Jump to content

Talk:Socialism/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

No explanation of motivation of socialism in intro

There is no explanation of why socialism advocates what it does. I added material earlier, but it was reverted. First of all standard sources say that it advocates what it does because of its opposition to the economic and social conditions caused upon society by capitalism. Secondly, while socialism supports individuality it opposes individualism - claiming that it is promoted by capitalism to disassociate people from cooperative social and community life in order to promote competitive behaviour. I presented sources earlier for this material. If you disagree with what I am proposing here, please explain how the motivations of socialism should be addressed in the intro.--R-41 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This article has a POV slanted towards a Marxist interpretation of socialism

While it is perfectly acceptable to include information on Marxist socialism in a section on Marxism as well as on Marxism's important influence in the history of socialism. However a Marxist primary source website is being repeatedly used in this article to speak about socialism as a whole. First of all using primary sources on Wikipedia to make an argument is original research unless it is simply quoting what a person said without commentary on it. Second of all, the POV on this page is that a number of users in their edits are associating the entirety of socialism with Marxism - not all socialists have been Marxists. Large parts of this article need to be rewritten and reorganized - putting material on Marxist interpretation of socialism in a section on Marxist socialism within the article.--R-41 (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Which Marxist primary source website is being repeatedly used in this article, specifically? While it is true that Marxism is not socialism (Marxism is a methodology and critique of capitalism), Marxists do advocate socialism and most socialists have been at least partially influenced by Marxism and Marxist critiques of capitalism. I have removed the POV tag until more editors agree that there is a serious POV issue with the article. You added citation needed tags for some material that was already sourced; I removed those tags when they flagged material that was already sourced. However I do agree that some of the sections need to be rewritten under the "Political and Social theory" and "Philosophy" sections, but some basic descriptive material does not need to be removed if it is Wikipedia:Common knowledge - for example, stating that there is a debate among socialists on the best method of resource allocation for a socialist economy (markets vs planning vs a mixture). Battlecry (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There are two main branches of socialism: Marxist socialism (which includes communism) and democratic socialism (which includes social democracy). All other branches are very minor in comparison to these two. Furthermore, the second branch (democratic socialism), originally split off from Marxism. As such, Marxist views should be featured prominently in this article. Marxism is one of the two main branches of socialism, and it also greatly influenced the other major branch. - Amerul (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism

Battlecry, in the third paragraph of the lede, someone added a tag regarding Libertarian socialism (which has a link to its main article). Do you think this tag is appropriate. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no source defining "libertarian socialism" cited anywhere in this article, but the information given in the lead is quite basic and can be verified easily by visiting the page on Libertarian socialism. I don't see why a "citation needed" tag is necessary, but at the same time it would be good to have a reputable source defining / explaining libertarian socialism and socialist anarchism for the lead. -Battlecry (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Major parts of this article are badly written, badly cited, and badly organized

This article needs a major rewrite, it is badly organized because it meanders off into very specific topics and discusses them at length - resulting in the article being extremely long. Specific topics that require indepth attention should be done on separate articles. The article is badly sourced - it uses primary sources from a Marxist website for a lot of material - use of primary sources on Wikipedia is typically WP:OR unless they are directly quoted; plus using a third-party website is a bad source. Information on Marxism and its influence on socialism should be concentrated in a specific section in the article rather than mentioning of it almost at random throughout the article as if a pepper shaker had sprinkled bits of it across the article. The only place where such dispersion of the ideologies is acceptable is in the history section that chronologically shows the development of socialism as an ideology. Non-Marxist socialisms should have their own separate concentrated sections as well, such as utopian socialism and religious socialism (and its prominent variants within it).--R-41 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, the history section is terribly organized, it needs to be completely rewritten.--R-41 (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This section in the intro: "A socialist economic system would consist of an organisation of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time" - The sources show that this is about market socialism, not socialism as a whole.--R-41 (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not true. The sources are indeed books primarily dealing with the subject of market socialism, but they say that all kinds of socialism "would consist of an organisation of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs... etc." This is an important part of the argument about market socialism, because the argument goes something like this: Granted that a socialist economic system must be one which directly satisfies human needs, produces goods directly for use etc.; is it then possible to have market socialism? In other words, sources that discuss market socialism often start by providing definitions of socialism-in-general. That is the case here. - Amerul (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Having said that, I do agree with you that the article needs some revisions, although I don't think it's nearly as bad as you claim. For instance, the primary sources from a Marxist website that you mentioned above (i.e. sources from marxists.org) are only 5 out of 158 citations in the article right now. I don't see that as problematic. And marxists.org is a very reputable source for Marxist texts (that is to say, you can be sure that their version of the Manifesto, or Capital or any other work is the same text that you would find in a printed book). They simply offer online versions of non-copyrighted printed books. So I don't see any problem with using them as a source. And yes, it is true that we should generally refrain from using primary sources, but that doesn't mean they are completely banned from being used. We can use them occasionally, here and there, as part of a larger article that is mainly based on secondary sources. And that is what I see here. - Amerul (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
When we quote the Communist Manifesto and link to marxism.org, the Communist Manifesto is the primary source and marxism.org is merely a website showing the source. TFD (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I can agree that the article is too long in its current form and certain parts can be moved to their own separate article, particularly the history sections and subsection explaining Marxism. What this article should focus on is the economics section, social and political theory section (explaining the major differences in theory and viewpoints among socialists; i.e.: markets vs planning, revolution vs reform, the role of the state in building socialism, etc.) and on the politics section (briefly outlining the viewpoints of the major socialist movements and political ideologies). In its present form, the article does an adequate job covering these subjects. However, the political and social theory section needs to be reorganized and expanded upon. And for the second time, the source for the second paragraph of the lead is talking about socialism in general - in fact, the description given is partial to a non-market form of socialism. Regardless, that is the general definition initially shared by all the major socialist movements in the 19th century (differences in opinion were centered around political strategy and the type of institutions for a future socialist society, such as state ownership versus collective worker-owned enterprises). Battlecry (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm not quite sure, could you look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=500675309&oldid=500397921 . Thanks in advance! Cyklopas (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like vandalism to me. The editor replaced details of the first 2012 election with details of the second. Quite legitimate and acceptable. RolandR (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Primary (and dubious) source citing general statement

An IP removed these sources without any edit summary and they were correctly reverted. However on further review the statement in question is a very broad generalisation on socialists in general.

I am not going to make an assesment whether the claim is true, but speaking from a Wikipedia point of view such a general statement should be sourced with reliable secondary sources that apply to the view stated, and the claim should be accurately worded to represent the sources. However the only sources backing up that particular claim, a claim involving all socialists, are two primary sources, one of them of a proto-socialist writing in 1803, long before there was even such a thing as socialism.

That one certainly is not a good source for such a statement. The second one is Marx, and while Marx must be considered a good primary source, there are socialists not adhering to all his writings, and it is generally better to have secondary sources for such generalising claims. So I am going to delete the citations for this statement and replace them with a citation needed. Someone recently placed an issues template on this article, and I can see how that was very warranted indeed, this is most likely just one issue out of many in this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy Section

Hello Editors/Writers:

I have a general point for editing. Sources would have to be found,however, to make the entry scholarly.

In the part on "Philosophy," it says:

"Many forms of socialist theory hold that human behaviour is largely shaped by the social environment. In particular, Marxism and socialists inspired by Marxist theory, holds that social mores, values, cultural traits and economic practices are social creations, and are not the result of an immutable natural law.[9]"

This is somewhat misleading. If you read Marx's early works, there is a type of natural law of man, which consists of man being self-determining (acting with a type of self-consciousness), and it's partly this which becomes distorted and alienated (estranged from this nature) under capitalism. As it reads now, the article seems to draw upon sociological theory about social constructions versus natural law rather than making the former point lucid. The implicit distinction made by the quote above is also somewhat non-sensical in the sense that anything social like values, mores, etc. would have to be a part of the natural law of man, otherwise they would be imposed on man by some strange realm which is not human, and it is humanity which creates these. That's why focusing upon Marx's natural law as a self-conscious/self-determining being in his early works is crucial.

Also: The section says, "Marxian socialism is philosophically materialist as well as having at its center a commitment to historical materialism."

Again, sources would be needed, but if I recall correctly, there are some Marxians who do not have a commitment to historical materialism. So this would be incorrect.

Thanks! I hope writers think of changing these.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.55.227 (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please provide the sources. I do not remember Marx writing about natural law and of course the main emphasis of his philosopy was dialectical materialism. TFD (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, agreeing with TFD. My reading of Marx has indicated that he theorised that humans were not naturally good or bad, but were creatures of condition, more or less, which is in line with what is quoted from the page above. Perhaps you are thinking of Hobbes and Locke when you (unsigned ip) are thinking of natural law? and the right to revolution? Or if I simply haven't read what you are referring to, a source would be good to see.AnieHall (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
From my understanding of Marx's thought, patterns of behavior (or human nature) and cultural aspects of society are products of the specific mode of production in existence at the time. This stands in contrast to philosophies associated with classical liberalism, which assert there area set of natural laws and natural human behaviors that exist irrespective of the socioeconomic structure of society- which Marx pointed out were actually products of capitalist/bourgeois society and the morality of its ruling class. Alienation simply referred to the fact that the life of the individual was dictated by impersonal market forces, constraining the exercise of free-will which could only be truly realized under conditions of material abundance and equality (upper-stage communism). The Philosophy section already does a decent job of representing this perspective but I do think it can be worded better.-Battlecry (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, i would agree with you. your (battlecry) description sounds accurate. I think the bulk of this section is worded fairly well. But on closer look, the only part that looks like it could maybe be improved is: "Marxists argue that freeing the individual from the necessity of performing alienating work in order to receive goods would allow people to pursue their own interests and develop their own talents without being coerced into performing labour for others. For Marxists, the stage of economic development in which this is possible, sometimes called pure communism, is contingent upon advances in the productive capabilities of society." To me this sounds a little bit like someone's personal spin on it - i don't dispute it, but i think it could be worded in a way that sounds more true to its source - also there isn't a citation directly on it, so maybe it's from some later marxist, and is completely true to its source, and I'm just unaware of it... unless the citation from the following section applies to this as well. At any rate, I think the section looks pretty good - but if I were trying to be picky, this is about all that looks like it could be improved, possibly. And, i suppose it could be expanded, but then so could everything, which is why we have books on the subject... I don't have any good suggestions at this point in time for improvement, however. Overall, I'd agree that it's a decent blurb, but if someone had a good suggestion for better wording/more wording that could be good as well?.AnieHall (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have revised the intro per WP:BOLD, it had no cohesion before

Per WP:BOLD due to the bad shape the intro was in, I have been revised to address that the common description of socialism involves an advocacy of social ownership, but that beyond this common description, that there have been no fully encapsulating definitions beyond this. The second paragraph now describes the changing use of the word at different times and by different people and groups. I have removed the lists of various Marxist-Leninist countries and descriptions of their economies in the intro, while leaving a statement. I suspect that this change is going to get a lot of angry rebukes, but note that we went over this months ago in which we noted that the Historical Dictionary of Socialism (2002) has noted that entire studies devoted to the definition of socialism have found the term extremely difficult to define as a whole. And rather than proposing anything radically different from that conclusion, what I have changed is based on that conclusion.--R-41 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, we should restart on where discussions trailed off months ago on the bare minimum set of values of socialism as a whole identified by various scholars on socialism. The Historical Dictionary of Socialism by Peter Lamb and J. C. Docherty have noted several scholars' analysis However there have been common elements identified by scholars.

  • Angelo S. Rappoport in his Dictionary of Socialism (1924) analyzed forty definitions of socialism to conclude that common elements of socialism include: general criticisms of the social effects of private ownership and control of capital - as being the cause of poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security; a general view that the solution to these problems is a form of collective control over the means of production, distribution and exchange (the degree and means of control vary amongst socialist movements); agreement that the outcome of this collective control should be a society based upon social justice, including social equality, economic protection of people, and should provide a more satisfying life for most people. (Peter Lamb, J. C. Docherty. Historical dictionary of socialism. Lanham, Maryland, UK; Oxford, England, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2006. Pp. 1-2.)
  • Bhikhu Parekh in The Concepts of Socialism (1975) identifies four core principles of socialism and particularly socialist society: sociality, social responsibility, cooperation, and planning.(Peter Lamb, J. C. Docherty. Historical dictionary of socialism. Lanham, Maryland, UK; Oxford, England, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2006. Pp. 2.)
  • Michael Freeden in his study Ideologies and Political Theory (1996) states that all socialists share five themes: the first is that socialism posits that society is more than a mere collection of individuals; second, that it considers human welfare a desirable objective; third, that it considers humans by nature to be active and productive; fourth, it holds the belief of human equality; and fifth, that history is progressive and will create positive change on the condition that humans work to achieve such change.(Peter Lamb, J. C. Docherty. Historical dictionary of socialism. Lanham, Maryland, UK; Oxford, England, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2006. Pp. 2.)

I think these descriptions would be useful in the intro as they are from indepth studies of socialism as a whole, rather than of the factions within it.--R-41 (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The order of the lead section mirrors the organization of information in the article: the first paragraph gives a concise definition of socialism and in what way different forms of socialism (meaning, the system that all socialists strive to achieve) might vary from one another. The second paragraph describes how a socialist economy is structured, or the criterion used to define a traditional socialist economy. The third paragraph addresses political aspects, the fourth a brief overview on history of socialist thought.
I am not opposed to you including any of this material in the lead, provided it is not bloated and convoluted and is kept in the politics subsection of the lead, since these sources are analyzing the socialist movement and its values and as opposed to the socialist system(s). You were incorrect to move the second paragraph of the lead to the "market socialism" subsection. The sources are actually describing the classical definition of socialism as a system based vaguely on the principle of "production for use", in contrast to more recent market socialist proposals. And while it is true some portions of the current lead can be improved or removed, specifically the last part describing "actually-existing" socialism of the Eastern bloc and East Asian socialist states, the Soviet model and central planning do deserve mention in some way because it was the most prominent model of "socialism" during the the 20th century. As such, it is very NPoV to place such a great emphasis on social democracy and the third way, and specifically, the views of one individual (Anthony Giddens) in the lead without even mentioning a much more prominent definition of socialism within the economics profession, which is that of Soviet-style central planning.
The following portion is well-written and would go well in the lead in the third paragraph, excluding the content on the third way and Anthony Giddens (who rejects conventional definitions of socialism, and is better to be included in the politics or philosophy section of the article):
There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[1] Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialisation and private property on society. In the early 19th-century, "socialism" referred to any concern for the social problems of capitalism irrespective of the solutions to those problems.[2] However, by the late 19th-century, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for an alternative system based on some form of social ownership.[3]-Battlecry 08:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Problem: Third Way proponent Giddens' definition should be included in the intro as a contemporary example of what the term "socialism" has been used to refer to, in the list of the historical usages as the Third Way like it or not is a major movement in social democracy that has used the term in an unconventional context, and the opposition to Third Way SDs' usage of the term should be mentioned. I am not neglecting Marxism-Leninism entirely, but listing example after example of it, is not helpful. Of course Marxist-Leninist socialism should be described, but it does not need to be described multiple times for each country - the main verions of Marxist-Leninist socialism are one in favour of a centrally planned command economy, and Marxist-Leninists in favour of a state-managed market socialist economy as inspired and advocated by proponents such as Branko Horvat and Deng Xiaoping. That can be included in the intro, as those are the major Marxist-Leninist versions of substantial political importance.--R-41 (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

National Socialism should be included here

NOT SURE WHY THIS IS TAKEN OFF THE TALK PAGE OTHER THEN CENSORSHIP

Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative). Like many others with a political axe to grind by labeling the Nazi Party as right wing, I will not go to their material but to the very source, NAZI GERMANY and the quotes the NAZIS made in their own words. 

1. From Hitler’s bio Mein Kampf

from Volume 2: Chapter VII:

In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois [capitalist] meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days.

(Trashing Capitalism) 

2. Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930:

I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.

(Comparing his theories to Marxism)

3. Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian, said: 

We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation
of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.

(NAZI SAYING CAPITALIST ARE ENEMIES)

4. Nazi Policy that resembles socialism Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state would exert direct influence and control over all business employing more than twenty persons.

(STATE CONTROL OVER BUSINESS)

5. Some Left wing material of the time. Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:

"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism."

(TIME MAG PATTING HILTER ON THE BACK FOR TRICKING CAPITALISTS)

6. Hitler from 1933 speech on putting people as a whole over the Individual

"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." (Adolph Hitler, 1933)

sounds a lot like this (although alot less windy)

We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993)

IN CLOSING

There are countless more statements and policies and stories written that support Hitler was anti capatilism and was a socialist. I do not contend that National Socialism (NAZI PARTY) is a pure from of socialism but according to the original players in Nazi Germany they not only indentified themselves as Socialist but put it in action.

I suggest National Socialism does indeed belong on this page. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 24.101.172.61 (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

this conversation comes up every few months, perhaps we should form some consensus to include both sides of the debate in the article. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It comes up every few months 'cause that is what trolls do. Its been resolved unless someone brings new evidence. The Hillary Clinton comment is a bit of a give away if you didn't spot it. ----Snowded TALK 07:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
While we can agree that Hitler's National Socialism is not part of the socialism that this article is discussing, National Socialism was a real political movement with the word Socialism in its name. This article should at least have content saying what I've just said. Once it's in the article, questions like the OP's will either cease, or can be simply referred to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, all economies are to some extent mixed. If someone really wanted they could make it seem as though the Soviet Union was capitalist because of the NEP, or other similar policies. The Soviet Union was obviously not capitalist, though some would argue that it was also not fully communist either. Point being, one can pull random facts and quotes to form whatever kind of truth one desires. What I would like to see is a something from a substantial scholarly thesis supporting that National Socialism is indeed socialism, rather than blurbs taken out of context from stuff said by Hitler and some other nazi. I am doubtful that such a source exists. I also think the Clinton quote is not really relevant at all, and detracts from the argument by making it appear as a biased attack of some form........... back on topic. My understanding is that personal theories are not to be shared in Wikipedia articles, and that wikipedia is more of a medium to present accepted definitions and versions of theories/histories/odds and ends/etc. If a person wants to share their version of history or a new theory on a definition, the usual forum is a blog or writing up a formal thesis and presenting it for review by peers and for publication (and then once accepted may be added to wikipedia), i reckon. But, if what I reckon is incorrect, well then, theorize away, I guess.AnieHall (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, found something you may enjoy, an entire Wikipedia article on this very debate: Economy of Nazi Germany.AnieHall (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because someone has never read Nazi materials doesn't mean they do not exist. Calling me a lair is uncalled for. These materials have been around for decades. Mein Kampf Hilter blue print for Nazi Germany can be located most public libraries. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only looking at names. Obviously the thing the Nazis called National Socialism is not what this article is about, but to avoid confusion, and to avoid suggestions that we're censoring anything, we should mention National Socialism in this article, and point readers in the right direction to find information about it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
If you cand find something in a reliable source that makes that point maybe. Otherwise I think it's a note in the header for future IPs who are trolling around the US election. ----Snowded TALK 11:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's all that's needed, but it should be mentioned. Otherwise it really does look like censorship. And I don't see what this has to do with the US election. That reads like US-centrism at its worst. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This IP has a history of trolling and I removed the comments, since they are not a discussion about improving the article. I suggest we close this discussion. TFD (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
disagree, see [1]. Deleting discussion is often counter-productive and feeds into the cabal myth. perhaps you could address the most worthwhile of the several points instead? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
We are not required to help out trolls Darkstar. No point is made of any worth that has not already been done to death in prior discussions. ----Snowded TALK 17:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The IP has presented reasons why he believes something. However as you are well aware, we do not add editors' opinions to articles, we add those of experts. If you and the IP want to argue about politics, then go to a political website where people do that. TFD (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
snowed, thanks for your opinion, however plz afg. name calling is not helpful, in the future i would ask you to be more respectful, thx! , TDF, plz read the link i gave you about helping, your insight may benefit this editor most of all. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Far too much time is wasted on editors who are just here to impose some political opinion and who can't be bothered to read up on wikipedia process. I am all in favour of helping out the innocent, but that is not the case here. As I pointed out to you before the Hilary Clinton reference is a dead give away. ----Snowded TALK 20:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The editor's motivation is irrelevant. If that bothers you, you'd better get on over to the Romney and Obama articles and delete every second post. Let's just add a pointer to National Socialism at the top of the article, and the problem will go away. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ill edit later and take out my personal views and stick to the factual quotes which support why National Socialism belongs on this page. And including National Socialism will improve this page. Not sure what TROLLING IS, seems to me anytime someone disagrees they throw these words out to justify their actions of censorship. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

My use of Hilary Clintons comments which is socialist in nature was to show common elements to Hilters quote. If you take the quotes and ingore my asides I believe they are a justafication that National Socialism belongs on this page. I agree a Pointer to National Socialism at the top of article would be enough to improve this page. I don't understand why using actual quotes and actions from the people involved does not trump popular opinion and media articles written decades later. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i realise Clinton's comment out of context appears socialist, as do some of Hitler's. But historically the two are completely unrelated and have nothing to do with each other, and it doesn't prove anything, And Clinton is not recognised as a socialist, so if anything it detracts from your point.
Also, I would like to state that I am opposed to referencing National Socialism on the Socialism article, unless at least one scholarly source stating that National Socialism is indeed socialism (or at least a variant) is provided, and not just a random string of quotes chosen arbitrarily from Hitler's verbal diarrhea. It would be absurd to list every aspect from history loosely associated with socialism here. If you add National Socialism, might as well add public education system, Roosevelt, Clinton, Obama, Harper, maybe even Bush, mixed economy, etc etc etc. Also, I would like to note that I don't think a subject should be included on a page just because there is a common misconception. If someone wants to know about national socialism, they can search national socialism. It would only contribute further to misunderstandings.AnieHall (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
a great point, except, national socialism redirects here, something i have fixed only to have reverted. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said Clinton is a socialist, I referred to her comment as socialist in nature, which I think we all could agree on. My point was not to TROLL as you say but to include a form of socialism here. Many other from of socialism are included here. I included quotes of the time and policies from Nazi Germany that tend towards Socialism. Just because something was written before the internet does not make it invalid. Also I think a socialism in America section would be great. And as AnieHall suggested Public Ed, Roosevelt, and Obama should be included in the US socialist section. Maybe even Bush and Clinton but seems a stretch absent research. Unions and Labor Dept. could also be thrown in. Seeing how the Socialism page mention a half a dozen other forms of Socialism I think a couple of more wouldn't be to much.24.101.172.61 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC) a.k.a. THE TROLL

You "referred to her comment as a socialist". What? HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon Hilo. I changed it to fit the fine standards of wikis talk page. Not sure your comment was made in good faith but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You'd better :-) Please remember that we are not all from the same cultural background, and all we have to go on here is the words as actually written. Guessing meanings from imprecise wording is dangerous territory. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
IP, Socialism in the United States is already mentioned under Socialism#North America. If you want to explore your idiosyncratic beliefs, then please go to a blog, and stop trolling this discussion page. TFD (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
tdf, perhaps you are the troll here? you have only accused the messenger while refusing to address his message. go away plz. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
As Snowded explained above, "Its been resolved unless someone brings new evidence." The IP then asked, "Also I think a socialism in America section would be great." To which I replied it is already in the article. Neither the IP nor yourself have brought any sources, yet continue to argue your views which is trolling and stops editors from spending their time productively. TFD (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
neither you or snowed have the authority to resolve anything [2]. the ip did source, perhaps you should reread his post. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, we just, like all other editors follow the rules. One of those is the use of reliable third party sources. The ip has simply trawled for quotes using the word 'socialism' and has not bothered to look at the previous discussions on this issue. Perhaps you would point to any third party reference? If you can't then please stop wasting people's time ----Snowded TALK 03:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The IP has presented a number of primary sources from non-experts, none of which are reliable sources for the article. His description of Henry Luce's Time Magazine in 1938 as "Left-wing material" shows an egregious lack of understanding of the sources presented. TFD (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
plz afg, "wasting time" maybe be interpreted as wp:battleground. go sit down while the adults speak. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
You are becoming increasingly offensive in your comments and have made no contribution whatsoever in this discussion thread about how to improve the article. This is not the forum for you and the IP to exchange opinions on your political views. TFD (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
YOU SAID "The IP has presented a number of primary sources from non-experts, none of which are reliable sources for the article."   NON-EXPERTS ???? The words come from the Nazi leaders themselves. It seems a bit jadded to me that editors disregard THE SOURCE in favor of media written decades later. I quote Mein Kampf by Hilter himself. I give you History itself and you demand a story written by a journalist with his own political motivations. I have never stated my political views once on this page TFD. Your are the one not acting in good faith something you have a history of doing. I request National Socialism be included on this page as many types of socialism are listed here. National Socialism is unlike many forms of socialism but there is enough proof to show a resemblance, whether its for the good of the people or for the good of the government at the end of the day its the same thing. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Mein Kampf is not a reliable source and its views are considered fringe. It has very few adherents today outside the far right. If you want to discuss the merits Hitler's views, then this is not the proper forum. TFD (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Again TFD I never discussed the merits of Hilters views at all. I quoted him. I agree it doesn't not have adherents today. My goal was not to jusitify or to praise Hitlers views but to show his views where socialist in nature and to include National Socialism on the Socialism page. I do believe our conflicting views of the far right and far left is a regional problem. What is considered far right or far left in America differs from at least Europes views. Not sure how your home countries views the subject. One thing I do agree is National Socialism is to the right of many of the other forms of Socialism. So your right NS is right wing, of the socialist ideals but to the left of say Capitalism. You once again have shown your true colors and I would suggest your baised towards the subject clouds your judgement. You have gave zero reason to why NS shouldn't be included here and instead attack me with every turn. Trolling, I think I understand what it truely means now. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and the overwhelming consensus, and reliable sources, describe Nazism as far right fascists. The systems they implemented had nothing to do with Socialism at all. They rewarded businesses with slave labor, before they murdered those workers. To try and cherry pick certain aspects of Hitler's words and other vague descriptions, and then usurp the overwhelming sources, is an insult to history and intelligent people everywhere. Dave Dial (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


Your not speaking of national Socialism at all but the nazi policy of Lebensraum. Not everything Nazis did fell into the releam of socialism. Just all from socialism have a mixed ideals. I believe AneHall pointed this out correctly earlier. My intentions was never to argue for or against any form of Socialism but to correctly classify all types of Socialism even in its bastardized forms but the Trolls have won and refuse to even read what I wrote in favor of attacking me personally. Anyone interested on how the perception of NS has changed over time read BOOKS, no not them, on the subject written before the 60s movement and you will be surpised. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

From Merriam Webster Dictionary

Socialism any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

German Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state would exert direct influence and control over all business employing more than twenty persons.

Unless Merriam Webster is no longer a creditable source then this solves the debate as Nazis had governmental ownership and administration over all business employing more the 20 people. A socialist idea.

24.101.172.61 (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Go and read up on the policies on original research and synthesis. You quotations and conclusions fail on those policies. If you can find a reliable third party source then come back here with it. Otherwise please stop wasting the time of other editors. ----Snowded TALK 13:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
IP, it is not a matter of "our conflicting views", but of representing views published in mainstream sources. If you think that the policy is wrong, then I suggest you get it changed. TFD (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So Merriam Webster Dictionary is not a reliable source? Actual policy from NAZI GERMANY not a reliable??? This is not my orginial research. Throw out all the quotes if you want fine but a dictionary published for over a 100 years backs up NS as at least in theory a Socialsit from of government. I would suggest you respond to the FACTS I just presented.

1. The definition of socialism from a mainstream Dictionary and 2. Actual Nazi policy that is socialist in nature. The labour law regarding this can be found by reading Reichsgesetzblatt 1938 vol 1 of 2 it contains every law that was passed in 1938 in Nazi Germany

On the strenght of these actual concrete sources I suggest NS be added to the page and stop wasting editiors time defending your personal feelings on Socialism. I believe we need another editiors unbaised opinion on this matter. TFD from your numerous edits you have shown your baised towards socialism.24.101.172.61 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You are not listening, or you choose not to listen. Your dictionary does not say that the Nazi's were socialist. It defines socialism, and then you are imputing from other documents that this should apply to the Nazis. That is what wikipedia calls original research and its not considered a reliable sources. Now learn policy and argue from sources or stop. Continued arguments such as that above are very clearly trolling and I'll go back to deleting them ----Snowded TALK 16:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Snowed I think I do understand what you are saying. I showed a def. of socialism and a socialist nazi policy so connecting the two is considered original research? Not sure I agree with that but I understand your point. I have a problem with the many of the resources used in the socialist page for they are not mainstream and tend to lean towards socialism favorabiliy. One can easily find many sources linking socialism to National Socialism but there intergerty will be called into question. What is a reilable source, BBC, MSN, ABC, FOX NEWS??? Don't they all have an agenda? Doesn't a man writing a book about the positive elements of socialism have a bias but it is allowed over and over (see the socialism page). As you have noticed I did not make one change to the Article itself but presented what I considered a good reason to change it on the TALK PAGE. I never discussed the joys of any from of government and only wished to improve the page. I believe I presented valid facts of why to include NS here. Thats not TROLLING, you can read the wikipedia page on trolling. There is an unwillingness to discuss anything on this page that doesn't fall with in the few editiors views of this page. I THANK YOU SNOWED for I now understand wikipedia a whole lot better. Apologies the IP. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. TFD (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Also WP:NOTAFORUM, the talk page of an article is to discuss improvements to the article within the rules. If you want to have a general discussion about forms of politics then go to a forum. Wikipedia is not the place for it. If you want to know about what is or is not a reliable source then read WP:RS. ----Snowded TALK 19:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
So, it seems safe to say that discussion is concluded until a reliable source is discovered that defines National Socialism as Socialism and not as extreme right-wing fascism, and whose author has not been ridiculed out of his/her academic career as a result of hypothetical publication. Wonderful. AnieHall (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
no, we are still having a discussion. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
NO we are not, neither you or the IP have advanced any third party source. The rest of us are trying to educate ypu on policy. Until you engage with that there is no discussion, only education that is plainly failing. ----Snowded TALK 03:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion - ideologies should be classified by their actual real-world attributes as reflected in reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, not the primary source unreliable claims of their proponents. —Cupco 21:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


I agree this is not a forum please stop treating as such,

From wikipedia itself(if wikipedia can be used a reliable source) "Fascists have commonly opposed having a firm association with any section of the left-right spectrum" There for NS, a form of Facism, is not right wing extreme or extreme left wing but that does not it means it does not include elements of socialism. The only point I tried to make.

I suggest again a third party should decide this and not me or those who classify themselves a Socialist who hate nazis on their own wikipedia page. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS RESOLVED by someone else. Please avoid being a troll or a Mastadon, I believe that is someone who defends a page to the end. I wait a unbaised third editor to take this over.24.101.172.61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that you will ever find any editor without a predisposition towards nazism, or towards socialism for that matter. Editors' opinions aren't supposed to matter. We are supposed to follow the WP:NOR policy which means that if we propose to say that there is an association between the two, there must be a verifiable reliable secondary source saying so that we can cite. There are no such sources being offered by those who propose making the association. —Cupco 23:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
are you joking, darkstar? you added no further source, so i'm guessing your previous comment was an attempt at humour.
Still opposed to inclusion, restating opposition and pointing out that discussion is going nowhere it hasn’t already gone, and restating some points that seem to not be reaching intended destination:
Some quotes from primary sources have been gathered, which has you (darkstar too? And ip) convinced that NS is some form of socialism, but others (such as myself) do not agree. I disagree, because the quotes are out of context. you cannot take a few things a person (Hitler and other nazi) says (well, you can, but you can't expect people to follow your line of thought) and make your case in a Wikipedia article (unless no one is paying attention to the article, then maybe you can for a time, until someone notices). Even if I did agree, it should still not appear here. Why? = Original thesis work that has not yet been peer reviewed does not appear here (or at least it should not). If you were in school, or had/have finished school, you could/can put together a thesis based on the material gathered, then you could submit it for review, and your teacher would give you a grade based on the merit of your work and your understanding of the material (and if it were a good grade, perhaps you could consider writing a master's/phd thesis on it, and if that went over well, maybe it could be published), or if you were done with schooling already (or were very well self schooled), you could submit it to peers for review, at which point they would say "why didn't someone discover this sooner, please publish this brilliant new thesis immediately so we can begin to rewrite textbooks", or they might say "this is rubbish, etc.". At this point in time, what is being discussed has not been put into an accepted and published form (that we here are aware of). I think this point that I have just attempted to make has been made several times, but in a more eloquent fashion. But since we are still discussing, i have repeated it in a new way (I pity any new comers to thread of discussion; much repetition to suffer through and non-conciseness (myself=main culprit of non-conciseness=sorry about that)). I do not think it is our bias that is making us oppose the motion to include National Socialism here, but it is that an expert (someone who has dedicated significant portion of life to this subject matter) has not proposed such a thesis as the above that has been well reviewed by other experts in similar area of knowledge. This is why myself and a number of other keep being all "no, end of discussion please, back to other more interesting and/or useful things and end of imagination road trip to alternate-not at this point in time accepted view of history-world". If a third party unbiased saint of some form appears, please do get another opinion and end this discussion. So, until said editor arrives or new adequate source appears, end of discussion? Also, in an attempt (perhaps feeble) to prove the nay-sayers non-bias (me+a couple): if you check the Britannica encyclopedia (available online, mostly for free) no mention of national socialism within article (I checked, to see if perhaps I’m out of touch), there is mention of communists/socialists/libs/cons banding together in opposition to fascism = only reference to Nazi Germany whatsoever. Britannica may not be perfect, but it is an encyclopedia, which is what wikipedia is creating/trying to maintain, so I use it (Britannica) as an example of what is included in an encyclopedia (not new and personal research/thesis. preferably only boring old accepted peer reviewed third party etcetera etcetera and so on and so forth). AnieHall (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
no, i am serious and have a possible solution, one you identified earlier and may support, If someone wants to know about national socialism, they can search national socialism. I have suggested in the past we kill the redirect and allow National Socialism, which predates Hitler, it's own article. If Nazi_Germany, Nazism, Nazi Salute, Nazi propaganda and Nazi Party, all have their own articles, why not National Socialism? The ideology is specifically about uniting the workers of one country instead of globally, like the more well known International socialism. Now for humor, how many socialist does it take to screw in a light bulb? None, they ran out. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/cuban-economy-worsens-cit_n_256588.html Darkstar1st (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that one again. Well find a source that supports you. Its really very simple, if you are confident of your position it should be easy --Snowded TALK 11:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
re:darkstar: What? National Socialism (nazism, same thing) does have its own wikipedia article??? If information is missing from the national socialism page, perhaps suggesting it be added there would make the most sense. Why debate a national socialism page (which exists) on the socialism page? If there needs to be a more specific article on a a topic within the realm of national socialism, the proper forum would be the national socialism talk page, would it not? Or, if for whatever reason the existing page isn't the right place for this information you write of, and if you have adequate sources, work it out and submit it for review to the 'create an article page'? AnieHall (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Anie, the debate belongs here and national socialism should be at least mentioned, no matter the context. do you consider nazism and the nazi party to be the same thing, if so, why separate articles? nazi was a party that included nation socialism in it's name, just like the democrat party uses democracy in its name. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It is actually called the "Democratic Party", not the "democrat party", but people like you insist that the name of the party has nothing to do with its policies. The more extreme elements of the Republican Party wanted to call it the "Democrat Socialist Party", but the grown-ups over-ruled them. TFD (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
darkstar, no, i do not consider nazism and the nazi party to be synonymous (intimately related, however - unlike national socialism and socialism... not intimately related whatsoever). Nazism (National Socialism common English short form Nazism)covers the ideology, while the Nazi Party page covers the political party that was a proponent of the ideology... I'm not sure what your point was, except maybe that simply because the word socialism follows national, therefore national socialism should be a part of the socialism page???? By that reasoning (which I believe has been stated by myself among others previously... a number of times, here we are repeating again) The democratic party (usa), the Democratic republic of NK (stated below) and the NDP (canada) should be included under the democracy page (which they are not, for reasons that I imagined were obvious). It makes absolutely no sense to include national socialism on this page. socialism and national socialism are two distinct ideologies. If you include/mention/reference/point to national socialism on this page, you might as well include tommy douglas, rodham clinton, hitler (since he is NS greatest protagonist), maybe even the democratic party should be included here too? I'm bet a case for the inclusion of the republican party could be made just as well as for NS, and so on and so forth until basically every ideology on the planet other than maybe those that came from ayn rand are included on this page. Perhaps we should begin arguing to include spaghetti and meatballs on the bowling balls page too, since both include the word balls.AnieHall (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Some time ago, Darkstar1st found on Google books a copy of an 18th book re-published in the 19th century that misspelled an obscure synonym for scholastic as "socialist". He then claimed that he lived in a castle in whose library there was an original copy of the book and that it actually said "socialist". He dragged numerous editors into the discussion but was unable to provide any evidence of his claim, which was obviously bogus. TFD (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Is that where it came from? I must admit I have wondered as it gets raised form time ti time. Nice to have it cleared up----Snowded TALK 05:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
tdf, you made up the castle part, the word i used was "building", and it looks like any other in Pest, riddled with bullet holes from national socialist, then socialist. The debate centered around the use of the Long s, which was exploited to incorrectly deny the existence of the term pre-1830's, when that failed, the argument shifted to "it's use in modern context", a similarly weak argument to deny my source. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
And does any other source back up your argument as to its use? If not then your continued advocacy is disruptive ----Snowded TALK 06:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to remind other editors, I uploaded a screenshot of the text referred to here[3]. This shows clearly that the word used is not "socialist", but "scholist" -- a word which, despite Darkstar's denials, appears in the OED as " Obs. ? One who has nothing but school training, a mere theorist". RolandR (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
no such word as "scholist", you meant SCHOLIAST, the "L" you think is in the screenshot is actually a long s. you will also notice the previous sentence clarifies the context, "..alarms to rebellion,...defame the king,...inflame the mob". The genesis of socialism is rebellion against monarchy. read the entire chapter and let me know if your opinion changes. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
That's what you said last time, even after I uploaded a screenshot of the OED entry for "scholist".[4] I write what I mean, and I also read what other people write. Please stop flogging this dead and putrefying horse.RolandR (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
If you are correct then there must be a source which agrees with you given the age. Even if you are right, on its own its use is original research. If you are arguing solely from that source then you are wasting people's time and generally being disruptive. Now do you have anything? If not will you agree to cease and desist until you have? ----Snowded TALK 07:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
snowed the reason i gave up last time is 1 i dont really care, this was related to the origin of the term which like national socialism exist well before the beginning of the wp articles related to such. for some reason the article on national socialism has been merged into an article beginning in 1923, when the term was being used in the century previous, the same for socialism. my original point was those who are the self-appointed guardians of the page know much less then they presume about the topic, mainly who and when the term was coined and 2 the term appeared in the script of the era so requiring it be sourced in modern english is daft. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
If you don't care then stop wasting people's time. This whole thread arose from a troll and you have given them space. ----Snowded TALK 08:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
i dont care about debating the origin of the term, it was merely an example of the lack of knowledge by those who most revert new material, i do care if national socialism is mentioned in the socialism article. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
So Hitler calls his movement socialist. Kim Il-Sung named North Korea the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", so according to what the person has said here, wouldn't that imply that we should also take Kim Il-Sung's word since he adamantly indicated that the country was democratic, and thereby identify North Korea as a democracy on the article on democracy?--R-41 (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
which is why we should probably have to separate articles, one for national socialism, and one a party that used the term in its name ala democratic party and democrat. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
the nazi party does have a page of its own - different from national socialism?????For real?????didn't you (above) note its existence??????????? Unrelated to previous comment, this thread of discussion, in general, has gotten to the point where I get to literally lol (thought i'd share and tell). it (discussion)must be concluded by now? no? almost? I think most has been restated a number of times.AnieHall (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar, if you don't present a concrete proposal with supporting evidence (in the form of third party reliable sources) then further contributions are pure disruption and it may be time to make an ANI case to disallow the constant raising of this issue without said evidence ----Snowded TALK 20:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

ani time indeed, you just made a threat, self revert plz and we will forget this ever happened. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Its not a threat its a simple statement of what I will consider doing if you persist in clearly disruptive behaviour ----Snowded TALK 22:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Well then, if this argument is continued any further based on taking Hitler's word for advocating socialism, I suppose we better be sure to add the People's Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea) as an example on the Democracy article. And while we are at it, by that logic, we should be sure to take Hitler's word for truth when he said in 1938, that the Sudetenland was his final territorial demand in Europe.--R-41 (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I was always taught it was cruel to mock the afflicted ... ----Snowded TALK 22:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I am demonstrating the reductio ad absurdum of the original posting user's claims and logic of them.--R-41 (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
precisely. AnieHall (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If I change my name to Jimmy socialism McPhee does that mean I get a section on this page? Just because their name had the word socialism in it doesn't mean they should be included. National Socialism has its own page, and that's where it belongs. Sarg Pepper (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Back to the topic of the problems of definition of socialism and history of the usage of the term "socialism"

Before the discussion immediately preceding got people distracted from the serious issue of the problems of definition of socialism. We need to restart on where discussions trailed off months ago on the bare minimum set of values of socialism as a whole identified by various scholars on socialism. The Historical Dictionary of Socialism (2006) by Peter Lamb and J. C. Docherty, notes several scholars' analysis However there have been common elements identified by scholars.

  • Angelo S. Rappoport in his Dictionary of Socialism (1924) analyzed forty definitions of socialism to conclude that common elements of socialism include: general criticisms of the social effects of private ownership and control of capital - as being the cause of poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security; a general view that the solution to these problems is a form of collective control over the means of production, distribution and exchange (the degree and means of control vary amongst socialist movements); agreement that the outcome of this collective control should be a society based upon social justice, including social equality, economic protection of people, and should provide a more satisfying life for most people. (Peter Lamb, J. C. Docherty. Historical dictionary of socialism. Lanham, Maryland, UK; Oxford, England, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2006. Pp. 1-2.)
  • Bhikhu Parekh in The Concepts of Socialism (1975) identifies four core principles of socialism and particularly socialist society: sociality, social responsibility, cooperation, and planning.(Peter Lamb, J. C. Docherty. Historical dictionary of socialism. Lanham, Maryland, UK; Oxford, England, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2006. Pp. 2.)
  • Michael Freeden in his study Ideologies and Political Theory (1996) states that all socialists share five themes: the first is that socialism posits that society is more than a mere collection of individuals; second, that it considers human welfare a desirable objective; third, that it considers humans by nature to be active and productive; fourth, it holds the belief of human equality; and fifth, that history is progressive and will create positive change on the condition that humans work to achieve such change.(Peter Lamb, J. C. Docherty. Historical dictionary of socialism. Lanham, Maryland, UK; Oxford, England, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2006. Pp. 2.)

These are three prominent studies of socialism by reputable scholars. I believe that these should be included in a section in this article on the definition of socialism. This will need to be done before the intro can be sorted out. The intro is failing to describe what the goal of socialism is, rather it merely describes it by what form of ownership it advocates - and even that is presented in a very classical Marxian manner as a part of a dichotomy to capitalism's support of private ownership.

We need to have a better understanding here of the history of the usage of the term. Socialism pre-existed the term and description of "capitalism" that was developed by Karl Marx and the term was later accepted by proponents of such a system. The term "socialism" as referring to an economic and political ideology was developed prior to Marx as a counter to individualism as referring an economic and political ideology. Nowhere in current ownership-based description in the introduction is the description of the values held within socialism, nor the reasons why it promotes what it does. Furthermore the "social ownership" article has been moved to Socialization (economics), this is more proper word in my view, but "socialization" has to be carefully defined, because it has been commonly associated with state ownership. Socialization is broader in scope of what it is about than just "social ownership".--R-41 (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with describing motives in the lead is that there are literally hundreds of different reasons one could conceivably have for favoring socialism. It might be a good idea to mention that initially socialism referred to a social doctrine opposed to individualism in the fourth paragraph of the lead, but you would have to take care to explain what individualism meant so as to not present socialism as a doctrine to suppress individuality. Most of the material by Angelo S. Rappoport you have cited here is already explained in the lead already, albeit in slightly more precise terminology. But the list of themes given by Michael Freeden are very broad and can easily be conflated with popular caricatures of socialism - "society is more than a mere collection of individualis" can be misconstrued as advocacy for hierarchical collectivism; "human welfare" can be conflated with social welfare policies and progressive taxation; and "belief of human equality" can be misconstrued to mean a number of different things, such as the belief that all men are equal or should be equal in condition, compensation or social status. A comprehensive description and explanation of this material can be included in a relevant section in the article, such as Philosophy (which deals with the reasons for advocating socialism). As of the current version, all the material you have posted here is cited and included in the Politics section. -Battlecry 10:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

would Bernd Hüppauf be considered a RS here?

i would like to add some material from this rs, without objection, or comment, i will do so soon. http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_huppauf_02_kaiser.html Darkstar1st (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

As you know, such a question cannot be answered in the abstract. What would you like too use the article for, what would you be citing it to establish? In any case, the link you give leads to a "Page Not Found" error. RolandR (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
fixed the link, and i am not sure what you mean by abstract, Bernd is either a well respected historian or he isn't. the specific text is War, violence, and the modern condition. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1997 Darkstar1st (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
People cannot be reliable sources, only writings, unless of course you happen to be a collectivist. Your source does not mention socialism, which makes it irrelevant to this article. TFD (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
actually it does on page 92, and how would you know, have you read the entire book in the 10 minutes since i post the link, if so how did you miss that part? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The original link you provided did not mention a book. On P. 92, the article was not written by Bernd Hüppauf, and the mention of socialism is a quote from a third writer. Please stop wasting my time. It bemuses me that in your long campaign you misrepresent sources. If you think there are sources that support your views, present them, do not find sources and misrepresent them as you did for example with your false claim that an 18th century book you read in a castle used the term "socialist", when it was a typo in a 19th century version. TFD (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
People cannot be reliable sources, and the article was not written by Bernd Hüppauf, are you arguing with yourself? I have supplied the rs, you have not challenged my source, rather suggesting i intend to misuse it, wp:agf. "Your source does not mention socialism", simply untrue as anyone who had read the book would know. "book you read in a castle", you are confused, i live in a normal building with a very old library, the long s/typo debate is not relevant here and could be seen wp:battleground, plz stop. i am confused why you claim i have misrepresented the source as i have yet to make my edit, rather attempting to vet any objections, which i have yet to understand what exactly is your objection to the book? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia guidelines on source reliability, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." So we cannot state whether or not this author or book are in themselves reliable; it depends how you intend to use them, what you intend to cite, and what statement you are trying to confirm with this citation. In the absence of this information then yes, you question remains abstract. RolandR (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Hüppauf did not write page 92. His book is a collection of articles by various writers. You should know that. TFD (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
and you should know a source actually can be a writer or even publisher, plz read wp:rs. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Stop presenting sources you have not bothered to read. You are very capable in starting argumentative discussion threads which wastes everyone's time. We are trying to improve articles not arguing about wacky theories. TFD (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
unless there are any specific objections, i will add the material from the rs. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
NO There have been specific objections above, it is not agreed that this is a reliable source for the edit which you wish to make ─ indeed, you haven't yet responded to the request to indicate just what you intend to establish by using this source. Your latest comment is yet another example of the tendentious editing and refusal to "get the point" which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st. If you make this edit, against consensus and despite the repeated complaints about your behaviour, then I will seek immediate editing restrictions on you. You have wasted more than enough of our time; please go away and troll elsewhere.RolandR (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

RolandR, i simply ask if anyone had an objection to the specific text, which they do not, apparently (one editor, who has not read the book mistakenly thought the term socialism did not appear in the text, but was proven wrong, page 92), however, to ease your concerns, i will post the edit i wish to make here 1st. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Already discussed. You are misrepresenting text out of a book you have not read or understood. TFD (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
actually i have never used this text in an edit or proposal, plz strike-thru and read wp:agf Darkstar1st (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
You used this text in an edit you made 20 October 2012.[5] TFD (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
perhaps why wp:agf was written, that is not the text i intend to use, and the text i wish to include is speaking of socialism, not state socialism and it is very different from the text i used in the article you posted. what makes your accusation so annoying is only a few post ago you claimed the term socialism does not even appear in the book, the same book you claim i have not read. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Same book, same page (92), same mistake about who actually wrote it, but you plan to use a different text from that page? Why have you continued to argue with editors without explaining what edit you suggest. TFD (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
actually it is your same mistake, if you will read wp:rs you will learn rs is not limited to writers. editors, publishers, etc are also included as rs. the term appears on more than one page of the book. why are you making assumptions? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Your discussion heading says, "would Bernd Hüppauf be considered a RS here?" Then you provide a page written by someone else. Instead of wasting other editors' time, who should first read some of the sources you provide. TFD (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
TDF he is the editor and a rs, unless there is some objection other than the WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT above. since i have not presented the text i plan to use, you are making an assumption of who wrote it at the same time not following wp:agf, plz stop. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
RS does not say that. You claimed anyway that Hüppauf wrote the text. Either you had not read your source and were mistaken or you were misleading. What is worse, I pointed this out to you before you began this discussion thread and you acknowledged it. Were you aware that this new source was the same source you had introduced earlier? If you read your sources you would be more likely to remember them. TFD (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
actually it does WP:RS the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work it is you who misunderstood the wp:rs to be limited to writers. so, do you or anyone else object to this specific book, if not, i will add my edit, otherwise, plz be specific. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It does not say that because writings by an editor of a book are reliable that each article is. If you get the chance to read fascism anthologies you will find that some articles are written by actual fascists and fail rs. Regardless you did not say he was the editor, you said he was the writer. There is a difference. TFD (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
if you wish to debate the nuances, plz take it to my talk page. do you have an objection to the book or not? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
For the nth time, you cannot ask "Is this source reliable?"; you need to show how you intend to use it. As noted above, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I asked you nearly six weeks ago "What would you like too use the article for, what would you be citing it to establish?" You have not replied, though you have had plenty of time to do so. Meanwhile, you have exhausted the good faith and patience of nearly every other editor on every article you have worked on, and you have ignored the RfC on your tendentious and uncollaborative editing. Please stop wasting our time. RolandR (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Feedback (redux)

Last month, User:Blackcloak wrote in the feedback form for this article that "This article is largely incomprehensible because it assumes too much of its reader. The intro is way too dense. (...)" I second that. While I do not advocate over-simplification, I think we should be reminded that Wikipedia is written for a general public and its articles should not assume any prior knowledge of its readers. The first paragraphs should indeed be a concise and summarising introduction into the topic, and cannot discuss all possible different views on, and forms of socialism. We can expect that readers first want to know what socialism in in general, before some might want to go in the details of different concepts and forms of socialism.

Other, unregistered, users seem to be of a similar opinion writing that "This article is too complex and difficult to understand. It would appear that you would need an understanding of Socialism to understant this page, which defies the point of an encyclopedia. Adjusting accordingly would make this page much easier to comprehend, and therefore, learn from", or "It is way too technical. Hard to understand for the average reader without any background knowledge.", or "This wiki was to complicated and hard to keep up with what its trying to say." We really should take this feedback into account, because Wikipedia is written for its readers. --RJFF (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree.--R-41 (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
How do you suggest we simplify it without devoiding the content of substantial meaning? It would be a difficult process; if the suggestion is to define socialism by some vague set of values, then you run the risk of making it appear to be little more than social liberalism (in the popular American meaning). The first paragraph is fairly straightforward as it is; most dictionaries define socialism as public, state or common ownership of the means of production. If a reader is confused about what social ownership means, he or she can easily click on the link and figure out what it means exactly. Part of the reason the definition given is probably difficult for readers to understand is because socialism is not a simple concept and has many different variations. There is no really simple and easy way to express that socialism entails an economic system and corresponding set of social relations based on an alternative dynamic to the system of capital accumulation and the profit system - and then try to explain all the different political strategies associated with socialists for bringing such an order into existence! In light of that, I think the article does a good job of explaining what socialism is. -Battlecry 10:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The social ownership article has been moved into the article Socialization (economics). Your statements on socialism's relations with social liberalism have assumptions underlying them. You seem to assume that socialism must be anti-liberal, because you associate the entirety of liberalism with capitalism. Social democratic founder Eduard Bernstein saw socialism as an extension of liberalism, he called socialism an "organized liberalism" and stated that socialists could and should work together with progressive liberals. There is no explanation of the basic motives of socialism in any plain language anywhere in the intro nor the text, and multiple users have said they cannot understand nor read the article because it is too complex.--R-41 (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I make no assumptions regarding the relationship of socialism and liberalism. It is up to individual socialists and parties to decide whether or not they take socially liberal positions on current issues or not; that is irrelevant to the definition of socialism. The ultimate aim of socialism and social liberalism considers differently: socialists aim for an alternative socio-economic system from capitalism, one that they believe will usher in genuine freedom and equality that liberalism/capitalism cannot deliver. Liberals, on the other hand, are driven by ideals and improving conditions for the masses within the current socio-economic framework (capitalism), without attributing such issues or considering them to the structural issues of capitalism. Insinuating that socialism is just an extension of social liberalism a la the ideology of the United States Democratic party reads like anti-socialist conservative propaganda. The current article does not say that socialism is anti-liberal, nor that it is pro-liberal. That issue is irrelevant to the definition of socialism given in most academic encyclopedias on economics and political economy. However, it is plainly obvious that the basic motives of socialism is NOT to establish a welfare state, regulation of capitalism or equality in wages (the goals of modern liberalism) - such measures would not be needed in a non-capitalist, socialist economy that all socialists aim for due to the change in ownership structure and orientation of the economy in socialism. -Battlecry 08:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Back on topic of readers' criticism: RJFF's criticisms are backed by multiple complaints by readers of this article. Multiple readers say this article is unreadable, and per Wikipedia:Readers first that RJFF mentioned, I agree that it needs to be re-written.--R-41 (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I have copied this important section from above, that was being ignored by most, because of the drawn-out dispute immediately above this. The issues addressed by RJFF and several other users, need to be addressed.--R-41 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have a hard time seeing the merit in this complaint. The first paragraph of this article includes links that further define terms. the second sentence of the first paragraph even goes into definition. There is only so much a subject can be watered down before meaning begins to be lost. For instance, it might be hard to understand what a molecule is without understanding what elements are, and it might be difficult to understand what an element is without understanding what atoms are, and so on -- but that doesn't mean that an article on molecules should have to explain what atoms are and so on.
That being said, I don't think that there is Not room for improvement in the wording of this article, so there could be improvements in clarity, and hopefully also reader comprehension ? It might be more fruitful to propose suggestions for better clarity? I would just err on the side of caution, as it is easy to accidentally change the meaning of a sentence with innocent appearing changes in terms (ie above with the Marxist-Leninist parties vs. socialist states), and then instead of discussing what an improvement might or might not be, we digress into cold war rhetoric as above...AnieHall (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence of WP:WEIGHT being used in the sections on the various types of socialism described in the article. The article goes on and on trying to examine sectarian caveats of socialism from policy to history, without giving any overall big picture about what were and are the major elements and history within socialism. There are independent articles on the different variants of socialism that can examine those in detail without WP:WEIGHT issues. The article meanders from giving specific examples to jumping to talking about theory. The sections and subsections are very jumbled and random, to me I see little coherence in the article because it is badly organized. I believe this article needs major reorganization and condensing to major themes and major historical topics. We have to keep in mind Wikipedia:Readers first as a priority here as RJFF has noted, there have been several complaints about this article being unreadable, these complaints should be taken seriously.--R-41 (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
For instance? and what might be better? I'm not implying I disagree, but it would be easier to agree or disagree and move forward on specificsAnieHall (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The Economics, Political and Social Theory and Politics sections are organized well - not necessarily complete, but they touch upon the major aspects of socialism - but I can agree the History and Criticisms and perhaps even the Philosophy sections are poorly organized and inconsistent. Was there any consensus for removing the sentences on actually-existing socialism (economic systems of previous socialist states) from the lede? -Battlecry 07:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The social and political theory section is in my view one of the worst sections, all of its subsections are dichotomies all based on classical Marxist interpretation, which gives this article a Marxist POV. First of all, this article needs to get the history section sorted out, before any progress can be made anywhere else. The history section is the one section where the different significant sectional factions of socialism can be described in chronological order as they arose in response to the circumstances of those times. Once that is done, the issue of representation of the significant sectional factions will be resolved through the history section by the significance of their historical influence on socialism. The history section can provide the links to the various significant sectional factions. Second of all, we will need to use scholarly studies of the history of socialism as a whole, and not material on what the "ideal" socialism should be, that commonly reflect sectional factions. This is not "watering down" what it is, because that is an irrational supposition implies that any description of an ideology as a whole "waters it down" - thereby implying that a undiluted "pure" version exists that is diluted when other "tainted" versions are brought in, such a supposition has strong POV implications.--R-41 (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, i see your points. I'd like to clarify, though -- by "watered down" I was referring to the complaint that the article is "too complex" -- and using more general terms or words rather then more specific ones could "water down" or muddy the meaning - (i.e. the Marxist-Leninist parties v. socialist states) a seemingly innocent change can give unintended and inaccurate meaning. I did not say that providing a greater variety of POV (liberal, realist, "neutral" if attainable, whatever) or better organisation would water down the article - it may make it bulkier, but in my opinion (which is not universal), the more the better... unless it's a total tangent or obviously obscure or superfluous.AnieHall (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that proposals for a concise history section be presented here, that covers the history of major events involving the ideology of socialism. Discussions and improvements can be worked on here, and a balanced and rationally-organized history section can be obtained. That would be a major improvement.--R-41 (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The social and political theory section is not based on a "classical Marxist" interpretation. While there is a section on Marxism and a section on one dichotomy within Marxism (revolutionary versus reformism), the section as a whole tries to present common dichotomies present in socialist thought and non-Marxist perspectives (such as Institutionalist perspectives on socialism). Does it cover all the dichotomies? No, and there is definitely room for expansion. It is definitely not biased in favor of a classical Marxist PoV.-Battlecry 06:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It is better to cover the factions of socialism in the history section, where their context in terms of time and economic and political circumstances that affected their policies and development, can be shown chronologically and with considerations to WP:WEIGHT. The article titled "social ownership" has been merged into the article titled Socialization (economics). The description of socialization on that article presents a far better description of what the general aim of socialist economics is when it says: "In socialist economics, the term usually refers to the process of restructuring economic production toward producing goods and services directly for use and away from producing for private profit, along with the end of the operation of the laws of capitalism." Now that is much better because it describes exactly what the motive of socialism is, transforming economic production away from production for private-for-profit reasons to production for use.--R-41 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I have re-written and reorganized portions of the intro to clarify socialism's stances. For instance that socialists have acknowledged that there are capitalist forms of socialization that they reject. As well as explaining socialism's opposition to capitalism. I think these descriptions of socialism are hard to find disagreement with.--R-41 (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff has rejected my changes while providing zero reasons for removing what I added. The material I added I regard as being completely consistent with the general definition that was on the page prior to my changes, but clarified matters, and importantly included the motives of socialism in the intro. There is something called WP:BOLD when little to no changes are being made, my changes did not substantially alter the consensus of the definition on the article. To Somedifferentstuff and others, what specifically is wrong with what I changed?--R-41 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
In regards to the second paragraph you added, the material is highly PoV in asserting that all socialists condemn efficiency and that socialists believe all material wealth should be owned by society. These positions are definitely not shared by all socialists, the way it reads is something I would expect from an emotion-driven teenage liberal who thinks socialism is basically about sharing and caring and the condemnation of "greed". While some of the sources are welcome additions to be implemented in the lede, the material will have to be re-written to be less PoV. On the whole, because this subject is highly sensitive, I think discussion of the various motives of different socialist groups would best be left to the Philosophy section. The lede should be more descriptive, providing a general overview of the parameters that would make an economic system socialist (social ownership, cooperative management, production for use).
As for your other changes, "social ownership" is more appropriate wording than "socialization", especially since socialization can refer to three different things: institution of economic planning, institution of public/collective ownership, or public subsidization. Consequently, "de-privatization" is not required and only obfuscates the definition. Socialism is best described as a descriptive category for socio-economic systems based on some form of social ownership. -Battlecry 07:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The "social ownership" article has been merged into "socialization", the common term is "socialization". The intro I proposed precisely described what was meant by socialization. Now again there is no description of the motives of socialism. It never claimed that socialists "condemn" the idea of efficiency in its entirety, it said that socialism rejects capitalism's overbearing emphasis on principles of efficiency as well as the profit motive at the expense of other principles that are ignored. Besides, the term "efficiency" has a very specific meaning in the practice of capitalist economies, in capitalism it refers to the maximum achievement of the profit motive a.k.a. the "bottom line", commonly regardless of the social consequences resulting from the maximization of profit, such as through the creation of production technologies that allow layoffs of workers so that more product can be produced faster and with less wages needing to be given out.--R-41 (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The material in the intro draft I added says that socialism believes that material wealth is a social product produced through cooperation, that is the essential basis of socialism's labour rights agenda, that workers' contribution into the economy have to be recognized because their labour was required to produce it. And yes, socialism is about a sociable society - that society requires cooperation to function in the first place and rejects the classical liberal view that that society is just individuals each pursuing their own self-interest confined within laws that does not take into account of social bonds or community. And socialism is indeed about condemnation of the culture of greed it sees as being inherently promoted within capitalism for its consequences on society. These are basic socialist values, they are not from an "emotion-driven teenage liberal" that you are implying that I am - I am not a teenager and such a statement is both violation of assume good faith and an offensive example of ageist prejudice, I have known genius adolescent people and I suspect your ageist prejudice against adolescent people to be based on a crass stereotypical outlook of them.--R-41 (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Peter Lamb, J. C. Docherty. Historical dictionary of socialism. Lanham, Maryland, UK; Oxford, England, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2006. p. 1.
  2. ^ Gasper, Phillip (2005). The Communist Manifesto: a road map to history's most important political document. Haymarket Books. p. 24. ISBN 1-931859-25-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. ^ Gasper, Phillip (2005). The Communist Manifesto: a road map to history's most important political document. Haymarket Books. p. 24. ISBN 1-931859-25-6. As the nineteenth century progressed, "socialist" came to signify not only concern with the social question, but opposition to capitalism and support for some form of social ownership. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialism/Archive_16&oldid=1140124524"