Talk:Types of socialism

message: Communism carries a strong social stigma? That's like saying Adolf Hitler and Nazis suffer a stigma because of the Holocaust.
Whose point of view is it that "Communism carries a strong social stigma" anyway? Better to say who opposes it, or at least that the main opposition is American (USA).
Better yet, explain some of the reasons for anti-Communism, such as the estimated 60 million to 210 million civilians murdered by Communist regimes after taking power. (Let alone war deaths for the moment.) --Uncle Ed 01:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right Ed. I noticed that myself. The sentence you quote is one of countless problems in the article. That's why I'm rewriting it, and redirecting this article for one week with the agreement of Vision Thing. 172 | Talk 13:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stalinist purges and other kind of "holocausts" on USSR and else similar Totalitarian systems self-identified as "communist" (but being very apart from communism most of theoreticals, social movements, worker unions, social struggles, etc.) are a fact, a terrible, sad, unforgetable fact. But before there can be some unfair labellings, I'd like to say a couple things: Please, I beg you, we must avoid any kind of generic accussations at all effects. Those "holocausts" were made by "Stalinists" ("Stalinist purges"), and other anti-democratic, totalitarian systems and branches that unfairly and demagogically claimed themselves as "communist". Stalinism is considered by many socialists and communists of Lenin's, Marx's or Trotsky's thought and tradition, to be opposed to socialism and communism itself. Please just let's not state on empty names, politized labels, and stereotypes, but on contents, on ideologies. There's a lot of information at the beggining clarifying differencies between most of ways of communisms and those totalitarian ones like Stalinism or Maoísm. Please, read well, and get informed about how different many of those currents shared by most of social movements and many historical revolutionary processes (that tend to find a hard opposition in capitalism, counter-revolutionarism, repressions, invasions, civil wars, etc. and thus fail, or corrupt, or decreased in participation and "oligarchized", being that main factors that lead from Bolshevisms or Leninism to its opposite, Stalinism/one-single system/State capitalism/one country socialism/Marxism-Leninism, and the names we like). Please, let's not mix, let's not generally accused. If you're going to charge some responsabilities for holocauts, do it on totalitarianisms, Stalinism or Maoism, or the stalinist, politized marxism-leninism (that was actually anti-leninist and anti-marxist), but just don't state it all from the simplified, generic, confusing, demagogic and unjust label of "communist". Let's stop fighting to approach more the article to each one's ideology, let's be serious, scientific, and objective, and let's admit debate, and contrasts. DeepQuasar 05:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd rather leave the bad article in place. It has a lot of useful links. Besides, your "agreement" appears to have been made under duress. --Uncle Ed 14:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I repeat, if there's any doubt: not by "communism", but by "Soviet Union" ruled by bureaucrats and Stalin's totalitarian methods.DeepQuasar 05:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stigma of communism? 

message: I see no consensus to redirect Types of socialism to Socialism and very little discussion. I have dredged up from the history of Types of socialism the following edit summaries by user:172:
*See agreement between Vision Thing and me on talk. We're redirecting this article for 7 days until it is rewritten.
*Ed Poor, "duress" has nothing to do with it. This article will be restored when it is worth restoring. For now misinformation is worse than no information.
I don't think it's up to one person to blank an entire article for a week. And VT wrote in meantime, do not blank this article which is not much of an agreement. --Uncle Ed 17:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's like 2 or 3 : 1 so I "mostly" blanked it. I want to keep the links. --Uncle Ed 18:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's one more pro-blank vote.  Really, though, I want to see this article deleted as a POV fork. -- WGee 01:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed Poor, are you serious!? You see little discussion of the redirect!? Did you even read the talk page before you barged in here!?  See the long discussion between Vision Thing and me, that ended on 07:53, 29 May 2006 with Vision Thing agreeing to give me a week to rewrite the article while the page is redirected. In the discussion, I established why this article is so bad that it does more harm than good for the content to be posted anywhere in the Wikipedia main namespace. Stop resotring the article. Restoring the article is a big insult to all the work that I've put in to make these aritcles readable and accurate. Please, please, please, be patient while I rewrite the article. In the meantime, I don't want to see that nonsense posted. 172 | Talk 12:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The list is built around an implicit POV that needs to be clarified before being posted. The problem with listing "types of socialism" is there will probably never be a consensus on how to differentiate the many different socialisms. As far back as the 1848 Communist Manifesto Marx differentiated between a handful of different types of socialism ("reactionary feudal socialism," "reactionary petty-bourgeois socialism," "reactionary German or true socialism," "reactionary conservative or bourgeois socialism," "critical-utopian socialism," and "scientific socialism"). In Chapters on Socialism, Mill also discussed the "different schools of Socialism," coming up with a much different set of distinctions from Marx.  Since Marx's time, socialists have always been writing polemics against each other, categorizing supposed schools of socialism that stand in opposition to their own thinking; and in doing so, they have always been coming up with different ways of differentiating between the socialisms. David McNally, for example, rejected established distinctions, and differentiated between "socialism from above" and "socialism from below." Into a more contemporary era, Soviet Communists developed elaborate classification schemes on the different types of socialism on which they based their foreign policy. Critics of socialism also differ on how to differentiate the socialisms. Even today, when academics write histories of socialism, they too come up with differing lists on the different types of socialism. For example, Mukherjee, et, al (2000) In A History of Socialist Thought: From the Precursors to the Present identify six major schools of socialism: Marxism, Anarchism, Guild Socialism, Syndicalism, Fabianism, and Social Democracy. (Personally, I think their categorization is deeply flawed, leaving out the authoritarian nationalisms associated with Third World socialism.) The examples I've just laid out should help people realize that the topic "types of socialism" is far more complicated than some seem to realize. And it's far too complicated for a drive-by text dump from an old problem article. Ed Poor, please restore the redirect. 172 | Talk 16:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, but please, please, please let the redirect stand until 07:53, 04 June-- the deadline by which I have to complete the rewrite that Vision Thing and I agreed to. 172 | Talk 23:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let's give it a rest until June 4th.  Really, what's the hurry? Let's see the rewrite.--Cberlet 16:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to redirect 

message: Cberlet wrote in an edit summary:
:Others of us see a reason to wait - please stop obvious disruption 
I think it's disruptive of wiki collaboration to reduce a page to a redirect, when other contributors are working on it. A promise from one contributor to create a full rewrite at a future date does not justify page-blanking. The links alone are good enough.
How about a page move to Socialism (disambiguation) instead? --Uncle Ed 16:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason to wait 

message: I'm running a bit late with the new aritlce because of an assortment of server problems I've been having this Sunday, the day I allocated myself for the rewrite. I'll have it up late on June 4 EST, not UTC. 172 | Talk 20:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem if you are sure that you will make it. You can add unfinished version too. This is wiki after all and other editors will help. -- Vision Thing -- 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still running a bit late. Well, my end of the baragin is my promise not to revert the article after June 4 until I post my rewrite, and I'll live up to it. 172 | Talk 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: Why did you revert to May 28th? --Uncle Ed 14:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: I propose nominating this article for deletion, as per WP:POVFORK.  Would anybody support this move? -- WGee 21:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though there are obviously intellectual pitfalls in even broaching this topic, I think having some kind of article like this is helpful for the uninitiated reader. People are always going to come across negative - and dishonest - portrayals of socialism so where is the harm is letting them have the issues laid out for them in summary? I think the controversial section which discusses Nazism is particularly helpful in this context.--Jack Upland 10:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Is there any way in which this article is avoiding NPOV? For example, does it hide or over-emphasize anything? --Uncle Ed 14:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of this article 

message: This article looks very sloppy. Either it should be a list or an descriptive article, not both. I vote for making it a list, and deleting all the big sections on Communism, etc. There's really no need to have full descriptions here, because there are separate articles that already do that.Spylab 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment below. You took out Nazism, although this is disputed. --Uncle Ed 17:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Idea behind this article is to have short overview of different types of socialism, not to have a list. -- Vision Thing -- 18:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How about a compromise. Describe the category as controversial and then list possible inclusions.--Jack Upland 11:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turning into proper list 

message: I have removed the following links:
*Socialism by Robert Heilbroner  	 
* The Origins of Nazism, excerpt from Omnipotent Government by Ludwig von Mises 	 
* Why Socialism Collapsed in Eastern Europe, by Tom Palmer 	 
* Nixonian Socialism, by Murray N. Rothbard 	 
* Socialism: Still Impossible After All These Years, by Peter J. Boettke and Peter T. Leeson 	 
* Four More Years: The Battle's Half Won, by Milton Friedman (expresses hope that the Bush administration can "reverse socialism") 	 
* Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian by George Reisman 	 
* The Myth of the Scandinavian Model, by Martin De Vlieghere, Paul Vreymans and Willy De Wit
This is not because I don't think they are appropriate for WP pages (although some are a bit cranky), but because they have nothing to do with the article TYPES OF socialism. Rather, they are criticisms of socialism in general. If people think they are important reference sources, they should find the correct article (e.g. socialism or criticisms of socialism) to append them to. BobFromBrockley 12:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -- Nikodemos 00:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: :Image:Little red book.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Little red book.jpg 

message: List of socialist countries has been put up for deletion here. You may not be aware that this list exists. Various proposals are being debated including; keep, delete (and merge any useful information into the relevane articles), and rename. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related AfD at [[List of socialist countries]] 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Types of socialism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "naturismolibertario":
From Henry David Thoreau: El naturismo libertario en la Península Ibérica (1890-1939) by Jose Maria Rosello
From Green anarchism: EL NATURISMO LIBERTARIO EN LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA (1890-1939) by Jose Maria Rosello
Reference named "faq-social":
From Anarchism: 
From Social anarchism: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed "naturismolibertario" (it came from Green anarchism. The other one was fixed by the Bot already. - Salamurai (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Types of socialism]] 

message: The article totally makes it look as if communism (especially Marxism-Leninism and Maoism) were the exclusive heir to Marx and his ideas in economics and politics. at least over the last hundred years. Of course, that could also be read as a reverse implicature: if someone admits to any kind of inspiration or intellectual debt to Marx for their own thinking, in any field, then they must "really" be Communists. How depressing.
Any decent textbook in the history of political ideas will indicate that most 20th century labour/social democrat parties and thinkers - and many people and movements who have labeled themselves simply socialist (including many labour unions) - have been working largely from ideas, demands and models of analysis that originated with Karl Marx and his early followers. There's no question that most European Social Democrat or Labour parties were deeply influenced by Marx, many parties overseas too - albeit sometimes through the medium of Eduard Bernstein and others - even if that influence has become quite diluted in the age of Tony Blair and that kind of electioneering. 
By the way, many high-ranking economists, historians and social scientists have no problems admitting that Marx made valuable, sometimes groundbreaking contributions to the analysis of economics, production methods and history. And those people are not communists. Perry Anderson, Eric Hobsbawm, John Kenneth Galbraith, Jürgen Habermas, Fernand Braudel, Jagdish Bhagwati, Pierre Bourdieu, Gunnar Myrdal, Amartya Sen  and lots lots more. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Hobsbawm certainly was a Communist!--Jack Upland (talk) 07:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxism, communism and reformist socialism 

message: A new editor has created an unsourced section for "National Socialism," by selectively cutting and pasting parts of the Nazism article.  The theory that Nazism was socialism is fringe and does not belong in the article.  TFD (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been thoroughly discussed and a consensus was reached. You can read the discussion on this talk page, beginning at Types of socialism#National socialism (Nazism). Of course, consensus can change, and you are welcome to challenge the decision. However, the way to do that is by presenting sources supporting your position on the talk page, and not by arbitrarily adding back a section that was deleted by consensus. Please try to bring sources that have not been already discussed, as we have hashed through this enough. In the meanwhile, I deleted the section. Regards, Ravpapa (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

text: No reliable sources support the view that Nazism was a form of socialism.  The comments by Nazis themselves are not considered reliable sources, they were liars after all.  TFD (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazism 

message: I'm a bit shocked that in the earliest versions of this article Democratic Socialism was not even mentioned. Given how many people have since voted for a Democratic Socialist in the United States, the section still seems a bit light, and what's there is a bit redundant.  
For now, I suggest one possible change for clarity. The following passage can be misleading, as it attributes such a commitment to all Democratic Socialists. Certainly not all think every "major industry" should be nationalized. I doubt Bernie Sanders thinks so.  Hopefully someone more familiar with this genre can fix this.  Maybe "monopolistic" or "certain" industries, instead of "major"?
Democratic socialists are also committed to the ideas of the redistribution of wealth and power, as well as social ownership of major industries, concepts widely abandoned by social democrats.Eplater (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic Socialism 

message: Milwaukee's influential 50-year history of Socialist Party mayors merits at least a mention, with a link to the Sewer Socialism article. Milwaukee's Socialists were given this perjorative nickname by east-coast Socialists when the first of these Mayors cleaned up both political corruption and the sanitation system. Milwaukee's leaders wore the label proudly, as they implemented a wide range of successful policies and innovations, many of which were adopted nationally by the major parties.  For details, please see that article. Eplater (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sewer Socialism