Talk:Socialism/Archive 8

message: I really wish the sentence stating that critics "use records of communist states" as criticism of Socialism would be either deleted or reworded and that it would stay that way. Socialism and Communism are not in simple terms the same, and to imply that they are as this section has done goes against neutrality rules. (EnglishEfternamn 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can they be different? even if socialism is an ideology, when applied in practice to its full extent, you get communism! I believe you are arguing over semantics, and a case could be made that you are  the one trying to confuse the reader by making it sound like socialism doesn't lead to communism. Dullfig 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So what are you trying to say? that socialism should be interpreted as a bad ideology, that can only be edited by right wing editors? I'm not sure I understand :) Dullfig 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't believe I'm writing this but I find myself in agreement, for the most part, with EnglishEfternamn in what he is saying, if not in the way he chooses to say it.  As a Political Scientist, I have to say that Socialism and Communism, while inter-related, are not the same and at any given time, a community can be Socialist and not Communist.  Whether Socialism leads inevitably to Communism is a matter of analysis and any mention of that has to be from a citeable source.  Looking to records of communist states to criticize all aspects of socialism is not appropriate.--WilliamThweatt 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there communist states that are not socialists? -- Dullfig 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just off the top of my head, none that I can think of.  But that is a logical fallacy.  Just because there are no communist states that aren't socialist doesn't mean we can equate communism with socialism.  Are there any communist states that are not despotic?  No.  Do we therefore equate all despotic states with communism?  Of course not.  Socialism is an ideaology.  Communism is one of many methods in which that ideaology is put into practice.  The fact is that there are nations that employ socialist economic systems that do not have a communist form of government.  Therefore, it is not justifiable to use the failures of communism as proof of the failures of socialism.  For that, I believe there is plenty of evidence of the failures of socialism and it is especially evident in precisely these non-communist socialist states, such as Canada and various European Socialist Democracies.  That proof, in part, lies in the statistics, such as overall satisfaction with state-run healthcare, overall success of small business, unemployment rates, rates of alcoholism, rate of taxation vs. cumulative benefits recieved per capita (i.e. loss of capital to inefective buearocracy), etc.  There is plenty wrong with socialism (a strictly economic system), but it won't be brought to light by criticizing communism (an all encompassing politico-economic system).--WilliamThweatt 22:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all nonsense - socialism and communism were used interchangeably until well into the twentieth century - social democrats and Leninists were the driving force between the destinction between the two based on their faction fights - look to the Socialist Party of Great Britain for some hardened communists.--Red Deathy 08:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Socialism and communism are not used interchangeable terms because certain groups use them together.  Socialism is most often (note I don't say always) framed as an economic theory while communism is usually a political system.  That's why you can have a social democracy (less socialist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy) or a democratic socialism (more socialist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism) where the economic system is based less (or not at all) on capitalism and a democratic political system oversees the socialist economy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.166.32.179 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In USSR, Communists said that the Socialist state is a tool to build Communism. For them, Socialism was political and economic system of the state, by which they wanted to create truly egalitarian society, or Communism. I want to say: A. Socialism is not just an ideology - in USSR it was regarded as a system. B. From Socialist point of view - there is no such thing "Communist State", even in the USSR Communists said that Soviet Union is a Socialist State, not Communist one. C. Socialism is not Communism, but it can be both an ideology and a system. When Socialism is regarded as a system, it is a tool to create Communism.
Suluguni 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section

message: Filled with so many idiosyncratic off-topic tangents and lacking any coherent organization, the old article was unsalvageable. I replaced the old scattered mess with a more concise and tightly focused new article. Various sections of the new article still need expansion. I will be expanding them shortly. I will be watching this article closely to address any comments and concerns. 172 | Talk 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woah, that is a big change! The relevant diff is . --Nema Fakei 12:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, it's a rewrite. 172 | Talk 12:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great rewrite!  Much better.  Easier to read.  More accurate. Hooray! Thanks 172.--Cberlet 12:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! It's a bit on the brief side; but at least it's a much better basis for expansion than the old mess. 172 | Talk 13:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I intend to expand the last three sections. I think the history section is the proper length. To understand the various schools of thought of socialism, one must understand the history of how the different movements branched off from each other. 172 | Talk 22:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, great work.  I especially like the history section and introduction because they accurately and concisely describe the heterogeneous nature of the ideology.  In particular, you've done an excellent job explaining how socialism (both in theory and practice) has deviated from its roots over time. -- WGee 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Just an anon that uses wiki
the Historical examples of Socialism is a joke eg.
The Castro regime in Cuba
The Khmer Rouge headed by Pol pot in Cambodia
The Baathist Party, formerly ruling Iraq, headed by Saddam Hussein under whom between 200,000 and several million were murdered
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, headed by Lenin, and later Stalin, under which 61,000,000 people were murdered [7]
-The Communist Party of China, originally headed by Chairman Mao during the famine years of the cultural revolution, and under whom 80,000,000 have been estimated to have been muredered [8]
i mean, why go into the numbers
and why not talk about the socialist governments that have been successful?god, no wonder people criticize wiki.
and all your pictures are of murderous thugs
hmm, I wonder what wiki is trying to tell me?
i have read so many good articles on wiki, but this article is terrible
bad writing style, very strong language bordering on POV
the whole thing doesn't read well at all
it reads like it was written by a 100 people with a hundred different writing styles
it shouldn't
:I'm afriad that's a vandal's work.--Nema Fakei 09:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhm 

message: :Stalinists insisted on the creation of Soviet-style command economies under strong central state direction. Others advocate "market socialism" in which social control of property exists within the framework of market economics and private property.
This seems just a little bit dodgy, as if either you're a Stalinist or a Market Socialist. I can't think of a good way of rewording it, though. Anyone got thoughts? --Nema Fakei 20:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misguiding Sentences 

message: Cadr, I have three comments to make about your recent edits. First, you wrote in an edit summary, "Libsoc really ought to be mentioned in the intro. There's nothing particularly "contemporary" about it -- it's arguably been around at least as long as Marxism." The term "libertarian socialism" itself is contemporary. One is rewriting history when classifying a group of 19th century thinkers in the anarcho-syndicalist tradition under a term that they would not have understood themselves. The term "libertarian socialism" should be used only in reference to the relatively recent thinkers who explicitly use the term (e.g., Chomsky) to (1) describe themselves and (2) to describe their dichotomization or categorization of earlier socialist thinkers. Second, as for your edit summary, "No citation needed -- see the linked article," normally I'd agree with you; I don't see a need to back elementary facts up with citations. In this particular case, however, the libertarian socialism article is such a mess I don't think we can rely on the article in place of a citation. Third, I disagree that "libertarian socialism," or anarcho-syndicalism, ought to be mentioned in the intro. The most notable strains of socialism to mention in the intro are the ones that became state ideologies or ruling party ideologies. "Libertarian socialism" has never had that distinction for any significant period of time. 172 | Talk 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term libertarian socialism may be recent, but it is used to refer to a group of ideologies that have existed for centuries, so, in this case, I would ignore the term's etymology.  Also, I disagree that a movement's notablity should be determined solely by its influence on states.  Libertarian socialism (by which I mean anarchism, its strains, and council communism) is notable because of how prevalent it has historically been among academia.  Libertarian socialist theories have been well-established by eminent philosophers of the 19th century. -- WGee 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, since the term is recent, it makes sense to use the term more historically recognizable terms. We cannot ignore the term's etymology, as that would constitute historical revisionism in the pejorative sense of the term "historical revisionism." Second, I think you're over-stating the influence of anarchism, syndicalism, and council communism on academia. The New Left academics of the U.S. and UK broke ranks with Soviet Communism, but they were for the most part rooted in the Old Left.  In France, structural Marxism did not even represent a break with the PCF. Its leading proponent, Louis Althusser, defended Communist orthodoxy until the end. Sarte, unlike many structural Marxists, broke with the PCF, but he cannot be reasonably described as a "libertarian socialist," since his roots lay in existentialism, not in anarchism or syndicalism. In Germany, the Frankfurt School represented the leading current of socialist thought in academia, and it firmly established itself within the social-democratic orthodoxy of the postwar period. In short, communism and social democracy not only are clearly more notable than "libertarian socialism" in terms of their influence on states, but also on academia. 172 | Talk 03:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with using a more "historically recognisable" term. However, I do object to a significant strand of socialist thought being entirely excluded from the introduction (and indeed virtually excluded from the article). Currently, the introduction seems to suggest that Stalinism (or some other kind of command economy) and market socialism are the only options. Given that Marx arguably advocated neither kind of economy, and given that there's a long historical tradition of libertarian socialism (whatever you want to call it), this just can't be right. Also, even if libertarian socialism was a genuinely new intellectual development (which it isn't of course), this would be no reason to exclude it from the intro. Cadr 16:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I agree with WGee on the issue of notability. The threshold of notability for a one-sentence mention in a fairly long intro is low. Libertarian socialism (and variants and antecedents thereof) are quite important in the intellectual history of Socialist thought. Other strands of Socialism may well be more important, but that's not really the point. Cadr 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: To be clear: I don't care at all whether or not the phrase "libertarian socialism" appears in the intro. I would just like to see some (brief) explicit acknowledgement of socialist theories which do not require state control of the entire economy or some kind of market system. Cadr 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. I see the rewrite only as a basis for expansion (and a much better basis for expansion than the old article), by no means yet a complete article. I'll figure out a way to best incorporate anarchism, syndicalism, and council communism in the intro and elsewhere in the article, if no one else beats me to the job. 172 | Talk 23:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Libertarian socialism (or left libertarianism - Bookchin) is only a new term because a distinction between the original libertarianism (which was socialist and basically a synonym for anarchism) and the new right wing libertarianism in the US was needed. Thus, it's not really a new term, it's just the original term with a clarifying qualifier. I'm happy to help out including all the strains of socialism in anarchism - from mutualism to anarcho-syndicalism and anarchist communism. Donnacha 13:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Donnacha is correct. Libertarianism was a form of socialism that has existed for roughly the same time as Marxism; possibly longer. It has almost constantly been a fairly prominent part of socialism, although Marxism has dominated. Following the recent appropriation of the term by individualist capitalists, the socialism qualifier was added, but this is only a clarification of an older term because of its recent use by a different group. -Switch t 15:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Libertarian socialism"

message: I think that Middle East Conflict Man should be un-banned. He has not been responsible for almost all the acts of vandalism. I think he should be allowed back in, as long as he doesn't cause any trouble. There is no evidence that the sockpuppeting that has been taking place is his work. I think that the fact that many users BELIEVE that he has been doing the sockpuppeting is the only reason why he's blocked. At least give him a chance to clear his name if he's innocent.
-130.216.191.184
:When 30 accounts come in and all start making the exact same edits, that's all the evidence that's required, as ruled by Arbcom. "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."  --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I just unblocked the IP who posted the above, after it was autoblocked for creating an account with the charming name Blanning is a moron. Stupendous coincidence? YMSTICPC. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something to consider. 

message: I've been away for two months, but coming back, great job on the article, people. It's a lot less bloated and much more readable than before. I've just had a glance through it, will make further comments. :) -- infinity0 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice work, people 

message: Marx and Engels nearly always used the terms "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably. The source of the misunderstanding appears to be Lenin. He evidently equated the "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" cited as a transitionary stage by Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme () with socialism. Capitalism->Socialism->Communism is therefore not a feature of Marx's own thought.--Eric 08:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialism as transitionary stage 

message: I remember that statement by Marx well. Too bad states don't just wither away. Quite a notion isn't it? A big huge power just withering away. Pretty funny if it wasn't so terrible! PatriotFirst 10:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point. Not so long ago, Republicans were talking about whittling the government down to the point they could "drown it in the bathtub". Then they got control of the White House, and now the entire country is drowning in debt instead. Gatoclass 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: umm

message: I edited the socialist economics section last week so that it reflected the range of different economic theories called socialism. I replaced the opening sentence ("The term "socialism" is often used to refer to an economic system characterized by state ownership of the means of production and distribution.") with this paragraph:
"The term "socialism" is often used to refer to an economic system characterized by some level of social control of the economy. This might mean direct workers' control of production or distribution, some form of collective economic enterprise (such as a worker or consumer co-operative, kibbutz or collective farm), or some form of state intervention. The type of state intervention varies from more minimal conceptions of state regulation and redistribution, through nationalization of key industries, to the abolition of private property and full state ownership of the means of production and distribution."
My edit was removed by 172, on the grounds that "the new detail in the section on economics was already established in the intro". Although I see the point, it means that the economics section is once again simply a discussion of Soviet economics, which, I strongly believe. What do other people think? --BobFromBrockley 12:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialist economics 

message: How relevant is structuralism in this article? It seems very off-topic to me. --BobFromBrockley 12:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structuralism 

message: The wikipedia page on criticisms of communism, this useful distinction is made:
:In the English language, the word communism and related terms are written with the uppercase "C" when they refer to a political party of that name, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party. When written as a common noun, with a lowercase "c", they refer to an economic system characterized by collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members; or to the position that such a system is possible and desirable. Thus, one may be a communist (an advocate of communism) without being a Communist (a member of a Communist Party or another similar organization). This distinction between communism (lowercase "c") and Communism (uppercase "C") is used throughout the present article.
This advice is no longer adhered to on the communism page itself, but I think it is very good practice. A clear analogy would be the difference between Republican and republican - republican thought is not synonymous with the Republican party - ditto Conservative and conservative, labour and Labour, etc.
I think this usage would make the socialism page clearer. However, when I turned some little cs into big Cs, they were turned back immediately. What do folks think? --BobFromBrockley 12:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communism with a big C or little c 

message: There is article Liberalism worldwide.Should we create such article about socialism? BoDu 31 July 2006
: Good idea. --BobFromBrockley 09:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialism worldwide article 

message: Just to defend my changes - marx did consider socialism to be without money, technically you could have money and no markets, so it's worth mentioning the abolition of both (I cite critique of the Gotha programmme, leaving aside the arguments about stages, he clearly talks about the lower stage of communism/socialism as having abolition money).
As for the use of the two terms socialism or communism, I think it deserves prominence because until the early 20th c. they were used intrechangeably and Williams' explanation is the only one I've seen for why some preferrred one over the other.--Red Deathy 07:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the para on the term socialism, since this is an article about that term and its referrents, IMNSHO it is more relevent ehre than in the history article.--Red Deathy 09:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd don't believe I'm being unreasonably obstinate about this - and will back down if a third party indicates their preference on whether that para should stay or go.  This article has a section on history of socialism, and the origin of the term is broad enough and relevent enough to this article to waarrant at least some mention.--Red Deathy 08:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Couple of changes

message: I am surprised the only successful socialism, the Israeli Kibbutz, that didn't end killing its own people or going bankrupt is no where to be found in the article. 210.84.44.23 07:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that be more appropriate with a general reference to co-operatives generally?
--Red Deathy 07:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Kibbutz 

message: Does anyone feel able to create a stub on Tribunite (sub-set of the mid-20th century British Left)?The only sources I have are
http://www.allwords.com/word-Tribunite.html
(and other pages with identical text)
and this from Guardian
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1530801,00.html
"According to his biographer, Professor Bernard Crick, Orwell saw himself as a Tribunite socialist whose experiences in the Spanish civil war had left him sharply disillusioned with Soviet communism."
-- 201.50.123.251 12:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting article "[[Tribunite]]"

message: The words socialism and communism were used almost interchangeably in the beginnings of the socialist movement, prior to the formation of communism as a unique type of movement, separate from the greater socialist movement: uses the word 'movement' three times. Whiskey Rebellion 00:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then fix it. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 00:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok. Whiskey Rebellion 01:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: On second thought, I ran this statement around and around in my head, and I can't make heads nor tails of it. I guess someone else should fix it. Plus, I don't believe it actually makes any sense, sorry, so I would feel like a hypocrite if I pretended to understand it and to fix it. Whiskey Rebellion 01:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense to me, though perhaps the commas have confused you.  I'll try to make it easier to comprehend. -- WGee 23:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My revision: The words socialism and communism were used almost interchangeably in the beginnings of the socialist movement, prior to the formation of communism as a distinct movement.  I removed the redundancy to remove the confusion. -- WGee 23:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This sentence

message: Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. Now, I know it would be hard to come up with a def for socialism (especially) as there are so many and disputed of them - hwoever social control strikes me as a bit weak because it would include any form of regulation  In realise the ref. comes from the Battelstar Britaninica, but I'm sure I could come up with a much different ref. from the great Soviet Encylopedia or somewhere else - does anyone know a better def, or where there's something we could cite to build one? (Wording our own def. is not OR).--Red Deathy 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition is intended to be broad in order to accomodate the many varieties of socialism. -- WGee 23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I'm just wondering if it could be worded better, as it stands 'social control' could refer to government regulation, which is not a sole purview of socialism - admittedly, I'm wracking my brains and can't come up with anything (perhaps I'm blindsided by overly trying to avoid my own POV on this).--Red Deathy 07:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that the current definition is fine.  Social control essentially means control by the community (or control by society, literally speaking), which is not necessarily equivalent to government regulation or nationalization.  Social control can be exercised by non-governmental entities such as cooperatives, workers' councils, and trade unions, for example.  The phrase "social control" was chosen ultimately because editors could find no other accurate, non-verbose, and neutral phrase to describe the broad ideology that is socialism. The subsequent sentences expound the concept of social control, anyway, so there shouldn't be much confusion. -- WGee 05:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, control by the community may be a bit clearer--Red Deathy 07:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Social control is clear enough, in my opinion, and that the Encyclopædia Britannica uses it gives it some legitimacy.  We should let sleeping dogs lie in this case, lest another troublesome content dispute will ignite. -- WGee 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you may have seen on the Anarchism talk, it is controversial because it excludes Mutualism (economic theory) and thus backs the "anarcho"-capitalists claims that anarchism isn't necessarily socialist. Socialism is about redistribution of wealth and egalitarianism at core, mutualism is a theory about how that can be achieved without anything other than individual control over property. Donnacha 00:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Social control?

message: :The Nazi party's official name was the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), although it was not actually a true socialist party, in the sense that Nazism rejected the policies of internationalism, egalitarianism, class struggle, and common ownership of the means of production, which are the main tenets of socialism.
I'm not really an expert on the subject, but I think that it is not totally correct. Albeit nazis were not egalitarians and internationalists, I think that even some other "real" socialists weren't totally, and yet are considered socialists. To me the formation of USSR is pretty much non-internationalist as what the nazis where doing while trying to "reconquer" what was "originally" territory of the "aryan race" (sensu nazi). The imposition of atheism over all religions (despite of atheism not possibly be considered a religion itself) does not seems much different of nazi's anti-semitism, and also isn't quite egalitarian, is it? Also, traditionally accepted socialists were in some instances anti-semitists themselves, weren't them? I think that the class struggle and common ownership of means of production were also implied in nazism, even though not to the same extent and obviously withouth nazi leaders quoting Marx; see the Nazi 25-point program to more details. Some more relevant items:
- We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
- Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
- We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.
- All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
- The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
- Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
- We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
- We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
If it is not socialism, I think that it is quite close. But as I said, I do not really understand much of the subject. --Extremophile 21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was propaganda just to attract votes. Although it was in the program, the nazis did not nationalize industry. They regulated it, for the benefit of German industrial corporations and the military.  72.139.119.165 21:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be worth asking an expert on the Nazis to expand the par a bit, perhaps mentioning Otto Strasser and the socialist strand within the Nazis that was quashed by Hitler. Donnacha 00:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one looks carefully at the list of Nazi "demands" it is clear that they are essentially a populist collection. Take, for example, Zerbrechung der Zinsherrschaft, which means "smashing the domination of interest". There's no indication anywhere, with any of these demands, how to get to get from where they were in early 1920 to where they purportedly wanted to be. In the absence of actual plans for the abolition of interest, it seems to have meant little more than "cheap loans". The demand that everyone should be entitled to the "opportunity of a livelihood" (even if an alcoholic?) is also meaningless unless there are concrete plans for making this a reality. As a demand it was very much "in the air" at the time and the right to a job had even been included in the Weimar Constitution. This kind of stuff is empty rhetoric, nothing more. As can readily be imagined, the sheer meaninglessness of this became glaringly obvious in the Great Depression. The reference to equal duties and rights is standard liberal stuff, possibly with a populist edge here against "privilege", but it's not socialist. Moreover, not long afterwards, Hitler took over the party, and he had no time for this kind of populist rhetoric and made a point of getting rid of the party's populist wing(s). Norvo 23:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moshe Postone in his National Socialism and Anti-Semitism makes a case that the Nazi ideology could be taken as a privilleging of use value over exchange value - a desire to concretize value (and thus Jews, synonymous with  finance capital and with a large, universalised diaspora symbollised this and were thus industrially destroyed).  Dunno how far that gets you.  Bernard Shaw saw       m as just a form of radical reformism, and Paul Mattick in his essays Kautsky: From Marx to Hitler noted that the NSDAP realised most of the demands of the SPD.  I'd also note that it was communist transfer votes that gave Hitler his final election victory.  In the UK, during the war, the BBC broadcast lectures explaining why Fasicsm had nothing to do with socialism, as part of wartime propaganda--Red Deathy 07:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a fine line between explaining the genuine quasi-socialist (or, as Norvo would prefer "populist") elements within Nazism, and going into silly libertarian type ideas that Nazism is a form of socialism.  Doing the first is generally worthwhile, while the second only confuses things.  I think it's worth mentioning the Strassers and the quasi-socialist nature of the Nazis' official platform, but only if we also note that none of this stuff was actually put into effect, and that the wing of the party which supported it was purged. The formation of the USSR is not comparable to the Nazis' rabid nationalism.  The former implied the consolidation of Leninist socialism within the former Tsarist Empire, but did not imply an abandonment of internationalism, and, indeed, communism remained an international movement throughout its existence.  Red Deathy - I assume one of the demands of the SPD which was not realised was, er, the existence of independent trade unions?  And "communist transfer votes" as an explanation of Hitler's victory in March 1933 seems dubious.  Hitler's victory was a result of banning the Communist Party and basically intimidating all the others.  It was not a fair contest in any respect. The last free election, in November 1932, had shown a leak of Nazi votes back to the DNVP and a leak of SPD votes to the Communists, as well as a leak of NAzi votes to the Communists.  john k 11:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with nearly everything above except for the claim that "communism remained an international movement throughout its existence". Stalinism was opposed to internationalising the revolution, particularly in relation to the German and Spanish social uprisings. The post-WWII expansion of the USSR was not internationalism, but protectionism. Donnacha 23:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I vaguely meant, but perheps with historical flaws, in one part of my comment... but anyway... this rule of "socialist in theory but not in practice is not socialism" applies only to nazism, or to other parties as well? Such as this thing of post WWII expansion of USSR... and also the national bolshevism, which is strikingly nazi looking, but carry the hammer and sickle insted of a tetraskelion inside the white ball in their flag, other eventual symbols being sinistroverse swastikas (or sinistroverse "n-skelions" ) with communist symbols in each edge. --Extremophile 06:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the nazi party 

message: What the hell is that doing in the recent developments section? The use of libertarian as a term for anarchism dates back to the early 19th Century and Joseph Déjacque. The development of the terms libertarian socialism (Chomsky) or left libertarianism (Bookchin) as simply a clarification due to the recent association of libertarianism with the right in the US. Its high-point in the USA was in the early part of the 20th Century when the IWW was at its height. In Europe, the high point was the Spanish revolution. Donnacha 23:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure what you're saying, but I've edited the recent developments section in line with the bit of your criticism which I do understand. BobFromBrockley 15:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Libertarian socialism

message: Shouldn't that be "universal female suffrage," in the Moderate Socialism and Communism section (second paragraph, second sentence)? --michael 15:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so. Female suffrage lagged behind quite considerably. "Universal" suffrage at the start of the 20th Century tended to be male-exclusive. Donnacha 16:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  male suffrage 

message: Proudhon did not limit the concept of "possession" to land alone. ""The satisfaction of a natural right always gives rise to an equation; in other words, the right to a thing is necessarily balanced by the possession of the thing." Thing, not property. Perhaps "occupation and use" is not the best term, but it is completely inaccurate to say that mutualists accept private ownership of the means of production - it's not that simple. Donnacha 13:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mutualists don't apply "possession" to everything. For example, if you build widgets with your machine, those widgets are truly your private property. They don't become available for the taking for free by others just because you're not using them. You can offer them for sale in the market. That is the normal conception of private property. And you can store that machine (your means of production) in your garage and keep others from using it. It too does not become avaiable for the taking just because you're not using it. It's normal private property.Anarcho-capitalism 13:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Just talking to you because this is important) Et voila - a perfect definition of "possession" - its yours once you have it in your possession (occupation). The flip is the use side. If you rent it out to someone else who needs it, they have possession of your property. Thus, there's an issue ("the right to a thing is necessarily balanaced by the possession of the thing"). Thus, mutualism does not accept private property of the means of production by an individual who has not got possession of them. My original formulation ("limited private property") is accurate, you're the own who insisted on expanding it. Mutualism is a form of "market socialism", just a different form to that advocated by reformist Marxists. Donnacha 14:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't understand "possession." You're mixing up Proudhon's definition with the literal meaning of "possession." "Possession" for Proudhon means occupation or use. If you store your corn in a silo, you're not using it, but you still have a right to exclude others from taking it. It's your private property in the fullest sense. That would not be allowed for land. You could not stop using your land and leave in storage and exclude others from using it. BUt, you could do that for your machine. You can leave your machine sitting idle and keep others from using it.Anarcho-capitalism 14:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please read the quote. Mutualists oppose rent, they oppose private ownership of the means of production when they are used by others. Yes, you can leave your machine idle because its in your possession. However, they do oppose private ownership of the means of means of production when they are not in the possession of the owner. Really, how hard is "the right to a thing is necessarily balanced by the possession of the thing" to understand? Land is not the only thing. The specific focus of "What is Property?" on land is because that was a disputed issue among early activists, who opposed capitalism, but not the ownership of land (particularly by the gentry and aristocracy of the day). Donnacha 14:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still don't understand "possession." "Possession" as Proudhon defines it does not mean the same thing that "possession" means in normal parlance. Possession, for Proudhon, means occupation or use. Leaving your machine idle, even though it is in your "possession" by the normal use of the term, it is not in "possession" by Proudhon's use of the term. But, in mutualism you cannot do that with land. If you fence in some land, it is in your "possession" by normal of the use of the term, but it's not "possessesion" by Proudhon's use of the term. "Possession" is by definition occupation or use. It doesn't mean that is simply in your possession.Anarcho-capitalism 15:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reminding me why I don't bother arguing with you. You can repeat yourself all you like, but it still doesn't change the fact that you don't get the fact that the quote contradicts you. I give up (again). Donnacha 15:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, go "report" me to the authorities then. *laugh* Anarcho-capitalism 15:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proudhon and possession

message: The term "libertarian socialism" does not warrant mentioning in the intro. 19th century Marxian socialism, social democracy, and communism-- for better or worse depending on one's point of view-- are far more notable subjects for a general readership than a couple of 19th century Russian anarchists who failed to establish lasting political movements. Further, the term "libertarian socialism" itself is inappropriate. The 19th century anarchists did not use it themselves. Chomsky popularized it in contemporary times-- a few decades ago may be a long time for you kids but not me-- to help classify the many different types of socialism that have profiferated and diverged over the course of nearly 150 years; the political theorists and organizers getting classified did not use the term themselves. An encylopedia should try to stay as loyal to the actual historical record itself, rather than promoting the taxonomy of a particular contemporary political writer. 172 | Talk 22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from bring an anachronism, the term "libertarian socialism" is ambiguous: Chomsky says it is a synonym for anarchism, whereas this essay says that it also encompasses council communism and western Marxism.  This uncertainty is compounded by the fact that the term is not widely used in academia, which on its own is a reason not to use it. -- WGee 01:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, most people, including Chomsky, absolutely acknowledge that it is a broad term usually used as a synonym for anarchism. Donnacha 19:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may think the example WGee is pointing to is "wrong," but that's your own ideology. The term is too new, and can be definined in a variety of ways depending on the ideology of the author. More clear terminology should be used. 172 | Talk 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was saying he was wrong about Chomsky, please read what I actually write. And, if you had suggested the current (pointless) compromise a while ago, there would have been no problem. But, what kind of historian refers to a term most famously used in the modern sense 36 years ago as new? You have consciously and deliberately ignored all examples that contradict you. Donnacha 20:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop the personal attacks. 36 years ago may not be recent in the history of (say) the internet, but it is relevativley recent in the history of socialism. Further, Chomsky is a contemporary thinker who is still alive and publishing books. 172 | Talk 21:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What personal attack? You are ignoring what we're saying. What exactly is your point about Chomsky? I know well that he's alive, I've spoken to the man. If you read his material (which I have), it's clear that he uses libertarian socialism in the broad sense, though it's often seen as a synonym for anarchism. He used it in a hugely influential article in 1970, as I pointed out above. For the umpteenth time, 36 years is far too long for the term to be a neologism, even if you ignore the uses from the beginning of the 20th Century (which you continue to do). Anti-globalisation, World Social Forum, these are accepted political terms that are less than a decade old. Donnacha 22:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The attack was implied in sarcastically asking me "what kind of historian refers to a term most famously used in the modern sense 36 years ago as new." An article on socialism deals with a very wide spatial and temporal frame. The focus is global, covering nearly 200 years. Looking from a broader time horizon, our own lifetimes can be seen as relatively recent. Whether or not we call the term a neologism is not too important. The point is that the term is not nearly as well established enough to come up in other encyclopedias. The term is jut not woven into the fabric of a more general, wider public discourse outside leftist circles. 172 | Talk 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll also note 10,500 hits on Google Scholar  Including one by Hayek always good to have him on your side...--Red Deathy 14:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is absolutely appropriate for libertarian socialism to be in the article, and see no reason it shouldn't be in the intro. Libertarian socialism refers to a family of different views, ranging from council communism and social anarchism to Peter Hain of the British Labour Party who wrote a book a couple of years ago (Ayes to the left) advocating what he called libertarian socialism. This heterogeneity does not make it less worthy of inclusion, it makes it more important. It also means to talk about "socialists influenced by anarchism" does not make sense - that may be true of Chomsky and Bookchin, but obviously less so of Peter Hain or Paul Mattick. In fact, I can't understand what's contentious about this. BobFromBrockley 11:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And, as for Murray Bookchin, his wikipedia article says he broke with anarchism in 1999 and describes him above all as a libertarian socialist, so I'm going to change that too. BobFromBrockley 12:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: because bill and hillary wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for social programs for lesser income groups, could they be considered socialists? Keltik31 16:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Europe they'd be described as social democrats I suppose, though over here that's now a Tory policy, which means it's acceptable to some flavours of liberal.  There's nothing socialist as such about the welfare state.--Red Deathy 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't put them in the article as socialist if they don't explicitly say they are. --fanturmandos 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the clintons 

message: exactly how is utilitarianism an influance, and egalitarianism an idea? i thought they were both in the same catagory, as a philosophical moral view based on equality of worth of people.--Lygophile 01:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  utilitarianism, egalitarianism 

message: On several occasions, I have attempted to edit the opening paragraph. As of 8:00 EDT, the last two sentences now read:
"As an economic system, socialism is often associated with state, community or worker ownership of the means of production. However, most socialists nowadays would agree that issues of democracy are crucial with regard to the state."
I have attempted to attach something equivalent to the final sentence many times. As a life-long socialist and as an active socialist debater I have observed on numerous occasions how right-wingers, and those who just are unfamiliar with socialist theory, equate state ownership, per se, with socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth: the issue of democracy, to put it in simplest terms, not even dealing with questions of class democracy, counsels, etc., is absolutely crucial.
To omit a reference to democracy in a reference to socialism and the state is foolish, to say the least.
RED DAVE
:As I said in my change, numerous socialists, from Stalinists to the likes of Bernard Shaw have been unconcerned with democracy - whilst I agree with you as a socialist partisan, Wikipedia should have  Neutral point of View and we need to include anti-democratic socialists (I'll throw in bordga as well here).  Sucks, I know.--Red Deathy 13:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Dave has a point in terms of definitions. I mean, if I were to say I was a Christian who didn't believe in god, would we have to avoid calling christianity theistic at all? WP has to acknowledge the fact there is no one definition of socialism, and trying to find one that's NPOV is impossible. WP's responsibility has to be to report that debate, namely to say that many believe that democracy is essential and inherent in socialism, but that others define it more broadly. I'd also say that democracy is such an important issue in socialism we simply can't leave it out of the first paragraph. --Nema Fakei 00:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is more a case of trying to include trinitarianism in the definition of Christian - whilst a vast majority of Christians are trinitarian, a good number aren't (although POV-wise the former would deny the latter are really Christians).  WPhas to take that into account in upholding the NPOV policy - it's our Prime Directive...--Red Deathy 08:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialism and the State 

message: WGee removed links to various socialist websites. I agree that personal pages by undergrads shouldn't be here (e.g. http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/) but think that major socialist webpages like World Socialist Web Site and Socialist Party and World Socialist Movement have a place. So, we should either remove ALL of these links OR find a good selection of representative socialist websites.BobFromBrockley 11:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Links to socialist websites are not appropriate external links - Wikipedia is not a directory. On an article like this, external links have to add content that we haven't got somewhere. Of course, many of these sites do appear to contain some historical information, so I haven't tried to purge such links myself. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think linking to socialist web pages certainly comes under adding information that would not be included were this a featured article and going beyond the detail reasonable in an encyclopaedia article.  However, the problem is one of NPOV and given that we've had to broadly define socialism I think we can't really single out any group or tendency as representative, even SI is partial.  On that grounds I think we should remove any links to socialist organizations (they'll be linked to in their own pages, anyway), and only link to things like MIA and artcle archives...--Red Deathy 13:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I removed those websites not primarily because they are biased, but because they do not help the reader gain a deeper understanding of socialism than is possible through this article.  The websites under "Critical appraisals" and "Introductory articles", meanwhile, are great resources for people who would like to learn about the details and schools of socialism that this article omits.  And, considering that this is an encyclopedia dedicated to self-education, the latter websites are preferred. -- WGee 06:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some socialist sources that are informative, critical, scholarly, and thus suitable to link to: New Left Review, Monthly Review, The Socialist Register, Review of Radical Political Economics.  If somebody has the time, he/she could scour those sources for some suitable articles or essays about socialism; otherwise, we can link to the websites themselves. -- WGee 06:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh well. Having the link to my page removed will at least motivate me to get involved with this topic. BTW I'm not an undergraduate. What a cruel thing to say. See you in the new year.  -- DMcM 04:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WGee, I agree that linking to specific articles is the way to go, and leave links to socialists oranisations main pages out, I'll strip SI away for now - maybe replace with a Wiki link to a list of Socialist organizations on WP?  Hmmm. --Red Deathy 08:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And sorry about repeating "undergraduate" slur! BobFromBrockley 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to socialist websites 

message: EnglishEfternamn, you restored the phrase that says that socialists don't consider the criticism of communism to be a fair criticism, as they don't consider communism and socialism to be the same thing. Out of curiosity, is there any criticism comming from the right that socialist DO consider fair? Otherwise we could just include a statement in the intro to the effect of "Socialists do not accept any criticism of their system". This would save some typing. Dullfig 07:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMNSHO, criticism in criticism sections should generally be placed without rejoinder - the main text of the article essentially puts the "pro" side of the argument anyway; I'm very much against WP pages being turned into back and forth arguments.  Dullfig is absolutely right that it goes without saying that socialists don't accept the criticisms, otherwise they wouldn't be socialists - including such rejection amounts to POV pushing and is unencyclopaedic and redundant.--Red Deathy 09:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Red Deathy that we should omit the socialist rebuttal.  Like it or not, mainstream political scientists and historians believe that Communist states practised a form of socialism, and it is their opinion that matters most.  But in order to avoid controversy between New Left socialists and the less "radical" users who edit this page, the following sentence would be best: "Opponents of socialism often criticize the human rights records of Communist states."  Because it makes no comment as to whether or not Communist states actually practised socialism, readers can decide the truth for themselves, which is really the essence of WP:NPOV. -- WGee 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, RD, you just went up a notch on my respect-o-meter :-) It's nice to see there's some inteligent life on the left. Dullfig 02:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto! Elodoth 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the issue of fair criticism

message: The old version of the article (that posted by the anonymous user) was extraordinarily biased. Simply read the introduction and you'll understand why a revert was necessary. Prime example: "Socialists hold that capitalism is an illegitimate economic system, since it allows far too much human freedom and serves the interests of the wealthy and allegedly exploits an unlucky minority of the population. As such, they wish to replace it completely or at least make substantial modifications to it, in order to create a more just society that would enforce hard work, guarantee a certain basic standard of living, and extend mediocrity and uniform outcome and success to all[3] [4]
Socialist theory is diverse, and there is no single body of thought that is universally shared by all socialists. Rather, different socialist ideologies have arrived at similar conclusions by different paths. However, there are some common themes. One such theme is the idea that humans are inherently stupid animals which cannot be allowed to roam free, for risk that some people may achieve more than others. See tall poppy syndrome.[5]."
Along with the picture Saddam Hussein right at the top, every picture was negative, showing Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jung Il. No pictures of Marx, Lenin, or any other major socialist thinker. So, in order to eliminate a severe case of vandalism, I reverted the page to the newest version which did not appear to contain vandalism. Nanite1018 19:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a serial vandal, see WP:LTA#The_Middle_East_Conflict_Man. You don't need to explain, just revert him. I've blocked the IP for another 6 months (he's only able to edit because previous blocks expired). --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to play the devil's advocate here, it is difficult to find pictures of socialists that are actually positive. Come to think of it, I can't name one :-) (it's a joke, lighten up) -- Dullfig 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just pictures, Dullfig, but historically as well. There have been no success stories for any nation that practiced socialist doctrines. Unless, of course, someone would like to argue this politely. Jcchat66 20:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert was necessary

message: Why is that Picture of Sadaam Hussein relevant at all to Socialism? Ok so he was in charge of the Baath party but it seems a little unnessary and maybe a little biased since it adds how many people he killed.
I dont think that Picture belongs there.
:Please see section above this one. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sadaam? what?