Talk:Socialism

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jahir333 (article contribs).

Abuse of "socialism"

Rescue deleted text from intro, may be useful somewhere:

In 21st century America, the term socialism, without clear definition, has become a pejorative used by conservatives to taint liberal and progressive policies, proposals, and public figures.

--— Erik Jr. 13:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2019

There is a stray quotation mark in '...working-class movements like the Chartists in the United Kingdom".' 131.123.50.19 (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Criteria/ minimal level of influence/thought/significance before an individual is listened in the "individuals" sidebar for socialism?

Basically, I think it would be a good idea to lay out some sort of minimum criteria for an individual to reach before they can be listed on the individuals section on the socialism sidebar. Here would be an opportunity to lay out this sort of criteria. I honestly have no idea where to start, but it's obvious people who have their own tendencies, e.g. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, should be in the sidebar but some less known figures should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatjakelad (talk • contribs) 18:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Have decided that someone must have at least 20,000 bytes on their individual page before being added to the sidebar. feel free to argue for lower/higher bar below, but so far 20,000 seems about right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatjakelad (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Nordic model is still not socialism

Nordic model is welfare capitalism, not socialism. — Erik Jr. 20:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Erik den yngre: Yes, and the Soviet economic model "in practice [...] functioned as a form of state capitalism,[34][35][36] or a non-planned administrative or command economy."[37][38] Why don't you also say that isn't socialism? "Socialism is [...] characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management", yet the Soviet economic model had neither of that; there was still wage labour, capital accumulation, commodities exchange, etc. Lenin and many Bolsheviks knew and realised that. It was Stalin (who else could have been?) who first articulated that the Soviet Union achievied socialism with the 1936 Constitution (the same year the Great Purge started, nonetheless); how the law of value still operated within a socialist economy; and also that the state would remain even if the Soviet Union reached the communist mode of production, if it was still encircled by capitalism. So I have to agree with @Aquillion: that "there's no active dispute on talk" beside you, as stated here. I have also added more informations here that can help close this dispute.--Davide King (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no support for the notion that the Nordic model is a form of socialism. And there is no support for the idea that the Nordic countries has a socialist form of government. There is no one sentence: "In the 1950s, popular socialism emerged as a vital current of the left in Nordic countries could be characterised as a democratic socialism in the same vein as it placed itself between communism and social democracy." That some political parties subscribed to socialist ideology at some point in time does not mean that these countries were or are socialist. Confusing substantive (real) history with the history of ideas is common, and that is the case here. The section is not about socialism as an actual form of government in the Nordic countries, instead the section is a fragmented discussion about socialist ideas in the Nordic countries, these are fundamentally different things. The heading of the paragraph should be changed to correct this obvious error. --— Erik Jr. 16:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The article mentions that the labour parties (social-democrats) held power for long periods in Sweden and Norway. Correct, but these parties abandoned the socialist ideology around 1930. In any case, they did not implement a socialist form of governement. In fact, Gerhardsen's aim was to keep socialists out and the purge of socialists were implemented under party strongman Haakon Lie. — Erik Jr. 16:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Erik den yngre: Thanks for your reply. I would redirect you to this comment by @The Four Deuces: Also, there's nowhere in that section sayig that's a "form of socialism"; it literally says it's a "form of social democracy" (do you disagree with that? Still, it was the labour and social democratic parties that pushed more than any other the welfare state and built them). Nor does it say that "the Nordic countries has [sic] a socialist form of government"; and your "That some political parties subscribed to socialist ideology at some point in time does not mean that these countries were or are socialist" could be just as well used to make the same comment about so-called socialist states. Furthermore, we don't have sections like "Socialism (or socialist ideas) in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe/in the Third World"; so I think "Nordic countries" better is sufficient and I thought it was already a good compromise since "Nordic model" would have been more ambiguous. Either way, just because may social democratic parties may have endorsed "welfare capitalism" and Keynesianism, they did it mainly as a compromise, which was abandoned in the 1970s and 1980s.

Indeed, it's only "[s]ince the 1980s [that the Norwegian Labour Party] has included more of the principles of a social market economy in its policy, allowing for privatisation of state-owned assets and services and reducing income tax progressivity, following the wave of economic liberalisation during the 1980s", basically rejecting social democracy and what they stood for. Do you also realise, as stated here, that "[i]ncidentally, the economic system of Venezuela is capitalism. The generally accepted reason for the current economic crisis is that oil revenue was spent on social welfare rather than invested in diversifying the economy or saved for bad times.[1] That's not the failure of socialist planning but lack of planning"? Or how "Ceaușescu desired to repay Western loans, and thus enacted a harsh austerity policy, including rationing of food, gas, heating and electricity" (and that was in "Communist" Romaniaǃ); and we literally have an article about it? Or how Mugabe "of course [...] didn't actually practise what he preached, did he? Once in office he became a capitalist" and "Mugabe's policies were "broadly-speaking" social-democratic"? I'm saying this because you seem to reduce socialism to state ownership and socialist states; social democracy, not including the Third Way, is also a form socialism, reformist, gradualist, evolutionist but still a form of socialism, hence why it's included here, like liberal socialism.

So I'm going to be bold and remove that tag (like @Aquillion: did, who I invite to discuss here, if there're any issue with me removing the tag) since I'm not sure there's a real dispute; it's simply you disagreeing, but I don't see other users. Until then, I think we should keep it as it was.--Davide King (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The tag is still relevant because the section is quite confused, and you can not just remove the tag because you think I am wrong. A dispute means that we disagree.

(1) Why are the Nordic countries included if there is not a socialist form of government? The Nordic countries certainly have extensive welfare states, and so does many other countries such as Japan, Germany and France. Welfare state is often associated with socialism or socialist ideology, but modern the welfare state was invented by Bismarck and in the case of Norway key refoms where in fact implemented by the conservatives. The major reforms in Norway were mostly grand compromises across the political spectrum. Norway is instead governed according to what Hall & Soskice call coordinated market economy.

(2) The section confuses substantive history (how the countries are/were actually governed) and history of ideas (ideas about how countries should be governed). There has been various political movements in the Nordic countries. The fact that these existed and during some periods held cabinet positions, can not be taken as proof that countries are socialist or social democratic. Olof Palme was perhaps a socialist, but Sweden was still a capitalist country. Now the section mostly contains information about socialist or social democratic ideas/parties in the Nordic countries. Information about ideologies should be removed section. The section should instead focus on the actual form of government. — Erik Jr. 18:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Erik den yngre: Well, you seem the only one to have a problem with this. Many users also seem to have a problem with describing fascism as far-right or Nazism as a form of German fascism rather than socialism, yet we don't put tags just because some users disagree. Socialism is both an economic system and an ideology; it's not a form of government, so what are you talking about? You're confusing socialism with Communist states and you're confusing social democracy with the Third Way. Just because they have a capitalist economy, it doesn't mean thay aren't ideologically socialists. Why are the Soviet Union and company included when they too were just ideologically socialists and in practice just as capitalist as the West (although in different ways, rejecting their liberalism, but in practice both being a form of state capitalism, because capitalism is lost without the state and only American libertarians disagree with that, so I disagree with describing the West as capitalist and the Soviet Union and company as state capitalist) and when they didn't have a planned economy in the Marxist sense but a planned-market economy based on administrative commands? They all had capital accumulation (they basically used socialism the same way liberalism was used to support capitalism; see "socialist" primitive capital accumulation, etc.; indeed, Lenin and the Bolsheviks aknowledged this; it was Stalin who claimed Lenin's state capitalism was socialism and that the Soviet Union had achieved "socialism", etc.), wage labour, commodity exchange governed by the law of value, producing things on their exchange value rather than their use value, extracting surplus value with the state acting as the capitalist/mega corporation, workplace tyranny, etc. Either way, @The Four Deuces: can explain you it better than me and I also invite @Aquillion: to partecipate.--Davide King (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

These are some relevant The Four Deuces quotes from Talk:Social democracy. "Socialist, democratic socialist social democrat, are usually interchangeable terms, although some writers distinguish between the three. [...] First, socialism can mean either an ideology or an economic system, while capitalism is not an ideology, but an economic system. [...] You are not describing socialist ideology, but the system that Communists implemented. IOW the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity test."--Davide King (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The philosophy of the Social Democratic Party of Sweden was that if people were healthy, well-educated and had a decent standard of living, that they would seek to develop a socialist society. They did not consider the welfare state to be socialism but a necessary condition for its development. However, as the Swedish Social Democrats built the most comprehensive welfare state, the welfare stat is sometimes referred to as social democracy. Of course socialism/social democracy as the Social Democrats understood it did not happen and right-wing parties in Sweden also came to support the welfare state. The problem with all these articles is that they confuse different topics that sometimes described using the same names. TFD (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Thank you for your comment. That's exactly what many people miss about social democracy. Social democratic policies are confused for social democracy itself. By the logic of Erik den yngre, the great conservative Bismarck, the one who banned the actual social democrats and only adopted several of their policies to detract workers support for socialism, was a social democratǃ Everyone is a social democratǃ What many seems to miss is that social democrats believed that capitalism would lead to socialism (one criticism of the October Revolution was that the Bolsheviks couldn't have socialism without capitalism; and indeed, Lenin and the Bolsheviks aknowledged this fact itself and in practice continued the capitalist development under the state, before Stalin claimed all these policies were socialists and thus the Soviet Union reached socialism) and that the welfare state was seen as a "necessary condition for its development"; on ther other hand, conservatives and liberals supported the welfare state only insofar it made the workers content enough not to revolt or start a revolution; and it's no coincidance that starting in the 1970s, more intensively with the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, that the welfare state has been reduced and harsly attacked. Just because many Social Democratic parties fell to neoliberalism and adopted the Third Way, it doesn't mean social democracy did it too. How could that be considered social democracy when in many cases it was the Social Democratic party itself that dismantled the welfare state they themselves built as a necessary condition for socialist development? Even in the Nordic countries, where the welfare state is more popular, it's exactly its popularity that forces right-wing parties not to be so critical of it because it wouldn't be politically viable, at least for the time being.--Davide King (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Issues like these are not solved by voting. The discussion above is interesting, but on Wikipedia we dont reach conclusions by discussing the substantive issue - that would be OR by synthesis. The main issue is still the same as I pointed out above: The Nordic section of the article does not distinguish between (1) socialism as form of government or way to organize society as a whole (i.e., Nordic countries as socialist societies) and (2) socialism as an ideology or set of political ideas supported by parties or movements in those countries. This issue is a minimum of what must be resolved to make the section acceptable. In addition, the section gives undue weight to popular socialism. Presentation Meidner-Rehn-model is not clear at all, for instance it is not clear if it is merely a model or if it was real policy, and it is not clear if and why it is an example of socialist economic policy. — Erik Jr. 21:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Erik den yngre: Who even talked about voting? You seem mainly concerned about things that you don't see as socialist or socialism, when nowhere there it's stated that these are socialist policies. In other words, "the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity test". And popular socialism is talked about in literally just a phrase, how is that undue? The thing is that social democracy is part of socialism and that in the 1970s Sweden was moving more towards socialism in its development but this was defeated. @The Four Deuces: said it well. Socialism isn't a form of government but both an economic system and ideology, including both revolutionary and reformist socialists. You seem to reduce socialism just to an economic system, not considering social democrats that saw the welfare state as a "necessary condition for [socialist] development".--Davide King (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

You hint at some kind of voting by pointing out that I am the only contributor objecting to the way things are presented in that section. Please dont do that. And please stop talking about what I am concerned about and let us focus on improving the article. The key issues are: (a) Why mention the Nordic countries specifically when these are not socialist systems? This way of presenting implies or suggests that they are. (b) The section confuses ideology/political movements on the one hand and facts on the ground on the other - my students would get an F for fail if they presented anything like this. I think the section is in such a bad state that should be removed. But the section can perhaps be saved if we clarify that the section is about ideas or political agendas. I will begin rewriting now. — Erik Jr. 13:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Erik den yngre: That's not what I meant, but I'm fine with your edits. Once again, just because they may not be a socialist system, it doesn't mean that the ideas and political movement related to it shouldn't be discussed; @The Four Deuces: said it well here. Again, I point out that so-called socialist systems (the Soviet Union et all) weren't socialist either, but you had no problem with them being included. Anyway, your rewriting of the section was fine, so we're cool?--Davide King (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not OR to discuss whether social democracy as used to describe the Nordic model developed by the Social Democratic Party of Sweden and social democracy as used to describe the ideology of the party are the same thing. The same applies to the Soviet Union. While their system is frequently referred to as socialism, only Marxist-Leninists consider it to be so in reality. The issue is whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way. And the same applies to Bismark's state socialism or to reference any other capitalist society as socialist. TFD (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)