Talk:Socialism/Archive 3

message: For fun, it's interesting to read what other language wikis have to say about the subject. 
Summaries:
* Dutch : Socialism started in the 19th century, it started with marx, but it's changed a lot since then. Here's a list of socialist .orgs in .nl (not a literal translation). The note at the end is enlightening: "Note that in the USA, socialism is a swearword."   Talk about blunt dutch people.
*French :  " Socialism is a collective political ideology who's goal it is to protect people against attacks on their wellbeing " , um, my french sucks...
*German : Makes a divide between  Realsozialismus  (from the old soviet union) , and  Sozialdemokratie (which is what's used in western germany). Remember that germany was split in east and west? It's really interesting to see that split showing up on the wikipedia :-) . The intro paragraph goes:  " Socialism is the set of political theories wherein justice and the freeing of the individual within society are central" . (translating meaning->meaning)
Kim Bruning 08:09, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The French definition is particularly difficult to translate - made worse by the use of the term "ontology" which is a slippery term in either language. But perhaps it is something we could work with. Another way of rendering it might be:   " Socialism is a collectivist political ideology which advocates defending the interests of workers in relations of social conflict."  Sunray 02:44, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
Well, I checked out portugese, esperanto and swedish as well. I don't officially know those langauges so I'm not going to try to actually translate them. :-P
I do notice that the current *english* article is mostly about say the face of socialism: who did it, who says what it is or what it isn't etc. It doesn't actually mention terms like collectivism, solidarity or class struggle, which are important to the underlying philosphy which is common to all socialists by the look of it. 
Heh, and I'm not even a socialist, I think I'm getting the hang of NPOV here. :-)
Hmmm, how about saying what socialism *is* and skipping what it isn't. It might make for a somewhat shorter article than the current one (socialism isn't nazism, socialism isn't communism, socialism isn't the kitchen sink... etc...)
Kim Bruning 08:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Define what socialism is... I like that idea and I'm also not a socialist.  We could resort to some noted authorities on the subject instead of simply people's POV.  Gasp, we could even bring in what some socialist thinkers have said on the subject.  My head is beginning to swim with the possibilities.  I'd better go.  Yours in hope. Sunray 19:27, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)
I wanted to compliment you all on the fine discourse. I havn't much to ad other than to praise the civility and focus on other wiki's. Quality articles are nothing exclusive to the english wiki, and I am glad you appreciate that. Maybe we'll soon have a entry on socialism good enough for me to know what the word means? ;) Here's hoping! p.s. Please put in that part from the dutch wiki about the use of the word in the US, its quite an apt summary ;) Sam Spade 03:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interlanguage 

message: "What socialism is (or isn't)": the problem, and we can't make it go away, is that there is no consensus agreement on exactly who is, or is not, a socialist. What this article can try to do is to sketch the complex territory, point out the mountains, give reasonable citations and attributions as to who says what, and (what is, perhaps, missing now) try to give a flavor of what the various types of socialism have in common. However, we are not in a position to successfully "define" a term that is used differently by different people. This is exactly analogous to Wittgenstein's discussion of the word "game" in the Philosophical Investigations: there is simply not one definition that embraces baseball, chess, and peek-a-boo. There is a common thread, it can be drawn, but simple explanations are inherently going to be false. -- Jmabel 03:38, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, the concensus is that socialism is ment ot be good for poor people, at least in theory. The improvement of the conditions of the lower class (at least in theory/propaganda, what-have-you) are common thruout all versions of socialisms, as far as I can tell. Egalitarianism and a removal of private ownership to one extent or another may or may not be included, that is much more debateable. Sam Spade 21:50, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those are certainly necessary conditions for a worldview to be called socialist, but certainly they are not sufficient. Christian charity is not socialism. -- Jmabel 01:30, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. Collectivism, solidarity , and class struggle appear to be the defining common thread in socialism. RTFIW (Read The Friendly InterWiki) :-) Kim Bruning 11:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What socialism is (or isn't)

message: I found there's a controversial tag and added it to 3 articles that seemed worthy of it. Thanks to the english wiki attracting usaians, there's some controversy between them and other folks who have very different ideas of socialism than they do! :-)
Hmm, actually the current article really and truely sucks, since it isn't being very sophisticated as far as the divide-and-conquer trick tactic is concerned. It'd be a lot more coherent if different socialist kinds were split into different headings or even different articles entirely.
* modern applications of socialist thought should be upfront, since that's what most people will expect in an encyclopedia.
* the ussr was important during the 20th century so should get prominent mention also.
Socialism has a common base , which apparently can be divided very roughly into the bolshewik-like and menshewik-like lines of thought. That's the first split into 3 parts you can make right there. Can others help figure out how to divide and conquer further? Kim Bruning 13:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversial 

message: 195.92.168.165 recently made a set of edits, supposedly for NPOV, which I think make mush out of the article. However, since nearly all of the edits are in my writing and claim to be for NPOV, I am not the appropriate person to revert them. Someone independent, please review and make a decision! -- Jmabel 18:04, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...I'm not sure.  I think the anon is right that the current article has some mildly POV phrasing.  But the anon's changes have generally been for the worse.  What do others think? john 18:23, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say they were sound edits, but that there is much, much more to be done. I personally, and readers at large of course, need this to be a brilliant article, capable of allowing me, as an american ;) to understand what the heck socialism is anyway. Is it the traquil utopia's of sweden and soc dem europe, or the death camps of stalin and pol pot, or the dubious and controvercialy embargo'ed cuba? If it is ALL of these, what the heck brings it all together??? All I know is the article needs alot more work. Sam Spade 18:43, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is all of these, just like capitalism is both the vibrant cities of America and the sweatshops of East Asia. Or for that matter, the vibrant cities of East Asia and the sweatshops of (South-of-the-Border) America. Anyway, I'm going to stay out of making any significant edits in this article for a while, although I will stay active in the talk page: right now the article has more content from me than from any one other person and since this appears to be a POV dispute, I should probably try to stay at arm's length. But would someone without too much of an axe to grind please have at 195.92.168.165's material, which, again, seems to me to be absolutely mushy? -- Jmabel 20:01, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Looks like TDC promptly reverted it. TDC: isn't it nice to know that there are people out there so crazy that you & I can both agree that they are wrong? -- Jmabel 20:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: HA! Good one. TDC 20:41, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: The reason it was silly was because you were saying that local government owned the military-industrial complex.  That is not, of course, the case. john 05:05, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Alright, I'll admit to not having read all of your novel length disquisition, so I suppose I missed that part. john 23:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very unhappy with recent edits by 195.92.168.165 

message: I made some changes to take into account socialism with Chinese characteristics.  First of all its not true that
all socialisms believe that the economy is run for the benefit of a small elite.  The Chinese government certainly doesn't official state that this is true of the Chinese economy.  Also, its also not the case that all socialisms favor cooperation over competition, again this is not the case for China.
Roadrunner 08:32, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to better integrate Roadrunner's material. I do think it is important that the Chinese case be discussed, but equally important that it not come to dominate the article. I believe I have retained all of Roadrunner's substantive points, while reducing the volume of words and improving the flow. -- Jmabel 18:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  socialism with Chinese characteristics 

message: Hmm, since different people simply have different ideas about even the definition of socialism, this page is going to be controversial forever. Perhaps it'd be wiser to simply have links to the different meanings of socialism used in different parts of the world. That way we'd have proper NPOV articles on each version, rather than the total definition mess we have now. Kim Bruning 09:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly opposed. The fact that a topic is complicated doesn't mean it's incoherent. Virtually all ideologies/systems/etc. considered to be socialist share common roots and much common history. The fact that they have diverged makes the topic very complicated, but that complexity needs explication somewhere, and this is where. Yes, all of those additional, more circumscribed articles should also exist. -- Jmabel 19:51, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Make this a disambig page instead?