Talk:Scientific socialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


i am writing an article on this scientific socialism and i cant find anything to give me informaion can anyone help me?

Copy vio[edit]

The sections on "class and alienation" and "economics" seem to have been taken from this site. I've removed these sections.--Bkwillwm 07:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Who's on first?[edit]

Proudhon uses the phrase as early as 1840 in What is Property? and one commentary (by Robert Graham) says he borrowed the phrase from Saint-Simeon. Jacob Haller 03:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pierre Joseph Proudhon definitely used it before Engels had used it in, as you said, his "What is Property?" The authors Lucien van der Walt and Michael Schmidt note that "[t]he term scientific socialism was, indeed, coined by Proudhon." (Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism, pg. 88). Claiming that it was Engels who used the term first is wrong, and this should be corrected. The Long Memory — Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Corrected. (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Back Matter[edit]

At best, the thing which up until this time has been referred to as "scientific socialism" is at most a notion or sketch for same. Theorizing based on observation is one thing and even this is done in orthodox Marxism in a way which is hardly scientific or even theorizing and instead is largely a matter of polemics. Even if it were a theorizing based on observation, it still wouldn't be science as currently commonly defined without closing the loop by testing and verifying such theories. See also psychohistory (the fictional subject) that matches the intent of the noun phrase. (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Signing with named identity. Lycurgus (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge Scientific Communism into this article[edit]

The much shorter article Scientific Communism should be merged into this article. MaxPont (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say delete Scientific Communism entirely there's nothing to merge, what actual content is there can move as a cleaned up mention of the treatment of scientific socialism in the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc. Lycurgus (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You are right. The article should be deleted and a redirect to this article should be added. MaxPont (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I would put off a merge. It looks like these are two different things: One is a concept put forth by Engels and the other pertains to the Soviet Union. It doesn't look like these have a close enough relationship to justify a merge.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I am curious as to why National Socialism isn't included here? (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
If you mean that of Germany in the prior century, probably because it's irrelevant. There were some communalist elements of the Nazi regime that are a basis for its being considered a far right socialism but these certainly don't extend to the concept of scientific socialism which would have been advocated by the German Communists but these were considered arch enemies of and by the Nazis and the Nazi economy was as capitalistic as any other Fascist system. (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Also reiterating my initial response to this thread, Scientific Communism is an embarrassing error of an editors perception, knowledge, whatever; the subject of this article is the sole actual common subject. (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Retracting above, added link to Scientific Communism with context which is the easiest resolution. (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Siad Barre[edit]


Siad Barre, socialist leader of the Somali Democratic Republic, proclaimed Somali Revolutionary Socialist Partyscientific socialism as the national ideology as a repudiation of atheistic Soviet-style socialism.

because although there is an indication at Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party that it had or has Islamist elements, other than the lip service some Marxists pay to the term, there's no reason to believe this has a particular association with the subject. (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)