Talk:Socialism

Archives

Earlier discussions:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Socialism and Nazism -- archive of extensive discussion on this topic from Jan 2004. Also includes the discussion that resulted in a bullet list of types of socialism (the two issues were intertwined). Inevitably, other topics were also touched on, but I have endeavored to leave in the present page the few clearly unrelated exchanges on the present page during that very heated period. -- Jmabel 09:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4
• /Archive 5
• /Archive 6
• /Archive 7
• /Archive 8 -- Archive of discussions begun from June 2006 to Dec 2006 and ending no later than Feb 2007.
• /Archive 9 -- Archive of discussions begun from January 2007 to March 2007, with no live discussions.
• /Archive 10 -- Up to the settling of the length issue (2007-03 - 2007-12)

Socialism versus Social Insurance - Similarities and Differences

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

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

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

Length and Semantics

Socialism is that view of the organization of "society" which attempts to rationalize "it", i.e. society, specifically by making it's ground principle the good of society overall¹, the presumption being that except for primitive socialism, all current and past social orders substitute the rule of elites as their thetic principle. The fundamental, inevitable, and continually confused/obfuscated truth of this relation of the phenomenon to it's core concept, i.e. of socialism to society is the sort of thing which can't be expressed here due to the constraints of encyclopaedic Q. I do not think the article is too long, given it's importance, and don't see either discussion of it's length or a date at which the toolong template was placed. ¹Or, technically, any rationally asserted objective.Lycurgus Δ 11 Frost 4705 (公元)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any objections to implementation of this version of the article? -- Vision Thing -- 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Tommy-Douglas.jpg

Image:Tommy-Douglas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Without Marx or Jesus

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

Removed statement from criticisms of socialism

I saw this statement in the 'Criticisms of socialism' section of the article:

Anarcho capitalists reject any form of taxation as a form of disguised theft, and therefore, reject socialism.

This statement seemed like it made a rather unfair generalisation to me, since the article itself explains that not all varieties of socialism have a state that could tax people, and the majority seek to abolish wage-labour, rendering the concept of taxation itself obsolete. It seemed more like a criticism of social democracy than socialism to me, so I was bold and removed it. superioridad ^(discusión) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Corporations are slave plantations

Does anyone know if Socialists, communists or anyone (besides me) has ever, throughout history, said that corporations are slave plantations? If so, we must ref it & add it to this article to help end capitalist slavery quickly rather than slowly, before it destroys the entire earth to "create jobs" for slaves that destroy people & the earth (cars, houses, weapons, lumber, & everything that's made NOT to last forever)? I've found some that come close, or may even be considered to say it. Sundiii (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This site about slave plantations will help people see that corporations are slave plantations by comparing them: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAslavery.htm Overseers are now CEOs. Sundiii (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just about any liberal of sound mind spoke out against the abuses of corporations, including Adam Smith, and as far back as Livy of ancient Rome that commented on the publicani, Latin for corporation. The British East India Company was used as a dark example of corporate abuse, which so ravished India that Queen Victoria herself had to revoke its charter and attempt to repair the damage done to India. Corporations, after all, are creatures of the state, and are artificial persons given equal rights to real people, and serve no other purpose than to protect the board of directors and its shareholders from the liability of any misdeeds. The first century of US history had no significant corporate presence, because corporations could not own land, patents, or copyrights, which was reserved for real people. Not until the railroad companies was this finally reversed, and shortly after, some of the most violent labor disputes of American history resulted. The desire to limit, or even outlaw, corporations, is simply a matter of liberty, rule of law, and limited government. While classic liberals sought to limit them, while still benefitting from the obvious advantages of joint-stock companies (a primitive corporation), to allow many people to join together and accomplish great works, socialists evidently want to place them in the hands of the state. This notion is absurd, as corporations cannot exist without sanction from a state, and by their very nature are a part of the state. It's only the legal twist of words that we hear of "private corporations" today. There is, as any good lawyer will tell you, no such thing. The socialists reaction to corporate exploitation in Eastern Europe was nothing more than a reaction against the aristocratic elite (the old, original definition of capitalism) which did not exist in America. Europe's so-called middle-class was nothing more than the merchant elite without titles of nobility, while America's middle-class of the same era was truly the common people, 90% of whom had no debt, owned their own land outright, and had a small business. There was no labor class in early American history, because there were few corporations, of which were severely limited. While socialists want to limit corporate abuse by removing private property, which never existed anywhere in Europe to begin with, liberals sought to limit this abuse by making only real people landowners, thus achieving a true distribution of wealth. After all, the more land one owns, the more taxes they must pay, forcing them to sell off what they don't need. Corporations, on the other hand, have the resources and power to buy massive amounts of land, and deprive those that work it from owning it, as we see today in the US. Jcchat66 (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone ever said that if all people on earth own all things on earth then food & medicine & education & all things would be free, because it would eliminate money? Sundiii (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This says that & shows that Socialism would be "God's perfect way": http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php

This says all that & more, so can it be added? http://www.666ismoney.com/MoneyQuotes.html Sundiii (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

America has been found fighting against God! Capitalism is Satan's imperfect way, & Socialism will be God's perfect way.

With or without money, nothing is free, as everything that is made requires labor, and therefore cannot be free. Money is just a medium of exchange, an idea, not a truly material thing. It is merely and advanced form of bartering, since bartering alone is not enough for large societies. The state only needs to print a certain amount based on its population, but too much makes it worthless, and too little breaks down a society's ability to exchange for what it needs. It has nothing to do with any political system or ideology. Eventually we won't have money, just cards, because it doesn't matter what is used so long as the state maintains its integrity. Jcchat66 (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

red flag-again

i think the red flag needs to be deleted, i belive it to be offensive. a red flag is is the simble for communisim and republicans, the offical (coat of arms if you will) should be a red rose if anything, cause as a socialist i would never fly a red flag. thank you Slipoutside (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

darn-so i tried to change the flag since there were no objections, but my computer is acting stupid and i cant change the image, if some one wouldnt mind, it is an easy image to find just look under socialist rose, you can find it most any where, thanks for youre time. Slipoutside (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

• The red flag is a symbol for socialism which have a historical bagground to the revolutions of france in 1848, and the red rose is mainly a symbol for the socialdemocratic movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.251.107 (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The red lag has to stay!!! It IS the symbol of socialism. Has always been —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joemancoblondie (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

IkonicDeath

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

What about a clenched fist as a symbol for socialism? SergioBlaze —Preceding comment was added at 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Churchill quote

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

You are free to add content to Criticisms section, but it must be argument about socialism, not an attack on capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Churchill is saying that socialism causes tyranny; the Labour Party is saying that, on the contrary, capitalism causes tyranny. That is a fair rebuttal. I will not accept your attempt to quote Churchill extensively despite him not being a notable critic of socialism and at the same time exclude a counter-criticism because you do not believe it is direct enough. I tried to offer a compromise; if you do not like it, that's fine, but I suggest you try to offer me another compromise rather than reverting out of hand. This is not going anywhere. -- Nikodemos (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a rebuttal at all. One effect can, and it often does, have more than one cause. -- Vision Thing -- 14:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to give it less weight, you can add other criticisms. However, it is a single whole, and is a nice touch to the section. Larklight (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My argument is that Churchill is not notable for being a critic of socialism, and that a criticism section should include counter-criticisms for the sake of NPOV (either that or we should have a section about arguments in favour of socialism). -- Nikodemos (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. It's worthless rhetoric. Equivalent to putting a quote from Fidel Castro in the Conservatism article calling them 'capitalist pig-dogs' or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotHereAgain (talk • contribs) 03:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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

'Community' in the definition

The term 'community' in this first line of the article is sort of unclear: "...and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community." Does the community refer to the proletariat or state, or society in general, or something else? WinterSpw (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear because of the use of words. The article use to read "...subject to control by the state." But that sounds too soviet for most defenders of the socialist faith. A planned economy, which is at the core of all socialist ideals, requires political, economic, and military power concentrated into the hands of some kind of council or committee. (It is taboo amongst the defenders to say oligarchy or aristocracy, so we use council to be safe.) If the actual individuals controlled those things, then it would become an unplanned economy, and therefore not socialism (or capitalism, for those of you that think only in polarities.) Jcchat66 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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

I thought it was more to do with the fact that there are many anti-statist socialists that the word "state" wasn't used. And it's untrue that a planned economy is at the core of all socialist ideals (even Marx didn't favour a planned economy, and there are also alternate socialist economic arrangements like Proudhon's mutualism). And no, an organisation formed by and consisting of the individuals concerned is not a third party. A workers' council may or may not be a third party, depending on the specifics, so it is probably true that a better example could be substituted. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 05:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mutualism does not bring to mind socialism, as socialism is defined in most dictionaries and encyclopedias. Libertarians, classic liberals, even Adam Smith were all mutualist to one extent or another, favoring individual rights and spurring corporate rights.

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

Socialism/Communism

I've just removed a claim that Marx said socialism would elad to communism - Marx didn't write that in the manifesto, in fact he didn't say that at all, he talked of the two stages of communism in the Critique of the Gotha Programme which Lenin later used to differentiate between socialism as a stage to communism. In Marx' day socialism and communism were used reasonably interchangeably, as at least one version of this article once stated.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Biased?

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

There was scarcely any socialism (let alone communism) in Communist states (ie. Soviet Union; but not the same)! The 2nd sentence says so, merely (slightly) counterbalancing prejudice. Smart-assed Wikipedia... experience, experience! --89.142.102.135 (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no bias. All communist states had a planned economy of one kind or another, thus making them socialist. This same argument for socialists to seperate themselves from fascism is used, but any and all states, including fascist ones, where state-planned economies exist, are by definition socialism. Though Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, words still have meanings based on their primary definition in a dictionary. Otherwise, you will just cause confusion and endless debates. Jcchat66 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

i think communisim is to closly refured to socialism here and changes should be made, communisim is more a millitant style of socialism, thous not the same thing(Slipoutside (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

Why? It's still a form of socialism. In order to plan any economy, the planners must wield tremendous military power to force the people to comply. Force is required for socialism to work at all, because no individual in such a system has the right to opt-out. Jcchat66 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since we're having a POVfest in talk, the line in the article stands valid - the "state capitalism" strand of socialist thought would reject what JCChat66 has said, observing that state property is the private property of the state, and the presence of coersion is likewise indicative of the absence of socialism - see William Morris passim. That said, many commentators have used the SU to critique socialism and many socialists have defended it, so in a wiki sense, that line is valid.--Red Deathy (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as state property being private, when the state is composed of a small group of individuals with enormous political, police, and military authority, so I do not follow. Private property is property own by an individual (and perversely, a corporation given the power of an individual.) If you're saying that capitalism is a form of socialism, then I agree. There are obviously many different forms of socialism, but all with a common binding definition ... planned economics and collective ownership of property. Capitalism fits the bill as well, if it means corporations own most of the means of production, which are nothing more than mini-states answering to a larger state. Corporations cannot exist without sanction from the state, after all. Jcchat66 (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You just made up the definition that any state with a planned economy is a socialist state, inherently that idea has nothing to do with socialism and many anarcho-socialists would reject it utterly. Socialism is the belief in worker/class solidarity (depending on who you ask), it is actually quite hard to define, and many right wingfascist states (which btw, you are incorrect, they did not have planned economies but were corporate states heavily influecned by the government) like Italy or Hiler's Germany were explicitly anti-socialist. The aims of socialism are most often attempted to be fufilled through bringing the means of production under the state, however the actual idea is to hand the means of production to the labourers. In soviet Russia State=Workers (apparently) hence the name Soviet Union, with Soviets being unions, not in every socialsits mind. You seem to have a very incorrect view on the matter. P.S. If military force is required to implement socialism, why have in the past so many labour parties been elected and unelected, and why in sweden for 40 of the last 50 years has a socialist democratic party been in power without using this 'military force'?86.140.39.142 (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not make of this definition, it's been defined as such in dictionaries and encyclopedias for well over a century. Anarcho-socialism is a recent idea, which if broken down, makes no sense. If you don't like how socialism is defined, then use another word, there are plenty to choose from. "the actual idea is to hand the means of production to the labourers" ??? Countless ideologies contend this same thing, and countless people fought for it, it is hardly exclusively socialistic. Sparticus, and anyone who fought against slavery, fought ultimately for the means of production to be put back into the hands of the laborers (the slaves). That does not require planned economics or collective ownership of property, both of which ancient Rome practiced as a tool to maximize labor production. You are mixing two entirely different concepts not supported by any definition of socialism. Otherwise, most Western countries would have adapted socialism long ago. Why do most Americans despise socialism? Because it carries the very opposite meaning of equality and means of production being in the hands of laborers. America started off with both these concepts, but required no "collective ownership" or "planned economics" to do so. Thus, these are entirely different concepts. If socialism is so hard to define, than it is useless. Simplicity is the key to understanding, not complexity. Jcchat66 (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no single definition of socialism accepted by all self-defined socialists - the only thing all socialists agree on is a vague commitment to equality and collective ownership of property, but no more than that. They do not agree on the extent of this equality or collective ownership, and various schools propose many other things in addition to those two. To say that anything is "by definition socialism" is POV pure and simple. -- Nikodemos (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you just asserted by point, thank you. However, it is NOT POV to define something, but simply science. Everything must be defined, or we could not have language at all. No one is going to understand anything if words and concepts are not given precise definitions, otherwise this is all a pointless waste of time. I am merely breaking down the individual concepts merged together to make a word, which in the case of socialism, has always been the same. You've already asserted the same definition I have, but then counter your own statement. If you are truly serious about putting together a good article on socialism, you will agree that its concepts must be spelled out, even if it means something than you thought it meant. The dictionary is still the starting point of any word's meaning. An encyclopedia adds everything else that led up to the creation of that word, its history, the ideologies surrounding it, the movers and shakers, etc. The root meaning must remain intact for it to make any sense. Jcchat66 (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Churchill Quote

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

My edit

I changed the heading to theory from system. In theory it goes for equal distribution, in practise the system doesn't achieve this. If people want 'system' back, the bit about what it leads to will have to be more NPOV. Larklight (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it already only says that equality is an aim, not that it has been achieved, and system is more NPOV in itself since some editors here would maintain that socialism has existed/exists in various manifestations (I don't agree, but hat's what teh NPOV policy is for).--Red Deathy (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Your rewrite attempt was full of POV and OR. I think that the current version is much better in that respect. -- Vision Thing -- 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain which particular elements of my attempt to rewrite the intro were POV or OR. The version to which you reverted isn't all that bad (it's certainly better than the one I found, in any case), but I do believe that it places undue weight on market socialism and doesn't make it clear that the word "socialism" may refer either to a certain type of society or to a certain political ideology (this is different from "liberalism", for example, which refers strictly to a political ideology; or to put it another way, the sentence "I live in socialism" makes sense, but the sentence "I live in liberalism" doesn't).

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

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

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

Jewish Socialism?

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

In general this Wiki entry used to be very good but its been totally vandalised by people trying to improve or meddling with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.32.136 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

definition of socialism

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

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