NPOV

This article is not very encyclopedic in tone: the discussion of Objectivist and Christian approaches to socialism is disproportionately weighted. Suppose the Render unto Caesar article was dominated by a Marxian or socialist critique? Billbrock 05:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But "Render unto Caesar" is universally acknowledged as a Biblically quotation, "To each..." is generally - and probably wrongly - ascribed to Marx...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction Between Communism and Socialism

Not a bad article as a first pass; and probably understood as such by the main author. But things do need to be changed. And some of those will be more difficult than others to address.

However, there is one important change which AFAIC can be applied consistently across the whole article right away: correcting the misconception that somehow socialism and communism are the same thing and essentially interchangable. This lapse badly needs to be changed, as it is wholly inaccurate and misleading; even though it can be said there are numerous people who call themselves marxists who do not make that distinction, or who even deny it. Still, this is the standard -- and the most logical -- distinction to make. It is in fact the professional, competent distinction to make.

So it is completely wrong -- and actually stinks of bourgeois propaganda -- to designate any of the stalinist states of the recent past as "communist". The fact is, advanced communism has never existed on this planet to this date. Period. And to conflate and identify -- or worse, purposely so -- the named ruling communist (stalinist) parties with the state itself supposedly also being "communist", is to confuse very different things on different logical levels. And so this situation would either be a naïve mistake on the part of the thinker -- or simply plain propaganda.

Therefore this article must be changed to reflect the fact that all these hapless former states, whatever anyone thinks of them, were indeed socialist, legally and actually; and were not anywhere near being or becoming "communist" yet in any sense (nor were they remotely likely to become so anytime soon -- a situation the imperialists took full advantage of).

And of course: encyclopedia articles should strive as much as possible for objectivity, should they not? So start with this. Unfortunately, it won't be myself doing this work anytime soon because, like many, I have become quickly disenchanted with the gatekeepers who have apparently taken over Wikipedia; and so I am not going to be doing much article writing here until I'm ready to give more time to, for instance, taking on these busybodies.

I will, however, easily offer my 2 cents-worth on the discussion pages. These are the fora where all articles should actually be anchored and shored-up from, anyway. Like with icebergs: 9/10ths of the action should be below the surface on all articles, for everything to end up balanced aboveboard.

-)

Pazouzou 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ayn rand

ayn rand is not significant enough to have a whole section

Tag fatigue

There are too many "fact tags" in this article. (I mean, just read Gotha - it's short and it's on the web!!!!) I don't think the "original research" tag is warranted either. There does need to be more work - as with most Wikipedia articles!--Jack Upland (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

while you're reading, take a few minutes and read wikipedia's policy on original research, especially the section on synthesis. this is the main problem with the section "origin of the phrase". Also, if a lot of those {{fact}}'s can be satisfied with citations to gotha, then please add a citation. having multiple citations for the same work is fine. — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin in Morelly's Code of Nature

The idea of From Each According to His Ability, To Each According to His Need (in this sort of phrasing) comes from Morelly, author of Code of Nature (1755), and who was either a real person or a pseudonym used by François-Vincent Toussaint or Denis Diderot Of course the idea dates back much further than 1755. But in this phrasing it originates with Morelly in 18th century France. I am surprised that no contributor to this discussion was aware of this! To be fair, the utopian communist Morelly is mentioned less often than Fourier, Cabet, etc., but still he is not exactly obscure. Here is an extract from Morelly's Code of Nature (1755):

Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society[...]

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.

II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.

Distributive or Economic Laws

XI. In accordance with the sacred laws, nothing will be sold or exchanged between citizens. Someone who needs, for example greens, vegetables or fruits, will go to the public square, which is where these items will have been brought by the man who cultivate them, and take what he needs for one day only. If someone needs bread, he will go to baker and get the quantity that he needs for some specified period, and the baker will go to the public store to get the amount of grain that he needs for the quantity of bread that he has to prepare, whether for one day or several.

I hope this helps!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:No original research. Unless you can find a reliable source that makes this claim, it cannot be included in the article. — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and remove this claim from the first paragraph. According to Brewer's Famous Quotations, by Nigel Rees, "[t]here is some doubt whether Marx originated the slogan or whether he was quoting Louis Blanc, Morelly or Mikhail Bakunin." If the original contributor of the Morelly attribution wants to cite an argument that the phrase originated with Morelly, he or she should do so in the Origin of the Phrase section of the article, and not in the introduction, since it's disputed. Tyler harvey (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's there in chapter and verse. Calling it a "claim" and removing it, referring to Brewer's, is just ridiculous. Why don't you go the whole hog and refer to the Reader's Digest? There is no "doubt" as to whether Marx originated it. It is patently obvious that neither Marx nor Blanc nor Bakunin originated it, because the communist writer Morelly wrote long before the three of them, and undoubtedly wrote it in the source I quoted. Why do you want to put an error in an encyclopedia? I know the answer: it's becaus you can't learn anything new, and you're so proud of yourselves for being petty bureaucrats in Wikipedia, and the two traits reinforce each other. Yuck.

What I say is not "disputed". No-one suggests that in fact the Code of Nature was written after 1875 and that the 1755 publication date was forged. If I wanted to speak in Wikipedian, I'd say I am finding it hard to assume good faith here. There should not be any grounds for any dispute here, and by quoting a widely available source I am no more engaged in "original research" than I would be if I quoted a widely available translation of Marx's Capital or the Book of Genesis.

Still, I won't revert, because I know some idiot would re-revert with some specious 'argument' or other. I'll just leave this on the discussion page.

You people make Wikipedia the unreliable source it has become. I quoted my fully reliable source for what Morelly wrote in 1755 above on this page, so there is no point in my wasting my time explaining the obvious. Learn what a 'source' is sometime; learn what 'dispute' and 'reliable' mean too. Maybe you'll get minor jobs under Jimmy Wales when he floats Wikipedia on Wall Street, maybe even middle-ranking jobs if you keep your noses to the grindstone and don't develop any qualms about suppressing the publication of facts. Hell, if I were your boss or 'area manager', I'd be pleased with your progress.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]