Talk:Socialism/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Edits on the introduction

The introduction is already very long. The clarifications and criticisms on the Soviet Union clearly do not belong in the introduction to a much older and broader subject such as socialism. That could be said to have made a long intro into a too long introduction. I propose we move that to the history section where the issue of the Soviet Union is mentioned. But also i do not understand why a user took out the mention that socialist parties are heading governments in many countries around the world. That sentence clearly is very informative to the readers so that they can understand the scope of influence and socio-political impact that socialism has worldwide.--Eduen (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's primary use is to allow people to quickly research topics that they do not know about. The first common association that people make with socialism is with the USSR. One of the primary confusions that people have with socialism is that it represents the socioecnomic systems used by the USSR. Ergo, clarifications and criticisms of the largest and most influential state to ever openly call itself socialist is absolutely needed in an introduction. If nothing else, the first thing that someone should learn in 5 minutes of learning about socialism is that it is a wider topic than "what russia did." This article must, at the very least, dispel the torrent of Fox-News and media pundit myths about socialism without delving into inaccessible and useless academic jargon. As it stands, the lead provides a solid definition, creates clear-cut avenues for additional research, and dispels common myths. Many places in the remainder of the article fail to do this, and routinely give vague and misconstrued elements about what socialism actually is. This article needs to look towards other articles that manage to explain complicated topics and mimic their concise methods. One of the most critical and discussed points of any talk about socialism is the USSR, and not how socialists relate to feminists. As someone looking to learn more about Socialism, the previous revision, as posted by Battlecry, is the one that deserves to be seen by the public. Helios932 (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The job of wikipedia is not to "dispel the torrent of Fox-News and media pundit myths about socialism without delving into inaccessible and useless academic jargon". The work that wikipedia does is to present a subject with the most objectivity possible. Period. The clarification or criticism about a single case of a socialist government does not belong in the introduction to something which exists since the beginning of the 19th century. On top of that the USSR does not even exist anymore and today the most influential socialist government is clearly that of another country, China. The introduction is also clearly clarifying that socialism is not reducible to the case of the Soviet Union since it is mentioning democratic socialism and libertarian socialism as part of the socialist movement and of forms of socialism which clearly advocate something very different from what the Soviet Union did. Since this is a conflictive and very widespread issue i suggest to users who want to have such a big change in the introduction to come first to explain their proposal in this talk page before editing in such a big way the introduction. This is the way i have proceeded in the large changes and improvements that i have done to this article and in other conflictive and complex article that i have also edited such as the anarchism article.--Eduen (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have also reverted the change in the definition which someone did in which they took out the "and/or social control" in order to leave it "and social control". This is clearly an important issue and it should be "and/or" and not just "and" since not all socialist parties in the world advocate a complete statization of the economy or "social ownership of the economy". Socialist parties governing countries right now in places like France, Venezuela, Greece, Ecuador, China, Bolivia or Chile clearly do no advocate that and instead are in favour of "social control" of the economy through the means of regulations and planning of the economy alongside a strong welfare state. But also there are socialisms who in fact do not advocate statization of anything and there are some currents who even advocate elimination of the state. In that case social control happens thorugh "soviets", libertarian municipalism or the lack of a centrist state which can protect capitalist property and privileges in the case of Pierre Joseph Proudhon or Benjamin Tucker--Eduen (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: User:Helios932 correctly notes that many people (incorrectly) associate socialism with the USSR, and, as such, a treatment of the USSR and its relationship to socialism (to at least some extent) is necessary to any broad treatment of socialism such as the introduction of this article. But I understand what you mean when you say that the introduction is very long; we will try to remedy this.

Social control does not imply statization. You may be misconstruing social ownership for public ownership; cooperative ownership, another form of social ownership, has nothing to do with the state. Also, the so-called "'social control' of the economy through the means of regulations and planning of the economy alongside a strong welfare state" is not socialism but rather social democracy.

The part about nominally socialist parties heading governments in many countries around the world was removed as it implies that the countries in question are de facto socialist, which is not the case. Socialism has never truly existed on a large-scale. Vrrajkum (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen, Vrrajkum, and Helios932: "Social control" is a highly problematic and imprecise term that could mean anything from social planning by the state to regulation of a market economy. The wikipedia page on "social control" does not link to anything relating to socialism and economics for that matter. More to the point, aside from Encyclopedia Britannica, all our specialized sources define socialism as a system based on social "ownership" or public ownership - this is the common thread linking market socialism (which might lack any form of social control in the form of planning and regulation) with non-market socialism.

As per Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Importance, we need to at least briefly mention the Soviet-type economic system and its relation to socialism in the lead. This economic system encompassed the entire Eastern bloc and Soviet Union for the latter half of the 20th century, a region that was associated with socialism. Regardless of whether or not we believe this economic model represented actual socialism or not, we cannot ignore this fact. -Battlecry 04:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

When a party or movement calls itself "socialist" and is also called that way by academic works and by the media, that party or movement has to be dealt by wikipedia as socialist. All of those examples that i gave here fit in that situation. Major socialdemocratic parties such as the Swedish Social democrats are members of the Socialist International and are also covered and included in academic and journalistic works as belonging to the socialist movement. Social democracy is part of the socialist tradition. I also advise user Vrrajkum to not turn his/her edits into an edit war. Try to gain consensus for your proposals first and then proceed to edit. Editions on wikipedia are made through consensus and through good reference support. Not through edit wars.--Eduen (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

On the issue of the Soviet Union i will remind everyone here that the Soviet Union was not even the largest and most populous state under a socialist government. The largest country to be headed by a socialist government will always be China under the Chinese Communist party. and China under the Chinese communist party still exists while the Soviet Union does not exist anymore since 1991. As such there is no good reason why we should be claryfiying things about the single case of Soviet Union in the introduction to the wikipedia article on socialism. The introduction is already big and this clarification of the issue of the Soviet Union is clearly making a good big intro into a excessively big one. Again i advise user Vrrajkum to present his proposals here first before editing again in the introduction in such a big way.--Eduen (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

On the issue of "social control" clearly the Encyclopedia Britannica is one of the best references available to us. The definition of an article has to fit for all the cases which include a phenomenon. In this case the definition of socialism has to fit both for complete statitizing socialists like Mao Tse Tung and Stalin but also for market socialists and most democratic socialist parties which clearly do not advocate complete statization of the economy. The socialist movement is not reducible to the communist movement. Socialism is not a synonym of communism.--Eduen (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I will also remind user Vrrajkum that both the socialist governments of China, Vietman and Cuba have decided to de statisize a big part of the economy. China did that since the late 1970s and Cuba has been doing that since this decade. Nevertheless both the academy and the media continue to call those governments "socialist". As such the only existing case of an economy which is completely nationalized is North Korea. Clearly we cannot explain socialism as being about just "social ownership". Those socialist governments are also now being "socialist" though regulation and planning of the economy and not through direct complete ownership of it.--Eduen (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

In order to clarify my position i am not againts this clarification on the situation of the Soviet Union to be included in this article. I only oppose this being included in the intro which is very long already.--Eduen (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Political parties that want to survive do not operate on a single set of principles and are forced to make compromises due to the processes of democracy. It doesn't matter how many people label themselves as "Socialist parties" and then advocate for something that's not socialism. If the USSR wasn't socialist even though they said they were, then some French or Chilean political parties aren't socialist either no matter how much more agreeable they are. Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Socialism is a system that has never existed on a large scale in the real world. If we do not dispel the myth that it is a tried and true system, then we, as educators have failed entirely in our mission in writing this article. Just because a few socialist parties may try and find some compromise with their fellow representatives in social welfare programs, or in the regulation of business, does not mean that socialism has morphed into something completely new. There is an excess of activist fluff being through around on this article that already suffers from a drought of real, academic definitions of what socialism actually is. We have a focus not on the movement towards creating a socialist economy with the social ownership of the means of production, but on every activist's complaints about capitalism and how it should be regulated. I would agree with this definition as posted by Vrrajkum. However, I would suggest that the 4th paragraph of the lead be shortened to this

""Initially (Need a Date for this) "socialism" referred to general concern for the social problems of capitalism regardless of the solutions to those problems; however, by the late 19th century, after waves of revolutionary movements and further articulation, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for a post-capitalist system based on some form of social ownership of the means of production.[22][23] Socialism was further articulated as the the culmination of technological development outstripping the economic dynamics of capitalism by Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels.[24]""

This can easily remove many of our length issues while keeping to the core content. Anyone who really cares about socialism during the American Revolution will gravitate towards the History section, where this information belongs. As for "feminism" "Liberalism" and any of those other excess terms, I offer this. No introductory learning (our core audience)cares about what Einstein's positions on God when he was writing about general relativity. The musings of every academics or political are also useless to our introductory audience at this point in the article. We should take a hint from the science articles, and leave the history and hard science to those who are brave and interested enough to scroll down.Helios932 (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I will love to see the golden book of yours which has the 100 percent "true" and "only" right definition of socialism. Socialism as a political and social movement does not have a single sacred book such as the Bible for Christianity or the Koran for Islam. If the inquisitions and the persecution of herectics failed at some point even for christianity, a much more complex and free situation exists within socialism. The view of most academic works and the media is that both the Soviet Union and the French and Chilean socialist parties are socialist. As such if a political party, movement or influential thinker of politician calls itself "socialist" and is named that way both by academia and the media, the wikipedia article on socialism has to include it. But i also remind you that the most influential, those with the biggest social impact, persons associated with socialism are politicians. And we are dealing with a political movement. Clearly on something like that, politicians play a crucial role. --Eduen (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

User Battlecry has decided that socialism is the same as communism and that only communism is the only type of socialism. He is in this way contradicting both reality and academic works and the media.--Eduen (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The current definition given for socialism as "social ownership" is actually very flexible. It is not specifically referring to state ownership, as Helios932 and Vrrajkum have pointed out. I support Helios932's suggestion to trim the section on history in the lead, and would also add that we should remove the part about distinguishing modern social democracy from democratic socialism. The definition given in the lead already establishes this distinction. Other than those two changes, I think the lead is fine in its current state and should be left as-is, with minor tweaks only to shorten its length. -Battlecry 05:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the proposal of user Battlecry, North Korea is the only socialist economic system. According to him since Vietnam, China and incleasingly Cuba have been de statizing their economies, they should´t be considered socialist. "Social ownership" is not flexible enough in order to account for the cases of Vietnam, China and Cuba. It cannot also include governing socialist parties such as the Venezuelan United Socialist Party of Venezuela or the bolivian Movimiento al Socialismo who do not reduce socialism and who do not advocate nationalizing the whole economy. For them socialism means a mixed economy of nationalized sectors and of capitalist enterprises regulated by the state under a national plan.--Eduen (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You are the only person here who is claiming that our position is that statism is social ownership. We are not saying that, we have not been saying that, and we have even blatantly stated that our definition (and the definition of the linked article confirms this) that social ownership is not only state ownership.Helios932 (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

But also the issue here is that you are leaving out of socialism the whole of market socialism which, by definition, do not advocate an economy of "socially owned" enterprises but a system of cooperatives acting in a market or a market regulated by the state. As such "social ownership" can only account for the views of state communists such as Mao and Stalin and for the views of anarcho-communists who want the economy to be owned by the communes. That is why you are reducing socialism to communism and so you are saying that socialism can only be of two types, either state communism or anarcho-communism. "Social control" allows for that greater flexibility needed here.--Eduen (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Cooperative ownership is a FORM of social ownership. This is indicated in the very first paragraph of the article. Vrrajkum (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that we're reading the same article at this point. The article does contain

" By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets, and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to the operation of socially-owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them, with the profits generated by these firms variously being used to directly remunerate employees, accrue to society at large as the source of public finance, or be distributed among the population in a social dividend.[18][19][20] The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate."

This text is taken directly from the second paragraph The definitions given for socialism range far and wide, including market socialism and several other possible derivatives not directly listed. Further looks into the articles blue-texted confirm this. However, I'm curious as to why you're claiming that content clearly listed in the lead is missing.Helios932 (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Cooperative ownership is an association of workers who own an enterprise and in that sense "society" does not own that enterprise but it is owned by those associated producers. As such it is not social ownership, it is a property of those particular producers only. Society has to be represented either by the state or by communes. If those things are not owning an enterprise, it is not "social ownership".--Eduen (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect; cooperative ownership is indeed a form of social ownership. I again think that you are misconstruing social ownership for public ownership; social ownership of the means of production as the defining characteristic of socialism is merely held in contrast to private ownership of the means of production as the defining characteristic of capitalism. It may be better to think of it as, in capitalism, resources are exclusively controlled, whereas in socialism, resources are inclusively controlled. Consider this image: http://s3.postimg.org/tixgb3lxv/capitalism4.png Vrrajkum (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Social ownership" is simply a general designation for non-private ownership, specifically referring to how the economic surplus of an economy is appropriated. Generally it is distinguished from "private" ownership by the surplus either accruing to society as a whole or to the workers of a specific enterprise (the cooperative form you are referencing). It -does- include autonomous cooperatives, which is a major form of social ownership as cited. It may also refer to a more -comprehensive- process of transformation involving a change in the organizational structure of enterprises and the economy (hence socialist public ownership is not quite the same thing as state ownership within capitalism). My point is, "social ownership" does not imply mere state ownership but is actually a broad designation. -Battlecry 07:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

At this point i will ask you for a reference which states that "social ownership" can include something like cooperatives competing each other in a market. The fact is that socialists like Pierre Joseph Proudhon or Benjamin Tucker mostly thought about a market economy of cooperatives and small businesses which will never end up being a capitalist economy since in their proposal there is no state that will privilege some and make them grow up to creating a capitalist economic system. In that sort of economy and in market socialist proposals there is no state or communal property of enterprises but some form of social control only. As such we need to talk about social control. Otherwise we are reducing socialism to communism-either of the statist or the anarchist type.--Eduen (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Nominally"

Moving from user talk page User:Capitalismojo You commented that there is "no ref for "nominal", also inaccurate"--can you expand on your saying that calling the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics a nominally socialist state, supported by its constitution, is inaccurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrrajkum (talk • contribs) 03:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Nominal means in name only. The workers did control the means of production. In the USSR the Bolsheviks seized and turned over every company with more than 5 employees to the workers of those companies. That is not "nominal", that is reality. For seventy years the USSR was the vanguard of socialism, that it later collapsed into disrepute doesn't alter history as commonly understood. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: The workers did not control the means of production in the Soviet Union. There was a short period of de facto workers' control after the February Revolution (before the establishment of a Soviet state), but within a matter of days after seizing power in the later October Revolution the Bolsheviks proceeded to take control away from the workers and bring the means of production under their own (exclusive) control. Please read the following historical analyses that are indeed referenced in the context of the very sentence that you modified:

Chomsky, "The Soviet Union Versus Socialism": "On November 3, Lenin announced in a “Draft Decree on Workers’ Control” that [worker] delegates elected to exercise such control [over the means of production] were to be “answerable to the State for the maintenance of the strictest order and discipline and for the protection of property.” As the year ended, Lenin noted that “we passed from workers’ control to the creation of the Supreme Council of National Economy,” which was to “replace, absorb and supersede the machinery of workers’ control” (Carr)."

Howard and King, "'State Capitalism' in the Soviet Union": "It was easy enough to demonstrate that wage labour had not been abolished in the Soviet Union, and that the proletariat had no more control over the allocation and use of the means of production than its counterpart in the West. It also seemed clear that the extraction of surplus labour and its appropriation by the minority which did control the means of production in the interests of accumulation – in short, their exploitation – was proceeding on an ever-increasing scale and (until the late 1960s) at what appeared to be an ever-increasing pace, allowing the Soviet Union first to catch up and then to overtake the West."

The Soviet Union's 'socialist' designation simply does not hold up to any form of real scrutiny. Please do not remove the word 'nominally' again.contribs

Chomsky is reliable only for his opinion. But notably neither ref above says "nominally" thus your edit fails verification. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: You are saying that the Soviet Union was not a nominally socialist state?

Copied from above on this page:

"Nominally" is preferred to "constitutional." The first implies de jure while the second implies de jure and de facto. It would be controversial for example to say that the Soviet Union was a constitutional democracy. It would seem odd too to call Indian a "constitutionally socialist state" even though the constitution says it is a socialist state. It is not the same thing as saying New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy.

Also, I find the lead too weighted toward socialism as understood in the Soviet Union, and too focused on the socialist state rather than socialism as a movement.

TFD (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with @TFD: and have re-implemented the word "nominally"--it does not contradict that the Soviet Union was a constitutionally socialist state, but does not imply that the Soviet Union was de facto socialist as the word 'constitutionally' does (and which the Soviet Union was not). I also tried to address your other points, reinserting the paragraph about the history of the socialist movement into the lead but shortening it slightly, as I originally moved it to the 'History' section because I felt that the exposition was too long to comfortably read. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to add too that it is better to say that there is no consensus the USSR was socialist, rather than it was not socialist, because that is all that is relevant to policy. TFD (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

If TFD is correct, then I agree we should use the world "nominally" instead of "constitutionally" as a descriptor for the Soviet Union's claim to be a socialist state. I would disagree with the assertion that the lede focuses too much on the USSR - the economic literature and much of 20th century politics largely identified its economic system as socialist, so we should briefly note that. The controversy is not whether or not the Soviet Union was -really- a socialist state (that is a sectarian dispute among socialists), it is whether or not the Soviet economy represented a truly non-capitalist economic form.

Vrrajkum I want to be clear that "non-market" refers specifically to the absence of factor markets, and does not necessarily imply a "planned economy" by the definition that term has acquired. Socialism was and still is widely conceived as a non-capitalist economic order that operates according to a different dynamic than capitalism, even among many traditional market socialists (Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner were quite specific that the aim of their model was to provide an alternate mechanism to capital markets). -Battlecry 23:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The word "nominally" has already been agreed upon above. Furthermore, see https://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/workers-control/02.htm#fn69 and onwards.

Your suggestion that a source must explicitly use the word "nominally" is trolling. The sources note the key point that the workers did not meaningfully control the means of production in the Soviet Union, and that the Soviet Union was therefore not de facto socialist. "It is more appropriate to see the Soviet Union as a challenger to all forms of capitalism. Not a genuine socialist challenge, certainly, but a real menace which for several decades was regarded as the principal threat to their power by the ruling classes of all actual capitalisms." - Howard and King, "'State Capitalism' in the Soviet Union" Vrrajkum (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Battlecry, the literature does not identify the economic system as socialist. It uses the term for lack of any other, but does not claim there was social control and ownership. TFD (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Basically Users Battlecry and Vrrajkum wants to force this article to accept only communism as the only "real" type of socialism, be it of the statist type or of the anarcho-communist type. They don´t even want to accept reliable sources like the two that i have provided while they have not brought any new sources which explicitly establish that socialism can only mean total "social ownership". According to them not even China and Cuba can be considered socialist countries since they are not anymore economies of complete social ownership and logically the Chinese and Cuban Communist Parties should not be considered socialist parties since they have abandoned commitment for an economy of "social ownership". As such i guess they are arguing that we should also take off this article mentions of the Chinese and Cuban Communist parties. But also since market socialism advocates cooperatives competing in markets then following their wishes we will have to delete that too from the article since that clearly does not fit either their single vision of socialism as an economy of total "social ownership". Following their logic only North Korea is a socialist economy and is socialism right now while parties who actually have socialism in their name cannot be included in this article since they don´t fit this single vision that socialists are only those who advocate an economy completely composed of "social ownership".

As this stands now i can argue that they have been proposing changes that simply do not have a consensus. They are proposing that this article only accept "social ownership" economies as socialism and user Vrrajkum has not even answered my question on whether socialism is only an economic system or that it is also a political movement and a political ideology. I can argue now that their proposals simply have not gained consensus and that the introduction which was here before user Vrrajkum came to edit this intro had a consensus achieved in a long discussion which it is clear to me this user has not had the time to check. But now user Vrrajkum has been involved in an edit war and reverting to what he wants even though he has not gained consensus for his proposals in this talk page and that he is engaged in an edit war with more than one user and even after simply ignoring reliable sources which i have presented here in this discussion while he has not brought any realiable sources to this discussion supporting his position.--Eduen (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: It's not clear to me that you read anything that I write, or what anyone else is writing for that matter. COOPERATIVE OWNERSHIP IS A FORM OF SOCIAL OWNERSHIP. SOCIALISM DOES NOT MEAN STATISM. What do you not understand about this? It is, in fact, you who has not gained consensus for your insistence that "social ownership" means that the entire economy is nationalized. Vrrajkum (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: You are the only editor who disagrees with defining socialism as an economic system characterized by "social ownership and control". The second line of the first paragraph clearly delineates a range of possible meanings for "social ownership", of which cooperatives are included. -Battlecry 06:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Eduen did not misinterpret you on socialism=statism but referred to both Communism and anarcho-communism, which is non-statist. In reality anarcho-communism was never near the force that Communism was. TFD (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Social control" is also highly dubious and is never given a precise definition as "social ownership" is in any of the sources. In one context, it may refer specifically to society-wide planning of the economy - which is the exact opposite of what Eduen is trying to define it as. In other cases, it might refer to workplace democracy or workers' control - but a private corporation with democratic or relatively egalitarian management structures is not socialism, so we cannot define socialism simply as "social control" in this sense either. More confusingly, the Wikipedia article on "Social control" specifically refers to a sociological concept that will only confuse the layman further. It is most accurate and best to define socialism as "social ownership and control" since all sources identify social ownership of some kind as the common defining feature of all the various forms of socialism, but only one - the least specialized and most general, Encyclopedia Britannica - allow for the possibility of socialism to be defined solely as "social control". -Battlecry 10:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

To support User:Battlecry's definition:

"[M]ere control over the means of production is not enough to permit the existence of a capitalist class... ownership matters, and it matters a very great deal." (Howard and King, "'State Capitalism' in the Soviet Union", pp. 122)

In other words, private control over the means of production (the de facto status quo in the Soviet Union) alone is insufficient for the designation of capitalism; private ownership is also needed. By the same token, social control alone is insufficient for the designation of socialism, and social ownership is also needed (Battlecry used the example of a privately owned firm with a cooperative management structure being inconsistent with socialism). Thus, in addition to defining socialism as a system of social ownership and control of the means of production simply being intuitively logical when contrasting socialism to capitalism, reviewing all of the cited sources in aggregate does indeed point to this definition being the most fitting. Vrrajkum (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

For the reasons described above, I support Vrrajkum and Battlecry's version of the lead.Helios932 (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that most socialist and communist parties today are tolerant of capitalist enterprises and that includes the Chinese and Cuban Communist parties. You have decided to go againts my very good sources while keeping your wish to reduce socialism as communism. "Social ownership" is as complex and as possibly confusing to many people (they will tend to think it only means state ownership no matter how much you explain it to us here) as "social control". Social control is a more flexible term and I gave 3 sources which support that but since it does not fit your vision of socialism as communism you have decided to ignore good sourcing through edit warring. As this article stands now it is incoherent and to make it coherent we will have to delete about 80 percent of it in order to leave only leninism and anarcho-communism. And your two keep thinking that the word "socialism" is only used as an economic system. Now you are just forcing your proposal, which clearly has not won a consensus here, through edit warring and that includes deleting arguments sourced by many references. I hope you are ready to delete the 80 percent of this article of yours in order to make it coherent. User Vrrajkum has totally rejected the work by Donald Sasson and the book Socialism: an introduction saying "your other source is also contradicted by this source, as One Hundred Years of Socialism seems to suggest that socialism has been successfully implemented when in fact "Socialism: A Very Short Introduction above clearly says "no party has been entirely successful in this respect". This clearly shows user Vrrajkum simply wants to contradict what almost all definitions of socialism say which is that socialism is also a political movement while he keeps reducing it to an economic system. But now i frankly cannot understand why user Vrrajkum thinks "success" is important here. Apparently this user thinks that wikipedia only reports about "successes" and that it is the encyclopedia of successful social experiments. Then he continues "that these two states have been selected as case studies [NOT because they are examples of socialism]". A general book on socialism dedicates to two cases giving each one an entire chapter. MMMmmm. Almost anyone will tink that it is not reporting two cases of nazism or of conservatism or of liberalism but clearly two cases of socialism. But it seems now that user Vrrajkum now thinks that not only socialdemocracy is not part of socialism but also that the construction of the cuban economy by the Cuban Communist party is not a case of socialism either. As it stands now it seems that it is not 80 percent of this article that they want to delete but now it seems about 90 percent of this article.

At this point i will have to ask users Vrrajkum and Battlecry to present a new version of this article that will clearly be very small and about 20 percent of what we have now. Otherwise what will have to change is the introduction.--Eduen (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: Actually, we just obtained consensus above, and it is you who is unilaterally pushing your own unsupported interpretation. You unfathomably continue to ignore the fact that "social ownership" is an umbrella designation that encompasses multiple different forms, including cooperative ownership--I actually don't even understand what you are arguing when you say that "[people] will tend to think [social ownership] only means state ownership no matter how much you explain it to us here"? Vrrajkum (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You have only reached consensus with user Battlecry on thinking socialism is only an economic system, even though user TFD pointed out to you that the wikipedia article Socialist mode of production already exists and that we have to deal here also and more extensively with socialism as a political movement. You simply have rejected three sources that present socialism as a call for social control of the economy. And you have rejected two very good general works on socialism and it seems you even don´t think the cuban economy is socialism. Sorry but the banners have to stay.--Eduen (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: Actually user Helios932 also concurred with myself and user Battlecry, thus we have consensus. Vrrajkum (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You are forgetting about me, user TDF and user capitalismojo. You have no consensus for your proposals. The banners have to stay.--Eduen (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: User Capitalismojo was arguing against the Soviet Union being a "nominally" socialist state, which is completely unrelated to what you are arguing. User TDF is also in contrast to user Capitalismojo in this respect.

Also, I reiterate that your own source argues that the Cuban economy is not an example of socialism in practice.

"While no party has been entirely successful in this respect [what respect?], Swedish social democracy and Cuban communism both attempted to implement the goals of equality, cooperation, and solidarity and both demonstrated significant achievements. It is for this reason [what reason?] that these two states have been selected as case studies. (pg. 52)" Vrrajkum (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Cooperative management and allocation of resources

This source which is supporting the definition of socialism mentions "cooperative mangement" and "allocation of resources" as part of the definition of socialism:

Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Leonardo Morlino (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science. SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 2456. ISBN 978-1412959636. "Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."

Both "cooperative mangement" and "allocation of resources" are things that social democrats and democratic socialists advocate for in managing a plural economy of nationalized enterprises, capitalist bussinesses, cooperatives and self employment options. The main mechanisms for that is keynesian economics, economic planning, nationalizing things which are not interesting to the capitalist sector and welfare states. As such i propose that we will have to add "cooperative management" to social onwership and to a future addition of "social control".--Eduen (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Eduen, "allocation of resources" refers to markets and economic planning as resource allocation mechanisms, not to economic policies like Keynesian macroeconomics. "Cooperative allocation of resources" would most likely be referring to planning or communal allocation of resources. However, these terms are not clearly defined in the source material so we use the most common element as the definition, which is "social ownership" and then proceed to explain the different allocation forms (planning vs. market) in the subsequent paragraphs. It is obvious that you are ignorant of economics and are confusing and often conflating terms like "control", "resource allocation" and "ownership" with each other. -Battlecry 04:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits have only muddled the definition of socialism by using ambiguous terms like "collective management of the means of production" and "social control", which I already explained was highly problematic as it has no precise definition and commonly refers to a sociological concept that will only further confuse prospective readers. Ironically, your edit to the first line actually precludes free-market forms of socialism by insistent that socialism is generally defined as "collective management of the means of production". Therefore I have reverted your changes to the lead. -Battlecry 04:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources you have added (Merriam Webster Online and Dictionary.com) cite "and control" as complement to "state ownership", not an alternative. Only one source adds "and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources" which implies economic planning, or at the minimum, a managed/command economy. But unlike the term "social ownership", where we have a clear and reputable sources defining it as a range of forms (from public, cooperatives and social ownership of equity) we don't have any specific source defining "social control". However, since many sources -do- include "and control" (whatever that may mean) as a complement to "social ownership" we have retained that wording in the main definition of socialism given. "Social ownership and control of the means of production" is the most broad and concise definition that is supported by all the given sources. The second paragraph goes into detail about the different forms of resource allocation that have been proposed for socialism (planning vs. markets) without favoring one or the other as -the- definition of socialism. For this reason, I have removed the ambiguous language you added to the first sentence. -Battlecry 05:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It is nice that we have agreed on adding social control. Now this is hardly only the proposal for economic management of only socialdemocrats but actually the way the Chinese and Cuban Communist Parties are managing their economies now as well as self described socialist governments in Latin America. The difference between socialdemocrats and democratic socialism is not too strong since parties like SYRIZA also advocated more or less something very similar to scandinavian social democracy. Nationalizations and controls of non nationalized enterprises by an economic plan and a strong welfare state. Now as far as socialdemocrats and workers owned or managed enterprises it happens that in the 1970s there was proposals circulating in the british Labour Party for spreading that and the venezuelan and ecuadorian governments have experimented with that on a small scale. The Salvador Allende government also wanted to spread that and he belonged to the same party which is leading now the state of Chile. Would you consider the PSUV´s government as "socialdemocrat"? I don´t know but anyway they have experimented with that also. The difference between Chinese and Cuban Communist party, the scandinavia socialdemocrats and labour parties and some cases of the latin american leftist governments is a difference on a one party state vs. a parliamentary democracy but overall as far as economics it is the same proposal.--Eduen (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as my expertise on economics i don´t happen to be an economist. My university degrees are on sociology and political science. Still i will have to remind economists that what exists on society is made up of things like history, processes, structures and actors moving themselves within all that and that economic systems are only one aspect of society alongside other things like culture and forms of government/politics.--Eduen (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: "Social ownership and control" was the wording that myself and Battlecry proposed above and that Helios932 also agreed with; per your edit comments, you seem to be suggesting that we tried to define socialism only in terms of "social ownership", which was never the case (you also still don't seem to grasp that social ownership is a broad designation that includes cooperative ownership). Also, the sources that you have added for "social control", namely Encyclopedia Brittanica, Dictionary.com, and Merriam-Webster Online, do not appear to be reliable sources on socialism, as they suggest that socialism is a system where all resources are controlled either by society at large (EB and Dictionary.com) or by the state (Merriam-Webster), which is incorrect. I have removed these three sources because their treatment of socialism is inaccurate.

@TFD: What do you want us to provide sources for? With respect to your saying that Americans associate socialism with governmental regulation, that's the same thing that I was saying; many Americans associate socialism with government control of the economy, a system which many of them in turn associate with the Soviet Union and/or other Marxist-Leninist states. My high school teacher of AP US History and AP Economics, who was named Social Studies Teacher of the Year in our state and was in the running for National Social Studies Teacher of the Year, (incorrectly) taught socialism for more than thirty years as a system where "everybody works for the government" (his exact words), proceeding to use the Soviet Union as his primary example. He also did not AT ALL touch upon socialism as a broader ideology or movement.

I do not know if you are an American (my guess is that you are not) but in our third Republican presidential debate this past Wednesday (Oct 28), the Republicans were all treating socialism as a Soviet-style system of government control of the economy--one presidential candidate explicitly invoked the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks with respect to the Soviet Union being the largely quintessential American conception of socialism. This conception indeed mirrors many Americans' conception of socialism, which has become entrenched in the collective American consciousness through Cold War propaganda and, more broadly, of America traditionally being a bastion of capitalism and of American propagandists therefore trying to portray socialism as undesirable. Vrrajkum (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: "That is why talking about economic systems only make sense with a talk about social and political movements and processes." This position is encompassed by position One, the position of treating socialism as a system and socialism as a movement as being interconnected, which is what Battlecry and I support.

"The main mechanisms for that is keynesian economics, economic planning, nationalizing things which are not interesting to the capitalist sector and welfare states." Actually, "keynesian economics, economic planning, nationalizing things" are some of the defining characteristics of modern, pro-capitalism social democratic welfare states.

@TFD: "[Socialism] is however defined by an identification of social problems, agreement that they derive from capitalism and an agreement that some degree of social control and/or ownership is necessary." This sounds like a good definition of socialism as an ideology or movement, but it neglects treatment of socialism as a system. Vrrajkum (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Vrrajkum, I want you to provide a source that says the term socialism is more often used to refer to a system rather than the ideology and movement. A Google news search for example shows hits for Sanders, Corbyn and Socialist parties in Western Europe and Latin America[1]

Furthermore, since socialism can be broadly or narrowly defined, Broad-concept articles says that the main article should be about socialism in its broadest definition. (Some socialists for example advocate establishing a socialist system.) The example is football: "[It] Football may refer to one of a number of team sports which all involve, to varying degrees, kicking a ball with the foot. Although the word "football" can apply to whichever form of football is the most popular in the regional context in which the word appears, all of these variations share some common elements and can be traced to a common origin. Thus, the history and development of the general concept of football can be explained in its own article." And Not "what first comes to (your) mind" rebuts your view that we should use the definition that comes first to your mind: "An American might first think of the city in Alabama when he hears "Birmingham", but primary topic belongs to the city in England, which is far more notable and whose article is read much more often."

TFD (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User Vrrajkum: "Actually, "keynesian economics, economic planning, nationalizing things" are some of the defining characteristics of modern, pro-capitalism social democratic welfare states." For the 1000th time i repeat that this sort of economics is what the Chinese and Cuban Communist parties are implementing. I don´t know in what book we can find the perfect pure ideal socialist economy that user Vrrajkum talks about but it is clear that it only exists there, in books. What we have in reality existing and even in the US is socialist parties and some of those are even heading governments around the world. Let´s remind everyone here that the Chinese Communist Party is the biggest socialist party in the world. It is either that or we have the North Korean all "social ownership" economy. User Battlecry has also accepted that each subsection of socialism has its own proposal for the socialist system or economy so i can suggest that talking about the single socialist model that will please every subsection of socialism is impossible. The democratic socialists will say North Korea is fascist, the libertarian socialists will say the Soviet Union was State capitalist, C.L.R James will also say that, and the trotskists will say democratic socialists and social democrats want a capitalist economy. As such there is not a single model that will please every section of socialism and that is perhaps the most important thing we can say about the "socialist economic system" besides that it includes some degree of social ownership and social control. As far as the discussion on what the americans think socialism is i will say that even the stereotypes and reductions of the Republicans have some of the truth. But also i have heard that they call scandinavian countries "socialist" so that particular reduction also has some truth in it. For example i found this article in one google search. Anyway we should not be focus excessively in what the americans think socialism is since here in wikipedia we work with realiable general sources and we are not writing here US wikipedia but english language wikipedia. Finally since we have come to agree that social control is also socialism and since users Vrrajkum and Battlecry are not proposing erasing 80 percent of this article and since they are recognizing that socialism is also a political movement then we should proceed to inform readers that many self described, and described by other sources, socialist parties are governing many countries around the world. --Eduen (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

In response to TFD's inquiry, I have not come across a source that says socialism is used more frequently to refer to either an economic system or a political movement. However there are many notable sources including those cited for the first two paragraphs of the lead, which are defining "socialism" or using the term to refer to a socio-economic system. Popular news articles don't constitute reliable and scholarly treatments on a subject as complex as socialism. Regardless, the current lead makes it clear that the concept encompasses both an economic system and a movement that aims to bring this system about. The only controversial aspect remaining with this article is organizing the article's body content to reflect a better balance between the two (the history of the movement and the economic concept). -Battlecry 00:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No matter what the topic of the article is, the lead must explain the different definitions. The issue is, RfC: What should be the topic of this article?|"What should be the topic of this article?" TFD (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

To user Battlecry i can respond that there is already a section called economics. If you could tell us what you want to add with actual sources or citations i bet that could be incorporated to that section in order to improve it. But telling from what you have been writing here i am afraid that you are going to try to present the idea that there is a single socialist economic system possible within a current where there are many proposals and with many inside it telling each othere that they are false socialists. But also there is the fact that we are talking about ideal proposals written in books or articles but in the socialism article we deal with a political movement which exists and act in real politics. As such wikipedia has another article called "socialist economics" and clearly that seems more reasonable to me than talking about a single "socialist economic system" since we are talking about a political position with a lot of plurality within it and with positions which have gone as far as murdering each other as the case of Stalin shows murdering Trotsky and the anarchists in Spain. As such there is no "socialist economic system" but mostly a socialist economic debate.--Eduen (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a debate but generally there are a few major categorizations of socialist systems: market vs. non-market (which includes planned economies, but in recent decades it has expanded to include non-planned and non-market proposals). The article needs to go into detail explaining socialism and its development as a concept. As it currently stands, much of the article reads like something you'd find on a contemporary socialist party's website: it talks about the struggles of certain movements or people who are associated with the socialist movement, but either actively tries to avoid giving, or ignores defining socialism itself in order to look more "mainstream" and less "radical". The "Socialist economics" page is largely redundant and actually focuses on very little on socialist economic proposals, and more on classical economic theories and critiques of capitalism (Marxian and Anarchist economics). That page needs to be scrapped entirely, but that is a different discussion entirely. -Battlecry 04:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User Battlecry certainly is a believer in the Oneness of socialism. He thinks there is a single socialist economic system in a tendency in which at some point we had socialists of one strand murdering other socialists and even fighting in arms as happened in the Spanish Civil War. As far as a supposed objective here of "making socialism mainstream" i have to remind user Battlecry that we are even incluiding here Anarchism, Proudhon, so called "utopian socialism, which should really be called Early socialism and other very non-mainstream and anti-establishment perspectives such as eco-socialism and socialist feminism and we even mention things like individualist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, council communism, luxemburguism, gay socialists, African socialism, etc. Also other socialist phenomena such as squats, the Black Panther Party, autonomism, religious socialism, etc, etc, etc. I don´t see where it is mainstream. I have even just noticed that it doesn´t even mention Jeremy Corbyn. That´s how un-mainstream and non-populist this article is.--Eduen (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have just about had enough of your nonsensical rants that are coming off more and more as attempts at trolling. You have consistently prevented anyone from making improvements to this article for over a year, if not more, by unilaterally reverting well-sourced edits and trying to insert social democracy (and I assume reformism) as the definition of socialism while accusing other editors of supporting positions they never held. You consistently fail to understand the distinction between socialism as a concept and the actions/policies of self-described socialist or formerly socialist parties or leaders, the latter of which has little relevance to the subject of the article. The article needs to discuss both socialism as a concept (this would include information describing what "control" or "social control" means, something that is very crucial to discuss in the article if we are using that as part of the definition) and socialism as a movement to achieve said concept, not the policies implemented by parties that have "socialist" or "social democratic" in their name irrespective of whether or not those parties really are socialist or not. An elaborate historical discussion of this belongs in a separate article entitled "History of the socialist movement", and certainly does not belong taking up more than 50% of the body of the main socialism article. As for you suggesting that "socialist phenomena" like "squats, the Black Panther Party, autonomism, religious socialism, etc, etc, etc" are un-mainstream, I would question their relevance to an article on socialism (religious socialism aside, which belongs in the political ideology section). The fact remains that, unless you are willing to consider the Soviet economic model or Yugoslav economic model as forms of socialism (which many economic literature does), there has been no socialist system in existence on any large-scale in human history yet and it is largely a theoretical construct. -Battlecry 06:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

1. I have accepted for example the addition in the intro of this distinction between market and non market forms of socialism. Anyone can see that this article has been edited by many other persons besides me and much of that has stayed. On the other hand other users besides me have also opposed some of your proposals as anyone can see in this talk page and the archives of it. 2. User Battlecry has to accept that both reformism and revolutionary socialism are part of socialism almost since the beggining of the 19th century. 3. User Battlecry can say this: "You consistently fail to understand the distinction between socialism as a concept and the actions/policies of self-described socialist or formerly socialist parties or leaders, the latter of which has little relevance to the subject of the article." So he thinks socialist politicians are not relevant to an article on a political movement. I am amazed that he can actually say this without noticing how absurd this sentence is. The fact is that user Battlecry wants us to focus on the writing of economists in this article. I remind him that the articles "socialism (marxism)" and "socialist economics" exist within english wikipedia.--Eduen (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

On the soviet union in the intro

"While the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally[29] socialist state led to socialism's widespread association with Marxism-Leninism and the Soviet economic model, many economists and intellectuals argue that the Soviet Union failed to truly establish socialism[30] and that it instead represented a form of state capitalism[31][32] or a non-planned "command" or "managed" economy."

This covers the views of trotskists and libertarian socialists on the subject of What was the Soviet Union? Since we are writing the socialism article either we also have to cover what democratic socialist/socialdemocrats and non-trotskist leninists think on the USSR also; or my preferred option, we rather not deal with this in an intro which is already very long. The democratic socialist/socialdemocrats main issue with the USSR was that they saw it as an authoritarian personalistic undemocratic regime while the non trotskist leninists opinions on it go from that it was the best thing in the world to that it lost its good course after Stalin in the case of staunch "anti-revisionist" stalinists such as the maoists, followers of Enver Honxha and according to those governing North Korea. A balanced neutral view on this following wikipedia policy issue only gives us these two options and clearly not this which i am citing here. My proposal on this is that we rather not deal with this in the intro since it is already very long. Also since the biggest socialist party and country in the world has not been the USSR and the soviet CP since the 1950s but the Chinese system and the Chinese Communist Party. Also the Chinese Communist Party regime still exists while the Sviet Union does not exist anymore since 1991. We could deal on this in the historical section but incluiding also the views of democratic socialist/socialdemocrats and non-trotskist leninists. --Eduen (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, the identification of the USSR as a non-socialist economy - and specifically, a non-planned socialist economy - is a view shared by a range of different economists coming from a range of different perspectives (including Orthodox Marxist perspectives and non-socialist perspectives). We are not talking about the bickering of political ideologues ("libertarian socialists" vs. "Trotskyists"). The line should specifically focus on the Soviet economic model and not the ideology of the USSR (the latter is filled with ideologue clutter about the USSR "not really being socialist"), but analysis of how the USSR's economy actually functioned is something that transcends political ideologies. But your sentiment is correct - aside from this brief overview, we need to leave more comprehensive discussions (about whether or not the Soviet economic model was capable of achieving socialism, whether it represented a transitional form, etc.) for further elaboration in the body of the article. -Battlecry 04:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As per the discussion in previous threads, inclusion of the Soviet model in the lead is crucial because in many comparative economics textbooks the Soviet model is presented as the major model of socialism, though again economists are not convinced that it was "socialist" in the comprehensive sense of operating under different economic dynamics by neutralizing capital in the means of production. Regardless, this is the economic model that has been associated with socialism for much of the 20th century so it deserves to at least be mentioned in the lead. I propose the following alterations to make the information more specific:

While the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally socialist state led to socialism's widespread association with Marxism-Leninism and the Soviet economic model, many economists and intellectuals argue that the Soviet economic model represented a form of state capitalism or a non-planned "command" or "managed" economy. -Battlecry 04:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as this "new" proposal of yours it is more or less the same thing as the previous one and 1. it keeps excluiding the views of non-trotskists leninists and "anti-revisionist stalinists" as well as those of democratic socialists/socialdemocrats 2. the introduction is already too long. 3. The Soviet Union does not exist anymore and the biggest socialist party in the world since 1954 has been the Chinese Communist Party and that one still exists and still governs China so they could have as much if not more emphasis of mention in the intro. 4. This mention of the USSR in the lead might have been more pressing in the early 1990s. We are in 2015 already so over emphasizing this in the intro of this article will make it look a little outdated. 5. Please bring the references of these "economists" who say these things. Still i would not think anyway economists have to be considered the highest authority on a political movement so i don´t see why we should we giving this much importance to economists. Or at least we should give as much importance to economists as to political scientists and sociologists on this but i will think general works on socialism which go beyong disciplinary divisions are more reliable sources than the opinions of those in a single too specific field of social sciences.--Eduen (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: Again, your ignorance and misinterpretation of what I write astounds me. We are not talking about "political movements" or "Trotskyist views", we are talking about the Soviet-type economic system. Furthermore, this is a view held by many classical Marxists as well, not simply "Trotskyists". But that is beside the point, since we are not discussing Communist parties or Marxist-Leninist socialist states (which you seem to think we are) given your suggestion we discuss the Chinese Communist Party. The source was given in my previous post, plus there were two sources on the nature of the Soviet-type economy in the line you removed from the article. There is no widely-held distinct Chinese economic model in the literature that is associated with socialism, on the other hand economics textbooks have treated the Soviet model as the "traditional" model of socialism for much of the 20th century. We cannot exclude this information from the lead of an article on socialism. -Battlecry 06:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about socialism. Why do you think that means the Communist Party of China and not the SDP and Labour Party? By all means write an article about Trotskysim. Is that what most people think is the topic? TFD (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The Soviet Union developed the only system that has been consistently and widely recognized as being socialist (although you and I both might disagree with that). Hence we should mention that at least briefly in the lead. On the other hand, the Labour Party, etc. has not created a distinct system that has widely been regarded as being "socialist", it only participated in governments within capitalist economies. That is why more weight needs to be given to the Soviet model (which was adopted by the People's Republic of China until the late 1970s) as opposed to the "systems" (in actuality, they created no recognizable alternative to Western capitalism) of other self-described socialist parties. -Battlecry 06:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The Soviet Union needs to be mentioned in the lead; a single sentence is by no means overdoing it. It is the predominant historical example of "socialism" in contemporary usage, particularly in the U.S.; for example, user Capitalismojo (an American from Wisconsin, as you can see on his user page) argued above that "[f]or seventy years the USSR was the vanguard of socialism." Here is another clip from the recent American presidential debate to support that Americans' largely conceive of "socialism" as a Soviet-style system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHUmhGs1b7A&feature=youtu.be&t=2929

I understand that the USA is not the only country in the world, but Wikipedia's purpose is to educate people; as TFD noted the Sanders campaign has sharply increased the number of websearches for "socialism", and a short treatment of the Soviet Union in the lead is warranted in order to help expose people, especially Americans who may be victims of Cold War-era propaganda, to the debate over the Soviet Union's socioeconomic designation.

@The Four Deuces: I cannot find a source that says that the word "socialism" more commonly refers to the (theoretical) socioeconomic system rather than the (practical) ideology or movement, but I have tried to provide some evidence for my assertion that Americans largely associate the word "socialism" with the Soviet model (this fact is also the underlying foundation of Chomsky's "The Soviet Union Versus Socialism"). In addition to the Chomsky, there are numerous other sources that treat socialism as primarily a socioeconomic system rather than as an ideology or movement, just as there are indeed numerous sources that treat socialism as primarily an ideology or movement rather than as a socioeconomic system; this dichotomy supports the notion of treating the two as being interconnected.

I understand that you are arguing that socialism as a socioeconomic system and socialism as a movement should be two different articles, but I do not agree. They are not distinct enough. For example, Apple Corporation and an apple (fruit) are two completely different entities that clearly warrant two completely different articles, but socialism as a movement and socialism as a system are reliant upon one another and thus simply do not have the same degree of distinction. In fact, the apple article actually treats both the tree and the fruit in the same article, because they are so closely linked. I again use Battlecry's argument that the establishment of a socialist economic system (as an alternative to a capitalist economic system) needs to be the "strong distinguishing feature" of the socialist movement, as "the socialist movement can only be understood in relation to the socialist economic system" that it is trying to achieve. Vrrajkum (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The disambiguation example was "Football." Soccer was the original game, but Tom Brown ran with the ball created rugby. When Canadian rugby players met U.S. soccer players, they developed American and Canadian versions of football. So they are absolutely connected. But we do not say, well most Americans think football is U.S. football, so that is the primary topic. A good article to explain the Soviet system is Communism, because that was the ideology of that state. TFD (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: How do you feel about changing the leading statement to read something like "Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish a socialist economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production"? This frames it in such a way that the (existing) movement takes precedence without precluding treatment of a (hypothetical) socialist economic system, and roughly follows the structure of Communism's leading statement. Vrrajkum (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User Vrrajkum says: "I understand that the USA is not the only country in the world, but Wikipedia's purpose is to educate people; as TFD noted the Sanders campaign has sharply increased the number of websearches for "socialism", and a short treatment of the Soviet Union in the lead is warranted in order to help expose people, especially Americans who may be victims of Cold War-era propaganda, to the debate over the Soviet Union's socioeconomic designation."

The job of us here in the socialism article in english wikipedia is only to present socialism to english language readers. That´s it. For that we have to include all relevant views and something specific in the space where that has a merit. Our job here is not this little agenda of yours on focusing on what the americans think or do not think. This is not US wikipedia but english language wikipedia. English is spoken all over the world and as a primary official language in places like Canada, the UK, Australia, Nigeria and as second language all over the world. What you are asking for will be a bad case of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. And also i say this talking from outside the US and not living there and not being an american either.

I just send you back to my 5 reasons on why we should not deal with this in an intro which is already very long. Taking something said by user TFD i will think that perhaps the mention of the Soviet Union experience the way you want it might be more in place in the communism article but not in the wider socialism article. Still i warn you that there you might also have to include other views on the USSR besides the ones you want to include. To user Vrrajkum i repeat something that i told user Battlecry and that he acepted in a moderate way: There is no single "socialist economic system". Each subsection of socialism proposes an economic system of their own. As such there is only a socialist economic debate between socialist tendencies who have gone in some cases as far as fighting each other with arms.--Eduen (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: I do not at all understand what makes you think that I have a "little agenda of... focusing on what the americans think or do not think" based on my support for including a single sentence on the Soviet Union in the lead. In fact it is not only Americans, or even English language speakers in general, who commonly misconstrue the Soviet Union for being a socialist society. And with respect to your argument that there is "no single socialist economic system", if you actually look at the lead the third sentence clearly says that "there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them", and the second paragraph clearly goes into further detail on some different socialist economic systems. Vrrajkum (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Vrrajkum proposes: How do you feel about changing the leading statement to read something like "Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish a socialist economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production"? This frames it in such a way that the (existing) movement takes precedence without precluding treatment of a (hypothetical) socialist economic system, and roughly follows the structure of Communism's leading statement.

I agree with the first part of this. Specifically mentioning socialism as a political theory and movement first. As far as the second part i will say that a more moderate term will summarize this better saying "aims to establish a socialist economic system or a set of socialist economic policies based on social ownership and/or control of the means of production". This mainly since democratic socialists (eurocommunists, etc) and socialdemocrats are working withing the frames of parliamentary democracy and the existence of big capitalist enterprises. Sometimes they advocate nationalizations and sometimes they focus on enlarging the welfare state and planning and regulating capitalist bussinesses.--Eduen (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: A socialist economic system, not some vague "set of socialist economic policies", social democratic or otherwise, must indeed be held as the ultimate goal of the movement. I again reiterate that modern social democracy that advocates nationalizations, economic planning, and welfare state provisions within the framework of capitalism is not socialism, and claiming that it is is exactly the destruction of the word "socialism" that Ulli Diemer wrote about. User Battlecry has also repeatedly warned about the need to avoid diluting the word "socialism" with the actions or policy proposals of self-described "socialist" parties.

Also, with respect to your claiming on the article's edit history that there is no consensus not to use Encyclopedia Brittanica, I will simply copy and paste from above:

"What user TFD is denouncing here, presenting personal opinions as facts, seem to clearly be the case of user Vrrajkum. He has decided to be more reliable than the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com dictionaries saying that he has "Removed inaccurate sources". Amazing.--Eduen (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: Actually both users Battlecry and TFD also agreed not to use Encyclopedia Brittanica above:

"Personally I tend to avoid using the Encyclopedia Britannica as a reliable source in favor of more specialized encyclopedias on relevant subjects like political economy, economics, etc. which go into much more detail as to what concepts like "social ownership" imply. This might seem like a very complicated subject to describe on Wikipedia, but it only appears that way because comprehensive understandings of socialism (aside from histories of socialist and social democratic parties) are so sparse in mainstream politics, media and even in contemporary academia. -Battlecry 04:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)"

"Social control means control by the people, not necessarily the government and certainly not the government if the government itself is not socially controlled. So to socialists the Bank of Scotland is owned by a bourgeois government and controlled in the interests of the bourgeoisie. I agree too that EB should not be used. It is a tertiary source that does not explain where it derives its definition. Far better to use the Dictionary of Socialism which explains that there are different definitions then explains the common themes with include varying degrees of social control and/or ownership. Another problem with the EB article is that it confuses socialism as a doctrine and socialism as an economic system. We do not have that with other doctrines, because we have separate terms for the two. For example liberalism is a doctrine that advocates capitalism. Liberalism is not an economic doctrine and capitalism is not an ideology. TFD (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)"

It's treatment of socialism is indeed inaccurate and I have removed it again. TFD also does a good job of clarifying the meaning of "social control" and indicating that it does not mean what you think it means. Vrrajkum (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)"

Thus there is indeed consensus not to use EB. Vrrajkum (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I Have taken it out but still i will love to hear from user TFD on this. Again, as anyone can see, user TFD recommended you to go include this mention of the Soviet Union in the intro to the article Communism but not here.--Eduen (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEDE guides us to summarize the body in the lede. There is a substational section on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the body. Substantial. Therefore something of that should be in the lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

On whether to include a mention of the Soviet Union in the intro and if this is included how it should be included in order to maintain neutral point of view 1. it keeps excluiding the views of non-trotskists leninists and "anti-revisionist stalinists" as well as those of democratic socialists/socialdemocrats 2. the introduction is already too long. 3. The Soviet Union does not exist anymore and the biggest socialist party in the world since 1954 has been the Chinese Communist Party and that one still exists and still governs China so they could have as much if not more emphasis of mention in the intro. 4. This mention of the USSR in the lead might have been more pressing in the early 1990s. We are in 2015 already so over emphasizing this in the intro of this article will make it look a little outdated. 5. Please bring the references of these "economists" who say these things. Still i would not think anyway economists have to be considered the highest authority on a political movement so i don´t see why we should we giving this much importance to economists. Or at least we should give as much importance to economists as to political scientists and sociologists on this but i will think general works on socialism which go beyong disciplinary divisions are more reliable sources than the opinions of those in a single too specific field of social sciences.--Eduen (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't address the point. We have a vast section on the USSR, it should be summarized in the lede per our PAGs. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The authors of the Historical Dictionary of Socialism review the many definitions of socialism and conclude, "Within this diversity many common elements could be found. First, there were general criticisms about the social effects of the private ownership and control of capital - poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security. Second, there was a general view that the solution to these problems lay in some form of collective control (with the degree of control varying among the proponents of socialism) over the means of production, distribution and exchange. Third, there was agreement that the outcomes of this collective control should be a society that provided social equality and justice, economic protection, and a generally more satisfying life for most people. Nevertheless, to a large extent socialism became a catchall term for the critics of industrial and capitalist society."[2]

That is the sort of source that we should use for determining the main topic. If anyone has a source that says most sources define it differently, then please provide one.

Eduen, what was it you wanted me to comment on?

TFD (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I wanted you to comment on the Enciclopedia Britannica article on "socialism" that user Vrrajkum hates so much for some reason. Anyway if a mention of the Soviet Union is going to be in the intro it cannot be the one proposed by user Battlecry since it has to adopt a neutral point of view. Democratic socialists and socialdemocrats main complaint about the Soviet Union was that it was a totalitarian, authoritarian, personalistic overcentralized, inneficient system and that is also more or less the same criticism that libertarian socialists had about it een though they differ in a strong way in their proposed alternative political and economic system. On the other hand non-trotskist leninists tend to think the USSR was the greatest thing in the world and "anti-revisionist" stalinist think that it became "capitalist" or "reformist" or things like that after the Krusuchev government and that comrade Stalin is a hero of the world´s working class. All of that has to be mentioned in order to have a balanced neutral point of view according to wikipedia policy. If all of those points of view are not going to be included then i suggest we don´t include this in an already too long intro.--Eduen (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eduen: A single sentence in the lead indicating that there is disagreement as to whether or not the Soviet Union's political economy truly constituted a form of socialism by no means excludes the views of non-Trotskyists, Leninists, anti-revisionist Stalinists, democratic socialists, social democrats, or anyone else. It simply does exactly that: indicate that there is disagreement as to whether or not the Soviet Union's political economy truly constituted a form of socialism, which is indeed worth noting as the Soviet Union is widely considered to be the foremost historical example of "socialism" in practice (not just by Americans).

@The Four Deuces: Could you give your thoughts on this phrasing of the lead sentence? I feel that it strikes a good balance between the proposals of all editors who have given their thoughts, sources that are already cited in the lead, and remains consistent with The Historical Dictionary of Socialism that you cited above:

"Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish a socialist economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production."

We can further flesh out the rest of what your source suggests in succeeding sentences, e.g. "The goal of such a system is to solve problems traditionally associated with capitalism and private ownership, producing a more just and satisfying life for most people." Vrrajkum (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that we have already two sources identifying as a main characteristic of socialism "an egalitarian society". And egalitarianism does not mean only economics but it can also mean equal political rights.--Eduen (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Marxists reject the notion of egalitarianism as idealistic and bourgeois, so it is contentious to define socialism in this way. Plus egalitarianism as used by more contemporary market socialist theorists refers not to "equality" of income as people might be confused, but equal power-relations that emerge from equalized "property income" or "capital income" (another way of saying the abolishing of class distinctions). The current opening sentence of concise and broad to be applicable to all forms of socialism, we should leave it as is and go into more detail in the body of the article. -Battlecry 00:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I will remind user Battlecry that socialism is not synonymous with marxism. But still that there exists something called "economicism" which is the reduction of more complex social phenomena to economics. It is both something that happens in both vulgar versions of marxism and neoliberalism. Yet the two definitions that we are considering here do not talk about a socialist economic system.--Eduen (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)