Talk:History of socialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Socialism (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Soviet Union (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject France (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / History (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
 
WikiProject Russia (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Ferdinand Lassalle[edit]

Shouldn't there be some discussion of Ferdinand Lassalle on this page? I'm not sure where to fit him in, but he deserves at least some mention. john 06:54, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Christofurio 18:33, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Moved to History of socialism. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). -- Rbellin|Talk 02:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Easier to Detect?[edit]

I'm afraid I'm not at all clear what this means. "Third world socialism is certainly easier to detect than that of the first world by events such as the triumph of the Uruguayan left in 2004 that consolidated the so called South American Leftist Front which includes the democratically elected governments ...."

Are we talking about 3d world and 1st world socialism as different possible interpretations of that election? And is the editor who added this sentence saying that the former interpretation is much more plausible than the latter? Does that make this original research? --Christofurio

Missing topic: Socialism in the West[edit]

Several economic programs in the United States, and possibly other countries, were supported by /medicaid, food stamps, &tc. A section on the impact, and the views for and against these programs (and whether and/or to what extent they are socialistic) in the United States and other western countries would improve the depth of this article. RudolfRadna 70.110.218.197 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)i was just testing it70.110.218.197 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone should also make mention of the government of Tommy Douglas and his Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Saskatchewan from 1944-1961 because it was literally the first socialist government in North America. It introduced all sorts of progressive leftwing reforms such as socialized medicine, public automobile insurance, the construction of massive highways, a campaign to electrify all rural Saskatchewan and the country's first Bill of Rights, among other things. If I have time I'll do it myself. That government had a HUGE political, social and even cultural impact on the rest of Canada. It influence initiatives by the Liberals and to a lesser extent the Tories such as universal healthcare, Canada Pension Plan, Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the previous Canadian Bill of Rights, unemployment insurance, among other things. (Canadianpunk77 06:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Why is there no brief overview of the various socialist and communist political entities previously and currently active in America? The last time I saw a published list, somewhere around 1/3 of Democratic congressmen and senators were listed as active members of the Democratic Socialists of America. The number of socialist, Marxist and communist academic and politico-intellectual journals in print in America alone is evidence of a healthy and active socialist movement here. What about the role of socialist intellectuals in contemporary debates? Support given by Hollywood socialists and New York intellectuals in to Third World socialist politicians and revolutionaries past and present? This section is woefully incomplete.(Unsigned comment)

I agree. I have made some corrections and additions to the reference to De Leon, and there is a para or two on the government of Tommy Douglas in Canada, but no mention for instance of the development of the CIO, and the role of socialists (e.g. Farrell Dobbs, etc, from a Trotskyist tradition) in initiating the Teamsters' strike wave that brought it into being in 1930s, which I will add next. But why not draft a few words here on the other things you mention? re Congressmen, academics, etc, we'll need solid refs! Andysoh 11:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? There's barely a handful of congressmen who are members of DSA. Plus Bernie Sanders in the Senate (maybe). john k 15:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Socialism in smaller countries such as Holland?[edit]

I think it could be interesting to have a section on socialism in smaller western european countries such as Holland.

Terminology?![edit]

Terminology problems??

According to Marxist-Leninist terminology (which I don't accept as valid B.T.W.) socialism refers to a state of society, and communism as the next state. The chapter Socialism and Communism (1917-39) is about the Social Democrat versus the Communist movements.

According to Marxist anachronistic terminology (as opposed to the Marxist-Leninist one), social democrats and communists are two mutually cooperating kinds of socialists.

I think the title Socialism and Communism (1917-39)' should be some such as Social Democrats versus Communists (1917-39).

[said rursus: tomas.kindahl@comhem.se]

Removed views wrongly attributed to Marx[edit]

I have once again removed this paragraph:

In Marx's theory, "socialism" referred to the stage of history and class structure immediately following the revolution, in which power would pass to the proletariat. According to Marx, once private property had been abolished, the state would then "wither away," and humanity would move on to a higher stage of society, "communism." This distinction continues to be used by Marxists, and is the cause of much confusion. No Marxist, for example, ever claimed that the Soviet Union was a communist society, even though it was ruled by a Communist Party for 70 years. The name of the party is not meant to reflect the name of the social system.

The above is not Marx's theory and, contrary to what Christofurio thinks, it most certainly wasn't an "unwise deletion" on my part. Marx and Engels didn't differentiate between "socialism" and "communism" in this way. In fact, I have found no evidence to suggest they made any distinction between the two terms at all (the preface to the 1888 English edition of the Communist Manifesto hints at why they chose "communist" instead of "socialist" in the title). A quick read of chapter one of Critique of the Gotha Programme will also show that Marx didn't even suggest two phases.

It may be better to make it clear in the article that it's a common misconception as this may keep it from reappearing in later edits. Hydrostatic 04:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The deletion is correct, but the disagreement arises from the fact that the notion in the first two sentences is derived from Lenin's The State and Revolution, written on the eve of the revolution in 1917, which was based on a study of the writings of Marx and Engels. The phrase "It withers away" is from Engels, in his Anti-Duhring.
The theory should therefore be attributed to Engels or Lenin, as an interpretation of the writings of Marx and Engels.
I'm pretty sure the Communist Manifesto was named as such because it was written for a German Party the called itself Communist. Socialist was later chosen as the title of the movement, and "Communist" as a title was really only later resurrected by Lenin.65.0.125.202 (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Andysoh 23:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Academia[edit]

The section The New Left and the Old in Academia seems to me completely inappropriate to an encyclopedia article on the history of socialism. The section goes:

  • The radicalization of psychoanalysis - very little to do with socialism
  • Structuralism - absolutely nothing to do with socialism
  • Deconstructionism - absolutely nothing to do with socialism
  • Feminism - more relevant, but still not really appropriate for history of socialism article (note, there is a page Feminism and the left, maybe material should go there?)
  • Criticism of the new left by the old - this is obviously more relevant, but somewhat confused.

I am proposing to delete this section. I'll do this in about a week, unless there are objections here. If people think the material should be in wikipedia, but not this article, please move some of it. BobFromBrockley 10:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No responses after 3 weeks _ I'm going to take it out. BobFromBrockley 12:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Very little on Ricardo or Proudhon[edit]

I guess that says it all. Jacob Haller 21:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (1945-1985)[edit]

The above-named section seems to me excessively detailed, but I don't want to just delete without getting some consensus. The worst bits seem to me:

In the wake of Stalin's death, several leaders had to share power at the top of the Soviet state and the Communist Party. Nikita Khrushchev became first secretary of the Party, Georgy Maximilianovich Malenkov prime minister, and Vyacheslav Molotov again became foreign minister. The powerful head of the MVD secret police, Lavrenty Beria, was soon ousted from power and killed. In the power struggle that followed, Khrushchev emerged triumphant. In 1956, at the 20th Congress of the Party, he denounced the "personality cult" that had surrounded Stalin. In the de-Stalinization campaign that followed, all buildings and towns that had been named for him were renamed, pictures and statues were destroyed. Khrushchev began work on a cult of his own by demoting rivals -- assigning Molotov, for example, the plum job of ambassador to Mongolia.

and

But his own time on the world stage was brief. The harvest of 1963 was especially bad, and Russia had to import a lot of wheat from the west. Also, some of Khrushchev's colleagues on the Presidium thought the installation of missiles in Cuba, which had nearly brought about a nuclear war, had been a "harebrained scheme" and a national embarrassment. In September-October 1964, they removed him from power. The pattern of 11 years before repeated itself, after an autocrat was toppled the Soviet Union saw a brief period of collective leadership, followed by the emergence of a new autocrat. The new team included Premier Aleksey Kosygin, party chief Leonid Brezhnev, and presidium chairman Nikolay V. Podgorny.

BobFromBrockley 17:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit detailed for an overview of the history of socialism, I agree. The important things to mention are Khrushchev's rise, his denunciation of Stalin and his personality cult, his ouster, and Brezhnev becoming leader, I think. I also think there should probably be more detail than the single sentence the article currently has on the Hungarian Revolution. I think Khrushchev's speech on Stalin and the crushing of the Hungarian Revolution are, by far, the two most important events in Khrushchev's period for the topic of this article, in that the two combined led to a massive disillusionment with communism, especially among western intellectual types. john k 18:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done some shortening here, removing detail that is in other articles that really isn't relevant to a general history of socialism. I think more could be done, but don't want to be overly bold! BobFromBrockley 16:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the China sections of this page also need trimming, but am all out of that sort of energy. This page needs to be a general history of socialism as a movement and ideology, not a detailed account of international relations involving Communist states. BobFromBrockley 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

More on early socialism[edit]

Right now the Socialism article has better (if still very incomplete) coverage of early socialism than this article does. I suggest cross-checking the two, generally copying sectyons from the other article and adding whatever additional information and references appear in this article. Jacob Haller 06:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jacob, please do not do that. As we develop the two pages, this would simple increase the room for errors. Simply link to [[Socialism], or to sub-sections of it. --Duncan 09:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh? It would all be to the early socialism sub-section of the Socialism article. Jacob Haller 19:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Move down 'The first socialist government in a North American country' section below quote[edit]

These are very minor points in an excellent article, but it might perhaps be better to move down the subsection dealing with the canadian provincial government below those following paras dealing with national post war socialist governments.

Perhaps it could go immediately below the quote from The Frankfurt Declaration. Otherwise it might possibly come across as a very slightly unbalanced emphasis on a particular country, or indeed a province within a country, although only because it is too near the top of this section.

Incidentally, the para "The democratic socialist parties during the 20 years after World War II found themselves under siege from two directions" marks a change in the section, and could do possibly with its own subhead such as 'Problems confront social democracy' or some such.

Incidentally can the claim "The greatest postwar victory of the democratic socialist parties was the election victory of the British Labour Party" be easily upheld, or would it be better to to say "One of the greatest"? Andysoh 00:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with all these points. BobFromBrockley 11:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Bob, they're all minor changes which can easily be reviewed, so I'll go aheadAndysoh 23:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote that article I decided that it should precede later leftwing governments because it was the first truely socialist government anywhere in North America, the first to nationalize industries and provide essential services (such as healthcare, primary education, electricity and automobile insurance) to Canadians regardless of income. It kind of bothered me that there was talk of making reference to Roosevelian/New Deal type liberals, when a government which in every respect was socialist to the ideological core was missing from the article. Also due to Canada's style of federalism (a little more devolved than that of the United States) provincial governments posses very powerful decision making abilities over the economy and social services. Enough to make socialist reform possible, as happened in Saskatchewan. So I think that is noteworthy. (Canadianpunk77 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)).

Done. In addition, I've added a reference section, as requested by the tag. I found two sentences at the very end of the section which mentioned the nationalisations carried out, which were also out of chronological order and brought them to the top of the new section and added references.Andysoh 01:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Many socialists? and capitalists boom and rising living standards[edit]

I think this phrase is trying to do too much in too few words - perhaps the editors could contribute their thoughts?

"However the Social Democratic parties in power found themselves under siege from two directions. Many socialists expected the pattern of the 1920s to repeat itself: with financial instability leading to a renewed depression. Instead the capitalist world, now led by the United States, embarked on a prolonged boom which, although uneven, produced low unemployment and rising living standards across Europe and North America."

Some thoughts on this:

1. Who are the many socialists who expected the pattern of the 1920s to repeat itself? I think strictly speaking only the Trotskyists explicitly expressed this false perspective (except for a few in the UK), while the ideologues of Social Democracy had a far more rosy expectation of capitalist expansion under, for instance, Wilson's white heat of technology revolution. And the Communists (officially) just appealed for mutual cooperation.

But what perhaps this is hinting at is that the leadership of the social democratic governments were under siege, on the one hand from many rank and file as well as leading socialists, Marxists and non-Marxists, within the social democracy who feared the 'return of the 1930s' unless capitalism was ended, either directly or over a definite period of time.

They pushed for greater reforms, more intervention, more nationalisations. In the UK, for instance, in the 1950s, Bevan, in the 1970s, Benn, expressed this tendency. So that when, for example in Britain in 1956 or thereabouts, Gaitskill, one of the leading Labour figures of the day, argued for the ending of the Labour Party's committmment to its socialist clause, clause 4 part 4, which committed the Labour Party to the "common ownership of the means of production, distribuition and exchange", at a Labour conference, (as old fashioned, out of date, etc) his proposal was spontaneuously overturned by the conference delegates.

On the other hand the Social Democratic leadership was under siege from the right-wing capitalist class, who distrusted it, (Attlee was compared to Hitler in the capitalist press) and argued that the threat of nationalisation discouraged investors, and led to a flight of capital, speculation against the pound, leaving aside their defence of their property rights. And in the UK there was a flight of capital, and speculation against the pound, during Labour governments

There was also the ideological siege, from the period of the coming to power of Mrs thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and the collapse of the Soviet union, (many exponents could be cited, as per the socialism article) which argued that capitalism had triumphed, that there was an end to wars, and that deregulation and privatisation and the breaking of trade union power would lead to the end of history, and successful capitalist expansion, which would benefit the poor of the world through globalisation.

2. In addition, it is problematic in an article on socialism to assume that the prolonged boom "produced" rising living standards of the working class.

Obviously, post Thatcher-Reagan, the post-war period is interpreted as a success of unbridled capitalism, but if the neo-liberal arguments are to be introduced (and they should be, since they are the dominant ideas) then they need to be balanced by socialist viewpoints.

We should perhaps put something along the lines of (with references if possible):

  • Social democrats believed that their on-going post war reforms, such as nationalisations of, and investment in, the most under-invested utilities, etc, helped establish a period of 'social democracy' in which the boom and slump of pre-war Europe was overcome due to government intervention, and a long period of capitalist upswing ensued. Until the simultaneous world slump of 1973-4, they believed boom and bust would not return.
  • Social democrats believed that unlike the pre-war period, the post war boom brought genuine benefits to the working class, and that as a result of the state intervention and the reforms they introduced, establishing trade union rights, health care, access to university education, housing and so forth.

(I have a new 'Clem Attlee' biography and Bevan's In place of Fear, which can be used as references, although references giving a Europepean overview from a SD perspective would be better. But any references better than none)

In addition:

  • Many Marxists argued that the working class only got rising living standards from the 1950 - 1973 prolonged post war boom due to their own trade union struggle, and their struggle to force social gains from social democratic governments.

Of course, we show that many modified these ideas later on, but as a history of socialism I think they are relevant.

Anyway, just some rushed thoughts. Comments welcomeAndysoh 01:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been "bold" and attempted to address these issues in the article, while also attempting addressing the issue of lack of references.Andysoh 08:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Big improvement. BobFromBrockley 13:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

no refs tag removed[edit]

I've removed this tag since adding a references section and some refs. If more are needed, perhaps they can be indicated in the appropriate places. Andysoh 06:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

'Social Democracy to 1917' problems with opening para[edit]

This opening para on the section entitled 'Social Democracy to 1917' is not sufficiently clear. It says

  • One of the first modifications of Marx's principles was made in the late 19th century, when many political theorists broke with the Marxist notion that revolution was the only way to advance beyond capitalism and that socialism was incompatible with democracy. Even Marx himself conceded late in his life that it might be possible to achieve socialism without violence in some countries. After Marx's death, Engels went further, saying that the day of the classic "street revolution" may have passed.

Just to be quite clear, the main problems are:

1. Marxism did not possess the notion that socialism was incompatible with democracy. This was absolutely the contrary.

Marxism aimed to get ‘social’ democracy, that is to say, democracy not just at the ballot box, but at the workplace, democracy over the day to day decisions from which the working class were alienated, since they owned neither the tools or the products of their labour and hence had no control over them.

2. Marx did not equate revolution with violence in the way implied.

“In England, for instance, the way to show political power lies open to the working class. Insurrection would be madness where peaceful agitation would more swiftly and surely do the work. In France, a hundred laws of repression and a mortal antagonism between classes seem to necessitate the violent solution of social war. The choices of that solution is the affair of the working classes of that country. The International does not presume to dictate in the matter and hardly to advise.” - New York World, July 18, 1871.

3. Engels’ remarks about street revolution (he did not use that phrase I think) in his 1895 Introduction to Marx’ Class Struggles in France 1848-1850 were directed at the situation that passed in "rebellions" everywhere up to 1848, not beyond it, i.e. before the methods of the Communist Manifesto were adopted and developed.

Engels was praising the development of the methods of the SDP after 1848, particularly that of utilising the universal franchise (albeit limited) to gain votes and representation to all public bodies which held elections. Engels argues that the SPD’s illegal work was so successful that it made the anti-socialist laws unworkable.

Since the second para gives a concrete example of the reformism referred to in the opening phrase, it might be better for now to lose the first para, and begin like this:

  • The Social Democratic Party (SPD) in Germany became the largest and most powerful socialist party in Europe, despite working illegally until the anti-socialist laws were dropped in 1890. In the 1893 elections it gained 1,787,000 votes, a quarter of the total, according to Engels.[1] In 1896, Eduard Bernstein argued that once full democracy had been achieved, a transition to socialism by parliamentary means was both possible and more desirable than revolutionary change...

Andysoh 22:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been 'bold' and added this, but realising that this did not address the questions of democracy, peaceful revolution, or to Engels' discussion of insurrection, have added more.
Now I have a problem with the existing para a bit further down:
"Even in countries where revisionist ideas were not accepted, socialist parties soon found themselves in a dilemma, which they never satisfactorily solved. If they pursued a pure revolutionary doctrine and avoided participation in parliamentary politics and the day-to-day struggles of the trade unions, they remained isolated sects. But if they participated fully in these arenas, they were drawn deeper and deeper into reformism and lost sight of their revolutionary objective. Thus the French Section Française de l'Internationale Ouvrière (SFIO), founded in 1905, under Jean Jaurès and later Léon Blum adhered to Marxist ideas, but became in practice a reformist party."
Is this a reference to the SDF in the UK? Why not say:
"In Europe most Social Democratic parties participated in parliamentary politics and the day-to-day struggles of the trade unions. In the UK, however, many trade unionists who were members of the Social Democratic Federation, which included at various times future trade union leaders such as Will Thorne, John Burns and Tom Mann, felt that the Federation neglected the industrial struggle. Along with Engels, who refused to support the SDF, many felt that dogmatic approach of the SDF, particularly of its leader, Henry Hyndman, meant that it remained an isolated sect. The mass parties of the working class under social democratic leadership became more reformist and lost sight of their revolutionary objective. Thus the French Section Française de l'Internationale Ouvrière (SFIO), founded in 1905, under Jean Jaurès and later Léon Blum adhered to Marxist ideas, but became in practice a reformist party.
In this way we avoid putting a viewpiont about what is and is not a "pure" revolutionary doctrine, or assuming that it was though parliamentary activity that reformism developed in the social democracy. Andysoh 00:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

trade unions in the 19th century[edit]

I was going to move this from the bottom of the section 'Marxism and the socialist movement' where it is out of place, to the previous section, 'Early socialists' (e.g. roughtly before 1848).

"Socialist political groups were formed as early as the 1830s, but in the beginning they failed to make real headway among the workers, who were more interested in forming trade unions and making immediate economic gains within the capitalist system."

Instead I replaced it with the passage from the trade unions article to which it linked:

"In France, Germany and other European countries, socialist parties and anarchists played a prominent role in forming and building up trade unions, especially from the 1870s onwards. This stood in contrast to the British experience, where moderate New Model Unions dominated the union movement from the mid-nineteenth century and where trade Unionism was stronger than the political labour movement until the formation and growth of the Labour Party in the early years of the twentieth century."

The latter separates out the UK experience, which appears to have coloured the original paragraph, from the continental European experience (socialist parties founded trade unions, etc) which is more accurate.

Andysoh 14:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why no intro? chronologically based intro might do[edit]

This article hasn't got an intro. It looks odd, so for that reason I've looked to see if I could rework the chronologically based intro which doesn't suit the socialism article.

I don't want to start a big discussion in a repeat of the one we had in the socialism page. If this is contentious - unless there are minor changes that can be made - then I'll drop it.

The history of socialism can be traced to the aftermath of the French Revolution of 1789 and the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, although it has many precidents in earlier movements and ideas thoughout history.
The term Socialism is variously attributed to Pierre Leroux in 1834, [2] or to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud in France, or else in England to Robert Owen, who is considered the father of the cooperative movement.[3]
Saint Simon, who is called the founder of French socialism, argued that a brotherhood of man that must accompany the scientific organization of industry and society.[4] Proudhon pronounced that "Property is theft" and that socialism was "every aspiration towards the amelioration of society". Proudhon termed himself an anarchist, as did Bakunin, the father of modern anarchism, a libertarian socialist, a theory by which the workers would directly manage the means of production through their own productive associations.[5]
The Communist Manifesto was written by Karl Marx ands Frederick Engels in 1848 just before the Revolutions of 1848 swept Europe. In the last third of the 19th century social democratic parties arose in Europe drawing mainly from Marxism and what they termed ‘scientific socialism’.
In first half of the twentieth century the Soviet Union and the Communist Parties of the Third International around the world mainly came to represent socialism in terms of Soviet model of economic development, the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production, although other trends condemned what they saw as the lack of democracy.
Communists in Yugoslavia in the 1960s and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, reconciling the cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with market forces, letting the market guide production and exchange rather than central planners.[6]
In 1945 European Socialist Parties in power were considered socialist administrations by some. In the UK Herbert Morrison said "Socialism is what the Labour government does", whereas Aneurin Bevan argued that socialism rquires that the "main streams of economic activity are brought under public direction", with an economic plan and workers' democracy.[7] Some argued that capitalism had been abolished. [8] Socialist governments established the 'mixed economy' with partial nationalisations and social welfare.
In recent decades Socialist Parties in Europe have redefined their aims. [9] and reversed their policy on nationalisations.
By 1968 the prolonged Vietnam war (1959-1975), gave rise to the New Left, socialists who tended to be critical of the Soviet Union and social democracy. Anarcho-syndicalists and some elements of the New Left and others favored decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.[ref]. Trotskyists demanded the restoration of workers’ (soviet) democracy in the Soviet Union and other through political revolution. [ref]
At the turn of the 21st century, in Latin America Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez championed what he termed 'Socialism of the 21st Century', which included a policy of nationalisation of national assets such as Oil, anti-imperialism, and termed himself a Trotskyist supporting 'permanent revolution'. [news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6246219.stm]

If this can be shortened it would be better, but it fulfils the requirement to anticipate the contenmts of the article. Andysoh 13:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tommy-Douglas.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Tommy-Douglas.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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Honecker.jpg[edit]

The image File:Honecker.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Final sections paint unrealistic picture[edit]

Section 15 "Contemporary socialism" needs to be expanded, and sections 16 and 17 should be merged or perhaps even consolidated into section 15, because after describing the crisis of socialism symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall, the article then makes it seem like socialism is undergoing a revival of sorts since the late 1990s, yet fails to mention and take into account the prevailing dominance of Tony Blair's Third Way and how this is not interpreted as socialism by many of the Left.--Shanoman (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Related AfD at List of socialist countries[edit]

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) 12:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

More content[edit]

United States The United State should have added info about being socialist. In the constitution it says all people are created equal, outside the contstitution, the US is passing Socialised healthcare, it has socialised schools, roads, public utilities, etc. Also it has several Socialist parties. So it falls under socialist state in Contsitution, Law, and Politics. Chitdorit (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

pov section tag Robert Owen[edit]

The problematic text "He transformed life in the village of New Lanark with ideas and opportunities which were at least a hundred years ahead of their time"

I'm all in favor of abolishing corporal punishment, etc. but this formulation is approving in a way that is simply against the rules. A better text might be:

"He transformed life in the village of New Lanark with ideas and opportunities which were later generally adopted"

TMLutas (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed edit, Socialism tried and failed in Chile[edit]

Falcon8765 said it didn't have a "needed" citation resources, but I'm sure you can read the articles on Chile and History of Chile to find this, the course of events of the rise and fall of Socialism in Chile. What a great contribution to the article, and the administrator took down the separation of "Latin America" from elsewhere, due to the example of Socialism in Egypt is not located in Latin America (where Chile, Cuba and Mexico is).

In 1970, the South American country of Chile elected Marxist politician Salvador Allende, the first Marxist to been directly elected to presidency in the western hemisphere. His social land and wealth redistribution programs, and nationalization of key businesses in his short-lived term was thought to brought on the country's worst economic recession. The United States CIA opposed Allende's government naturally and CIA agents had assisted American corporations such as the ITT phone company to interfere with the Chilean economy.

In 1973, the right-wing military under general Augusto Pinochet took power in a violent coup and Allende was reportedly killed inside the airbombed presidential palace, and later the military arrested and executed thousands of leftist politicians and activists. Pinochet reversed socialism and promoted a "laissez-faire" approach to capitalism in his 16 year rule as dictator, until his peaceful retirement as president elected out of office by free elections in 1990.

To wikipedia staff (among them Falcon8765), I apologize for the incorrect method of adding an edit (above) to the article, and I shall never repeat the same mistake again. +71.102.11.193 (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

etymology of the term socialist, coined in 1738[edit]

The first known recorded use of the term is in 1738. Scotch Presbyterian eloquence display'd: or, The folly of their teaching discover'd By Gilbert Crokatt, John Monroe., page 69. i suggest we add this to Origins of socialism or maybe in a new section, or sub section: etymology, unless there be objection. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You require a secondary source to confirm your original research. TFD (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
i will change it to read, "an early use of the term appeared in 1738". would that satisfy your concern by removing "1st known use", what you consider OR? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
the reference was removed again, claiming OR, which is impossible as i did not include any material from the source, rather mentioned the source used the term. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

etymology of the term socialism, in 1774, John William Fletcher[edit]

The first part of An equal check to Pharisaism and antinomianism, By John William Fletcher page 21. the term was around long before the current origins section here, The appearance of the term "socialism" is variously attributed to Pierre Leroux in 1834 Darkstar1st (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

French Socialism and 2012 Presidential Election[edit]

Should Francois Hollande's 2012 election in France be added to the page? Is it unique enough to merit its own section? I do not feel educated enough on the subject to add it either to the "The emergence of a "New Left" in the developed world" section or as a new section without consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac0bean9 (talkcontribs) 18:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

First use of the word[edit]

Instead of "In England Robert Owen was also using the term independently around the same time." It should say "The first one who used the term socialism for him ideas was Robert Owen in his work Plans for alleviating poverty through Socialism in 1817." Or something like that. In the Robert Owen article the work and it's date are named, and it is obvious that it's use is more then a decade prior to the Leroux's supposed "coining of the term". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.18.95 (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of socialism[edit]

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 History 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 "robertgraham.wordpress.com":

Reference named "Anarchism 1962":

Reference named "public.federation-anarchiste.org":

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 09:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Engels, Frederick, 1895 Introduction to Marx’ Class Struggles in France 1848-1850
  2. ^ Leroux called socialism "the doctrine which would not give up any of the principles of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" of the French Revolution of 1789. Lerux, Pierre, "Individualism and socialism" (1834)
  3. ^ Oxford English Dictionary, etymology of socialism
  4. ^ Encyclopaedia Britannica, Saint Simon
  5. ^ There would be "equal means of subsistence, support, education, and opportunity for every child, boy or girl, until maturity, and equal resources and facilities in adulthood to create his own well-being by his own labor." Revolutionary Catechism, Mikhail Bakunin, 1866
  6. ^ "Market socialism," Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Craig Calhoun, ed. Oxford University Press 2002; and "Market socialism" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. See also Joseph Stiglitz, "Whither Socialism?" Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995 for a recent analysis of the market socialism model of mid-20th century economists Oskar R. Lange, Abba P. Lerner, and Fred M. Taylor.
  7. ^ Bevan, Aneurin, In Place of Fear, p50, p126-8. MacGibbon and Kee, (1961).
  8. ^ Anthony Crossland stated: "to the question 'Is this still capitalism?' I would answer 'No'." In The Future of Socialism p46. Constable (2006)
  9. ^ Since 1995 the UK Labour Party aims are: "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"