Talk:Socialism

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)

• Note Neo Poz has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Nrcprm2026 Poz. --TFD (talk) 23:08, 3 March 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: [1] causa sui (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This entire discussion is preposterous. You clearly have biased points of view here vying for control with no regard for the simplest facts. Who controls the economy? Now, why don't you provide academic evidence that economies can be controlled? What is an economy? Merely a descriptive aspect of one of many functions of society. But is cannot be excluded from all social studies, can it? Is the individual choices one makes daily divorced of all the psychological, sociological, anthropological influences? Of course not, thus economics is not in and of itself a proper study. Can humanity be managed? History (the scientific data) decisively says no.

If find it ironic that a culture that has embraced evolution and natural selection, had not then applied that to all other human affairs. Obviously, evolution cannot be controlled, nor can natural selection, though thinkers from the 1800 and 1900 hundreds, and evidently a remnant in this century, still hold to that silliness. No one controls the economy. No one can. No institution, government, corporation, or state can control that which is everyday aspect of the evolutionary power of society as a whole.

Such arrogance is unbecoming. What this really is, is at least a century of entrenched scholars and professors who have made a living from the illusion of socialism, or capitalism, being viable ideas of any kind. Now get out of the way, and let us define what socialism actual is ... the arrogant assumption that any small group of people can better manage something that is already naturally managed by human nature and natural selection. Jcchat66 (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2013 (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 [2]. 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.

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),[3] 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 [4] 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 [5] 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 [6].
• This [7] 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.[8]). 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.[9] 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.[10] 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)

It´s blatantly obvious that the only reason why you keep removing this is because you don´t think that Marxist-Leninists are socialists. A50000 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually they are communists. TFD (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)+

All communists are also socialists. A50000 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that is just your personal opinion. TFD (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

several people hold such opinion [11] Darkstar1st (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your link does not say that. Could you please read sources before presenting them, otherwise you are wasting my time. TFD (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

actually it does, and unlike you, i did. perhaps it is you wasting our time? There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your source does not say that communists are socialists. I suggest you read it. TFD (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

but it does, and i hope this will be the last time i suffer your time wasting. please hat/hab when YOU read it.

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. Compare utopian socialism.

Origin: 1830–40; social + -ism

Related forms pre·so·cial·ism, noun sem·i·so·cial·ism, noun un·so·cial·ism, noun Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013. Cite This Source | Link To socialism

Explore the Visual Thesaurus » Related Words for : socialism socialist economy View more related words »

Collins World English Dictionary socialism (ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm)

— n 1. Compare capitalism an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels 2. any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system 3. (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 Cite This Source Relevant Questions What Is Socialism? SEPPINI: Why No Socialis... How To Socialize? How Socialism Works? 00:03 Socialism is always a great word to know. So is ninnyhammer. Does it mean:

	an arrangement of five objects, as trees, in a square or rectangle, one at each corner and one in the middle.

a fool or simpleton; ninny. LEARN MORE UNUSUAL WORDS WITH WORD DYNAMO... Etymonline Word Origin & History

socialism 1832, from Fr. socialisme or from social + -ism. Cf. socialist. Apparently first in reference to Robert Owen's communes. "Pierre Leroux (1797-1871), idealistic social reformer and Saint-Simonian publicist, expressly Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper Cite This Source

American Heritage Cultural Dictionary socialism definition

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your sources say that communists see socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. They see capitalism as a transitional stage between feudalism and socialism, feudalism as a transitional state between slavery and capitalism etc. If you are interested in Marxist theory and you probably are not then pick up a book and read about before posting poorly informed comments. TFD (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

it said the exactly the same thing A5000 said, all communist are socialist. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no one would make that conclusion based on a reasonable reading of the sources provided. TFD (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

And what is your reasonable reading of the part in bold? A50000 (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

poppycock, you didn't read the source, accuse me of the same, suggested i read a book on socialism, told me to not waste your time, referred to my comment as poorly informed, then once you realize you were wrong [12], shift your argument to suggest a reasonable reading of the words all communist are socialist means something different than all communist are socialist. you are in a hole, stop digging. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating as this lexical digression may be, it sheds not the slightest light on my original question. So to return to the issue, what is the purpose of repeatedly replacing the term "Marxists" with the term "Marxist-Leninist socialists" in this article? --RolandR (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like it is written by extremists. Hence we have communist socialists, liberal socialists, conservative socialists, etc. Anyone not right wing enough is a socialist. More appropriate for a right-wing blog. TFD (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the entire article sounds like commie trash (excluding the criticism section). Does that give me permission to delete the entire article? A50000 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
== "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) That source was intended to support the latter part of that sentence, but I agree it was a poor choice because the excerpt I wanted was from the "mixed economy" section. This source would probably have been better. Neo Poz (talk) 20:26, 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? And what is the meaning of this given #Feedback above? Neo Poz (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Simplified intro version for comparison. Neo Poz (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC) The economic systems and countries you are describing are recognized as being structurally capitalist economies, which at the most can be said to have been presided over by an elected social democratic or socialist government at some point in their history. Sometimes this is often called "social democracy" today, which is understood to be a set of social and public policies to benefit the welfare of the population, while socialism is understood to be a different economic system from capitalism. This is not the same thing as a "socialist state"; a socialist state is a country that is officially (i.e.: constitutionally) bound to the creation of socialism. This does not mean that a socialist state is the definition of socialism; for example, the USSR was a constitutionally socialist state beginning with its 1936 constitution, but only recognized itself as having constructed "socialism" after world war II. An economy does not become "socialist" merely because a socialist party is elected to run the government of that economy's government any more than electing an evangelical fundamentalist Christian to office in the United States would make the US a fundamentalist country or its official ideology Christian fundamentalism. Your definition of "socialism" is used only by opponents of socialism who use the term as an epithet for anything they don't like - usually government action to regulate capitalist economics, and is nothing more than a weasel word. Finally, this article does not give a solely "Marxist" definition of socialism. A Marxist definition would define socialism in relation to its class relationships - that the working class collectively owns the means of production, appropriates the surplus product for itself, and that "commodity production" is displaced by economic planning. While this is an important conception of socialism that has lots of overlap with other conceptions, it is not solely represented in the lead, which is broad enough in scope to allow for non-Marxist ideas of socialism such as market socialism and social anarchism. -Battlecry 01:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
== Removal of technical tag == The {{technical}} tag was on the article long before I got here, because of the overwhelming #Feedback described above. Now those who would prefer a marxist definition far more suited for 1950s than the de facto mixed economy socialism of every single country which calls itself socialist today are suddenly trying to sweep the tag under the rug.[13][14] For shame! Is that the respect we have for our readers? Neo Poz (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC) North Korea has a mixed economy? That´s news to me. A50000 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Granted, that's technically a counterexample, but most socialists would say that they're an authoritarian dictatorship poorly attempting to masquerade as a socialist state. What's the proportion by population of people living in states described as socialist? The issue here is that there's the marxist definition, as a stepping stone to full-on communism, and there's reality, with mixed economy welfare states. WP:COMMONNAME is clear: we should use what most people mean when they say the word. Marxists are a tiny minority in that regard. Neo Poz (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Most socialists are wrong then. The fact that they are authoritarian doesn´t make them less socialist. Socialism and authoritarianism go hand in hand. A50000 (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC) RolandR (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC) The other four states that call themselves socialist today are China, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba. TFD (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC) All except Cuba of which are mixed economy welfare states far more than the marxist definition of socialist, and Cuba is moving in that direction. Neo Poz (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Economic literature on the subject of socialism all recognize that socialism is a distinct economic system from capitalism differentiated by its basis in social ownership of the means of production and allocation. All major sources describe socialism as an economic system, not a set of social policies or public policies within structurally capitalist economies. This is not at all an exclusively "Marxist" definition. -Battlecry 01:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC) So, per WP:COMMONNAME, how do we count the proportion of the two differing uses in "reliable sources"? If we use common news sources the answer may be different than limiting to academic journals. Note how these three terms transitioned around 1950 and 1980. Neo Poz (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC) You need to provide a specific example where the word is used to mean something different. TFD (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Okay, what does "socialist China" mean in [15] when referred to by "a renowned Cuban expert on China"? I'm not sure whether there is any way to systematically count the prevalence of the two meanings. Perhaps it should be decided by editor RFC. Neo Poz (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC) I presume that as a Marxist he believes that China is a socialist state as understood by Marxists. What do you think he means? TFD (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC) He means a mixed economy welfare state per Socialism with Chinese characteristics#Socialist market economy. It seems to me that a Cuban Marxist using the term that way is very significant for deciding which meaning the introduction of this article should use. Neo Poz (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC) He could be referring to the official ideology of the Chinese government and Communist party. If he is referencing the economic system, he is referring to the "socialist market economy", which is very different from the European welfare state models of capitalism. The socialist market economy is based on state ownership of the means of production and is neutral on the question of social welfare provision; it is widely regarded as a form of state capitalism consisting of a mixture of state ownership, free markets and interventionism. This is a different meaning than what is meant by a "mixed economy" in reference to welfare states in Europe and even in the United States. If one is inclined to believe the Chinese model is a type of "market socialism", market socialism has always been held in contrast to mixed capitalist economies and is neutral on the question of social welfare provision (the argument goes that such welfare state provisions would be unnecessary with social ownership of the means of production in a market economy). If one believes the Chinese model is a form of state capitalism, it is still significantly different from a welfare state (the Chinese socialist market system has less generous welfare provisions than the United States). The fact is, the term "mixed economy" is very vague. Yes, socialism can consist of a mixture of markets and planning - the current lead recognizes this in the first paragraph. What you are conflating with "socialism" is properly called "Social democracy" and is a Western and Northern European phenomenon. If you care to look at the discussion page for Social democracy, I have been pushing to include this popular definition of Social Democracy (which is used by Academics and is held in contrast to socialism) in its lead. -Battlecry 03:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC) The extent to which China is now a welfare state has very recently vastly increased.[16][17][18] I think I agree with your suggestion and will take a closer look. Neo Poz (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC) You are confusing what the "expert" believes about China and the reality. It could be that it is really state capitalist, but he believes it is socialist. The expert would probably not describe the U.S. as socialist, although it is a mixed economy welfare state. TFD (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC) You make a good point that China is expanding both welfare programs (universal healthcare) and engaging in more economic interventionism (carbon tax and minimum wage), however the fundamental difference between the Chinese model and the Western European model is the role of state ownership of enterprises. In China, state ownership is the central feature - even if it might only be a charade, as the profits are not distributed among the public - while Western European economies are fundamentally rooted in the primacy of private property. However, you are conflating three different concepts that exist independently of each other: the welfare state (meaning public policy in capitalist market or mixed economies to benefit the public via taxes), economic interventionism (which means regulations or policies designed to correct market failures) and Socialism (which means public/social ownership of the means of production). It is generally regarded that a socialist system wont have a need for a welfare state to equalize the "distribution of wealth" because the initial distribution of income would be more equal in the first place, as the returns to the socially-owned/public enterprises would belong to the public as opposed to private owners. Can individual socialists and socialist political parties support welfare state programs and interventionist policies to benefit their constituents? Certainly; this was often seen as a temporary measure independent of the end-goal of building a socialist economy in the Social democratic parties. But this is not the definition of socialism; welfare state programs and interventionism exists independently of the definition of socialism and have been advocated first by non-socialist and anti-socialist political groups (the first European welfare state in Germany was implemented with the goal of stabilizing support for capitalism amidst fears of a growing interest in socialism). The welfare states of Europe owe their existences to Christian democrats and conservatives as well as to social democrats (which, mind you, are only one of many political movements under the Socialist banner). -Battlecry 04:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Your definition of socialism is no longer relevant to what the word means in English today. The continual attempts by communists to POV-push are blatant, pathetic, against policy, and serve no purpose but to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. Apr38 (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Note Apr38 has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Nrcprm2026 [19]. --TFD (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC) The definition of socialism doesn't change over time, just like the definition of capitalism doesn't change. So your stating of "what the word means in English today" is irrelevant. If you're thinking of countries such as Denmark and Sweden, those are capitalist welfare states, not socialism. Also, for those who are unaware, the guy who initially started this thread, Neo Poz, has been blocked for sock puppetry. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC) See semantic change and Finger (2001) "Response to Michael Albert" New Politics 8(2). Suggesting that the meaning of "socialism" has not changed is absurd, but its the same absurdity that has led to generations of people referring to fascist totalitarian dictatorships as "communist." Smooth move, ideologues. Do you want to console yourself for lost dreams, or do you want an encyclopedia which people can make sense of without being misled? Apr38 (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I have no idea what you are talking about, but you seem to be suggesting that, since some (unspecified and vague) people misapply or misunderstand the term "socialism" to be equivalent to "social democracy", that we should therefore restrict this article to social democracy, and that we should wait until socialists adopt another term before we include information about them. If I have misunderstood, then I apologise; but in that case, please explain clearly and specifically what it is that you mean, and how you propose to edit this article. RolandR (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)