Talk:Socialism

Socialism Versus Communism and the Political Science Lie

The entire article on socialism emphasizes state and public ownership for the means of production and industry, however that is formal communism!

Socialism is the actions of government to assure affluence of its citizens.

A primary method of socialism to achieve its goals is through elements of a state directed economy, but it assures private ownership!

The article is a political science farce! and an intellectual lie! that communism and socialism are synonymous!

The Americam School of economics and Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures are nowhere to be found on the page and they cannot be included in such pathetic tripe, even though they are the proper examples of socialism!

Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself for pandering to this intellectualy devoid, garbage pile of moronic laden, disinformation!!!

GeMiJa (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream writers to not consider Hamilton's views to be socialist. TFD (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hamilton's views are also seen as contrary to classical economics. There are many comments above directing socialism towards private ownership and away from communism. It leads one to wonder whether contemporary qualifiers are a cooperation of ignorance between extremes: economic libertarians who want to create a villain; and, economic authoritarians willing to accept the role of villain. Either way, the representation is a degenerate direction for political reasoning! GeMiJa (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Too much confusion here. When in doubt, go back to what Marx said. First capitalism, then socialism, then communism (or some sort of self-governing utopia not well defined.) This never implied that capitalism was not part of the other three, and in fact is. Capitalism is micro-socialism, but where the means of production are controlled by an elite few, a private aristocracy. Socialism if state-owned, a public aristocracy, then ideally might be controlled by more democratic means. Communism is by Marx total self-government in small community, or community controlled production more like Native Americans or feudal times under Christianity. (Socialism, after all has two origins, from the social teachings of Christ, and the teachings of Plato and the later Roman Empire.)

Now, dispense with the prejudices. There is no valid reason why a private aristocracy is better than a public one, that has never been proven. Both have their merits, and both have their faults. The real question is economics, which in itself is subject to sociology, psychology, political science, and most of all, human nature. Can the economy be centrally controlled, or not? Until this can be answered, none of the isms matter. And history, and evolution, and natural selection in human nature (not the same as animal natural selection, mind you, but intellectual natural selection) all answer this decisively once the scientific data (history) is evaluated. The answer is, the economy can no more be centrally controlled with any degree of efficiency than biology. People's everyday personal decisions cannot be controlled, which is all economics is, the matter of choice. Thus, communism (or community-controlled economics) is valid, since villages and small communities are best suited to manage their own affairs. The bad news is, Christians and Colonial Americans beat Marx to it by centuries, and Marx failed to grasp that without the morality to keep this system cohesive, it will fall apart like all the rest.

Hope that illuminated some issues here. Jcchat66 (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In the US socialism seems to be equated to communism while in Europe (homeland of Marx & Co), socialism is a broader concept and therefore you have all the "socialist" parties and policies which are obviously capitalistic yet less liberal than most Americans would seem to be comfortable with. South America on the other hand seems to share the North American notion of the term yet some countries call themselves socialist. Dunno if anyone else can agree.

Jcchat66, I found your comments interesting but what does "Christians and Colonial Americans beat Marx to it by centuries,[...]" mean?? Where the Marxist/Stalinist/Socialist/whatever regimes less moral than Christian colonial America, and therefore collapsed? ArticunoWebon (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

By Christian socialism, I mean voluntary socialism, or charity. Christian doctrine states that God requires people to be charitable if they wish to be blessed themselves, and become closer to God. This is also Jewish theology, extended by Christianity. Since Colonial Americans were predominately Christian (even if some were Deists, and did not believe in supernatural intervention), this made voluntary socialism (or rather, a charitable society) possible. On the other hand, Marxism offers no replacement to those same moral principles, except that humans should be forced to be charitable, or charitable for mankind, rather than God. But that has proven not to be much of a motivator, and human nature is generally hostile to compulsion. The paradox of charity is that it must be freely given. Otherwise, it is difficult to distinguish between charity (voluntary) and theft (compulsion). The fact is, Western Europe has been by far the most charitable society ever in human history. Marx did not think it was charitable enough (an opinion unsupported by any evidence or history) and made conclusions based on such opinions. Jcchat66 (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As wikipedia permanently fails for more than ten years to write a descent article about socialism, we might consider it is not possible to achieve the objective of writing such a single article which encompass the wide diversity of views.

Why not to have several articles, on socialism? Then the socialism article could be constituted from a short sentence to explain the lack of consensual definition and unification of such a concept on a worldwide basis is not easy or does not make unanimity.

Such a sentence might be followed by a short list of links to other articles on socialism. Then, those article might provide a more specific view of socialism: if people agree about what an article deals with, the article might be easier to write, with possibilities to handle the diversity of views in the wikipedia way.

Nonetheless it might be not so easy, as the issue is wider even when you consider the issue limited to as small scope: If you consider Category:Socialism in France, it provides both an article Socialism in France which stops in 1960, and an article about François Hollande, a man, socialist, born in 1954. In the same way some opponents to french socialism consider socialist are ruling France for more than thirty years. All this make confusion. If more precise and more accurate words do exist, this might help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.75.160.141 (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Such a short list might be something such as: Portal:Socialism/Categories or Portal:Socialism/Topics. 86.75.160.141 (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That is because no one has established a sociological valid position for socialism, thus, not good articles, and an infinite array of opinions with no supporting evidence. Socialism is the most talked about political doctrine on earth, and yet still remains nothing more than the description of a primitive and archaic aristocracy. Jcchat66 (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

would Bernd Hüppauf be considered a RS here?

i would like to add some material from this rs, without objection, or comment, i will do so soon. http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_huppauf_02_kaiser.html Darkstar1st (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

As you know, such a question cannot be answered in the abstract. What would you like too use the article for, what would you be citing it to establish? In any case, the link you give leads to a "Page Not Found" error. RolandR (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

fixed the link, and i am not sure what you mean by abstract, Bernd is either a well respected historian or he isn't. the specific text is War, violence, and the modern condition. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1997 Darkstar1st (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

People cannot be reliable sources, only writings, unless of course you happen to be a collectivist. Your source does not mention socialism, which makes it irrelevant to this article. TFD (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

actually it does on page 92, and how would you know, have you read the entire book in the 10 minutes since i post the link, if so how did you miss that part? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The original link you provided did not mention a book. On P. 92, the article was not written by Bernd Hüppauf, and the mention of socialism is a quote from a third writer. Please stop wasting my time. It bemuses me that in your long campaign you misrepresent sources. If you think there are sources that support your views, present them, do not find sources and misrepresent them as you did for example with your false claim that an 18th century book you read in a castle used the term "socialist", when it was a typo in a 19th century version. TFD (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

People cannot be reliable sources, and the article was not written by Bernd Hüppauf, are you arguing with yourself? I have supplied the rs, you have not challenged my source, rather suggesting i intend to misuse it, wp:agf. "Your source does not mention socialism", simply untrue as anyone who had read the book would know. "book you read in a castle", you are confused, i live in a normal building with a very old library, the long s/typo debate is not relevant here and could be seen wp:battleground, plz stop. i am confused why you claim i have misrepresented the source as i have yet to make my edit, rather attempting to vet any objections, which i have yet to understand what exactly is your objection to the book? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia guidelines on source reliability, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." So we cannot state whether or not this author or book are in themselves reliable; it depends how you intend to use them, what you intend to cite, and what statement you are trying to confirm with this citation. In the absence of this information then yes, you question remains abstract. RolandR (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hüppauf did not write page 92. His book is a collection of articles by various writers. You should know that. TFD (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

and you should know a source actually can be a writer or even publisher, plz read wp:rs. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop presenting sources you have not bothered to read. You are very capable in starting argumentative discussion threads which wastes everyone's time. We are trying to improve articles not arguing about wacky theories. TFD (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

unless there are any specific objections, i will add the material from the rs. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

NO There have been specific objections above, it is not agreed that this is a reliable source for the edit which you wish to make ─ indeed, you haven't yet responded to the request to indicate just what you intend to establish by using this source. Your latest comment is yet another example of the tendentious editing and refusal to "get the point" which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st. If you make this edit, against consensus and despite the repeated complaints about your behaviour, then I will seek immediate editing restrictions on you. You have wasted more than enough of our time; please go away and troll elsewhere.RolandR (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

RolandR, i simply ask if anyone had an objection to the specific text, which they do not, apparently (one editor, who has not read the book mistakenly thought the term socialism did not appear in the text, but was proven wrong, page 92), however, to ease your concerns, i will post the edit i wish to make here 1st. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Already discussed. You are misrepresenting text out of a book you have not read or understood. TFD (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

actually i have never used this text in an edit or proposal, plz strike-thru and read wp:agf Darkstar1st (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You used this text in an edit you made 20 October 2012.[1] TFD (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

perhaps why wp:agf was written, that is not the text i intend to use, and the text i wish to include is speaking of socialism, not state socialism and it is very different from the text i used in the article you posted. what makes your accusation so annoying is only a few post ago you claimed the term socialism does not even appear in the book, the same book you claim i have not read. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Same book, same page (92), same mistake about who actually wrote it, but you plan to use a different text from that page? Why have you continued to argue with editors without explaining what edit you suggest. TFD (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

actually it is your same mistake, if you will read wp:rs you will learn rs is not limited to writers. editors, publishers, etc are also included as rs. the term appears on more than one page of the book. why are you making assumptions? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Your discussion heading says, "would Bernd Hüppauf be considered a RS here?" Then you provide a page written by someone else. Instead of wasting other editors' time, who should first read some of the sources you provide. TFD (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

TDF he is the editor and a rs, unless there is some objection other than the WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT above. since i have not presented the text i plan to use, you are making an assumption of who wrote it at the same time not following wp:agf, plz stop. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

RS does not say that. You claimed anyway that Hüppauf wrote the text. Either you had not read your source and were mistaken or you were misleading. What is worse, I pointed this out to you before you began this discussion thread and you acknowledged it. Were you aware that this new source was the same source you had introduced earlier? If you read your sources you would be more likely to remember them. TFD (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

actually it does WP:RS the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work it is you who misunderstood the wp:rs to be limited to writers. so, do you or anyone else object to this specific book, if not, i will add my edit, otherwise, plz be specific. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not say that because writings by an editor of a book are reliable that each article is. If you get the chance to read fascism anthologies you will find that some articles are written by actual fascists and fail rs. Regardless you did not say he was the editor, you said he was the writer. There is a difference. TFD (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

if you wish to debate the nuances, plz take it to my talk page. do you have an objection to the book or not? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

For the nth time, you cannot ask "Is this source reliable?"; you need to show how you intend to use it. As noted above, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I asked you nearly six weeks ago "What would you like too use the article for, what would you be citing it to establish?" You have not replied, though you have had plenty of time to do so. Meanwhile, you have exhausted the good faith and patience of nearly every other editor on every article you have worked on, and you have ignored the RfC on your tendentious and uncollaborative editing. Please stop wasting our time. RolandR (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Feedback

Last month, User:Blackcloak wrote in the feedback form for this article that "This article is largely incomprehensible because it assumes too much of its reader. The intro is way too dense. (...)" I second that. While I do not advocate over-simplification, I think we should be reminded that Wikipedia is written for a general public and its articles should not assume any prior knowledge of its readers. The first paragraphs should indeed be a concise and summarising introduction into the topic, and cannot discuss all possible different views on, and forms of socialism. We can expect that readers first want to know what socialism in in general, before some might want to go in the details of different concepts and forms of socialism.

Other, unregistered, users seem to be of a similar opinion writing that "This article is too complex and difficult to understand. It would appear that you would need an understanding of Socialism to understant this page, which defies the point of an encyclopedia. Adjusting accordingly would make this page much easier to comprehend, and therefore, learn from", or "It is way too technical. Hard to understand for the average reader without any background knowledge.", or "This wiki was to complicated and hard to keep up with what its trying to say." We really should take this feedback into account, because Wikipedia is written for its readers. --RJFF (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree.--R-41 (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

How do you suggest we simplify it without devoiding the content of substantial meaning? It would be a difficult process; if the suggestion is to define socialism by some vague set of values, then you run the risk of making it appear to be little more than social liberalism (in the popular American meaning). The first paragraph is fairly straightforward as it is; most dictionaries define socialism as public, state or common ownership of the means of production. If a reader is confused about what social ownership means, he or she can easily click on the link and figure out what it means exactly. Part of the reason the definition given is probably difficult for readers to understand is because socialism is not a simple concept and has many different variations. There is no really simple and easy way to express that socialism entails an economic system and corresponding set of social relations based on an alternative dynamic to the system of capital accumulation and the profit system - and then try to explain all the different political strategies associated with socialists for bringing such an order into existence! In light of that, I think the article does a good job of explaining what socialism is. -Battlecry 10:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The social ownership article has been moved into the article Socialization (economics). Your statements on socialism's relations with social liberalism have assumptions underlying them. You seem to assume that socialism must be anti-liberal, because you associate the entirety of liberalism with capitalism. Social democratic founder Eduard Bernstein saw socialism as an extension of liberalism, he called socialism an "organized liberalism" and stated that socialists could and should work together with progressive liberals. There is no explanation of the basic motives of socialism in any plain language anywhere in the intro nor the text, and multiple users have said they cannot understand nor read the article because it is too complex.--R-41 (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I make no assumptions regarding the relationship of socialism and liberalism. It is up to individual socialists and parties to decide whether or not they take socially liberal positions on current issues or not; that is irrelevant to the definition of socialism. The ultimate aim of socialism and social liberalism considers differently: socialists aim for an alternative socio-economic system from capitalism, one that they believe will usher in genuine freedom and equality that liberalism/capitalism cannot deliver. Liberals, on the other hand, are driven by ideals and improving conditions for the masses within the current socio-economic framework (capitalism), without attributing such issues or considering them to the structural issues of capitalism. Insinuating that socialism is just an extension of social liberalism a la the ideology of the United States Democratic party reads like anti-socialist conservative propaganda. The current article does not say that socialism is anti-liberal, nor that it is pro-liberal. That issue is irrelevant to the definition of socialism given in most academic encyclopedias on economics and political economy. However, it is plainly obvious that the basic motives of socialism is NOT to establish a welfare state, regulation of capitalism or equality in wages (the goals of modern liberalism) - such measures would not be needed in a non-capitalist, socialist economy that all socialists aim for due to the change in ownership structure and orientation of the economy in socialism. -Battlecry 08:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Back on topic of readers' criticism: RJFF's criticisms are backed by multiple complaints by readers of this article. Multiple readers say this article is unreadable, and per Wikipedia:Readers first that RJFF mentioned, I agree that it needs to be re-written.--R-41 (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I used the WP:BACKLOG incoming wikilink priority system to get a list of the too-technical articles sorted by incoming links, which is now on my user page. This article was on the top of the list, so I've made a simple "Introduction" section which I hope addresses it. I am very interested in further feedback. Neo Poz (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Should wikipedia cater to fringe views?

Should wikipedia cater to fringe views, like the view that the Soviet Union wasn´t socialist? A50000 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not a fringe view and warrants a brief message. Not everyone believes that in the Soviet Union the people had effective control and owership of the economy and that the Communist Party represented the popular will. TFD (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be using the word socialism as a synonym for democracy. In that case the term socialism is completely redundant and useless. A50000 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No it would mean that the concept is useless and redundant. TFD (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What concept? A50000 (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Socialism. TFD (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What is your point? A50000 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You argued that because in democratic countries the people have effective control and owership of the economy that the term socialism is useless and redundant. My point is that is an argument that the concept, not the term, is useless and redundant. TFD (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood what I wrote. You seem to be using the word socialism as a synonym for democracy. If what you really mean is democracy then you can just use that word. Using the word socialism when what you really mean is democracy just creates confusion. A50000 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The definition of democracy does not necessarily mean that the people have effective control and owership of the economy. TFD (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So, are you now claiming that socialism and democracy are in fact different concepts? A50000 (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed they were the same concept. TFD (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement. Socialism has fuck all to do with democracy. A50000 (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a form of democracy where the people have effective control and ownership of the economy and government represents the popular will. Hence the discussion about whether or not socialism was achieved in the Soviet Union. TFD (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You have it backwards. Capitalism is a system where the people (ie the private sector) control the economy. A50000 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

A50000. you have it backwards. As I said, if under capitalism, the people control the economy then the concept of socialism is useless and redundant. Your theory is well explained in Louis Hartz's Liberal Tradition in America, in Daniel Bell's End of Ideology, Seymour Martin Lipset's It didn't happen here, and Fukuyami's The End of History and the Last Man. TFD (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, the concept of socialism? I have no idea what you are trying to say. A50000 (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If you do not understand what "concept" means, I suggest you consult a dictionary. TFD (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Don´t evade the question. Explain what you mean. A50000 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The concept of socialism, as opposed to the term. Terms are words or phrases used in language to denote concepts. TFD (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference? A50000 (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think, what tfd is explaining is that if in a capitalist society, the "people" had ownership of the means of production, and so on, there would be no need for the concept socialism, as the terms capitalism and socialism would be synonymous (because capitalism would not be capitalism, but would be what we understand to be socialism (the concept)), and therefore, the concept of socialism would be redundant, because there would be no difference between the two terms. I'm not sure how much more tfd can clarify than has already been done. -- in capitalism, ownership is described as private (which you noted, but also stated "the people") -- yes, 'people' are the owners (and not machines or other animals?) but not people as a whole, or a collective, not "the people" ... I'm imaging this is where your confusion is coming from? Hence, redundant concept (because you were applying the concept of socialism to the term capitalism)AnieHall (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You have it backwards. TFD was applying the concept of capitalism to the term socialism. A50000 (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that trying to prove that the Soviet Union wasn´t socialist by re-defining the word socialism is just ridiculous. A50000 (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it is ridiculous trying to prove the Soviet Union was socialist by re-defining the word socialist. So the Soviets said they were socialist. You may believe everything the Communists said, but I do not. TFD (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It was you who was re-defining the word socialism, not I. You conflated socialism with democracy, which has fuck all to do with socialism, and with capitalism, which is the opposite of socialism. A50000 (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I prefer obrain my information from reliable sources rather than what someone tells me on the internet. TFD (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

And these reliable sources claim that socialism is in fact capitalism (ie private ownership of the means of production) and vice versa? A50000 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

These reliable sources claim that socialism is in fact public ownership of the means of production. TFD (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

So you have stopped claiming that socialism means private ownership of the means of production? A50000 (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I never made that claim. TFD (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You claimed that socialism is a system where the people control the economy. So you basically equated socialism with capitalism. A50000 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, TDF wrote that under socialism "the people have effective control and ownership of the economy" There is a significant difference between "the people" and "people", and if you don't understand that you will have great difficulty in editing this article. RolandR (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that you have misunderstood what I wrote. In a capitalist system, the people control the economy. In a socialist system, the people do not control the economy. In a socialist system the people can only have indirect control, at best. A50000 (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That, in my opinion, is 9a complete inversion of reality. And I doubt that you would find any consensus toi change the article to reflect that view. In any case, unless you intend to propose a specific edit, this thread is superfluous soapboxing, and is not contributing to improving the article. RolandR (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Asking whether wikipedia should cater to fringe views is not soapboxing. A50000 (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A50000, It is a stretch to claim that when socialism was developed in the early 19th century that the people controlled the economy. In most European countries, a small elite controlled the economy with government protection and in the world's most free nation, the United States, a large section of the population was enslaved or in bonded servitude. Land which was the main source of economic output was usually owned by the Crown and leased to individuals of their choice. Much of the world were colonies, where the economy was owned by foreign capitalists, such as the East India Company. TFD (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism. A50000 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

So when Marx coined the term "capitalism", wrote the book Capital and said that he wanted to overthrow capitalism he was confused because there was no capitalism in his lifetime. TFD (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not claimed that capitalism did not exist in Marx´s time. Please stop with these strawman arguments. A50000 (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

TFD, you are a capitalist who think´s he´s a socialist. You have redefined the word socialism so that it actually means capitalism. In your world the Soviet Union was capitalist while the United States is socialist. A50000 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No, A50000, you are a capitalist who thinks that all socialism is state socialism, that capitalism just means a non-centrally planned economy and that private ownership is the same as social ownership. To clear up your confusion, I suggest you just start by reading the first two sentences of the article:

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.

'Social ownership' not state ownership. Social ownership meaning that The People own the means of production, not individual persons but people as a group. Hence stuff like land to the farmers, the factories to the workers, the idea is that the workers in a factory own the factory, the machines, the tools communally or 'socially'. That's what they mean with Social Ownership or 'the people control the economy', not just that it's owned by individual people.

/Some/ socialists believe that the way to achieve and manage such Social Ownership is through the state and a state-controlled economy, some but not all. Some believe in co-ops or syndicalism, that the capitalists idea of private property is the problem and only made possible by the state, some believe in trading the product of labour in a market, some don't, some don't even in believe a state. In fact most Anarchists would consider themselves a form of socialism (and early anarchists where often acknowledged to be socialists by others including Marx and Engels, until they wanted communism to be the only 'valid' form of socialism).

That's also where the idea that the Soviet Union wasn't really a socialist state comes from. Yes, the economy was controlled by the state and property was 'public property'. But the state wasn't truly controlled by the people so the means of production were owned by the state, but not at all by the people. Neither directly or indirectly through a democratic worker's state.

I would say the early Soviet Union was socialist, but it become mainly just totalitarian under Stalin. I'll leave it at that, this shouldn't turn into a capitalism vs. socialism debate, just clarifying some things, hopefully. CyberWasteland (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing socialism with syndicalism. A50000 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you are confusing what mainstream writers say with what you read on fringe sites. TFD (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That may well be, but the fact still remains that he is confusing socialism with syndicalism. A50000 (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the view that the Soviet Union wasn´t socialist is not a fringe view? A50000 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That's your own view, and you are entitled to believe that. But Lenin wrote a book called Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, so this is clearly not just a "fringe theory". RolandR (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the view that the Soviet Union wasn´t socialist is not a fringe view? A50000 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's you who raised the issue. Do you have any evidence that it is?RolandR (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So that´s a no then? Just as I suspected. A50000 (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, socialism, obviously, is not the same as democracy, but just because the terms are not synonymous does not mean that they have f. all to do with each other. For instance, an apple and an apple pie are not the same thing, but that does not mean that an apple has nothing to do with an apple pie.AnieHall (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a fringe view. The question would appear to refer to a revert I made of A5000's edit. The text had stated "During the course of the 20th century, states run by Marxist-Leninist parties implemented various economic systems"; A5000 replaced this, without any explanation, with "During the course of the 20th century, the socialist states implemented various economic systems." I reverted, with the edit summary "It is highly POV to assert that these were "the socialist states". Not everyone will agree, and the previous usage was clearer and factually correct". I don't believe that this is a fringe position, I think my edit summary is perfectly accurate and legitimate, and I think that in the summary above A5000 oversimplifies and distorts what I wrote.

If A5000 wants to alter the text to her/his preferred version, then let's discuss that wording here, not some hypothetical debate about what is or is not a fringe view. RolandR (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No A50000, it's not a fringe view. In fact it's the conventional wisdom of most modern socialists, Trotskyites and others, outside of the remaining existing communist states whom they also don't see as socialist. See deformed workers' state, state capitalism, etc. etc. So contrary to your statement the reverse is true, it's mainstream within the community of interest, not fringe. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

All of which you have just said above is opinion - an opinion not held by socialists like social democrats or Mensheviks or collectivist anarchists or anarcho-syndicalists who condemned the Soviet Union for delivering a false and hollow socialism in practice and for being a tyranny. Your opinion above, and your behaviour on articles relating to socialism, confirms that you have a clear anti-socialist POV and thus that you have no business even attempting to claim that your efforts here are are to improve understanding of this ideology, your real intentions here are to discredit the ideology.--R-41 (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Even many Marxists and Leninists now say that they were not socialist. Also there is an almost limitless amount of evidence proving that the ideas and beliefs of socialism, communism, or Marxism, and the Soviet Union have almost nothing in common, and no proof that they were socialists other than 'that's what they called themselves'. I would say that after consulting logic, almost all socialists between 1000BC and the present day, and the evidence, it would be factually inaccurate to refer to them as anything other than 'nominally socialist', and ideally 'state capitalist'. Sarg Pepper (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

all socialists between 1000BC and the present day (were actually) capitalist, well said sarg. perhaps we should add a line or two about the historical absence of socialism in practice? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, you either misunderstand, or deliberately distort, what another editor has written. Sarg Pepper did not say that "all socialists between 1000BC and the present day (were actually) capitalist"; s/he said that the Soviet Union and its allies were "nominally socialist", or even "state capitalist". RolandR (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

a state capitalist is a capitalist, perhaps you can explain how that is a distortion. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Which comment shows that you have neither read what is written above, nor have the least comprehension of this subject and its terminology. RolandR (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

or maybe it is you lacking comprehension? states that own controlling shares of publicly listed corporations, effectively acting as a large shareholder or a capitalist Darkstar1st (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, to put this another way -- the Democratic Republic of Korea calls itself "democratic", but few would argue that it actually is. At various stages in the soviet union, there were certain times and areas where market economies were allowed within the state. So it would be difficult to say that the ussr was fully socialist - but most, if not all, states have a mixed economy to some extent. And it would be pretty difficult to be completely socialist when competing against hyper-capitalist usa... anyways. it's certainly safe to say that the USSR was not Marxist, as much as the state might have claimed. The term socialist can be used more vaguely than Marxism can, though. Anyways, back to the point of this thread, I think? ... Roland explained:

"The text had stated "During the course of the 20th century, states run by Marxist-Leninist parties implemented various economic systems"; A5000 replaced this, without any explanation, with "During the course of the 20th century, the socialist states implemented various economic systems." I reverted, with the edit summary "It is highly POV to assert that these were "the socialist states". Not everyone will agree, and the previous usage was clearer and factually correct"" - this logic seems pretty clear. "Marxist-Leninist parties" is more precise than "socialist states". A socialist state "implementing various economic systems" would be somewhat contradictory to the term. And while the "various economic systems" may not be necessarily a part of Marxist-Leninist theory, the sentence refers to the "parties" which can do all sorts of contradictory things. So... this debate surrounding the definition of socialism and democracy and their relationship, or lack thereof, and whether the ussr not being socialist (or whatever) is a fringe issue, is all completely unnecessary, unless someone is proposing to change Roland's revert? or something else in this article? Which I haven't noticed?AnieHall (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the position that the Soviet system was not representative of socialism is certainly not a fringe view. This position is held by many notable scholars in political science and economics, including Marxist-Leninist leaning academics such as David McNally, and notable non-academic Marxist-Leninist economists like Ernest Mandel and Tony Cliff, who believed the USSR was only in the process of transitioning to some form of socialism, but had not yet achieved (or would be unable to ever achieve) socialism-proper. -Battlecry 08:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The Soviet people who knew the tyranny of Stalin's gulags knew that Stalinist "socialism" was a cruel joke. So much so, that the post-Stalin Soviet Union encouraged anti-Stalinist literature, such as the famous book One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962) written by famous Gulag survivor and Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, that mocked the falseness of Stalinism by noting how forced labour at the Gulags was claimed by the Stalinists to be "rehabilitation" and part of "Socialist Community Development", that everyone knew was a lie. And this anti-Stalinist book was published with the support of the government of the Soviet Union. The 1960s-era Soviet Union completely rejected Stalin as being a man who corrupted the intentions and goals of the October Revolution and Lenin's goals, they executed Stalin's henchman Beria, so in the view of the Soviet government in the 1960s - from the late 1920s to 1953 the Soviet Union was not genuinely socialist, but a tyranny.--R-41 (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TFD, RolandR, and others that this is not a fringe view. Sources should be abundant. Here's a video discussion: [2] causa sui (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Feedback (redux)

Last month, User:Blackcloak wrote in the feedback form for this article that "This article is largely incomprehensible because it assumes too much of its reader. The intro is way too dense. (...)" I second that. While I do not advocate over-simplification, I think we should be reminded that Wikipedia is written for a general public and its articles should not assume any prior knowledge of its readers. The first paragraphs should indeed be a concise and summarising introduction into the topic, and cannot discuss all possible different views on, and forms of socialism. We can expect that readers first want to know what socialism in in general, before some might want to go in the details of different concepts and forms of socialism.

Other, unregistered, users seem to be of a similar opinion writing that "This article is too complex and difficult to understand. It would appear that you would need an understanding of Socialism to understant this page, which defies the point of an encyclopedia. Adjusting accordingly would make this page much easier to comprehend, and therefore, learn from", or "It is way too technical. Hard to understand for the average reader without any background knowledge.", or "This wiki was to complicated and hard to keep up with what its trying to say." We really should take this feedback into account, because Wikipedia is written for its readers. --RJFF (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree.--R-41 (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

How do you suggest we simplify it without devoiding the content of substantial meaning? It would be a difficult process; if the suggestion is to define socialism by some vague set of values, then you run the risk of making it appear to be little more than social liberalism (in the popular American meaning). The first paragraph is fairly straightforward as it is; most dictionaries define socialism as public, state or common ownership of the means of production. If a reader is confused about what social ownership means, he or she can easily click on the link and figure out what it means exactly. Part of the reason the definition given is probably difficult for readers to understand is because socialism is not a simple concept and has many different variations. There is no really simple and easy way to express that socialism entails an economic system and corresponding set of social relations based on an alternative dynamic to the system of capital accumulation and the profit system - and then try to explain all the different political strategies associated with socialists for bringing such an order into existence! In light of that, I think the article does a good job of explaining what socialism is. -Battlecry 10:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The social ownership article has been moved into the article Socialization (economics). Your statements on socialism's relations with social liberalism have assumptions underlying them. You seem to assume that socialism must be anti-liberal, because you associate the entirety of liberalism with capitalism. Social democratic founder Eduard Bernstein saw socialism as an extension of liberalism, he called socialism an "organized liberalism" and stated that socialists could and should work together with progressive liberals. There is no explanation of the basic motives of socialism in any plain language anywhere in the intro nor the text, and multiple users have said they cannot understand nor read the article because it is too complex.--R-41 (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I make no assumptions regarding the relationship of socialism and liberalism. It is up to individual socialists and parties to decide whether or not they take socially liberal positions on current issues or not; that is irrelevant to the definition of socialism. The ultimate aim of socialism and social liberalism considers differently: socialists aim for an alternative socio-economic system from capitalism, one that they believe will usher in genuine freedom and equality that liberalism/capitalism cannot deliver. Liberals, on the other hand, are driven by ideals and improving conditions for the masses within the current socio-economic framework (capitalism), without attributing such issues or considering them to the structural issues of capitalism. Insinuating that socialism is just an extension of social liberalism a la the ideology of the United States Democratic party reads like anti-socialist conservative propaganda. The current article does not say that socialism is anti-liberal, nor that it is pro-liberal. That issue is irrelevant to the definition of socialism given in most academic encyclopedias on economics and political economy. However, it is plainly obvious that the basic motives of socialism is NOT to establish a welfare state, regulation of capitalism or equality in wages (the goals of modern liberalism) - such measures would not be needed in a non-capitalist, socialist economy that all socialists aim for due to the change in ownership structure and orientation of the economy in socialism. -Battlecry 08:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Back on topic of readers' criticism: RJFF's criticisms are backed by multiple complaints by readers of this article. Multiple readers say this article is unreadable, and per Wikipedia:Readers first that RJFF mentioned, I agree that it needs to be re-written.--R-41 (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have copied this important section from above, that was being ignored by most, because of the drawn-out dispute immediately above this. The issues addressed by RJFF and several other users, need to be addressed.--R-41 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have a hard time seeing the merit in this complaint. The first paragraph of this article includes links that further define terms. the second sentence of the first paragraph even goes into definition. There is only so much a subject can be watered down before meaning begins to be lost. For instance, it might be hard to understand what a molecule is without understanding what elements are, and it might be difficult to understand what an element is without understanding what atoms are, and so on -- but that doesn't mean that an article on molecules should have to explain what atoms are and so on.

That being said, I don't think that there is Not room for improvement in the wording of this article, so there could be improvements in clarity, and hopefully also reader comprehension ? It might be more fruitful to propose suggestions for better clarity? I would just err on the side of caution, as it is easy to accidentally change the meaning of a sentence with innocent appearing changes in terms (ie above with the Marxist-Leninist parties vs. socialist states), and then instead of discussing what an improvement might or might not be, we digress into cold war rhetoric as above...AnieHall (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence of WP:WEIGHT being used in the sections on the various types of socialism described in the article. The article goes on and on trying to examine sectarian caveats of socialism from policy to history, without giving any overall big picture about what were and are the major elements and history within socialism. There are independent articles on the different variants of socialism that can examine those in detail without WP:WEIGHT issues. The article meanders from giving specific examples to jumping to talking about theory. The sections and subsections are very jumbled and random, to me I see little coherence in the article because it is badly organized. I believe this article needs major reorganization and condensing to major themes and major historical topics. We have to keep in mind Wikipedia:Readers first as a priority here as RJFF has noted, there have been several complaints about this article being unreadable, these complaints should be taken seriously.--R-41 (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

For instance? and what might be better? I'm not implying I disagree, but it would be easier to agree or disagree and move forward on specificsAnieHall (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Economics, Political and Social Theory and Politics sections are organized well - not necessarily complete, but they touch upon the major aspects of socialism - but I can agree the History and Criticisms and perhaps even the Philosophy sections are poorly organized and inconsistent. Was there any consensus for removing the sentences on actually-existing socialism (economic systems of previous socialist states) from the lede? -Battlecry 07:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The social and political theory section is in my view one of the worst sections, all of its subsections are dichotomies all based on classical Marxist interpretation, which gives this article a Marxist POV. First of all, this article needs to get the history section sorted out, before any progress can be made anywhere else. The history section is the one section where the different significant sectional factions of socialism can be described in chronological order as they arose in response to the circumstances of those times. Once that is done, the issue of representation of the significant sectional factions will be resolved through the history section by the significance of their historical influence on socialism. The history section can provide the links to the various significant sectional factions. Second of all, we will need to use scholarly studies of the history of socialism as a whole, and not material on what the "ideal" socialism should be, that commonly reflect sectional factions. This is not "watering down" what it is, because that is an irrational supposition implies that any description of an ideology as a whole "waters it down" - thereby implying that a undiluted "pure" version exists that is diluted when other "tainted" versions are brought in, such a supposition has strong POV implications.--R-41 (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i see your points. I'd like to clarify, though -- by "watered down" I was referring to the complaint that the article is "too complex" -- and using more general terms or words rather then more specific ones could "water down" or muddy the meaning - (i.e. the Marxist-Leninist parties v. socialist states) a seemingly innocent change can give unintended and inaccurate meaning. I did not say that providing a greater variety of POV (liberal, realist, "neutral" if attainable, whatever) or better organisation would water down the article - it may make it bulkier, but in my opinion (which is not universal), the more the better... unless it's a total tangent or obviously obscure or superfluous.AnieHall (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that proposals for a concise history section be presented here, that covers the history of major events involving the ideology of socialism. Discussions and improvements can be worked on here, and a balanced and rationally-organized history section can be obtained. That would be a major improvement.--R-41 (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The social and political theory section is not based on a "classical Marxist" interpretation. While there is a section on Marxism and a section on one dichotomy within Marxism (revolutionary versus reformism), the section as a whole tries to present common dichotomies present in socialist thought and non-Marxist perspectives (such as Institutionalist perspectives on socialism). Does it cover all the dichotomies? No, and there is definitely room for expansion. It is definitely not biased in favor of a classical Marxist PoV.-Battlecry 06:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It is better to cover the factions of socialism in the history section, where their context in terms of time and economic and political circumstances that affected their policies and development, can be shown chronologically and with considerations to WP:WEIGHT. The article titled "social ownership" has been merged into the article titled Socialization (economics). The description of socialization on that article presents a far better description of what the general aim of socialist economics is when it says: "In socialist economics, the term usually refers to the process of restructuring economic production toward producing goods and services directly for use and away from producing for private profit, along with the end of the operation of the laws of capitalism." Now that is much better because it describes exactly what the motive of socialism is, transforming economic production away from production for private-for-profit reasons to production for use.--R-41 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have re-written and reorganized portions of the intro to clarify socialism's stances. For instance that socialists have acknowledged that there are capitalist forms of socialization that they reject. As well as explaining socialism's opposition to capitalism. I think these descriptions of socialism are hard to find disagreement with.--R-41 (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff has rejected my changes while providing zero reasons for removing what I added. The material I added I regard as being completely consistent with the general definition that was on the page prior to my changes, but clarified matters, and importantly included the motives of socialism in the intro. There is something called WP:BOLD when little to no changes are being made, my changes did not substantially alter the consensus of the definition on the article. To Somedifferentstuff and others, what specifically is wrong with what I changed?--R-41 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the second paragraph you added, the material is highly PoV in asserting that all socialists condemn efficiency and that socialists believe all material wealth should be owned by society. These positions are definitely not shared by all socialists, the way it reads is something I would expect from an emotion-driven teenage liberal who thinks socialism is basically about sharing and caring and the condemnation of "greed". While some of the sources are welcome additions to be implemented in the lede, the material will have to be re-written to be less PoV. On the whole, because this subject is highly sensitive, I think discussion of the various motives of different socialist groups would best be left to the Philosophy section. The lede should be more descriptive, providing a general overview of the parameters that would make an economic system socialist (social ownership, cooperative management, production for use).

As for your other changes, "social ownership" is more appropriate wording than "socialization", especially since socialization can refer to three different things: institution of economic planning, institution of public/collective ownership, or public subsidization. Consequently, "de-privatization" is not required and only obfuscates the definition. Socialism is best described as a descriptive category for socio-economic systems based on some form of social ownership. -Battlecry 07:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The "social ownership" article has been merged into "socialization", the common term is "socialization". The intro I proposed precisely described what was meant by socialization. Now again there is no description of the motives of socialism. It never claimed that socialists "condemn" the idea of efficiency in its entirety, it said that socialism rejects capitalism's overbearing emphasis on principles of efficiency as well as the profit motive at the expense of other principles that are ignored. Besides, the term "efficiency" has a very specific meaning in the practice of capitalist economies, in capitalism it refers to the maximum achievement of the profit motive a.k.a. the "bottom line", commonly regardless of the social consequences resulting from the maximization of profit, such as through the creation of production technologies that allow layoffs of workers so that more product can be produced faster and with less wages needing to be given out.--R-41 (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The material in the intro draft I added says that socialism believes that material wealth is a social product produced through cooperation, that is the essential basis of socialism's labour rights agenda, that workers' contribution into the economy have to be recognized because their labour was required to produce it. And yes, socialism is about a sociable society - that society requires cooperation to function in the first place and rejects the classical liberal view that that society is just individuals each pursuing their own self-interest confined within laws that does not take into account of social bonds or community. And socialism is indeed about condemnation of the culture of greed it sees as being inherently promoted within capitalism for its consequences on society. These are basic socialist values, they are not from an "emotion-driven teenage liberal" that you are implying that I am - I am not a teenager and such a statement is both violation of assume good faith and an offensive example of ageist prejudice, I have known genius adolescent people and I suspect your ageist prejudice against adolescent people to be based on a crass stereotypical outlook of them.--R-41 (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The first socialist society was the USSR

according to Geoffrey Alan Hosking is a historian of Russia and the Soviet Union and formerly Leverhulme Research Professor of Russian History at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies at University College, London. The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within ...By Geoffrey A. Hosking Harvard University Press, 1993. unless there be any objections, i will add the rs. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Given: (1) the nebulousness of the term of what is 'socialism' within this article; (2) that RS authors maintain that the USSR was not socialist (by a varying number of yardsticks), there are considerations of WP:UNDUE to take into account.--Red Deathy (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

On which page does he make that claim? TFD (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

i assume you are joking, as it is the title of his book, however, if not, one of the many times/ways he explains/makes the claim is on page 54. Darkstar1st (talk)

Fifty Shades of Grey is not about paint colours. Book titles don't always accurately reflect their contents. HiLo48 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, did you have an objection to the inclusion of the edit i propose The first socialist society was the USSR or RS? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My personal view has long been that Aboriginal Australian society has been socialist for the past 40,000 years, and to some extent still is. This causes massive clashes of understanding between such peoples and other Australians. Whether you will find sources supporting that, I don't know, but Hosking's view can only ever be described as Hosking's view. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What does he say on page 54? TFD (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

that they were the first socialist society. and why did you ask me for the page number if you aren't going to read the book?Darkstar1st (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do have an objection. Until you quote exactly what Hosking says, and how you propose to use this in the article, this will be unacceptable. And in any case, it should almost certainly be ascribed to Hosking, not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. What does Hosking write? RolandR (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

the section title is the edit i propose, i also put the edit in italics in my previous comment, have you read it? if you wish to attribute it to hosking, i will not object or revert. i told you exactly what he said and page number, see above Darkstar1st (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now found this title at Google Books, and page 54 does not say anything of the kind. Looks like you are playing free and easy with sources again. Given your past behaviour, I no longer view your presentation of sources with good faith; every time they have been checked, you have been shown to be, at best, mistaken. Frankly, I am getting very fed up with your constant attempts to bamboozle other editors into accepting your misrepresentations. RolandR (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

you are looking at the wrong edition perhaps, which do you have? have you read the book, or just the one page? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

source 2, the actual constitution

For the first time in the history of mankind a socialist society was created. CONSTITUTION(FUNDAMENTAL LAW)OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS Adopted at the Seventh (Special) Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Ninth Convocation, On October 7, 1977 Novosti Press Agency Publishing House Moscow, 1985 Darkstar1st (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Constitutions are not rs for how the countries are actually governed. TFD (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

source 3 Columbia University Press

The Soviet Union was the first state to be based on Marxist socialism from the article on socialism The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. 2011, Columbia University Press. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on! The USSR constitution is clearly not a reliable or acceptable source for this edit. The Columbia Encyclopedia states that the Soviet Union was "the first state to be based on Marxist socialism". If you can't see the difference between that and "the USSR was the first socialist society", then your reading comprehension skills are even lower than I thought. And once again, as on every previous occasion when you have been challenged, you refuse to cite the exact text from the source which you intend to use to support your edit. I no longer believe that you are here to edit an encyclopaedia; it's obvious that you are a time-wasting POV troll. Please go away and find another game to play. RolandR (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

i am equally exasperated you think a book titled The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within by a professor of russian history is somehow inadequate as a source for the edit, The First Socialist Society was the USSR. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Israeli historian Ilan Pappé wrote a book called The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. If I tried to cite the title of the book as a source for adding "Palestine was ethnically cleansed" to an article, I would be (rightly) laughed off the page, and probably sanctioned. Your proposal is no different; please quote what you want to use from Hosking's book, and what edit you wish to support with this. Otherwise, stop prevaricating and go elsewhere. RolandR (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

perhaps you are confused about which page you are being laughed off? Ilan is a rs, his book is currently a rs here 1948 Palestinian exodus the expulsion of the Palestinians...ethnic cleansing Darkstar1st (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am in no way confused, and that is what I said above. Pappé is a reliable source, and specific pages from the book are being cited for specific statements. No-one is trying to cite the book's title as evidence that his thesis is fact. I repeat, what statement from Hosking's book do you wish to cite, in order to support what edit? RolandR (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

drop the stick and back away from the horse slowly Ilan Pappé, 2006 is the exact source, not a page number, not someone retyping the entire book for you here, just a simple cite to s rs. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, each use of the book is accompanied by a page number. The title of the book is not, and could not be, used as evidence that its argument is verifiable. RolandR (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

false

• a b c d e f g h i j Ilan Pappé, 2006, is citation #18, no page number.

a has no page number; states "is described by some historians". b is ascribed to p 82; c to page 55; d to page 73; e to page 60; f to page 63; g to page 82; h to page 82; and i to page 96. j has no page number, and should do. It's not my responsibility if you are unable to read; please remove the suggestion above that I am lying. And please stop trolling and wasting everybody else's time. RolandR (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

but you are wrong, each use of the book is accompanied by a page number and a has no page number. i dont think you lied, you are just confused. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, a different page's practice should have no necessary bearing on this one. Better practice would have been to note passim (or colloquial equivilant) to indicate the book is being cited generally. better still would be to link to specific citations. So the version on that page is a third best citation method.--Red Deathy (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

But, as I note above, 8 of the ten uses of the book on the other page do link to a specific page. RolandR (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Pappe, Ilan (Spring 2006). "Calling a Spade a Spade: The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine". Retrieved 3 May 2007. is citation #69, no page number. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. "Calling a Spade a Spade: The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" is a journal article, not a book. It is only one page, and the citation is quite clear and specific. Do you even attempt to engage your brain before you start to write? RolandR (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Any reasonable editor can understand the difference between the claim made by you and what is written in the book. TFD (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

the claim made by me is the title of the book, The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within so that counts as being in the book. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

By that reasoning, we could use Pappe's book to claim the Soviet Union was a spade. TFD (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

perhaps you are confusing the two sources. Pappe is referring to spades as spades, the the other, soviet union as the socialist. as the editor above explained, the book is being cited generally, which is the reasoning for a book calt ethnic cleansing of Palestine, to be regarded as a rs on the article about such. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

source 4 Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia

Martin Malia, Simon and Schuster, Nov 14, 1995 page 2, Russia was not just another country, it was the world's first workers state and history's first socialist society Darkstar1st (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Again you misrepresent your citation. What Melia actually writes is Russia was not just another country, it was the world's "first workers state" and history's "first socialist society" So he is clearly citing someone else's view here, not himself making this assertion. (I have no assessment on whether this is an otherwise reliable source; but deliberate misquotation has no place in Wikipedia, and is sanctionable. Stop trolling and go away. RolandR (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

source 5 Routledge encyclopedia of international political economy

By R. J. Barry Jones, Taylor & Francis, 2001, page 1461 ...the establishment of the first socialist state in russia in 1917... Darkstar1st (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Does Barry Jones claim that the state produced a socialist society and that this was the first socialist society in the world? NebY (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

good point, i will amend my edit proposal to reflect all the sources and use both terms, society and state. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You began this discussion thread by claiming that the Soviet Union (which was founded in 1922) was the first socialist state. Now you claim it was Russia in 1917. TFD (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that Barry Jones states that Russia was a socialist state but not that it was a socialist society? Does he merely omit to make the claim that it was a socialist society (which would hardly be surprising, considering how contentious and ill-favoured that claim is) or does he go on to directly address the question of whether the state failed to produce a socialist society? NebY (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

i think it would be best to include all sources. the ussr was the 1st socialist society, russia was the first socialist state. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you show us a source that makes both those claims? And please, can you answer any of my questions above? I am beginning to fear that you have not read Barry Jones's complete article and do not have access to it. NebY (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

no/yes/no. fear not, i read it and hope you will as well, then you could form your own answers. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This is typical. Once again, Darkstar asserts that the source confirms his proposed edit, but refuses a direct request to quote the source's exact words. We do not have to "form our own answers"; we are asking you, if you have this material available, to quote the text that you wish to cite in this article, and the use that you intend to make of it, so that we can determine its reliability and relevance. Your refusal, on this and on countless other sources in the past, serves to confirm NebY's fear above. RolandR (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Roland, while I would appreciate it if Darkstar1st would provide the exact words of the full sentence, I am also concerned with the import of that sentence within the broader context of Barry Jones's article. A cursory "no" to my question "Does he merely omit to make the claim that it was a socialist society (which would hardly be surprising, considering how contentious and ill-favoured that claim is) or does he go on to directly address the question of whether the state failed to produce a socialist society?" led me to fear that Darkstar1st may not have grasped the article's full import and that his quotation could be selective. I note also that he has avoided answering the question "Can you show us a source that makes both those claims?" - unless his last "no" was to that. NebY (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Roland, see above, i did provide the sentence and page number and answered the questions. the entire sentence is too long to retype here and even that would not satisfy some here, so it would be best if you/they read book, or at least the chapter. Neb, i do not need single source to make such an edit, simply use each corresponding source after each passage. If you have not read the source, i find it a bit strange you somehow think i have not grasp it. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Given your record, I suspect that you are quoting a snippet, out of context, and distorting the meaning. Given the tens of thousands of words that you have written, and have caused others to write, I do not accept that "the entire sentence is too long to retype here"; I have done this several times, in order to confirm or refute a claimed source. Your continued refusal to satisfy other editors' justifiable scepticism reinforces the suspicion that the source does not in fact back the edit you wish to make. Under these circumstances, I will continue to object strenuously to your proposed edit. RolandR (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914-1921

By Edward Acton, V. I͡U︡ Cherni͡a︡ev, William G. Rosenber, Indiana University Press, 1997, page 7 Soviet...the first socialist society. this same source has been cited for the exact same edit i propose here, in the article for the October revolution for years now. i find it incredible 6 sources were required to make such a simple edit, or that so many active editors on this page were unaware of the very basic facts associated with this topic, or those editors have not challenged such edits elsewhere if they truly believe the edits in error. time wasting is a common allegation lobbed in my direction, perhaps one should look within for a solution to time management. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The source is not cited there for "the exact same edit". In that article, this view is clearly attributed to "Soviet historians": "Soviet historians of the October Revolution interpreted the Revolution so as to establish the legitimacy of Marxist ideology, and also the Bolshevik regime. To establish the accuracy of Marxist ideology, Soviet historians generally described the Revolution as the product of class struggle. They maintained that the Revolution was the supreme event in a world history governed by historical laws. The Bolshevik Party is placed at the center of the Revolution, exposing the errors of both the moderate Provisional Government and the spurious “socialist” Mensheviks in the Petrograd Soviet. Guided by Vladimir Lenin's leadership and his firm grasp of scientific Marxist theory, the Party led the “logically predetermined” events of the October Revolution from beginning to end. The events were, according to these historians, logically predetermined because of the socio-economic development of Russia, where the monopoly industrial capitalism alienated the masses. In this view, the Bolshevik party took the leading role in organizing these alienated industrial workers, and thereby established the construction of the first socialist state.". So this may be a reliable source for the assertion that "Soviet historians describe the Soviet Union as the frist socialist state"; but certainly not for the assertion that "the Soviet Union was the first socialist state.

However, thinking about this further, I am not convinced that any of this is relevant for this article. It may be of some value in articles on the Soviet Union; but I think that it would be out of place here. RolandR (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

good, so we are down to the words as vrs was, a rather long slog to get here, but i will be happy to concede such a miniscule item. the idea we should not cite the first socialist society on the article about socialism is perplexing, explain plz. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not content with distorting the sources, you are now also distorting my own words. This is not a dispute of "as"/"was". I am arguing that, on the basis of the sources you have provided, you cannot describe the Soviet Union as "the first socialist society". I am further arguing that, since this interpretation appears to be limited to a few Stalinists, and to those who wish to smear all socialists as Stalinists, this is a remarkably contentious assertion. As such, and since the majority of sources do not concur that the Soviet Union was the first socialist society ─ or even a socialist society at all ─ the statement, even heavily qualified as it is in the October Revolution article, has no place in this article. RolandR (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

not qualified at all later in the article, The October revolution of 1917 also marks the inception of the first communist government in Russia, and thus the first large-scale socialist state in world history. do you have a specific objection to the source above which claims the Soviet union was the first socialist society? have you read the source? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN: THE SOURCE DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THE SOVIET UNION WAS THE FIRST SOCIALIST SOCIETY. IT STATES THAT SOVIET HISTORIANS HELD THIS VIEW. NOW PLEASE STOP TROLLING, AND GO AWAY AND BOTHER SOMEONE ELSE. _{(Everyone else, please excuse shouting; I am thoroughly exasperated with this troll.)} RolandR (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

since you have not read the source, i dont see how you would know such. the term historian does not appear anywhere in the sentence i referenced, paragraph within, or chapter of the source, Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914-1921. instead it is quite clear as is my proposal stating the same. if you wish to attribute it to the historians who wrote the book, be my guest. do you have a specific objection to that source? have you read it? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on material above this section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As per dispute resolution policies, I am requesting a request for comment from the Wikipedia community on the material posted above by Darkstar1st at Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR, contending that the Soviet Union was the "first socialist society".--R-41 (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Reject - this is an incredibly dubious and contentious assertion: one contrary to fact, and not even remotely supported by the assortment of ill-chosen and poorly-utilized sources offered. The most you could harvest from any of them is that some Soviet sources claimed to be building the first socialist society - a very different thing indeed. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Reject - on the same grounds as Orangemike said. I was planning on staying out of the conversation for a while, but since not much is being said, I am putting in my view. There is no agreement between the various socialist factions on what would constitute a socialist society. If if each variant is to be taken as having achieved some form of socialist society, then the first acknowledged socialist societies would be the French utopian socialist Charles Fourier's Phalanstère a.k.a. "Phalanx" in the early 19th century. In addition, the Phalanx were the complete opposite of Soviet state socialism, they were small communities of around 1000 people or more who voluntarily agreed to form a community based upon mutual benefit. In fact, Fourier could not find enough support for them in Europe, so he founded the socialist Phalanx in the United States. There were several Fourierist socialist phalanx communities in the United States in the early 19th century, long before the October Revolution of 1917 and before the ideology of communism was created.--R-41 (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• Reject - at least in current proposed formulation. Might have greater applicability if it was stated to be the first socialist state as opposed to society. There's plenty of reliable sources for that contention - whether they're in fact the best sources and representative of current historical scholarship I'm not sufficiently informed to comment upon [3]. FiachraByrne (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• Reject None of the sources presented support this statement. Even if they did, there is a large body of thought that the Soviet Union was not socialist. TFD (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• Reject I have made my view quite clear above. None of the sources support this proposed edit. Even if they did, there would be many more to reject it. The article certainly cannot state that "the Soviet Union was the first socialist society/state". Nor should it ascribe this assertion to named or unnamed historians or theorists without giving also the (more generally accepted) view, that the SU was not a socialist state at all. And this would raise questions of weight and relevance; the necessary text would be too much and too detailed for this article (though it might possibly have a place elsewhere on Wikipedia). RolandR (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
• Reject Ignores Aboriginal Australians, and all other similar earlier societies. HiLo48 (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps I have based my view on a Marxian view of the history of socialism originating in a recognized form with the utopian socialism of Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen; what sources do you have for such earlier societies like aboriginal Australian societies? I am in mutual agreement that Darkstar1st's contention is wrong, but I am curious to see about sources speaking of socialism in Australian aboriginal societies and early societies.--R-41 (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I can find no sources at all. It's pure original research, which I know doesn't count here, but it's true. I might have to create the source myself. (Don't worry. I know that's inappropriate too, but there is material of mine out there on other topics relating to Aboriginal Australians.) Australian Aboriginal people kept no written records, a problem for any researcher. And for Wikipedia. My conclusion comes from extensive reading and from living and working with modern Aboriginal Australians. I won't try to impose it here, but will impose the view that anything we write on this matter MUST be clearly attributed as the views of particular writer(s), in the text, not just in the references. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Reject It is not clear that the snippets ripped from their contexts support the proposed text, especially in the light of Darkstar1st's evasive and blustering responses. We would do a disservice to the encyclopedia's readers to accept and parrot either the self-serving claims of past leaders of Soviet Russia and their willing or unwilling allies, or the eager exploitation of those claims by those opposed to socialism in any form. NebY (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll find by googling "Bastiat socialism" that he (and other Frenchmen whom he writes about) considered most of the LEFT of France's Estates-General (where the political terms "right/left" originate) to be "socialist". USSR quite likely was the first COMMUNIST or MARXIST nation, but many conflate this with "socialism" which is a much broader term. Some anthropologists even consider some African tribes to be the first "socialists," but I know less about that than post-Revolution France. Bastiat was a contemporary of Marx's, and he & Marx regularly traded barbs. But then again... you may also need to define whether a "socialist nation" is simply when revolutions have some limited success, or is it when a Socialist Party rules--but can lose again to the rightwing, or is it only a long-term & single-party socialist reign? 72.48.252.105 (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There were socialist governments before Lenin and he overthrew a prime minister in his revolution. TFD (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion appears to be a near unanimous rejection. The picture I have shown of the memorial plaque for the North American Phalanx clearly says that it was a Fourierist socialist society founded in 1844, and that example alone completely disproves Darkstar1st's claim that the first socialist society began 1917 Russia under the Bolsheviks. I believe Darkstar1st should acknowledge this here and personally end the discussion here.--R-41 (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

a community of 1,620 based in a single structure, if you really believe that was the 1st socialist state or society, why not present a source(unless you mean the plaque to be your source?) and add it to the article? if not, then who was, and why is that fact absent in the article socialism?

• The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within
• For the first time in the history of mankind a socialist society(USSR) was created.
• The Soviet Union was the first state to be based on Marxist socialism
• Russia was not just another country, it was the world's first workers state and history's first socialist society
• the establishment of the first socialist state in russia in 1917
• Soviet...the first socialist society. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

the plaque actually reads, cooperative agricultural community, not a socialist society as you claim above. in the North American Phalanx it is described as a Utopian community, not the 1st socialist society or state. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As explained to you above you are misrepresenting the sources and we cannot add material about the first socialist whatever without sources. TFD (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, you are resorting to rhetoric, the phalanxes were Fourierist socialist societies, it is not up to you to determine what size it takes for something to be recognized as a society - there are numerous recognized small societies, as for your statement about the Fourierist phalanxes being a "utopian community" - Fourier is identified as a utopian socialist. Also, a 1949 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica states: "Babeuf's Sociétie des égaux (1796) was in effect the first socialist society, and the Manifeste des égaux the first socialist pronouncement." That is from a very respectable source, and its date of 1796 is long before the October Revolution of 1917. You cannot demonstrate that the Soviet Union was the first socialist society only from Soviet or Marxist-Leninist propaganda, or sources that associate the word "socialism" with Marxism-Leninism. Pre-Soviet socialist societies are acknowledged, your points have been refuted, you stance has received a unanimous rejection by the users here on this Request for Comment, end the discussion. Focus your response on the Encyclopædia Britannica quote.--R-41 (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

so add it to the article since you have the sources, or we could add both since i have a source from an encyclopedia as well that does not use the qualifier, in effect. i did not see any cited sources referring to the commune as utopian socialist, instead [[North American Phalanx is described as a utopian community, similar, yet might not meet the requirements of the critics here. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is now time to close this thread. TFD (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree that it is time to close the discussion. Darkstar1st's proposal has been unanimously rejected and Darkstar1st has acknowledged the Encyclopædia Britannica source that says that the first socialist society was founded in 1796, saying that he will accept that in the article. I would prefer an uninvolved user being informed about this discussion and its results, and have them close the discussion.--R-41 (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

i do not accept the source personally, rather suggested we submit both concerning the term society as well as the of other sources for the term state. the 1949 edition of britannica may or may not be the best source, or may have been amended in the encyclopedias current form. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, R-41, but I would not accept that edit either. I can find nothing similar in the current Encyclopaedia Britannica, so a quote from a fifty-year-old edition carries no weight. And at least one editor has argues that socialist societies long precede Babeuf. So we cannot say, in Wikipedia's voice, that this was "the first socialist society". There may be a case for making a new section on Early attempts to create a socialist society, or something similar, in which some of these issues, and the discussion around them, could be addressed. RolandR (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The "society" was merely a faction of the revolution, essentially Babeuf and a group of followers, not a society in the sense that nations are societies. Whether he was a socialist is debatable and of course there are earlier precursors of modern socialism from Spartacus to Muntzer. TFD (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the entire search for what was the first "socialist society" is a pointless endeavour. At what point does one view socialism beginning at is not universally accepted. Secondly, it doesn't help at all with the understanding of socialism, it's only purpose is to have the implicit saying that "this is what socialism is in practice", and people familiar with Darkstar1st know that he is anti-socialist. Darkstar1st has publicly made known his anti-socialist views, he has said that the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action." On his user page he has indicated that he is an opponent of communism and totalitarianism. So just put two and two together and you will see the picture, he views all of socialism as totalitarian and tyrannical, alike the Soviet Union in its worst days of the Stalinist era involving the Great Purge and Gulags. He is intending to associate socialism with the oppressive legacy of the Soviet Union. Darkstar1st needs to stop his anti-socialist crusade here, I a socialist can say that yes there have been socialists who have committed oppressive acts that I find appalling to say the least, but to associate all socialists like George Orwell who was anti-totalitarian with the depravity of the Stalinist-era Soviet Union is outrageous. It would be like saying that all conservatives are like the De Maistrean absolute monarchist conservatives of immediate post-1789 France, which would also be outrageous. So let's be clear in understanding the reasoning underlying the nature of Darkstar1st's editing on the topics about socialism.--R-41 (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the whole point all along: Darkstar wants to falsify the article to make a "point", revealing The Truth™ about how "ZOMG socialists are all Stalinist commies like Pol Pot!" I live in Milwaukee, where the image of socialists is more about outspoken but gentle people like Frank Zeidler and David McReynolds. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Reject. The USSR was not the first socialist society. The first socialist society was not the USSR.Spylab (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Reject Unless there are reliable sources that clearly state that the USSR was the first socialist society, it's OR. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment the first source is, The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within. do you consider this source unreliable, or is it a misrepresentation of the source to say the soviet union was the first socialist society, if so how, since the title of the book is the very claim i made? (this is darkstar1st) 50.9.215.70 (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment As has been stated above repeatedly, by many editors, a book title cannot in itself be used as a citation, and particularly not for such a controversial and disputed assertion. Now please go away and stop trolling. RolandR (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The source is unreliable in its claim that the USSR was the first socialist society. It is a misrepresentation of the facts to say that the USSR was the first socialist society. The USSR was not the first socialist society.Spylab (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, we also need to rewrite the lede of The Hundred Years' War to accord with Favier's La Guerre de Cent Ans; our article currently states it lasted longer than 100 years. Then there's much of The Great Game which suggests the Anglo-Russian conflict might have been serious; the title of Peter Hopkirk's book makes it clear that it was in fact a game and quite a good one at that. I fear there may be more. NebY (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

source 7

Contemporary World History isbn 0495572713, 2009, page 89 With their victory over the White Russians in 1920, Soviet leaders now could turn for the first time to the challenging task of building the first socialist society in a world dominated by their capitalist enemies. (darkstar1st) 50.9.215.70 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Knock it off right now Darkstar. Your new source doesn't prove anything, it once again fails to note pre-Soviet socialist societies that you are refusing to acknowledge, you have just cherry-picked a source to support your view, everyone knows that you have an anti-socialist agenda here - you have publicly made that known yourself, and you have zero support for your proposal. You want to associate socialism with the oppressive legacy of the Soviet Union. You have been warned not to pursue tendentious editing when your proposal has been rejected it is time to drop the stick. Desist from continued attempts to push the issue, or I will report you for WP:DISRUPT on the grounds of failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing. You need to unconditionally accept that your proposal has been unanimously rejected by other users in spite of your repeated attempts to bring it up again, do so now and here by saying that you accept that the consensus has rejected your proposal.--R-41 (talk) 5:17 pm, Today (UTC+0)

I thought you said they built it in 1917. Now you say that in 1920 they had not even started. TFD (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not propose dates in my edit, perhaps you are confused? you appear to be conflating the first socialist state with the first socialist society, which may be attributed to different dates by RS Darkstar1st (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave Darkstar1st his last chance to end this, Darkstar1st has been given multiple warnings about his editing behaviour, instead of taking this seriously he just recently edited to open up this as a new section to ignore the previous unanimous rejection of his proposal to have the appearance of starting afresh with no disagreements. Note in bold for purpose of notice: I have reported Darkstar1st to the ANI here [4] for violation of WP:DISRUPT on this article the grounds of failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing.--R-41 (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

How should the Third Way's use of "socialism" or "social-ism" be represented in the article?

Somedifferentstuff retracted my edit that included material on the use of the term "socialist" by the Third Way social democrats. He justified removing it given WP:WEIGHT. and by saying: "This article is about Socialism", which in my view is implicitly indicating a No True Scotsman fallacy that Third Way's definition of "socialism" is not "true socialism". I disagree that WP:WEIGHT indicates that the usage of the term "socialism" by the Third Way should be minimized or excluded, Third Way is a major faction in the social democratic movement, and Third Way social democratic governments have been formed in Britain, Germany, and elsewhere. So how can WP:WEIGHT disregard a major usage of the term "socialism" by the Third Way?

I for one will admit that I strongly disagree with the Third Way, but it has claimed to endorse some form of "socialism" and it should not be excluded because of personal POVs on what socialism "should be". But look below at what I included on Third Way:

"In the late 20th century, the term "socialist" has also been used by Third way social democrats to refer to an ethical political doctrine focusing on a common set of values emphasizing social cooperation, universal welfare, and equality. Major Third Way proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different than traditional conception of socialism, and referred to it as "social-ism" that involved politics that advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen, and equal opportunity."

My edit still maintained that social ownership of the means of production is the most common description, but it did also show the Third Way description. Furthermore, the Third Way description of socialism cannot be isolated as a completely different topic than conventional socialism, because the founder of Third Way politics, Anthony Giddens, has identified Third Way as being a heir to the social democratic revisionism of Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky whom were both socialists in the conventional usage of the term. If my inclusion was wrong, why was it wrong? How should WP:WEIGHT treat the issue given that Third Way is a major movement? And how should Third Way use of the term "socialism" be represented in this article?--R-41 (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Although public ownership of the means of production is an approach historically advocated by many socialists, that does not mean that socialists cannot advocate other solutions. Rather than concentrating on what socialists advocate, these articles, including social democracy and democratic socialism, have become original research, with editors arguing over arbitrary dividing lines between supposed groups. In the early 20th century, socialists thought that government should not own the means of production or offer social welfare and rejected Keynsian economics. In the post war era they advocated limited government ownership of key industries, a comprehensive welfare state and Keynsian economics. Today, they advocate improving the economy through smaller government, privatization and monetarism. TFD (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Partially agree, but social ownership does not always mean government ownership. Prominent social democrat Eduard Bernstein criticized state socialism advocated social ownership of the means of production particularly by supporting the transformation of private enterprise into cooperative enterprise. But yes I agree that the Third Way faction is commonly viewed as neoliberal for its implicit acceptance of monetarism, privatization policies, and other issues. However Third Way proponents have claimed that they are not totally accepting neoliberalism, and have made public criticisms of neoliberalism in at least its extreme form for its dismissal of social welfare and social interests in the name of atomized individualism.--R-41 (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"In the early 20th century, socialists thought that government should not own the means of production or offer social welfare and rejected Keynsian economics." Can evidence be given for this claim? I find this hard to believe, being that socialism as a doctrine has not changed since the mid 1800's. And yes, "social ownership DOES imply government ownership." Any group of people that are entrusted with property effectively become a government. That is what government is, a group, and institution. Either groups control the means of production (government, corporations, cooperatives, committees, etc.) or individuals do. Is this a deliberate attempt to confuse a very simple meaning, or ignorance? Jcchat66 (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of reason given

R-41, you seem to have misunderstood the reason given for the removal of your addition to the lead. The Third Way comprises a very small part of this article. Given that the lead should be representative of the body, having two sentences in the lead mentioning Third Way (it already has one sentence) violates WP:Weight. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, but how do you suggest that Wikipedia should address the issue in the main body of the article of the vastly different definition of socialism by Third Way which is a major political movement?--R-41 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a WP:WEIGHT issue with including too much material on the Third Way because most scholarship on socialism generally agrees that the Third Way abandoned socialism in any meaningful sense, and redefined it to mean a moral or ethical doctrine that is compatible with the fundamental economic elements of capitalism. The Third Way would probably deserve a more lengthy discussion in the Social democracy article, since it is an outgrowth (or degeneration) of social democratic reformism. If you are going to argue that the Third Way is the major tendency within socialism, then you would also have to concede that Marxism-Leninism should be given the most weight in this article seeing that all existing socialist states comprising a significant portion of the human population are run by Marxist-Leninist parties. -Battlecry 08:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This text misreprents the source: "...the term "socialist" has also been used by Third way social democrats to refer to an ethical political doctrine focusing on a common set of values emphasizing social cooperation, universal welfare, and equality." The source merely says that that was Anthony Crosland in The Future of Socialism (1956),[5] Presumably Crosland was describing all socialists and explaining why socialists should support the welfare state. He was not coining a new term and wrote long before the Third way. TFD (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

To Battlecry: as the Marxist-Leninist description of socialism is based on the standard description of socialism involving social ownership of the means of production, so its description of socialism is already included, it is not like the Third Way situation because Third Way is promoting a very different conception of socialism. If I am wrong, what is the major difference between the Marxist-Leninist conception of socialism and the conventional conception of socialism? - As that is why this is being addressed about Third Way. Also if we do agree to have only one sentence for Third Way's conception in the intro, how should we address Third Way in the main body of the article?--R-41 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

To TFD: The source is from Anthony Giddens, the founder of Third Way who is citing Anthony Crosland as promoting a viable socialism. The influence of Crosland on Giddens and Third Way is discussed in various books, such as discussed in detail in Left Directions: Is There a Third Way? (2001) published by the University of West Australia Press. Another good source on the topic is The Third Way: Globalisation's Legacy (2009) by Alison Homes who notes Third Way proponent Tony Blair has been linked by authors to socialist revisionists such as Eduard Bernstein and Crosland, who alike them, adjusted their views on socialism according to the contexts of the time they were in. Crosland's long-term influence on social democracy, including his work A Future of Socialism (1956) has been noted in the book In Search of Social Democracy (2009) published by Manchester University Press.--R-41 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Follow the link I supplied and read the source. Crosland was not using the description to describe his doctrine but to describe socialism in general, i.e., a definition that fits all socialists. All socialists claim to support "social cooperation, universal welfare, and equality". Just because you found the quote in a section about the Third Way does not mean it is about the Thrid Way. In fact it was written decades before the Third Way emerged. The only connection is that supporters of the Third Way belonged to the same right wing of the Labour Party as Crosland. Again, please read the text. TFD (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, Crosland and Giddens in relation to the Third Way is directly discussed in detail in Left Directions: Is There a Third Way? (2001) published by the University of West Australia Press.--R-41 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

R-41, you are misinterpreting the source. Please read it. Crosland is not explaining what his version of socialism is but providing a definition that includes all socialists including himself. TFD (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I believe you. But again, Tony Blair who was a Third Wayist, declared support for a new description of socialism distinct from previous distinctions, he emphasized it as being "social-ism".--R-41 (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

He used the term once in the 1994 pamphlet "Socialism" to distinguish between the main tradition of Socialist parties and leftism. This was written in the context of Foot's "[The longest suicide note in history|longest suicide note in history]", battles with Militant and the repeal of Clause IV. It was not a "new description of socialism". TFD (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Of socialists, scholists, sciolists and other know-it-alls

Seeing as how some old disputed attestation of the word "socialist" has been fought over repeatedly on this page, and that it has given rise to some pretty odd nastiness, I just looked this up and would like to try to clarify a few things.

The 18th-century book being quoted, Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence Display'd, apparently had multiple re-prints during the 18th century, and several different editions are currently mirrored on the web. Of the passage in question, there appear to be at least three different competing versions, all of which appear to be genuine, in the sense that the online facsimiles are clear and readable beyond doubt and obviously represent the original printed page of each of these editions, so any differences in wording must be the result not of modern OCR errors but of typesetter's errors made already during the 18th-century reprints.

• This [6] version on archive.org (printed for J. Johnson, Rotterdam, 1738), has "Sciolist" [sic]. This is an obsolete English word meaning "a superficial pretender to knowledge; a conceited smatterer", according to the OED.
• This [7] version on google books (printed for Richard Baldwin, London, 1748), has "scholist". Another obsolete English word meaning "One who has nothing but school training, a mere theorist", according to the OED. This is the version of which RolandR posted a screenshot on imageshack [8].
• This [9] version on google books (printed for Van Anker, Rotterdam, 1738), has "Socialist". This is the version that was being cited by Darkstar1st.

There is, in conclusion, no reason for editors of this page to be accusing each other of making these citations up or misrepresenting them. Anybody who has worked with 18th-century manuscripts will understand that each of the three words, sciolist, scholist and socialist, could easily be the result of a confused 18th-century typesetter trying to make sense of some illegible scribble in the copy he was working from. From the context, it would seem that "sciolist" might be the most likely version originally intended by the author, and it would also most naturally provide the ground for the two other versions as two plausible, independent misreadings.

An attestation of "socialist" at this early date, be it the authentic original reading or a printer's error, might be the object of moderate curiosity for a lexicographer. OED has its earliest attestations of "socialist" in the 1790s; at that time in the meaning of "A person who lives in (civilized) society". The modern political meaning is attested in the OED from the 1820s onwards, as editors of this page are probably aware. There seems to be no reason to assume that an earlier 18th-century attestation in some other meaning would be of any real relevance to the topic of this article, so I don't really see why this citation had to become the object of such nasty fights. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed previously and can be found at Talk:Socialism/Archive 13#Original_research. It is OR to search for earlier uses of the word "socialist", instead we should accept the research of scholars. The Van Anker version appears to be a copy of the 1738 version reprinted c. 1880. Note that the typeface is mid-nineteenth century, not 18th century. (See discussion and The High-Kilted Muse, p. 273.[10]). TFD (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No objection against the finding of "original research". As for the possibility of a 19th-century origin of the misspelling, I had been wondering about the modern-looking font too, but could find no indication of it being a later reprint in the book itself. Of course, a 19th-century reprint would make the appearance of "socialist" as a typesetter's error much more easily explainable, and I agree it seems quite likely by the looks of it. (The reference in the High-Kilted Muse bibliography hadn't previously been pointed out, had it?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)As was pointed out at the time, in exhaustive detail, the version Darkstar relied on was a digitised text; I linked to a scanned copy of the original. We discussed this at length, and all other editors agreed that the reading "socialist" was an OCR error. Despite this, Darkstar continued to argue for his reading. He also repeatedly denied that ther word "scholist" existed, even after I posted a scan of the relevant OED page.[11] Other editors' frustration is not with Darkstar's different views, nor with the fact that we do not accept his readings of sources, but with the fact that he continues to belabour the point, even after such evidence. Even a year after I posted the OED scan, he continues to argue above that the word does not exist.[12] RolandR (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree with parts of what you say (see my more detailed comment at the RFC/U). But then, you are still not quite right: the "socialist" reading wasn't an OCR error. Darkstar was looking at an online facsimile (and, as he said, a real-world paper copy) that genuinely did contain the word "socialist". It wasn't an OCR error but an old typesetter's error. Darkstar was getting accused of essentially making the citation up, and I just wanted to get the record straight with respect to that charge, which I think was unjust. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has become pointless, if you want to talk about Darkstar talk about it somewhere else, open a new RfC/U about it for instance. There is currently an AN/I on Darkstar. This discussion board is supposed to be about the topic of the article, socialism.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of text

An editor continues to remove "and co-operative management of the economy" from the lead, saying it is not sourced. However statements in the lead do not have to be sourced there if they are sourced elsewhere in the article, since the lead is a summary of the article. TFD (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly is the source for these words? A50000 (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In the footnotes. TFD (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change to intro

I thought the change I added was acceptable, but Somedifferentstuff reverted it, claiming that I was pushing a POV by acknowledging other definitions of socialism existing by adding just one sentence on the Godesberg Program and its affect on the social democratic description of socialism. However I also added the Marxist-Leninist positions on central planning in the Soviet Union and worker self-management in Yugoslavia. Furthermore all that I added to the first sentence was "conventionally", that "Socialism conventionally refers to an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy." It still maintains that that is the dominant definition, but it does not exclude others.

Once again I have to defend myself here from insinuations that I am promoting my own POV on what socialism is, I as a socialist and social democrat personally support the conventional definition of social ownership of the means of production, I support social ownership in the form of cooperative enterprise owning the means of production, but I refuse to allow significant alternative definitions to be excluded from the intro, I believe the Godesberg description should briefly be addressed in the intro in one sentence. One sentence is an acknowledgement and is not overbearing in WP:WEIGHT, especially considering that it involves the social democratic movement which is a major political force in the world. To exclude such significant alternative definitions implies a false sense of oneness and unity of adherents of socialism which has never been the case, it assumes that the dominant definition is "true socialism" and that other definitions are "not true socialism" which runs afoul of the No true Scotsman fallacy, and exclusion of significant alternative definitions on such grounds is censorship in my view.

This is the intro that I propose (it only includes the changes I have mentioned above):

Socialism conventionally refers to an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

A socialist economic system would consist of a system of production and distribution organized to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital. Accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation. Distribution would be based on the principle to each according to his contribution.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership. Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic political system.

Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society. In the early 19th-century, "socialism" referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism irrespective of the solutions to those problems. However, by the late 19th-century, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for an alternative system based on some form of social ownership. Marxists expanded further on this, attributing scientific assessment and democratic planning as critical elements of socialism. From the early and mid-twentieth century, the conception of socialism within Marxist-Leninist states involved two types, one involving central planning as exemplified by the Soviet Union and another involving workers' self-management and a role for the market as exemplified by Yugoslavia. In the mid twentieth century, the conception of socialism within social democratic parties was substantially affected by the Social Democratic Party of Germany's (SPD) adoption of the Godesberg Program that eliminated the party's remaining Marxist-aligned policies while maintaining that it adhered to a different conception of socialism, declaring: "Private ownership of the means of production can claim protection by society as long as it does not hinder the establishment of social justice".

--R-41 (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion (on proposed change to the intro, as above)

I think you are going into two much detail and writing extensively about tangential topics. The lead is supposed to breifly outline the topic. TFD (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

But how can it briefly outline the topic if there is a conventional description of socialism while significant other descriptions are not being addressed? It currently falsely assumes a oneness and unity that endorses the conventional description alone.--R-41 (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary. If you think there is no "oneness" then it should be a disambiguation page. TFD (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedias describe and define things as well, you need to describe what the topic is. It is entirely a possibility that it could be turned into a disambiguation page. The conceptions of socialism promoted within anarcho-syndicalism, Marxism-Leninism, and social democracy are all highly different from each other. I don't know if there is much unity on the topic, the book The Historical Dictionary of Socialism in its intro says that there is a common topic in terms of the origins of socialism but that as it developed it has become very deeply divided to the point that a common definition is nearly impossible to describe it as a whole. There already is an article titled: Socialism (Marxism) that describes the Marxian conceptions of socialism, perhaps a Socialism (social democracy) is needed to describe the social democratic conceptions of socialism.--R-41 (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Before concentrating on the differences within socialism you should explain the commonality. Otherwise it is like having an article about forests and just describing each type of tree that may be found there. TFD (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion (on scholarly studies on socialism as a whole by Rappoport, Parekh, and Freeden)

We addressed this earlier, when both you and I supported the inclusion of the descriptions of socialism as a whole by scholars that were mentioned in the intro of the The Historical Dictionary of Socialism, it drifted away as new sections were opened. This is what was discussed being added to the intro then:

"there are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single comphrensive definition capable of encapsulating all of the variations of socialism. However there have been common elements identified by scholars. Angelo S. Rappoport in his Dictionary of Socialism (1924) analyzed forty definitions of socialism to conclude that common elements of socialism include: general criticisms of the social effects of private ownership and control of capital - as being the cause of poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security; a general view that the solution to these problems is a form of collective control over the means of production, distribution and exchange (the degree and means of control vary amongst socialist movements); agreement that the outcome of this collective control should be a society based upon social justice, including social equality, economic protection of people, and should provide a more satisfying life for most people. Bhikhu Parekh in The Concepts of Socialism (1975) identifies four core principles of socialism and particularly socialist society: sociality, social responsibility, cooperation, and planning. Michael Freeden in his study Ideologies and Political Theory (1996) states that all socialists share five themes: the first is that socialism posits that society is more than a mere collection of individuals; second, that it considers human welfare a desirable objective; third, that it considers humans by nature to be active and productive; fourth, it holds the belief of human equality; and fifth, that history is progressive and will create positive change on the condition that humans work to achieve such change."

Again, this is what we discussed adding earlier, all of it is scholarly studies of socialism as a whole.--R-41 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It is too much for the lead. It seems that the main points are "there are many variations of socialism...no single comphrensive definition...common elements...include: general criticisms of the social effects of private ownership and control of capital...a general view that the solution to these problems is a form of collective control over the means of production, distribution and exchange (the degree and means of control vary amongst socialist movements); agreement that the outcome of this collective control should be a society based upon social justice, including social equality, economic protection of people, and should provide a more satisfying life for most people...." That seems to include both state socialism and New Labour. TFD (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well you asked for descriptions describing commonalities of socialism as a whole. Rappoport's, Parekh's, and Freeden's studies are all scholarly studies of socialism as a whole that describe the commonalities. If I am not mistaken you appear to be acknowledging Rappoport's study as being the most relevant in its analysis, correct?--R-41 (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It is the most relevant because it is the only source that explains how scholars have described socialism. My condensation includes what I believe are the key points which could be used for the lead. I think it is critical to the description of socialism that we explain it as a reaction to capitalism, which is the starting point. Otherwise we have a collection of various stategies - reform, revolution, co-ops, unionism, etc. - that are vastly different and appear to have little if anything in common. TFD (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It appears that it would be preferable for Rappoport's description to be used at the beginning of the intro, in a condensed form as you have described. The commonalities would be addressed first. Then the divisions can be addresses afterwards like this:

Socialism is an economic system and political ideology that involves general criticisms of the social effects of private ownership and control of capital, a general view that the solution to this should involve collective control over the means of production, distribution and exchange (the degree and means of control vary amongst socialist movements); agreement that the outcome of this collective control should be a society based upon social justice, including social equality, economic protection of people, and should provide a more satisfying life for most people. There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single comphrensive definition capable of encapsulating all of the variations of socialism."

Would you agree with this?--R-41 (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You are providing a negative definition of socialism, defining it by what many socialists oppose and some solutions they propose rather than a positive definition defining what socialism actually is. Again, there are numerous different reasons people can advocate socialism and there are a multitude of different strategies proposed for achieving socialism, but a comprehensive discussion of these motives and strategies does not belong in the opening paragraphs. The lead should provide a basic definition of socialism, the major components of socialism (eg: social ownership, production for use, collective management), and a brief mentioning of the dominant strategies and motives for socialism (eg: reform vs. revolution, state vs. anarchist).

It would be acceptable to add a brief line on social democracy since the post-war period, stating that during this period social democracy was defined by (and reflected in by its policies) a welfare state, reformism and support for a mixed economy rather than by opposition to private ownership and capitalism. But this needs to be concise and broad as to not cause obfuscation and clutter. A more comprehensive description of social democratic strategies can be discussed in the Social democracy or History subsection of the article. -Battlecry 03:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The definition in Italics above does describe what socialism advocates, including positive positions.--R-41 (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Marxist-Leninist socialists"

An editor is repeatedly replacing the term Marxists with "Marxist-Leninist socialists". This is a nonsense, since the group "Marxists" includes the sub-group "Marxist-Leninist socialists". It makes as much sense as stating "I like fruit and apples". If you wish to make such a change, please discuss and justify it here and establish a consensus for this first. RolandR (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Introduction" and "Background"

I added Socialism#Introduction because of the #Feedback above and the corresponding {{technical}} tag. This article had the most incoming wikilinks of any articles with that tag. However, I realize that this doesn't really address the feedback or the tag as well as it should for the tag to be removed, so I'm going to be bold.

I'm going to try moving the paragraphs dealing with some of the more obscure and historical summary information down from the lede into a new "Background" section, and move the "Introduction" section up to the lede in its entirety. I expect that this may be controversial, so I'm creating this section to discuss it. Neo Poz (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The way you're using the term socialism is simply not accurate. You added, "Socialism in the 21st century usually means a system of government involving taxes and social safety nets..." This is describing a capitalist welfare state, not socialism. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The first source used to support that statement, "[http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/42499/1/MPRA_paper_42499.pdf Comparative Economic Systems: A Brief Review", does not make that statement. TFD (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

And I question whether Salman Shaikh of the Islamic Economics Project is an acceptable source for such afar-reaching edit to this article. RolandR (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is an intro which no beginner or student can understand because it describes socialism as the term was used in 1950 better? Neo Poz (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

True there is overlap with capitalist welfare states, in every actual country which calls themselves socialist today. Do you have a counter-example? Neo Poz (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)