Talk:Socialism/Archive 7

message: I have reworked the following sentence:
Also, there is concern that socialism advocates equality in material wealth over equality in liberty. 
As follows:
Also, market liberals frequently argue that the more equitable distribution of wealth advocated by socialists can only be achieved by a corresponding reduction in political freedoms.
The reason it needed a rework IMO is that socialism does not "advocate equality in material wealth" as far as I am aware. Only the more radical forms of socialism advocate that. Socialism in general just advocates a more equitable redistribution of income. So the phrase as it stood was not quite accurate. 
Secondly, socialists definitely do not "advocate equality in material wealth over equality in liberty". I think you'd find no shortage of socialists who would vehemently disagree with that construction.
So basically what I've tried to do is rework the sentence so that it still reflects the previous editor's intentions without misrepresenting the position of socialists. Hope this meets with everyone's approval. Gatoclass 05:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Equitable" is a POV term. The distribution of wealth that socialists want is not necessarily equitable (meaning fair). Wealth inequality can be very equitable to someone who favors a system where people are rewarded according to their production and are allowed to get rich from it. By the way, communist models do advocate equal wealth --everything is owned collectively.  No private property translates into everyone owning an equal share of everything.RJII 05:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe the word you were looking for was "egalitarian." RJII 05:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest edit  05:06, 10 May 2006 Gatoclass

message: I never said that all critics of Socialism view Socialism and Communism as the same entity, but some of them do, and I posted this sentence because it is not fair game (in my opinion) to criticise socialism by attacking the record of communist countries. Again, Communism and Socialism are not the same.
Also, I have omitted what I felt to be a straw man fallacy. It was a reference by Albert Einstein in which he stated that socialists "reject individualism". This cannot be applied to the entire ideology, therefore, it is at best a POV.
-English Efternamn
: I posted this sentence because it is not fair game (in my opinion) to criticise socialism by attacking the record of communist countries.
If so, then I'm afraid your contribution has had the opposite effect, because it only underscores the idea that there is no difference between the two. The earlier edit emphasized that the states most commonly associated with human rights abuses are communist states, which seems appropriate to me. Gatoclass 04:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: I'm of the opinion that everyone's basic needs should be met. That's a little simplistic but as far as I can tell, there is no Version of socialism that fits. Is this a new thing, where the particulars of how that's to be carried out are a seperate issue? Is this covered under some other more philisophical than political name? Please let me know, or perhaps it's time to remove the baggage from "socialism" and let it be important for humanist rather than historical reasons.
Please respond: Advocate@gmail.com
I think this article should start wiht a dictionary definition so that the topic is known. As for your question the welfare state was a (german 19th century) compromise between capitalism and socialism created for that purpose 71.192.98.234 23:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pure" socialism 

message: "while Nazis rejected the internationalism, egalitarianism and social class-oriented perspective of the socialists. (See: Nazism and Socialism)."
Nazism and Socialism no longer exists. Though I should also note the bias noted before, that Nazis didn't reject "social class-oriented perspectives" of socialists. As in Triumph of the Will where Hitler states "There must be no class distinctions among our people; never let such notions take root among you." echoed many times like in Dieter Schwarz's critque of Freemasonry in an SS publication; "National Socialism stands for unconditional duty and responsibility. The world view of National Socialism is Nordic; that of the Freemason is Asiatic-Jewish. The National Socialistic position is racially conscious; that of the lodges, anti-racial and pro-Jewish. The communality of National Socialism is the living feature of racially related types, the racial community, not the caste system and clique of interests of the bourgeoisie organized in the lodges. National Socialism contrasts an unconditional racial nationalism against the cosmopolitan internationalism of Freemasonry". Any similar Nazi quote is the same on matter of their ideology; anti-bourgeoisie, anti-monarchist. Pro-egalitarian within their own nationality. A reduction to equality of a racial matter; i.e. making everyone racially equal, can be seen as the whole rational of Nazism down to the holocaust. Certainly not Leninist, but more socialist inspired than Italian Fascist inspired for certain. Nagelfar 17:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good point. Go ahead and add it :) -- infinity0 13:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes and no. I would agree that yes, as with many ideologies across the board, there are common themes. But, even if you can resolve the two (racial) as ideologically egalitarian, the Nazis took completely different approaches: insofar as you're arguing the Nazis were for redistribution, the approach to the issue of race consistent with this would be to encourage, not ban intermarriage. Conversely, had the Nazis taken the same approach to poverty that they had with race, then they would have simply culled anyone who wasn't already well off to begin with. I've tried to make the claim less strong. I think what we really have here is that Nazism shares with many doctrines of socialism a prior notion of austerity, from influences like Sparta and Stoicism, and Nazi leaders used any links with socialism for maximum effect on audiences with socialist sympathies (any claim by a politician that can further their own goals, particularly when made in a propaganda effort, is suspect). 'Bourgeois values' have been attacked by democratic revolutionaries and conservative aristocrats alike since the time of imperial Rome and before; it's hardly evidence for socialism. That said, the evidence might be worth including and discussing in the Fascism and ideology page --Nema Fakei 16:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Marxism was the branch of socialism devoted to class conflict. The perception of egalitarianism through Nazisms "organic" view of society as you put it, coupled with the opposition to class consciousness that there was in the Nazi ideology, is analogous to a socialist substrata in their belief that opposed the capitalist mode or production. This was in direct contrast to Marx's concept of the matter that classes must war to achieve a social class equality or "socialistic" condition of society, but not at all in contrast to a socialist desired framework that such a socialistic condition of society could or should be reached. Nagelfar 01:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazism 

message: In connection with the above, I wish to suggest that we move around a few sections of this article so as to deal with general socialist ideas first and specific branches of socialism second. And while we're writing a paragraph about each of the ideologies that are controversially associated with socialism, we should also write at least that much about those ideologies that are universally regarded as socialist (e.g. social democracy, communism, etc). -- Nikodemos 12:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every ideology (with the exception of libertarianism, probably) is considered by someone to be "socialist". You are going too far in accomodating every fringe view. Nazism doesn't deserve more than a paragraph here - certainly not its own subsection - because controversies of the form "is A a kind of B?" should be covered in articles dealing with A, not in articles dealing with B. -- Nikodemos 16:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A bit of a restructure?

message: Here is a paraphrase (perhaps) of the OED definition of socialims:
"A theory of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all. "
Etymology is French and initially coined in 1832 to contrast with individualism (personnalité).
http://dictionary.oed.com/. THis is the online OED, which revises itself. last printed version is OED2. This is the citation form they reccomend:The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. 4 Apr. 2000 <http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50229733>.
MS Encarta Intro paragraph:
"Socialism, economic and social doctrine, political movement inspired by this doctrine, and system or order established when this doctrine is organized in a society. The socialist doctrine demands state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and distribution of wealth, to be achieved by reconstruction of the existing capitalist or other political system of a country through peaceful, democratic, and parliamentary means. The doctrine specifically advocates nationalization of natural resources, basic industries, banking and credit facilities, and public utilities. It places special emphasis on the nationalization of monopolized branches of industry and trade, viewing monopolies as inimical to the public welfare. It also advocates state ownership of corporations in which the ownership function has passed from stockholders to managerial personnel. Smaller and less vital enterprises would be left under private ownership, and privately held cooperatives would be encouraged."
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577990/Socialism.html
Mrdthree 23:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, it'll be hard to rearrange it that way. How about putting the stuff in commas, instead of parentheses? -- infinity0 15:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of Socialism to constrain article 

message: if there is to be aPOV dispute, it needs to be articulated. 17:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the controversial ideologies that have been labeled as "socialism" should go into the Socialism and other ideologies section, and that section should only discuss these ideologies. After all, the only "other ideologies" that should be discussed in an article about socialism are those that have some claimed relationship with socialism. -- Nikodemos 17:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: NPOV requires thinking from all viewpoints. Since whether they validity as socialists is disputed, they should have their own section, neither "socialist" or "non-socialist". I'll go remove the headings and replace that section with shorter versions, as you have not objected to that, for now. -- infinity0 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sam, what's your problem with my other edits, such as merging the schools and types sections? Show some respect. Also, what's wrong with "other ideologists claimed to be socialist"? It shows that the majority doesn't consider them to be socialist. -- infinity0 18:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, what "uncited claims" are you talking about? PLease note, I am not the one making them; the paragraph I am replacing was originally written by someone else. I just replaced it with that because it's shorter and more concise than your long-winded essays. -- infinity0 18:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sam, after reading your version, WOW. You say I put weasel words in (note again, it wasn't me who wrote it) but there are lots of stuff in your version such as "some have labelled the Ba'th Party a fascist movement" - who? Please hesistate to criticise other people's versions before looking at your own. -- infinity0 18:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV header 

message: My first observation about this article is that the "ideologies not universally agreed upon as socialist" are given about as much space as the ideologies that are universally agreed upon as socialist. This is a clear case of undue weight. Some ideologies that are universally agreed upon as socialist aren't even mentioned, like the several important branches of Marxism. I have been busy elsewhere for the past two days, but I intend to start doing some serious editing of this article today or tomorrow. -- Nikodemos 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your concerns at face value. Varieties of marxism (like stalinism, maoism, etc...) should get at least as much space as nazism or islamic socialism or whatever. Sam Spade 11:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't agree at all. Sam Spade 11:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please avoid undue weight

message: Nikodemos, I think what you wrote is good, but too long for the intro. Take Capitalism for example - the intro is in about 5 lines. Much of the current intro could probably go into the first section. -- infinity0 20:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the editing behaviour of most anons, there are a significant number of people who read only the intro to an article. Thus, I believe intros should be at least a few paragraphs long. The capitalism intro is ridiculously short (and, if I remember, it got that way because editors couldn't agree on a longer definition of capitalism so they settled on the very bad compromise of hardly defining it at all). I wish to move back most of my text into the intro. -- Nikodemos 22:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Marxism should definitely be mentioned, and I would argue that the introductory paragraphs of socialist theory should all be moved to the intro. After all, if you're going to give a brief overview of what socialists believe, why move part of it further down rather than putting it all at the beginning of the article? I don't like intros that give just a brief definition. The intro should be a concise summary of the article. Readers shouldn't have to search through the article for explanations of the basics of socialism. That's my view. -- Nikodemos 03:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It wasn't me, if that's what you're implying. -- Nikodemos 02:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And if the table of contents points you to subsections about (a) the history of socialism, (b) variations of socialist theory and (c) branches of socialism, where exactly would you go for a more detailed definition of socialism in general? -- Nikodemos 02:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The article currently contains a lot of information that was merely copied over from other articles. I consider this an acceptable way to quickly fill in new sections, and it may be useful temporarily, but we should be careful to edit all that material and properly integrate it eventually. -- Nikodemos 02:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Sam, I hope I can convince you to scrap the headings under "controversial classifications". For one, that Nazism is a form of socialism is a very fringe view. Second, those schools simply aren't notable as being a school of socialism, and aren't major. And thirldy, by giving them each a separate heading, you give them the same focus as the other schools. -- infinity0 18:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I just came here to compliment what you have done. I was expecting to revert the article first thing, but now I see I have no reason to. Good job! Sam Spade 10:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many headings 

message: Be careful of over reaching w citations. The following 2 "cites" don't actually back up what they claim:
:However, it has been suggested that the Party was so named purely for propaganda reasons.Simkin, John. Nazi Party - NSDAP from the Spartacus Educational website Virtually all who consider themselves socialist do not regard Nazism as a form of socialism.Kangas, Steve Myth: Hitler was a leftist
Sam Spade 10:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you remember when you accused me of stacking the article w cites from a single POV? As a random example, Lynn Walsh doesn't strike me as particularly notable, either as a socialist, or as a critic of baathism. Sam Spade 16:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Very honest of you, I appreciate that. Sam Spade 20:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: This is the biggest difference between forms of socialism. We need to discuss it in detail. Sam Spade 16:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me, this was just a request/suggestion, contribution of bulk content is not my specialty. My focus is on the finer touches ;) Sam Spade 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Authoritarianism vrs. liberty

message: Have a look:
National_Socialist_Program#German_Party_Platform
That looks pretty socialist to me! Sam Spade 15:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see how the platform is any more socialist than the present constitutions of most European nations, as well as many other countries around the world. Please also note that the Nazis did not, by any means, apply the full platform into practice after they took power. -- Nikodemos 16:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German_Party_Platform 

message: :Socialism is a world-view and was the result of critisism on capitalism of the 18th and 19th century that aims to remove this economic system. The basic economic policy is the abolishment and nationalization of private ownership of all means of production and also centralized planning and controlling of the economic processes to avoid all negative social consequences of economic acting. The main goal was the overcoming of social differences in economy and society and also the improvement of the living conditions of the working population.
:The representations of socialism of the 18th and 19th century was the utopian socialism and the economic socialism. The utopian socialists eg. Robert Owen and Charles Fourier aimed a social and economic ideal state that was to be archieved by enlightment and an rational manner of acting. In opposition, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels tried to explain Socialism in an scientific way. In this concept, socialism is the result of the collapse of kaptialism and the revolution by the working class and also the early stage of an society without classes and rulers: the communism.
:The former union of soviet socialist republics and other eastern block countries that were influenced by the ruling communist party called their own concept "really existing socialism". This concept is also called "planned economy".
:Source: "Das Lexikon der Wirtschaft", :de:Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, http://www.bpb.de/publikationen/ESMN42,0,0,Das_Lexikon_der_Wirtschaft.html
--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: The following was removed:
However, it has been suggested that the Party was so named purely for propaganda reasons.Simkin, John. Nazi Party - NSDAP from the Spartacus Educational website. 
The reason given was "strange claim." Why is it strange, though? A source was given, wasn't it? -- infinity0 20:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The abbreviation and the rest was a strange claim. Suggested propaganda? Of course it was propaganda, there's nothing to suggest. They called it "social" since they wanted to take money from the jews and give it to the "poor" "Aryan" people since they blamed the jews (and the freemasons and the communists... see: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) for almost everything especially for enrichment. They sayed that they would own the financial capital and enrich themselves with high interest rates so they were blamed to enslave the working poor without the need to work themselves. Manpower was seen as positive capital, called „schaffendes Kapital“ (productive financial capital) and "working" financial capital, called „raffendes Kapital“ (rapacious capital) was seen as negative. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Propaganda means they wanted to publish their goals, now this should be normal for the name of a party with an own definition of "social". Feel free to reinsert the reference, I just removed it because I reformulated the sentences. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: @ Infinity0: Thank you for reinserting the reference, but User:Sam Spade seems not to be interested in user discussions nor in a consensus and I am not interested in an edit war. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of a point 

message: Sam, could you please state your problem? No other editor has raised an objection to the version which is currently on the page. -- infinity0 21:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that alot, please scroll up. Sam Spade 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I scroll up and I see that your objections have been answered to, not only by me. If, as Cberlet says, you have been inserting this sort of thing for months, then you have problems. Please stop it. Furthermore, whatever POV you think my version is biased towards, I think your version is much more biased. -- infinity0 20:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, please discuss changes before you make them to help build a consensus. ---WGee 22:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that Nazism is a form of socialism has been placed by Sam Spade on a number of pages over many months.  When most editors reject the claim as marginal, and remove or limit the text,  Sam Spade simply moves to another page and starts the process all over again.  Most recently a vote was taken as to where this argument belongs. The discussion and vote is here: Talk:Fascism_and_ideology/Archive_1#Dispute. There was clear support for keeping the discussion on the Fascism and ideology page. Most of the discussion from this page is already on that page, as is a lengthy discussion about fascism as a form socialism. A one sentence summary and a link to the Fascism and ideology page is all that is really appropriate on this page given the marginal nature of the claims.--Cberlet 19:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO are Sams edits contrary to Wikipedia:Consensus. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some examples of where this debate started: , , , .--Cberlet 22:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, same here. I need to prepare my university app in the next few months. Wikipedia will have to be pushed to one side, unless something disastrous happens. -- infinity0 16:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sam Spade's consistent reversions 

message: It seems that Sam Spade has done this "revert w/o discussion thing" on several articles, including God and Human. Looking through the histories of both articles, I see the same pattern - a few users revert Sam Spade's edits, saying "this is the consensus version, quit edit warring"    , and Sam Spade replies to the effect of "my version is the consensus version"  or "read the talk page"   or even simply "restore"  . I do not know the details, but on the surface these separate incidents seem remarkably similar to the one we have witnessed here. This may be indicative of problems with Sam Spade's attitude towards disputes, especially when consensus is against him. I think it would be best if an RfC was opened on him, for other editors to input their comments, because I don't think that the way Sam Spade deals with such disputes is healthy to the wikipedian community or to himself. What do people think? -- infinity0 23:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't know where else to put it. When the RfC begins, I'll move the stuff there. But please, Sam, this is not meant to be an attack upon you, but constructive criticism. You have reverted articles without discussion, or very very little of it. Simiarly, I don't want the RfC to turn into a bitch-fest - all I want is for editors to point out aspects of your behaviour that is unfriendly and/or agressive and/or harmful, etc, so that hopefully you can see things from your opponents' point of view instead of continuing along believing you are right and they are wrong. -- infinity0 17:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What Josh noted about the God articler is what happens on the Human page article, where Sam has insisted on inserting POV info on spirituality over and over and over (both in the intro and in the religion/spirituality section).  Admittedly this has slowed down in the past few days, and Sam appears to be cooperating now, but he has caused significant disruption over the course of the past month or so.  In fact, possiblty in light of this discussion Sam made a true NPOV proposal today.  I'd like to AGF, but history makes it hard.  •Jim62sch• 23:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of [[User:Sam Spade]]

message: Cberlet said: A one sentence summary and a link to the Fascism and ideology page is all that is really appropriate on this page given the marginal nature of the claims. 19:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a little longer - say, one or two paragraphs (half the size it currently is). And is there consensus to remove the tags from that section at the moment? -- infinity0 14:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazism and Fascism sub-sub sections 

message: This article is not written with neutrality. Editors, please read what 
you have written here:  A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.[1][2]
::This may be written, with a more neutral perspective like this:
~ According to Socialists, a primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.[1][2] ~
Thewolfstar 20:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality under dispute 

message: Sam, could you please state your problem? No other editor has raised an objection to the version which is currently on the page. -- infinity0 21:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that alot, please scroll up. Sam Spade 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I scroll up and I see that your objections have been answered to, not only by me. If, as Cberlet says, you have been inserting this sort of thing for months, then you have problems. Please stop it. Furthermore, whatever POV you think my version is biased towards, I think your version is much more biased. -- infinity0 20:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it was neutral as it was written previously.  It is an unquestionable fact that socialist theory stresses egalitarianism and material equity.  You may not feel this way about the ideology, probably because you believe that the brutal regimes of Stalin and Mao, for instance, represent socialism.  We are not talking about socialism as practiced in the 20th century in this sentence; we are talking about socialist theory, which is created by socialists themselves, not by anti-socialists. -- WGee 06:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Based on the comment above, I stand by my suggestion that your understanding of socialist theory is skewed.  Once again, you are confusing the ideology of socialism with the autocratic, self-described socialist regimes of the 20th century. -- WGee 02:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sam Spade's consistent reversions 

message: Does Socialist theory say anything about the fact that this claim can't be true because it advocates a government which is run by a few people, thereby making it's equality assertion impossible? Thewolfstar thewolfstar 06:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot answer your question because its premise is fundamentally flawed.  It is also a propagandistic question, and I would ask that you not use article talk pages to attempt to justify your personal views with misinformation.  Also, before making such unfounded claims, I would urge you to read socialist philosophy. -- WGee 20:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thewolfstar, please stop making aggressive, provocative and disruptive comments like "You sound like a bully", "his tactics" etc. If you think there is something wrong with the article say so in a polite manner so you don't sound like you have a hidden agenda. -- infinity0 22:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Socialism does not inherently advocate an oligarchic government. The question is not answerable because it makes as much sense as asking what Islam has to say about the fact that Mohammed was actually an arthritic stickleback living in a remote village of eastern Norway: He wasn't, so the question cannot be answered.  --Nema Fakei 10:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  can you answer my question? 

message: I'm not aware of any official Wikipedia policy about number of links from one site. Is there any? For now, I added unbalanced tag on article because of the unbalance between number of pro and anti-socialists links. -- Vision Thing -- 17:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Giving lots of links to one site is WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -- infinity0 17:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On what grounds? WP:NPOV#Undue weight doesn't say anything about that. Can you quote something from it that supports your view? -- Vision Thing -- 17:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Use your common sense. 10 links to the same website is spam, and an advert for that website. -- infinity0 17:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm using common sense. Also, there is Wikipedia policy about link spam Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming and this case isn't mentioned as link spam. -- Vision Thing -- 17:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: * Aaron C. Donahue Predicts Advancement of World Wide Socialist Movement
* Donahue: The World Needs Socialism
* Socialist Worker Newspaper (USA) News and action from around the US and the globe
* Socialism Today, Socialism Today, the theoretical journal of the Socialist Party
* Revolutionary Communist Party USA Revolution paper online
* Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, Atlanta Youth organization and supporters of the RCP, USA
* Revolutionary Internationalist Movement Coalition of various Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties from around the world
* Marxism Online
* Pathfinder Books, Socialist bookstore online
* The Socialism Website
That'll do for a start. - FrancisTyers 19:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cull

message: Can we please stop this petulant POV pushing? The block of text about the deaths attributed to "socialism" actually comes from old political polemics about communism, and does not belong on this page even if it was properly cited, which it is not. Without discussion, it is entirely appropriate for some of us to keep deleting it.--Cberlet 13:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's almost entirely that single anon (60.234.157.64). One user, on seeing the anon's text reverted, attempted to add in a short note of the 100,000,000 claim (possibly trying to be NPOV). --Nema Fakei 00:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cberlet entirely. -- WGee 03:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not "socialism" itself that caused the deaths, it was the totalitarianism of the communist regimes in the USSR, China, etc.  Note, too, that in the cases of the USSR and China, the mantel of socialism was adopted (as it was by the Nazi party -- Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) as a justification for attaining and holding political power.  While Lenin himself may have had socialist leanings, Stalin and Mao were only in it for the power itself. •Jim62sch• 19:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of common criticisms is that socialism leads to totalitarianism. Also, Stalinism and Maoism are listed as forms of communism and communism is listed as form of socialism. Therefore, there is no reason to say that criticisms directed to Stalinism and Maoism don’t belong in the Criticisms of socialism section/article. -- Vision Thing -- 12:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Vision Thing, firstly, the section "Criticisms of Socialism" should be a summary of the main article: unless it's part of the CoS article, it doesn't belong in the summary. Sedond, highlighting one claim, indeed, one disputed statistic, is giving undue weight to that claim: a summary should be a short overview. Thirdly, the claims are specific to communist states, for which we have dedicated pages. Hope this clarifies. --Nema Fakei 20:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) It’s easy to expand CoS article once we agree about this issue; 2) I don’t think that anybody relevant disputes that the millions were killed, only the correct number is disputed; 3) there is no such thing as communist state – it’s oxymoron by definition; USSR and China considered themselves socialist states. -- Vision Thing -- 12:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Michael40, I reverted your previous edit. I reverted because (a) it is POV - who says socialist states have "murdered" so many millions? (b) it is inappropriate for the socialism page, and is better suited for the State Terrorism page or something similar (c) undue weight - it is far too long in comparison to other sections. Gatoclass 12:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV attack by right-wing critics of socialism

message: Cut from article:
: and they reject individualistic schools of thought which assert that society is the voluntary creation of individuals who chose to interact with each other.Einstein, Albert. Why Socialism? May 1949.
Who are "they"? Socialists in general? Or a particular brand of socialist identified by Einstein?
This critical quote certainly seems to fit Communist governments such as the USSR, North Vietnam, Cuba, etc. 
By the way, shouldn't we have an article on socialism and Communism which compares and contrasts the two ideas? If they are so different as to be distinguisable, it shouldn't be to hard to describe their differences. --Uncle Ed 18:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Socialism (in its non-Marxist sense) is an umbrella ideology, which encompasses communism; therefore, there is no difference between the two, per se.  I assume you are referring to Marx's definition of socialism, however.  The distinction between Marxist socialism and communism are well expalined here: Socialism#Transition_from_capitalism, in my opinion. -- WGee 02:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That entry you removed should stay because it is necessarily true.  Since socialism holds that the individual and society are inseperable, it is absolutely opposed to individualism, which holds that the individual and society are seperable.  It is not "asserted by some" (btw, we should refrain from using weasel words); it is a logical fact.  Also, what is there to suggest that Einstein was talking about only a particular current of socialism? -- WGee 02:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with that, but it varies in degrees along the socialist spectrum --the closer to communism the less regard for the individual. In pure communism, the individual is analagous to a single cell in a human body --he matters only insofar as he contributes to the functioning of the whole organism. "Society" is the the organism --the individual is not. In individualism, the individual is the real organism and society is not, but is simply individuals interacting. In communistic socialism, the individual is treated as a means to the collective organism's ends. In individualism, the individual is treated as an end in himself. RJII 02:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Socialism and individualism

message: According to physicist Albert Einstein, "the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development".
I'm not sure what he means by "predatory phase", since we have no article on it. It's an idea he attributes to Thorstein Veblen. --Uncle Ed 19:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Competition v cooperation. •Jim62sch• 00:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim's interpretation certainly seems logical. -- WGee 02:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of socialism

message: Sorry about the POV of my edits. I didn't realise at the time that I was being way too one sided. I'm kinda new to wikipedia. Don't worry, I'm not a Bush supporter or anything. I have made some NPOV revisions, and I realise that there is a clear, distinct difference between the old dogmatic type of 'socialism' of regimes of old, from the modern, dynamic type today. So I have made it clear in the edit, that the regims which caused those deaths were not necessarily of the same sort of socialism advocated by most today. Sorry for engaging in an 'edit war'. At the time I thought it was just you people being obnoxious. I hope that this new edit is more appropriate. But please can we make a compromise there and not have to continue the old story of 'me edit, you revert, repeat'.
:Ok, I think something similar to what you've added would be very useful in the Criticisms page, and I'd like to discuss that there. The reason why I don't think it belongs here is that, well, if you look down the Socialism article, you'll see that it's very long; there are lots of sections which link to dedicated articles: e.g. the section Socialism#An economic system is a synopsis (which I would argue is too long) of a main article on the subject Socialist economics. Likewise, the CoS section should be a brief outline of the subjects covered in the main article Criticisms of socialism. There's no need to repeat the full text. Oh, and thankyou for being prepared to talk. (P.S. do 'sign' comments by typing "--~~~~" at the end of your posts, so we know who's speaking) --Nema Fakei 12:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer from 60.234.157.64

message: The intro says that socialists would like to "create a more just society that would reward hard work." Then, they give a Marxist source. I don't see anything saying that in the source. Communists are opposed to people being paid according to their work, but would rather see people being paid according to their "needs." "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." RJII 03:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we are trying to define the goals of the ideology, it is nessecary to cite the works of those who have played a fundamental role in developing the ideology: in this case, Henri de Saint-Simon, the founder of French socialism.  After I read the source myself, I'll discuss your concern with the wording used in the article. -- WGee 01:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reward for hard work?

message: This is often something that is overlooked. Revolutionary groups began to adopt socialist ideas, and increasingly more radical ideas, and leftist groups were prominent even before the Soviets sent their advisors. However, this systemic bias somehow always concentrates on the CPC's development especially after the Chinese Civil War, and not of the communist movements before Soviet intervention in Chinese politics. Please fix this. See Chinese anarchism. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  socialism in China before 1917 

message: I am not a Vandal!! This IP address is for the entire University of Auckland, and so is shared by more than 25,000 users. I am not responsible for the reckless actions of those other random people. - 130.216.191.184.
As it says on your talk page's header(and many other IP talk pages), "If you are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself."--ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 16:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To Gatoclass and others from 130.216.191.184.

message: I'm adding neutrality and factual accuracy dispute tags to the article as a result of the recent edits on this page, many of which are clearly POV. I don't have time to really edit or look over it all, but including the nazi germany as an example of a socialist country without any talk of the controversy surounding such a label is clearly non-neutral. The Ungovernable Force 05:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs more than dispute tags; it's atrocious. I couldn't believe how bad it was after looking at this article for the first time in at least more than a year. It reads like a bad high school debate team discussion. It's so bad I'm tempted to stay up all night with a few cups of coffee to rewrite it entirely myself. More likely, I'll be rewriting it sometime in the next week. 172 | Talk 06:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm studying for a chem final, or else I'd be doing more. I really shouldn't even be checking my watchlist right now but I couldn't resist. I just looked up pH. Yawn. I'm totally going to fail!!!The Ungovernable Force 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral and Accuracy Tags

message: - User Freeway
:Why do I doubt that? Anyone up for a checkuser? The Ungovernable Force 05:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm not a middle Eastern conflict man sock puppet im a completely different person!