Talk:Socialism/Archive 6

message: I actually think there should be a separate series for Captalism vs. Socialism vs. Free Market vs. Command Economy vs. Planned Economy vs. Decentralized Economies vs. Mixed Economies, as their definitions are somewhat intertwined.
I got out my econ notes from a while back, I'm basically wanting to check these defintions before going forward with intertwining the articles:
There are two different ways to catergorize an economy into two.
Little Regulation Heavy Regulation
and
Low Government Expenditure High Government Expenditure
Heavy regulation AND high government expenditure are command economies, heavily regulated economies are planned (price wages enforced by the Nazis for example (although I didn't mean the example to be so extreme)), little regulation is decentralized, low government expenditure is capitalist, high government expenditure is socialist, and free market is both low government expenditure and little regulation.
Note that these are very subjective, and are not as simple as saying "Above 50% government expenditure as a portion of the GDP is socialist," because France has above 50% government expenditure as a portion of GDP and some people refer to it as Capitalist and some as Socialist. Similarly the argument goes for little and heavy regulation, some may say that the U.S. is decentralized while others are extreme enough to say it's a planned economy, the difference in opinion comes from the subjectivity of the two terms (I, for example, say that the U.S. is a planned economy because I'm pissed off and opposed to the regulations on power companies; but that's my opinion). China considers itself Socialist, while many other consider it Capitalist. Some consider the Soviet Union Capitalist because of it's Black Market activities. And so on.
In other words:
Little Regulation AND low government expenditure=Free Market Economy
Little Regulation=Decentralized Heavy Regulation=Planned
and
Low Government Expenditure=Capitalist High Government Expenditure=Socialist
High government Expenditure AND heavy Regulation=Command Economy
Oh! And a mixed economy is any economy that is thought of as a mix between socialist and Capitalist, technically this is all countries, but it is also a subjective factor (Subjective in that the percentiles aren't really placed, it's not like below 10% government expenditure is Capitlist, from 10-90 is mixed, and Socialist is >90).
Fephisto 16:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: I have NEVER in my LIFE heard or seen Hoxhaism refered to as 'Albanianism', bearing in mind that I am a Communist, have had contact with a number of self proclaimed Hoxhaists and I actually own several of Hoxha's books (rants, whatever you wish to call them). The policy of Albania was directed and laid down by Hoxha almost exclusively, although it was never decribed by him as Hoxhaism (he saw himself as simply continuing the Marxist-Leninist legacy) his particular brand of Communism has been labelled Hoxhaism, a label accepted by the majority of parties around the world that seek to impliment his policies in their countries.
For this reason it should be called Hoxhaism and 'Albanianism' should be got rid of completely
:Very false Thanks for picking up on that, Anonymous editor. The ideology is, indeed, called Hoxhaism. Albanianism is a neologism. El_C 00:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albanianism? 

message: This article is far too pro-socialistic for it to be on Wikipedia. If the article discusses the benefits of socialism (namely ways which socialism is "solving" problems), and provides links to pro-socialist arguments, then it should also have a section describing the shortcomings of socialism, and real-world examples where socialism fails to meet its objectives.
I think the best course of action would be to eliminate both the pro and anti socialist arguments, including the two sections of offsite links, and replace them with documented occurences of successes or failures of socialist principle in the real world. Arguments for and against it shouldn't be eliminated entirely, but should be in equal proportion, and should not be the focus of external links - let us keep it in perspective.
An uninformed reader is likely to be affected by the bias of the article, especially because of the quantity of pro-socialist dogma within the article and external links. Readers of Wikipedia should be able to form their own opinions regarding socialism, rather than be spoonfed a gross imbalance of opinion and theory. Kp7 08:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't an NPOV dispute. If you feel the article is lacking in content or quality you are welcome to contribute and make improvements as you see fit (or in discussion with others). If you believe there are specific incidents of bias in the article, you need to cite them. I have removed the tag.--cj | talk 13:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: User:Hu, who creates articles in PAGANISM, is attempting to revert my addition to this article stating the TRUTH.  The FACTS that SOCIALISTS/COMMUNISTS oppose god, and hate Christians.  THERE ARE MANY SOCIALISTS ON THIS SITE.  Stand by the truth, and STOP the liberal secularists from hiding thier lies! User:Koool 04:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouting doesn't earn you respect.  Misrepresenting doesn't earn you respect.  Animism is not paganism, as you try to make out.  You have no idea about my religious beliefs and in any case, my beliefs and your beliefs don't matter.  What does matter is that Wikipedia depends and insists on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  Hu 05:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATTENTION ALL CHRISTIANS!!!! 

message: Currently, the definition is unsatisfactory.  By the present definition, a society predominently consisting of for-profit partnerships (or even corporations) could be socialist.  I think there is a second condition in addition to the society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power condition. Condition two is: a belief in some exploitation theory, i.e. that value comes only from labor.  It could be phrased differently, but some kind of exploitation condition is necessary. Individualist anarchists hold to this second condition but not the first, so probably should not be on the socialism tree chart at all. Though they called  themselves "socialist", they used a "cost is the limit of price" definition of socialism. They were for private property, so were not socialist by the modern definition. Hogeye 17:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition should include exploitation condition 

message: How about a small section on the etymology of the term, like on the capitalism article? I've come across an old definition of socialism from the 19th century Webster's dictionary: "a theory of society which advocates a more precise, more orderly, and more harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than has hitherto prevailed."  This explains why some of the 19th century individualist anarchists called themselves "socialists" while at the same time supporting private property (including the means of production) and opposed collectivism. RJII 04:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1827, from Fr. socialiste, in reference to the teachings of Comte de Saint-Simon, founder of Fr. socialism. Socialism is attested from 1837, apparently first in reference to Robert Owen's communes. "Pierre Leroux (1797-1871), idealistic social reformer and Saint-Simonian publicist, expressly claims to be the originator of the word socialisme" [Klein]. The word begins to be used in Fr. in the modern sense c.1835. Socialista, with a different sense, was applied 18c. to followers and pupils of Du. jurist Grotius (1583-1645).
Not much there, the above info is basically already in the section. May be able to be expanded, see what you can do :) Infinity0 talk 17:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: etymology