Talk:Statism

message: This section seems to be a ridiculously protracted attempt by someone trying to morally justify statism. Considering this, I think the article is weighted too much toward the morality of statism over practical justification for it.
:It's not even about statism - it's about the nature of society and (implicitly) the state. As I said before, this whole discussion isn't appropriate here; but I'm not sure exactly where it should go. People who use the term "statism", of course, aren't likely to make helpful suggestions on this point... Rd232 19:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should just wipe it out. RJII 21:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Morality of Statism (2005)

message: Why was the social contract paragraph removed from this article? It's relevant, and should be replaced. Rhobite 04:47, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
:See the above section "Morality of Statism" for a little discussion on that. I think it was too far out of the scope of "statism" and rambled on too long. So I think I condensed what might have been important into the one paragraph. Even then, it still seems inappropriate to me. Seems like a discussion of this type should focus a little more on economics at least. RJII 03:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social contract (2005) 

message: searching several online dictionaries, the definition of statism in every case refered to a "centralized government". The word "centralized" isn't even in the article intro anywhere, which is disconcerting. just a quick look at the intro, compared to the dictionary definitions feels like the intro is skewing "statism" to mean anything relating to a state/government, wheras the dictionaries seem to tend to point to centralized government versus local governments. I'm no political expert, so I can't really comment on the details of the topic, but something feels slightly amiss here. FuelWagon 01:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen a number of a different definitions in dictionaries and elsewhere (I could cite some, but I don't have time now) and can't place the same emphasis on needing the word "centralized"; "state intervention" covers that quite adequately for me, and I don't think you want to give the impression that local or regional government can't be "statist" (see eg Kerala). Also, I have to disagree that the article makes statism sound like it can "mean anything relating to a state/government"; the wording is quite precise that there is one usage relating to "significant" intervention (which people can and do interpret as they wish, reflecting the range of usage and of possible interpretation of various dictionary definitions) and one relating to the existence of states. Rd232 09:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from FuelWagon (2005)

message: *Merriam Webster Unabridged: "concentration of all economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government"
*Compact OED: "a political system in which the state has substantial central control over social and economic affairs"
*Collins Concise: "the theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state"
*The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy."
*Webster's 1913: "The art of governing a state; statecraft; policy."
*Encarta: "centralized political control: the theory, or its practice, that economic and political power should be controlled by a central government leaving regional government and the individual with relatively little say in political matters"
None of these unequivocally imply a planned economy, and most fit well with the description I had - "a system that involves a significant role for the state in economic or social affairs." (Possibly that should be 'economic, political, or social'.) The economic usage could perhaps be reworded slightly, but reflecting the range of definitions and usage, not RJII's narrow, "definitive" usage. (Incidentally, if you define statism=planned economy you exclude, for example, postwar western Europe from being "statist", something I imagine few US rightwingers will agree with.) Rd232 17:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it should be expanded if you've found other definitions. The problem is that we only had the one definition from M-W before. It's a good thing you've looked up others. The definition presented should be a synthesis of those definitions or some kind of list if necessary. I'd toss out the 1913 dictionary ..meanings change. This is all I've been demanding ..that definitions be sourced. If you have only one source, then that's the only definition that should be reflected as the definition. RJII 18:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Later comments, added by other editors in 2012, have been moved to bottom of page.--S. Rich (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictionary definitions 

message: Minhea, you keep trying to say in the article that statism is a pejorative term. I don't know how you're concluding that. It's very easy to see find the word statism in use in papers, and they're not using it as a pejorative. They may be saying that they don't like it. Statism is not an insult! RJII 16:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, I gave an very good source above for it being considered pejorative, at least by some. Forgotten already? It's just above dictionary definitions subsection. Rd232 18:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Go read my text again. It does not say that statism is a pejorative term. It merely says that it is most often (NOT always) used by opponents of statism. This is self-evident from a simple google search. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Negative connotation" whatever. Use some logic. If most people today who speak of statism are opposed to statism, then most papers you come across that mention statism are going to be by those who oppose statism. But, that does not mean that the word "statism" has a negative connotation. I don't see a negative connotation in it AT ALL. RJII 16:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, maybe I haven't made my point clearly: There are many people who do support state intervention, but don't call themselves statists. Communists, for example. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: State communists have called themselves statists. But, it looks like you're using the term to refer to intervention itself, while I'm using it to refer to an overall statist system, as the Encyclopedia Britannica is using the term above. RJII 16:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Statism" is used to refer to intervention itself:     Notice this last link defines "statism" as "the idea that a centralized government could somehow be better than private initiative". Notice also that all articles talk about statism as a label for a wide variety of state interventionist policies. Again, I have to point out that Britannica derives its definition from the French Etatisme. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding, statism is used to refer to intervention itself. It also is used in the classic sense (probably more common sense). So, that's the source of our problem here. I've separated the two uses in separate paragraphs. RJII 17:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not seen "statism" being used in the "classic sense" anywhere outside various dictionaries and editions of Britannica. This is a fate shared by many other words: How many people still use the word "pussy" to refer to cats, for example? In any case, I see no reason for separating the two economic uses of "statism" in two paragraphs, since they are related. Do you have any actual objections to my version as it stands now? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one, can tell you, that I've come across the term much more often to refer to an economic system, than to invervention itself. I can't fathom why you would want to conflate the two uses. Is there some kind of POV you're trying to push? If there is I can't figure out what it is. I'm not pushing any POV here. RJII 17:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't figure out what it is because I'm not trying to push any POV - I just think my definition is more accurate. But I've just written a compromise version now, separating the two issues you want separated. Have a look. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where have you ever seen a definition of statism that specifies that it necessarily has to be absolute control over an economy? RJII 17:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't, but I was under the impression that you insisted on including this definition... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, that's because you haven't been reading carefully. I never said that for a system to be statism it has to be absolute all-encompassing control. If you look at what you deleted it said "totally or mostly centrally-planned by government." You're the one that deleted that and changed it to simply "entirely" which is wronng interpretation of the term. RJII 18:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, an amusing example of how RJII actually is only interested in getting his own way. Consistency, accuracy, rationality seem to be optional extras. Or has he forgotten repeatedly reverting the idea that "Statist economies are also referred to as command economies."diff Rd232 18:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Having said that, for the sake of my own sanity, I have stopped caring about this article. There's enough here on the talk page to indicate what's going own, so interested readers can go elsewhere, to sources not controlled by RJII. Rd232 18:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good riddance. RJII 18:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, the "view" I'm talking about is the view held by advocates of intervention - in other words, the view that such intervention is good. How would you like me to rephrase it? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how you could rephrase that to make any sense. You're talking about two different things --1) statism is the act of intervening in an economy  2) Some favor intervention.   I don't see how you could make a connection. RJII 19:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not much help... fine, let me think... how about "Advocates typically do not refer to it as statism, preferring to call the intervention they support by other names, depending on their specific methods and goals."? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I changed it to to fix it, but you changed it back. Here's what it said: "Advocates typically do not refer to it as statism, preferring to refer to intervention by other names, depending on the methods and the goals they support." Or close to it. What you just said is fine. RJII 19:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I edited the article to include that sentence and replace the previous one. This was the last disputed issue, so now we have a consensus on the article, yes? Excellent! See, we can work together after all. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently. But it's still kind of strange. I'm rewording it. Because, it's not just advocates of intervention that don't call it statism, but also those that oppose it don't call it statism either ..looks like just a few isolated cases to me. Most people just call it regulation. RJII 01:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: a pejorative? (2005)

message: "Nearly all forms of socialism are opposed to state intervention in matters of personal freedom (though some forms of socialism favor a strongly regulated or even entirely state-controlled economy; see planned economy)."
What an oxymoron - supposed opposition to state intervention in matters of personal freedom, while entirely controlling the economy?  How does that work?
:"How does that work?" Just like the vast majority of states work: You see, the vast majority of states intervene in some matters but not in others. There never existed a state that did not intervene in anything at all, and states that intervene in everything are extremely rare (depending on your definition of "everything", they might have never existed either). Since most existing states can manage to intervene in some matters but not in others, it makes sense to expect a socialist state to manage the same thing. -- Nikodemos 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I really don't see how you could make that argument. Slaves are unfree not because they don't own any property (if owning property were the essence of freedom, then we would have to conclude that the rich are the most free, the poor have limited freedom and the destitute homeless are just as unfree as slaves); slaves are unfree because they themselves are owned as the private property of other people. That's a very useful point, by the way: Slaves were, and always have been, private property. Not collective or state property. -- Nikodemos 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it highly ironic that you cite the works of a well-known libertarian socialist (George Orwell), who fought as a volunteer in the name of Marxism in the Spanish Civil War, as part of your condemnation of socialism. -- Nikodemos 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The argument "if X worked on any large scale, we'd have historical examples of it" is a fallacy, because everything must have a beginning. Before the 18th century, one could argue that there were no historical examples of large-scale democracy, and therefore democracy "couldn't work". The same could be argued against capitalism in the 16th century. And even civilization itself had a beginning, some 5000 years ago. Thus, we could imagine a tribesman from 6000 years ago being presented with an outline of civilization, and rejecting it because "if cities and division of labor and all those things worked on any large scale, we'd have historical examples of it". -- Nikodemos 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would argue that the "individual freedom" advocated by capitalist libertarians is a self-contradictory sloppy concept that can't even stand on its own, let alone be compatible with anything. -- Nikodemos 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I do believe that Marx, Engels, Lenin et al. can claim to speak for communism. And their view is that the final goal of communism is a classless, propertyless and stateless society. -- Nikodemos 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to be defining communism as "anything that people calling themselves 'communists' do". By the same logic, democracy is "anything that people calling themselves 'democrats' do". So the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan, which is the only legal party in Turkmenistan and holds absolute dictatorial power, would be an example of real democracy according to your way of defining things. Also, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would be true democratic countries by your logic. -- Nikodemos 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Arguably, if an "evil" is necessary, then it's not really "evil"... but that's just nitpicking. "Necessary evil" is a perfectly acceptable English phrase meaning "something we have to do but wish we could avoid". And you are obviously ignorant of the many instances of Communist parties coming to power democratically (and preserving democratic institutions) in countries such as Moldova or the Indian province of Kerala. -- Nikodemos 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't collectivism supposed to involve power by some sort of collective? If a bandit or tyrant enslaves people, where exactly is there a collective in that? -- Nikodemos 05:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outright Lies, Sophistry and Contradictions (2006)

message: This section is monstrously slanted. Here's a choice passage:
"Opponents of statism often use the term as a synonym for collectivism. However, there is no necessary connection between the two. It is possible to have a commune or some other form of collectivist society that is entirely stateless[…]. Conversely, it is possible to have a strong central state which does not implement any policy that may be regarded as collectivist."
Aside from the fact that these statements don't hold up to any serious logical scrutiny, they're slanted and unencyclopedic. There are plenty of people who would disagree with comments like this, so to state them with phrases like "there is no connection" and "it is possible" is entirely unencyclopedic. I don't think the section serves any informative purpose beyond that of collectivist propaganda. Retaining this section is like including a paragraph about why murder does not necessarily entail immorality. Even if there were some philosophical defense for such a statement (there isn't), it is only one arbitrary opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. -Sean Parmelee 08:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No necessary connection between collectivism and statism" (2006)

message: Under the criticism section, it seems that this article is stating that either statism or capitalism are the only two choices. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. --76.112.67.33 (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused. Extremely biased or am I missing something? (2008)

message: It has been a while since I visited this particular shrine for so-called 'libertarians'. This article reads like part of an FAQ for that far-right American political party rather than a serious academic article. The talk page makes me cringe - do you people not have your own forums in which to rail against the great socialist enemy, instead of spewing your ideological rants over a bloody encyclopedia.
If this article can't be seriously, and I mean seriously improved, it should be deleted. As it stands, it doesn't inform at all, it merely preaches.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damburger (talk • contribs) 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible page, really (2008 comment) 

message: i did some searching and there are no groups like "statists of New jersey", or "women statists of north carolina". It seems to me that this is a term like "gook" or "kraut". A term not used by people, except as a accusation. I can't find any articles anywhere on the web where people are promoting themselves as statists, and the term seems to only be used as a slur.
Also, this article seems to be giving "objectivists" or the followers of ayn rand too much deference. I mean, if you wanted to structure the article to be about this being a term pushed by the followers of ayn rand, that would be one thing, but to quote ayn rand followers as if they are some kind of authoritative group seems bad to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichGriese (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems this article could be articulated better (2010)

message: Examples (not isolated uses, but examples of a type):
:Along these lines, the follow explanatory sentences seem dubious:
::Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism. Statism can take many forms. Minarchists prefer a minimal or night watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud with military, police, and courts. Some may also include fire departments, prisons, and other functions. Totalitarians prefer a maximum or all encompassing state. Limited government, welfare state, and other options make up the middle territory of the scale of statism.
:When minarchism (which is effectively the weakest argument for government outside of anarchism) is considered "statism", that means that statism isn't the opposite of anarchism, but its negation. I don't see how that is consistent with the actual definitions of statism stated here. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictionary definition (October 2012) 

message: Just a suggestion: please avoid hyperbole. It serves no good to either side. It's not hard to avoid, just reread your comments. To those whose comments are in defense of "statism," please, stop apologizing for it, and don't pick and choose between which you like and don't like. If you can defend statism, then you probably are more happy with what it does than what it does not do. Also, a word's definition can often be found in the way it's spelled: Statism is related to government regulation. Thus, a little history (start with seventeenth century France) would lower the temperature of this argument. The proper question is "how much" government, not "whether." So, Libertarians, please take a breath. While you're at it, read Flannery O'Connor's short story (very short) "The Barber." HopeHume 4-14-2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HopeHume (talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughtful Perspective improves the conversation and leads to understanding.  

message: The entry on statism is overly broad. According to the opening statement all government is statist. Statism implies central planning and control not minarchism. See: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statism 
James Berg 47 (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction on statism is overly broad 

message: Please stop using this article to push an agenda, especially by characterizing "statism" and "statists" as authoritarians in the Ayn Randian tradition. Statist is not and should not be a pejorative directed to anyone who disagrees with Ayn's "philosophy," keep this article neutral. Perhaps the neutral definition upsets alleged "right-libertarians" and "minarchists" who dislike that their ideology falls under statism but that is only because they have deluded themselves into thinking that statist is a pejorative term, mainly because they use it so often to insult other political philosophies. Regardless of your political beliefs, it is possible to articulate them in a technical and neutral manner, and it is possible to critique other ideologies without resorting to heavy-handed generalizations and insults. Many political scientists have done so without having to co-opt otherwise neutral terms in order to make certain beliefs sound scary. For example, if you disagree with any and all government intervention into economic matters, you can express that without calling people who disagree "STATISTS." Likewise, if you believe that the means of production should be controlled by the workers you can say that without calling your opponents "FASCISTS."
So for all the Objectivists, who believe that the state should exist, who call people who disagree with them on other points "STATISTS," but who then get upset when their beliefs technically fall under the umbrella of "statism," well, stop calling people statists just because they disagree with you or because they believe that governments may have a role in regulating the economy. CronoDroid (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop pushing an agenda 

message: Not much point having Anti-statism as a separate article given the amount of information there is to cover, so it's better to merge into the Criticisms section. It can always be split off if it expands to the point of needing it's own article. ExaLtvAts (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: If this term redirects here, there should at least be a paragraph devoted to it and Ludwig von Mises's take on statism in Omnipotent Government &c. Alternatively, post a stub at the redirect instead, but it really is synonymous with statism and was only differentiated to make the idea seem more Continental and foreign to the Anglosphere's traditions. — LlywelynII 15:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Etatism

message: Given that: (1) the People's Republic of China self-describes as a "socialist with Chinese characteristics" state, (2) it was founded by Mao Zedong and communist revolutionaries, and (3) the Chinese Communist Party has a high degree of control over the economy and at least states that its objective is to in future transform China into a true communist state, it makes more sense to list the People's Republic of China as 'state socialist' when considering it from multiple angles (especially given the current direction of the country under General Secretary Xi Jinping).
Regardless of whether one views the U.S.S.R. and its satellites as state capitalist or state socialist, the government of the People's Republic of China has much in common in both origin and practice with their style of government as well as North Korea's, and as such whether these governments are classified as either type it still makes the most sense to list the People's Republic of China alongside them to help maintain the consistency of the article from a neutral ideological frame-work.  'State capitalism' already has excellent examples of other governments of its type in its section, anyway. Webspidrman (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: The People's Republic of China