Talk:Socialism/Archive 9

message: 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)
replies: text: What you removed  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Market socialism def.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Word origin

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Citations

message: 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 talkcontribs 17:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 talkcontribs 20:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 talkcontribs 23:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Socialism in the United States section

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Blacklisting" 

message: 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 talkcontribs 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree, previous wording would suffice.--EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 21:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section needs work again

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The disputed sentence 

message: 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.--EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How is not in compliance with NPOV? -- Vision Thing -- 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Criticism Section (revisted)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Market socialism definition

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: POV

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

text: Again switch to Socialist parties. I think this is clear. Jacob Haller 22:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: communism/Communism and socialism/Socialism

message: 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)
thread_title: Between Utopianism & Marxism

message: "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.Donald Sassoon, "Socialism," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006"
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: POV assertion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Fascism

message: 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)
thread_title: Are Fascism and Nazism forms of Socialism?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fascist Hostility to Socialism

message: 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)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Make Marxian and non-Marxian sections

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Change to the Introduction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Too much history/not enough other stuff 

message: You cannot mention an economic calculation debate without mentioning Mises. Intangible2.0 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously? You can check at Google Scholar why. Intangible2.0 15:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  von mises