Talk:Socialism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,545,353 edits
m Signing comment by 220.246.166.77 - ""
←Replaced content with 'Barack Obama'
Line 1: Line 1:
Barack Obama
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{philosophy|marxism=yes|modern=yes|political=yes|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes}}
}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Socsci|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}}

''' Note Bene: '''
This article has gotten an average of about 150K hits per month over the last 6 months and your edits will be subject to immediate scrutiny. [[Special:Contributions/74.78.162.229|74.78.162.229]] ([[User talk:74.78.162.229|talk]]) 13:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

{{SocialismOpenTask}}

{{TOCleft}}
==Archives==

<font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"><b>Note: Please stick to a working discussion of the content of this article. Use: [[talk:socialism/Comments|this]] to [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment|rate]] or comment on the article "[[Socialism]]". </b></font>
*[[/Archive 1]] [[/Archive 2]]
*[[/Socialism and Nazism]] -- archive of extensive discussion on this topic from Jan 2004. Also includes the discussion that resulted in a bullet list of types of socialism (the two issues were intertwined). Inevitably, other topics were also touched on, but I have endeavored to leave in the present page the few clearly unrelated exchanges on the present page during that very heated period. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 09:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
*[[/Archive 3]] [[/Archive 4]] [[/Archive 5]] [[/Archive 6]]
*[[/Archive 7]] [[/Archive 8]] -- Archive of discussions begun from June 2006 to Dec 2006 and ending no later than Feb 2007.
*[[/Archive 9]] -- Archive of discussions begun from January 2007 to March 2007, with no live discussions.
*[[/Archive 10]] -- Up to the settling of the length issue (2007-03 - 2007-12)
*[[/Archive 11]] -- From settling of the length issue up to settling structure and relation to other articles (2007-12 - 200Y-MM); Also contains discussion of the definition of socialism.

{{clear}}

== Definition ==

The definition needs to be scrutinized. Socialists like Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Oppenheimer, and so forth would disagree with it <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.252.208.46|71.252.208.46]] ([[User talk:71.252.208.46|talk]]) 01:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Elaborate. What makes you say or even think that they wouldn't agree with it? How would you define socialism?

Tucker and Spooner supported things other than "collective property." I'm not sure how you would define it per se, but all socialists consider labor the primary indicator of personal wealth and find wealth accumulated from other sources illegitimate. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.252.208.46|71.252.208.46]] ([[User talk:71.252.208.46|talk]]) 14:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Length and Semantics ==

Socialism is that view of the organization of "society" which attempts to rationalize "it", i.e. society, specifically by making it's ground principle the good of society overall&sup1;, the presumption being that except for primitive socialism, all current and past social orders substitute the rule of elites as their thetic principle. The fundamental, inevitable, and continually confused/obfuscated truth of this relation of the phenomenon to it's core concept, i.e. of ''socialism'' to ''society'' is the sort of thing which can't be expressed here due to the constraints of [[user:lycurgus/POV|encyclopaedic Q]]. I do not think the article is too long, given it's importance, and don't see either discussion of it's length or a date at which the toolong template was placed. &sup1;<font size=1>Or, technically, any rationally asserted objective.</font>[[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] &Delta; 11 Frost 4705 (公元)

:Importance of the article has nothing to do with its length. If some section of long article is important enough it can be spun off into new article. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision]] [[User_talk:Vision_Thing|Thing --]] 18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

::How about [[User:Red_Deathy/Sand| this]] for a quick and dirty trim? Feel free to edit and suggest there...--[[User:Red Deathy|Red Deathy]] 16:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Your version looks fine. Only thing I'm not sure about is elimination of "Marxism and the socialist movement" section but others should also express their opinion on this. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision]] [[User_talk:Vision_Thing|Thing --]] 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

:::: Didn't review in depth, but looks good, would say if you can make a comment that no content (in the edit summary) has been lost only moved and remove the toolong scary, it's good to go. [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

::::: Also this page is over a quarter meg so will archive content between the TOC and this entry if noone objects after that change as it will essentially make a new baseline of discussion for the article. [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] 05:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::: The most recent change, which I have not reviewed is not the global charge [[User:Red Deathy|Red Deathy]] prepared and which would by now be out of sync with the head revision. Will archive as noted though if no further comment on two issues of this &sect; over a reasonable time as removal of the toolong tag in effect sets this as the determined length and therefore this revision as a new baseline of discussion. [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] ([[User talk:Lycurgus|talk]]) 07:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to implementation of [[User:Red_Deathy/Sand|this version]] of the article? [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision]] [[User_talk:Vision_Thing|Thing --]] 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

: Appears to be the edit I commented on above updated with the intervening changes, in which case my comment of 13 November now applies to it. [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] ([[User talk:Lycurgus|talk]]) 14:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

::I have integrated most of content into [[History of socialism]]. Some things were already there, if I missed something feel free to add it. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision]] [[User_talk:Vision_Thing|Thing --]] 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

::: Acknowledged, I think this settles the length matter. Wrt the statement that "[t]he modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century working class movement", I believe this is incorrect and that in fact the correct genealogy for European socialism would start with the early 19th century precursors of Marx. The communist manifesto after all was 1848 and while there was no mass movement until the final quarter of the century, that mass movement would have been impossible without the prior formation. The correct fuzzy origin would seem to be somewhere between [[18 Brumaire]] and [[Revolutions of 1848|1848]]. [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] ([[User talk:Lycurgus|talk]]) 10:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: This statement, "[t]he modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century working class movement" , this is untrue. Socialism was created, defined, and originated from within the bourgeoisie. Marx was no proletariat. An argument could be made that he was the petty-bourgeoisie, but it is often noted that the majority of communists were members of the class they were trying to destroy, from Marx, to Lenin, to Trotsky, and even to Che Guevara. 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vvibbert|Vvibbert]] ([[User talk:Vvibbert|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vvibbert|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::::Why not origin of location? The socialist movement did not begin all at once around the world, but from one geographic source, primarily Eastern and/or Central Europe. "The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century in Eastern Europe?" Any discussion? And indeed, was this a working-class movement? No one has responded to the above comment. [[User:Jcchat66|Jcchat66]] ([[User talk:Jcchat66|talk]]) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Note also [[Thorstein Veblen|Veblens]] treatment of this matter ([ http://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/veblen/soc-econ02.htm]). [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] ([[User talk:Lycurgus|talk]]) 16:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


== [[Jean-François Revel|Without Marx or Jesus]] ==

It seems to me that the length of this article is comparable to subjects of similar or indeed lesser significance, eg. [[Jesus]] but let us settle this by requested discussion or remove the tag [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] ([[User talk:Lycurgus|talk]]) 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


== Socialism versus Social Insurance - Similarities and Differences ==
In terms of historical progress, according to this Wikipedia article on "socialism", socialism seems to "fade-out" in the 70's. There is no mention in the article of any activity or organization continuing to promote it, or think about it, after the "mixed economy" 1970's period, section. What happened after that to socialism, per se'? Did somebody delete that section of the article?

HUGE GAP in terms of the current status. I would like to know if anyone would also like to add a section comparing the benefits of "social insurance" to those of "socialism". What is the difference, practically speaking, between the two. We still have Social Security in the U.S., and unemployment insurance, etc. We still have welfare also.

If all F.D.R. did was implement social insurance, I guess he really wasn't a commie after all...([[User:P5g4xn|P5g4xn]] ([[User talk:P5g4xn|talk]]) 05:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

== Removed statement from criticisms of socialism ==

I saw this statement in the 'Criticisms of socialism' section of the article:
<blockquote>[[Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho capitalists]] reject any form of taxation as a form of disguised [[theft]], and therefore, reject socialism.</blockquote>
This statement seemed like it made a rather unfair generalisation to me, since the article itself explains that not all varieties of socialism have a state that could tax people, and the majority seek to abolish wage-labour, rendering the concept of taxation itself obsolete. It seemed more like a criticism of social democracy than socialism to me, so I was [[WP:BOLD|bold]] and removed it. [[User:superiority|superioridad]] <sup>([[User talk:superiority|discusión]])</sup> 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, because socialism requires a redistribution of value, whether or not that value is expressed in currency or labor; taxation is at the heart of all forms of socialism. This taxation may simply be a labor requirement instead of payment of currency. And so your argument is thus voided.
[[Special:Contributions/67.101.106.100|67.101.106.100]] ([[User talk:67.101.106.100|talk]]) 13:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Um - this is just anarcho-capitalist bias. Most socialists oppose taxation. Please do not implement your ideology into the article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.252.208.46|71.252.208.46]] ([[User talk:71.252.208.46|talk]]) 02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

"To each according to his contribution"--[[User:Francomemoria|Francomemoria]] ([[User talk:Francomemoria|talk]]) 14:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that much of this article is offensive to both advocates and opponents of socialism and it is not consistent with the standards of fairness that wikipedia generally fulfills. For instance, how could a discussion of socilaism not include the nazi party, did Reagon really attack socialism from within, is unequal distribution of wealth a factual flaw?

An opposing concern is below:

I think the red flag needs to be deleted, because I believe it to be offensive.
The red flag is the symbol of communism and republicans, the official (coat of arms if you will) should be a red rose if anything, cause as a socialist i would never fly a red flag. thank you [[User:Slipoutside|Slipoutside]] ([[User talk:Slipoutside|talk]]) 08:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:This is a matter for the info box' discussion page. Obviously, I should add the British Labour Party (official Symbol, a Rose) sings "The Red Flag" at its conference...--[[User:Red Deathy|Red Deathy]] ([[User talk:Red Deathy|talk]]) 09:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

: the red is the colour of socialist in all the world (afaik, surely in continental europe)--[[User:Francomemoria|Francomemoria]] ([[User talk:Francomemoria|talk]]) 12:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The [[red flag]] has been a symbol of socialism and the labour movement for hundreds of years, and I've never heard of a socialist being offended by its use. See the red flag article for more information. [[User:Spylab|Spylab]] ([[User talk:Spylab|talk]]) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


the red flag is a symbol of communism, i think the red rose needs to be on this page cause the red flag is to vage and open. the red rose is the true and recognized symbol of socialism. [[User:Slipoutside|Slipoutside]] ([[User talk:Slipoutside|talk]]) 21:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


darn-so i tried to change the flag since there were no objections, but my computer is acting stupid and i cant change the image, if some one wouldn't mind, it is an easy image to find just look under socialist rose, you can find it most any where, thanks for your time. [[User:Slipoutside|Slipoutside]] ([[User talk:Slipoutside|talk]]) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

*The red flag is a much older and more recognizable symbol of socialism then a red rose. Why do you believe otherwise? There is room for more than one symbol, but the red flag must not be removed.[[User:Spylab|Spylab]] ([[User talk:Spylab|talk]]) 00:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

* The red flag is a symbol for socialism which have a historical background to the revolutions of France in 1848, and the red rose is mainly a symbol for the socialdemocratic movement. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.162.251.107|80.162.251.107]] ([[User talk:80.162.251.107|talk]]) 17:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


i only know of one democratic socialist group who uses the rose, i still dont get why everyone want to keep the flag, isnt this site suppose to be educational? this is not 1848, this red flag is to vage to people trying to find information. and a red flag symblizes to many other things [[User:Slipoutside|Slipoutside]] ([[User talk:Slipoutside|talk]]) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

*Way more socialists use the red flag to symbolize their movement than those who use the red rose. The red flag is not too vague. It is commonly known as a symbol of socialism throughout the world today, and throughout the history of the socialist movement. I still don't understand why you would believe otherwise. [[User:Spylab|Spylab]] ([[User talk:Spylab|talk]]) 20:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

we will have to agree to disagree, but i dont get why you are so against puting up the rose instead we might as well go to every consevative political page and make their flag red, or go to every countrys page that is a democracy and change their flag to white, im just saying colors represent alot of ideals but the symbol should be here not the flag. ive never been to a political rally where there was a plain red flag flying.(a socialist political rally obviously)-peace be with ya [[User:Slipoutside|Slipoutside]] ([[User talk:Slipoutside|talk]]) 18:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

*Notice that countless socialists have contributed and edited this article and you are the only person to take offense or have any problem with the a red flag as a visual representation of socialism. You have said the same thing repeatedly without citing a source. You even admitted that you tried to remove the image yourself when clearly there is no consensus to do so, in fact you are the only person to have this POV. Cite something or drop the issue.[[User:Vvibbert|Vvibbert]] ([[User talk:Vvibbert|talk]]) 10:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


The red lag has to stay!!! It IS the symbol of socialism. Has always been <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Joemancoblondie|Joemancoblondie]] ([[User talk:Joemancoblondie|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Joemancoblondie|contribs]]) 17:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->



The only people who really would have a problem with the red flag are American's, since America does everything backwards, IE Blue represents the Left and Red the Right, while in all but one other country I know of it's the opposite. That said I will also point out that I am American, so don't start on me being a foreign American-basher.

[[User:IkonicDeath|IkonicDeath]]
:This is because of American history, where the Republics use to be very leftist (radical) in the civil war fighting to free the slaves, thus the red. Blue was for the blue-collar workers, which is still an attempt as class distinction in America, but use to be the color slavery back when the Democrats fought to retain slaves, thus conservative. Anyway, red is appropriate for Republicans today still, as they have been recently hijacked by red-faced radicals countering every liberal foundation of America. Russia, I hear has the same problem, as the old Iron Guard has become the stiff-necked conservatives of the old ways. Remember, the colors and the term was from the French, when the radicals sat to the left of the king, and the conseratives (usually friends of the king) sat on the right, thus the right hand of the king. Therefore, it is not politically alligned, but merely a reflection of the new (red) versus the old (blue.) It gets confusing in rare cases when the new wins out, and eventually becomes the old, and the new new is fighting to return to the way it was before the new took over. That's American politics in a nutshell. [[User:Jcchat66|Jcchat66]] ([[User talk:Jcchat66|talk]]) 17:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
What about a clenched fist as a symbol for socialism? [[User:SergioBlaze|SergioBlaze]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

That depends really, the clinched fist is a very broad symbol that usually is used by liberation movements of al types as well as Anarchists. I'd say that in and of itself it is not a truly Socialist symbol.
[[User:IkonicDeath|IkonicDeath]]


im glad i started this conversation, but realy we need to change the symble, im not saying it 100 percent wrong but, i feel it could be more accurate,IkonicDeath i agree most things in america are done backwards but still the red flag is closer to facism and communisim than out right socialism, i say a red closed fist would be acceptable or a red rose, i know some dont agree with the rose but it is the most used symble by socialist partys around the world([[User:Slipoutside|Slipoutside]] ([[User talk:Slipoutside|talk]]) 01:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

The red flag is the most Universal symbol of Socialism, I don't think it needs to be changed.
Also, I've never seen a red flag used in association with Fascism, with Communism yes, though in regards to Communist use it tends tobe with some sort of star motif.
A red rose, or red carnation are more symbols of social democratic movements rather then Socialism.
As for use by parties, while there are some socialis parties (who are more social democratic then socialist) that use the fist holding a red flower, it's used by less then half of Socialist parties (estimate), and really the only thing the vast majority of Socialist party symbols have in common is the color red incorporated into them, either as a backgroun or part of the symbol.
[[User:IkonicDeath|IkonicDeath]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

ok lets meet in the middle, how about we use more than one symble? we can put a red rose up a clinched fist and keep the flag-everyone wins and it would still be accurate, how ever the clinched fist must not be black as this is reguarded as a symble of anarchy. but i think this solution will help stop this argument.-peace([[User:Slipoutside|Slipoutside]] ([[User talk:Slipoutside|talk]]) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

Why not add a section in the main article discussing the use of flags, symbols and colours for representation of socialism and affiliated ideas!! --[[User:Jaye001|Jaye001]] ([[User talk:Jaye001|talk]]) 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


i like that idea jaye001 that would please most everyone, and be more educational to readers looking for information. it would also close this discussion, but his mean putting every symbol under this section that is related to socialism, such as anarchosocialism, democratic socialism ect. but this idea should be seriously considerd and i vote there be a new section added discussing the many flags, symbols ect.([[User:Slipoutside|Slipoutside]] ([[User talk:Slipoutside|talk]]) 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

== Churchill quote ==

There is an ongoing dispute regarding the inclusion of a Churchill quote in the criticism section. I assert that including the quote would be a blatant case of undue weight, but I am willing to accept it if my proposed counter-quote from the Labour Party is also included. The fact that a section is called "criticism" is no excuse to violate NPOV. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] ([[User talk:Nikodemos|talk]]) 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

:You are free to add content to Criticisms section, but it must be argument about socialism, not an attack on capitalism. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision]] [[User_talk:Vision_Thing|Thing --]] 18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
::Churchill is saying that socialism causes tyranny; the Labour Party is saying that, on the contrary, capitalism causes tyranny. That is a fair rebuttal. I will not accept your attempt to quote Churchill extensively despite him not being a notable critic of socialism ''and'' at the same time exclude a counter-criticism because you do not believe it is direct enough. I tried to offer a compromise; if you do not like it, that's fine, but I suggest you try to offer me another compromise rather than reverting out of hand. This is not going anywhere. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] ([[User talk:Nikodemos|talk]]) 22:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
:::It is not a rebuttal at all. One effect can, and it often does, have more than one cause. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision]] [[User_talk:Vision_Thing|Thing --]] 14:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

:If you want to give it less weight, you can add other criticisms. However, it is a single whole, and is a nice touch to the section. [[User:Larklight|Larklight]] ([[User talk:Larklight|talk]]) 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
::My argument is that Churchill is not notable for being a critic of socialism, and that a criticism section should include counter-criticisms for the sake of NPOV (either that or we should have a section about arguments in favour of socialism). -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] ([[User talk:Nikodemos|talk]]) 22:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Most certainly. If Churchill get's quoted in the criticisms section, so should his opponents. This is an encyclopedia article. It's purpose is not to grandstand for a dead British prime minister or crucify an idea. The socialist rebuttal is just as important for NPOV as the critic's charge. [[User:Sarcastic Avenger|Sarcastic Avenger]] ([[User talk:Sarcastic Avenger|talk]]) 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be removed. It's worthless rhetoric. Equivalent to putting a quote from Fidel Castro in the Conservatism article calling them 'capitalist pig-dogs' or something. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:NotHereAgain|NotHereAgain]] ([[User talk:NotHereAgain|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NotHereAgain|contribs]]) 03:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


i didnt know where else to put this with out making another section, but since you guys are talk about critisims here. i think we to connect the usa's involvment in south and central america to this page some how, more spicific the cia's involvment, i think we could also put a list of curent (self proclaimed) socialist leaders of the world, just a couple of thoughts.([[User:Slipoutside|Slipoutside]] ([[User talk:Slipoutside|talk]]) 02:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

===Churchill Quote===

It is my view that the Churchill quote should be removed or put in a better context with Atlee's (pretty excelent in my opinion) rebuttal, on its own it looks like an obvious appeal to superiority by A single editor by getting Churchill on side. I actually think it contributes very little considering the Flak Churchill got for the quote at the time, the fact that it is siimply a politically motivated attack and not a statement Chruchill would make spontaeneously (pointed out by Atlee), and additionally Churchill was proven wrong by the fact the Labour government never opened up a 'gestapo' nor resisted being un-elected 6 years later. If it is included, as I say I think Atlee's rebuttal should be included and the context in which the quotes are being made should be made much more apparent.[[Special:Contributions/86.140.39.142|86.140.39.142]] ([[User talk:86.140.39.142|talk]]) 15:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

== 'Community' in the definition ==

The term 'community' in this first line of the article is sort of unclear: "...and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the <u>community</u>." Does the community refer to the proletariat or state, or society in general, or something else? [[User:WinterSpw|WinterSpw]] ([[User talk:WinterSpw|talk]]) 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
:It's unclear because of the use of words. The article use to read "...subject to control by the state." But that sounds too soviet for most defenders of the socialist faith. A planned economy, which is at the core of all socialist ideals, requires political, economic, and military power concentrated into the hands of some kind of council or committee. (It is taboo amongst the defenders to say oligarchy or aristocracy, so we use council to be safe.) If the actual individuals controlled those things, then it would become an unplanned economy, and therefore not socialism (or capitalism, for those of you that think only in polarities.) [[User:Jcchat66|Jcchat66]] ([[User talk:Jcchat66|talk]]) 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to this, the following sentence from the first paragraph of this article; "This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state." How is this an example of direct and indirect? A cooperative or collective of worker's councils is still indirect, control exercised through a third party. [[User:Jcchat66|Jcchat66]] ([[User talk:Jcchat66|talk]]) 15:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:I thought it was more to do with the fact that there are many anti-statist socialists that the word "state" wasn't used. And it's untrue that a planned economy is at the core of all socialist ideals (even Marx didn't favour a planned economy, and there are also alternate socialist economic arrangements like [[Proudhon]]'s mutualism). And no, an organisation formed by and consisting of the individuals concerned is not a third party. A workers' council may or may not be a third party, depending on the specifics, so it is probably true that a better example could be substituted. ~ <span style="font: small-caps 14px times;"><b>[[User:SwitChar|<font color="#FF0000">Swi</font><font color="#000000">tch</font>]]</b> <font color="#800099">([[User talk:SwitChar|<font color="#800099">✉</font>]][[Special:Contributions/SwitChar|<font color="#800099">✍</font>]][[User:SwitChar/Gallery|<font color="#800099">☺</font>]][[User:SwitChar/Userboxes|<font color="#800099">☒</font>]])</font></span> 05:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
::Mutualism does not bring to mind socialism, as socialism is defined in most dictionaries and encyclopedias. Libertarians, classic liberals, even Adam Smith were all mutualist to one extent or another, favoring individual rights and spurring corporate rights.

::If there is someone you must deal with to assert your claim in any situation, that is a third-party. I should know, I am on the board of directors of a cooperative. Though I must act in the best interests of our people, they do no have direct control over the services provided. I am a third-party. All committees, board of directors, councils, etc are third-party groups. [[User:Jcchat66|Jcchat66]] ([[User talk:Jcchat66|talk]]) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

== Socialism/Communism ==

I've just removed a claim that Marx said socialism would elad to communism - Marx didn't write that in the manifesto, in fact he didn't say that at all, he talked of the two stages of communism in the ''Critique of the Gotha Programme'' which '''Lenin''' later used to differentiate between socialism as a stage to communism. In Marx' day socialism and communism were used reasonably interchangeably, as at least one version of this article once stated.--[[User:Red Deathy|Red Deathy]] ([[User talk:Red Deathy|talk]]) 08:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
: Marx didn't talk of "the '''two'''" stages of communism in ''Critique of the Gotha Programme''. It's true that he alluded to two stages ("phases") but (in the English translation at least) implied there could be any number of stages, and I can't find any evidence of him actually saying there should, would, or could be two. It says a lot about the foundations of Leninism, though, doesn't it? [[User:Hydrostatic|Hydrostatic]] ([[User talk:Hydrostatic|talk]]) 08:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

== Biased? ==
"There is much focus on the economic performance and human rights records of Communist states, although some proponents of socialism reject the categorization of such states as socialist."

There was scarcely any socialism (let alone communism) in Communist states (ie. Soviet Union; but not the same)! The 2nd sentence says so, merely (slightly) counterbalancing prejudice. Smart-assed Wikipedia... experience, experience! --[[Special:Contributions/89.142.102.135|89.142.102.135]] ([[User talk:89.142.102.135|talk]]) 06:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:I see no bias. All communist states had a planned economy of one kind or another, thus making them socialist. This same argument for socialists to seperate themselves from fascism is used, but any and all states, including fascist ones, where state-planned economies exist, are by definition socialism. Though Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, words still have meanings based on their primary definition in a dictionary. Otherwise, you will just cause confusion and endless debates. [[User:Jcchat66|Jcchat66]] ([[User talk:Jcchat66|talk]]) 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

i think communisim is to closly refured to socialism here and changes should be made, communisim is more a millitant style of socialism, thous not the same thing([[User:Slipoutside|Slipoutside]] ([[User talk:Slipoutside|talk]]) 21:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC))
::Why? It's still a form of socialism. In order to plan any economy, the planners must wield tremendous military power to force the people to comply. Force is required for socialism to work at all, because no individual in such a system has the right to opt-out. [[User:Jcchat66|Jcchat66]] ([[User talk:Jcchat66|talk]]) 23:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, since we're having a POVfest in talk, the line in the article stands valid - the "state capitalism" strand of socialist thought would reject what JCChat66 has said, observing that state property is the private property of the state, and the presence of coersion is likewise indicative of the absence of socialism - see William Morris passim. That said, many commentators have used the SU to critique socialism and many socialists have defended it, so in a wiki sense, that line is valid.--[[User:Red Deathy|Red Deathy]] ([[User talk:Red Deathy|talk]]) 07:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
::::There is no such thing as state property being private, when the state is composed of a small group of individuals with enormous political, police, and military authority, so I do not follow. Private property is property own by an individual (and perversely, a corporation given the power of an individual.) If you're saying that capitalism is a form of socialism, then I agree. There are obviously many different forms of socialism, but all with a common binding definition ... planned economics and collective ownership of property. Capitalism fits the bill as well, if it means corporations own most of the means of production, which are nothing more than mini-states answering to a larger state. Corporations cannot exist without sanction from the state, after all. [[User:Jcchat66|Jcchat66]] ([[User talk:Jcchat66|talk]]) 22:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You just made up the definition that any state with a planned economy is a socialist state, inherently that idea has nothing to do with socialism and many anarcho-socialists would reject it utterly. Socialism is the belief in worker/class solidarity (depending on who you ask), it is actually quite hard to define, and many right wingfascist states (which btw, you are incorrect, they did not have planned economies but were corporate states heavily influecned by the government) like Italy or Hiler's Germany were explicitly anti-socialist. The aims of socialism are most often attempted to be fufilled through bringing the means of production under the state, however the actual idea is to hand the means of production to the labourers. In soviet Russia State=Workers (apparently) hence the name Soviet Union, with Soviets being unions, not in every socialsits mind. You seem to have a very incorrect view on the matter. P.S. If military force is required to implement socialism, why have in the past so many labour parties been elected and unelected, and why in sweden for 40 of the last 50 years has a socialist democratic party been in power without using this 'military force'?[[Special:Contributions/86.140.39.142|86.140.39.142]] ([[User talk:86.140.39.142|talk]]) 14:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
:I did not make of this definition, it's been defined as such in dictionaries and encyclopedias for well over a century. Anarcho-socialism is a recent idea, which if broken down, makes no sense. If you don't like how socialism is defined, then use another word, there are plenty to choose from. "the actual idea is to hand the means of production to the labourers" ??? Countless ideologies contend this same thing, and countless people fought for it, it is hardly exclusively socialistic. Sparticus, and anyone who fought against slavery, fought ultimately for the means of production to be put back into the hands of the laborers (the slaves). That does not require planned economics or collective ownership of property, both of which ancient Rome practiced as a tool to maximize labor production. You are mixing two entirely different concepts not supported by any definition of socialism. Otherwise, most Western countries would have adapted socialism long ago. Why do most Americans despise socialism? Because it carries the very opposite meaning of equality and means of production being in the hands of laborers. America started off with both these concepts, but required no "collective ownership" or "planned economics" to do so. Thus, these are entirely different concepts. If socialism is so hard to define, than it is useless. Simplicity is the key to understanding, not complexity. [[User:Jcchat66|Jcchat66]] ([[User talk:Jcchat66|talk]]) 22:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

'''There is no single definition of socialism accepted by all self-defined socialists''' - the only thing all socialists agree on is a vague commitment to equality and collective ownership of property, but no more than that. They do not agree on the ''extent'' of this equality or collective ownership, and various schools propose many other things in addition to those two. To say that anything is "by definition socialism" is POV pure and simple. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] ([[User talk:Nikodemos|talk]]) 22:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
:Well, you just asserted by point, thank you. However, it is NOT POV to define something, but simply science. Everything must be defined, or we could not have language at all. No one is going to understand anything if words and concepts are not given precise definitions, otherwise this is all a pointless waste of time. I am merely breaking down the individual concepts merged together to make a word, which in the case of socialism, has always been the same. You've already asserted the same definition I have, but then counter your own statement. If you are truly serious about putting together a good article on socialism, you will agree that its concepts must be spelled out, even if it means something than you thought it meant. The dictionary is still the starting point of any word's meaning. An encyclopedia adds everything else that led up to the creation of that word, its history, the ideologies surrounding it, the movers and shakers, etc. The root meaning must remain intact for it to make any sense. [[User:Jcchat66|Jcchat66]] ([[User talk:Jcchat66|talk]]) 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Jcchat66 is simply incorrect. Socialism doesn't mean planned economy. I could just end the statement here, but it's worth elaborating. Socialism means workers control, normally of the means of production, or in some models, of the government (through extremely strong, if not direct, democracy). In Nazi Germany, workers had absolutely no power, all power was in the hands of the bureaucrats. The same goes for the Soviet Union. Therefore they were not Socialist. Your argument that as Nazi Germany fits your definition of socialism therefore it is socialist is nonsense (and frankly boring). You're argument that socialism needs a strict definition, and as it doesn't (this is not because it's a mystic word, but because of various viewpoints. For example, take the words "Trotskyist" and "Marxist-Leninist". Trotskyists would consider the two synonymous, "Stalinists" would not. That is not because they do not have a clear understanding of the words in question - in fact they have a very clear understanding - they just have different understandings. It would be best, in my view, to let the Socialists define Socialism.) therefore we should all accept your view is also rubbish. Let Socialists define Socialism, they should know. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] ([[User talk:JohnyGoodman|talk]]) 21:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== My edit ==

I changed the heading to theory from system. In theory it goes for equal distribution, in practise the system doesn't achieve this. If people want 'system' back, the bit about what it leads to will have to be more NPOV. [[User:Larklight|Larklight]] ([[User talk:Larklight|talk]]) 09:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
:Well, it already only says that equality is an aim, not that it has been achieved, and system is more NPOV in itself since some editors here would maintain that socialism has existed/exists in various manifestations (I don't agree, but hat's what teh NPOV policy is for).--[[User:Red Deathy|Red Deathy]] ([[User talk:Red Deathy|talk]]) 10:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro, as it stood, pretty much said that socialism was the same as communism. It would have worked much better as an intro for the [[communism]] article than for this one. As such, I have tried re-writing it, taking into account that the word "socialism" may refer either to a system or an ideology, and the fact that different branches of socialism disagree bitterly about many important things. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] ([[User talk:Nikodemos|talk]]) 23:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

:Your rewrite attempt was full of POV and OR. I think that the current version is much better in that respect. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision]] [[User_talk:Vision_Thing|Thing --]] 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
::Please explain which particular elements of my attempt to rewrite the intro were POV or OR. The version to which you reverted isn't all that bad (it's certainly better than the one I found, in any case), but I do believe that it places undue weight on market socialism and doesn't make it clear that the word "socialism" may refer either to a certain type of society or to a certain political ideology (this is different from "liberalism", for example, which refers strictly to a political ideology; or to put it another way, the sentence "I live in socialism" makes sense, but the sentence "I live in liberalism" doesn't).

::On a different note, I continue to be amazed by the ridiculous way in which you not only keep adding that Churchill quote back, but keep removing any counter-quotes - or indeed any mention of the historical context in which Churchill said it, as you just did a couple of days ago. Please understand that it is simply not acceptable, nor possible in the long term, for this article to keep displaying only one side of the argument. This dispute will not end until balance is achieved. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] ([[User talk:Nikodemos|talk]]) 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

:::It's enough to read a second sentience to realize what is wrong with your version: "As a system, socialism is primarily defined by public and ''democratic'' control over productive property and the distribution of wealth". As for Churchill you are only one who objects that quote. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision]] [[User_talk:Vision_Thing|Thing --]] 18:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I object as well, I added information to counter-balance the quote (you were attempting to appeal to superiority-I was adding the context of the election and Atlee's statement regarding the quote, that he beleived the media mogul was speaking through Churchill's mouth), personally I don't think the quote serves any other purpose than your appal to superioirtiy, I can tell you have a desier to use it because it is on your user page, and you obviously have a POV conflict with certin people on this talk page. If you want that quote to stand-I would propose adding what I suggested, I added it before, but you removed it without even explaining why on this talk page (look above).[[Special:Contributions/86.138.248.126|86.138.248.126]] ([[User talk:86.138.248.126|talk]]) 17:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

:Vision Thing, you would revert a whole edit because you disagree with '''one word''' of it? I took that sentence from a previous version of the introduction, and I must have missed the word "democratic" when looking over it. I agree that it does not reflect all forms of socialism. So I will restore my introduction, removing the word "democratic" from it. Is there anything else that you object to?

:Regarding the Churchill quote, the problem is not so much that you wish to include it (that's fine), but rather that you edit out any information providing context or any counter-quotes. Like the anon user above, I find it very hard to assume good faith on your part. I offer two different ways to resolve the dispute: remove the Churchill quote and replace it with a paraphrase, or add a counter-quote from Atlee or the Labour Party. Just because a section is called "criticism", that is not an excuse to violate NPOV. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] ([[User talk:Nikodemos|talk]]) 12:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

::No, that one word was an example. Division between socialism as socio-economic system and socialism as political ideology is artificial and not sourced. Also, while claim that Marxism had a lasting influence on the most branches of socialism is probably true, unsourced claim that most socialists subscribe to views about class exploitation and working class revolution is not.

::Context of Churchill quote is already provided, "during 1945 election campaign". And while I don't have anything against counter-quotes that refute connections of socialism with totalitarianism, quote that accuses capitalism is not a counter-quote, but a new argument that is not connected with the topic of this article. [[User:Vision Thing|-- Vision]] [[User_talk:Vision_Thing|Thing --]] 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Please do not revert without at least giving a general description or list of your objections. And most of all, ''please do not revert wholesale when you only object to parts of an edit''. We've worked on many articles together, and you often revert full edits out of hand only to realize later that, in fact, much of the new text was perfectly acceptable. It seems that every time we have a dispute we must first go through a lengthy reversion process in which I attempt to convince you to read my edits carefully and identify the objectionable parts so that we can discuss them and reach a compromise. It is very tiresome, so why don't we just try to avoid it in the future? Let's skip to the part where we identify contentious fragments and reach a compromise.

:::Now, as for the distinction between socialism as socio-economic system and socialism as political ideology, I thought it would be largely self-evident. I'm not sure what the dispute is. Do you contend that there is no difference between the concept of a political ideology and the concept of a socio-economic system - or do you contend that the word "socialism" is used with only one of these meanings and not both? I am only trying to clarify things for the reader. Consider the phrase "Socialism in Russia", for example. This could mean either the socialist ''movement'' in Russia, or the socialist ''system'' that once existed in Russia. The two are plainly not the same. "Socialism" as a movement existed in Russia in 1905, but "socialism" as a system did not.

:::The claim regarding Marxism was not that most socialists subscribe to views about class exploitation and working class revolution, but rather that most socialists subscribe, however vaguely, to some parts of Marxism. If you think this requires a source I will go find one.

:::If there are any other disputes please state them here. I will now restore my version, ommitting the part about most socialists subscribing to some parts of Marxism. You will probably revert, but I would consider it a sign of good faith if you at least avoided reverting the final paragraph of the intro, which I have shortened so as to eliminate the undue weight given to market socialism.

:::Just saying "during 1945 election campaign" means nothing to the average reader. The anon user above claimed that you reverted him after he tried to provide a quote of Atlee's direct response to Churchill. I will go look through the article history to see if this is true. If there is, you have absolutely no justification for removing that response. As for the claim that the quote I provided is off-topic - perhaps if you consider it so unacceptable here, I should go look for a different one, and place that old quote in, say, [[economic freedom]], in the section about political and economic freedom (since it's a direct counter to Hayekian claims). -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] ([[User talk:Nikodemos|talk]]) 21:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

== Jewish Socialism? ==

I remember there being a section on jewish socialism and contrasting the efforts of socialist jewish organisations and individuals in Russia and Germany opposing the rise of totalitarianism in both countries and zionism, its gone altogether now and its pretty conspiscious by its abscence given that the other main currents of religious socialism are present.

In general this Wiki entry used to be very good but its been totally vandalised by people trying to improve or meddling with it. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/92.1.32.136|92.1.32.136]] ([[User talk:92.1.32.136|talk]]) 09:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: You could be right. Your cherised topic may have been lost or become a link when the edit for length was performed. "Everybody" knows what a critical role Jews have played in Socialism since Marx and before, through Trotsky and the kibbutz movement down to the rump that exists today though so your concern may be misplaced, perhaps enlisting more jews in socialist efforts today would be more effective. Also protecting this article as [[Marxism]] was was/is an option and would inhibit vandalism but there's also something attractive about having it open and defended by the people. [[Special:Contributions/74.78.162.229|74.78.162.229]] ([[User talk:74.78.162.229|talk]]) 16:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

== definition of socialism ==

the definition reported in the beginning doesnt correspond (unlikely to what the note says) to the one of Britannica, that actually is
"social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."

the definition stated only stresses the "control of property" and not the values of equality, solidarity and cooperation. Should be changed to be more neutral, by quoting better the definition of britannica or taking into account examples from wikis in other languages
--[[Special:Contributions/78.13.72.115|78.13.72.115]] ([[User talk:78.13.72.115|talk]]) 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

:Yes I agree, I just read the first two lines in the introduction and got confused. The definition sounds so twisted that it's now completely incomprehensible. The Marxist definition is pretty good though. [[User:WinterSpw|WinterSpw]] ([[User talk:WinterSpw|talk]]) 20:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

::Marxism is just one kind of socialism. Obviously the specialization cannot be a norm for the thing it's a specialization of. [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] ([[User talk:Lycurgus|talk]]) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

::Also, Britannica is not an authoritative source on Socialism (or anything else for that matter), it's just another Encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Wiki is not limited to what whoever owns Britannica now can do. [[Special:Contributions/74.78.162.229|74.78.162.229]] ([[User talk:74.78.162.229|talk]]) 17:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

::Britannica just another Encyclopedia like Wikipedia? That's a good one. Can I try? How about: A Harley is just another bike like my ten-speed... Bogart was just another actor like Matt Damon... Champagne is just another drink like Tab... I think you get the drift. By all means feel free to add your own, it is QUITE an amusing pastime... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/220.246.166.77|220.246.166.77]] ([[User talk:220.246.166.77|talk]]) 15:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Neither Fish nor Fowl ==

The current structure of the article is poor and needs revision before it can advance in quality. It is neither [[History of Socialism]] nor is it not that. I suggest a history major section and seperate one for discussion of discrete concepts. The article can't advance with the current hodgepodge. A new structure could be something like:

* Lede
* <HistoricallyOrganizedMajorSection>
''main article'': [[History of Socialism]]
** Origins
** "other Current history sections chronologically ordered".
* <ConceptuallyOrganizedMajorSection>
** Economics
** Politics
** "other conceptual sections in lex (alphabetic) order"
* See Also
* Notes
* References and further Reading
* External Links

''where''
: the bracketed names are TBD.

Note that we have already had a round of effort about the length so this isn't a call to write an encyclopedia of socialism. This article is about ''Socialism'' not its history so the major exposition should be in the conceptual major section. [[Special:Contributions/74.78.162.229|74.78.162.229]] ([[User talk:74.78.162.229|talk]]) 18:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

:Also in the rework of the <HistoricallyOrganizedMajorSection> the focus should be on the development of the concept of Socialism in theory and praxis rather than history as such, for the same reason. This will eliminate the need to "define" socialism. [[Special:Contributions/74.78.162.229|74.78.162.229]] ([[User talk:74.78.162.229|talk]]) 19:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

== national socialism ==

I think national socialism should be added to the infobox about socialism. After all it's a version of socialism (with elements of nationalism) and thus highly appropriate. Furthermore, national socialism links to nazism which is blatantly POV as the national socialist experiment goes way beyond the nazis, in fact they are merely a part of the national socialist paradigm. [[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 22:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

National Socialism, a type of fascism, is corporatist in nature, it has a much relevance on the Capitalist infobox as the socialism infobox. Simply because Hitler was the head of a party that originally cosidered itelf partially socialist, it does not make the party socialist. This applies for all 'national socialist parties' which are not national liberation movements in nature. The fact of the matter is in Germany Hitler dealt with all subversive left-wing elements in the party with the night of the long knives, additionally his sworn enemies were The social democrats and Marxism, whilst he was allied to the right wing conservatives. This pattern is pretty much universal in all National Socialist/fascist states, with the left always being target no 1. Aside from the fact you are simplyn wrong in beliving national socialism to fit under 'socialism' as it academically known, the broad academic consensus is that you are wrong, and you would have to back up your statement with reliable sources. Additionally, this has already been discussed aaaaaaddddd nnnnaaaaaauuuuusssssssseeeeeeeuuuuuuum.[[Special:Contributions/86.143.98.32|86.143.98.32]] ([[User talk:86.143.98.32|talk]]) 19:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

i have to agree national socialist are not related to traditional socialism in any fourm. socialist always try to fight for the best intrest of the hole society, to where national socialist most always work for the support of the said nations majority rather it be race or religion ect. normaly this produces extream opression of minorities, as to where in real socialism the government works for the betterment of the said nation as a whole.([[User:Slipoutside|Slipoutside]] ([[User talk:Slipoutside|talk]]) 19:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

I jsut thought Id come back to write this, I know its wrong to dissaociae ideologies you don't like just so you don't get called a Nazi for being a socialist, but that is not what my point was. There are some basic tenets for socialism which National socialism does not except, in order to be considered socialism it has to be socialsit in more than just name. However in fact National socialism is no more than socialist in name only. The only truly demonstratable link between national socialism and socialism is that National socialism tends to be modernising and inclusive to the working class, and also (like the majority of socialist governemnts) tends to have some sort of centrally controlled economy, but the difference is whilst socialism has a socilaist planned economy, nazism relies on coprporatism and the use of pre-existing state apparatus to control the workfroce and economy. Additionally, socialism is non-exclusive (that dosen't mean there havent been racist socialists, like Stalin for instance), whilst national socialism is based on race, ethnicity, and national heritage. In essence, the difference between socialism and fascism (national socialism), is that socialism is progressive, left wing and usually revolutionary. Whilst facism (National Socialism), is neo-conservative, right wing and nearly always reactionary.[[Special:Contributions/86.140.39.212|86.140.39.212]] ([[User talk:86.140.39.212|talk]]) 15:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:Are you saying that "socialism" should not be defined by the people who have historically called themselves socialists? The analysis I see above is about whether the national socialists were "corporatist" and whether they "fight for the best intrest of the hole society" ''(sic)'', which seems beside the point. That position is like refusing to include Mormons in a list of Christian sects (no offense intended by using them as an example) because, even though they label themselves as Christians, some group of scholars and/or Wikipedians has determined that they're not ''real'' Christians because their beliefs are too different; or like fans of some media franchise unilaterally declaring something non-canon. I could understand not listing something in one of those infoboxes because it's not significant; for instance I removed "token economy" from a list of economic systems because it seemed to refer only to an obscure economics study. But national socialism was an extremely prominent movement that had, shall we say, an impact on many people. In short, is it the policy here that being an extremely prominent, vocal, self-proclaimed adherant of some ideology isn't enough to get you listed among the versions of that ideology?
:There was similar discussion over at [[Third Way]] some time ago, with people not wanting to mention fascism despite its being a prominent political movement that called itself "third way." Another parallel to that discussion is that both are described as a broad range of ideas. Why would we say that socialism is a big tent while absolutely avoiding mention of a group that declared itself part of that? -[[User:Kris Schnee|Kris Schnee]] ([[User talk:Kris Schnee|talk]]) 15:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::Although there's been no reply here, I see that there's been retooling of the infobox as well as an addition of "national socialism" to [[Types of socialism]]. That's an improvement. Still, it seems odd to have a section in this article about "socialism during the inter-war period and during WWII" and not mention that organization calling itself "national socialist" as having been involved. That should be fixable with a sentence or so. -[[User:Kris Schnee|Kris Schnee]] ([[User talk:Kris Schnee|talk]]) 17:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

== Bizarre edits ==

On 3-4 September, [[User:64.41.6.76]] made several edits to this article. Some seem fairly innocuous; some are stylistically clumsy and apparently non-English ("Bellic interregnum", " ideologic demarcation"), and some are patently absurd("[[Daniel De Leon]] still lives"). I have started to repair this; but it will need more work from others to sort this out; please help. [[User:RolandR|RolandR]] ([[User talk:RolandR|talk]]) 08:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

== Hacks/Bizarre Sabotage comments ==

This article is being sabotaged. I don't know how to check this, but it needs to be corrected. I'll dig around and find out what to do next (for example...opening line: "Socialism refers to giving me doooooom a broad array of ideologies....")[[User:Stevenredd|Stevenredd]] ([[User talk:Stevenredd|talk]]) 01:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

==Socialism's origins are in eastern world==
The control of state, under a tirane that had a status of a god, wasn't created by [[Karl Marx]] or [[Lenin]].In fact old [[Egipt]] had leaders that were god on earth.The land belonged to the leader and god.The core of socialim economic politics are a copy of these politics. again copied by [[Islam]].The easy link between socialists and islamics, to example:[[Saddam Hussein]], [[Nasser]], [[Hafez Al-Assad]], [[Khadafi]],etc. is obvious.
In [[medieval islam]] land was coletivized.The same sistem used in former [[Soviet Union]] for agriculture was just a copy of system used by [[Islam]] more than one thousand years before.Anyone really has freedom under islam or under socialism.Both are [[totalitarianism]]s.There's [[Allah]] in [[Islam]], but [[totalitarianism]] is [[totalitarianism]]. [[User:Agre22|Agre22]] ([[User talk:Agre22|talk]]) 21:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)agre22

Nice of you to include sources in your illogical loony rant. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.140.126.212|86.140.126.212]] ([[User talk:86.140.126.212|talk]]) 20:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== This page needs Semi-Protection. ==

I have seen a lot of vandalism, on this article, just recently. In fact, I just noticed an entire section disappear for no given reason. (fortunately it was put back) [[User:Dursty|Dursty]] ([[User talk:Dursty|talk]]) 00:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

== Sources ==
This page really needs soures and a real clean up. --[[User:The Day That Never Comes|The Day That Never Comes]] ([[User talk:The Day That Never Comes|talk]]) 19:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

== ANC ==

"In South Africa the ANC abandoned its partial socialist allegiances on taking power..."

In fact the ANC is still a member party of the Socialist International. [[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 09:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

== small problem ==

The articles states:
"In the West, neoclassical liberal economists, e.g. Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman"

It is correct to classify Friedman as a neoclassical liberal economist, but Hayek is part of the [[Austrian school]] which does not adhere to neoclassical methodology. --[[User:Jayson Virissimo|Jayson Virissimo]] ([[User talk:Jayson Virissimo|talk]]) 00:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:32, 5 November 2008

Barack Obama

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialism&oldid=249852938"