Talk:Socialism/Archive 4

message: Who is "Morrelly" (one of the Enlightenment thinkers mentioned by anonymous contributor, presumably Capone)? Never heard of him. -- Jmabel 07:13, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Morrelly

message: I've replaced disambiguation at the top of the page. For some reason it got deleted. As long as we have this disambiguation, I don't really mind what happens to the article. I'll just leave it to sort itself out, who knows, maybe eventually it will. 
I'd suggest looking at the disambiguating pages. It might help to explain to folks what socialism is being practiced today at least. Then work backwards from there to see how these forms came about historically. Kim Bruning 12:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig

message: The primary problem with the article is that it does not distinguish between socialisms that have some significant real world track record and theoretical socialisms. It mixes them up willy nilly completely confusing a potential naive reader who comes for actual information and who should be our target audience. A short section on theoretical socialisms that either haven't been tried or have a trivial track record would solve this. But then major surgery on the bulk of the article would be needed. 
Second, the coverage of socialism light, or Social Democrats, as practiced, say, in Europe is skimpy or non-existent, yet this is one of the major ones actually going. What are their concepts? And are they truly "socialist"? 
Third, the statement is made that socialism can be democratic. I would sure like to have some of these named as I can't think of a single live one (except theoretically, or socialism light, as above.) 
Fourth, the section labelled "criticism of socialism" actually contains quite a number of graphs that are criticisms of capitalism! 
Finally, there is an extensive article on capitalism that should be the contravening reference at the end, not the rather stubby article on laisez faire capitalism. 
wgoetsch 04:59, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique of the article

message: The introductory links are worded and conceived from POV.
For one, all of these countries consider themselves socialist, not "communist states", so why are readers to be instantly urged to redirect their query?  I am suspicious of this, and, as I stated before, I removed this misinformed introductory whatchamacallit once before and now it has re-emerged in a far more obviously POV form.  I suspect this was the work of Kim Bruning who never actually reads this article and sees things like socialism in black and white.
Can anyone defend the introductory links?  Im going to scrap it.  The related articles go at the bottom of the page, not at the top.  Capice?
Capone 6-15-04
:I disagree- most of the countries that call themselves 'socialist' follow Marxism (or some derived version such as Marxism-Leninism or Maoism). Karl Marx called his idea Communism. End of argument --Cynical 19:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, China also calls itself the "Democratic Republic of China," but it is neither Democratic nor a Republic. Likewise, none of those countries are socialist. --Tothebarricades.tk 06:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I suppose catch-all terms can be tricky. If we're talking about any entity, we should discuss what that entity claims that it is, and various popular opinions to the contrary or in favor. Any other way leads to bias in one way or another. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:19, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Or how about having links to different government-type pages (democracy, communism etc. etc.) and let the discussion go on THERE as to what is communist, democratic, republic or whatever, so that the country pages don't get clogged up with irrelevant garbage --Cynical 19:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article begins POV 

message: Diderot recently added: 
:"It should be noted that historical study has largely refuted the claim that any such tragedy actually occurred. In reality, access to the commons in the sixteenth century was constrained by a variety of cultural protocols and was far from equal."
"It should be noted"? "historical study has largely refuted"? "In reality"? Diderot, I happen to agree with your politics, but (1) I am dropping "It should be noted" and "In reality", which add nothing but POV and (2) I'd sure appreciate at least one reference rather than a remark on "historical study" in the abstract. -- Jmabel 19:10, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
:Yeah, I could have worded that differently but I was pressed for time.  My inclination was to remove the whole section and actually discuss Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" argument over at Tragedy of the commons but this is, as the warning notes, a controvertial topic. But, if there is going to be a TotC argument about socialism, I think the reality about the TotC as an argument from history deserves some mention.
:I had intended to put a source, but since the actual history of the English commons is discussed at Tragedy of the commons, I thought I wouldn't, opting instead to simply make the link.  This same case is made there.  But for a print reference: Dahlman, CJ.  The Open Field System and Beyond: A Property Rights Analysis of an Economic Institution, 1980.    Over the last 25 years, there's been an explosion of interest in economic history, particularly of pre-industrial and early industrial Britain, that has obliterated a lot of preconceived ideas about the structure of pre-industrial production.  This is one of those cases where an idée fixe has been destroyed, but the commons as narrative is more attractive than the alternative that seems almost self-evident to anthropologists: Modern (capitalist) property is simply one possible sort of social relation among a wide variety.
:For the not-quite-so-left among us, this argument against the TotC is not an especially pro-socialist argument.  It dismisses one class of anti-socialist argument, but you can find people who accept every word of it and then go on to say that capitalist property is simply the best set of social relations currently conceivable.  They would claim that although it is not impossible for a superior alternative to existing relations to exist, socialism has not managed to put one forward.  This is basically Hayek and von Mises' argument without the Whiggish bombast.
I'm okay with your change to the text.  It's the better wording I should have used.
:Diderot 08:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources?

message: ... is not actually socialism, right? So I would think the newly added link in the article should be qualified with a remark, not simply added to the laundry list. -- Jmabel 02:45, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
Well I don't consider it real socialism but I also don't consider Maoism, Stalinism or social democracy to be real socialism. What remark would you suggest be added? AndyL 04:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unfamiliar with that usage, only with it being used as a disparaging term. Our article on the topic sure doesn't say this, and should probably be revisited (by someone with more konwledge on this than I have, or I'd do it myself). -- Jmabel 04:25, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
I have to go to a library and check it out and I don't have time. I think Lenin and other Marxists picked it up as a disparaging term but it originated as an actual movement in France. I doubt that the Zimmerwald Movement which Lenin described as "yellow socialists" would have accepted that term for themselves. AndyL 11:35, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yellow Socialism...

message: :The nazis and the ba'athists are no more "socialist" than, say, the Pharaos of Egypt
Now that's sneaky. Sorry Mihnea but the Ba'athists are/were not Nazis. Ba'athist political philosophy, at least as it was originally conceived, did try to meld pan-Arab nationalism with socialism (though I would argue their version of socialism was distorted and had more to do with Stalinism (though the Ba'athists persecuted members of the Iraqi Communist Party), nevertheless it was a form of socialism as the term is generally understood and I think it is fair to describe the Ba'athism as a form of socialism). Of course, most of the Ba'athist ideology was thrown out under Saddam Hussein, both the pan-Arabism (in any meaningful sense) and the socialism - Husseintook over the party and Iraq with the help of the US but that's another story. Anyway, contrary to your claim that socialists try to run away from anything that didn't work out or was unpopular I have no problem putting Ba'athism in the socialist tradition (though in the authoritarian, Stalinist vein). This isn't because I like Ba'athism or Saddam Hussein and dislike Nazism, in fact I detest Saddam and see Ba'athism as a failure. Rather, the reason I would accept Ba'athism and reject Nazism as being broadly "socialist" is that the former is in the socialist tradition while the latter clearly is not, regardless of the misnomer. I personally detest Stalinism (indeed, my family suffered under Stalinism in Romania), but I nevertheless accept that it is descended from the socialist tradition whereas Nazism isn't for reasons explained ad nauseum elsewhere.AndyL 18:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ba'athism

message: In the introduction to this article:
Other variants of Socialism include Marxism, Communism, Anarchism, and Libertarian Socialism
Does Anarchism really belong in this list as a form of socialism? As a political ideology it has things in common with socialism, but in theory and practise it differs enough from socialism that I wouldn't call it a variant of socialism. 
Since libertarian socialism is also mentioned as a variant of socialism, which could be described as a intersection between socialism and anarchism, I propose to remove anarchism from this list of variants.
--Martin Wisse 10:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "(Note: Anarchism is loosely similar to Socialism in that it rejects the capitalist system, but has a number of stark differences with Socialist theories (particularly "centrally planned" or "State" socialism, as opposed to "libertarian socialism"); Most anarchists would reject being called "Socialists")." I think, personally, that it's important to note this. If anyone disagrees, or think that I'm overspecifying, speak up ;) --Tothebarricades.tk 18:13, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: You can only resolve this with a poll.  I doubt that most anarchists in the United States consider themselves socialists.  The subsets of the libertarian, christian and objectivists that tend towards the anarchial extreme, reject coercion, which is a necessary component for maintaining all but the most utopian socialism.--Silverback 10:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism