Talk:Socialism

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

Confusion should not reign[edit]

The article starts with a clear statement that Socialism means two things: "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.." However, the second para "A socialist economy is based on the principle of production for use,.." seems to me to refer to the theoretical socialist system, rather than real-world implementations of what is claimed to be socialism. Given the clarity of the opening statement, I would like this clarity maintained throughout the article, e.g. by inserting 'theoretical' as the second word in the second para, and similar changes to avoid confusion between statements that refer to the real world and statements that refer to hypothetical constructs. Any objections? Gravuritas (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The opening paragraph isn't specific enough with what "social ownership" implies. The second paragraph goes into more detail as to what social ownership implied traditionally (a system of production for use, meaning socialized assets are operated according to economic dynamics than the profit system of capitalism). As for "real-world" systems, there is no agreement as to whether or not socialism has ever been fully achieved in the "real world". Note that the official orientation of Soviet-style economies (assuming that is what you mean by "real-world implementations") was to plan production for use via material balances as opposed to relying on profit-loss signals for the guidance of production. So the concept of "production for use", while admittedly a broad generalization, is not something relegated to pure economic/political theory. -Battlecry 20:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Considering the fact that it seems like this page has defined socialism as what Marx defined communism to be I'm a bit confused as well. Marx based his utopian vision on actual real world systems that were being recorded in the travel logs of European explorers, anthropologists, traders, etc (which is why it was a 'primitive' system within his unilinear model). It might be better to define socialism as any economic system or subsystem organized around and driven by social interaction, relationships, and sociality, since there are real world examples of such systems. I don't know if that definition is out there though and is original research on my end (most definitions for socialism are functionally crap), but I think some close approximation would go far to improving the page. 76.7.208.79 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed references to Blanquism[edit]

Lenin's paper "What is to be Done?" is not an accurate source as it was written almost 20 years prior to the Russian Revolution, when Revolutionary parties were illegal and suppressed, and well before the Bolsheviks were an open, large, and popular party. Blanquism is not Marxist nor Marxism, Leninism is not Blanquism. Therefore, Blanquism doesn't belong on this article in general and should not be referred to one in the same as Marxism Leninism specifically. In 1917 Lenin himself commented on how the Bolsheviks were not Blanquist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.50.3 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2015[edit]

Jawaharlal Nehru was Prime Minister of India. It is erroneously mentioned in the article that he was President. 103.232.224.249 (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Favonian (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ill formed sentence in Criticism §[edit]

Other economists [who?] criticise models of socialism based on neoclassical economics for their reliance on economic equilibrium and pareto efficiency.[1]

I think what is meant here is that standard bourgeois economists do so, the text as is is unworkable. I'll review the source and put the text back properly composed shortly. Stiglitz is not such an Economist.

  1. ^ Stiglitz, Joseph (January 1996). Whither Socialism?. The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262691826. . 

Lycurgus (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So the title is unavailable in electronic form, I've ordered it with expedited shipping. There's no page reference but if someone has a copy ... . Lycurgus (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The base thing I think that it was attempted to say here (the part about equilibria anyway) though is cogent. You can't base models of the new society on the assumed basis of the old. Pareto optimality less so or not at all, expect that to be totally reversed. Lycurgus (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
So this has arrived and in fact p7 where the fundamental theorems of welfare economics and pareto are highlighted (i.e it's a used text) correspond more or less to the sentence but the entirety of the work to some extent is relevant. Apparently where the original sentence had the weasel collective there's an actual codification of some body of economic thought in this specific work so that will be the nature of the redact. Lycurgus (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Replaced this with the indicated redact. Lycurgus (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
We should delete the section. Criticism should be entered in appropriate sections rather than be in a criticism ghetto. The British Labour Party for example embraced neo-classical economics before the Conservatives, so the criticism makes no sense. TFD (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
In this case that seems to be contraindicated, inasmuch as opposition/criticism of socialism is on a scale comparable to the thing itself and there is a main article. Not sure how UK politics are determinative of anything outside the UK or to what extent it (Labour) should be considered a voice worth hearing either way on the (general) matter of socialism. Lycurgus (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
However there's a redundant critique section which a) is a candidate to merge into this section and b) fails to mention Sartre's critique (of dialectical reason). Lycurgus (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Socialism Lost[edit]

Engels To Eduard Bernstein[edit]

It might be helpful to mention this in the article somewhere. Σσς(Sigma) 22:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
What specifically did you have in mind? Jonpatterns (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Nothing in particular. Its most useful use is the last bit, where Engels rejects the sound bites of socialism that are so prevalent today. And that were prevalent in his day as well, apparently.
Long ago, I had the idea that the opening sentence should have gone something like "Socialism is not an economic system where everything is owned and controlled by the state", as the first sentence in coal ball once read "Coal balls are not made of coal". However that is no longer the case. But I digress. Σσς(Sigma) 21:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This article seems to have been vandalised[edit]

The opening line is wrong. This is supposed to be an article on socialism, not communism.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with the opening line, what would you replace it with?Jonpatterns (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Partly agree with you. This description is basically a type of state advocated by Communists as a transition between capitalism and communism, but also advocated by some non-Communist socialists. See for example the Regina Manifesto. This article should be about socialism as a political movement and ideology with the socialist state moved to another article per disambiguation. Incidentally, Communists call,led the systems they created socialist, while socialists rejected the description, but never created any socialist states themselves. TFD (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
There's only one mention of communism (big C) in the lede now, it's at the end, and it was added this month, so was unclear what this was about. There are articles on state aspects of socialism and this article is about the concept, except for an appropriately sized politics section. The addition of the weasel worded sentence with the questionable ... OK, just checked the source given for that and there's no basis in it for the statement in the sentence, the source is a very poor one, so yeah, removing that sentence. Lycurgus (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
actually it was a clause tacked on to a larger sentence. Lycurgus (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)