Talk:Socialism/Archive 2

message: One of the funny things about this page is any perceived problem of the USSR is used to say "socialism is discredited", yet on the communist page, any perceived problem of the USSR is used to say "communism is discredited" as well.  It's amazing how one country can be under two systems simultaneously and supposedly discredit them in the eyes of the Enfamil-weened American yuppies who like to edit these pages.  Then their comments usually are "well this is a commonly held view of Enfamil-weened American yuppies, even if it's incorrect, so it will stay in as the main article, instead of just a small contrary abberation noted at the bottom".  I guess growing up in a land where Ronald Reagan was yelling about how the Lord was on America's side against the atheist "evil empire", necessitating the arming of Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Contras, Pinochet, Iranians and so forth (some of these now considered official US bad guys), you get a rather warped view of the world.  Of course, Wikipedia is owned and controlled by a wealthy American, so what would you expect? -- Lancemurdoch 08:09, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm neither an American nor a yuppie, Lance, so I suggest you keep your sarcasm to yourself. You clearly know nothing about the subject so perhaps you should and edit somewhere else. Adam
----
"Its key ideas are a belief in equality, both political and economic, as well as opposition to capitalism. The socialist view of social organisation is well encapsulated in the following saying (attributed to Marx): From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
Opposition to capitalism has nothing to do with mainstream socialism in Europe today. Social democrats openly embrace capitalism in the society. The 'social' part has mainly to do with having a tad smaller gap between the rich and the poor than in U.S. This is, in general, done by higher taxation and unemployment assistance.
The term "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." is quoted wrong. That sounds more like Social Democracy (yuk!). What Marx said was (I'm not sure about the exact wording here though): "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." and he was referring to Communism after the revolution. Marx actually was openly against socialists. 'Communism was the only solution'.
The introduction should be re-written. Finlander 18:59, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate

message: Ed, I snipped this little editorializing of yours out of the article:
:Communist governments resorted to censorship and to restrictions on foreign travel, to prevent their citizens from finding out that workers were tens or hundreds of times better off financially in countries which permitted competition and profit.
If you want to pursue this angle, I think you should do it elswhere. I know you hate communism and I don't want to get into a long discussion with you here, but I urge you simply to consider the fact that the vast majority of workers in Russia are worse off now than they were fifteen years ago. Capitalism doesn't bring blessings to everyone. -- Viajero 21:53, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and regardless of what one thinks of the "blessings of capitalism", the passage clearly belongs in an article on Communism or even State Communism, not in an overview of Socialism. -- Jmabel 06:17, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: mmm...that particular passage ought not be in any article, I think, due to being massively POV.  But at least a basic discussion of communism is in order for the article on socialism.  Communism, unlike Nazism, is pretty easily arguably a form of socialism.  On the other hand, comments talking about specific aspects of communism ought not be in the article about socialism. john 06:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think you and I are disagreeing; my main point was that there is a far better article in which to take up the issue Ed is raising and, yes, it could certainly be expressed in an infinitely less POV manner. Not utterly irrelevant to this article, just better taken up elsewhere. -- Jmabel 06:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note Ed Poor 

message: If someone knows what I'm talking about and is able to translate the Swedish word "realsocialism" to English I'd be happy. BL 09:42, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
:I'm not quite sure if this is still an issue, but if realsocialism means the same in Swedish as it means in German, then it shouldn't be changed to "reformist". It is clearly denoted with the east bloc systems, and could be "translated" as something like "state socialism in the east bloc with all its problems and failures" as opposed to "true socialist idea(l)s". Maybe some native English speaker could tell us if there is a English word for this concept (think of realpolitik) -- till we *) 14:42, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Many socialist thinkers argue that free market economics, a hallmark of capitalist systems, generally results in profits for a few at the expense of the many. Many advocates of free markets, particularly in America, dispute this contention, claiming that people generally prosper as a result of free market economies; hence, that Capitalism works for the benefit of all.
This comment is better suited for an article about capitalism than an article about socialism. Generally speaking, arguments against X in an entry about X should be placed under their own subheading instead of being interspersed with the rest of the article. For that reason, this comment should either be removed from the article or placed under a "Criticisms of Socialism" subheading.
About editor's comments within the article: I have added the words Editor's note to comments another person inserted within the article itself. If you're going to add comments that disrupt the flow of the original article, the source and purpose of the note should at least be made clear. 198.87.103.16 14:43, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Real Socialist" 

message: I hope I've at least come up with a decent structure for the "ideology" part of the article. Since I've done some very bold editing over the last few hours, and I'm not sure if there is anything like consensus for what I've done, I'm going to stay out of the article itself for a couple of days to give others a chance to react, although I'll gladly participate in discussion in this talk page. If people seem at least moderately happy with what I'm doing, I'll try to go on and do similar things to the other sections, or I'd welcome it if someone else clueful took that on. I think there is as much of a typology of state socialisms as there is of socialist ideologies. -- Jmabel 06:44, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideology

message: Should the American Socialist Party campaign poster really be on this page? It only relates to a specific branch of socialism in early 20th century America.Saul Taylor 10:56, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not the worst choice. It dates from a time when the various strains of socialism were less sharply divided than today, and it relates to roughly the politics that most unqualifiedly refers to itself as simply "socialist": very radical, but not advocating violent revolution. No one picture is going to be representative, but I think it's a fair choice. -- Jmabel 18:40, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that no one picture could possibly be representative and thats why I don't really think having a picture on this page is appropriate really (certainly that picture would be appropiate Socialist Party of America or History of American socialism but having it here seems a bit America-centric to me aswell as beeing a bit POV. Saul Taylor 13:42, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather see that fixed by balancing with, say, two more pictures (maybe one from a third world context and one from Europe), but I would not object to removing the picture from this article, as long as it was moved into a more appropriate article. -- Jmabel 19:39, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I definately would be appropriate on Socialist Party of America and I'd add it there if I knew how. I think your idea of adding more pictures would be an improvement but even then it would still seem a little POV unless we had representative pictures from Trotskyism, Social Democracy, Stalinism, Maoism, Anarchism, etc. Saul Taylor 08:04, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: "Also, most Social Democratic parties in the world, especially those of Europe, have a membership that could be divided into three types of "Social Democrat", all categories are represented in all of the partys, to varying degrees based upon the peculiarities of their regional or national situation.  There are those who would call themselves social democrats but not socialists (and likewise not marxists), those who would call themselves socialists (of some kind),  but not Marxists per se, and those would call themselves both Marxist and Socialist.  It should also be noted that the youth organizations in these Social Democratic partys generally produce literature far more to the left, i.e, more 'Marxist'.  The best example of this is the German Social Democratic Party, or Sozis (as opposed to Nazis), where the leadership is generally non-Marxist and the youth league is generally Marxist, even using the terms socialism and communism somewhat interchangebly, or likewise believe Socialism to be a societal sub-phase between Capitalism and Communism."
This paragraph has a misleading premise, that social democrats are all there is to socialism. It also reflects a bias I am trying to smooth, wherein authoritarianism is not discussed. Jack 08:37, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My own feeling is that this is basically good content, but that it probably belongs more in an article on "Social Democrat" or "Social Democracy 
than "Socialist". After all, the fact that Social Democrats have, within their ranks, various attitudes toward Socialism and Marxism is an important fact about Social Democrats, but not an important fact about Socialism or Marxism. -- Jmabel 17:18, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from article 

message: This is text that was formerly here, but commented out when Adam overwrote most of it into History of Socialism. Incorporate as necessary.
The official economic system used in the People's Republic of China is "socialism with Chinese characteristics."  In Chinese Marxist ideology, socialism remains the stage after capitalism, however the official ideology is that socialism must be reinterpreted to meet Chinese circumstances and can include elements such as a market economy. 
In fact, because of the open nature of the Chinese definition of socialism, it has become very different from the definition used by Western social democrats.  In contrast to the definition of socialism used by social democratics, the Chinese definition does not require state control over the economy or imply generous social benefits by the state, and some socialist government policies are resemble those those of conservatives in the West.
Also, because of the loose definition of socialism, economic arguments in the People's Republic of China are almost never evaluated in terms of socialism or anti-socialism.
Other political and economic theorists have used the term "socialism" to describe their as-yet unrealized social visions. In general their definition of socialism could be "the control of production, consumption, allocation, and distribution of goods and services through democratic means". Exactly how this broad description would translate into practical institutions is a subject of contention.
Some socialists argue that the concept of a centrally-planned economy is essentially sound, but that it must be subject to well-structued democratic controls and not allowed to descend into dictatorship. This description fits many dissidents within the Soviet bloc of Marxist-Leninist states, such as Czechoslovakian president Alexander Dubcek, who attempted to implement "Socialism with a Human Face" before his country was invaded and occupied by Warsaw Pact troops. It could also be said to apply to many "socialists" in capitalist countries up into the 1990s, when most people who had previously held this position decided that the collapse of Soviet central planning proved that command economics in general were doomed to failure.
Others have proposed socialist economies based not on markets or command planning, but on novel types of institutions they believe will serve better. "Participatory Economics", a system first described by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, attempts to co-ordinate local and largely self-governed councils representing workers and consumers through a few basic rules about how economic institutions may relate to each other. Council Communists and Social Ecologists, like some Anarchists before them, have argued that the basic organization of production and consumption ought to happen on the very small scale, with economic activity across communities handled on a case-by-case basis.
Still other socialists have argued that, once the means of production and the political system are in the hands of the working class, the free market is a perfectly good economic system. They believe that if individual workplaces are owned and controlled by the workers, economic exchanges directly between buyer and seller will efficiently and equitably allocate resources without the need for government regulation.
Social Democracy is another name for Democratic Socialism, although it is often used by more centrist political parties to distance themselves from Democratic Socialists.
Essentially everyone who describes themselves as "socialist" describes themselves as "democratic" as well. However, it should be noted that the definition of "democracy" used is hardly consistent.
Most Democratic Socialists believe above all in equality and co-operation, and accept some aspects of a free-market economy, along with Kenysian economic management. A good example of this would be the Labour Party. Clause IV of the Parties constitution reads:
:"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."
Clause IV shows us two things; first the unusual history(for a socialist organisation) of the Labour Party as reflected in emphasis on co-operation in Clause IV; Secondly the emphasis on "democratic socialist" instead of "socialist" or "social democratic".
However, before Clause IV was re-written in the early 1990s, it explictly mentioned public ownership and Nationalisation, something that Labour was not alone in dropping in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Free-market conservatism was in the acendency across the world and almost all democratic socialist parties dropped the commitment to nationalisation.
The modernisers ague they have been proven right as democratic socialism has had more electoral sucess in the past ten years than it had since its postwar heyday.
Critics will respond, however, that European social democratic parties remain socialist in name only; socialist ideals have been foresaken for the tenets of liberalism solely to remain in power.
Marxist-Leninists believe that what is important is not periodic elections, but the class interest represented by the political vanguard which is in power. In the Leninist analysis, representative democracy as seen in the West is a sham because the real reins of power are held by the moneyed class, who would simply ignore the results if an unacceptably radical leader was ever elected. Critics allege that whatever the faults of Western-style democracy, the Leninist plan only works if the leaders are incorruptible and infinitely altruistic, an incredibly naive idea. They see Leninist claims of respect for democracy as cynical propaganda and nothing more.
Most other socialists see some form of political democracy as integral to the existence of socialism itself. This may be a representative democracy in the style of European parliaments and congresses, or another type, usually described as closer to direct democracy.
Conservative critics often charge that all socialist governments are anti-democratic, because the increased "size" and power of such governments represents a concentration of power unseen in capitalist socities. In addition, some believe that all economic organization not consistent with the free market is inherently in violation of individual human rights and by extension democratic principles, although people making this critisisms are often accused by socialists of using partisan rhetoric and of confusing socialism with communism.
As a political project, socialism has been in crisis since the fall of the Soviet Union and the modernisation of democratic socialist parties, Most socialists acknowledge the failure of turning the widespread reformist gains of the 1960s into a cohesive, powerful movement for social change. In the West, the prosperity of the postwar era preempted many of socialisms most urgent claims, while in the Third World, neo-colonialism effectly squelched all but a very small number of experiments in socialism.
--Jiang 08:31, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old text to be merged