Jump to content

Talk:Socialism/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31

Adequacy of POV tags

I think the POV and undue tags should be removed as they seem to reflect, in my opinion, the sole inaccurate opinion of Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) about the article. The article talks about a wide variety of topics, thus saying it somehow focuses on the Soviet system is innacurate. BeŻet (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Also judging from other comments, with all due respect I don't think Marek has read the article at all. BeŻet (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The tagged sub-section on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is only two paragraphs. By contrast, the preceding sub-section on the Nordic model is three times its size. Looking over the article, outside of the History section, and in particular two sub-sections tagged, along with the Planned economy section, the USSR and its satellites are hardly discussed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
It’s undue but that isn’t the only problem. The section also suffers from cherry picked sources which do not represent scholarly consensus, for example, Phillip Ther, who is not even an expert in economics. Volunteer Marek 19:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Philipp Ther is a historian who specializes in European history and also the director of the Institute of European History at the University of Vienna. He is well qualified to be considered a reliable expert on these issues. Not only that, but the book was published by Princeton University Press in 2016. This is a high quality source.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
He is a historian and not an economist and as such is not a good source FOR THIS information. Volunteer Marek 06:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
For the statement "As a result of communist modernization, living standards in Eastern Europe rose"? First of all, I'm not sure why this is even controversial. Is it disputed that living standards increased in the Eastern Bloc countries throughout the 1950s and 60s? And secondly I fail to see why a historian who specializes in European history is not qualified to make statements about this, or that it's somehow non-RS for Wikipedia, even though it was published by a major university press. Ridiculous IMO. We could take it to WP:RSN if necessary.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that the statement in this article doesn't say "in the 50's and 60's" (and the whether they did or not in the 60s is indeed controversial and goes to the question of "when did the stagnation first set in"). It implies that the living standards rose THROUGHOUT the period of "socialism" (sic) in the Eastern bloc. Additionally, the statement is cherry picked - in this one (maybe two) decade the living standards happened to rise, according to some sources. Ok. But what about ALL THE OTHER decades? Did living standards rise in the 20's and 30's during the periods of collectivization of agriculture, mass famines and millions of deaths? Did living standards rise in the late 70's and 80's as these "socialist" (sic) economies "went into tailspin" (according to sources)? If you're going to put one part then NPOV requires that you put in the other. Otherwise it's just mendacious. Volunteer Marek 14:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
It seems to be just your opinion that these sources are cherry-picked, or undue, or not of adequate quality. It's all subjective. BeŻet (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
No. The UNDUE issue is obvious. The article includes mention of Soviet space flights and tries to make it sound like the Soviet economy - after it already began collapsing in mid 80's - was healthy and affluent. Why did the Soviet Union collapse then exactly? It obviously tries to cherry pick only "positive" aspects of the Soviet Union and is completely mum on anything negative. Obviously there are oodles and oodles of sources on purges, exterminations, famines, gulags, expulsions, persecutions etc. etc. yet some editors on this article decided that the important thing to mention was ... Soviet space flight (again - why is it that we don't mention space flight in USA in article on Capitalism - this hasn't been addressed or even acknowledged in this discussion!) and the fact that after collapse of the Soviet Union (again, why exactly did it collapse) things got bad.
In a similar manner, some editors decided that it's crucial for the article on Socialism to include Suharto's repression against ... communists in Indonesia, but Soviet repression against, well, everyone (including Socialists!) is not worthy enough of mention. How in the world does that work? It's pretty clear that here again the intent is to present only the "good" of Socialist (actually Communist) countries, and only the "bad" of capitalist or anti-communist countries. You have to be WP:TENDENTIOUS not to be immediately struck by this obvious fact.
Other issue - the issue of increase in mortality at end of 80's/early 90's. You can't just include the couple debunked sources from a flawed study (21 observations, erroneously and mendaciously coded data, failure to report all findings or consider alternative hypothesis... I mean, they coded privatizations earlier than they actually happened in order to make it look like these preceded and caused the rise in mortality! And no, this isn't "original research", it's the papers I mentioned and many other ones) and completely ignore the rest of the literature. Again, this is just textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior and WP:CHERRY PICKING. Come on! Don't restore this unless you're willing to treat the subject with the neutrality it deserves.
Another issue. You restored completely unreferenced text which is also clearly POV. Yes, you put in some "citation needed" tags but this text has been around for long time and no one's bothered to source it. Gee, maybe it's caused it's just some personal POV someone put in the article at some point?
Until these issues (and there are also others) are addressed (or even an attempt to address rather than dismiss them) is made, please don't remove the relevant tags.
Volunteer Marek 06:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I also see that you tried to "fix" the claim that SU was the world's "second largest economy" on the eve of its collapse (according to CIA which was notorious for overestimating Soviet production in order to justify increases in their own budget, and based on "official", Soviet-set exchange rates of 4 rubles per dollar, while the market exchange was 40 rubles per dollar, all of this based on a primary source) by adding the WP:WEASELly "by some measures" on the basis of Britannica, but you completely ignored the entire paragraph of that source. The paragraph [1] is basically written as "by some measures it was second largest economy BUT". The "BUT" there is the key. It goes on to mention shortages, black market economy, economic stagnation, inflationary spirals, fiscal policy mismanagement, and "Soviet economy in a tailspin". So somehow from a paragraph which is all about the collapse of the Soviet economy (before any capitalism got there) you somehow managed to pull out the "it was the world's second largest economy". If that isn't cherry picking and tendentious POV then those phrases have no meaning. Volunteer Marek 07:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
And why are you adding a source that consists of "short stories" to source statements of fact? Volunteer Marek 07:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
If multiple sources show increased mortality, you can't just remove it and say "trust me bro" - you have to present a case for removal, which can be reviewed by others and a consensus can be reached. BeŻet (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. No. No one, absolutely no one, is disputing that mortality increased. You're constructing a STRAWMAN here. What is under dispute is what caused the mortality increase. And there the sources say the opposite of what you've put into article, except for one flawed study and its derivatives. Volunteer Marek 14:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Seriously. The article includes the sentence: "The nation became one of the world's top manufacturers of basic and heavy industrial products, while deemphasizing light industrial production and consumer durables" but nothing about the multiple famines that occurred throughout the 20's and 30's that were the result of the same policy of industrialization!. Volunteer Marek 07:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You are really confusing. First you say that there is too much emphasis on the Soviet Union, and then you complain that there are some omissions. Which one is it then? Too much or too little information? BeŻet (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
No, I am not confusing, you're just confused. All along I've said that IF we are going to include info on the Soviet Union in the article Socialism THEN we must do so in a neutral balanced manner. That means not cherry picking a couple "positive" facts about it (Space Flight!!!) and ignoring the many negative ones. You STILL haven't explained why space flight should be included in THIS article even though it's not even mentioned in the Capitalism article. Volunteer Marek 13:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Another aspect completely missing from the article in relation to the Soviet Union is the fact that Soviet "socialism" was widely criticized by other socialist almost immediately (from Rosa Luxembourg to Karl Kautsky) and resoundingly rejected by most of world's socialist parties. Volunteer Marek 07:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The article literally states: Rosa Luxemburg and Eduard Bernstein criticised Lenin, stating that his conception of revolution was elitist and Blanquist. This is another occurance of you saying something is not there while it is. Also, it hasn't been "resoundingly rejected by most of world's socialist parties". BeŻet (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Could you please stop removing well sourced content without prior discussion. BeŻet (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I am NOT "removing well sourced content without prior discussion". The content is NOT "well sourced" - that's the problem! And obviously I've been discussing it extensively, you're the one who's been refusing to actually address the issue. Could you please stop accusing others of things they didn't do just to win a dispute? Can you please actually bother to address the issues at hand? Volunteer Marek 12:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Could you please stop edit warring and reach consensus first? You are removing well sourced information. BeŻet (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Could you also please stop adding WP:COATRACK when there is no problem about this in the article, and your understanding of the article has been questioned above? BeŻet (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
BeZet, I really don't appreciate the fact that you repeatedly try to accuse me of things which YOU are actually guilty of. You've been edit warring on this article ever since I've made my first edit. You're the one who has failed to actually discuss the issues - instead you just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT dismissed them (like by claiming that purges and gulags were not a key characteristic of Soviet society or by failing to explain why exactly Soviet space flight belongs in this particular article). And you really need to stop removing relevant tags when these concerns have been explained AT LENGTH and in great detail. Volunteer Marek 14:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
A lot of things you said have been directly contested or disproven. You also seem to "learn as you go". Earlier you said: Instead there’s a whole ton of undue stuff on the Bolsheviks, Rosa Luxembourg, communist economic planning, anarchism, Leninism, Chinese Communist Party, Soviet Union, Cuba etc. We already have a different article on Communism so why is all that info here?, grouping Rosa Luxembourg with the Bolsheviks, and later suddenly you realise that the Soviet Union has been criticised by Rosa (see above). In short, your concerns have been heavily contested and rendered incoherent by your other comments. Finally, I would appreciate if you stopped loling, bolding and exclaiming (!!!) all the time. I would also like you to remember about the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which helps us edit articles. You have made bold changes that have been contested and reverted, and we should now discuss them. BeŻet (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
"A lot of things you said have been directly contested or disproven." NO THEY HAVE NOT. Rather than making spurious statements giving yourself credit for something which you didn't do, why don't you actually address the issues???? And you're doing the strawman again and falsely misrepresenting what I said. What I said is that IF we gonna include a bunch of stuff about Communism in the article on Socialism (like Rosa Luxembourg, whom I most certainly did NOT "group with the Bolsheviks" - you made that up) THEN we have to present the issue in a neutral balanced manner.
You haven't bothered to address a single issue I've raised. Here they are again:
Why is Soviet space flight relevant to article on Socialism but, say, USA space flight isn't relevant to article on Capitalism?
Why is Soviet space flight relevant to article on Socialism but other more prominent aspects of Soviet society, like political purges or mass repressions aren't?
Why are only Soviet economic "achievements" presented (and dubiously at that since they were really confined to a decade or two) but all the Soviet failures omitted?
Why is the dissolution of the Soviet Union presented as if it happened for no reason at all?
Why are negative health outcomes being presented as consequences of transition to market based economies even though - as many sources emphasize - these were already getting bad long before any capitalists showed up in Russia?
Why are we using Original Research based on debunked primary sources (CIA Factbook) to make prima facie absurd claims about the Soviet economy on the eve of it's collapse and pretending like it was the greatest (well, second greatest) thing ever. Right before it just imploded, lol.
Etc. etc. etc. Honestly there are so many problems here - these just scratch the surface - and your complete unwillingness to address even these most basic ones really illustrates the structural problems with the editing on this article. Volunteer Marek 15:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
But these are all debatable things that we can all discuss one by one. BeŻet (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you PLEEEEAAAAZZZZEEEEE actually address the issues rather than evading them? Volunteer Marek 17:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I've already addressed them:
  • Soviet space flight was an example of Soviet technological achievements. In discussing capitalism we do for instance talk about the development of the factory system. We don't have to necessarily mention the space flight.
  • Political purges were characteristic of the Stalinist era, and they don't define the whole history of the Soviet Union.
  • Any failures of the Soviet Union can be included, and already are mentioned, like for instance the vast environmental destruction caused by the industralisation.
  • It is just your opinion that "many sources emphasize" that the negative health outcomes were happening before any capitalists showed up. The facts seem to speak for themselves though. If you wish to introduce other sources, feel free to to do.
  • Claims about the size of the Soviet economy are not absurd, as presented by several sources. Again, if you have alternative sources, please present them.
Could you now slow down and continue discussing these things by providing sources that can improve the article? BeŻet (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
No, this is actually the first time you've tried to address them. But thanks. Finally. Now.
  1. What does Soviet technological achievement have to do with "Socialism"? This info belongs in the article on the Soviet Union not here. We don't discuss moon landing or space flight in article on capitalism (factory system is kind of a different thing). This is scraping the bottom of the barrell in trying to desperately include something positive about the Soviet Union.
  2. And the Stalinist era was part of Soviet history? The "modernization" was also a characteristic of the Stalinist era, not of "whole history of the Soviet Union". You're just cherry picking the "nice" things and trying to leave out the "bad" things. This is classic POV.
  3. If these can be included why are you removing them?
  4. No, I linked to a source which shows that negative health outcomes go back to the 60s. Please actually read the sources providd.
  5. Yes, info from sources when presented out of context can certainly be absurd. Volunteer Marek 18:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
If you're asking What does Soviet technological achievement have to do with "Socialism"? then I should ask What do famines have to do with "Socialism"? This sums up your stance. BeŻet (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that one's simple. Soviet style "socialism" caused them. Volunteer Marek 18:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
...and Soviet style "socialism" didn't cause technological achievements? Some extreme levels of bias here... BeŻet (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Here's the difference. Many different societies have technological achievements. Only some societies have famines, especially man-made and organized ones. Volunteer Marek 21:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Ever heard of the Great Famine in Ireland Marek? Should we mention it in the article about laissez-faire capitalism? What about the Bengali Famine? BeŻet (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I have, and these should definitely be included on the article on... British colonialism or just Colonialism where it belongs. Just like discussion of Soviet famines belongs in an article that discusses the Soviet Union. Volunteer Marek 19:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
One of the causes of the Great Famine in Ireland, or at least one of the main things that made it a lot worse, was laissez-faire capitalism. BeŻet (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually, as Micheal Ellman points out in a 2002 paper (p. 1172), famines were a common occurrence in many areas of the world in the 19th and early 20th centuries, including in India, Ireland, China and Russia before the Revolution. And the notion that the famine in the 1930's USSR was "organized" is hotly disputed in the field of Soviet studies, with numerous experts disagreeing with this (Davies, Wheatcroft, Getty, et al). Incidentally, there is a man made famine occurring in Yemen right now, courtesy of Saudi Arabia and its allies.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea what the famine in Yemen caused by Saudi Arabia has to do with any of this. This appears to be some kind of whataboutism. And yes, famines were certainly not UNIQUE to the Soviet Union. But that doesn't mean they were not UNIMPORTANT. Basically you simply cannot discuss the Soviet Economy and it's industralization without mentioning HOW and at what price it industralizied so quickly - and that price was the mass deaths in the countryside, whether this was done on purpose (likely for the one in Ukraine) or through incompetence (probably the case with the ones in the 20s). Volunteer Marek 19:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
And this is precisely why famines are in no way a key "characteristic" of the Soviet Union. If we mention them, then I really don't see why not mention the great technological progress the country has experienced, considering where it was in 1917. BeŻet (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
No, they are as much a key "characteristic" of the Soviet Union as they are of British rule in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

Just look at this paragraph and how ridiculous it is

Mikhail Gorbachev wished to move the Soviet Union towards of Nordic-style social democracy, calling it "a socialist beacon for all mankind".[266][267] Prior to its dissolution in 1991, the economy of the Soviet Union was by some measures the second largest in the world after the United States.[268][269][270] With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the economic integration of the Soviet republics was dissolved and overall industrial activity declined substantially.[271] A lasting legacy remains in the physical infrastructure created during decades of combined industrial production practices, and widespread environmental destruction.[272] The transition to capitalism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, which was accompanied by Washington Consensus-inspired "shock therapy",[273] Following a transition to free market capitalism there has been a steep fall in the standard of living. The region experienced rising economic inequality and poverty[274] a surge in excess mortality,[275][276][277][278][279] and a decline in life expectancy,[280] which was accompanied by the entrenchment of a newly established business oligarchy in the former.[274] The average post-communist country had returned to 1989 levels of per-capita GDP by 2005,[281] and as off 2015 some were still behind that.[282] These developments led to increased nationalist sentiment and nostalgia for the Communist era.[283][284][285]

Just look at it. It's a textbook example of POV pushing, UNDUE content, FRINGE content, CHERRY PICKING and TENDENTIOUS editing. This should be framed and put into some Wikipedia Hall of Fame of what NOT to do. Let's take it sentence by sentence.

  1. Mikhail Gorbachev wished to move the Soviet Union towards of Nordic-style social democracy - First source is Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine", a pop book which is NOT a reliable source. Second source is better but it really represents the idiosyncratic opinion (and wishful thinking) of one author. Other authors had more realistic assessments. Gorbachev tried to "patch up" Soviet communism, not replace it. For example: The most revealing themes were his (Gorbachev's) attack on reforms that are directed at creating market socialism, his defense of centralization of economic control, and his negative evaluations of the Yugoslav model of socialism and the Chinese economic revolution. Gorbachev warned against the false glitter of market-oriented reforms (...) He deplored the tendency to consider economic centralization as the source of the failure of communist economies"[2]
  2. Prior to its dissolution in 1991... - this is the very next sentence and it completely omits any discussion of WHY the Soviet Union "dissolved". There's no mention of the economic crisis of the 70's an d80's. It presents the dissolution as something that just happened out of the blue. Like Gorby woke up one morning and just said "oh hey lets dissolve" . It's obvious to anyone with any kind of background knowledge that the article is PURPOSEFULLY omitting all the problems that led to the dissolution because apparently that reflects badly on the Soviet Union. But it gets worse:
  3. ...the economy of the Soviet Union was by some measures the second largest in the world after the United States. - so not only did the Soviet Union dissolve for no reason at all, according to our article, but in fact, it dissolved right when it was doing just great! Awesome! It was the 2nd largest economic power!!!! Man, it must've been some really evil or stupid people that dissolved such a great - 2nd largest!!!! - society for no reason at all! Sheeeeeeeessshhhh. Could this possibly be more over-the-top POV? There's no mention of the fact that this "2nd largest" business was only if you calculated Soviet GDP at official exchange rate of 4 rubles to 1 dollar, set by Soviet authorities themselves and no mention of the fact that the market exchange rate was actually 40 rubles to a dollar. Additionally this relies on a primary source (CIA Factbook). Anyone who has actually studied this topic even briefly is quite aware that the CIA figures for the Soviet Union were complete junk. Here is one easily accessible source on the topic but this is a well known fact in the literature: [3] (excerpt: Until recently, the CIA stated that the national income per capita was higher in the Soviet Union than in Italy. Anyone who has visited both countries should be able to see for himself that such a statement is absurd. If the U.S.S.R. had been so well off, there would not have been much need for a radical reform. Excessive belief in CIA statistics is an important reason why so few Western experts predicted any Soviet reform.). Hell, even official SOVIET economists of the early 80s were disputing CIA statistics saying "no, no, we're not actually that rich" (which is kind of hilarious).
  4. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the economic integration of the Soviet republics was dissolved and overall industrial activity declined substantially - The industrial activity declined substantially in the years prior to dissolution!!!. Again, this is part of this false pretense that the Soviet Union collapsed just out of the blue for no reason at all and until capitalism it had no economic problems what so ever.
  5. A lasting legacy remains in the physical infrastructure created during decades of combined industrial production practices, and widespread environmental destruction. - this part's fine.
  6. The transition to capitalism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, which was accompanied by Washington Consensus-inspired "shock therapy" - sigh. First, 'shock therapy' or "Washington Consensus" occurred in only SOME of the post-Soviet, post-Communist states. Poland. Czech Republic. Estonia. Latvia and possibly Russia and Albania (not so succesfull but the question of whether they actually did or not, as opposed to being advised to, is still debated) [4]. That's FOUR out of THIRTY something countries. Yet the text here pretends that they all did.
  7. Following a transition to free market capitalism there has been a steep fall in the standard of living. - the living standards were ALREADY falling in these countries before the "transition"! Again, this is completely omitted information. And while some of these countries didn't successfully transition (ironically for our article, the ones that DIDN'T do shock therapy) others experienced a sharp but short recession and then grew economically catching up with the West.
  8. The region experienced rising economic inequality and poverty[ - the source given is this, page 51. I cannot stress the following enough: there is nothing in that source to support this statement!!!!!. Russia is barely mentioned on that and adjacent pages (it only says that present day Russian oligarchs may resemble "premodern elites") Somebody just made this up and then added a fake citation to the end of a sentence to fake-justify it.
  9. a surge in excess mortality, - it's true that mortality went up but this sentence falsely pretends that this increase was due to the transition to capitalism! In fact mortality rates in Russia had been rising since ... 1965! Nineteen sixty five. For 26 years before the dissolution of the Soviet Union! (But hey, it was the "2nd largest economy" with "modernization increasing standards of living" (sic)) [5]. There was a change in that trend - a drop in mortality - between ... 1984 and 1986 (so still before the fall of communism) which had everything to do with Gorbachev's anti-alcohol law. When that law was rescinded in 1987, mortality rates resumed their upward march. Again, this is blatant false misrepresentation of facts, all as part of some FRINGE Soviet Union apologism.
  10. decline in life expectancy - see above.
  11. was accompanied by the entrenchment of a newly established business oligarchy in the former - yes in Russia. But this text is talking about "the region".
  12. The average post-communist country had returned to 1989 levels of per-capita GDP by 2005,[281] and as off 2015 some were still behind that - this WOULD BE fine except another crucial piece of information is omitted. As the author says, the ones that fell behind are the ones which experienced civil war or international war. I tried adding this info, straight from the source, since it otherwise the quotation is clipped off to make it seem like something it isn't, but this was removed by BeZet without explanation.

Let's face it. This whole paragraph is just one big embarrassment. I don't know whether to laugh or cringe when I read it. It's as if it was written by some 14 year old who just discovered Soviet style Communism and decided to adopt it to piss of their parents. It's not encyclopedic. It's not Wikpiedia policy-compliant. It's not even on topic. It's just. Junk. Volunteer Marek 15:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's time for you to WP:BREATHER and then come back when you're ready to discuss things calmly. BeŻet (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I am discussing it calmly. I just listed a dozen problems with this section/article. However, it really is time for YOU to stop with the condescending attitude and to actually address the issue of content. Your personal remarks which instead of discussing content discuss editors have moved into the personal attack territory.
Now.
How about actually addressing the issues rather than evading them?
Volunteer Marek 17:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
You are not doing it calmly. If you're going to act like an angry child with your ALL CAPS, "lols" and exclaimations, don't expect anyone to cooperate with you. Nobody owes you anything. BeŻet (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
You REALLY need to stop telling me what my mood is or whether I am calm or not. I'm sitting in this chair right here, sipping some coffee and enjoying the view outside my window. You are sitting over there WITH NO IDEA of what my mood is like. These kinds of comments are obnoxious and condescending and you really need to STOP discussing other editors and what you imagine their moods might be and focus on content. Volunteer Marek 18:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
BeŻet is absolutely correct here. It's really not appealing to engage with an editor who is launching harsh bolded all-caps over-punctuated invective at nobody in particular, day after day. This isn't constructive and it won't lead to consensus. I am probably far from the only page watcher who would like to improve the article but is unwilling to engage with someone whose tone is so intensely combative. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but since BeZet refuses to actually discuss the issues and instead chooses to make personalized comments, a little bit of bolding and exclamations is perfectly justified. Please. Address. The. Substance. Volunteer Marek 18:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I am constantly discussing things with you but you seem to have covered your eyes and ears with your hands. Your behaviour is not justified by any means. Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot BeŻet (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
One last time. STOP discussing editors and discuss CONTENT. It's not that hard. Volunteer Marek 18:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I have all the right to discuss your behaviour if it is innaproriate. BeŻet (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Discuss content not editors, and especially not what you imagine other editors emotions and feelings to be.
Also, you’re way past WP:3RR on the article. I suggest you self revert and stop the edit warring. Volunteer Marek 20:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. BeŻet (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I've made precisely three reverts. BeŻet (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
This also is not true. Volunteer Marek 21:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Random passer-by comment. I saw this on the edit war noticeboard. Volunteer Marek is right. That paragraph, at best, needs a strong disclaimer like "According to leftist sources like XYZ" to emphasize that this is the doctrine of ideologues, not historians. The most important part that I'd argue is factually wrong is the bit about "which was accompanied by Washington Consensus-inspired "shock therapy", Following a transition to free market capitalism there has been a steep fall in the standard of living." First off, Naomi Klein is not a good source, she's a flake (there's real socialist academics you could easily cite instead). But secondly, it's just wrong anyway - the former Eastern Bloc took many different paths after the collapse of the USSR. This description might be true of Estonia (which is doing rather well now in standard of living, incidentally), but is not true of Ukraine, and definitely not true in places like Turkmenistan or Belarus (Turkmenbashy was the Soviet First Secretary, and still ran a highly centralized economy long after independence). Additionally, the places that took the transition to capitalism more slowly - say the Ukraine again - generally had it even worse than the ones that took it quicker, as far as quality of life / economy. But even if you disagree with that, the general point is that it's flatly not true that the entire Eastern Bloc did a sudden 180 to pure laissez-faire capitalism. Many post-Soviet states maintained a huge public sector with similar socialist commitments to the populace, even if no longer officially communist, and this is easily verifiable. SnowFire (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
"According to leftist sources like XYZ" This might apply to your one example, Naomi Klein, but what about all the other sources in that paragraph? Is Walter Scheidel[6] a "leftist" (the implication here being "unreliable") source? Branko Milanović[7]? the BBC[8]? Is From Triumph to Crisis: Neoliberal Economic Reform in Postcommunist Countries, published by Cambridge University Press, a "leftist" and therefore unreliable source? Kristen Ghodsee[9] and Scott Sehon[10] might be left-leaning, but they are notable scholars on these issues, and certainly not unreliable. By contrast, Steven Rosefielde[11] is hardly a leftist and his writings are strongly anti-Soviet (his book Red Holocaust[12] is one of the top sources in the highly controversial Mass killings under communist regimes article). These are some of the sources I have added to this section. These are strong sources, and I have added links so editors here can see for themselves and make their own judgements about said sources.
Let's take the Scheidel source for example. User:Volunteer Marek made this erroneous assertion above (in point #8): "I cannot stress the following enough: there is nothing in that source to support this statement!!!!!. Russia is barely mentioned on that and adjacent pages (it only says that present day Russian oligarchs may resemble "premodern elites") Somebody just made this up and then added a fake citation to the end of a sentence to fake-justify it." I added a quote to the citation to thoroughly refute this, and I'm going to place that quote here and ask the questions, what is factually wrong about this? Why is this a bad source for this article? How does this not verify the material that precedes it, which now reads "Post-Communist Russia experienced rising economic inequality and poverty"?

Following the dissolution of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and then of the Soviet Union itself in late 1991, exploding poverty drove the surge in income inequality: within three years, the proportion of people living in poverty had tripled to more than a third of Russia's population. By the time of the financial crisis of 1998, their share had grown to almost 60 percent. Yet over the longer term, rising inequality has been boosted by the decompression of wage incomes, much of it resulting from growing regional variation. Strongly disproportionate income growth in Moscow and in oil-and-gas-rich parts of the country point to the successful capture of rents by those in the highest income-brackets. Wealth concentration at the very top had been made possible by the transfer of state assets to private owners

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that looks like the start of a very good re-written section! I certainly agree that the fall in living standards in Russia for much of society post Soviet collapse is very relevant to discuss. That just makes this true part all the more important to disentangle from the nonsense around it, for the reasons VM already described - the talk of Russia being the #2 economy is irrelevant and cheerleading, the claim all Eastern bloc states converted to capitalism approved by the Washington Consensus is wrong, and the claim that Gorbachev was moving toward Nordic-style social democracy is, at best, contested. Throw out all the other stuff and talk about, in detail, the effects after communism by class, how they differed between countries, both socialist & non-socialists analyses of it, and so on. SnowFire (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
There are a couple things that Marek mentioned that are worth looking into, but also things that are just simply incorrect. I think the problem here is that it's difficult to summarise a long and complicated thing like the collapse of the Soviet Union in just a few sentences, and that would require more content. However Marek also insisted that the there is a WP:COATRACK problem and apparently the article is focusing to much on capital "C" Communism. So if he concedes that this actually isn't a problem and that we actually should write more about these topics, we can solve this problem by adding more context to these situations. I think this stems from his misunderstanding of what socialism is, as he said previously that the article has stuff that’s not about socialism but about anarchism or communism, while anarchism and communism are types of socialism. So maybe if this gets clarified we can progress. BeŻet (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
"the economy of the Soviet Union was by some measures the second largest in the world" This seem to be Weasel words: "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated" By which standards was it ranked, and when? Dimadick (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
This is explained in the source - the phrase "by some measures" was added as a compromise, but is also what's used in one of the sources. BeŻet (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
If it's explained in the source but not in the text that's not helpful. There's three problems with this claim:
  1. It's based on CIA figures from the 80's which are widely recognized to have been inflated (the CIA seems to have been inflating their estimates of Soviet bloc countries in order to make them seem more like an economic threat than they were and so as to get budget increases). No serious scholar of Soviet economy takes these numbers at face value. Even Soviet statisticians and economists were laughing at these numbers in public at the time.
  2. The comparison between the Soviet economy and other economies is made at the "official" exchange rate of 1 dollar for 4 rubles. The actual market exchange rate was around 1 dollar for 40 rubles. That would knock down the Soviet economy in the rankings considerably.
  3. One big reason why the Soviet economy stopped being "2nd largest" (even ignoring the above two problems) is that... it broke up. Regions which were formerly part of the Soviet economy, like Ukraine, Baltics, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc. were no longer part of that economy. This has nothing to do with transition from Communism to Capitalism but simply by the break of an empire. You take a big economy and split it up into smaller pieces. This is like if the western states of the US broke away and we tried to pretend that the US economy "shrank".
This is all a bit much to explain in an article which is about a different topic entirely. This is why I would just simply remove the claim. Volunteer Marek 11:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Could you provide sources for that so that we can discuss? About your third point, the sentence isn't saying that the economy shrunk. BeŻet (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I already did. In fact I tried to put them into the article but you removed it. And while the sentence doesn't say that the economy shrunk, it is presented in a context free way which most certainly implies it. Volunteer Marek 19:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Could you please share them here to make the discussion easier for everyone? BeŻet (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

NEPmen

I’m having trouble finding info for this sentence in the source provided:

“Profiteering returned in the form of "NEP men" and rich peasants (kulaks) gained power.[138]”

The source (if I’m clicking the right link within) talks about entrepreneurship, and subsequent persecution of “NEPmen” but it most certainly does not say they “gained power”. It doesn’t mention the kulaks either. Volunteer Marek 21:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree. It's excessive detail anyway. I'll just delete it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"as of 2015 some were still behind that"

And some were not. An example of bias.Xx236 (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The late 20th century section seems to me one of the most in need of work. It'd be better to tag that section as POV instead of the whole article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War section

It is very difficult to describe any war in few lines. Why exactly these facts have been selected? Xx236 (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"Socialist' without Spanish Socialist Workers' Party.Xx236 (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
As I said, whether it covers all details is up for debate. Please feel free to expand the section. BeŻet (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I had a go. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Nice, but it is the beginning, see POUM. Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Is the COATRACK tag necessary in the article?

Should the COATRACK tag stay in the article, i.e. does the article have a problem as described by the COATRACK tag? BeŻet (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose - the article does not seem to focus too much on one subject. It talks about many different types of socialism and many different strands so I personally don't believe the tag is necessary. BeŻet (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - For example, the article gives significant weight to the history of various socialist movements and countries; while these can be used as an example of various forms of socialism, should reliable sources support them being classified as so, the inclusion of such in depth history is UNDUE. BilledMammal (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per User:BeŻet, User:14thReason and previous arguments I made above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with BeŻet - Sea Ane (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Volunteer_Marek has taken the ball from my hands and scored a touchdown. And SnowFire makes some excellent points too. It's a coatrack for anyone who has ever said "Socialism good, capitalism bad." Flavor of the Month (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: I'm sympathetic to the case that Volunteer Marek says below as there is excessive detail in this article including about more marginal areas of socialism and not enough treatment of the main stream of socialism in the 20th century, plus there are areas where this creates a slight POV slant, but I don't think it's a big enough deal to treat this as a coatrack article and I think it won't take much to make it better. I'd say better to tag the specific sections that are too detailed and specific sections that need expanding and work from there. I started doing some editing yesterday to address this issue, and I think it wouldn't be too difficult to get the article to give appropriate weight to the more relevant issues while still respecting the diversity of socialism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Volunteer Marek, makes a number of excellent arguments in the discussion below. Firstly, in contemporary European usage, communism is wholly distinct from socialism, though I recognise that historically this may not be the case. Therefore USSR, PRC etc would not be seen as socialist, though both might have a place in the 'history of ideas' aspects, but many W. European initiatives and politicians WOULD BE seen as socialist, or 'socialism-influenced', even though these are free-market economies. The French state for example has substantial shares and control in 'key' infrastructure and industries. How the article should deal with that I don't know. Secondly, there appears to be little distinction between the 'isms' and the (good or bad) realities of the regimes governed by those 'isms'. It makes no inherent sense to 'blame' socialism for Stalin or famine than it would to praise capitalism for Christmas pudding or Thankgiving turkey. A particular manifestation of one regime or another is not automatically caused by the governing ideology of that regime. It might be possible to make the case that political 'interference' in society (which socialism implies) doesn't necessarily have the desired outcome, and limits 'freedom's, but the article goes too far in arguing the pros and cons of particular regimes - and as said, USSR would not be thought of as socialist AT ALL by most western Europeans. Put a bit more briefly, is the article about the 'ism' - referencing regimes perhaps for illustrative purposes - or is it about the largest regimes themselves, intending to use regimes to 'make a point' about the 'isms'? Pincrete (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

  • @Volunteer Marek: As you added the tag it would be good to hear from you your justification for inclusion (which I didn't include in the RfC question for neutrality reasons). Thank you! BeŻet (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I do not think that the COATRACK tag should be added to this article. The first paragraph itself explains that there are "many types of socialism" and there is no real in-depth definition. 14thReason (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Volunteer Marek: As you added the tag, we definitely need to see your rationale. At the moment, I'm leaning towards "no need for the tag". Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Here is the rationale: there are actually TWO related problems. First, is that this article gives UNDUE weight to covering, for lack of better word, "extreme" versions of socialism, like Communism or Anarchism. These can be certainly regarded as subsets of "Socialism" and should be covered but the article focuses way to much on these relative to "mainstream" Socialism. For example, Leon Blum and the Popular Front and the French Socialist Party, which governed France are not even mentioned. The German SPD, the largest socialist party in the world is really mentioned only in one brief sentence. Compare that with all the attention heaped upon Soviet Union or other communist regimes. In fact, when it comes to discussing Germany the info presented is... relationship to Bolshevik Revolution, the Bavarian revolution, the Spartacists, sex among SPD members - all "extreme" Socialist topics/phenomenon Etc. Or look at the information on Spain. Article talks a good bit about Anarchism, mentions the CNT and anarchists taking over Barcelona but... it COMPLETELY fails to even mention UGT the largest Socialist trade union in Spain during the Civil War, which *governed* Spain during the Republican period and which was the backbone of resistance to Franco. Sheeesh. I could go on, going country by country but you get the point. In every case actual important significant capital-S Socialist movements have been sidelined in favor of farther-left Communist and Anarchist movements in this article.
And then we come to the second related problem. After sidelining actual Socialist movements and parties, the article proceeds to use the info on the Communists aspects of Socialism as a literal WP:COATRACK (I'm not just linking to a random Wikipedia policy here) to mostly whitewash Communism, mostly the Soviet Union. I'm guessing that if this kind of info was included in other articles it'd be readily flagged as violating POV but here, under the pretext that "Communism is a type of Socialism" it's managed to make it in. In Soviet Union "living standards rose!!!!" "They had Space Flight!!!!" "There was modernization!!!!!" "It was a great super power!!!!" "It was second largest economy!!!!!". Of course the info on the famines of the 20's and 30's, the economic stagnation after the 60's, the political repression and deaths through out its existence, the economic implosion in the 80s, the drab nature of everyday life... all of that is omitted (and removed by editors like BeZet if you someone tries to add it).
So put these two things together. 1) Undue focus on Communism (and to some extent Anarchism) at expense of "regular" Socialism + 2) That focus on Communism being almost exclusively positive = COATRACK.
Now, a good deal of the problem can be solved by simply solving #2 and then working to expand (though the article is already long) info on actual Socialism. But... that can't happen if every single edit that someone tries to make is automatically reverted per some WP:OWN attitude. Either way, as long as these are not solved, the COATRACK problem remains. Volunteer Marek 19:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Marek, I am somewhat sympathetic to some of the arguments you make here. Whether we like it or not the Soviet Union was humanity's largest and longest socialist project (until recently surpassed by China (I do not want to get into a market socialism argument here)) so deserves large coverage but the current section is a mess due to obvious effects of edit warring. From that perspective, coverage of UGT seems pretty fringe and should really just be covered on History of socialism. I think the main issue is that the history section is too long when there is already a page dedicated to this. This page is about Socialism as a philosophy so rightly should include what you call "extreme" versions of this even if they have rarely existed. It doesn't appear to me that the Soviet Union is presented as entirely positive and on the contrary I think the unexplained mention of famines on the page is actually COATRACK and UNDUE. The mention of famines in the China make complete sense but has no explanation which would give any context. Overall though the lack of overall coherence on this page is damning for such a large subject.
Personally, I think tagging pages is the lazy way to retreat from the difficult job of editing. Then again how entrenched people get on Wikipedia on all sides of the spectrum never gives me much hope of these pages improving. Is there anyway we can constructively work on this, obviously important, article? Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, if mentioning the UGT is fringe then even more so with respect to the CNT. As far as tagging the article - well, when every single attempt to make changes to article gets reverted, that's kind of all that's left to do. Volunteer Marek 00:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
In regard to the famines, you can't really discuss the pre-WW2 Soviet economy without mentioning them. In particular you can't really discuss the industrialization that occurred without mentioning them, since they were caused by this drive to industrialize. The first famine too was the reason for the NEP which was a retreat from "socialism" giving it even more relevancy. Volunteer Marek 00:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry Marek, my thoughts on all of this are a bit confused. I suppose I just find the ways both countries' famines are mentioned in an article which is supposed to be about socialism to be strange and COATRACK/UNDUE. Of course famines happened in both places before and after these governments took control in relation to a combination of state actions and natural events. WP editors include these things often as a gotcha (socialism=bad) just as on the other side include things like Soviet scientific achievements as a gotcha (socialism=good) My biggest question is - why are we rehashing these famines on a page about socialism? These should be discussed on the relevant history pages. The history section needs to be drastically stripped back for any chance of this page to be any good.
Of course CNT is also fringe as, probably, is all of the Spanish Civil War. There are literally thousands of conflicts, strikes, clashes that could be included. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I mean, I think we actually essentially agree here. What I’m saying is that IF we include information on Soviet industrialization (or technological achievements) THEN we need to also include the info on the costs of that industrialization, the famines being the big obvious ones. IF we discuss anarchists in the Spanish Civil War THEN we sure need to mention the actual Socialists in the Spanish Civil War, since that’s what the article is about.
But both of these are conditional IF/THEN statements. If you’re saying that ALL of this stuff shouldn’t be here then I agree. If we include both parts then it may be UNDUE. But if we include only one part of it then it’s a COATRACK. There’s been strong resistance though to cleaning up those parts though. Volunteer Marek 04:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Well put - I agree. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I still think there's a Catch 22 situation here. You're saying both that there is too much focus on the Soviet Union, bot not enough information about it. We do mention in the article, for instance, how Stalin created an authoritarian rule, how he was rejected by a lot of socialist movements etc.. I frankly don't think there even is a lot written about the Soviet Union. So we can add more details, but the History section is quite large already. It seems that basically this is quite a subjective matter that needs discussing, as there are a lot of thigns that could be talked about (like for instance Blum which would be nice) but we still want to keep the section brief enough. BeŻet (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Marek, what is "regular" and "mainstream" socialism? BeŻet (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
No. As already explained multiple times, these are CONDITIONAL statements. IF we include focus on Soviet Union THEN we need to include both good and bad. Alternatively we could just focus on Soviet Union less. Volunteer Marek 21:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
But there are plenty of "bad" things mentioned about the Soviet Union. You keep implying there is none. BeŻet (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
There is no group adhering to pure socialism because such a concept does not exist. We must describe all parts of the spectrum, although the fringes of the spectrum have perhaps received an undue representation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree; there is no such thing as "regular socialism". However, whether one likes it or not, Marxist-Leninist states are not the "fringes" in this particular case, as they becase the dominant form of "socialism" in the 20th century. BeŻet (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
ML, Maoism, Communism, and such are most definitely considered “far” or “extreme” left, while lots of parties that call themselves “socialist” are just regular left. Volunteer Marek 21:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Since it has been a week and the consensus seems to be that the COATRACK tag is unnecessary (or more evidently, there is no consensus that it is necessary), I am removing the tag now. BeŻet (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • BeŻet, I think that is a little premature. It's not a vote, but there are three in favour (one of which should be dismissed as a vote) and three against (one of which should be dismissed as a vote). The RfC clearly hasn't run its course, and should be left open and the tag left on the page until concluded. BilledMammal (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
The RfC hasn’t been closed. Please don’t remove the tag. Volunteer Marek 21:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I closed it after there was no discussion. Since there seems to be more happening now though, we can keep it open. BeŻet (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Market Socialism is Not socialism

Like fr, socialism means social ownership of the means of production, private co-operative ownership of the means of production is not socialism

Correction: Market socialism IS socialism, just not communism. Communism is one single ideology about controlling the means of production, while socialism doesn’t have to be that because it comes in many different forms, such as Marxism, democratic socialism, social democracy, etc. What you said is like saying capitalism and fascism are the same thing, they are not. S-Fan2006 (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC about the POV tag in the article

Should the article keep the POV tag at the top of the page, i.e. are there neutrality issues present which would justify the inclusion of the tag? 16:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose – While there are areas of the article that could be improved, the arguments presented by Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) are not compelling enough, and any issues or gaps are not serious enough to justify a "global" tag at the top. In the discussion above regarding the justification for the tag, it seemed to me we had a case of WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY. There were several false statements made about the contents of the article (that it does not mention the collapse of the Soviet Union, that it does not present anything critical of the Soviet Union etc.). I think the POV tag should be reserved for more severe cases, while what we have here is certain (debatable) gaps that can be filled. There also seems to be difference of opinion regarding what is worth mentioning, which is a relative and subjective aspect, which wouldn't objectively justify a tag at the top. BeŻet (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Volunteer_Marek is doing an outstanding job with this. A not-so-irrelevant question: there are 517 sources here. How many of them were written by socialist apologists, how many by communist apologists, and how many by capitalists? Would anyone care to take a guess? Flavor of the Month (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    Could you provide a full justification, please? BeŻet (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure. The article touts all the successes of socialism, but never mentions the price that was always paid, in blood and suffering and enslavement, for those successes. Millions killed, billions enslaved or at the very least, their basic freedoms and human rights were taken away. The NPOV violation is blatantly obvious. Flavor of the Month (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't really see much about the "successes of socialism" in this article - could you be more specific? Adding a lot of material on the price paid (especially when you're presumably referring to just one form of socialism, the Soviet form that many socialists don't even recognise as socialists) would make the article POV in a different way. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, there's this: "The emphasis was on development of heavy industry at expense of agriculture. The nation became one of the world's top manufacturers of basic and heavy industrial products, while deemphasizing light industrial production and consumer durables.[citation needed] Rapid industrialization served two purposes: to bring largely agrarian societies into the modern age, and to establish a politically loyal working class. Modernization brought about a general increase in the standard of living in the 1950s and 60's." Sounds great, but what cost was paid for this heavy industrialization? Stalin was selling wheat in the world market, that should have been used to feed the Ukrainian people, and used the cash to buy heavy industrial machinery. So at what cost was this industrialization achieved? Millions of Ukrainian lives. But the article makes no mention of this price that was paid. And that was just the first of many mass killings in the name of advancing socialism. Flavor of the Month (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Flavor of the Month: The Holodomor took place in the early 30s. Stalin died in 1953. 50's and 60's in the Soviet Union were the Khrushchev era. If you want to be taken seriously, at least get basic facts right. BeŻet (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
But that's simply not true. Plenty of issues are mentioned. BeŻet (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - as per BeŻet there is indeed scope for improvement, but the issues are not that serious. I think the lead is fine now and most sections are fine. It'd be better to flag particular sections that are problematic and work on them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the article is flawed, as we expect in any article about a topic of this complexity; but not enough so that the tag really belongs there. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

If the definition/lead is controversial, what is the value of the whole text? Xx236 (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand. Are you questioning socialism's connection with social ownership? It's one of the key and most important elements of socialism. This is not controversial in any way. BeŻet (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Of course it is, since in practice “social ownership” is just a way to obscure the fact of “government ownership”. Volunteer Marek 21:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are two different (and opposing) arguments being made by those who argue that the article is biased. On the one hand, there is the argument that communism is NOT socialism (or at least that communism is a non-mainstream form of socialism) and that the article is biased because it talks *too much* about communism. This seems to be the view of Volunteer Marek.

On the other hand, there is the argument that communism IS socialism, and that the article is biased because it doesn't talk about communism *enough*. This seems to be the view of Flavor of the Month and Xx236 (for instance, see the comment above arguing that the *definition of socialism* given in the article is wrong because it does not match what happened in Albania and other communist countries; this would imply that communist states ARE the benchmark for socialism).

So I think there is a 3-way debate here. Perhaps the first thing to discuss, therefore, should be this question: "Is the current space given to communism in this article too much, too little, or just about right?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:b11a:2532:15f4:8a62:37ad:a98c (talk • contribs)

the above text is unsigned.
I am using your definition "social ownership is the one common element". So you belive that Albania was Socialist. something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The anon suggestion point above about the two contradictory arguments for the article being POV is well put. My view is that before 1917 Marxist, anarchist and democratic traditions were all significant within socialism, but that after 1917 anarchism and socialism diverged more (although most anarchists continued to identify broadly as socialists) while socialism and communism were increasingly used in differentiation from each other (while supporters of the Soviet model did continue to call themselves socialists). Because of this, we need to include communism and anarchism in the article, but, not least as they have their own articles, focus far more on "mainstream" socialism, i.e. the democratic socialism of the Second International. On the question of social ownership, I think it's uncontroversial to say that most versions of socialism favour some form of social ownership but disagree about what that looks like. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Social ownership is the goal of Socialists. Since Socialism hasn't been achieved anywhere (ignoring the "actually existing socialism"), it's pointless to argue that socialism isn't about social ownership if Albania did not have it. BeŻet (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Here’s another example of the problems with this article - even with a section on the Nordic countries. It doesn’t even mention Hjalmar Branting, Sweden’s first socialist prime minister, founder of its party, first socialist politician to win a reelection and a freakin’ Nobel prize winner. Instead we get POV sentences like “ In countries such as Sweden, the Rehn–Meidner model[194] allowed capitalists owning productive and efficient firms to retain profits at the expense of the firms' workers” Volunteer Marek 20:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Once again, you are implying incorrect things. There's a whole paragraph about Sweden (although that bit about Erlander doesn't seem right):
During most of the post-war era, Sweden was governed by the Swedish Social Democratic Party largely in cooperation with trade unions and industry.[185] In Sweden, the Swedish Social Democratic Party held power from 1936 to 1976, 1982 to 1991, 1994 to 2006 and 2014 through 2023, most recently in a minority coalition. Tage Erlander was the first leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SSDP). He led the government from 1946 to 1969, the longest uninterrupted parliamentary government.
Should we also mention what was happening in Sweden before that? Perhaps, but socialism's history is so rich that you can easily pick and choose things that weren't mentioned. For instance, there is no mentioning of the Polish Socialist Party, despite its importance. Japan is not mentioned at all, even though the Japan Socialist Party was in power in 1947. It doesn't mean that the article has a POV problem, it just means that we should all collectively decide how much detail is necessary, and which elements are worth mentioning here. BeŻet (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I am not “implying incorrect things” nor did I before. Branting, a very significant socialist, is clearly not mentioned. Yes, there is a paragraph on Sweden but it’s inadequate. In fact it’s just plain wrong since Erlander was NOT “the first leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party”. That’s just nonsense.
I’m also not clear on how you providing examples of why my critique is correct helps your case. Yes, Polish Socialist Party and Japan Socialist Party should be mentioned! Remove most of the stuff about extreme left communism and put that stuff in. That’s what I’m saying here. Volunteer Marek 22:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm giving examples of missing things and explaining to you that this has nothing to do with WP:NPOV. BeŻet (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, if someone key is missing, e.g. if Branting should be here, why not just add mention of him? His absence means an under-developed article rather than necessarily a POV one. I added in Leon Blum, whose absence you also noted, and so far nobody has reverted that. I don't know enough about Sweden to know what's wrong with the sentence on the Rehn–Meidner model, but if that section is POV I think it'd be better to tag that section so that editors can focus work on it rather than tag the whole article. I'm still unclear what the major problem is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a wealth of history in the various socialist movements worldwide. But they were merely fragmentary compared to the vast size and vast effects of communism. I agree that the inclusion of Branting and Erlander is important and would add to this article. Flavor of the Month (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
It's a very American thing to equate "socialism" with totalitarian left-authoritarianism, and it plays badly with the perception elsewhere that socialism is a category of economic policy system, which includes both good and bad political systems. Totalitarian left-authoritarianism (eg. Soviet-style or Maoist communism) has the same effects as totalitarian right-authoritarianism (eg. fascism in Europe or junta leadership in South America); purges, terror, mass killings. But we don't equate market economies with fascism. -- The Anome (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings

There's a lot of right-wing outrage about this article not having any mention of mass killings under nominally socialist communist regimes such as those of Stalin or Mao. For example, this. However, whether these killings have any actual bearing on socialism itself, as opposed to specific regimes, is a matter of vigorous political disagreement. I've made an edit that reflects that disagreement, per WP:NPOV. -- The Anome (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Social ownership of the mans of production didn't produce mass killings, authoritarian regimes/dictatorships of the proletariat did. They shouldn't be included. -- YavBav09 (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree on your first point. But your recommendation that we somehow airbrush the accusation out is not how to handle it. This is one of the most common right-wing talking points against socialism, whether we approve of it or not, and keeping this out of a "criticism" section in an article about socialism, would be a truly bizarre omission. Mentioning that this is a right-wing criticism of socialism is not the same as endorsing or validating their position. See WP:NPOV for more on how Wikipedia handles controversies. -- The Anome (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- YavBav09 (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Any effort to "airbrush" communism, and its most disastrous effects, our of this article is simply not acceptable. Communism is, and always has been, a form of socialism. When put into practice, it has always been the most dominant form of socialism. The Bolsheviks were the first to declare a socialist state in 1917, and right off the bat, they induced mass famine in the Ukraine in the '20s and officer purges in the late '30s and early '40s, leaving Stalin with a decimated officer corps, to face his greatest threat: National Socialism, or fascism. Communism has enslaved billions, and currently enslaves more than 1.7 billion people in China, Vietnam, Cuba and North Korea. There is no denying that it has killed many millions. How many million is up for debate, but not much. And it has always been the dominant form in practice, in terms of the number of people it has purported to "represent," and in terms of its effect upon the rest of the world. So that should be the central thesis statement of this article. The rest of the article should flow from, and in many cases compare and contrast with, the dominant form. That is what a truly NPOV article would look like. Flavor of the Month (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Flavor of the Month that the evils committed under communism must not be airbrushed away. Where I disagree, equally strongly, with them is that communism is the "dominant form of socialism", and thus equating the two. Socialism is found throughout the developed world in the form of social democracy, and is arguably the most successful system of government, exactly because of its combination of socialist and capitalist/free market economic systems giving the advantages of both. Socialism is also everywhere in places such as the USA that do not think of themselves as socialist; fire departments, public parks, public schools, road networks, police forces, and perhaps most importantly, national defence, are all state enterprises even in hyper-capitalist countries. Painting socialism with the evils of communism makes as little sense as painting market capitalism with the evils of fascism. -- The Anome (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I'll add that there has never been an actual communist state, ie a nation that has practiced communism - or so far as I know claimed to have achieved communism. They have all aspired to communism but in practice they obviously failed to accomplish it. Flavor of the Month, your claim about enslavement is just nonsense. The idea that the Chinese and Vietnamese are slaves, really? Vietnam: "Although Vietnam remains officially committed to socialism as its defining creed, its economic policies have grown increasingly capitalist,[220][221] with The Economist characterising its leadership as "ardently capitalist communists"." And if you'd ever visited Beijing, you'd hopefully know better. Our guide made it clear that what the average Chinese person wants is to be rich. And our article on China says "Modern-day China is mainly characterized as having a market economy based on private property ownership,[348] and is one of the leading examples of state capitalism.[349][350] The state still dominates in strategic "pillar" sectors such as energy production and heavy industries, but private enterprise has expanded enormously, with around 30 million private businesses recorded in 2008.[351][352][better source needed][353][354] In 2018, private enterprises in China accounted for 60% of GDP, 80% of urban employment and 90% of new jobs." Beijing and Shanghai looked to me like any capitalist city. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. The current system in China is socialist only in name, and might better be characterized as state capitalism or corporatism. -- The Anome (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Market socialism IS socialism, it just isn’t communism

Seriously, when will people learn the difference between socialism and communism, that like if people said that capitalism and fascism are the same thing, they are not. Communism is one single idea while socialism comes in many different forms, such as Marxism, democratic socialism, social democracy, etc. Market socialism is another version of socialism, okay. 88.105.149.52 (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. The thing in common between genocidal communist states and genocidal fascist states was their authoritarian totalitarianism and utter disregard for human life, not their economic systems. -- The Anome (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but communism isn't one single idea: "Variants of communism have been developed throughout history, including anarcho-communism, Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism. Communism includes a variety of schools of thought which broadly include Marxism and libertarian communism". Doug Weller talk 16:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Agreed, but none of these variants of communism are market socialism/social democracy. Equating socialism to communism is like equating capitalism to fascism; both comparisons are nonsensical. -- The Anome (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@The Anome: This depends on your definition of communism. You seem to be equating communism with Bolshevism, Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism. Comparing socialism and communism isn't nonsensical, in many contexts it's basically the same thing, or simply the different stages of the same political project. BeŻet (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@The Anome: that's right. @BeŻet: you're conflating different things, and Stalinism certainly wasn't part of the withering away of the state. Communism and socialism are never the same thing, anymore than Nazism is left wing. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I'm not conflating anything. Like I explained, it depends on your definition of communism. For a while, communism and socialism were used interchangeably. There was a brief a period of time when the two terms were differentiated by describing socialising production (socialism) and socialising both production and consumption (communism). In the early 20th century, "socialism" was used to distinguish between lower-stage of communism (socialist mode of production) and the higher phase (the establishment of a communist society). Later on, "communism" in the Western world became a synonym of Marxist-Leninist states, state socialism / state capitalism, and associated ideologies (Bolshevism, Maoism, Stalinism etc.) BeŻet (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@BeŻet: - in the popular view, yes. I guess some academics might see it that way now, but hopefully not all. Stalin perverted communism. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@BeŻet: Socialism refers to social ownership of the means of production; for example, the Interstate Highway System and Veterans Administration Hospital system are socialist. Communism, on the other hand, is a totalitarian system of which social ownership is only a very small part, espoused by Marxist/Leninists, Maoists, and a remarkable number of religious idealists. The fact that right wing political propagands conflates socialism with communism as boo-words doesn't redefine their meaning. -- The Anome (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@The Anome: Like I said, that's one of the accepted definitions of communism, the one you present is the more modern one, mostly used in the Western world following the Red Scare in States, which then was propagated elsewhere. Many people still use or identify with the term communism without identifying with any totalitarian ideologies. Moreover, your highway system is just public infrastructure - not many people would refer to them as socialist. I don't know how the Veterans Administration Hospital system works, but I assume it works like public health systems everywhere else in the world. BeŻet (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@BeŻet: this I agree with. There are democratically elected Communist governments in India which may even be more democratic than the BJP. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@BeŻet: What you call the modern definition is the one we're working with here. (Socialism actually goes way back before Marx; see for example Robert Owen.) Any yes, you're right, those things are indeed just public infrastructure. That's all that socialism is; the idea that some things should be publicly owned social infrastructure, instead of private for-profit enterprises. Only the most extreme would wish to get rid of private capital (just as only the most extreme right-liberatarians want to get rid of the state), and their viewpoint is not to be taken as representative of socialists at large, most of whom believe in a mixed economy under democratic control, which is the pattern seen in social democracies. -- The Anome (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@The Anome: You're describing social democracy here, which might have the largest representation from a parliamentary point of view, but is not reflective of the socialist movement as a whole. Owen was critical of private property. Virtually all socialists reject private property, the difference is whether they want to abolish it immediately, or slowly. Even social democrats want to achieve socialism, albeit slowly, via progressive reform. It's not an extreme point of view at all - in fact, it's the dominant one. BeŻet (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@BeŻet: Then we are arguing at cross-purposes. Socialism without private property is pretty much the definition of totalitarian communism, which is by definition inherently totalitarian, as it involves the state/community controlling every material thing that is necessary for life. I find your beliefs about the goals of "virtually all socialists", and social democrats in particular, astonishing; can you provide any evidence for your assertions? -- The Anome (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@The Anome: With all due respect, but I don't think you understand what abolishment of private property entails. Not sure what evidence you want from me if the abolishment of private property is key to all Marxist and Anarchist schools of thought, in addition to pre-Marxist socialist ideologies, like Owenism. I'd instead challenge you to find a significant strand of socialism that doesn't call for the abolishment of private property - you'll probably find only some very early movements like Fourierism which weren't explicitly against private property, but nonetheless inspired communities such as the Skaneateles Community who were; or you will go with modern social democracy, which doesn't call for the immediate abolishment of private property but historically has stated it as its eventual goal. BeŻet (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


This is all getting rather far afield from anything even resembling a point. Simply put the request to put in things about "mass killings" in this article would depend on reliable sources suggesting that mass killings were an aspect of socialism qua socialism and not merely an incidental thing that may have occurred in a state described as socialist. I think you'll be hard pressed to find any reliable source that would make such a sweeping (and foolish) claim. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialism/Archive_30&oldid=1066374352"