditry and bank robbery) which the Mensheviks opposed, and favoured a more geurilla style organisation, mabe that should be the angle?--Red Deathy 07:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The article on the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party says the split was due to Lenin's democratic centralism being unpalatable to the mensheviks, and also tension over 'revolutionary' or 'historical' ideas of a Marxist party's role. It seems difficult to sum that up in one sentence, so I've wikilinked and left it vague. What do people think? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call. BobFromBrockley 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I noted that the Bolsheviks were more radical (certainly true), and that they were led by Lenin, whose views were briefly explained a bit earlier in the article. That should be sufficient, I guess. john k 07:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Menshevik article does a good job of describing the parties' differences:

The Bolsheviks felt that the working class should lead the revolution in an alliance with the peasantry with the aim of establishing the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, where the Party acts as extreme revolutionary opposition. On the other hand, the Menshevik vision was one of a bourgeois democratic revolution in which they could take part in government.

I interpret this to mean that the Bolsheviks advocated revolutionary socialism whereas the Mensheviks advocated a form of democratic socialism, by which they were willing to collaborate with capitalist parliamentarians for the gradual realization of socialism. Wouldn't that then make the Bolsheviks revolutionary and the Mensheviks reformist? -- WGee 23:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

They were not reformist in the sense that, say, SPD Revisionists in ermanhy were. I think the description of the Mensheviks' position in Menshevik is, in fact, completely inaccurate. The Mensheviks believed that before there could be a proletarian revolution, there would have to be a bourgeois revolution. Presumably this would involve either the overthrow of the monarchy or its replacement by a genuine constitutional monarchy, with power in the hands of liberal groupings like the Kadets and the Octobrists. So far as I know, before the war, there was no intention for the Mensheviks to participate in such a government. They would continue to organize and await the real, proletarian revolution. If you look at what happened after the February Revolution, this is, in fact, what they did - no Mensheviks joined Prince Lvov's government. Instead, the Mensheviks helped organize the Petrograd Soviet, which provided an alternative government to the Provisional Government. They would tolerate the Provisional Government as an alternative to counter-revolution, and as a progressive step in the direction of the proletarian revolution for which Russia was not yet ready, but they would not join it. They only joined the PG a few months later, when it became clear that the Liberals could not run the country without support from the socialist parties. This put them in a very anomalous position of being one of the main props of a "bourgeois" regime, but this wasn't meant to be a permanent situation, and it was one that they only found themselves in because of the desperate situation in Russia in 1917. This is in pretty stark contrast to someone like Philipp Scheidemann or Friedrich Ebert, who worked willingly alongside conservative forces to crush revolutionary socialists, many of whose views were closer to those of Mensheviks like Julius Martov than they were to Lenin's Bolshevism. Mensheviks were not reformist, and the particular description in the Menshevik article is wrong and should be changed. john k 17:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I noticed that the Mensheviks participated in the Provisional Government and then automatically (and ignorantly) equated them with the social democrats and other reformists. Thanks for using your expertise to clarify the situation. -- WGee 23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There really weren't very many Social Democratic reformer types in Russia in 1917. Kerensky, maybe, and those with him associated with the rightmost fringe of the SRs, but the SRs were really their own weird Russian beast, not comparable to anything in the west. The Socialists who participated in the Provisional Government did so on quite odd rationales. john k 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking further into it, it would appear that it was the Legal Marxists who most closely approximated the views of the Bernsteinian revisionist Marxist types in the rest of Europe. But by 1917 these folks had long abandoned socialism entirely, and seem to have largely been Kadets. john k 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

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

Communist states called themselves Socialist, many socialists called them socialist - moreover many critics did use "Go back to Russia" or accusations of communism against socialists (e.g. Thatcher famously called Kinnock a crypto-communist). It is poor style to start filling criticism sections with rebuttals, if you want to make the point clear, amke it in the description of socialism generally, but leave the criticism to stand on is own feet.(BTW, I've moved this section to the bottom of the talk section where it belongs)--Red Deathy 08:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

rebuttle is one thing, removal another. criticisms on communism must be kept in the communism article. the two are not the same. communism is a system, socialism an ideology. criticising communism in the socialism article is similar to criticising fascism in the conservatism article, and should be removed asap.--Lygophile 14:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

but i should learn to read what its about first:S. if antisocialists really bring up that arguement to criticise socialism it can remain in there, no matter how dumb those idiots are. but how often is that actually done?--Lygophile 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Socialism and Communism are not in simple terms the same, and to imply that they are as this section has done goes against neutrality rules." No one is implying that they are same; we merely state that opponents of socialism often criticize the human rights records of communist states. That is not to suggest that opponents of socialism are correct in doing so. Although I and the majority of political scientists believe that communist states practiced and do practice a form of socialism, that belief is controversial among some Wikipedians, so I figure that it would be best not to make any comment on the connection between communist states and socialism at all. Moreover, I agree with Red Deathy that this article should not turn into a [Wikireason] page, full of arguments and counter-arguments. -- WGee 01:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

How can anyone argue that communist states are not socialist? In state communism, the the means of production are publicly owned. That's socialism by definition.Anarcho-capitalism 21:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not try to breed conflict with your partisan rhetoric. First, there is no such ideology as "state communism": it is merely one of your epithets. Secondly, this is not an argument about whether or not the article should assert that communist states were socialist, but an argument about whether or not we should include the New Left argument that they were not socialist. -- WGee 23:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You're unjustifed in attacking me as trying to breed conflict. There is "anarcho"-communism and state communism.Anarcho-capitalism 05:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about your perceptions of communism; this dicussion has nothing to do with them. Instead of provoking controversy by using this page as a soapbox, productively discuss the issue at hand. -- WGee 07:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not using it as a soapbox. You are and are being disruptive and uncivil. I'm just helping out.Anarcho-capitalism 16:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

communism is a system that fits in the socialistic ideology (as an extreme version thereof). but as democracy is not anarchy, conservatism is not fascism and liberalism is not anomie, socialism isnt communism.--Lygophile 23:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Anarchy is not an extreme form of democracy.
2. Fascism is not an extreme form of conservatism.
3. Anomie is not an extreme form of liberalism
4. Socialism is communism. Marx said it.

However, your latest post does show that you are of the opinion that humans left to themselves, without the guiding hand of the all-knowing government, degenerates into one of the conditions you mention. -- Dullfig 01:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

where did i say that? and marx never said socialism is communism. in his idea, socialism could be used as a buffer before applying full communism, so clearly he said they were seperate things. of course anomie is an extreme form of liberalism. in an anomie you can do what ever the fuck you want, so its an absolute form of liberalism, just like communism is an absolute form of socialism. fascism and anarchy can be seen as extreme versions of respectively conservatism and democracy. the last one is somewhat farfetched though.--Lygophile 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Stay on topic. This is not a debate as to whether or not socialism is communism; this is not even a debate as to whether or not communist states practiced socialism. The issue raised at the beginning of this thread is whether or not we should include in the criticism section the socialist rebuttal that communist states were not truly socialist. Your last two posts are irrlevant to this discussion, and I must remind you that "[a]rticle talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views" (WP:TALK). -- WGee 03:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

i was just validating my point which he counterargued, which was that communism and socialism should not be confused as the same thing. but the arguement is getting too stretched out, and only started because some people fale to distinct between socialism and communism.

probably somthing in the line of 'confusing socialism with communism' should be entered in the sentence in the article. thats not an actual rebuttle but merely validates the mention of the use that criticism. but the tricky thing is that communism is percieveble as a form of socialism, so the correct wording of that intersentence is difficult, because of the limitations of language.--Lygophile 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is confusing communism with socialism; "communist states" were not communist but socialist. They were just called communist on the West. -- Vision Thing -- 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The argument is still questionable as 1: Communism and Socialism, for the 29th time, are not the same, two, not everyone who identifies as "Socialist" advocates the style of the "Communist states" in question. What "Communist states" are you refering to anyway? The Soviet Union? The People's Republic of China? Cuba under Castro? Are these states exactly the same?

This on top of many logical points illustrates why the setnence as you prefer it goes agianst neutrality rules. I will revert it.(EnglishEfternamn 22:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

No one is implying that Communism and socialism are same, and no one is implying that all socialists support the policies of Communist states. We merely state that opponents of socialism often criticize the human rights records of communist states. That is not to suggest that opponents of socialism are correct in doing so; we are just stating that they do it. -- WGee 23:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely if all we write is "opponents of socialism often criticize the human rights records of communist states" this is as relevant to an article describing socialism, to be frank, as "opponents of capitalism often criticize the human rights records of South American military dictatorships" would be to one describing capitalism. The point is that the assumptions of the wording imply that no kind of socialism is relevant other than Soviet communism: Hayekians and Stalinists alike want people to believe that. We should make any such assumption explicit.

We should make the point objectively, say: "many opponents of socialism contend that it inevitably leads to Communist dictatorship and suppression of human rights." (no login) 07:12 17 January 2007 [UTC] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.137.48.4 (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

The criticism section already says that, just in different words. -- WGee 07:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really, and even if it did, it belongs in a communism article: it isn't relevant here: most people who call themselves "socialist" have been just as critical of Communist human rights violations. I'm sure most critics of socialism have criticised Castro's dress sense, but just because he too calls himself socialist doesn't mean that it's relevant either. If you mean that all socialists will inevitably have as shaggy a beard as Castro, or have as repressive social policies as Castro, you should frankly say that is the opinion, not put in as an assumption. 58.137.48.4 07:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

hmm..yeah. im not totally satisfied with "confusing the two ideologies", since technically communism is not an ideology but an economic system. if youd name the ideology behind communism that would probably be extremefied or absolutified socialism. but i do insist such a sentence be included, since youd have to justify putting in a criticism thats flat out wrong. I have spoken 00:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not most communist countries, past and present, use Marxist ideology to attempt to justify their positions? Does not Marx use both socialism and communism often, with the former leading to the later. The two are related by definition concerning the means of production, and the concentration of power necessary to control the means of production. Not the same, just related. Jcchat66 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I may be mistaken, but I believe China has moved away from Marxist ideals. Even the former Soviet Union cast aside Marxism (for the most part) by the time they folded. I agree with your second point: they are not the same, just related. Socialism and communism are not used interchangeable terms because certain groups use them together. Socialism is most often (note I don't say always) framed as an economic theory while communism is usually a political system. That's why you can have a social democracy (less socialist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy) or a democratic socialism (more socialist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism) where the economic system is based less (or not at all) on capitalism and a democratic political system oversees the socialist economy. .--User:Unk 19:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro (2)

WGee and 172, you have both reverted my edits to this article because of concerns over my expansion of the intro section. First of all, please take note of the fact that not all of my edits concerned the intro, and thus a full-scale reversion is not warranted (if you really want to restore the old intro, please at least take the time to copy and paste the old text into the current version of the article rather than reverting).

Your objections to my expansion, as far as I can gather, come down to the following points:

1. "I took [WGee's] reference to "fringe movements" to be include the expanded coverage on forms of soicalism not embraced by ruling parties and states for long periods of time"

• My answer: The only such form of socialism mentioned in my intro is libertarian socialism. All the others have, in fact, been embraced by ruling parties and states. And libertarian socialism should be mentioned because we cannot simply ignore the existence of anti-state forms of socialism. One sentence in the intro is not too much to ask.

2. WGee mentioned on my talk page that he objected to the conflating of social democracy with market socialism. I agree, and have fixed the problem.

In any case, it seems your objections would have been satisfied by removing the mention of libertarian socialism and separating the references to social democracy and market socialism (which I have now done). Reversion was hardly justified, especially since the old intro to which you revert also has at least one glaring flaw: It makes the statement that only "Stalinists" support command economies, which is patently false. -- Nikodemos 18:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so I inserted Stalinists 'among others.' Why on earth would you want to expand this intro??? You know as well as anyone how POV-warriors often look for any excuse to pick fights with other users in articles like this one. The more we keep the intros short and simple, the more likley the page will be stable. 172 | Talk 23:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Stalinists among others" is still POV. Planned economics has support from across all branches of Marxism. Thus, it must be "Marxists", or "many Marxists".

My edits to the intro would have gone unnoticed if you and WGee had not insisted on reverting. As it is, you are increasing the likelihood of attracting POV-warriors by challenging my edits for no reason. I wanted to expand the intro because it was incomplete, that's all. Really, if you're concerned about stability, leave my edits alone and defend the new intro instead. -- Nikodemos 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole." As Red Deathy said, "One word ['egalitarian'] does the job of a whole excised sentence" [1]. Also, were "the interests of society as a whole" a primary concern of Stalinists, for example? Some people would say that their policies of distributive justice were meant to serve the interests of the state and the party rather than society as a whole.

"while social democrats hold a vision of socialism in which social control over the distribution of wealth and the means of production exists side by side with private ownership in a mixed economy." Compare this mass of verbiage to "Social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies," which is not only much less verbose than the former, but more accurate as well. Your favoured sentence, Nikodemos, is so vague that it can be equally applied to market socialism.

"Marxists advocate the creation of planned economies directed by a democratic state that owns all of the means of production." The only Marxists to have ever come to power are Marxist-Leninists, and what is important is what they practiced, not what they advocated in theory. They practiced "Soviet-style command economies under strong central state direction," and nothing less.

"Market socialists wish to combine public ownership of the means of production with a market for consumer goods." I don't understand what is meant by "a market for consumer goods," since the entire economy is based on the market. What was wrong with the old sentence?

The article already stated that "the movement has split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between moderate socialists and revolutionary communists," so there is no reason to devote a whole paragraph to the division. Also, mainstream socialists currently oppose revolution, whereas your paragraph makes it seem like socialists are evenly split between the revolutionary and democratic branches.

Overall, Nikodemos, your edits have destablized the lead section, and stability is a major issue for me. Also, you did not discuss what was wrong with the former lead before making your contributions, nor did you procure a consensus.

-- WGee 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Stability is a major issue for me as well, but, in my book, reverting someone else's edits is the best way to destabilize an article. I blame you for any instability that will arise out of this, but, of course, blame is irrelevant. We must concentrate on reaching consensus ASAP. So, regarding your points:

1. I do not believe that the idea of economic equality - which is arguably the primary motivation of socialists - was given enough coverage in the old intro. I will have to insist on at least one sentence (not a word) about the importance of equality for socialism.
2. Agreed. I will change it back.
3. I'm sorry, but what socialists practiced is always open to debate - if we go by that criterion, someone could come in and write "Marxists support evil oppression!" We must go by what Marxists advocate, since that is not open to debate and interpretation.
4. The old sentence was too vague (most socialists advocate "limited private property").
5. Historically, socialists were most certainly split rather evenly (if anything, revolutionary socialists had an absolute advantage from 1917 until 1990). And why shouldn't we devote a paragraph to the most important division in the socialist movement? -- Nikodemos 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to open discussion point 6: Looking over this page, I notice many users have complained about the poor definition of socialism given in this article ("social control"? that could include every society that ever existed). One user proposed the following first sentence: Socialism is a socio-economic system or ideology that proposes economic activity be done for the collective benefit rather than private profit. What do you think? -- Nikodemos 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

1. For the sake of stability, it is best not to discuss the motivations of socialists, as they are impossible to ascertain in many cases.

3. The lead discusses socialist movements that have stayed in power for a long period of time; likewise, it makes more sense to discuss their policies while in power, for they had a much greater effect on humanity and world history than their theories. In any case, Marxist-Leninists did advocate command economies under strong central state direction; that's why they created such economies.

4. You ignored what I said about "a market for consumer goods" not making sense. There is a market for all goods and services in market socialism, is there not? Could you explain what you mean?

5. Your paragraph has nothing to do with history: it is written entirely in the present tense. Plus, we've already made the distinction between revolutionary and moderate branches in one sentence, and by making the lead longer you are only destabilizing it.

-- WGee 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

3. I will accept 172's recent revision of the Marxist sentence: "Some Marxists advocate the creation of planned economies directed by a state that owns all of the means of production." I would also accept the adding of the word "central" or "centralized" somewhere in there if you wish.

4. "Market socialism" has actually been used to mean many different things. Just about every kind of socialism that doesn't advocate full nationalization has been called "market socialism" at one time or another. The original justification for including market socialism in the intro was that China uses it as their official system, but then how do we define it without mentioning the fact that it is in effect identical to capitalism? "Some social control + some private property", which was the old definition, makes it identical to social democracy. Frankly I'd support removing it altogether.

5. Would it be better if I put it into the past tense? The problem with the one sentence is that it mentions the existence of the branches but does not explain their differences. If you can summarize my paragraph you are welcome to do so. -- Nikodemos 00:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

6. I will withdraw my proposal to change the "social control" definition as long as both the word "egalitarian" and the last, equality-related sentence remain in the first paragraph. -- Nikodemos 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, a small point to 172: Note that "libertarian socialism" is an umbrella term which includes anarcho-syndicalism. -- Nikodemos 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Socialism#Intro about the term "libertarian socialism".

That discussion never reached a conclusion. And libertarian socialism is a very good article. I prefer linking to good articles than ones that are barely above stub status, like anarcho-syndicalism. -- Nikodemos 09:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The size of the article is irrelevant. The fact remains that "anarcho-syndicalism" (sometimes referred to simply as "syndicalism") is a more definitive and widely used term than "libertarian socialism." Similarly, the definition of "libertarian socialism" varies greatly from author to author, the definition of "anarcho-syndicalism" less so. -- WGee 10:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

3. How about, "Marxist-Leninists advocate the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all of the means of production."

4. We definitely cannot remove it since it is the official ideology of the PRC. And I still don't understand what you mean by "a market for consumer goods," so let's just keep the old sentence—market socialism is difficult to distinguish no matter the wording, as you pointed out.

5. One branch is moderate and the other is revolutionary; the terms are self-explanatory. The differences are explained in detail in "Moderate socialism and communism". E.g., "Revolutionary socialists, on the other hand, believe that socialism can only be achieved as the result of a proletarian revolution (obviously the revolution would not be carried out by plutocrats, as anyone can deduce from the first paragraph of the article) - that is, an insurrection of the working class which completely removes the existing political and economic institutions and builds a new social order in their place (readers don't need to be given the definition of the term 'revolution')."

6. OK.

-- WGee 02:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

3. I have changed "Marxist-Leninists" to "some Marxists", because there is some debate as to whether Trotskyists count as Marxist-Leninists or not, and because some ruling parties still claiming to follow Marxism-Leninism have moved away from central planning.

4. Wait a minute... is it the official ideology of the PRC? I thought the official ideology of the PRC was still Marxism-Leninism. The constitution of the PRC does not mention "market socialism". I have therefore removed market socialism on the same grounds as libertarian socialism (though I would very much support putting them both back in).

5. The terms are most certainly not self-explanatory to someone with no background in politics. I will expand the sentence slightly and accept your deletion of the last paragraph, but I will put that paragraph in a new section that I plan to add to the article. -- Nikodemos 09:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Large-Scale Edit IS NEEDED : URGENT!

Given the logical and POV failures of the current version of this article, I am announcing my plans to give it a large scale edits for better clarity, this will include grammer corrections and new references. Expect to see this by the end of the day. (EnglishEfternamn 22:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

For the following reasons, I am convinced that this page needs a strong overhaul. It does not conform to an NPOV, in my estimation. Here is why:

The entire article resorts to harsh wordings to describe proponents of Socialism, while using soft wordings to refer to its opponents. Example, a few users here insist that the article states that early socialists "condemned" capitalism and private property. Condemn is a harsh word which implies malice. I think the correct term is "criticise" Further, "and/or" should precede "private property"; not all Socialists seek to abolish all forms of private property. ---- AND YET... the article gives minimal mention to political opposition to Socialism in the United States, the McCarthy hearings, the arrest of Eugene Debs for political opposition to US involvement in WWI, etc.

The external links section carries far more anti-Socialist references than supportive content. It is my fair guess that there should be a form of equilibrium in this regard.

I have tried to correct this problem already. Also, I would like to note that the external links sections of most other ideology articles contain no critical links whatsoever. Libertarianism, for example, has no critical links. All of them are listed under criticism of libertarianism. Perhaps we should apply the same standard here and move the critical links to criticisms of socialism. -- Nikodemos 19:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be a good idea either, that would just make the article one-sided in the opposite sense of what it is now.(EnglishEfternamn 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

The "Criticism" section is ambiguous, and one sided. A few users have stated that the section is no place for rebuttals, yet such content can be seen in the criticism section of many other ideologies.

The criticism section is supposed to be only a short summary of criticisms of socialism. -- Nikodemos 19:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an apparent monopoly on editing of content by conservative users. This would not be a problem at all if the content was in NPOV form, but as I explained it isn't. For this reason, I cannot even put a dispute template, because it is quickly reverted on the ground that my reasons are illigitimate, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE! Furthermore, if I act within my rights to re-instate the template an admin warns me about "3RR violations", even though I can name about five users on this article who have violated these rules several times. I have reported these violations, and no action has been taken.

BOTTOM LINE: This article is in need of major work. I feel the reasons for disputing its neutrality are legitimate, and for this reason I will place a template at the top of the page. All rational discussion on the subject is welcome, please confine it to this particular section. Thank you, and I hope we can get this resolved. (EnglishEfternamn 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

I am trying to help here, but by reverting you help no one. Please instead make edits to improve the problem you are concerned about. I also don't think the tag is justified. --Guinnog 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I explained at length why the tag is justified. And the edits you refer to will only be changed back by the users I was talking about earlier. This is unfair, that is why until some type of balance could be found, the readers should be able to know that the article might be a bit slanted.(EnglishEfternamn 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Please name the specific changes you want to make. A good way of doing that would be to post a suggested draft here, followed by a summary of the changes you propose and a brief explanation of why each one would be in the interests of the project. Please do not keep adding the tag as I cannot currently see evidence it is warranted. --Guinnog 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is everywhere. Could you be more specific? Why is not warranted, and what would it take for it to be accepted. In other words, if the mistakes on the page are not evidence what is?(EnglishEfternamn 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Yes, please put forth a draft of some very specific changes along with explanations of why those changes would improve the article. You raised some valid points in the "Criticism Section" above with which, you'll be surprised, I agreed and helped defend. However, I don't agree that the article is slanted toward a POV. It is inaccurate or non-academic in many places and the body could indeed stand a thorough rewrite as you suggest. I think the intro is fine as-is. If you are seeing something that all the many contributors and readers up to this point have missed please eloborate specifically and we can all cooperate in fixing it.--WilliamThweatt 23:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"It is inaccurate or non-academic in many places and the body could indeed stand a thorough rewrite as you suggest." I'm curious to know how you came to that conclusion, especially considering that this article was just recently rewritten by a professor. Also, have you read any one of the article's references before making that conclusion? -- WGee 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten by a professor of what? I, too, am a professor (of Political Science at a four-year University here in California). And I came to "that conclusion" after reading the article and noticing some inaccuracies and some sentences reflecting a simplistic or layman's or "talk-radio" (hence my use of "non-academic") understanding of Socialism. Besides, even if it is true that it was "recently rewritten by a professor" that would still make it simply the product of one man's work, not a definitive gospel of Socialism. Not all professors are equal in either their writing skills, their knowledge of the subject or their agendas (just look at how many articles are submitted to the journals vs. the small number that actually get published). Regardless of who "recently rewrote" it, it still has to stand up to the scrutiny of consensus.--WilliamThweatt 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

By "one man's work" I sure hope you mean one PERSON's work. Not all professors are men.(EnglishEfternamn 20:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

I can see where this is going. Before you accuse me of having a "talk-radio" understanding of socialism, please note I am not the source of much of the content in the article, nor can I possibly monitor all the changes. You noted earlier, Looking to records of communist states to criticize all aspects of socialism is not appropriate. [2] For the record, I was not the source of that sentence, and I agree with your assessment. 172 | Talk 01:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing anybody specific of having such an understanding. My exact words were that "some sentences reflected" that understanding. I don't have the time nor the petty desire to do the tedious research necessary to find out which editor is responsible for the few sentences in question. If it wasn't you then please don't take offense and let's all just try to make the article better.--WilliamThweatt 03:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that the article is devoid of inaccuracies; it was just your use of the word "many" that struck me, since most of the article conforms with what I've read in mainstream textbooks. Nor did I mean to suggest that the article is above criticism because it was rewritten by a professor. I think some sections need to be expanded, and I agree that some sentences are simplistic, but I don't think it needs a "thorough rewrite." It would be helpful if you could elaborate on the inaccuracies, and feel free to improve the prose where necessary. -- WGee 02:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will concede that the use of "many" was imprecise, open to misinterpretation and possibly a bit of hyperbole. I will also concede that "a thorough rewrite" would probably have been better stated as "a thorough copyedit" as the article is admittedly well-structured and well-organized. Nonetheless, there are a few inaccuracies (some of which seem to have been corrected somehow in the mess of editing today) and, as you say, places where expansion would greatly improve the article.--WilliamThweatt 03:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes with rationale

As instructed by the admin Guinnog, I am going to explain changes I propose to the Socialism page. They are as followed:

1. First and foremost, a balance of historical content should be presented. I propose an equilibrium in content, we can talk about the abuses that went on in the Soviet Union, followed by the abuses that went on right here in the US, i.e. the McCarthy hearings. The fact is, it would be un-neutral to cover the "failures" of countries seen to be connected with socialism without covering what was done in non-socialist countries to combat the spread of the ideology.

2. More in-depth content about socialist figures in the U.s., such as Eugene Debs, and why these figures did not succeed in formulated a significant movement.

3. Coverage of how socialism applies today, in various European democracies, it could be called "socialism today".

4. Revision of emotion based words: i.e. "condemned", "trenchant", "abuses", etc. and have them replced with "criticised", "outspoken", "misconduct", these terms better serve to make the article objective.

5. Equilibrium in external links pertaining to support and criticism, or sending the external links critical of the ideology in question to the "Criticism page"

6. A larger criticism section with both criticisms and rebuttals. This need not be detailed, but if rebuttals are allowed to exist in other articles with "criticism" sections, why not here?

7. Coverage of US foreign policy, and anti-socialism as a motivation for various conduct.

Discussion

Please let me know what you think of these changes. If they are not addressed by a response from at least one concerned user within two days, the tag will be returned to the article. Thank you, and let's get this done. (EnglishEfternamn 23:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

Grounding the article in specific historical context is the approach to encyclopedic coverage of the subject. Proposals for "criticisms and rebuttals" of "US foreign policy" and the "failures" of "non-socialist countries" threaten to turn this article into an internet chat room or blog, not an encyclopedia article. 172 | Talk 23:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A point-by-point reply:

1. I agree that this is necessary, but it belongs either in criticisms of socialism or criticisms of communist states. Please make sure to put the right information in the right article.
2. Good idea.
3. No European democracy claims to be socialist. Calling a country "socialist" when it does not use that label for itself is non-encyclopedic.
4. Very well, good idea.
5. Already done, but I support moving the critical links.
6. Again, remember that the criticism section is merely a summary of criticisms of socialism. Please edit there before you edit the criticism section here.
7. US foreign policy is not an appropriate topic here, but you are more than welcome to write about it in the article anti-communism. -- Nikodemos 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

2 and 4 are the most reasonable, as Nikodemos points out. Still, the expanded coverage of 2 first belongs in History of socialism; the discussion here is more general. Regarding #4, I don't see where the words "trenchant" and "abuse" are used. 172 | Talk 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Certain points that need to be made. American foreign policy has played a large role in the developement of socialism....or lack thereof in the US. I think it is important to mention this.

True, almost no nation in the West refers to itself as socialist, but that does not mean that various countries like Sweden and France are not socialistic in practice, at least in some areas. For example, it could be mentioned in the article that the "mixed economy" seen in most European democracies is thought to be a middle ground between capitalism and socialism. Bottom line on this, it should be mentioned how socialism has influenced certain aspects of contemporary (by this I mean in the last 15 years) politics. It should also be mentioned that the ruling parties of more than several European countries claim to be Socialist.

Just because the criticism section has its own page does not mean that one-sided coverage in a SECTION is justifiable. Not all readers are going to look at every page they get the chance to read, I certainly don't, I've not the time. It think to leave it unabridged would do a disservice to readers and especially students. I wouldn't use this article for a research project, but how many high schoolers would?

If Soviet policy is relevent to the article, so is US foreign policy. Can we discuss the effects of an ideology without mentioning the efforts done to thwart it?

Let me know what you all think. (EnglishEfternamn 05:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Right:

1. Strikes me as uncyclopaedic, and more polemic, a link to an article (if there is one) on anti-communism would suffice.
2. Why the US? Surely that would be for an article about socialism in the United States - maybe a note about the "American exceptionalism" thesis, but no more here.
3. Again, why only Yurpian Socialists? We have articles all over the place about Socialists parties by nation, a link to the cat. or to a list would suffice for an avid reader.
4. If the critics et al. condemned rather than criticised then we should use the former, supported with citations.
5. General purge of external links, more like: the subject is just two well covered on t'internet with such a plurality of sites that balance and WP:WEB are gonna be impossible to maintain.
6. Chiefly because I'm probably not editting those articles, but where I do edit I consider that putting rebuttals in is unnecessary. There is scope for discussion of what criticisms are notable and those thoroughly rebutted and cannards should be discouraged to leave only substantial and serious criticisms. Here, however, we're dealing with politics, so when Margaret Thatcher called Neil Kinnock a Crypto communist we have a notable and substantial criticism on our hands, however cannardy it was.
7. Again, why American foreign policy only? Plenty of other countries followed anti-communist foreign policies, why not a long discourse on Franco? What about Nazi Germany's anti-communist foreign policy?

--Red Deathy 08:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As a general observation: EnglishEfternamn, you seem to operate under the assumption that this article should give full coverage to anything and everything related to socialism. That is not the case. If we included all our information about socialism in one article, that article would grow to enormous lengths and no one would ever bother reading to the end of it. That is why we have separate articles for various socialism-related topics: history of socialism, socialist economics, criticisms of socialism, and so on. You are most welcome to create an article on socialism in the United States. -- Nikodemos 08:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You can bet I'll follow that lead. (EnglishEfternamn 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

But I must let you know, that is not enough. Balanced coverage of socialism-related events must take place. Therefore, I will allow you all to pick three of the historical subjects that I have mentioned. It is your choice. When this is agreed upon, I will happily insert these new sections myself, with proper wording, format, and citations. Until then, I will not let this matter just die down as you users have attemped to do by suddenly ignoring the discussion at hand. You guys have two days, pick the events you think will best suit the article. Thank you, and let's get this done.

Also, will someone please find citations for some of the paragraphs referring to the developement of socialism? Some of these facts, for the 30th time, are not basic, but only known to those who are learned in political science. Please find citations (I will look for them as well), or the only other option would be to re-insert the {{Fact}} tags.(EnglishEfternamn 23:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Well thanks for giving us 48 Hrs.! As I've said, you should prepare a version of the lead and pop it in the space I made for your draft rather than stating things repeatedly or giving other editors an ultimatum like that. --Guinnog 17:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You realise that if I don't hear the preferencial responses I requested, I will have no choice. Ultimatum is a harsh word, I call it a "request for negotiaton". I'm trying to seek a compromise here, but I won't just ignore the problem. My edits are within the rules, so I reserve the right to again resort to them, but I am voluntarily delaying that right in hopes I get more feedback. Again, no-one has addressed that some of the facts in question are in need of references, either...(EnglishEfternamn 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Because these users have ignored my requests in hope that I will just "slip away", I feel it necessary to return the "POV" template to the top of the article; the two days I gave them have passed and the feedback I have requested has not been made. Don't see me as doing this, see the users in question for their inaction and stark unwillingness to revise this page for a neutral point of view.(EnglishEfternamn 01:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

It's really simple. An article liek this is not improved by adding a tag but by discussion. I suggested a while ago you submit a draft which we could use as the starting point for such a discussion. Why have you not done it? --Guinnog 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

We've not decided as a whole which topics are appropriate. I'm trying to make this a democratic effort, but I can only attribute refusal to participate to un-neutrality, therefore, the tag should stay until participation is back in place.(EnglishEfternamn 18:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

The POV tag is for use when statements within an article make said article one-sided toward a particular Point of View, not for a percieved "refusal to participate". In other words, "refusal to participate" is not a valid reason to place the POV tag. You must point to specific points that reflect a recognizable and describeable Point of View and suggest how you believe the points in question ought to be changed. Thus begineth the dialogue. As Guinnog points out above, you were invited to do so and have as of yet failed to do so.--WilliamThweatt 19:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article in question has been one sided. I have proposed a large scale change in coverage of subject matter and I also requested a vote on which subjects should be appropriate for coverage. I've not received one vote, probably for reasons that the users here who are prepetuating a POV page are hoping I will give up on the problem at hand. The article as is, is indeed one-sided, in both coverage and wording, therefore a refusal to participate in what I have gone out of my way to make a democratic process DOES constitute the return of the template. Note that it says "The neutrality of this article is disputed...", this is true, as I have disputed the neutrality of the article in question, and again, requested for input, and again, the input has not been given.

It does not disrupt the article to place this template; readers can still read the content with clarity. And as soon as the users who wish to get a word in return to a discourse of what direct the article should go in....I will be happy to remove the template and resume discussion. The sooner we can agree on what subjects to be appropriately covered, the sooner I can present a draft and we can wrap up this matter.(EnglishEfternamn 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

One sided in what way??? What "side" do you claim it represents? The article is a fine exposition (as far as an encyclopedia entry can be an exposition) of socialism. The fact that nobody has "responded" indicates that we all agree that consensus has already been reached (in the form of the status quo) regarding what "should be covered". Additionally, the lack of any "input" directed your way could possibly also suggest that nobody here is taking you seriously because, by not giving specifics, you appear to only have the purpose of disruption. Thirdly, that nobody has suggested subjects to be covered does not prevent you from presenting a draft that would satisfy you...you are the only voice in objection, tell the world what would satisfy you by presenting a draft of the article as you want it to appear. Forthly, you keep mentioning "democratic process". Neither consensus nor the democratic process requires unanimity, only a majority (or even just a plurality). Again, you are the only voice of objection. Therefore it would seem that the vast majority of editors are happy with the article as currently structured and feel that it is properly balanced. It follows that the democratic process for which you so often plead has already indeed been observed. Continued placement of the tag will not convince others to see things your way, nor will it stimulate debate of the issues in the article. It will only serve to invoke discussions of why it is inappropriate to place the tag. Your actions determine the course of the discussion here. Place the tag, we'll talk about why it is not appropriate. Present a draft or be bold and make the changes you desire and we'll discuss your proposed changes.--WilliamThweatt 21:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've talked at length at what is wrong with this article, you can read the info for yourself in the paragraphs above. Again, I have gone out of my way to make this a process by which the users can make an imput as to what they would like the draft to look like, because I can assure you, when the draft is ready, it will likely be the new standard for the article. The article as is today is not neutral in that it holds right-leaning bias in both wording and coverage of events related to socialism. But I have already gone through this...twice.

The fact that I am the only objector to the neutrality standards seen in this article does not negate the meaning of the template. The template simply states that ongoing disputes exist, WHICH THEY DO! This does not disrupt the page, and I am within my rights to state the situation of the page in question. If you had bothered to read the past few sections in this talk page your would see that I have given reason, until I am blue in the face, why I think the article must be significantly modified. The fact that I am giving the users who are interested a right to debate this and they have not done so can only lead me to believe they are satisfied with the page as is. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT IT IS NOT NEUTRAL (EnglishEfternamn 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

Speaking as an ultra-leftist socialist, I'd say that the article reads fairly neutrally to me - I certainly can't see any rightwing bias. Certainly, there is scope for tidying and for improving the referencing - that's a job for a long Saturday evening, but on the whole I support the current consensus. I don't really see how any of your proposed changes relate to neutrality, indeed they seem to violate it by being US-centric--Red Deathy 09:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Red Deathy, the article could stand tidying and referencing but I don't see the changes EnglishEfternamn proposed as likely to improve the article. Further, I don't see how making blanket statements, using all caps, delivering ultimatums, stating how good your new version is going to be, or revert warring is likely to improve the article either... EnglishEfternamn, I suggest you do a bit more reading on how things get done here, especially on the consensus process. Note, my bias is fairly different than Red Deathy's ++Lar: t/c 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks, the changes needed will take place with or without your approval.(EnglishEfternamn 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Agh...the unbelievable arrogance! You wrote above "I am giving the users...a right to debate this"...oh, really...you are giving all of us a right. Sorry to burst your bubble there buddy, but you are in no position to extend "rights" to anybody. Our rights come from someplace totally different. Then, you deplore the lack of input and when people (even hard-core socialists) give their input in favor of the current version you say "the changes will take place with or without" their approval. It is becoming more and more aparent that either you are being purposefully disruptive or that you need to read God complex and seek professional help(comment out of line, see apology below).--WilliamThweatt 05:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone stopped to think, that in the last six thousand years or so of recorded history, that this subject is simply not worth all the fuss? Jcchat66 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

EnglishEfternamn, you need to change your approach. That's really not negotiable. If you don't understand what you are doing wrong, review your own talk page where Guinnog counseled you about how to approach things. "the changes needed will take place with or without your approval."... no, they won't. What is more accurate is to say that "the changes will take place if there is consensus for them". If you do not get consensus for them first, they won't stick, and if you try to revert war for them, you'll be blocked. WilliamThweatt, your points may be valid but saying someone needs to "seek professional help', or using terms like "unbelievable arrogance" may not be useful. Everyone needs to remember to be collegial here and seek consensus. If not, you are going to get additional previously uninvolved administrators paying attention, and some of them are more likely to hand out blocks than I am. ++Lar: t/c 13:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WilliamThweatt: This type of commentary was completely uncalled for and reflective of a most trenchant form of personal attack. Since you have not hesitated to lambast me without proper reasons and in violation of the "civility rules".

This website was designed for the purpose of projecting objective information, do we compromise this because of user intimidation and blatent bullying, or do we stick to our ground and give the readers what we owe them? Let it be known that Thweatt once stated that Wikipedia was "...not about neutrality...", see it for yourself at the Michael Savage talk page.(EnglishEfternamn 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

OK, I'll admit that the comment about reflecting on whether "professional help" might be needed was at the least not helpful and at most uncivil. Sometimes I just calls 'em as I sees 'em out of frustration when I should just hold my tongue. I therefore apologize to EnglishEfternamn for that comment (and only that comment). I stand by all of my other points, which, as Lar pointed out are indeed valid. Furthermore, EnglishEfternamn, you have only taked about yourself for last few days and nothing in this discussion has been concerning the ideology of Socialism or how the article can be improved. Therefore as of this edit, in order both to avoid such mistaken choice of words and not encourage you further, I will cease to take part in the discussion here unless we are talking about Socialism or recomendations for improving the article. I will continue, however, to follow Wikipedia policy and revert improperly placed tags, unconstructive edits, and edits which have not met the approval of consensus. Also, I will make one last digression to defend the mischaracterizations above. I have demonstrated no bias here (unless anti-disruptionism can be considered a bias). All I have sought to do was to point out to you (in vain, I might add) how your edits were inappropriate deviations from established consensus and violations of such policies as WP:POINT. And my edit on the Savage page was not about Wikipedia in general, I invite anybody to read my statement there. It is clear from the context that I was refering to our disagreement which, indeed, was not about "neutrality" but about the application of Wikipedia policy (namely WP:BLP. I will offer these parting words of advice: if you are going to be successful in making wholesale changes to any article on Wikipedia, you must first change consensus. Being disruptive, arguing off-topic on the talk pages, writing in all caps, adding and re-adding tags that everybody else says is inappropriate and ignoring consensus will accomplish nothing except dragging you into these long, drawn-out digressions that in the end accomplish nothing and you possibly developing the reputation of a disruptive troublemaker. If you had expeneded half as much effort in making your case for the changes you desire, you may have gotten somewhere by now. So, in closing, please do heed Lar's advice drasticly and permanently changing your approach in the future and I will be more than happy to debate Socialism as it relates to this article and specific proposed changes.--WilliamThweatt 19:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

...But for the 29th time, I have already stated at length what is wrong with the article (see above). Why should I repeat all that for your entertainment?(EnglishEfternamn 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Yes, we understand that, but here is how to proceed, and gain the confidence of other editors, as well as consensus. Propose one (and only one) specific, small change, and get consensus on it. Then make the change. Repeat. After you have done this several times, make the changes you propose larger. If you can demonstrate consistently getting consensus, you will advance to the point that other editors will trust you with sweeping rewrites. You have not yet demonstrated that trust by other editors. Sweeping changes will be resisted if there is not specific consensus for them. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please learn about how to format your comments on talk pages without using html markup. To get indents just use ":", one for each indent. using <p> for formatting breaks things, it caused my comment to abut yours in the same paragraph, which is not good. ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling my text format "not good" is un-neutral and a personal attack, such conduct is frowned upon in Wikipedia. I'll overlook this.(EnglishEfternamn 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

Your "text format" is not a person. If you don't want your writing to be criticized mercilessly, as the Wikipedia disclaimer suggests, do not submit it. If one cannot distinguish criticism of his/her writing from a personal attack, he/she should find other things to do with his/her time rather than edit Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 02:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's two personal attacks thus far, I'll overlook these rule violations, but I must say, I will not be intimidated into disregarding my own concern for the rules.(EnglishEfternamn 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

Further Action

I propose we get beyond the scope of discussion and discuss further action. My last edit consisted of the rephrasement of various sentences I percived to have carried a slant. Please do not revert these changes unless you have an adequate reason and it is sufficiently discussed on this page, in this section. Thank you.

Second: The criticism section on this article must be rephrased or completely overhauled. The statement that: "Critics of socialism attacks human rights record of communist states..." is unwarrented for two reasons: 1. Communism and Socialism are not the same, and 2. The statement carries no verification. Now I'm sure you know that some statement I have made have been deleted on the grounds that it did not carry a reference. I admit those who reverted my edits were correct in that regard, all claims must be verified, so let's find a citation for this statement, or not allow it to be posted at all. To do nothing would be a double standard.

1. Is there any country in your learned opinion, that qualified as "socialist" and
2. Is there any ctriticism that you will deem valid?

What is your basis to affirm that socialism and communism are not the same? why are criticisms of the USSR, for example, not valid? I do not know what you mean when you say that socialism is an ideology; Is it not true that all political systems are based on an ideology? So why is it not valid to criticise a political system, when the political system is a demonstration of what happens when you apply the ideology?

I could say the same thing about capitalism:

• capitalism is an ideology
• The United States is a political system.
• You can't say that capitalism is bad by pointing out that the USA has exploitation, because you are criticising a political system, and capitalism is an ideology. As a matter of fact, you cannot use any capitalist country in the world to criticise capitalism. On what grounds would you criticise capitalism, if you are not allowed to point to specific countries to use as examples of what happens if you implement capitalism? -- Dullfig 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Third: There are various paragraphs that NEED citations. My request for them through {{Fact}} tags have often been reverted on the grounds that the facts in question are "elementary". Not so true in some of the cases, especially when the article discusses "early socialism", not all political scientists agree on the ideology's origin, so I think a request for verification is in order in this regard. Please let me know what you think. EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 20:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

First, any primary school history textbook will tell you that "the Labour Party under Ramsay MacDonald was in power for [almost] ten months in 1924 and again from 1929 to 1931" [3]. That qualifies as "elementary" for most people. Second, the words "condemned" and "doctrines" have no negative connotations given their context, so I do not know why you are so aversed to them. But if you insist on replacing them, at least use American English spelling to conform with the rest of the article. Do not use British English just to childishly illustrate that it is the "superior" dialect. Finally, who the hell are you to decree that people cannot revert your edits unless they have an "adequate" reason that has been "sufficiently" discussed? Nobody has to satisfy your critera to impose changes on the article; all one has to do is garner a consensus, something you've never done. -- WGee 22:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a personal attack and goes against Wikipedia civility and profanity rules. Please rephrase your wording as it does not help your cause. Now, is there any serious feedback?-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 23:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

1. You have an immature and annoying habit of ignoring those whom you perceive as not conforming with your ideology. I suggest you end this habit, because Wikipedia is not a political battleground.
2. For the second time, indent your posts with colons; your HTML markups screw up the layout of the page.
3. Read WP:NPA. People will start taking you seriously when you demonstrate that you are actually aware of Wikipedia's policies and stop crying wolf.
4. I have provided "serious feedback" on your suggestions, as have several other people. You simply choose to ignore it using whatever petty excuse you can—whether it be "personal attacks," "profanity," or "this person is a right-wing POV-pusher!" And you are never going to procure a consensus by repeating the same arguments over and over, by disrupting the article to make a point, and by exhausting the patience of editors with ridiculous accusations.

-- WGee 02:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WGee, there's no reason for you to abuse yourself by responding to clear disruption. Many users have been slapped with indefinite bans for causing less trouble. The response should be a request for relief on the admin noticeboard. Sorry for failing to get around to this myself. I should have taken that course of action days ago, rather than merely reverting his vandalism in the Soviet Union referring to the "pristine environment" of Chernobyl and the Aral Sea. In that article, his edits were too off-the-wall to represent any POV. Even parties that defend Soviet Communism, like the KPRF and the CPUSA, acknowledge that rapid industrialization of the USSR came with environmental costs. (His "pristine environment" paragraph offers such a crackpot description, I wonder if we're having a joke played on us.) 172 | Talk 09:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC) <P.>Let it be know that the past two comments by these past users are reflective of personal attacks, a disdain for neutral civility, and right-wing bias. This is a violation of the rules on many levels and is characteristic of user intimidation.-- EnglishEfternamn

EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing, the criticism section can not stay as is and be considered neutral. The latest revision states that "Critics cite communist states as examples of socialism in action..." ... What is that supposed to mean? This statement is ambiguous and could refer to a number of things. What about communist states do these critics cite? This is why I added "perceived misconduct", 1., because the "misconduct" of these states is indeed relative to one's views (therefore perceived), and 2. Because it makes the statement more specific, a characteristic that was lacking in the previous revision. Also, a {{Fact}} tag must be followed by the sentence. Until a proper reference is made, to exclude the tag goes against Verifiability rules. Thank you, and have a wonderful day.-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 19:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

By definition a criticisms sections is not neutral, it is conveying the POV of critics, however, these critics exist and their ommissions would be an act of PoV on our part, so we should strive to accurately report their criticisms.--Red Deathy 15:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but it is neutral to keep the substance of a criticism section balanced. Also, I changed the latest edit to the criticism section because the citation in question refers to Frederich Hayek, and not "critics of socialism" as a whole. Please do not describe the work of one philosopher as the work of "critics", who, as the article clearly states, come from different ends of the political spectrum. Thank you -- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the hayek cite as an example, perhaps I should have put an e.g. in the ref. but most people would be capable of seeing it as an exemplar citation...--Red Deathy 08:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that type of assumption does not suffice. But if the section stays the way it is at this time, it will be much better than it was previously.-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 17:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Next Order of Editing: Standardisation of English Dialect

Good morning. The next aspect of this article that I wish to see addressed is the matter of English dialect that is being used. I propose that we make the British English the standard dialect for this article and here is why: This article pertains almost entirely to socialism regarding Europe, therefore the more European version of the English-language (British English) should be used. It has been stated that articles referring to American things should use American English and so fourth, so we should follow this principle and get to work. If this article talked a bit about Socialism's relation to the US, I think it would be a toss-up in terms of what dialect should be used, but such is not the case. Please let me know what you think, have a wonderful day. --- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I for one would like the entire article re-written in Oxford english, of the Victorian period. I think it would give the article an air of erudition that standard american english cannot hope to convey. Who do these Americans think they are anyways, writing encyclopaedic articles in that crass, debased dialect they keep calling english? It's about time Americans realized that only true Brits can write in elegant, properly spelled prose. If only Wikipedia could also convey that Oxford English intonation. Now That would be special! Dullfig 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC) (Proud to be American)

I'm not so sure if you meant that, but you have a point if you do. But that is not the primary concern for adopting British English fully in this article. The primary concern is that almost of of the content on this article refers to socialism in Europe, so why should Americam English be used? Again, I have requested (about 29 times) that a section about socialism in the US be put in. That request has been ignored....--- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 19:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Our practice here on the English Wikipedia (see the manual of style, it's good reading) is to retain the spelling choices that the article already has, or that it had at the start of substantial editing. There is never a good reason to change style from one to the other for an article that is not concerned with a topic where dialect matters, such as this one. If this was written in American English to start, it should stay that way. Needless changing of spelling is not productive, and doing so repeatedly may even be disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 19:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC) PS, EnglishEfternamn please indent properly, it would be appreciated. ++Lar

I disagree, the format has been changed in many other incidences on the grounds that the article was about American, or British, or otherwise European things. To state that it would be disruptive to change the spelling would be an overstatement, as disruption is defined as that which would keep the reader from reading the article properly.--- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, formats get regularised to match topic origins. c.f. The Beatles which is written in British English. But this article is about Socialism, not American Socialism, or Commonwealth Socialism, or Indian Socialism. Therefore, by long convention (review the reference I gave you to the manual of style) it should not flip flop spellings based on the whim of whoever edits it last. Such flip flopping is disruptive to the other editors working on the article. This is not a debatable point, really, at least not here. If you have an issue with this policy, the place to debate is on the Manual of Style talk page. Flopping the spelling around (as one of your edits did recently) needlessly, or without consensus is disruptive. Also, please use the formatting that others use in your talk page remarks. You have been politely requested to do so more than once. Use of paragraph or break marks is not necessary if you learn how to use ":" properly. I have again reformatted your remarks to match conventional usage so if you are not clear about what I mean, look at the diff to see. Also, please use indenting to preserve threading as appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, we are in disagreement. Article pertains mostly to socialism in Europe, therfore the spelling should be British English. There is no flip flopping, no disruption, nothing of that sort, it sounds as if you are mad about this change, but two of us have agreed that British English is a better bet.--- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 21:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using <br> and <p> in your comments. 4th request. I'm not mad about anything except wasted time. The article title is not Socialism in Europe. So the topic is worldwide, and the "first usage" convention applies. And you may want to reread the "victorian english" comment, that was sarcasm, in case you hadn't figured that out. You will have a hard time gaining consensus for a change in the Manual of Style, and until you do, flopping spellings around is disruptive editing. Internalise that. Or take the consequences. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are not an administrator, therefore your position is nowhere above mine. And for the fourth time, the changing of spelling is not disruptive. If you are going to continue with personal attacks and the vandalism of my user page, I don't see where discussion between us headed.--- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 23:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am an administrator, here are my stats: Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I was asked by Guinnog (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), (you will recall Guinnog gave you a lot of good advice, and blocked you once already when you did not heed it), to keep an eye on this page, and on your activities. I have made no personal attacks against you here or anywhere else, and to say so suggests you do not understand WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA yet. I have given you gentle guidance on your talk page, which you removed (as is accepted practice) with confrontational edit summaries (as is NOT accepted practice) and to call it "vandalism" is mischaracterisation at best. My position is not "above" yours, we are all contributors here, but I do have more experience with the wiki, with our processes and policies and traditions, and with users. I would strongly suggest you take on board the feedback that many are giving you, and soon, or you may find yourself blocked again. This is more properly something to discuss on your talk page, feel free to refactor your posting and this one to there, but you did bring it up here. ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

never saw people pull rank on the internet before O.o ...
English aftermen makes good points about the articles contend. however, despite the fact that theres a really good point hidden in his request to change the dialect into brittish english, i dont agree with actually doing so. even though practically this article unfortunately is a europian article, in theory its an international issue. this article in theory could potentially have a lot of contend related to america, so in theory, we may get to have to change the dialect back again once its made brittish. in reality, this will never happen, since americans are fed an averse for socialism by their extremely sophisticated propoganda machine, but i strongly disagree we acually should treat socialism as a europian issue. I will repeat though, that theres a very significant point behind his request· Lygophile has spoken 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda machine?! when 2/3 of your citizens bellow the poverty line own their own house, with three bedrooms, running water, bathroom, car, color TV (big screen I may add), and when your population under the poverty line has a major weight problem (!) (as in overweight, not malnourished), you don't need a propaganda machine to convince people that capitalism works. ;-) -- Dullfig 23:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

im not gonna expand that discussion with you to this section as well. we cant hijack every section of this page. but every non-retard knows america has a dreafully sophisticated propoganda machinelygophile 00:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Lygophile, every nation has a propoganda machine. In case you haven't noticed, most governments would LOVE to impliment socialist idealism, as it would increase their power substantially. And yes, socialism really is primarily a European idea, as Europe never experienced true democratic freedom and liberalism. Most of those that push the idea do so in retaliation against industrial fascism (what you mistakingly call capitalism), in which workers had no rights, and most people did not own land. Socialism was reactionary to tyranny and oppresion in the new industrial age, a problem that was not nearly as bad in America. Socialism, after all, is better than fascism, the "lesser of two evils."

And Dullfig, that is a piss poor example of American ideology. Only about 10% own their own land (a mortgage does not count!) and most people will never, ever, own their own house even with a college education ... much like Europe. Small businesses are vanishing before the might of Walmart, and most people now work for someone else, which was not the case a hundred years ago. Jcchat66 04:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. My contacts within Haliburton have assured me there is no propaganda machine... -- Dullfig 05:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

no......no i cant discuss this here....this is the wrong section. ...no.....no i wont. nothing sensible to react to anyway· Lygophile has spoken 14:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Lygophile has not spoken, I'm shocked! Jcchat66 06:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Market socialism def.

I rm'ed 172's def. because at least one or two sources (Ollman, for one) I've seen would define market socialism as one that uses market mechanisms for allocation, not necessarilly in competition with a private sector (i.e. competition between state owned enterprises, and planned markets). I'll defer to an authoritative citation, obviously.--Red Deathy 13:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What you removed [4] is not my definition. Nikodemos keeps periodically deciding to either remove or change the reference to market socialism in the intro, seemingly piqued over the removal of (his preferred conception?) "libertarian socialism." (This is frustrating-- not the high quality of work I'd grown accustomed to expecting from him over the years.) I suppose I ended up restoring something different from what I thought I was restoring. Now that I have read the sentence, I see that it is not an adequate summary of all well-known understandings of the term. I will insert a new description. 172 | Talk 14:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my definition. I thought we were referring specifically to China's "socialist market economy," since market socialism was enclosed in quotations marks. This reminds me that we should expand the "Socialism as an economic system" section to include the various forms of market socialism, especially "socialism with Chinese characteristics," with its publicly owned "town and village enterprises." We should also discuss participatory economics in the form of worker-managed cooperatives, employee stock ownership programmes, and worker co-management, which has recently taken root in Venezuela. I will probably only be able to help expand the section sometime next semester, though, in early spring. -- WGee 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize. It's not your fault that sentence on market socialism keeps getting removed without warning. The definition was one of the ones out in the literature, just perhaps not the most widely accepted. 172 | Talk 01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Word origin

Following the verification request.... The early history of the word (Socialism) is somewhat obscure. The first use of F. socialisme appears to have been in the Globe of 13 Feb. 1832, where it was employed in contrast to personnalité. In its modern sense it is variously claimed for Leroux or Reybaud, writing within three or four years after this. A different account, assigning the priority of this use to England, is given in the Encycl. Brit. (1887) XXII. 205; according to this the word originated in 1835 in the discussions of a society founded by Robert Owen OED. 1st verifiable citation in the OED is 1837 in the Leeds Times.--Red Deathy 08:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (p.s. that is the current OED online is the source, we have sub at work).--Red Deathy 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Red Deathy. I've always been skeptical of the factual accuracy of that contribution, not only because it was based on an obscure primary source, but also because most histories of socialism trace the word's origin to "around 1830" at best. The reputable opinion of the OED has only vindicated my doubts. In any case, there is no need to discuss the precise origin of the word socialism in this very broad article; the place for that, if any, would be the history of socialism article. For our purposes, saying that the word originated in the early 1800s is sufficient. -- WGee 17:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WGee. As WGee has clarified, this issue is so complicated and contentious that we are better off working around it in the socialism article, which is only (as it should be) only a broad textbook account. 172 | Talk 05:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Whilst EEs method of scattering 'fact' tags throughout the text wasn't helpful, the main point, that the citations need improving is correct, if only as an exercise in linking some of the further reading at the bottom to the corresponding paragraph. Whilst not every obvious fact need citing, each para or broad section should be capable of being pointed to a rough citation, if only to help readers navigate and reach useful reading material.--Red Deathy 08:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary quantitative criteria for use of citations, like a citation for each sentence, or a citation for each paragraph, or a certain number of citations for the entire article, will not help. Whether a citation is used should be determined solely on the basis of whether a particular claim requires citation. Citations are not used to direct readers to literature. They are used to indicate the source of particular claims. Lists of further reading and external links serve that function. 172 | Talk 08:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations are not used to direct readers to literature. They are used to indicate the source of particular claims. The two are, obviously, the same. Lists at the bottom are sufficient, but in text citation is better in order to stablish the links between listed sources and particular claims or sectiosn of claims. It's the difference between OK and excellent - specifically as, over time, the point referenced in the lists at the end may well vanish from the text. I wasn't setting any arbitrary targets, but a realistic rule of thumb for a well cited article. Certainly, IMNSHO, tehre'd have to be a good reason to go a whole section without a citation. The content fo the article is pretty good, the real work now is polishing it.--Red Deathy 09:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You stated "whilst not every obvious fact need[s] citing," citations should be inserted even when an "obvious fact" does not warrant citing "to help readers navigate and reach useful reading material." As any writing manual will tell you, the function is citations is not to offer a guide for further reading. The function of citations is to give credit to the source of information or writing whenever a text is using the ideas or words of other texts. If there is no author to cite, and one simply makes up citations, this is not 'going from OK to excellent,' as you put it, but considered fraudulent in publications and student assignments. The tag you inserted means the article systematically uses the work or ideas of other publications without citations. This is a damning allegation, not a call for 'polishing.' If such a failure is not systematic, but you find a few claims in the article making reference to the findings of material or books outside the realm of general knowledge, insert 'fact' tags. Do not insert tags until you are capable of substantiating them. Until them, inserting them constitutes disruption. 172 | Talk 10:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What I meant by not every obvious fact needs citing was that you don't have to put a cite behind every sentence, but can have broad citations that indicate a paragraph or section is derived (or can be derived) from a particular source. Everything must be verifiable at some stage. Put another way - each individual obvious fact does not need citation, but collectively they do, evem if we point to a broad source. The article does indeed use sources without acknowledging them, in as much as the text isn't linked to the citations. The ideas in this text have been derived from other authors, and where we can't discover which one was originally used we should seek to find a suitable source to anchor it to. (Oh, and might I suggest that the imperative is a poor choice of mood for discussions among equals, interrogative mood is much more effective)--Red Deathy 11:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The above is hopelessly unclear. Are you or are you not capable of substantiating the claim behind the tag, that the article fails systematically to credit the words or ideas of other publications that it uses? If you are, point to examples of specific claims that require citations. If you are not, stop inserting the tag. If you continue to insert the tag without offering a single example of use of an outside source without credit or factual inaccuracy, one would not be out of line in reporting you for disruption. 172 | Talk 11:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The failure is so systematic that my only evidence is the vast swathes of text that don't have a citation attached - that it is impossible to ascertain which source large chunks of a very big article are derived from. Anyway, To clarify my point about broader citation - a paragraph on Henry VIII and his wifes would not need a citaion to proove each marriage, or the existence of each wife, but a general reference to a biography of Henry VIII, for example. You may not be out of line for reporting, but I doubt the charge would stick. Or, I should add, if we had an article on Stalin, that just listed Service, Conquest, Deutscher and twotsky at the bttom, we'd be entitled to ask which bits came from which author, even bits that appear common sense and obvious--Red Deathy 12:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Certain "vast swathes of text" require more citations than others. In an entry one of the most notable ideas of the modern era, just about all of the content is grounded in elementary facts well-known to anyone who has read general textbook surveys of socialism. Such text is derived from being politically aware and alive in the 20th century. Regarding Stalin, I do surmise that that article requires more citations than the one here given the specific claims appearing in the article. As of now, please insert individual 'fact' tags, rather than the heading. 172 | Talk 13:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, however well known is hard to judge, and IMNSHO the onus is on the decision not to put a cite. We should be assuming our reader hasn't read those textbooks, and needs pointing to specifc ones on specific points. That much of the text would benefit from citations (not least as a good barrier against PoV pushers means I don't have pecific quibbles with any specific part, and was generally sugegsting that those who can pin a point to a cite should, otherwise I'll just work on it piecemeal on my loathsome, as I have been. I honestly haven't been pushign for a fight,a nd thought a general template would be more effective than scattering 'fact' tags throughout.--Red Deathy 13:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Over time we can add footnotes which are not necessarily citations, like "for a general overview on... see..." You intent to develop barriers against POV pushers is good, but keep in mind how they seem to be drawn by dispute tags. 172 | Talk 13:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Aspects of article that MUST be addressed

Dammit, I am so outraged here because everything I do for the sake of serious editing is labeled as a disruption, so I am going to take this back here to the talk page as discussed. Here are a few small things that I feel need to be changed in order for the article to represent the highest degree of neutrality:

1. In the statement "criticized capitalism and private property...", I feel the "and" MUST be replaced with "and/or", for two reasons: A. Not all socilaists seek to fully abolish private property, B. There is no means of certainty (in the context of the article) as of yet that the all early socialists sought to fully do away with it. If someone can find a citation, that would change the issue and would not longer be a problem.

2. "Socialism as political theory section": There are a couple of areas where citations are NEEDED, under verifiability rules. Especially the areas where quotes are being used. It is unencyclopedic for a paragraph to A. State that ANYONE states ANYTHING without citing it, and B. Giving ANY quotes without references. So please, let's change this.

3. The United States, as most of us know, has acted as the biggest opposer of Socialism on the international level, there should be a section on this, discussing socialism within the US, and reasons as to why it has been systematically rejected in American politics. If the users here think it unsuitable for the article, I am requesting permission to start a "Socialism in the United States" article.

What I ask the most is that we can put our petty differences aside for now and make some progress. Please do not label my revisions which are made out of serious concern as disruption for ideological reasons. This is counterproductive and delays progress. Please let me know which of these ideas should take priority. Thank you. --- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 02:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In partial response,

1. Your arguement is a non-sequitur, the sentence only says that socialists "criticized"..."private property". It mentions nothing about "seeking to fully do away with it".

2. I would tend to agree with you that, in general, a quote should be sourced.

3. You don't have to ask permission to start an article. Just click this red link: Socialism in the United States and write away. If it doesn't meet guidelines and policy, though, expect a swift AfD. Strike that. The article already exists. Perhaps a section with a general (very brief) description with a {{main|}} template link to the Socialism in the U.S. article might be in order.--WilliamThweatt 03:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The "quotation" to which EnglishEfternamn is referring is "iron cage of future bondage" [5]. I told him that it does not need a citation because it is not a quotation per se but rather a general reference to Max Weber's well-known metaphor (which various translations render differently). It should be comparable to using "Property is theft," for example, without a citation.

Furthermore, we should not add a section to this article about socialism in the United States. One paragraph is already devoted to the subject, and that is enough considering this article's broad scope. Adding a separate section would upset this article's structure and balance, as well. -- WGee 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Points taken. However, regarding the quote (or, paraphrase), it may be "well-known" to you and I, but to the lay-reader who is just curious about the topic (which, I wager, would include the vast majority of readers that will get to this article) it may be new. While probably not necessary, I don't see any problem with providing a source where the reader could follow up and explore Weber, his quote and it's context more thoroughly. Secondly, including a brief summary of the Socialism in the U.S. article was simply a suggestion for compromise. I should have been more clear--I agree with WGee on this, but I am open to compromise. Maybe a link to the article in the "See also" section will suffice.--WilliamThweatt 15:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely there is no harm in citing Weber's work for the benefit of the reader, but the way to ask for a citation is through the discussion page, not by adding a 'cite needed' tag as EnglishEfternamn has done when a citation is actually unnecessary. -- WGee 18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The tag should stay until a citation is provided. As William pointed out, not everyone may be able to just pick up on it without more information. We're all generally in the know regarding political science. Many readers are not.--- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 02:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is THIS neutral??

Read the most recent citation in the Socialism "Criticism" section. It is regarding socialism's death account!? I don't know about any of you, but I think this is POV content. What part of socialism is this critic describing? What countries to be exact? Until this is further clarified, I think the reference should be removed, all it really seems to say is that "socialism kills people". I'm not so sure this is neutral.-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 16:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you understand NPOV policy. On what grounds are you objecting to inclusion of this criticism? -- Vision Thing -- 17:59, 3 February 2007

(UTC)

On the grounds that it conveys inappropriate implications.-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 18:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Inapropriate implications" is NOT the criteria for NPOV. NPOV means you present an argument without making a judgement on wether that argument is right or wrong. For example:

• NPOV: some critics argue that socialism has killed millions of people.
• POV: some critics have wrongly argued that socialism has killed millions of people.

Can you spot the difference? the second one takes a position on the criticism, stating that those who take this position are wrong. The fact of the matter is, there is a substantial number of people that consider the deaths of millions of people under socialism to be a fair criticism. To simply state this fact is not POV. To criticise this fact is.

NPOV simply means that the person writing the article does not take a position on the subject. It does not mean that you cannot present oposing views within the article. I, for example, do not agree with some of the criticisms leveled against capitalism, but I am mature enough to accept that there are oposing views to mine, and I can mention those views without saying they are wrong. -- Dullfig 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not expect to ever say this-- EnglishEfternamn is right on this point. The 'death toll' refers to certain types of socialist regimes. The topic is more relevent in a more specific entry. In particular, this discussion is covered in detail in criticisms of Communist party rule. 172 | Talk 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Since this article talks about those "certain types of socialist regimes", this critic is appropriate. -- Vision Thing -- 19:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true, because the citation talk rather ambiguously about socialism's "death toll". What precisely does that mean? People killed under communist regimes? And if so, which regimes? Until it is more specific, it is not appropriate. Furthermore, these statistics remain disputed by other studies. Why exclude reference to that?--- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 20:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It serves perfectly as a sourced, short summary of those criticisms that are further elaborated in the "Criticism of socialism" article. If you want further elaboration here, that won't be a problem. -- Vision Thing -- 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, VisionThing, this article is about socialism as an ideology and a political movement. The article characterizes various political regimes as a point of reference, not as the principal focus of the entry. Broad references to concerns about human rights under socialism are appropriate under the criticism section. Further detail belongs in more specialized entries such as "criticisms of Communist party rule." 172 | Talk 21:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

One sentence about the deaths is not going into details. Criticism section is thin as it is (two whole sentences on criticism of socialism, wow!), and not mentioning deaths is a clear violation of POV policy. -- Vision Thing -- 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I support expanding the criticism section. But making sections longer is not a goal in and of itself. An expanded criticism section must be of high quality, which means starting with the most prominent works of criticism and working our way down to lesser known ones. If any one book is cited, it must be a great classic distinguished by its considerable political influence, like Hayek's Road to Serdom. 172 | Talk 06:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia's policy which requires that sources must be "the most prominent works" in the area, that is clearly your personal preference. Because exclusion of this criticism, which is the most important criticism of socialism in my and many others view, I'm disputing neutrality of the article. -- Vision Thing -- 17:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a broad encyclopedia article that is supposed to introduce readers to the subject; thus it makes sense to give prominence to the influential classics that are representative of mainstream criticism and upon which many other works are founded. This really isn't a matter of policy, but, since you insist, WP:NPOV#Undue weight essentially requires that the most prominent sources take precedence over lesser known ones. That said, I am not opposed to expanding the criticism section, as long as it is done according to 172's common sense approach. -- WGee 22:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the problem of undue weight more clearly than I had, WGee.

Another problem with VisionThing's reasoning above is his assumption that a brief criticism section is a violation of NPOV in itself. The assumption is misguided. The article contains no 'advocacy,' as VisionThing would probably put it. Indeed, what makes the article more readable than many articles here is that the content avoids the formulaic style of back-and-forth dialogue between ahistorical 'critics' and 'advocates' typical of bad Wikipedia articles. The article mostly consists of a neutal historical narrative (at least as close to neutral by the standard of our times and cultural context), as the narrative does not imply support or opposition to any particular point of view not outside the realm of reasonable discussion of the subject at hand. That being said, I still support expanding the criticism section, along with the two other underdeveloped sections ("Socialism as an economic system" and "Socialism and social and political theory") in order to make the article more informative. 172 | Talk 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To best of my knowledge, the two most prominent books which criticize socialism and actual existing socialism are The Road to Serfdom and The Black Book of Communism. In next few days I will try to summarize the main points of their criticisms. If you know of some more prominent work which deals with criticisms, feel free to contribute. Also, if someone plans to put some counter-criticisms, I expect equally prominent sources. -- Vision Thing -- 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The latter book you mentioned focuses on Communism, not socialism specifically. I feel uncomfortable about your reference to "counter-criticisms." The criticisms section should consist of what I had described earlier as a neutral historical narrative focusing on the history of political thought, not a back-and-forth dialogue between "criticisms" and "counter-criticisms." If the section is going to be expanded, we need to get it right. VisionThing, with all due respect, you should give me the chance to write the expanded section first, as I have more of a background in the history of political thought than a lot of editors. 172 | Talk 21:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, how much time do you need? (preferably not more than a week) As for communism, "communist states" are often seen as an example of "actually/real existing socialism". -- Vision Thing -- 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem then becomes one of neutrally and accurately dealing with that sort of distinction for beginners in a small space of text, get it wrong and a full scale edit war could ensue of PoV warriors defending socialism saying 'but that's communism, gner', etc. as we've seen here before. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but that it would be tricky and is best done by a consensual decision so whatever goes in has plenty of editors to defend it. As a suggestion, maybe the angle should be to mention The Black Book of Communism as a critique of revolutionary socialism?--Red Deathy 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But remember that the disruptions you described above are largely the work of one user who is currently being monitored by an administrator. Also, I favour not mentioning The Black Book of Communism at all, since its topic is specifically Communist regimes rather than socialism as a social or economic system. -- WGee 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be right on that, 172, but still some critics equate socialism with the political movement. Stating this is not NPOV, even if they may be wrong by doing this equation. Luis rib 21:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How it's going? -- Vision Thing -- 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of all subjects is inherent in writing an encyclopedia. Otherwise, there is no way of determining the content germane to a single entry. Your assertion "some critics equate socialism with the political movement" is meaningless. Anyone who does not 'relate socialism to the political movement' has no historical frame of reference. Socialist ideology is not a priori reality independent of a particular context in which it is constructed in discourse or by a political movement. The ideology and the political movement are inseparable. But for the sake of organizing information, one or the other angle can be emphasized depending on the subtopic. (Indeed, the goal of my rewrite of the article was to situate discussion of the ideology in historical context. The entry is nothing I'd ever consider for a writing sample; but I think I achieved the goal fairly well.) 172 | Talk 21:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

VisionThing... with advance apologies to others for using this page for outside discussions... thanks for fixing many of the references in "criticisms of Communist party" rule. I've been planning to do so myself, but you spared me of a tedious duty. Thanks! 172 | Talk 21:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, the citation is structurally inappropriate. Are we agreed then?-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 23:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

IMNSHO The book as a citaton isn't so bad as compared with the text it accompanies. As a citation it could be used to support the old text which stated that some critics criticised the human rights of communist regimes - beyond that it would be nice if the citation actually referrenced that Kor's contribution is an article in a wider book about Socialism, much of which doesn't sound quite as strident, looking at teh contents list on the LoC record...--Red Deathy 08:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Socialism in the United States section

As earlier discussed, I propose that a "Socialism in the United States" section should be included in the article, although I agree it should be brief. I think it should mention how socialism became considerably popular in the 19th century, then this popularity died out at the beginning of the first Red Scare. Maybe it could mention the fact that most socialists have opposed every war the US has ever been involved in, and how Eugene Debs, who once ran for president, was jailed for political opposition to WWI. I know this sounds very US-centric, but the reason I think this should be included is the very historical fact that as stated earlier, the US has acted as the biggest opposer of Socialism on the international level. Major ideologies mentioned in this website should be accompanied by explanation of efforts done to oppose them.--- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 17:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is more of a topic for a graduate seminar than a general encyclopedia entry on socialism. The classic question 'why there is no socialism in the United States' goes back to Werner Sombart. It was picked up by Louis Hartz and the 'consensus school.' In recent years, the late Seymour Martin Lipset coauthored It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States, picking up the theme of 'American exceptionalism.' The topic is covered in the articles on the relevant works by Sombart, Hartz, and Lipset. What you are proposing here is actually badly needed in the American exceptionalism article, where coverage on socialism is surprising absent. 172 | Talk 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I think even minimal mention is suitable here. Again, can an article talk about a concept without refering to its biggest opposer?-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 20:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The answer is essentially the same as the one offered under the above heading to VisonThing, redirecting attention back to the core focus of a general survey on 'socialism' in an encyclopedia. The article currently refers to various forms of opposition to socialism from the United States as a point of reference (e.g., the First Red Scare, the Cold War, and rise of neoliberalism during the Reagan years). Discussions of ideology in the United States in comparative perspective-- the question of why a certain ideas were hegemonic in the U.S. but not elsewhere-- belong in more specialized entries, particularly 'American exceptionalism,' where a discussion of 'why there is no socialism in America' is actually needed but not offered. 172 | Talk 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It will be offered soon, I'm working on that, but why not mention it in this article? While we are at it, shouldn't more mention of the Red Scare and Cold War be in order too? What about the Rosenbergs, or the jailing of the Hollywood 10?-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 23:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We could go and on here. There are lots of articles related to the history of socialism. This is a general article for people who are not just unfamiliar with the Hollywood 10, the First Red Scare, and the Rosenbergs, but barely have any knowledge connected to the term socialism. 172 | Talk 13:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I broadly agree with 172. There is also an article Socialism in the United States, as well as a moer general history of socialism, both linked to in the article. This article needs to have the most important points about socialism for a beginner. BobFromBrockley 10:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian Socialism?

shouldn't that be added to the list, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.124.237 (talk • contribs)

"Blacklisting"

Contained in the "Moderate Socialism And Communism" section, 9th paragraph, is the following sentence: "Communism would also fail to gain a large following in the U.S., in part due to the later efforts of former Senator Joseph McCarthy and the blacklisting of prominent Americans by the government in the 1950s."

Blacklisting was done by businesses, most notably the Hollywood film industry, not by government. Government blacklisting would have been Stalinist.

The sentence would be more accurate this way: "...efforts of former Senator Joseph McCarthy and the use of blacklisting in the 1950's by industries such as the Hollywood film studios."

GufportDoc 22:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)GulfportDoc

Criticism Section needs work again

I am a bit hesitant to just leave the newest wording in the criticism section as is. It refers to "prosperity" of the "general populous". What in this context is "prosperity"? And what in this context is the "general populous"? The wording is too ambiguous to leave as is in my opinion, it needs to be changed. -- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

All that is explained in the Hayek book that is referenced (a good book...I recommend it to everyone here). Also, I believe details such as those are better left to the main article (Criticism of socialism), that's why we have the "main" article template in the first place, to direct readers who desire more information (such as detailed definition of relative terms, etc.) to the appropriate article. That having been said, I would not object to a rewording, providing it is equally compact and concise and not so awkward as to disrupt the current flow of the article.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 19:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree, previous wording would suffice.--EnglishEfternamn^talk_contribs 21:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The disputed sentence

In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property.

First, it doesn't explain when the term first appeared. Second, "European social critics" is an awkward phrase. Third, "European social critics who criticized" contains a redundant word. Xiner (talk, email) 02:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The previous setence provided the timeframe, the late-19th century. The word choice in "European social critics" has to do with substance, not style. The description must be as general as possible to describe all notable early socialists, but as specific as possible to be informative. Alternative phrases or words like "writers," "reformers," "revolutionaries," "workers," "political leaders," etc. lead to various problems currently avoided in the intro. Frankly, the above post strikes me as an attempt to look for problems where there are none. 172 | Talk 02:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, please assume good faith. That comment is quite unnecessary. Please also note that substance and style are not mutually exclusive. Xiner (talk, email) 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can improve the style without changing the substance, change the phrase. There is no need to put up dispute headings in the process. 172 | Talk 02:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I was reverted twice, so I consider that a dispute, but whatever. It's not my problem anymore. Xiner (talk, email) 02:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section (revisted)

I thought we had been over this again and again. The newest rendition to the criticism appears to be characteristic of an anti-Socialism slant. It implies that Socialism is inherently connected to Nazism and Fascism. Whether it is or not, such a subject is highly disputed at this time, in any legitimate circle of political science. The previous version of the criticism section did just fine, and it was generally agreed that such was the case. I think it should be changed back. Furthermore, any section that deals so much with critical statements should have a rebuttal as well, and such is not the case. Bottom line, disambiguate the section, leave it short (as there is already an entire article for the subject anyway), and stop it right at the area where it states that "...critics state that Socialism compromises human rights...". Please voice your feedback on this.--EnglishEfternamn^talk_contribs 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy requires that all viewpoints should be included. If notable critic of socialism claims that socialism is connected to Nazism, that needs to be mentioned. -- Vision Thing -- 21:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with you that the criticism section should be expanded, it must be done in compliance with WP:NPOV and bearing in mind the final product. To the contrary, you simply transposed one of the editorials that are interspersed throughout Encarta, and added a sentence that belongs in another article. I suggest that you wait for 172 to expand the section in a way that will emphasize eminent anti-socialist literature. -- WGee 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How is not in compliance with NPOV? -- Vision Thing -- 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim that socialism is connected to Nazism is not a criticism of socialism (it is, in fact, the fallacy of Reductio ad Hitlerum; we cannot simply take it for granted that anything connected to Nazism is by definition evil). The criticism you are thinking about - Hayek's criticism - is that socialism inevitably leads to unacceptable restrictions on individual rights. That is the central argument in The Road to Serfdom. -- Nikodemos 06:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hayek's criticism was that socialism leads to totalitarianism, and he gave examples of Fascism and Nazism. Whether Fascism and Nazism are by definition evil is beside the point, he saw them as evil and that is enough to put that argument in Criticism section. -- Vision Thing -- 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally, please bear in mind that the main article for criticism is criticisms of socialism, and that the criticism section in this article should be a brief summary of that article, not a content fork. -- Nikodemos 07:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently criticism section is not a brief summary of the main article, because couple of editors here is actively working to keep it incomplete. -- Vision Thing -- 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Although Nikodemos was right to remove your sloppy, impromptu, and biased contributions, I agree with 172 that the section should eventually be expanded in a way that highlights influential anti-socialist literature. What do you say to this, Nikodemos? -- WGee 01:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that any work carried out be carried out at the criticisms article and then imported back here?--Red Deathy 08:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Market socialism definition

This doesn't make sense: "some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, make decisions about production and exchange." First of all "market forces" don't make decisions, people do. Secondly there is still central planning in market socialism. Central planners direct and guide the market. Encyclopedia Britannica says: "Others advocate a “market socialism” in which the market economy would be directed and guided by socialist planners." The first model of market socialism was by Lange who proposed that prices be set by central planners and adjusted when shortages and surpluses occured. I think whoever wrote the sentence defining market socialism in this article and put the sources there did not read the sources correctly. Can anyone verify what those attached sources say? Working Poor 05:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your first criticism concerns a problem of semantics that I have already fixed. As for the definition of market socialism found in Britannica, it is so simplistic as to be inaccurate. Oskar Lange proposed that only the prices of producer goods be set by a Central Planning Board. The prices of consumer goods would be determined by supply and demand, with the supply coming from state-owned firms that would set their prices equal to the marginal cost. There are also other relevant versions of market socialism that we cannot overlook: Marshall Tito's worker-managed market socialism, in which worker-managed but state-owned enterprises operated with little direction from the state; "socialism with Chinese characteristics", which consists largely of state-owned "town and village enterprises" that have hard budget constraints, seldom receive government bail-outs, and thus resemble your typical private firm; a market socialism derived from the Japanese keiretsu system, in which state-owned banks own large amounts of stock in corporate conglomerates and monitor their performance; and various forms of Tito-inspired participatory economics. This article's definition of market socialism covers all these differing versions and is verified not only by the Dictionary of the Social Sciences, but also by John Barkley Rosser and Marina V. Rosser's Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy (Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, 2004). Being an undergraduate textbook, the latter is a particularly fine source for this general article. -- WGee 03:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

POV

As currently written there are no references to libertarian socialism, no references to voluntary socialism, no references to market socialism in the anarchist sense of the term, no references to mutualism, one reference to collectivism (referring Saint-Simeon's and Owen's systems, not to Bakunin's), two references to syndicalism, and no references to communism in the anarchist sense of the term (and frequent use of uncapitalized communism/communists to refer to Marxist-Leninism/Marxist-Leninists). There are six references to anarchism (including sidebars and the list of political philosophies).

There is one reference to Proudhon (wedged among the Utopians) with no discussion of his ideas, of his influence on Marx, of his critique of property, of his critique of the state, or his defense of markets as socialist. There is one reference to Tucker (as the author of SS&A). There is one reference to Bakunin (very simplistic). There are no references to Malatesta. There are no references to Dejacques. There are no references to Kropotkin. (!!!). There are no references to Bookchin.

It looks like almost all discussion of anarchism, one of the most important strains of socialist thought in the 19th century, in the early 20th century, and at the present, has been purged from the article. Jacob Haller 05:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Demigod Ron has just rewritten the intro to state that:

As an economic system, socialism is defined by state ownership of the means of production.

It is now clear that certain editors are attempting to erase all references to anarchism from the discussion of socialism (and damaging much of the rest of the article in the process). As such I must dispute this article. Jacob Haller 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism is not a branch of socialism. If you recall the anarchists lead by Mikhail Bukanin split from the socialists lead by Karl Marx during the First Internation. Anarchism is therefore it's own distinctive socio-economic system that had broken it's ties to socialism during the First International. (Demigod Ron 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

No, anarchism broke with Marxism during the First International (see Anarchism and Marxism. The break was between the followers of Marx (the Marx Party, the Marxists) and the followers of Bakunin (the Bakuninists, the anarchists). Socialism is not Marxism. Marx himself was opposed to the existence of the state, and defined "true socialism," which is to say communism, as being stateless. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SwitChar on this. Classic texts of anarchism produced long after the split in the First International (e.g. by Rudolf Rocker or Daniel Guerin) make clear that they thought of anarchism as a variant of socialism. The anarchists tried to join the Second International - and were supported in this by Keir Hardie and the British trade unions, but opposed by continental Marxists. BobFromBrockley 09:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Explaining my Reverts

172 just reverted several updates including, among others:

1. A clarification regarding the 1st International.

   Links to political parties and other stuff mentioned in the text.

   Correcting comments about communist parties to Communist Parties, socialist parties to Socialist Parties, etc. Where the context made clear that political organizations (Socialist, Communist), not economic ideas (socialist, communist), were referred to.

   Several fact tags, mostly regarding disputed claims. Citation is good.

I restored the previous edits. Jacob Haller 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

From the communism article:

According to the 1996 third edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage, communism and derived words are written with the lower case c except when they refer to a political party of that name, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party, in which case the word is written "Communist" (with an upper case C). Thus, one may be a communist (an advocate of communism) without being a Communist (a member of a Communist Party or another similar organization).

In most cases, the text is speaking of advocates of communism/socialism rather than party members, so you were incorrect to capitalize virtually every instance of socialist and communist.

I only capitalized Communism and Socialism when referring to (Marxist) Communist organizations exclusive of other (e.g. anarchocommunist) communist movements; similarly I only capitalized Socialism when referring to (non-Marxist-Leninist State-Socialist) Socialist organizations exclusive of other (Marxist-Leninist state-socialist, and non-state-socialist) socialist movements. In fact the text somewhere referred to "communists and their parties," which I took to refer to members of Communist Parties. Jacob Haller 21:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most of the instances of communists you capitalized refer primarily to advocates of communism, not to members of Communist parties (in which case one would be correct in capitalizing the word). Whether these advocates of communism are Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, or anarchists does not affect capitalization; no provision is made for that in any style or usage guide. -- WGee 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, uncontroversial, elementary facts that can be found in any and every reference book on socialism – and even in high school history, politics, or economics textbooks – do not require citations. None of the sources at the bottom of the article or elsewhere dispute the "claims" you tagged; whether or not you dispute them is irrelevant. -- WGee 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations are good. You are arguing that you should not cite because it would be so easy to cite. Why? Jacob Haller 21:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is only necessary to reference information and ideas that are derived from someone else's work, in order to avoid plagiarism. General knowledge or information that is common knowledge in your field of writing does not need to be referenced because it is not derived from the research of any particular person. In fact, referencing common knowledge on college papers – apart from cluttering up your paper with ugly footnotes and making you look dumb – can lead to mark deductions. -- WGee 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This article only has 6 footnotes in 34 kb. Anarchism has 136 footnotes in 104 kb. Gothic and Vandal warfare has 83 footnotes in <<32 kb. I would expect 40-50 footnotes in an article of this size. Jacob Haller 01:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The number of footnotes in an article depends on its content, not on its size. General articles on familiar subjects, like this one, consist largely of elementary facts that do not require citations. We could include notes of some sort directing the reader to relevant literature (e.g., For more information on utopian socialism, see [book]), but such notes would not be the equivalent of in-text citations. -- WGee 02:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Capitalism and democracy are general articles on familiar subjects and they have 30+ footnotes, so your argument doesn't stand. -- Vision Thing -- 13:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If it would make you happy to add in-line citations for certain lesser-known facts, go ahead; I would not object. But what I would object to is the insertion of 'cite needed' tags, because, despite being desireable to some, in-line citations are actually unnecessary. -- WGee 23:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

communism/Communism and socialism/Socialism

In the intro:

Some Marxists, including many 20th-century communists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production.

Now the Soviet economy was, according to Marxist theory, (transitional) socialism, not communism. I originally substituted Communists here. I now substitute state-socialists here. It inspired many non-communist state socialists (as well as the Rooseveltian New Deal, and other mixed economies, for that matter) and didn't inspire, e.g., anarcho-communists. Jacob Haller 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

if that bugs anyone, "some socialists" would still be an improvement over "communists." Jacob Haller 21:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninists, the ones who propose centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production, are still communists. Although they use "state-socialist" means, they are officially committed to the realization of communism as an end. -- WGee 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In the Interwar era and Would War II:

Western European socialist parties won major electoral gains in the immediate postwar years.

Again switch to Socialist parties. I think this is clear. Jacob Haller 22:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the text is referring to political parties that advocate socialism, not just parties that name themselves "socialist"; thus, a lowercase "s" would be appropriate. -- WGee 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been following this page recently, but I think it is very important to avoid using "communist"/"communism" with a small C to refer solely to big-C Communists (Communist parties and states), because so many definitions of communism (e.g. anarchist communism, the left communist tradition, Marx himself) are so opposed to the reality of Communist states. The best rule of thumb is this one, from [[Criticisms of Communist party rule]: "Note also that when referring to an ideology or a proponent of that ideology... which has as its ultimate goal the classless communist society, the terms "communism" and "communist" take an initial lowercase letter ("c"). When referring explicitly to a Communist Party, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party, the terms are capitalized (i.e. "Communism," "Communist")." BobFromBrockley 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Between Utopianism & Marxism

Relating to my concerns with (1) the definition of socialism on this page and market socialism on its page (2) the limited coverage of non-Marxist socialism, particularly early socialism and anarchism (3) my fact tags for certain claims about Marxist history.

I am not particularly familiar with the early "Utopian" schools (Saint-Simeon, Fourier, Owen, etc.). I would be glad if other editors could clarify. Nevertheless, in my understanding, the early "Utopian" schools emphasized cooperation (and non-market economics) with little or no emphasis on class struggle. At the same time, the early market schools (Hodgskin's, Warren's & especially Proudhon's Mutualism) emphasized class struggle as well as market economics.

I think that the early history of the class struggle side would help explain things. Proudhon, of course, influenced Marx early on, and Bakunin, later, and focused attention on the institution of property and possible alternatives. Jacob Haller 01:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

POV assertion

"One of the difficulties of the socialism in the 21st century is that it needs capitalism to generate economic growth and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialism&action=submitprosperity, and at the same time capitalism doesn't need socialism for providing welfare protection. All this resulted in the loss of confidence by socialist leaders and followers."

Please defend the insertion of this text. At the very least, it needs to be a direct quote in context. It is highly POV, speculative, and not appropriate as it was inserted.--Cberlet 15:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

True, that presents one point of view, but if "Some argue/claim that one of the..." is added I don't see why it shouldn't be included. -- Vision Thing -- 15:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The above editorial should not be included, even in quotation marks, because its validity rests on idiosyncratic definitions of capitalism and socialism that are unknown to the reader. The author should have chosen his words more carefully instead of using ambiguous, undefined -isms. Moreover, any criticisms of socialism should be derived from eminent, scholarly anti-socialist literature, not from online encyclopedias run by software companies. -- WGee 18:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The text itself does not need to be defended. Sassoon wrote a monograph on European socialist parties, it probably has the same conclusions. Donald Sassoon. Intangible2.0 06:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As Intangible2.0 already noted, author of Socialism article in Encarta is a professor at University of London and the author of "One Hundred Years of Socialism". Excluding his views would be violation of NPOV. Btw, I see you talking a lot about "eminent, scholarly anti-socialist literature" but you constantly fail to contribute anything to this article about that subject. -- Vision Thing -- 21:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to include that argument in criticisms of socialism, since it is most obviously a criticism. However, I'm not sure about its value to the reader. Why does Sassoon believe that socialism needs capitalism to generate economic growth? As it stands now, most readers would see the argument as: "Some person says that socialism needs capitalism to generate economic growth". That's really just an assertion, not an argument. Unless it is further explained, how does that add any knowledge to an article? I'm sure we could find many anti-socialist authors who can be quoted as saying "socialism is evil". But, unless they explain what they mean by "evil" and why they believe socialism to be evil, such assertions are useless to an encyclopedia. -- Nikodemos 21:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That paragraph informs readers that some people have observed loss of confidence in socialist ranks because of socialism's inability to generate economic growth without capitalism. Since it's talking about modern socialist, I think it is also appropriate for Contemporary socialism section. -- Vision Thing -- 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if we're talking about a person who wrote an entire book about socialism, I cannot help but wonder why you only wish to add one of his assertions to this article, Vision Thing. If I didn't know you better, I might think you're picking and choosing only the anti-socialist bits out of your readings. -- Nikodemos 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As several editors already acknowledged, Criticism section is a bit short. Since they seem unintrested in expanding it, I'm currently focusing on arguments that migh be appropriate for it. -- Vision Thing -- 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You do not have full editorial control over the criticism section just because other editors are "uninterested" in expanding it. -- WGee 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism

I propose a section on fascism, both national socialism (nazis) and Italian fascism since these were basically socialist systems where property was controlled and nationalized for the public good. Billy Ego 20:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem you get when people associate socialism with state ownership. Fascism is control by the capitalist class through the state. (Contrast with control by the working class(es) without the state, discussed above). Jacob Haller 22:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Association socialism with state ownership is a correct association. Socialism by definition is state owned or controlled industry, unless you're talking about utopian socialism. In socialism there is social control over the means of production. This control is exercised on behalf of the people by state. The Fuhrer himself said "I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual...The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property." And he said "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Clearly NAZI germany was socialism and so was Fascist Italy, as pointed out below. Billy Ego 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a correct association. Read the article. Notable socialists who opposed the existence of the state include Oscar Wilde, Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bakunin, and even Karl Marx himself - who, as I have said before, defined "true socialism" as being stateless. Socialism is about economic democracy and egalitarianism. Fascism, while it features an economic system that incorporates government intervention, is also in support of the free market when it is beneficial to be. Fascism's economics are pure populism. There is, at best, a weak connection between the two. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than the expropriation of Jewish property, if Mr Ego can give me one example of fascist nationalsation, I'd be very pleased to hear of it. By the way, state control of the economy is something of an exaggeration. The German economy was not placed upon a total war footing until 1943 at the earliest. They were still manufacturing domestic refrigerators while their soldiers froze at Stalingrad...

--Train guard 17:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many examples. So I'm sure you'll be extremely pleased. "The IRI invested directly in industry, particularly shipping, steel, shipbuilding, chemicals, electricity and telephones. By 1938 the Italian state controlled four-fifths of shipping and shipbuilding, three quarters of iron and half of steel, while as a result of the 1936 Banking Reform Act, the the Bank of Utaly and most other large banks become public institutions. By 1939 Italy had the highest percentage of state-owned enterprises outside the the Soviet Union." -Adrian Lyttelton (editor), "Liberal and fascist Italy, 1900-1945", Oxford University Press, 2002. pp. 13. This was a great benefit to the people of Italy that saved them from capitalist leeching class. Billy Ego 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You should be very careful here. Most of this relates to actions taken in the wake of the post 1929 - 31 economic crisis. The IRI mainly purchased shareholdings in failing or near bankrupt concerns. It also obtained interests in businesses through its acquisition of failing banks. It received nationalisation powers in, I think, 1937, but there are few instances of major state companies. The main exception was that of oil, which was considered a strategic sector. Despite your claim, we are talking of perhaps 20% of the economy as a whole in which the state could be said to have any controling interest (not all of which were state companies pure and simple), and mostly obtained in response to economic emergency, not direct fascist policy.

But your remarks relate to Italy. What about Nazi Germany?

--Train guard 17:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm going to take a scholar's of fascism's word over yours. My remarks relate to Italy because Italy was THE Fascim. National Socialism was modeled after Fascism. In Nazi Germany there wasn't as much nationalization but sigificant social control was still exercised over industry. Laissez-faire was not allowed. Industry was controlled to serve the people. Wage controls were instituted as well as many price controls to makes sure the people weren't exploited. Billy Ego 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you clearly have no understanding of how the German economy functioned prior to 1943. Why did they adopt the blitzkreig tactic in 1939 - 41? When you can answer that, please come back to us...

--Train guard 17:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Socialism as an economic system

Although the section must be expanded, it should continue to focus on Soviet-style socialism, market socialism, and their bastions. Mixed economies (i.e., the economies of every industrialized nation) or welfare states are not considered socialist but rather manifestations of advanced market capitalism. Participatory or syndicalist economics can be discussed as well, but the focus should remain on the centrally planned economy of the Soviet Union, "socialism with Chinese characteristics," and the market socialist economies of Communist Hungary and Yugoslavia, in accordance with textbooks on comparative economics such as Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy (Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, 2004). -- WGee 02:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you say? "Mixed economies (i.e., the economies of every industrialized nation) or welfare states are not considered socialist but rather manifestations of advanced market capitalism." What?! Mixed economies are not advanced market capitalism. Mixed economies are by definition part capitalism and part socialism. See the article mixed economy. Mixed economy is manifestation of non-market socialist characteristics being introduced into what was a capitalist economy or capitalist characteristics being introduced into what was a socialist economy. Working Poor 02:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you actually read the provided source, or any other general textbook on comparative economics for that matter? -- WGee 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The majority of people who currently claim to be socialists - that is, social democrats - would consider mixed economies to fit their definition of socialism. The article does currently cover social democracy, so why shouldn't it cover the economic views of social democrats? If you believe that social democracy is not a form of socialism, that's fine, but you must then remove it from the entire article, not merely one section.

In any case, the economy section as it stood before was clearly inadequate. Please remove any paragraphs you deem inappropriate from the new section rather than reverting. -- Nikodemos 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that the reason social democrats call themselves social democrats, rather than democratic socialists, is that they are not socialists and do not consider themselves to be. Democratic socialists support slowly supplanting a capitalist ecoonomy with a socialist one, while social democrats support reform within the capitalist system, i.e. a mixed economy. That's my understanding of the difference between the terms. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My own personal POV is that you are correct, and social democracy is not a form of socialism. However, the largest organization of social democratic parties in the world is called the Socialist International, and many social democratic parties claim to be socialist (e.g. French Socialist Party). -- Nikodemos 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether or not social democrats consider themselves socialists; neither your contributions nor the section to which they were made concern that issue. Since you inserted information about contemporary Western economies (i.e., "mixed economies" or "welfare states") into a section entitled "Socialism as an economic system," the implication follows that such economies are socialist. My problem is that mainstream literature on comparative economics indicates that they are actually advanced capitalist economies rather than socialist ones, and thus should not be discussed in that section. I dislike your approach to expanding the section in general, as you have shifted the focus away from socialist economic systems and how they (would) work to the broad economic principles that socialists advocate. -- WGee 07:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is because I meant my edits to provide the framework for further development of the section. I strongly object to the previous state of that section, which not only gave ridiculous undue weight to the Soviet Union, but also seemed to be more concerned with Western criticisms of the Soviet economy than with explaining how that economy actually worked.

I will restore my edits, with some changes: 1. I will comment out the section on social democracy; 2. I will give a summary of the workings of the Soviet economy. -- Nikodemos 07:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I reinserted the paragraph about the liberal critique of socialist planning because the economic calculation problem actually engendered market socialism, which is discussed in the following paragraph. It would be unencyclopedic to omit the cause of the effect. -- WGee 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In theoretical terms, you had free-market advocates like Proudhon and Tucker active in the socialist movement in the 19th century (and others in the 20th century). In practical terms, the NEP was a mixed economy in the 1920s. Jacob Haller 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to mention earlier that we should add information about the NEP as a type of mixed-market socialism, although I think Proudhon's economic theory is too obscure and uninfluential to be included in this general entry on socialism. -- WGee 22:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a shorter summary of the liberal challenge would be in order (along with a note that it is, in fact, a challenge from liberal free market economists, rather than the vague notion of "western economists"). The reason I dislike having any argumentation in sections not dedicated to argumentation is because argumentation attracts POV-pushers. -- Nikodemos 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But the paragraph is only three sentences long, and the economic calculation debate surely deserves at least that much attention considering its impact on contemporary socialist economic theory. I understand your concern about POV-pushers running wild with arguments and counter-arguments, but in this case it is not helpful to force all criticism into one section. We'll just have to be extra vigilant. -- WGee 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is correct, the paragraph is short, but then again, the entire section is short. Undue weight is relative to the size of an article or section. Three sentences can be too much in a stub (such as we have here), or too little in a section that is 30 kb long. In any case, I will again try to stick to your suggestions while rephrasing the text and providing a link to the economic calculation problem. The ultimate solution, I think, will be to simply expand the section. -- Nikodemos 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

<-------Sorry for being so nitpicky, but there were a couple of problems with your rephrasing; see the edit summaries. Now that the market socialism paragraph has been expanded a bit, perhaps we could just leave the critical paragraph alone. Like you said, the ultimate solution will be to expand the section rather than condense the economic calculation debate into one sentence. Eventually, I hope to see a section that includes subheadings, comparable in length to the history section. -- WGee 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You do seem to be rather inflexible, but that's okay. Any inconvenience is more than made up by your role as a bastion against POV-pushers. :) (could I ask for your assistance with two other articles, by the way?) Getting back on topic, please do not remove my text explaining which socialists support the Soviet model. Starting out with "In the Soviet Union" seems rather abrupt and may create all sorts of different false impressions. The general template should be: *This group of socialists supports this economic model, and here is a description of the model*. How many models do we have, by the way? I count four as of now: Soviet, Trotskyist, market socialist, and "participatory". We should aim to expand each of them into sub-sections. Finally, note that the sentence "they argued that socialist planned economies would eventually fail" is original research. There is no such concept as the "failure" of an economic model in academic economics. There is only poor performance on various indicators. What liberals argued was that centrally planned economies would allocate goods and services in a non-optimal way, whereas market economies would allocate them optimally. -- Nikodemos 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I've adequately addressed your concern about who advocates what economic system by mentioning that Marxist-Leninists advocate central command planning.

We could replace fail with collapse, as in "to break down suddenly in strength or health and thereby cease to function." Either way, I'm quite sure that the reader will know what we mean. We are not writing scholarly economic literature; we are simply summarizing information in laymen's terms.

We should aim to discuss the following socialist economic models in addition to the current ones:

• worker-managed market socialism in Yugoslavia;
• decentralized market socialism in Hungary after the introduction of the post-1968 New Economic Mechanism, and János Kornai's critique of it;
• "socialism with Chinese characteristics"
• the New Economic Policy

-- WGee 02:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In my understanding, Trotskyist economic proposals vary as much as other Marxist economic proposals. The article implies that Trotskyists share common economic proposals (distinct from other Marxists) and, probably inadvertently, implies that these proposals influenced anarcho-syndicalism (et al.). There is some back-and-forth between anarchist and Marxist proposals (some direct and some via libertarian Marxism/council communism), but anarcho-syndicalism predtates Trotskyism. It is probably better to say that both influenced the new left. The typology of non-state (not necessarily anarchist) systems could use some work, perhaps cross-referencing non-state systems like collectivism (e.g. Parecon) and syndicalism with comparable state sustems (I've never studied the Yugoslav model) and non-state communism with decentralized forms of state communism (???) and so on. Jacob Haller 04:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitional Concerns (Fascism isn't Socialism)

Now in the 20th century few/no [other] socialists regarded the Fascists, Nazis, etc. as socialists. Ergo they weren't socialists. And in the 19th century most other socialists regarded the mutualists, collectivists, etc. as socialists. Ergo they were/we are socialists. Certainly Proudhon's, Greene's, or Tucker's (free-market) systems don't look like Owen's or Marx's systems. But these people considered each other socialists. And the socialist systems claimed one common feature which few if any non-socialist systems had: the workers control the means of production. This could include anything from individual artisan ownership or collective factory ownership in a free market to centralized state ownership with a democratic state (and we can argue about which is more likely) and would exclude anything where the nobles, or the capitalists, or the bureaucrats control the means of production. It would definitely exclude Fascism. Jacob Haller 07:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You said "the socialist systems claimed one common feature which few if any non-socialist systems had: the workers control the means of production." I beg to differ. Capitalism has workers control of the means of production, all except in the case where the majority of control is held by investing stockholders. Most businesses in the U.S. do not have pubicly available stock but are owned by the workers themselves. Moreover, most businesses in the U.S. are sole proprietorships. Are you saying the U.S. is socialist? Working Poor 17:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In socialism the state controls the means of production for the good of people. There is no denying that Fascism was socialism. What's this about "democratic state"? Mussolini was elected and he did was he promised to do. He prevented the capitalists from exploiting the people. He nationalized large amounts of industry and put strong controls on others. The means of production were controlled by the state as the people's representative. Industry syndicates were set up to make sure people received a proper wage, employment insurance, health benefits, etc Prices of goods were set so that everyone could afford them. A welfare system was set up for the poor. And so on. The system of National Socialism under Hitler was similar. There wasn't as much direct nationalization but the means of production were controlled by the Third Reich to serve the people instead of pillaging them as laissez-faire capitalism had. Billy Ego 16:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In socialism the state controls the means of production - a definition that, at best, is derived from a misunderstanding of socialism. Many, many socialists actually opposed the existence of the state. Not just anarchists, but also council communists, libertarian Marxists, followers of Young Marx, and autonomists among others. There is a reason no fascists joined the First International. ~Switch ^{t c g} 06:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(1)Socialism does not (or ought not) distinguish between categories of people. All belong to the human race. All are individual people with individual potential. Socialism is about creating the conditions in which individual potential is realised.

The ultimate solvent of fascism is race. The individual cannot exist without membership of a volk community from which other individuals are excluded. What is important is the continued survival of the volk. Therefore, all individual aspirations are subordinated to it.

(2) Mussolini was appointed Prime Minister by the King. He was not elected.

(3) His corporate system abolished trade unions. Industries were regulated by 'Chambers' or 'Syndicates' that , in practice, were dominated by the employers.

(4) Contrary to your assertion, he did not nationalise large amounts of industry. (See my previous posting.)

(5) The means of production were not controlled by the Third Reich. I suggest that you read a decent book on the German war economy.

--Train guard 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is not about race. You're wrong. You're trying to equate Hitler's personal racism to classic Fascism. Where does Mussolini say that race is important? And yes Mussolini did nationalize large amounts of industry. I gave you a source. It counts much more than your word. Billy Ego 17:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Billy, if you deny that race and folk community is not at the heart of fascism, then you clearly have no understanding of what fascism is or was. You did indeed give a source, and I criticised your use or interpretation of it. Now if you are are not prepared to argue on the basis of my points, there isn't much more to be said.

--Train guard 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My interepretation of the source? I didn't interpret it at all. It says plainly that the Fascist Italy had the highest percentage of state-owned industry besides the Soviet Union. Again, where does Mussolini ever extol race? Or are you denying that Mussolini's system was Fascism? Billy Ego 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I quote. "This was a great benefit to the people of Italy that saved them from capitalist leeching class." That is your interpretation of the source that you cited. I have suggested that the facts of the citation should be seen in context; as a response to an economic emergency, and not a fundamental part of fascist ideology.

I also suggest that you consult the Italian Race Laws of 1938.

--Train guard 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

All socialists, including myself, are opposed to the capitalist leeching class. Where do you see race in what are you say is Mussolini's statement? And no it's not my interpetation of the source. This is a direct quote from the source: "By 1939 Italy had the highest percentage of state-owned enterprises outside the the Soviet Union." Billy Ego 19:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat. You said "this was a great benefit to the people of Italy that saved them from capitalist leeching class." That is your comment immediately after the quote that you cited. Ergo, it is your interptretation of it. And I am arguing that it is wrong. I made some points in a previous posting to suggest why you should not think this way. I have no idea what the reference to a statement by Mussolini refers to. As to my mention about the Race Laws, I was answering your assertion that Italian Fascism never comprehended a racial element.

I do not wish to be rude, but I cannot seem to get any sense out of you. It is therefore better if I discontinue this exchange.

--Train guard 20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

<-------------I have filed for mediation concerning the longstanding disputes over the relationships among Nazism, National Socialism, National Socialism (disambiguation), Socialism, Collectivism, Fascism, Fascism and Ideology, Economics of fascism, New Deal, The New Deal and corporatism, Fascism_as_an_international_phenomenon#United_States. Please visit and consider joining the discussion concerning the appropraiteness of mediation.Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/National_Socialism--Cberlet 18:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In these kinds of disputes one should just stay with the uses of the words as defined. As defined, no socialist doctrined is opposed to the state, but rather, needs it as an intrumental tool to promote social programs, therefore, a much more powerful state than allowed in traditional liberalism. Only liberalism in general promotes the limitation of the state, in whatever form, regardless of economic or social ideals. Therefore, as defined, fascism is most certainly socialism. Look it up in any dictionary and those points are made clear.

We canno go around promoting our personal views in complete disregard to the dictionary. The definition of words is critical to understanding language and one another for proper debate and context. Jcchat66 08:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

say what? if that were true we could close down the entire left wing (and then the building would collapse out of imbalance:P). but your reasoning is the most faulty logic i ever saw. you say for one that because liberalism promotes less power to the state (which i am sure conservatist liberalist would disagree with) any other '-ism' could not. and secondly you say because A (socialism) is B (statechauvanism) - which in itself is already false - any B is A by necessity. if that is the extend to which your logic can reach, kindly shut up· Lygophile has spoken 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least one or two socialist groups are opposed to the state (the SPGB for one), liekwise syndicalists and libertarian socilaists of the boochin type - hence why the def. in the article is so unutterably broad. the rea, IMNSHO, difference between fascism and socialism is the absence of any (even nominal) commitment to egalitarianism - maybe we should focus more on that?--Red Deathy 08:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I must make two points about definitions. Firstly, I'm a European. 'Jcchat 66' defines 'liberalism' in what I would say is an American sense of the word. We would call that concept 'Gladstonian Liberalism' and it certainly doesn't relate to modern British or European liberalism. It certainly doesn't describe the views of Lloyd George, for example, let alone present day liberals. (I doubt whether some Americans would recognise this definition, but that's a separate issue.) As Wikipedia is not meant to be an American production as such, you really have to be careful about the 'universality' of your attempts at definition.

Secondly, I'm puzzled by the way that many people refer to dictionaries for definitions. Dictionaries are wonderful things, but they are lousy at defining complex abstract concepts. Which is why most political scientists never use them. In contrast, they define their own terms, so we can all understand what they are talking about. The best way forward for this article is to use the most accepted definitions by political scientists and historians. We can have a debate about that, but please leave dictionaries for the definition of empirically defined objects of perception.

--Train guard 09:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mussolini clearly stated:

• "We cannot confiscate the property of landlords; we are fascists, not socialists." [source: Weiss, John. The Fascist Tradition. Harper & Row, 1967. page 91]

Italian fascists never called themselves socialists. The application of the term "socialism" to Italian fascism is done exclusively by outside sources, usually libertarian or conservative. We cannot and should not include in this article every instance of someone calling someone else a "socialist" or something similar (such as the John Birch Society's claim that Dwight Eisenhower was a communist). -- Nikodemos 03:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And although the similarities between Fascist and socialist economics in practice are alegitimate subject of research, it is important to remember that Fascism and socialism are more than just economic systems; they are also theories of the state, democracy, social orgqanization in general. -- WGee 22:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Are Fascism and Nazism forms of Socialism?

Please take part in the current vote to rename the Nazism entry to National Socialism. See: Talk:Nazism#Requested_move. This is part of a longstanding dispute that goes back at least to 2004, in which some editors argue that Fascism and/or Nazism are merely a variety of Socialism. This is the view of a small number of libertarian/Free Market authors, and an even smaller subset of authors on the left. I argue that a majority of scholars reject this formulation, but this is being challenged on a number of pages. In addition, several editors have started redirecting [[National Socialism and National socialism away from National Socialism (Disambiguation) to Nazism, which they are attempting to rename National Socialism, as part of this larger campaign to suggest Nazism is Socialism. If you are interested in the outcome of this vote and the larger discussion, please visit: Talk:Nazism#Requested_move. Thanks.--Cberlet 17:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascist Hostility to Socialism

We agree that Fascism is opposed to Marxism and to laissez-faire capitalism. I added that Fascism is opposed to anarchism, social democracy, and independent labor unions. I don't have handy reference books on fascism so declined to cite the additions. However, we can check other wikipedia entries...

• Fascist opposition to anarchism: The Fascism page begins "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology..." and quotes Mussolini that "the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State..." and also that "The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value..." The Anarchism page observes that "In the 1920s and 1930s, the familiar dynamics of anarchism's conflict with the state were transformed by the rise of fascism in Europe. Italy saw the first struggles between anarchists and fascists."
• Fascist opposition to social-democracy: Mussolini seems to disparage social-democracy when he states "Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number..."
• Fascist opposition to independent labor unions: Economics of Fascism adds that "the Nazis outlawed trade unions and banned strikes."

Are any of these claims in dispute? Jacob Haller 04:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The main problem first of all is it looks like you're attributing something to a source which the source doesn't say. That's not "honest" though I'm sure you that's not your intention. I agree about anarchism. That's a given. I just suggest putting it in a different sentence instead of attributing it to that source. Opposition to social democracy seems to be a stretch of interpretation by you. Social democracy isn't necessarily majority rule. I think fascism and social democracy are closely related. Stalin said "Fascism is the fighting organization of the bougeousie, leaning on the active support of social democracy. Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.... These organizations do not negate but complement each other. They are no antipodes but twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two basic organizations, which arose in the situation of the post-war crisis of imperialism and is intended for the struggle against the proletarian revolution." So you'll need to find a source that says fascism in general is opposed to social democracy. Above all don't attribute it to the source that's there. Billy Ego 05:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just saw that there's a social fascism article. Check it out. Billy Ego 05:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For those who are not aware, when the Italian Fascists said they opposed "socialism" they were talking about Marxian socialism. Mussolini says "Fascism [is] the precise negation of that doctrine which formed the basis of the so-called Scientific or Marxian Socialism" -Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore. Hitler also said he was opposed to Marxian Socialism. He said "Our adopted term "Socialist" has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not." ---Adolph Hitler in the Sunday Express. He was clear that he was nonetheless a socialist. "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Not all socialists are Marxians don't you realize? There is such thing as socialism that allows private property but is anti-capitalist and anti-usury and anti-finance capitalism. Billy Ego 05:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, Hitler's Naziism and Mussolini's Facsism were separate ideologies – nice try, though. In any case, your interpretation of primary sources constitutes original research, so you'll have to find some secondary sources. -- WGee 05:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

National Socialism and Italism Fascism are both considered "fascism." More importantly, that source specifically is referring to them both. Finally, I did not "interpret" a primary sources. It was a direct quote from the source. Billy Ego 05:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:NPOV, the propaganda of political parties or personages is not to be portrayed as factual. And as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, such marginal views as yours are not to be included in articles. -- WGee 06:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That is the philosophy of fascism. The "propaganda" is the recorded ideology. Anyway those quotes from Hitler and Mussolini are not in the article. What is in the article is an independent source saying that fascism is opposed to Marxian socialism and capitalism. What exactly is the problem you have? Billy Ego 06:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the basic problem is that the NSDAP banned and persecuted the non-Marxist SPD as well as opposing bolshevism. I'll scann around for sources, we have a couple here, but self evidently the fate of the SPD belies the claims of the article.--Red Deathy 08:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. We should probably also note that fascism opposes class struggle (at least by the workers, in theory by all classes). Jacob Haller 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How are you defining "class struggle"? Struggle can mean violent action or it can mean to proceeed with difficulty. If you mean the latter why would anyone support struggling over doing something with ease? Billy Ego 17:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It can also mean non-violent conflict, such as strikes, boycotts, or competition, instead of or in addition to violent conflict. Classic market competition isn't usually class struggle but strikes usually are and boycotts often are. Jacob Haller 18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The source that Billy Ego cited says, "Rhetorical anti-materialism is another notable feature of both fascist and far-right movements. . . . Anti-materialism also cast the fascists in opposition to socialism and Communism, both of which were firmly rooted in the scientific materialism of Marx and Engels" (The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right, p. 103). The source is quite clear. -- WGee 22:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Marx and Engels," yes. Fascism is against Marxian socialism. Two pages prior to that on page 101, that is stated clearly. "Nonetheless, much of fascism's bid for greatness depended on a batlle of ideas, not only with Communism but with liberal democracy as well. This was especially evident in the claim that fascist movements represented a "Third Way" between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism." So what is your point? Why are you taking out mention that fascism opposes Marxian socialism? Billy Ego 00:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The source says that the fascist movement opposed socialism in general, because it was all rooted in Marx and Engels's scientific materialism; it does not say that fascists were opposed only to Marxian/revolutionary socialism. The fascist movement, although influenced by socialism, was nevertheless opposed to the ideology proper. That is why fascists claimed to embody a distinct "Third Way" and terrorized members of the socialist movement. -- WGee 03:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur, the source seems to state freely that fascism opposed Socialism and Communism, and I think the p. 101 cite is pulled out of context.--Red Deathy 08:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Red Deathy and WGee. It is unnecessarily complicated here to say "Marxian socialism" and to argue the source is saying that fascism only opposed Marxian socialism is twisting out of context. Clearly, fascism was opposed to socialism in general, and really did not distinguish its Marxian from non-Marxian forms. BobFromBrockley 15:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That paragraph states the following: The nation, the people or the race represented a spiritual force that was above the greedy inclinations of capitalism. Anti-materialism also cast the fascism in opposition to socialism and Communism, both of which were firmly rooted in the scientific materialism of Marx and Engles. -- Vision Thing -- 21:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Make Marxian and non-Marxian sections

I think this article is geared too much toward Marxian socialism. The main categories in socialism are Marxian socialism and non-Marxian socialism. There probably should be sections for both. Billy Ego 17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What branches would you suggest? I'd like to see more coverage of:

• Early class struggle schools (not all of which fit the definition in the introduction)

(Marxism didn't spring out of thin air)

• Chartism, etc. might be relevent but I'm not familiar with them.
• anarchism of different kinds
• labor unionism, reformist and syndicalist
• Bellamy's nationalism
• criticisms, internal criticisms, and debates, probably organized into market perspectives, mixed-economy perspectives, non-market perspectives, and controversies regarding the role and nature of the state.

Anything else that could use more coverage? Jacob Haller 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with the change you just made to say "Marxism is only one branch of socialism, though many non-Marxist socialists borrow some of Marx's theories." You're writing off socialists that don't borrow from Marx. See "Non-Marxian socalialism" chapter in A Companion to the Histotry of Economic Thought, Blackwell Publishing, 2003, pp. 184-198, especially the section "Socialism Before Marx." Billy Ego 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be wrong to divide the article into "marxian" and "non-marxian" sections, particularly as there has been so much traffic between them. However, I agree that the different non-Marxian traditions of socialism don't get enough space - in particular libertarian socialism, of which there is not one single mention in the article. By the way, is there a case for a Non-Marxian socialism article? BobFromBrockley 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a good case for a Non-Marxian socialism article. Those forms of socialism are much neglected and fragmented across Wikipedia articles. There should be a single article to discuss this. And the term "non-Marxian socialism" is used often enough if there is any question about that. Billy Ego 18:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This article already gives due weight non-Marxist socialism: see "Early socialism," "Moderate socialism and communism," "Contemporary socialism," and "Socialism as an economic system." -- WGee 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur, it already states that socialism is a broad range of ideas, that it ante-dates Charlie & Fred's works - but they remain the most sigbnificant thinkers in the field in which everyone else basically has to take account of them (for or against).--Red Deathy 08:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, but there is next to no mention of syndicalism, no mention of Chartism, no mention of libertarian socialism. BobFromBrockley 15:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that this article currently mentions very little besides the history of socialism. Compare it with the liberalism and conservatism articles, which deal with equally broad and vague ideological terms. -- Nikodemos 06:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There needs to be material on the main currents of socialism (perhaps absorbing types of socialism. This would be equivalent to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Trends_within_liberalism section or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#Schools_of_Conservatism section of those pages. And there needs to be a bit more discussion of socialist political theory and socialist political economy. The history here could probably be trimmed, making sure that anything trimmed needs to be in the history of socialism page. BobFromBrockley 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Change to the Introduction

I have altered the first paragraph of the introduction, since, as it stood, it only dealt with the means of socialism and not the end. I can't think that any reasonable person, who knows anything of the subject, could object to this. I am happy to consider any changes, but please do not revert it for no good reason.

--Train guard 11:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted with, what I think is the good reason, that that view of human nature is not common to all socialists (some do hold to a fixed human nature which makes capitalism 'unnatural'), and some non-socialists hold that view. Without an authoritative citation to back it up, I don't think that belongs in the lead.--Red Deathy 14:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What socialists do not subscribe to the view that human nature is not fixed? If you can give me one instance of this, I will relent. If not, I will want my contribution restored. What I think you are saying is that the natural condition of man (in the sense of Rousseau) does not make capitalism natural. Marx would agree. But consider, capitalism exists because the nature of man has been distorted. Ergo, human nature is not fixed. If it can be corrupted, it is capable of being perfected. Can't you see that? Non-socialists do indeed hold this view, but that is only the first part of the definition. Socialists offer a different means to achieve the goal of perfectabilty, but you can't deny that this view of man is a fundamental part of socialist belief from Robert Owen to Karl Marx. As it stands, it is not a definition of socialism.

--Train guard 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Burden of evidence is always on the editor who wishes to include something. See WP:V. -- Vision Thing -- 19:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

All right. How about Sidney Hook, America's foremost Marxist scholar?

"First of all, Marx and Engels insist that the human nature to which the “true socialists” appeal as the guide to social organization is an historical variable. It does not explain society but society explains its specific expressions. To understand human nature, then, at any definite time we must understand the nature of the society in which human beings live. When we do this we find that human nature is not something homogeneous to which we can appeal for justification of any concrete social proposal. Class divisions, interests, and values enter as refracting and polarizing influences upon it."

Sidney Hook: "Marx's Criticism of 'True Socialism'" in New International, Vol.2 No.1, January 1935, pp.13-16.

Or, as Robert Owen said:-

"By my own experience and reflection I had ascertained that human nature is radically good, and is capable of being trained, educated and placed from birth in such manner, that all ultimately (that is as soon as the gross errors and corruptions of the present false and wicked system are overcome and destroyed) must become united, good, wise, wealthy and happy. And I felt that to attain this glorious result, the sacrifices of the character, fortune and life of an individual was not deserving a moment's consideration. And my decision was made to overcome all opposition and to succeed or die in the attempt."

--Train guard 20:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I did give one - Noam Chomsky who applies rationalism and the idea that language and morality are biologically fixed characteristics of Human nature. I'd suspect Christian Socialists do not derive their socialism from notions of human perfectability.--Red Deathy 08:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there are problems with this. Firstly, both Chomsky and Christian Socialists, although important, do not belong to the mainstream of socialist thinking. Secondly, that does not particularly matter, because it leads back to my point about Rousseau.

I am familiar with Chomsky's thinking. If you argue that the natural condition of human kind involves some kind of innate or 'wired in' propensity for a basic morality, together with an instinctive formulation of 'language', it is one and the same with the concept of the 'noble savage'. But as we are not noble savages, we can be pretty disgusting amoral people. Why is that? Rousseau argued that a noble nature was corrupted by the society in which he lived. Chomsky would no doubt posit a similar explanation. Therefore, if human nature can be corrupted (but also redeemed) it cannot be regarded as a fixed commodity, as it is capable of change.

If we look at the Christian Socialists, we are seemingly presented with a paradox. There is the Christian concept of original or birth sin, that might seem to argue in favoure of a view of human nature as a finite commodity....'the curse of Adam'. Yet not all Christians have believed this. From Pelagius, through certain concepts of predestination to antinomianism, Christians have argued and believed that human nature can be transcended, altered, perhaps perfected. Think of Captain Ralph Margery, the Anabaptist. His charge sheet included the following:-

"Item: He doth believe in the perfectability of man."

Christian Socialists may not be what you think they are.

Now, as to the introduction, I really do think that any explanation of socialism must start with where they are coming from, and therefore has to include a reference to their concept of human nature. Otherwise, the rest is meaningless.

--Train guard 10:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The point remains that not all socialists start from that point of view, and we can't give undue weight, esp. in the lead (and please could you indent your paragraphs to make the flow of conversation easier to read?). I think the lead should just define broadly what socialism is, the idea you are presenting belongs somewhere in the body of the text.--Red Deathy 10:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not aware of any socialists who do not start from this axiom. And neither, I think, do most other people who are familiar with socialism as a concept. I have asked you to indicate some evidence that this may be so, and so far, you have not done so in a satisfactory way. I have provided some citations, but you, so far, have not. I have indicated why I think that your examples do not hold water. But you just continue to tell me that I'm wrong. How am I wrong?

(I have yet to discover a way of indenting paragraphs without it coming out in a box.)

Why should something so fundamental to a considered definition of socialism belong in the text, and not in the introduction?

--Train guard 15:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Red Deathy. There are many different views of human nature from socialists - and many of these views are shared by non-socialists. This certainly shouldn't be in the lead, which should defnie what socialism is as succintly as possible. If editors think it is important, these views can be detailed either in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Socialism_and_social_and_political_theory section or in a new section on socialist views of human nature. If such views are detailed there, examples would need to be given. BobFromBrockley 11:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you consider that socialism is just about means and not ends, fine. But I think that you can have a reasonably succinct definition that includes both. And it should be in the introduction. This is an article about socialism. We have to tell the reader what this concept means, surely.

--Train guard 15:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The "end" of socialism is not reformed human nature is it? Many socialists have no view whatsoever on human nature, many more only an implicit view. If this has to be included, I'd prefer a much simpler formulation, like "Socialists tend to believe that human nature is not finite or fixed but can be changed for the better." Any more detailed discussion should NOT go in the intro, but further down. BobFromBrockley 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If the end of socialism is not 'reformed human nature', or, if you prefer, emancipated human nature/true humanity, what on earth is it? However, I do agree agree with your formulation, which is virtually the same as my original edit. Now, will Red Deathy agree?

--Train guard 16:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the phrasing from you, but made it slightly more concise. This isn't the place to discuss this, but for me socialism's end is greater material and spiritual wellbeing for all - which may or may not be the same as emancipated humanity (I'm not sure there is such a thing as true humanity...) But that's for another day. Let's just aim for a consensus on this article for now! BobFromBrockley 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think that I can agree even that formulation, as I said, that doesn't concurr with the Chomskyian rationalist view, and it wouldn't hold true for earlier Christian sects neither. I think it is best discussed at length at some point in the article and it certainly has a place in tracing the ideological roots of scrocialism - but if other editors want it in the lead ad that is the consensus I'll defer, so long as it is short, and possibly towards teh end of the lead rather than first sentence.--Red Deathy 08:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that I had already dealt with those points. Certainly, you do not refer to my comments upon Chomsky and Christian Socialism (which you may have missed, for they are further up this section). Unlike you, I do not think that my point just belongs in the text...it is such a crucial part of the definition of socialism that it should be in the introduction. But what do other editors and contributors think?

--Train guard 09:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I did see your comments, and don't agree (entirely) - but the substantive point remains that not all socialists share the view you set out, nor is that view exclusive to socialists.--Red Deathy 09:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Moral criticsm

Anyone know where a moral criticism can be found so we can put it in the article? Let's face it, "nationalisation" is a euphemism for theft whether it's direct expropriation or taxing the public in order to purchase a private business and forbid competition. Working Poor 19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to put that in the Criticism of Socialism talk page. But here is good too. Working Poor 20:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Nationalization is expropration of property from a capitalist who is using it for exploitive purposes. Billy Ego 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, that sounds like a good criticism - if you can find a notable exponent of that PoV that would be brilliant - otherwise put a small paragraph in the criticisms section and ask otehrs to improve it. --Red Deathy 08:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'll add a wee factoid - when the Labour Party nationalised coal mines in the UK, they converted the owners shares into interest bearing bonds - the interest was paid for from the profits of the mines. Theopretically, although that was a forced sale, it wasn't theft, and taxpayes money strictly speaking need never be involved (the bonds could be paid off through borrowing). Strictly speaking you could use this device to voluntarilly nationalise a firm/industry. Thought it worth mentioning.--Red Deathy 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Too much history/not enough other stuff

Following Nikodemos' point and my response at the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socialism#Make_Marxian_and_non-Marxian_sections I had a look at the article again, and noticed that there is too much weight in the article given to the history of socialism which has an article of its own. For example, the section on early socialism here is actually longer than the equivalent section at history of socialism, which can't be right. Similarly, the section on the Cold War years is very long.

On the other hand, there is little on the different traditions of socialism or on socialist political philosophy. It is partly because of these lacks that the previous two controversies on this page (on non-Marxian socialism and on human nature) have arisen. If there were solid sections on the different traditions of socialism and on socialist political theory, those issues would be able to be adequately dealt with in the right place. BobFromBrockley 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This article had "Types of socialism" section but it was removed by 172 on a basis that history section provides enough information on different socialist traditions. -- Vision Thing -- 13:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to explain how the history section does not provide adequate information about the different socialist traditions? I don't think the reader would gain an accurate understanding of socialism if we were to describe its variants outside of any historical context, that is, in a "Types of socialism" section. -- WGee 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

von mises

You cannot mention an economic calculation debate without mentioning Mises. Intangible2.0 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why?

--Train guard 09:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? You can check at Google Scholar why. Intangible2.0 15:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Book: http://www.mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx. Socialism penned by Von Mises introduced the economic calculation problem. It's Mises' (to me) second magnum opus next to Human Action. In my opinion it singehandedly destroys Socialism, but I'm getting off topic here. Fephisto 07:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That depends upon how seriously you take Von Mises as a critic. Most people in Europe have never heard of him.

--Train guard 15:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, he was born in Europe. Fephisto 00:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been my experience tha in the left's view, no one is ever qualified to critique socialism. Only Socialist are qualified to critique socialism, and as they will explain to you, socialism is grand, with no flaws whatsoever. Dullfig 19:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is, how much time do we want to go intot he history of the ECA here (it might be nice if someone added that history at the page itself - it remains awful and I haven't had time to complete the fixes I started). I think it suffices here to mention ECA, and possible add cite/ref. to Mises and leave the rest to elseplace. ECA is obviously important and needs a decent mention but since it isn't the focus, and to avoid undue weight i think we should avoid talk of progeniitors and conentrate on the bones of the arrgument - this is a general page. IMSNSHO --Red Deathy 07:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, to the average reader without a previous knowledge of socialism or economics, the sentence "without a freely working market in capital goods, consumer valuations cannot sift through the stages of production" means nothing. Let's stick the the general theory behind the economic calculation problem and avoid all this pedantry. -- WGee 01:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If readers want to know more about the economic calculation problem, they only have to click on the wikipedia link to the article. Or is one to assume that Wikipedia readers don't know how to use a computer mouse? Intangible2.0 14:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Social Control

The new language, in terms of the intro to the article, apparently devised to finesse the issue of whether the phrase "social control" should get a link, seems dodgy and awkward to me. The distinction between "direct" control by a community and "indirect" control through the state seems to involve some very lofty question-begging abstractions for so early a point in the article. The old language, with the link, made more sense, IMHO. --Christofurio 13:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (Okay, ignore the H in that acronym.)

I think "control by the community" is better than social control as latter implies conformity etc (see its article). I think the direct/indirect thing is good, as it enables lead definition to encompass all forms of socialism, not just statist forms. IMHO. BobFromBrockley 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Christofurio, you are mistaken in believing that there has been any significant new language added. The distinction between direct and indirect control has been in the intro for many months, and it is meant to summarize the difference between state and non-state forms of socialism ("control by society" is too vague; "control by the state" ignores the non-state forms of socialism; the intro as it stands now was written for the purpose of avoiding those two potential problems). The current dispute over the use of the term "social control" is restricted to just one part of one sentence. [6]

I support removing the link to the social control article, because the article deals with a different subject than we have here. The article begins as follows: "Social control refers to social mechanisms that regulate individual and group behavior..." So we would be saying that socialism is a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social mechanisms that regulate individual and group behavior... But that doesn't make any sense, and it sounds like it could apply to all socio-economic systems that ever existed (after all, any society has social mechanisms that regulate behaviour). -- Nikodemos 14:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Nikodemos, how nice to see you again. For once I agree with you.

This issue is important, and difficult to define it would seem. Is this article to cover both forms of socialism, non-state controlled and state-controlled? Or are we looking at breaking up the article again? I noticed that social control was changed to community. Again, this needs to be defined, for community can means many different things. I think the Wikipedian Community needs some deliberation on this. Jcchat66 15:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Kull wahad! We agree! :) It is nice to see you as well. Now, this article is to cover all forms of socialism that are reasonably mainstream and widely recognized within the socialist movement, which generally means the "Big 3": Marxism/Communism, Reformism/Social democracy and the Libertarian/Anarchist schools of socialism. It is very useful to compare this article with the articles on liberalism and conservatism, which face similar tasks (that is, covering a wide variety of vaguely related political views). They seemed to have solved the problem of definitions by focusing not on the practical policies advocated by liberals and conservatives, but on their fundamental values (which are liberty and tradition, respectively). I would like to see socialism defined in terms of its fundamental value, which is human equality. However, the current definition and intro are pretty good enough, and, as some editors have pointed out in the past, it is often a good idea not to touch the intro of a prominent article, because that tends to lead to edit wars that may well end up causing a mess of things. -- Nikodemos 15:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything that leads readers to believe that there is only two sides to the story is a very bad idea. Capitalism v. Socialism, liberals v. conservatives, Republicans v. Democrats. Most socialists seem to react only to capitalists, which was not even a proper word until Marx defined it in his special way. Capitalists seldom consider themselves capitalists. If socialism means control of resources by government of any form, that is a form of aristocracy, rule by an elite. Yes, government is aristocracy, the privileged few given the power to rule. If socialism means control of resources by community, then this is literally tribalism, and defines most Amerindian, Celtic, and nomadic cultures. These cultures also answered to chieftains and nobles, and so this is also a form of feudalism. (Yes, a great Native American warrior was given power and women in his tribe, a kind of knight.) So rule by the community does not mean what it appears. Every commune has to answer to those chosen to govern it, a special elite no matter how you look at it. This could be democratic or aristocratic or autocratic, or a mix of any of them.

So this conveys no new understanding or insight, as all socialist ideas have then been practiced in history. It is not a new idea, but it is held up as being progressive and even revolutionary. We have more than enough history to define the termonology of these concepts. All I ask is that the concept of socialism be defined, and that is avoided more often than anything else. Who is up to the challenge? Jcchat66 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure "control by the community" sounds less conformist than "control by society" or that the connotations of conformism ought to be avoided in any event. We all to some extent are "controlled by" others -- it is the price we pay for having been born onto a small planet, I suppose. The word "society" is one way of referring to those others and the word "community" is another. The latter sounds more a bit more cozy in vernacular English, but I'm not sure we should be writing this so as to guarantee its coziness. At any rate, the material in the article to which some seem determined not to allow a link surely is germane to this element in any plausible definitiin. Socialism is called "social"-ism, after all. --Christofurio 18:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Other movements like classical liberalism define these terms specifically, such as limited government, representative democracy, individual liberty balanced by free will and accountability, etc. I seldom ever hear those same concepts used with socialists. The only huge corporations, and labor forces that existed in the early days of liberalism were monopoly-chartered companies like the British East India Company, Hudson Bay Company, etc, all requiring sanction by an aristocracy or royal family, not liberals who where still a minority. Do socialist generally regard the British East India Company as a model of capitalism? Or the serious social problems in England that caused many to flee to America? If that was capitalism, then the American Revolution was anti-capitalist. Was Benjamin Franklin a socialist? Adam Smith? Aristotle? How do socialist regard the ancient world and slavery, where the vast majority of the work force was exploited under horrible conditions? Was the Roman Empire capitalist? Anyone? Jcchat66 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Those would be pre-capitalist economic formations. Different movements adopt different definitions of socialism and capitalism. It's not uncommon for anarchists to describe the five-year plans as 'capitalist' and state-socialists to describe labor unions, mutual banks, etc. as 'capitalist'. (This talk page should provide enough examples of both). Jacob Haller 22:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jcchat66, here is my understanding of the issue.

The fundamental problem is that different political movements - advocating entirely different things - have taken up the name "socialism" for themselves. The very first recorded use of the word "socialism" was by a Christian socialist (arguably the first Christian socialist, since he invented the term) named Alexandre Vinet, who in 1831 defined socialism as "the opposite of individualism". Vague? Certainly, and that is how things remained for the next few decades. From the 1830s to the 1850s, the term "socialism" was a vague label applied to a collection of political and religious groups who were mostly concerned with (a) criticizing the rise of selfishness, materialism and individualism in Western society, (b) trying to combat poverty (often through charity), and (c) sometimes setting up small utopian communities.

Then came Karl Marx. The Marxist conception of socialism, which was formulated in the late 1840s and became dominant in the 1850s or 60s, is much more precise. Marxists believe that human society advances through a series of historical stages. In the Marxist view, socialism is the stage that comes after capitalism and is characterized by (a) state ownership and control of the economy, and (b) working class control of the state. In the late 19th century, the word "socialism" entered common vocabulary as a result of the rising popularity of Marxism, but most non-socialists only paid attention to the first part of the Marxist definition. It is for that reason that most non-socialists even today have a tendency to define socialism as a state-controlled economy, no matter who controls the state or what the state does.

In parallel with Marxism, there was a growing movement of libertarian or anarchist socialism. Anarchist socialists defined their version of socialism as a society in which the community controls the economy in some kind of decentralized collective arrangement, rather than through a state. In fact, they rejected the state altogether, arguing that it was created to serve capitalism and could never be effectively used for any other purpose.

As Marxist political parties began to enter the mainstream in the early 20th century, they were often forced to make political compromises. A number of Marxists (in fact, the majority) were slowly convinced that it wasn't really necessary to completely restructure the economy or eliminate private property and markets. They began to see socialism not as an alternative to capitalism, but as an improvement upon it - in a way, their version of socialism is supposed to be a kinder, better, more humane capitalism. These are the social democrats. They do not want to replace capitalism, but to improve it through such things as the creation of a welfare state.

Those three conceptions of socialism - the Marxist, the anarchist, and the social democratic - are the dominant ones. You may have noticed that they have many fundamental differences. Marxist socialism is an economy controlled by a state that is in turned controlled by the working class. Anarchist socialism is direct control by the community over the factories and other production facilities in their local area. Social democracy is an attempt to combine state ownership with a capitalist economy for the purpose of improving standards of living. My own personal view is that the only thing shared by all socialists is a commitment to advance the cause of human equality. I would define socialism thus: "Socialism refers to a broad range of ideologies and political movements whose primary goal is to advance the cause of human equality, particularly in the economic sphere." -- Nikodemos 00:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with this - the major trends in socialism are the libertarian socialism of Bakunin and Proudhon, the Marxism of, er, Marx and Engels, and the democratic socialism and social democracy that together seem to encompass everyone from George Orwell to David Lloyd George. The only problem with this is the actions of supposedly socialist regimes under Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and other totalitarian "socialists". They were obviously not concerned with egalitarianism at all, though they did still claim such. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 08:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that economic egalitarianism is the kleystone, the problem is finding a citable source for such claims. Most people who define socialism tend to do so for partisan reasons - from "Socialism is what the labour party does" to "Socialism is equality of income or nothing" (Shaw backtracked on that one later). The principles of the SI are a good source, if only because they are so watered down as to be a catch all for various socialists groups - but that is, again, subject to claims of patrisanship. note though how much time is spent discussing equality...--Red Deathy 08:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "social control" is a perfectly sensible article to which to link this one. I have re-worked the link so that it doesn't require using the phrase "social control" in the text, though. --Christofurio 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As the consensus here seems to indicate (I think), there is as much problem linking to the article on social control, as with the wording. Social control in the sense described by the article has nothing to do with socialism. (Christofurio, you say "We all to some extent are "controlled by" others -- it is the price we pay for having been born onto a small planet, I suppose." That may be true, but then it would be no more true of socialism than any other ideology.) Social control in the social control article is control OF society, by various dominant forces, whereas the type of control socialists want is control BY society. I liked the wording used by Nikodemos and Red Deathy above, and am hoping one of them can re-write the leader, as I'm through for the weekend! BobFromBrockley 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Though I think we are making progress, there are still concerns. Libertarians at least like to simplify things, and according to them, they distinguish only two types of ideals: social liberties and economic liberties. They rejected conservatives because they wanted less social liberty but more economic liberty. They rejected liberals for the opposite reasons, good social liberty but less economic liberty. And they rejected fascism because it allowed neither. So that left them, who want both economic and social liberty ... or the same as classical liberalism. Equality, or egalitarianism, can only be expressed by "equality under the law," which is the only successful method in history of bringing any hope of equal moral status. This led ultimately to the destruction of slavery, the expansion of the middle-class, and a drastic decrease in both the rich and poor as separate classes. Capitalism is just conservatism with no differences.

By this methodology, it sounds like democratic socialism falls into modern liberalism with no perceivable deferences. Marxist socialism is fascism (because a state-run economy is hopelessly doomed to fail as another form of feudalism.) And libertarian socialism is, well, when has that ever existed, and should it even be considered? The moment there is no government at all, groups quickly form into tribes, and tribes soon turn into feudal states, then dynastic monarchies, and away we go. When has there ever been anarchy for any length of time anywhere on earth?

What is the point of all this? Well, it sounds like many people believe in the same ideals, and yet are divided by words. So, agreeing mostly with Nikodemos, this article shoud somehow reflect the relationships between other ideological concepts. Any ideas? Jcchat66 05:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not the original Nolan Chart!

I think we can agree that there are opposing state-socialist traditions, with Marxism the most important today, and libertarian socialist traditions, with anarchism the most important today. There are also legislative-reformist tendencies. Some legislative-reformist tendencies seek minor modifications to capitalism; other legislative-reformist tendencies seek incremental movement out of capitalism. Of course their approaches (legislation, regulation, etc.) blend into Marxist state-socialism, not into libertarian socialism. Jacob Haller 05:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the intro is now more or less fine and shouldn't be much tampered with. The article as a whole, though, lacks proper discussion of the big three traditions of socialism, whatever we prefer to call them... I am inclined to support Nicodemos' proposal that that work be done in the Types of socialism page, and then merged into this page only when the Types article is up to scratch. BobFromBrockley 13:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nolan Chart? Haven't heard of it until now, and it does not relate to my point, Jacob. If the concept of socialism cannot be broken down into easily digestible concepts for the laymen (or the proletariat) then it will be understood by no one but intellectuals. It is precisely the lack of understanding that makes most people so hostile towards it. Amongst most non-socialists, the word almost always brings up images of red flags and totalitarian states, not the contrary as most socialists argue. So how can this article be improved to correct this? After all, most socialists are absolutely no different than classical liberals, who also sought restraint against any government or corporation from gaining too much power and property disproportionately. If this is the case, than why use the word at all? Jcchat66 17:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, control of and control by aren't really severable. In precisely the sense indicated by the article on social control, different factions within a society exercise various reciprocal control over one another, and that process simply is society. The link belongs there. --Christofurio 17:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)