Antidiskriminator (talk | contribs) →Survey: one |
Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) →Survey: confusing weasalspeak |
||
Line 1,279: | Line 1,279: | ||
*'''One''' Option two is very circular. Socialism is far more than a movement about some degree of social ownership. How many would count as socialists even though they do not advocate a socialist socioeconomic system but claim to act under a banner? The article needs to focus on the concept of the socioeconomic system, not on the personal views of people acting under a banner.[[User:Helios932|Helios932]] ([[User talk:Helios932|talk]]) 11:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC) |
*'''One''' Option two is very circular. Socialism is far more than a movement about some degree of social ownership. How many would count as socialists even though they do not advocate a socialist socioeconomic system but claim to act under a banner? The article needs to focus on the concept of the socioeconomic system, not on the personal views of people acting under a banner.[[User:Helios932|Helios932]] ([[User talk:Helios932|talk]]) 11:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''One''' Option two does not treat socialism neutrally, defining it as the fantasy-alike proposal. It was (in some cases still is) very realistic for many decades. I came here based on invitation by RfC bot.--[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 13:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC) |
*'''One''' Option two does not treat socialism neutrally, defining it as the fantasy-alike proposal. It was (in some cases still is) very realistic for many decades. I came here based on invitation by RfC bot.--[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 13:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''1''' the other is confusing weasalspeak, ''generally...some''. perhaps some of the editors here should focus on topics they are not generally emotionally invested in. [[User:Darkstar1st|Darkstar1st]] ([[User talk:Darkstar1st|talk]]) 16:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===Threaded discussion=== |
===Threaded discussion=== |
Revision as of 16:33, 4 January 2016
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Howard Zinn quote in "Criticism"
I have deleted the quotation from Howard Zinn at the end of the "Criticism" section, as it did not actually address any of the criticisms discussed in the rest of the section. One is almost inclined to say it was only there to ensure that a socialist, rather than a critic, got the last word. Of course, there is nothing wrong eo ipso with a socialist getting the last word in a section of the Socialism article, but it seems inappropriate for that last word to be a dismissal, rather than a proper rebuttal, of criticisms - and perhaps also for said dismissal to come from as dubious a figure as Howard Zinn, when there are many more widely-respected socialist commentators to quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.105.242 (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- The criticism section itself should be deleted because none of them apply to socialism as a whole. For example one critic criticizes government ownership of the means of production, yet some Socialists actually privatized government owned companies, and few Socialists today advocate nationalization. TFD (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Jeremy Corbyn has advocated nationalizations. The venezuelan and bolivian governments also have nationalized some things while the argentinian also re-nationalized the oil industry. Also the PODEMOS sponsored municipal governments in Madrid and Barcelona have mentioned municipalizing some things. If we continue like that even someone like Bernie Sanders might end up advocating a nationalization of something. Even a non socialist government like the Putin russian governmnet has done something very close to nationalization of the main gas enterprise. As such nationalizations are becoming a sort of trend.--Eduen (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the quote once more because whoever reinstated it did not address my reasons for removing it in the first place, or even give a reason of any sort for the reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.19.172.12 (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Howard Zinn's quote is not a criticism. It is not even a "retort" to the criticism, as the lead in to the quote says. That fails verification. The ref clearly syays that this quote is about Zinn's views on the future of radical politics in America, not a response to criticisms of socialism. It may be suitable elsewhere at the article but not in the criticism section. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Again, I feel I need to reiterate my point that we should not be using the policy proposals of existing or past self-described socialist politicians as the basis for describing socialism in this article. This article is about the concept of socialism and thus the criticism section should focus on systemic critiques of capitalism specific to socialism. I agree that Howard Zinn's quote does not include a critique of capitalism and is not relevant to the section. -Battlecry 23:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding recent edits to lede
- @Vrrajkum: I have reinserted the content about the Soviet-type economic model representing a command economy that lacked workforce participation rather than a planned or market socialist economy because this is crucial to understanding the critique of what this system represented. This does not imply that the entirety of socialism is defined as a planned economy - only that the Soviet model aimed to function as a socialist planned economy. I have also reverted your wording when describing the Soviet Union as a "nominally" to a "constitutional" socialist state. The former implies a non-NPoV perspective. Scholars don't dispute the USSR's status as a constitutional socialist state - what they dispute is whether or not its economy represented a form of socialism.
- @Battlecry: I understand your argument of giving a broader critique of the Soviet Union's contrast to socialism, but as you noted that "planning was heavily associated with socialism" (copied below), I feel that the context in which you embed this treatment (a Wikipedia article that is widely read by laypeople) merely reinforces the misconception that socialism necessarily involves planned economy, rather than helping to dispel that notion as we should be trying to do. Furthermore, from a denotative standpoint, the words "nominally" and "constitutional" are interchangeable; but from a connotative standpoint, the word "nominally" better conveys that the Soviet Union's relationship to socialism is disputed. That is, the word "nominally" doesn't meaningfully imply a non-NPoV perspective, while still better accommodating the debate over the USSR's political-economic designation.
- Regarding your edits to the second paragraph, you commented that a social dividend contradicts the principle of distribution according to one's contribution. This is not the case - a social dividend refers to society's appropriation of the surplus product, whereas the "contribution" principle refers to labor income. It is true that the former description is not entirely accurate for describing cooperative market socialism, which would not feature a social dividend - but my aim in writing this section was to keep it concise and easily digestible for the reader, more elaborate explanations of the variations of market socialism and non-market socialism can be described in the appropriate section of the article. You also removed important (and sourced) content about non-market socialism operating according to different economic laws/dynamics than those of capitalism - I reinserted this because it is crucial to understanding what socialism initially represented when it was described as an entirely different system to capitalism. -Battlecry 10:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Battlecry: I thought that the distribution of the surplus product is a characteristic of the contribution principle? Cooperative market socialism is indeed what I was trying to accommodate; extra attention to the treatment of market socialism in this article is warranted, because, again, many people are unfamiliar with market socialism and instead misconstrue socialism to necessarily involve a planned economy. With respect to the language about non-market socialism operating according to different economic laws/dynamics than capitalism, I felt that this point was sufficiently implied in noting the substitution of money for calculation in kind, and that the sentence was thus unneeded--I removed it with the same goal of keeping things concise and easily digestible. Vrrajkum (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Copied
According to Production_for_use#Contrary_socialist_theories, some market socialists seek to retain the principle of production for profit rather than production for use. This is supported by Socialism#cite_note-20.
In the context of the article, the question of whether the Soviet Union was socialist or non-socialist is more significant than the question of whether its economy was planned or non-planned, and suggesting that the USSR's economy not being planned is the reason that it was not socialist in turn suggests (to laymen) that socialist economies are necessarily planned. Your point is not invalid, but it distracts from the larger point that's trying to be made.
Vrrajkum (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- That section was written by me a long time ago, and while it is true that market socialists don't seek to implement planned production for use, the content should be amended to say that market socialists believe that - given the right institutions - there is no contradiction between production for use and markets. Regardless, I think including a brief overview of the actual organization of the Soviet economy gives readers an understanding of why it might not have represented socialism - especially since planning was heavily associated with socialism, and a "command" or "managed" economy was certainly not advocated as a form of socialism (just as state capitalism wouldn't represent a form of socialism). It is also a more widespread view (held by non-socialist theorists as well) than the view that it simply represented a form of state capitalism. -Battlecry 11:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Nominally" is preferred to "constitutional." The first implies de jure while the second implies de jure and de facto. It would be controversial for example to say that the Soviet Union was a constitutional democracy. It would seem odd too to call Indian a "constitutionally socialist state" even though the constitution says it is a socialist state. It is not the same thing as saying New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy.
- Also, I find the lead too weighted toward socialism as understood in the Soviet Union, and too focused on the socialist state rather than socialism as a movement.
- TFD (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with @TFD: and have re-implemented the word "nominally"--it does not contradict that the Soviet Union was a constitutionally socialist state, but does not imply that the Soviet Union was de facto socialist as the word 'constitutionally' does (and which the Soviet Union was not). I also tried to address your other points, reinserting the paragraph about the history of the socialist movement into the lead but shortening it slightly, as I originally moved it to the 'History' section because I felt that the exposition was too long to comfortably read. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- If TFD is correct, then I agree we should use the world "nominally" instead of "constitutionally" as a descriptor for the Soviet Union's claim to be a socialist state. I would disagree with the assertion that the lede focuses too much on the USSR - the economic literature and much of 20th century politics largely identified its economic system as socialist, so we should briefly note that. The controversy is not whether or not the Soviet Union was -really- a socialist state (that is a sectarian dispute among socialists), it is whether or not the Soviet economy represented a truly non-capitalist economic form.
- Vrrajkum I want to be clear that "non-market" refers specifically to the absence of factor markets, and does not necessarily imply a "planned economy" by the definition that term has acquired. Socialism was and still is widely conceived as a non-capitalist economic order that operates according to a different dynamic than capitalism, even among many traditional market socialists (Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner were quite specific that the aim of their model was to provide an alternate mechanism to capital markets). -Battlecry 23:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Battlecry: As I understand it the Lange model was a hybrid of planning and markets, rather than a true market socialism? I am influenced by for example Socialism#cite_note-20, which suggests that market socialism can operate under laws largely similar to those of market capitalism (e.g., the law of value), merely with private ownership of the means of production superseded by (primarily) cooperative ownership.
- Socialism as an entirely different economic order is indeed what was advanced by Marx, but the Marxist approach to socialism is not the only one and is in no way defining of socialism. Indeed, many socialists, including Noam Chomsky, believe that Marx actually hurt the socialist cause by providing a basis for the authoritarian systems of government traditionally associated with socialism and/or communism, which have in turn given many people (particularly in the West) a knee-jerk opposition to the concept of 'socialism' and a stronger affinity for what they perceive as capitalism.
- @Vrrajkum: This is not merely a Marxist perspective, it was again shared by many socialists of various persuasions as noted in the given sources. Also, the concept of different system to capitalism does not in any way imply authoritarianism - your comment about Chomsky's views on this matter are misplaced.
- While "superior" might not be NPoV, the goal of a socialist system is to be a more productive and efficient than capitalism (however we define these concepts). What word would you use in place of "superior"? -Battlecry 04:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Edits on the introduction
The introduction is already very long. The clarifications and criticisms on the Soviet Union clearly do not belong in the introduction to a much older and broader subject such as socialism. That could be said to have made a long intro into a too long introduction. I propose we move that to the history section where the issue of the Soviet Union is mentioned. But also i do not understand why a user took out the mention that socialist parties are heading governments in many countries around the world. That sentence clearly is very informative to the readers so that they can understand the scope of influence and socio-political impact that socialism has worldwide.--Eduen (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's primary use is to allow people to quickly research topics that they do not know about. The first common association that people make with socialism is with the USSR. One of the primary confusions that people have with socialism is that it represents the socioecnomic systems used by the USSR. Ergo, clarifications and criticisms of the largest and most influential state to ever openly call itself socialist is absolutely needed in an introduction. If nothing else, the first thing that someone should learn in 5 minutes of learning about socialism is that it is a wider topic than "what russia did." This article must, at the very least, dispel the torrent of Fox-News and media pundit myths about socialism without delving into inaccessible and useless academic jargon. As it stands, the lead provides a solid definition, creates clear-cut avenues for additional research, and dispels common myths. Many places in the remainder of the article fail to do this, and routinely give vague and misconstrued elements about what socialism actually is. This article needs to look towards other articles that manage to explain complicated topics and mimic their concise methods. One of the most critical and discussed points of any talk about socialism is the USSR, and not how socialists relate to feminists. As someone looking to learn more about Socialism, the previous revision, as posted by Battlecry, is the one that deserves to be seen by the public. Helios932 (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- The job of wikipedia is not to "dispel the torrent of Fox-News and media pundit myths about socialism without delving into inaccessible and useless academic jargon". The work that wikipedia does is to present a subject with the most objectivity possible. Period. The clarification or criticism about a single case of a socialist government does not belong in the introduction to something which exists since the beginning of the 19th century. On top of that the USSR does not even exist anymore and today the most influential socialist government is clearly that of another country, China. The introduction is also clearly clarifying that socialism is not reducible to the case of the Soviet Union since it is mentioning democratic socialism and libertarian socialism as part of the socialist movement and of forms of socialism which clearly advocate something very different from what the Soviet Union did. Since this is a conflictive and very widespread issue i suggest to users who want to have such a big change in the introduction to come first to explain their proposal in this talk page before editing in such a big way the introduction. This is the way i have proceeded in the large changes and improvements that i have done to this article and in other conflictive and complex article that i have also edited such as the anarchism article.--Eduen (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I have also reverted the change in the definition which someone did in which they took out the "and/or social control" in order to leave it "and social control". This is clearly an important issue and it should be "and/or" and not just "and" since not all socialist parties in the world advocate a complete statization of the economy or "social ownership of the economy". Socialist parties governing countries right now in places like France, Venezuela, Greece, Ecuador, China, Bolivia or Chile clearly do no advocate that and instead are in favour of "social control" of the economy through the means of regulations and planning of the economy alongside a strong welfare state. But also there are socialisms who in fact do not advocate statization of anything and there are some currents who even advocate elimination of the state. In that case social control happens thorugh "soviets", libertarian municipalism or the lack of a centrist state which can protect capitalist property and privileges in the case of Pierre Joseph Proudhon or Benjamin Tucker--Eduen (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: User:Helios932 correctly notes that many people (incorrectly) associate socialism with the USSR, and, as such, a treatment of the USSR and its relationship to socialism (to at least some extent) is necessary to any broad treatment of socialism such as the introduction of this article. But I understand what you mean when you say that the introduction is very long; we will try to remedy this.
- Social control does not imply statization. You may be misconstruing social ownership for public ownership; cooperative ownership, another form of social ownership, has nothing to do with the state. Also, the so-called "'social control' of the economy through the means of regulations and planning of the economy alongside a strong welfare state" is not socialism but rather social democracy.
- @Eduen, Vrrajkum, and Helios932: "Social control" is a highly problematic and imprecise term that could mean anything from social planning by the state to regulation of a market economy. The wikipedia page on "social control" does not link to anything relating to socialism and economics for that matter. More to the point, aside from Encyclopedia Britannica, all our specialized sources define socialism as a system based on social "ownership" or public ownership - this is the common thread linking market socialism (which might lack any form of social control in the form of planning and regulation) with non-market socialism.
- As per Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Importance, we need to at least briefly mention the Soviet-type economic system and its relation to socialism in the lead. This economic system encompassed the entire Eastern bloc and Soviet Union for the latter half of the 20th century, a region that was associated with socialism. Regardless of whether or not we believe this economic model represented actual socialism or not, we cannot ignore this fact. -Battlecry 04:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- When a party or movement calls itself "socialist" and is also called that way by academic works and by the media, that party or movement has to be dealt by wikipedia as socialist. All of those examples that i gave here fit in that situation. Major socialdemocratic parties such as the Swedish Social democrats are members of the Socialist International and are also covered and included in academic and journalistic works as belonging to the socialist movement. Social democracy is part of the socialist tradition. I also advise user Vrrajkum to not turn his/her edits into an edit war. Try to gain consensus for your proposals first and then proceed to edit. Editions on wikipedia are made through consensus and through good reference support. Not through edit wars.--Eduen (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- On the issue of the Soviet Union i will remind everyone here that the Soviet Union was not even the largest and most populous state under a socialist government. The largest country to be headed by a socialist government will always be China under the Chinese Communist party. and China under the Chinese communist party still exists while the Soviet Union does not exist anymore since 1991. As such there is no good reason why we should be claryfiying things about the single case of Soviet Union in the introduction to the wikipedia article on socialism. The introduction is already big and this clarification of the issue of the Soviet Union is clearly making a good big intro into a excessively big one. Again i advise user Vrrajkum to present his proposals here first before editing again in the introduction in such a big way.--Eduen (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- On the issue of "social control" clearly the Encyclopedia Britannica is one of the best references available to us. The definition of an article has to fit for all the cases which include a phenomenon. In this case the definition of socialism has to fit both for complete statitizing socialists like Mao Tse Tung and Stalin but also for market socialists and most democratic socialist parties which clearly do not advocate complete statization of the economy. The socialist movement is not reducible to the communist movement. Socialism is not a synonym of communism.--Eduen (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I will also remind user Vrrajkum that both the socialist governments of China, Vietman and Cuba have decided to de statisize a big part of the economy. China did that since the late 1970s and Cuba has been doing that since this decade. Nevertheless both the academy and the media continue to call those governments "socialist". As such the only existing case of an economy which is completely nationalized is North Korea. Clearly we cannot explain socialism as being about just "social ownership". Those socialist governments are also now being "socialist" though regulation and planning of the economy and not through direct complete ownership of it.--Eduen (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Political parties that want to survive do not operate on a single set of principles and are forced to make compromises due to the processes of democracy. It doesn't matter how many people label themselves as "Socialist parties" and then advocate for something that's not socialism. If the USSR wasn't socialist even though they said they were, then some French or Chilean political parties aren't socialist either no matter how much more agreeable they are. Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Socialism is a system that has never existed on a large scale in the real world. If we do not dispel the myth that it is a tried and true system, then we, as educators have failed entirely in our mission in writing this article. Just because a few socialist parties may try and find some compromise with their fellow representatives in social welfare programs, or in the regulation of business, does not mean that socialism has morphed into something completely new. There is an excess of activist fluff being through around on this article that already suffers from a drought of real, academic definitions of what socialism actually is. We have a focus not on the movement towards creating a socialist economy with the social ownership of the means of production, but on every activist's complaints about capitalism and how it should be regulated. I would agree with this definition as posted by Vrrajkum. However, I would suggest that the 4th paragraph of the lead be shortened to this
- ""Initially (Need a Date for this) "socialism" referred to general concern for the social problems of capitalism regardless of the solutions to those problems; however, by the late 19th century, after waves of revolutionary movements and further articulation, "socialism" had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for a post-capitalist system based on some form of social ownership of the means of production.[22][23] Socialism was further articulated as the the culmination of technological development outstripping the economic dynamics of capitalism by Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels.[24]""
This can easily remove many of our length issues while keeping to the core content. Anyone who really cares about socialism during the American Revolution will gravitate towards the History section, where this information belongs. As for "feminism" "Liberalism" and any of those other excess terms, I offer this. No introductory learning (our core audience)cares about what Einstein's positions on God when he was writing about general relativity. The musings of every academics or political are also useless to our introductory audience at this point in the article. We should take a hint from the science articles, and leave the history and hard science to those who are brave and interested enough to scroll down.Helios932 (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I will love to see the golden book of yours which has the 100 percent "true" and "only" right definition of socialism. Socialism as a political and social movement does not have a single sacred book such as the Bible for Christianity or the Koran for Islam. If the inquisitions and the persecution of herectics failed at some point even for christianity, a much more complex and free situation exists within socialism. The view of most academic works and the media is that both the Soviet Union and the French and Chilean socialist parties are socialist. As such if a political party, movement or influential thinker of politician calls itself "socialist" and is named that way both by academia and the media, the wikipedia article on socialism has to include it. But i also remind you that the most influential, those with the biggest social impact, persons associated with socialism are politicians. And we are dealing with a political movement. Clearly on something like that, politicians play a crucial role. --Eduen (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- The current definition given for socialism as "social ownership" is actually very flexible. It is not specifically referring to state ownership, as Helios932 and Vrrajkum have pointed out. I support Helios932's suggestion to trim the section on history in the lead, and would also add that we should remove the part about distinguishing modern social democracy from democratic socialism. The definition given in the lead already establishes this distinction. Other than those two changes, I think the lead is fine in its current state and should be left as-is, with minor tweaks only to shorten its length. -Battlecry 05:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- According to the proposal of user Battlecry, North Korea is the only socialist economic system. According to him since Vietnam, China and incleasingly Cuba have been de statizing their economies, they should´t be considered socialist. "Social ownership" is not flexible enough in order to account for the cases of Vietnam, China and Cuba. It cannot also include governing socialist parties such as the Venezuelan United Socialist Party of Venezuela or the bolivian Movimiento al Socialismo who do not reduce socialism and who do not advocate nationalizing the whole economy. For them socialism means a mixed economy of nationalized sectors and of capitalist enterprises regulated by the state under a national plan.--Eduen (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- You are the only person here who is claiming that our position is that statism is social ownership. We are not saying that, we have not been saying that, and we have even blatantly stated that our definition (and the definition of the linked article confirms this) that social ownership is not only state ownership.Helios932 (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- But also the issue here is that you are leaving out of socialism the whole of market socialism which, by definition, do not advocate an economy of "socially owned" enterprises but a system of cooperatives acting in a market or a market regulated by the state. As such "social ownership" can only account for the views of state communists such as Mao and Stalin and for the views of anarcho-communists who want the economy to be owned by the communes. That is why you are reducing socialism to communism and so you are saying that socialism can only be of two types, either state communism or anarcho-communism. "Social control" allows for that greater flexibility needed here.--Eduen (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure that we're reading the same article at this point. The article does contain
- " By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets, and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to the operation of socially-owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them, with the profits generated by these firms variously being used to directly remunerate employees, accrue to society at large as the source of public finance, or be distributed among the population in a social dividend.[18][19][20] The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate."
- This text is taken directly from the second paragraph The definitions given for socialism range far and wide, including market socialism and several other possible derivatives not directly listed. Further looks into the articles blue-texted confirm this. However, I'm curious as to why you're claiming that content clearly listed in the lead is missing.Helios932 (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cooperative ownership is an association of workers who own an enterprise and in that sense "society" does not own that enterprise but it is owned by those associated producers. As such it is not social ownership, it is a property of those particular producers only. Society has to be represented either by the state or by communes. If those things are not owning an enterprise, it is not "social ownership".--Eduen (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- You are incorrect; cooperative ownership is indeed a form of social ownership. I again think that you are misconstruing social ownership for public ownership; social ownership of the means of production as the defining characteristic of socialism is merely held in contrast to private ownership of the means of production as the defining characteristic of capitalism. It may be better to think of it as, in capitalism, resources are exclusively controlled, whereas in socialism, resources are inclusively controlled. Consider this image: http://s3.postimg.org/tixgb3lxv/capitalism4.png Vrrajkum (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Social ownership" is simply a general designation for non-private ownership, specifically referring to how the economic surplus of an economy is appropriated. Generally it is distinguished from "private" ownership by the surplus either accruing to society as a whole or to the workers of a specific enterprise (the cooperative form you are referencing). It -does- include autonomous cooperatives, which is a major form of social ownership as cited. It may also refer to a more -comprehensive- process of transformation involving a change in the organizational structure of enterprises and the economy (hence socialist public ownership is not quite the same thing as state ownership within capitalism). My point is, "social ownership" does not imply mere state ownership but is actually a broad designation. -Battlecry 07:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- At this point i will ask you for a reference which states that "social ownership" can include something like cooperatives competing each other in a market. The fact is that socialists like Pierre Joseph Proudhon or Benjamin Tucker mostly thought about a market economy of cooperatives and small businesses which will never end up being a capitalist economy since in their proposal there is no state that will privilege some and make them grow up to creating a capitalist economic system. In that sort of economy and in market socialist proposals there is no state or communal property of enterprises but some form of social control only. As such we need to talk about social control. Otherwise we are reducing socialism to communism-either of the statist or the anarchist type.--Eduen (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Re: Edits on the introduction
The concerns about the length of the introduction are valid and will be addressed.
@Eduen: As The Four Deuces noted above, we need to distinguish between de jure socialism and de facto socialism. The governing parties of China, the Soviet Union, and the other countries that you noted are indeed de jure socialist, but this does not mean that they are de facto socialist. We need to be cognizant of this objective distinction in writing this article, especially considering that this article is widely read by a lay audience. The Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam... none of them are or have been consistent with socialism or communism in any rigorous or otherwise meaningful sense.
For example, and with respect to your invoking of politicans, although contemporary American politican Bernie Sanders identifies as a democratic socialist, the media notes that what he advocates is actually social democracy--which, if you read Wikipedia's well-sourced entry on social democracy, you will see originated as a form of socialism, but that its identity has since morphed and it has since become very well-accepted by both academics and the media (as its usage in the Times article shows) as a form of capitalism. The South American and European 'socialist' countries that you noted, which are actually forms of social democracy, are therefore de facto capitalist and should be treated as such.
In addition, many academics and members of the media also contend that China is state capitalist rather than socialist,[1][2][3][4] which further undermines your approach to treating the concept of socialism based on the nominal designations of political parties. Vrrajkum (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: Please refrain from using ad hominems against me and putting words in my mouth. I never equated socialism with a communist system. Second, market socialism by definition includes social ownership of the means of production. In fact, many models of market socalism reject heavily interventionism (which is what I assume you mean by "social control") AND social planning.
- You also removed a line describing Karl Marx's contribution to socialism, which by any measure, was the most significant contributor to the socialist concept in history. A single line in the lead hardly implies that we are treating him as a "prophet of socialism" as you claimed in your edit summary. - Battlecry 06:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I actually advocate both having a definition of socialist movements and parties and accepting self descriptions and socialists and academic and media labelings of socialist. Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn calls themselves "socialist". Some people both to the left or to the right of him say he is not a socialist but many people and the media label him a socialist and so they should be included within socialism because of self labeling and because an important part of the media and the academy will treat the that way. In Europe there are parties such as the Spanish Socialist Workers Party or the french Socialist party who are socialdemocratic but who are named "socialist" in their title and so they have to be included within socialism and this also points out to the fact that socialdemocracy belongs to the broad socialist tradition in politics. Those two parties are also members of the Socialist International alongside self named "socialdemocratic" parties such as the Swedish Social Democratic Party and German Social Democratic Party. In reality the Swedish social democratic party is more leftwing than both the spanish and french socialist parties even though it only names itslef "socialdemocratic" and not "socialist". All of these parties belong to the Party of European Socialists in the European parliament and this is yet another proof that socialdemocracy is part of the socialist movement. The same happens with the Soviet Union. Libertarian socialists say that the Soviet Union was not socialist but that it was "state capitalism". Still the Soviet Union self labeled itself "socialist" and the media and academic works label it that way.--Eduen (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Socialist parties and their actions, or the actions favored by their leaders, do not constitute the definition of socialism, just as the actions of Muslims or certain Islamic sects don't change the definition of Islam. By your criteria, we should include the Nazis as an example of "socialism" because at one point they claimed they were "socialist" in their party name. -Battlecry 06:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Eduen: You are arguing that identifying by a given label implies consistency with the definition or ideals of that label? By that logic, I could call myself a Dane, although I have never been to Denmark in my life. Vrrajkum (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen:Federal Express is an arm of the United States government because they label themselves "Federal"Helios932 (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- In the case of the german Nazi party the general tendency within the media and the academy is to label it "fascist" and far right and as such they are not included in general works on socialism as part of socialism. That is why i do not favour the inclusion of that thing as "socialist" in this article. On the other hand every general work on socialism will deal with and include socialdemocracy within it. And so also many socialdemocrat parties are named "socialist" while the communist party of East Germany also had "socialist" in their name, in their case Socialist Unity Party of Germany. As such both of them have to be included in the wikipedia socialism article.--Eduen (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen:The job of the Media is to talk, just because they make a claim for something, does not mean that they are actually correct. The Media appeals to people's defintions about socialism because they are interested in ratings, time and views. They themselves also do not have any real definitions. Socialism, for most media outlets, is state ownership, social welfare, and big capitalist government. If the media started to call FedEx a government organization, would that make them a government organization?Helios932 (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- The article conflates socialism as an ideology with socialism as a system. These are two distinct topics, and this article should be about the ideology. The Historical Dictionary of Socialism, while noting that there are numerous definitions, notes a commonality: socialists believe social problems exist, they see capitalism as the cause and they advocate varying degrees of social control and/or ownership. Furthermore they share a history and some symbols, such as the red flag. Of course it is debatable whether any of them have ever achieved any degree of social control or ownership or whether that is even possible or desirable, but the definition clearly includes groups as different as North Korea's leaders and New Labour, while excluding other ideologies such as liberalism. Liberals for example may advocate the same policies as socialists, but they identify the sources of problems as pre-capitalist or anti-capitalist elements. TFD (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- User TFD has pointed out to an important issue here and it is that socialism is not only a proposal for a system, or an existing system, but it is also a political ideology and a social and political movement. As such self labeled and labeled socialist movements and parties can only partially determine reality, even if they are in government, and so we cannot find here completely perfect ideal models of functioning socialism. We can only find socialist movements and parties and their actions in reality. It is a good thing that the user who has edited a lot of things in the intro did not erase the mention of socialism as a political movement. In the other editions of his he is forcing here the single point of socialism as a single economic system almost as if that existed somewhere we we can see what is "true" socialism and what is not. But we are not doing just that here but we are presenting the idea of socialism as a synomym with communism by reducing it to "social property". In fact this is an old discussion in which we reached a consensus before and i will advise new editors that they become informed on that by going back to the archives of this talk page. Otherwise we are coming back to old discussions and even worse we start having edit wars here on issues dealt here before. I remind the users who want to keep this article dedicated on socialism as a clear model of an economic system to check the wikipedia article titled Socialist mode of production which clearly is about socialism as an economic system and it is mostly about the view of Marx on that. Here we have to account for socialism both as a economic system and as a political and social movement.--Eduen (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- The lead begins, "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production...." But very little of the article is devoted to that topic. Either we need to change the lead or remove most of the article. I would change the lead and note there is already an article called the Socialist state.
- I think also that some editors want to make clear distinctions between socialists and social democrats, but there are none. Another is to confuse the policies advocated by Socialists with socialism. So the NHS is seen as socialist although it is actually social liberal.
- TFD (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is the reason why i have been advocating keeping the mention of "social control" in order to define socialist policy. Not just "socialdemocratic" but even eurocommunist and other type of left wing democratic socialist parties are not really arguing for nationalization of the entire economy but for more state regulation, a bigger and better welfare state, higher tax rates for the rich and making capitalist enterprises acept national priorities under a state planning of the economy. Socialist policies can also advocate nationalizing things and so Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina and Bolivia have renationalized the oil industry just as the UK Labour Party nationalized mines and other strategic industries during the Clement Attlee government. So in that way socialist policy has an important plurality of possibilities and to reduce socialism to "social ownership" is both not doing right to reality and to reduce socialism to communism.--Eduen (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: Nobody is trying to reduce socialism to communism except you; it also seems that you don't understand what communism is, and are instead misconstruing it for a system where the entire economy is nationalized, which is the exact opposite of communism's conception as a stateless society (which has never existed, at least not in the post-Neolithic era). Socialization =/= nationalization (we went over this above), and an entirely nationalized economy in the sense that you are using it would be better described as state capitalism.
- It is indeed accurate to characterize socialism as a system of "social ownership" of the means of production (which does NOT imply government ownership), and this in no way implies that socialism = communism (which has NOTHING to do with government ownership). Vrrajkum (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Please sign your comments
Anyway. If you want to characterize socialism as only consisting of social ownership you are only reducing socialism to either a completely statizised economy or an economy which is owned entirely by the community. As such you are asking us to erase most of what has been written in this article leaving only marxist-leninism and anarchocommunism and we clearly cannot do that. On the other hand you simply have to accept the fact of socialdemocratic parties calling themselves socialist as well as latin american left wing governments calling themselves socialist. Wikipedia has to deal with reality and not with the wishes of a single user. Socialism is not just an economic system but also a political movement and an ideology. And within that political and ideological movement there is a big part, if not the majority, of followers who do not want to bring the whole economy under "social ownership" and who just want to have "social control" of the economy. Even China and now Cuba is leaving this view of complete social ownership of the economy. Here we have an excelent source such as the Encyclopedia Britnannica which talks about social control and so clearly that has to win over your personal opinion.--Eduen (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: I signed my comment above. You continue to misunderstand the definition of "social ownership"; it is NOT limited to state ownership and does indeed encompass cooperative employee ownership.[6] Furthermore, it IS valid to define socialism as a system of social ownership and control of the means of production.[7]
- Do I also have to treat the Nazi party as a socialist party by virtue of it calling itself socialist? Contemporary social democracy is not socialism, and claiming that it is, in turn, is claiming that capitalism is socialism.[8][9]
- You say that "Wikipedia has to deal with reality and not with the wishes of a single user"; however, you are the "single user", for example, insisting that social ownership is limited to state ownership and/or that calling oneself a socialist makes one a socialist, which is not reality. Vrrajkum (talk)
- s your source (Routledge) says, "particularly since World War II, distinctions have sometimes been made between social democrats and socialists." "Sometimes" does not mean usually. Furthermore, it is out of context. It is part of an entry on "[1] social democracy" that says, "Ideologically, 'social democracy' has changed dramatically since it first emerged over a century ago. Although for most of its history it was synonymous with demands for state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and distribution of wealth, social democracy nevertheless represents a curious mixture of liberal and socialist traditions that are a product both of its history and development." Under "social democratic parties" it notes a distinction between the revolutionary and revisionist strands. "Socialism" in the two articles is used to refer to a type of state, rather than to any political groups. But most sources refer to these political groups as socialists.
- Note that under the Routledge definition both Marx and Lenin were Social Democrats. They in fact both belonged to parties called Social Democrats.
- I understand that different writers will use different terms but Wikipedia is not a dictionary and each article should be about a distinct topic. We are confusing three separate topics: social democracy/socialism, communism and the socialist state.
- TFD (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- To user Vrrajkum i will have to remind him again that socialism is not only a social system but it is also a political movement. What i will need here from him is to answer yes or no to the question of whether socialism is also a political movement or not. If he answers yes then he is accepting that parties that call themselves socialists will have to be dealt with in this article and that is what happens with other general works on socialism and that will also include socialdemocracy and Labour parties since it organizes itself at an international level within organizations such as Socialist International (worldwide) and Party of European Socialists (european parliamentary group). As user TFD has pointed out both Lenin and Rosa Luxembourg were also members of parties called "Social democratic" but it seems that User Vrrajkum wants us to leave out both Rosa Luxembour and Lenin out of this article since those parties were not called "socialist". If he answers no then he is going againts all the bibliography which does in fact identify socialism as a politicial movement and as an ideology. So in that way he will be saying that Cuba is not a socialist country but that it is a capitalist country. In that case we will only have to deal with North Korea as the only example of socialism and even leave out of this article the Chinese and Cuban Communist parties since they have decided now to abandon the position of having an economy totally under "social ownership". So then i will wait for his answer yes or no from him since this is what we need right now to solve this disagreement.--Eduen (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- In order to talk here with sources and not only with philosophical arguments i will put here into consideration a book of political history that i happen to own called One Hundred Years of Socialism: The West European Left in the Twentieth Century by Donald Sasson. It includes within it social democratic parties such as the spanish PSOE, the greek PASOK, the Italian Socialist Party, the FRench Socialist Party, the swedish Swedish Social Democratic Party and the british Labour Party alongside the Italian and the French communist parties. On the other hand that book does not include as part of its object of study, which is of course "socialist parties", the Nazi party. It even has a section called "the construction of Welfare socialism, which deals with how welfare state were built in France and Britain. As such that book contradicts user Vrrajkum´s position.
- On the other hand i have obtained the book Socialism: A Very Short Introduction by Michael Newman and which is published by Oxford University Press in 2008. It has an entire chapter called "Cuban communism and swedish social democracy". As such it is including both cuban communism and swedish social democracy as part of socialism. In the chapter called "Socialist traditions" it includes social democracy within it as one of the main "traditions" alongside anarchism and communism. At some point Newman establishes the following:
- In general, social democratic parties experienced persistent difficulties in self-definition after the break with communism. As most of them had claimed to be Marxist before 1914, and had disputed the communist appropriation of the doctrine in the early post-war period, it was difficult simply to abandon it thereafter. On the other hand, it was clear that they accepted liberal democratic institutions as the primary route through which to implement changes. Some parties, particularly those competing for the allegiance of the working class with a large communist party, continued to claim Marxism as a doctrinal source long after it ceased to play an important role in influencing policy...The raison d’être of social democracy after the split with communism had been the claim that socialism could be implemented peacefully (pg. 49)....The failings of social democratic governments in the large European states bear no comparison with the crimes of Stalinism or Maoism, but it is difficult to argue that they ever created an alternative model of society reflecting socialist values. While no party has been entirely successful in this respect, Swedish social democracy and Cuban communism both attempted to implement the goals of equality, cooperation, and solidarity and both demonstrated significant achievements. It is for this reason that these two states have been selected as case studies. (pg. 52)
- Since the main object of stydy of the book is "socialism" it is clear that these two "cases of study" are two cases of socialism in practice. As such i have two very good sources which contradict user Vrrajkum and which command us to include social democracy in this article. I will proceed to bring more sources but i can expect that they will continue to confirm to us that socialism includes socialdemocracy.--Eduen (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
TFD and Eduen: Social democracy indeed originated as a form of revisionist socialism, and pre-World War II social democratic parties and individuals were indeed socialist parties and individuals (and thus belong in this article), but in the post-World War II era social democracy's meaning shifted as it separated from socialism and took on its own distinct identity as a pro-capitalism ideology. Routledge notes that "'social democracy' has changed dramatically since it first emerged over a century ago", and I again said that contemporary social democracy is not socialism, and that claiming that it is is in turn claiming that capitalism is socialism.
@Eduen: With respect to including nominally socialist parties and individuals in the socialist movement, I will again use the example of Bernie Sanders. He identifies as a socialist, campaigns as a socialist, claims to advocate socialism, but he is not a socialist. In fact, this article describes him as "a statist, not a socialist" (statism and socialism are not the same thing; Cuba, China, and North Korea are statist, but they are not socialist).[10]. A broad treatment of socialist politicians would probably include Sanders by virtue of his self-proclaimed label and its impact on contemporary American politics, but this is not to be misconstrued for him being a socialist. In fact, although Sanders is registered as an Independent, he is campaigning as a Democrat (these are U.S. political affiliations in case anyone is not from the U.S.); as such, he is discussed in discussions of Democrats and the Democratic Party, but this does not make him a Democrat.
With respect to your source Socialism: A Very Short Introduction you say that its treatment of Cuba and Sweden makes it "clear that these two "cases of study" are two cases of socialism in practice", when the source itself contradicts that:
"The failings of social democratic governments in the large European states bear no comparison with the crimes of Stalinism or Maoism, but it is difficult to argue that they ever created an alternative model of society reflecting socialist values. While no party has been entirely successful in this respect [i.e., socialism has never existed], Swedish social democracy and Cuban communism both attempted to implement the goals of equality, cooperation, and solidarity and both demonstrated significant achievements. It is for this reason [attempting "to implement the goals of equality, cooperation, and solidarity"] that these two states have been selected as case studies [NOT because they are examples of socialism]. (pg. 52))
In other words your own source contradicts your position. In fact, your other source is also contradicted by this source, as One Hundred Years of Socialism seems to suggest that socialism has been successfully implemented when in fact Socialism: A Very Short Introduction above clearly says "no party has been entirely successful in this respect". Vrrajkum (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: I actually don't at all understand why you are arguing that China is socialist or has anything to do with social ownership when the first four references below clearly indicate that China is capitalist. Vrrajkum (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- You are confusing socialists with the socialist state. It could be that there have never been socialist states and it could also be that all socialists are hypocrits. Nonetheless, there is a socialist movement and it is tendentious to deny it. The Historical Dictionary of Socialism identifies the key features: they identify social problems, they see captialism as the cause, and they see some degree of social control and/or ownership as the solution. That distinguishes them from liberals, conservatives and fascists. Clause IV explains their position:
- "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."
- Certainly Socialist platforms have changed over the years, but then so have Liberal and Conservative ones. We do not say that because modern liberals advocate democracy that that they are no longer liberals. (Democracy was seen as a threat to property rights.)
- TFD (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- You are confusing socialists with the socialist state. It could be that there have never been socialist states and it could also be that all socialists are hypocrits. Nonetheless, there is a socialist movement and it is tendentious to deny it. The Historical Dictionary of Socialism identifies the key features: they identify social problems, they see captialism as the cause, and they see some degree of social control and/or ownership as the solution. That distinguishes them from liberals, conservatives and fascists. Clause IV explains their position:
- @The Four Deuces: The platforms of socialist parties change, yes; and the party platforms of self-described socialist parties can include a diverse range of perspectives ranging from neoliberal economic liberalism to social liberalism. But this does not change the definition of socialism anymore than a self-identified pro-capitalist political party's political platform changes the definition and meaning of capitalism. The article's subject matter is not the political platform of self-described socialist parties, or parties with "socialist" in their name (which may only retain the name out of tradition); it is about the concept of socialism itself, which is an alternative or post-capitalist economic system. -Battlecry 01:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. The definition of socialism does not change just because platforms change, it remains the same. Incidentally, capitalism is not an ideology or political movement, it is an economic system. Indeed conservatives, like socialists, have come to accept capitalism, but that does not mean they are not conservative.
- If Socialist parties are not socialist, could you tell me precisely when they rejected socialism and also when they initially adopted it. Would you say the Communist Manifesto was not a socialist document because it did not advocate social ownership of the means of production?
- TFD (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: Socialism is, like capitalism, an economic system. Without the economic system, the movement(s) associated with socialism lacks any distinguishing feature as compared with other political movements. My point is not to dispute whether or not specific parties or individuals are -really- socialist, it is to point out that the policies they advocate and promote have nothing to do with socialism. Take, for example, Bernie Sanders. He might very well be a socialist (in the past he advocated public ownership, self-management and understood capitalism to merely be a transitional stage of human development), but the policies he advocates which he is now associating with socialism in his speeches (public goods, welfare provision and higher taxes) do not constitute socialism or even a fundamental critique of capitalism. -Battlecry 03:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed socialism can be a system, and we have an article about it called Socialist state. But primarily it is a political ideology and movement, just as liberalism and conservatism are. See for example the Historical Dictionary of Socialism.[2] The book begins, "Socialism has been one of the most resilient modern sociopolitical ideologies."
- If one thinks this article should be about the socialist state, then all the parts about socialists should be removed and only mentioned in the context of how they advocated or attempted to establish a socialist state.
- TFD (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: I think you are confusing the term "socialist state" with "socialism" or "socialist economic system". As I understand it, the concept of a socialist state is largely a Leninist concept. But terminological distinctions aside, yes, the article needs to focus more on socialism and the development of the concept as well as major contemporary forms being developed and proposed. As it currently stands, the article features too much bloat in the "History" section, which is full of content that has questionable relevance to the concept of socialism. -Battlecry 06:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- User Battlecry wants to turn this article historic section into "history of the debates on the non existing socialist economic system". I don´t know what does he have againts real political movements who actually make history but clearly that is what this article´s history section should mainly focus on and it clearly does that.--Eduen (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
"Nominally"
Moving from user talk page User:Capitalismojo You commented that there is "no ref for "nominal", also inaccurate"--can you expand on your saying that calling the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics a nominally socialist state, supported by its constitution, is inaccurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrrajkum (talk • contribs) 03:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nominal means in name only. The workers did control the means of production. In the USSR the Bolsheviks seized and turned over every company with more than 5 employees to the workers of those companies. That is not "nominal", that is reality. For seventy years the USSR was the vanguard of socialism, that it later collapsed into disrepute doesn't alter history as commonly understood. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Capitalismojo: The workers did not control the means of production in the Soviet Union. There was a short period of de facto workers' control after the February Revolution (before the establishment of a Soviet state), but within a matter of days after seizing power in the later October Revolution the Bolsheviks proceeded to take control away from the workers and bring the means of production under their own (exclusive) control. Please read the following historical analyses that are indeed referenced in the context of the very sentence that you modified:
- Chomsky, "The Soviet Union Versus Socialism": "On November 3, Lenin announced in a “Draft Decree on Workers’ Control” that [worker] delegates elected to exercise such control [over the means of production] were to be “answerable to the State for the maintenance of the strictest order and discipline and for the protection of property.” As the year ended, Lenin noted that “we passed from workers’ control to the creation of the Supreme Council of National Economy,” which was to “replace, absorb and supersede the machinery of workers’ control” (Carr)."
- Howard and King, "'State Capitalism' in the Soviet Union": "It was easy enough to demonstrate that wage labour had not been abolished in the Soviet Union, and that the proletariat had no more control over the allocation and use of the means of production than its counterpart in the West. It also seemed clear that the extraction of surplus labour and its appropriation by the minority which did control the means of production in the interests of accumulation – in short, their exploitation – was proceeding on an ever-increasing scale and (until the late 1960s) at what appeared to be an ever-increasing pace, allowing the Soviet Union first to catch up and then to overtake the West."
- The Soviet Union's 'socialist' designation simply does not hold up to any form of real scrutiny. Please do not remove the word 'nominally' again.contribs
- Chomsky is reliable only for his opinion. But notably neither ref above says "nominally" thus your edit fails verification. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Capitalismojo: You are saying that the Soviet Union was not a nominally socialist state?
- Copied from above on this page:
- "Nominally" is preferred to "constitutional." The first implies de jure while the second implies de jure and de facto. It would be controversial for example to say that the Soviet Union was a constitutional democracy. It would seem odd too to call Indian a "constitutionally socialist state" even though the constitution says it is a socialist state. It is not the same thing as saying New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy.
- Also, I find the lead too weighted toward socialism as understood in the Soviet Union, and too focused on the socialist state rather than socialism as a movement.
- TFD (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with @TFD: and have re-implemented the word "nominally"--it does not contradict that the Soviet Union was a constitutionally socialist state, but does not imply that the Soviet Union was de facto socialist as the word 'constitutionally' does (and which the Soviet Union was not). I also tried to address your other points, reinserting the paragraph about the history of the socialist movement into the lead but shortening it slightly, as I originally moved it to the 'History' section because I felt that the exposition was too long to comfortably read. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- If TFD is correct, then I agree we should use the world "nominally" instead of "constitutionally" as a descriptor for the Soviet Union's claim to be a socialist state. I would disagree with the assertion that the lede focuses too much on the USSR - the economic literature and much of 20th century politics largely identified its economic system as socialist, so we should briefly note that. The controversy is not whether or not the Soviet Union was -really- a socialist state (that is a sectarian dispute among socialists), it is whether or not the Soviet economy represented a truly non-capitalist economic form.
- Vrrajkum I want to be clear that "non-market" refers specifically to the absence of factor markets, and does not necessarily imply a "planned economy" by the definition that term has acquired. Socialism was and still is widely conceived as a non-capitalist economic order that operates according to a different dynamic than capitalism, even among many traditional market socialists (Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner were quite specific that the aim of their model was to provide an alternate mechanism to capital markets). -Battlecry 23:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The word "nominally" has already been agreed upon above. Furthermore, see https://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/workers-control/02.htm#fn69 and onwards.
- Your suggestion that a source must explicitly use the word "nominally" is trolling. The sources note the key point that the workers did not meaningfully control the means of production in the Soviet Union, and that the Soviet Union was therefore not de facto socialist. "It is more appropriate to see the Soviet Union as a challenger to all forms of capitalism. Not a genuine socialist challenge, certainly, but a real menace which for several decades was regarded as the principal threat to their power by the ruling classes of all actual capitalisms." - Howard and King, "'State Capitalism' in the Soviet Union" Vrrajkum (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Basically Users Battlecry and Vrrajkum wants to force this article to accept only communism as the only "real" type of socialism, be it of the statist type or of the anarcho-communist type. They don´t even want to accept reliable sources like the two that i have provided while they have not brought any new sources which explicitly establish that socialism can only mean total "social ownership". According to them not even China and Cuba can be considered socialist countries since they are not anymore economies of complete social ownership and logically the Chinese and Cuban Communist Parties should not be considered socialist parties since they have abandoned commitment for an economy of "social ownership". As such i guess they are arguing that we should also take off this article mentions of the Chinese and Cuban Communist parties. But also since market socialism advocates cooperatives competing in markets then following their wishes we will have to delete that too from the article since that clearly does not fit either their single vision of socialism as an economy of total "social ownership". Following their logic only North Korea is a socialist economy and is socialism right now while parties who actually have socialism in their name cannot be included in this article since they don´t fit this single vision that socialists are only those who advocate an economy completely composed of "social ownership".
- As this stands now i can argue that they have been proposing changes that simply do not have a consensus. They are proposing that this article only accept "social ownership" economies as socialism and user Vrrajkum has not even answered my question on whether socialism is only an economic system or that it is also a political movement and a political ideology. I can argue now that their proposals simply have not gained consensus and that the introduction which was here before user Vrrajkum came to edit this intro had a consensus achieved in a long discussion which it is clear to me this user has not had the time to check. But now user Vrrajkum has been involved in an edit war and reverting to what he wants even though he has not gained consensus for his proposals in this talk page and that he is engaged in an edit war with more than one user and even after simply ignoring reliable sources which i have presented here in this discussion while he has not brought any realiable sources to this discussion supporting his position.--Eduen (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Eduen: It's not clear to me that you read anything that I write, or what anyone else is writing for that matter. COOPERATIVE OWNERSHIP IS A FORM OF SOCIAL OWNERSHIP.[11][12] SOCIALISM DOES NOT MEAN STATISM. What do you not understand about this? It is, in fact, you who has not gained consensus for your insistence that "social ownership" means that the entire economy is nationalized. Vrrajkum (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: You are the only editor who disagrees with defining socialism as an economic system characterized by "social ownership and control". The second line of the first paragraph clearly delineates a range of possible meanings for "social ownership", of which cooperatives are included. -Battlecry 06:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Social control" is also highly dubious and is never given a precise definition as "social ownership" is in any of the sources. In one context, it may refer specifically to society-wide planning of the economy - which is the exact opposite of what Eduen is trying to define it as. In other cases, it might refer to workplace democracy or workers' control - but a private corporation with democratic or relatively egalitarian management structures is not socialism, so we cannot define socialism simply as "social control" in this sense either. More confusingly, the Wikipedia article on "Social control" specifically refers to a sociological concept that will only confuse the layman further. It is most accurate and best to define socialism as "social ownership and control" since all sources identify social ownership of some kind as the common defining feature of all the various forms of socialism, but only one - the least specialized and most general, Encyclopedia Britannica - allow for the possibility of socialism to be defined solely as "social control". -Battlecry 10:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- To support User:Battlecry's definition:
- "[M]ere control over the means of production is not enough to permit the existence of a capitalist class... ownership matters, and it matters a very great deal." (Howard and King, "'State Capitalism' in the Soviet Union", pp. 122)
- In other words, private control over the means of production (the de facto status quo in the Soviet Union) alone is insufficient for the designation of capitalism; private ownership is also needed. By the same token, social control alone is insufficient for the designation of socialism, and social ownership is also needed (Battlecry used the example of a privately owned firm with a cooperative management structure being inconsistent with socialism). Thus, in addition to defining socialism as a system of social ownership and control of the means of production simply being intuitively logical when contrasting socialism to capitalism, reviewing all of the cited sources in aggregate does indeed point to this definition being the most fitting.[13] Vrrajkum (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- The fact is that most socialist and communist parties today are tolerant of capitalist enterprises and that includes the Chinese and Cuban Communist parties. You have decided to go againts my very good sources while keeping your wish to reduce socialism as communism. "Social ownership" is as complex and as possibly confusing to many people (they will tend to think it only means state ownership no matter how much you explain it to us here) as "social control". Social control is a more flexible term and I gave 3 sources which support that but since it does not fit your vision of socialism as communism you have decided to ignore good sourcing through edit warring. As this article stands now it is incoherent and to make it coherent we will have to delete about 80 percent of it in order to leave only leninism and anarcho-communism. And your two keep thinking that the word "socialism" is only used as an economic system. Now you are just forcing your proposal, which clearly has not won a consensus here, through edit warring and that includes deleting arguments sourced by many references. I hope you are ready to delete the 80 percent of this article of yours in order to make it coherent. User Vrrajkum has totally rejected the work by Donald Sasson and the book Socialism: an introduction saying "your other source is also contradicted by this source, as One Hundred Years of Socialism seems to suggest that socialism has been successfully implemented when in fact "Socialism: A Very Short Introduction above clearly says "no party has been entirely successful in this respect". This clearly shows user Vrrajkum simply wants to contradict what almost all definitions of socialism say which is that socialism is also a political movement while he keeps reducing it to an economic system. But now i frankly cannot understand why user Vrrajkum thinks "success" is important here. Apparently this user thinks that wikipedia only reports about "successes" and that it is the encyclopedia of successful social experiments. Then he continues "that these two states have been selected as case studies [NOT because they are examples of socialism]". A general book on socialism dedicates to two cases giving each one an entire chapter. MMMmmm. Almost anyone will tink that it is not reporting two cases of nazism or of conservatism or of liberalism but clearly two cases of socialism. But it seems now that user Vrrajkum now thinks that not only socialdemocracy is not part of socialism but also that the construction of the cuban economy by the Cuban Communist party is not a case of socialism either. As it stands now it seems that it is not 80 percent of this article that they want to delete but now it seems about 90 percent of this article.
At this point i will have to ask users Vrrajkum and Battlecry to present a new version of this article that will clearly be very small and about 20 percent of what we have now. Otherwise what will have to change is the introduction.--Eduen (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Eduen: Actually, we just obtained consensus above, and it is you who is unilaterally pushing your own unsupported interpretation. You unfathomably continue to ignore the fact that "social ownership" is an umbrella designation that encompasses multiple different forms, including cooperative ownership--I actually don't even understand what you are arguing when you say that "[people] will tend to think [social ownership] only means state ownership no matter how much you explain it to us here"? Vrrajkum (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
You have only reached consensus with user Battlecry on thinking socialism is only an economic system, even though user TFD pointed out to you that the wikipedia article Socialist mode of production already exists and that we have to deal here also and more extensively with socialism as a political movement. You simply have rejected three sources that present socialism as a call for social control of the economy. And you have rejected two very good general works on socialism and it seems you even don´t think the cuban economy is socialism. Sorry but the banners have to stay.--Eduen (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Eduen: Actually user Helios932 also concurred with myself and user Battlecry, thus we have consensus. Vrrajkum (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: User Capitalismojo was arguing against the Soviet Union being a "nominally" socialist state, which is completely unrelated to what you are arguing. User TDF is also in contrast to user Capitalismojo in this respect.
- Also, I reiterate that your own source argues that the Cuban economy is not an example of socialism in practice.
- "While no party has been entirely successful in this respect [what respect?], Swedish social democracy and Cuban communism both attempted to implement the goals of equality, cooperation, and solidarity and both demonstrated significant achievements. It is for this reason [what reason?] that these two states have been selected as case studies. (pg. 52)" Vrrajkum (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
RfC: What should be the topic of this article?
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should the topic of this article be:
- One A socio-economic system
state where there is social ownership of the means of production and the ideologies and movements supporting it, or - Two The ideology and movement generally called socialist, which supports some degree of social ownership and/or control of the means of production.
TFD (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Survey
- Two Most sources about socialism are about the socialist movement and its ideology. While most modern mainstream Socialists do not advocate the establishment of a socialist socio-economic system
state, it would take a lot of surgical original research to determine which Socialists were pure and should be in the article and which do not belong, particularly over the history of the subject. Also, there are already articles about the Socialist state and the Socialist mode of production. TFD (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: What do you think of user Battlecry's idea to merge the socialist mode of production article into this article? Vrrajkum (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- One The socialist movement can only be understood in relation to the socialist economic system as that is what said movement aims to achieve. The concept of the "socialist state" is different from the concept of socialism as a socioeconomic system, referring specifically to a state or government that is run by a socialist/Marxist-Leninist party. The original title of the article "Socialist mode of production" was "Socialism (Marxism)", originally written to give an exposition on the classical Marxist notion of socialism. Either that article can be retained or the content merged into the main Socialism article. The current version of the Socialism article dedicates too much space on the "History" of the movement or parties and politicians, often simply because they have "socialist" in their title, irrespective of whether or not those actions relate to socialism as a concept. The article should instead be focusing on the key aspects of socialism and its various forms: an overview of the major economic models, methods of resource allocation, property forms along with an overview of the largest dichotomies within the movement (reformism vs. revolutionary socialism). -Battlecry 03:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- One A socialist SYSTEM (not necessarily a state) is how most laypeople conceive socialism and is what they come to Wikipedia to try and learn more about. Socialism is both a system and the movement, but the two are complementary and there is no reason that both cannot be treated.
- For example, people expect the Wikipedia entry on capitalism to be about the capitalist system, which it is, but it also treats the history of capitalism and capitalist development. As such, the Wikipedia entry on socialism can meet people's expectations as far as being about the socialist system, while also treating the history of socialism and socialist development. Vrrajkum (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Two for the reasons TFD has already articulated. Socialism in one form or another has been one of the world's chief ideologies for almost two centuries now. To turn this article into some kind of variant edition of articles like socialist state or socialist mode of production would be grossly inappropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: What do you think of user Battlecry's idea to merge the socialist mode of production article into this article? Vrrajkum (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: Nobody is advocating reducing the article to discuss the purely Marxist concept of the "mode of production" or a "socialist state". What I have been arguing is the article needs to offer a broad balance between explaining the concept of socialism (the socio-economic system) and the major political currents as opposed to excessively focusing on the history and political exploits of self-described socialist leaders and parties, often simply because they have the term "socialist" or "social democratic" in their name. -Battlecry 04:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- So i guess user Battlecry wants us to do is to focus on the books and articles written by intellectuals instead of on politicians and their actions. We have to achieve a balance between both. Focusing only on one of those things will be a partial view of this subject. Now i will ask user Battlecry to bring us this book which show us what is the "real" socialist system or a description of a "real" socialist system put in practice which can represent all the socialist subsections which debate and engage in conflict with each other and which also give us contradictory views on that. I will be waiting for that since it really seems that user is very sure that those thing exist and that we can see them clearly in some book or article. If user Battlecry expect us to take his argument seriously he has to provide that and nothing less.--Eduen (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have been consistently arguing for a balance between socialism as a concept and the socialist political movement/theory ever since discussion of reforming this article has come up. As for you insistence that there is only one "real" socialist system, I think you know as well as I do that there is no one socialist system but rather a set of different proposals and models for how a socialist economy would function. This article needs to do a better job describing the basic concepts to socialism (such as what "ownership" means in the context of the means of production, the forms of proposed resource allocation, and a brief overview of the history of the development of the concept) as well as major models of socialism that have been proposed and a brief overview of current research in the field. I -never- advocated removing all content about the major socialist parties and leaders; only that we have a balance between discussing the two. As it currently stands, the history section is far too long and actually only covers the history of socialist parties and leaders, so its length needs to be reduced significantly before I can implement new material on the history and major proposals for socialist systems. -Battlecry 02:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- We will need to see the sources which support these "major proposals for socialist systems". Frankly i don´t know what you will be talking about besides what already is in the article:social democracy, anarchism, leninism, market socialism, etc. Anyway here in wikipedia we do not work with secrets that will be anounced in the future but with sources and discussion for everyone to see. Returning to the main point of this thread i am glad that you are accepting that there is not a single "socialist economic system". Each of the socialist tendencies will propose a different system but sometimes a set of socialist policies and proposals is at the most that they can arrive since social systems are not like a painting or something that can be organized from above and with a preceeding plan without taking account on the wishes of the individuals and groups composing that society. But also remember that something proposed in a single book or by a single intellectual does not merit attention here in wikipedia. Those types of ideas must be supported by some sort of movement and have been influential in political and social movements and parties.--Eduen (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Neither - split the article into two; one could be titled "Socialism (political ideology)", the other "Socialism (economic system)". Would that not solve the problem altogether? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Two, with some amount of One of course being unavoidable. Called by bot. Socialism is a political theory with a long and complicated history, and this article should focus mostly on that theory. I think that various supposed implementations are important (and should receive some smallish treatment). However, any serious Wikipedia article on the theory of socialism will review how the theories interacted with historical events and politics. For instance, the development of communist theory must reference the events of 1848 and the later Paris Commune. The formation of the Third International is meaningless without some reference to the formation of the Bolshevik Party, 1905, disagreements over WWI, and the Russian Revolution. Trotskyism and Stalinism can only be understood through at least some discussion of Soviet policy in the 1920s-30s. And describing Maoism surely requires some description of Chinese policy and, among other things, the cultural revolution. Otherwise, I'm not sure what can be meant by this RfC. -Darouet (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Both: it is unavoidable that both will be discussed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Two. The first option is essentially taking one narrow definition of socialism and declaring it 'correct' in a way that I don't feel reflects the sources or current usage. While it's true that sometimes political parties call themselves "socialist" or "democratic" without any real concern for the meaning of the term, it's clear that there are a large number of socialist movements and political parties in the world today that genuinely consider themselves (and are generally acknowledged as) socialist without really fitting the description in the first option. Beyond that, when there's confusion over the term, its history, and its meaning, the best thing to do is to document that history and focus on (credible, mainstream, high-profile) usages of it; the core proposal here seems to be to trim down the broad, in-depth coverage of the history section (and the sections further down that go into the various movements that have called themselves socialist) in favor of highlighting one narrow definition of socialism. I'm not convinced that that definition is universal enough to justify this. --Aquillion (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Two. On Wikipedia, the policy principle is that we follow the definition of reliable, especially academic, sources. Socialism is what RS say is socialism. Anything else is Original Research. Therefore, we describe what scholars generally call socialism. LK (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
- You are misidentifying the first option (a state). The topic should be the concept of socialism as a socioeconomic system (NOT the Leninist concept of a "socialist state"), only featuring information about the socialist movement that is relevant to this concept or otherwise noteworthy. -Battlecry 03:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not at all. The socialist state would have a socialist socioeconomic system, viz., social ownership of the means of production. I do not know of any examples of anyone who advocated social ownership of the means of production without advocating social control of the state. And socialism, as opposed to communism or anarchism, implies that a state would exist in some form. However, for you, I have changed it. TFD (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- I want to reiterate another point in relation to determining who is or isn't a socialist - this is not what I am proposing. Socialism is usually juxtaposed with capitalism as a system. Without the socioeconomic system, the movement(s) associated with socialism lacks any strong distinguishing feature. My point is not to dispute whether or not specific parties or individuals are -really- socialist, but to have the article focus on socialism as a concept. This includes the economic processes, property rights structures and management practices that have operated in existing and hypothetical models of socialism, a discussion of the major political ideologies supporting said system(s), leaving it to the reader to determine whether or not any self-described "socialist" party or politician is actually socialist or not. -Battlecry 09:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not at all. The socialist state would have a socialist socioeconomic system, viz., social ownership of the means of production. I do not know of any examples of anyone who advocated social ownership of the means of production without advocating social control of the state. And socialism, as opposed to communism or anarchism, implies that a state would exist in some form. However, for you, I have changed it. TFD (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: Socialism does not necessarily imply a socialist state. See libertarian socialism. Vrrajkum (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Vrrajkum, I can see nothing in "libertarian socialism" to say that. Can you be more specific?
- Battlecry, while we juxtapose socialism and capitalism as systems, we juxtapose socialism and liberalism as ideologies and political movements. And when we speak about socialists we are referring to people who adhere to socialist ideology, while when we refer to capitalists, we are referring to people who benefit from the capitalist system. Liberalism is a ideology not an economic system, while capitalism is an economic system not an ideology. Socialism refers to both and the issue is which one should be the topic of the article. Since reliable sources write far more about the ideology and its supporters, disambiguation dictates that is the primary topic.
- TFD (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: Socialism does not necessarily imply a socialist state. See libertarian socialism. Vrrajkum (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- We have to accept as socialist, parties and movements that selflabel themselves as socialists and that are mentioned in the bibliography that users Battlecry and Vrrajkum don´t want to accept. That means also socialdemocratic parties such as The spanish PSOE and the French Socialist party as well as the latin american left wing governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Chile. We have to mention in the introduction that there are many selflabeled socialist parties heading governments all over the world. Also you have to accept that socialism is a political movement and a political ideology and not just an economic system. And also you have to face the fact that even the Chinese and Cuban Communist parties are not advocating an economy composed of just "social ownership" but also of social control. At this point i will also ask user Battlecry to bring us this golden sacred book which can guide us clearly on who is socialist and who is not. If he cannot bring that reference then we simply cannot take his opinions seriously in this context where we work with reference support and not with mere personal likes or dislikes of things.--Eduen (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: Perhaps see socialist anarchism. It's really interchangeable with libertarian socialism, but I was trying to make the point that there are socialist variants of anarchism. In other words, socialism does not imply that a state would exist in some form.
- @Eduen: Neither myself nor Battlecry ever denied that socialism is both a movement and a system, but we need to take care not to lead people into thinking that anyone who self-labels themselves as socialist is working towards implementing socialism. For example, mentioning that self-labeled socialist parties who could better be described as social democratic or statist parties are heading governments around the world leads people to believe that these forms of social democracy or statism are forms of socialism.
- But I actually have no idea why you CONTINUE to misunderstand the meaning of "social ownership" and the fact that it refers to multiple different forms of ownership including cooperative ownership. @TFD: could you please try to explain to Eduen where he is erring? Myself, Battlecry, and Helios932 have tried and failed. Vrrajkum (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: You are supposed to see that there are stateless/anarchist variants of socialism.[14] By the same token, instead of simply suggesting that my arguments are idiotic, could you please explain why your reaction to hearing my arguments is "see idiocy"? Vrrajkum (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Anarchism is considered to be different from socialism. Anarchists were expelled from the First International. Communism is also a stateless society, but is distinguished from socialism. Anarchist socialists support some form of government that would be under social sontrol. TFD (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: You are supposed to see that there are stateless/anarchist variants of socialism.[14] By the same token, instead of simply suggesting that my arguments are idiotic, could you please explain why your reaction to hearing my arguments is "see idiocy"? Vrrajkum (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: "Anarchism is considered to be different from socialism" by whom? Marxists? Certainly not by anarchist socialists, who do not, in fact, "support some form of government that would be under social control." Anarchism necessarily implies the absence of any government.
- The anarchists were expelled because they disagreed with the Marxists on the means by which to achieve socialism. However, they were just as, if not more, socialist than the Marxists, and anarchist socialism, as the name implies, is indeed a valid form of both anarchism and socialism. Communism is indeed distinguished from socialism, but not by the lack of government; rather, by the lack of ownership over the means of production altogether. Vrrajkum (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
An article on socialism (the concept) does not preclude a discussion of the major political movements and ideologies associated with it. But you cannot properly understand the movement and ideologies without explaining what it is they ultimately seek to create (a socialist system). My argument is the article needs to have a better balance between discussing socialist concepts and its major forms / proposals AND discussing the major political trends that have existed within the movement that aims to bring this system about. And with respect to Eduen, I believe I have already made my case about the inclusion of "social control" as the defining feature of socialism, but for some reason he refuses to comprehend what I wrote. -Battlecry 04:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I wanted to add that the core definitions seem to vary based on discipline. Economics and political economy define socialism as an "economic system" whereas history and political science sources tend to define socialism as a "political ideology and movement that aims to build a socialist system". However, regardless of which definition if employed, we have to discuss the system (and its various models/proposals/meanings) that socialists aim to achieve. -Battlecry 04:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
With respect to the discussion about the socialist movement and "socialist" parties, Ulli Diemer's "What is Libertarian Socialism?" is well worth reading:
- "We call ourselves libertarian socialists. But why the adjective? Why libertarian socialism? Is libertarian socialism any different from socialism as it is generally understood?
- The problem, and the reason for the adjective, is that there exists no definition of socialism that is “generally understood”. The dilemma of socialism today is first of all the dilemma of the meaning of socialism, because the term has been applied to such an all-encompassing range of persons, parties, philosophies, states, and social systems, often completely antagonistic to each other, that the very term ‘socialism’ has become virtually meaningless.
- There are more variations of socialism currently in existence than there are varieties of soup on the supermarket shelves, more socialist parties with the correct line than religious sects with a monopoly on salvation. Most of the earth’s people are now governed by states calling themselves socialist, states displaying among themselves the familiar antagonisms usually held to be hallmarks of capitalist imperialism, as well as every kind of social system presently in existence, from declining tribalism to advanced industrialism. Can there be any meaning worth salvaging in a label that has been claimed by Kautsky and Lenin, by Mao and Brezhnev, by Gandhi and Hitler, by Ed Broadbent and Karl Marx? Does the term connote anything more than “just” or “good” to its proponents, “bureaucratic” or “bad” to its enemies?
- The temptation is strong to abandon the label entirely, to adopt some new term to indicate the kind of social change we propose. But to do so would be to attempt to side-step a problem that really cannot be avoided. For the terminological confusion is not accidental. Nor is it ‘merely’ a matter of words. It is rooted in the fact that the dominant social system always acts to integrate that which it cannot destroy — movements, ideas, even words — and therefore destroys them precisely by integrating them, by claiming them. It denies the very possibility of an alternative to itself, and proves this impossibility by absorbing the alternative and emptying it of meaning, by adopting new forms and new language which create the illusion of choice and change while perpetuating the same essential relations of domination. Since the main challenge to capitalism has always come from that which called itself socialism, it is hardly surprising that capitalist social relations have survived in half the world by calling themselves socialist. ‘Socialism’ has become another name for capitalism, another form of capitalism: in ‘victory’, socialism has been more totally buried than it ever could have been in defeat. Capitalism has dissolved the socialist alternative by stealing away its name, its language, and its dreams. We have to take them back, for without words there can be no concepts, and where there is no language of freedom, there can be no dream of liberation."
Vrrajkum (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ulli Diemer indicts Socialists by saying they are not really socialist. Instead of advocating any social control they either accept capitalist control or control by a Socialist elite. That is certainly a valid opinion and deserves mention in the article. But it is a minority opinion published on a fringe website. One could also argue that Canadian conservatives and liberals should not be mentioned in articles about conservatism and liberalism. TFD (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Battlecry, re your comments above. No one has suggested that we include groups "simply because they have the term "socialist" or "social democratic" in their name." The argument is that we should include groups that are considered socialist in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: You said above that "reliable sources write far more about the ideology and its supporters"; this is because a socialist system has yet to be meaningfully established. As such, the most that can be treated in any depth is the ideology and efforts to implement such a system, which, as Battlecry said, must be the "strong distinguishing feature" of the socialist movement. This is why socialism must be treated as both a system and a movement.
- For example, if we lived in a socialist society, there could theoretically be a capitalist movement/ideology that seeks to implement a capitalist system, and this movement would have to be defined by its efforts to implement such a system. Vrrajkum (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- It does not matter why reliable sources concentrate on socialist ideology and its supporters rather than the socialist state. "Is there a primary topic?" says, "Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic.... A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."
- People in socialist states who want to establish capitalism are not called capitalists, they are called reform socialists, liberals, conservatives, etc. No one called the ideology of Solidarity or Yeltsin capitalism.
- TFD (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: It does matter; it gives context to this discussion.
- "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."
- When a lay reader searches Wikipedia for "socialism", they are seeking a treatment of the socialist SYSTEM (I reiterate that anarchist socialism is a true anarchism, which is to say that socialism does not necessarily imply the existence of a state)--more likely than not the system that they associate with the Soviet Union and/or other Marxist-Leninist states. Some well-read individuals may gravitate towards viewing socialism as primarily an ideology, but most people do not (at least not in the U.S., where I live). Furthermore, myself and Battlecry are not in any way trying to exclude treatment of the socialist ideology or movement; we simply believe that the system and the movement are dependent on one another, and must therefore be treated as such. "The socialist movement can only be understood in relation to the socialist economic system" that it is trying to achieve, as Battlecry said above. Vrrajkum (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I do not know how you can speak for 300 million Americans. For most Americans, socialism means government regulation. And the Sanders campaign has inspired lots of Google searches for socialism and certainly the most relevant hit would be definition "Two." Even if what you are saying is true, the U.S. is only part of the world. In the rest of the world however, Socialists are usually one of the two largest political parties, and hence of more immediate relevance than definition "One." TFD (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- When a lay reader searches Wikipedia for "socialism", they are seeking a treatment of the socialist SYSTEM (I reiterate that anarchist socialism is a true anarchism, which is to say that socialism does not necessarily imply the existence of a state)--more likely than not the system that they associate with the Soviet Union and/or other Marxist-Leninist states. Some well-read individuals may gravitate towards viewing socialism as primarily an ideology, but most people do not (at least not in the U.S., where I live). Furthermore, myself and Battlecry are not in any way trying to exclude treatment of the socialist ideology or movement; we simply believe that the system and the movement are dependent on one another, and must therefore be treated as such. "The socialist movement can only be understood in relation to the socialist economic system" that it is trying to achieve, as Battlecry said above. Vrrajkum (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think now it will be very useful to us here in this discussion that users Vrrajkum and Battlecry, give us contemporary or historical examples both of "real" socialist movements on the one hand and of "real" socialist systems on the other. It is clear they only possess this truth which not even books can provide. If they existed in books they would have been able to bring those references which show us this system which can tell us whether something is socialism or not. I think if they cannot bring that system from a realiable source then i think we simply cannot take this argument of theirs that there exists this system and so then we can proceed with the proposal of user TFD that we have to see something as socialist when a good general source includes in it and names it that way. So i am waiting for this response from these two users. Again. What are real examples of socialist movements and systems according to users Vrrajkum and Battlecry?--Eduen (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- User Vrrajkum says the following: "Neither myself nor Battlecry ever denied that socialism is both a movement and a system, but we need to take care not to lead people into thinking that anyone who self-labels themselves as socialist is working towards implementing socialism." I think now we have a first consensus and it is that socialism is both a political movement and an economic system. Now on the other part of his proposal that we give readers this system through which they can tell whether something is a real socialist or whether that thing is lying i think he is asking for something that no political ideology article in wikipedia does. There is no sentence or paragraphs in any other political ideology article (communism, conservatism, fascism, liberalism) that give readers a system on how to notice if a self labeled movement of a political ideology is "real" or "fake". I think i could suggest user Vrrajkum to go write that book that gives us this system and to get it published. Until then we can only rely on inclusions and exclusions given in reliable sources. At this point if user Vrrajkum cannot bring that system published in a realiable good source then we should admit that such a system does not exist and that user Vrrajkum is asking for something which does not exist. But now if we took as our job to come up with such a system i can only tell him that we will be going againts wikipedia policy of no original research.--Eduen (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces, Eduen, and Vrrajkum: First I think we need to clarify the parameters of this discussion. Eduen is obviously talking about a different subject - he is talking about what terminology we should use to define socialism, "control" vs "ownership", and is trying to define socialism by the policies of existing or historical Social democratic parties. I feel like this topic has been discussed ad nauseam on this talk page before, but socialism is not defined by the practical policies or positions taken by labor and social democratic parties, irrespective of whether or not these parties are "socialist" or not. A consensus was reached by multiple editors where "social ownership" was decided as being the most well-sourced, neutral, encompassing and accurate term to define socialism as as opposed to "social control" (which user Eduen seems to think implies market socialism, when in actuality "control" might preclude genuine market socialism).
- I feel I need to reiterate again that the socialism article should not be discussing the policies of social democratic and labor parties but should be discussing socialism itself, leaving readers to formulate their own opinion based on this knowledge as to whether or not ideas, policies, etc. constitute socialism or not. Further, even among "reformists" who advocate social democratic policies (like raising the minimum wage, workers' rights and selective nationalizations) like Seattle City Council member belonging to Socialist Alternative Kshama Sawant clearly distinguish between their reforms/policies and socialism as a system to be achieved:
- "I wouldn’t call it “more socialist,” in the sense that it doesn’t make sense: It can be either capitalism or socialism. But what we can do, in the journey toward making the economy into something that works for everybody: We have to fight for major reforms under capitalism … We are going to be pushing forward for $15 an hour minimum wage in Seattle in 2014 …
- But we also have to be honest … That’s not going to be enough. Because the system itself is a system of crises … Capitalism does not have the ability to generate the kind of living wage jobs that will be necessary in order to sustain a decent standard of living for the majority … So we have to have a strategy where we not only fight for every reform that we can get, including single payer healthcare, but … It can’t be in isolation from also thinking about fundamental shift in society …" [3] -Battlecry 05:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- From what i read in the wikipedia article on Kshama Sawant, she belongs to a US trotskist organization. As such her particular views can be said to represent a single point of view within socialism which is trotskism. For a view which defines or represents all of socialism we need a general work or definition or treatment and not quotes by a single socialist politician. But i will also remind you that things are not "pure" and that revolutions are not single "Jacobin" events but a succession of political and economic actions. And also that social and economic systems act on thousands and millions of individuals and as such they cannot be said to be able to become implemented without the views of all or at least some of those people. That is why talking about economic systems only make sense with a talk about social and political movements and processes.--Eduen (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed socialism is not defined by the various policies presented by Socialists any more than liberalism is defined by any of the various policies they propose. It is however defined by an identification of social problems, agreement that they derive from capitalism and an agreement that some degree of social control and/or ownership is necessary.
- Battlecry, I asked you to provide reliable sources. A statement by a Seattle councilor is not a reliable source for a definition of socialism, any more than Vrrajkum's posting is a reliable source for what most Americans think. Have you read any textbooks or academic articles that mirror your views or are you just expressing your personal opinion?
- TFD (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- What user TFD is denouncing here, presenting personal opinions as facts, seem to clearly be the case of user Vrrajkum. He has decided to be more reliable than the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com dictionaries saying that he has "Removed inaccurate sources". Amazing.--Eduen (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: Actually both users Battlecry and TFD also agreed not to use Encyclopedia Brittanica above:
- "Personally I tend to avoid using the Encyclopedia Britannica as a reliable source in favor of more specialized encyclopedias on relevant subjects like political economy, economics, etc. which go into much more detail as to what concepts like "social ownership" imply. This might seem like a very complicated subject to describe on Wikipedia, but it only appears that way because comprehensive understandings of socialism (aside from histories of socialist and social democratic parties) are so sparse in mainstream politics, media and even in contemporary academia. -Battlecry 04:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)"
- "Social control means control by the people, not necessarily the government and certainly not the government if the government itself is not socially controlled. So to socialists the Bank of Scotland is owned by a bourgeois government and controlled in the interests of the bourgeoisie. I agree too that EB should not be used. It is a tertiary source that does not explain where it derives its definition. Far better to use the Dictionary of Socialism which explains that there are different definitions then explains the common themes with include varying degrees of social control and/or ownership. Another problem with the EB article is that it confuses socialism as a doctrine and socialism as an economic system. We do not have that with other doctrines, because we have separate terms for the two. For example liberalism is a doctrine that advocates capitalism. Liberalism is not an economic doctrine and capitalism is not an ideology. TFD (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)"
Cooperative management and allocation of resources
This source which is supporting the definition of socialism mentions "cooperative mangement" and "allocation of resources" as part of the definition of socialism:
Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Leonardo Morlino (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science. SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 2456. ISBN 978-1412959636. "Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."
Both "cooperative mangement" and "allocation of resources" are things that social democrats and democratic socialists advocate for in managing a plural economy of nationalized enterprises, capitalist bussinesses, cooperatives and self employment options. The main mechanisms for that is keynesian economics, economic planning, nationalizing things which are not interesting to the capitalist sector and welfare states. As such i propose that we will have to add "cooperative management" to social onwership and to a future addition of "social control".--Eduen (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Eduen, "allocation of resources" refers to markets and economic planning as resource allocation mechanisms, not to economic policies like Keynesian macroeconomics. "Cooperative allocation of resources" would most likely be referring to planning or communal allocation of resources. However, these terms are not clearly defined in the source material so we use the most common element as the definition, which is "social ownership" and then proceed to explain the different allocation forms (planning vs. market) in the subsequent paragraphs. It is obvious that you are ignorant of economics and are confusing and often conflating terms like "control", "resource allocation" and "ownership" with each other. -Battlecry 04:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your recent edits have only muddled the definition of socialism by using ambiguous terms like "collective management of the means of production" and "social control", which I already explained was highly problematic as it has no precise definition and commonly refers to a sociological concept that will only further confuse prospective readers. Ironically, your edit to the first line actually precludes free-market forms of socialism by insistent that socialism is generally defined as "collective management of the means of production". Therefore I have reverted your changes to the lead. -Battlecry 04:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- The sources you have added (Merriam Webster Online and Dictionary.com) cite "and control" as complement to "state ownership", not an alternative. Only one source adds "and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources" which implies economic planning, or at the minimum, a managed/command economy. But unlike the term "social ownership", where we have a clear and reputable sources defining it as a range of forms (from public, cooperatives and social ownership of equity) we don't have any specific source defining "social control". However, since many sources -do- include "and control" (whatever that may mean) as a complement to "social ownership" we have retained that wording in the main definition of socialism given. "Social ownership and control of the means of production" is the most broad and concise definition that is supported by all the given sources. The second paragraph goes into detail about the different forms of resource allocation that have been proposed for socialism (planning vs. markets) without favoring one or the other as -the- definition of socialism. For this reason, I have removed the ambiguous language you added to the first sentence. -Battlecry 05:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is nice that we have agreed on adding social control. Now this is hardly only the proposal for economic management of only socialdemocrats but actually the way the Chinese and Cuban Communist Parties are managing their economies now as well as self described socialist governments in Latin America. The difference between socialdemocrats and democratic socialism is not too strong since parties like SYRIZA also advocated more or less something very similar to scandinavian social democracy. Nationalizations and controls of non nationalized enterprises by an economic plan and a strong welfare state. Now as far as socialdemocrats and workers owned or managed enterprises it happens that in the 1970s there was proposals circulating in the british Labour Party for spreading that and the venezuelan and ecuadorian governments have experimented with that on a small scale. The Salvador Allende government also wanted to spread that and he belonged to the same party which is leading now the state of Chile. Would you consider the PSUV´s government as "socialdemocrat"? I don´t know but anyway they have experimented with that also. The difference between Chinese and Cuban Communist party, the scandinavia socialdemocrats and labour parties and some cases of the latin american leftist governments is a difference on a one party state vs. a parliamentary democracy but overall as far as economics it is the same proposal.--Eduen (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- As far as my expertise on economics i don´t happen to be an economist. My university degrees are on sociology and political science. Still i will have to remind economists that what exists on society is made up of things like history, processes, structures and actors moving themselves within all that and that economic systems are only one aspect of society alongside other things like culture and forms of government/politics.--Eduen (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Eduen: "Social ownership and control" was the wording that myself and Battlecry proposed above and that Helios932 also agreed with; per your edit comments, you seem to be suggesting that we tried to define socialism only in terms of "social ownership", which was never the case (you also still don't seem to grasp that social ownership is a broad designation that includes cooperative ownership). Also, the sources that you have added for "social control", namely Encyclopedia Brittanica, Dictionary.com, and Merriam-Webster Online, do not appear to be reliable sources on socialism, as they suggest that socialism is a system where all resources are controlled either by society at large (EB and Dictionary.com) or by the state (Merriam-Webster), which is incorrect. I have removed these three sources because their treatment of socialism is inaccurate.
@TFD: What do you want us to provide sources for? With respect to your saying that Americans associate socialism with governmental regulation, that's the same thing that I was saying; many Americans associate socialism with government control of the economy, a system which many of them in turn associate with the Soviet Union and/or other Marxist-Leninist states. My high school teacher of AP US History and AP Economics, who was named Social Studies Teacher of the Year in our state and was in the running for National Social Studies Teacher of the Year, (incorrectly) taught socialism for more than thirty years as a system where "everybody works for the government" (his exact words), proceeding to use the Soviet Union as his primary example. He also did not AT ALL touch upon socialism as a broader ideology or movement.
I do not know if you are an American (my guess is that you are not) but in our third Republican presidential debate this past Wednesday (Oct 28), the Republicans were all treating socialism as a Soviet-style system of government control of the economy--one presidential candidate explicitly invoked the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks with respect to the Soviet Union being the largely quintessential American conception of socialism. This conception indeed mirrors many Americans' conception of socialism, which has become entrenched in the collective American consciousness through Cold War propaganda and, more broadly, of America traditionally being a bastion of capitalism and of American propagandists therefore trying to portray socialism as undesirable. Vrrajkum (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: "That is why talking about economic systems only make sense with a talk about social and political movements and processes." This position is encompassed by position One, the position of treating socialism as a system and socialism as a movement as being interconnected, which is what Battlecry and I support.
- "The main mechanisms for that is keynesian economics, economic planning, nationalizing things which are not interesting to the capitalist sector and welfare states." Actually, "keynesian economics, economic planning, nationalizing things" are some of the defining characteristics of modern, pro-capitalism social democratic welfare states.
- @TFD: "[Socialism] is however defined by an identification of social problems, agreement that they derive from capitalism and an agreement that some degree of social control and/or ownership is necessary." This sounds like a good definition of socialism as an ideology or movement, but it neglects treatment of socialism as a system. Vrrajkum (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- Vrrajkum, I want you to provide a source that says the term socialism is more often used to refer to a system rather than the ideology and movement. A Google news search for example shows hits for Sanders, Corbyn and Socialist parties in Western Europe and Latin America[4]
- Furthermore, since socialism can be broadly or narrowly defined, Broad-concept articles says that the main article should be about socialism in its broadest definition. (Some socialists for example advocate establishing a socialist system.) The example is football: "[It] Football may refer to one of a number of team sports which all involve, to varying degrees, kicking a ball with the foot. Although the word "football" can apply to whichever form of football is the most popular in the regional context in which the word appears, all of these variations share some common elements and can be traced to a common origin. Thus, the history and development of the general concept of football can be explained in its own article." And Not "what first comes to (your) mind" rebuts your view that we should use the definition that comes first to your mind: "An American might first think of the city in Alabama when he hears "Birmingham", but primary topic belongs to the city in England, which is far more notable and whose article is read much more often."
- TFD (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- User Vrrajkum: "Actually, "keynesian economics, economic planning, nationalizing things" are some of the defining characteristics of modern, pro-capitalism social democratic welfare states." For the 1000th time i repeat that this sort of economics is what the Chinese and Cuban Communist parties are implementing. I don´t know in what book we can find the perfect pure ideal socialist economy that user Vrrajkum talks about but it is clear that it only exists there, in books. What we have in reality existing and even in the US is socialist parties and some of those are even heading governments around the world. Let´s remind everyone here that the Chinese Communist Party is the biggest socialist party in the world. It is either that or we have the North Korean all "social ownership" economy. User Battlecry has also accepted that each subsection of socialism has its own proposal for the socialist system or economy so i can suggest that talking about the single socialist model that will please every subsection of socialism is impossible. The democratic socialists will say North Korea is fascist, the libertarian socialists will say the Soviet Union was State capitalist, C.L.R James will also say that, and the trotskists will say democratic socialists and social democrats want a capitalist economy. As such there is not a single model that will please every section of socialism and that is perhaps the most important thing we can say about the "socialist economic system" besides that it includes some degree of social ownership and social control. As far as the discussion on what the americans think socialism is i will say that even the stereotypes and reductions of the Republicans have some of the truth. But also i have heard that they call scandinavian countries "socialist" so that particular reduction also has some truth in it. For example i found this article in one google search. Anyway we should not be focus excessively in what the americans think socialism is since here in wikipedia we work with realiable general sources and we are not writing here US wikipedia but english language wikipedia. Finally since we have come to agree that social control is also socialism and since users Vrrajkum and Battlecry are not proposing erasing 80 percent of this article and since they are recognizing that socialism is also a political movement then we should proceed to inform readers that many self described, and described by other sources, socialist parties are governing many countries around the world. --Eduen (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- In response to TFD's inquiry, I have not come across a source that says socialism is used more frequently to refer to either an economic system or a political movement. However there are many notable sources including those cited for the first two paragraphs of the lead, which are defining "socialism" or using the term to refer to a socio-economic system. Popular news articles don't constitute reliable and scholarly treatments on a subject as complex as socialism. Regardless, the current lead makes it clear that the concept encompasses both an economic system and a movement that aims to bring this system about. The only controversial aspect remaining with this article is organizing the article's body content to reflect a better balance between the two (the history of the movement and the economic concept). -Battlecry 00:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- No matter what the topic of the article is, the lead must explain the different definitions. The issue is, RfC: What should be the topic of this article?|"What should be the topic of this article?" TFD (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- To user Battlecry i can respond that there is already a section called economics. If you could tell us what you want to add with actual sources or citations i bet that could be incorporated to that section in order to improve it. But telling from what you have been writing here i am afraid that you are going to try to present the idea that there is a single socialist economic system possible within a current where there are many proposals and with many inside it telling each othere that they are false socialists. But also there is the fact that we are talking about ideal proposals written in books or articles but in the socialism article we deal with a political movement which exists and act in real politics. As such wikipedia has another article called "socialist economics" and clearly that seems more reasonable to me than talking about a single "socialist economic system" since we are talking about a political position with a lot of plurality within it and with positions which have gone as far as murdering each other as the case of Stalin shows murdering Trotsky and the anarchists in Spain. As such there is no "socialist economic system" but mostly a socialist economic debate.--Eduen (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is a debate but generally there are a few major categorizations of socialist systems: market vs. non-market (which includes planned economies, but in recent decades it has expanded to include non-planned and non-market proposals). The article needs to go into detail explaining socialism and its development as a concept. As it currently stands, much of the article reads like something you'd find on a contemporary socialist party's website: it talks about the struggles of certain movements or people who are associated with the socialist movement, but either actively tries to avoid giving, or ignores defining socialism itself in order to look more "mainstream" and less "radical". The "Socialist economics" page is largely redundant and actually focuses on very little on socialist economic proposals, and more on classical economic theories and critiques of capitalism (Marxian and Anarchist economics). That page needs to be scrapped entirely, but that is a different discussion entirely. -Battlecry 04:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- User Battlecry certainly is a believer in the Oneness of socialism. He thinks there is a single socialist economic system in a tendency in which at some point we had socialists of one strand murdering other socialists and even fighting in arms as happened in the Spanish Civil War. As far as a supposed objective here of "making socialism mainstream" i have to remind user Battlecry that we are even incluiding here Anarchism, Proudhon, so called "utopian socialism, which should really be called Early socialism and other very non-mainstream and anti-establishment perspectives such as eco-socialism and socialist feminism and we even mention things like individualist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, council communism, luxemburguism, gay socialists, African socialism, etc. Also other socialist phenomena such as squats, the Black Panther Party, autonomism, religious socialism, etc, etc, etc. I don´t see where it is mainstream. I have even just noticed that it doesn´t even mention Jeremy Corbyn. That´s how un-mainstream and non-populist this article is.--Eduen (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have just about had enough of your nonsensical rants that are coming off more and more as attempts at trolling. You have consistently prevented anyone from making improvements to this article for over a year, if not more, by unilaterally reverting well-sourced edits and trying to insert social democracy (and I assume reformism) as the definition of socialism while accusing other editors of supporting positions they never held. You consistently fail to understand the distinction between socialism as a concept and the actions/policies of self-described socialist or formerly socialist parties or leaders, the latter of which has little relevance to the subject of the article. The article needs to discuss both socialism as a concept (this would include information describing what "control" or "social control" means, something that is very crucial to discuss in the article if we are using that as part of the definition) and socialism as a movement to achieve said concept, not the policies implemented by parties that have "socialist" or "social democratic" in their name irrespective of whether or not those parties really are socialist or not. An elaborate historical discussion of this belongs in a separate article entitled "History of the socialist movement", and certainly does not belong taking up more than 50% of the body of the main socialism article. As for you suggesting that "socialist phenomena" like "squats, the Black Panther Party, autonomism, religious socialism, etc, etc, etc" are un-mainstream, I would question their relevance to an article on socialism (religious socialism aside, which belongs in the political ideology section). The fact remains that, unless you are willing to consider the Soviet economic model or Yugoslav economic model as forms of socialism (which many economic literature does), there has been no socialist system in existence on any large-scale in human history yet and it is largely a theoretical construct. -Battlecry 06:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- 1. I have accepted for example the addition in the intro of this distinction between market and non market forms of socialism. Anyone can see that this article has been edited by many other persons besides me and much of that has stayed. On the other hand other users besides me have also opposed some of your proposals as anyone can see in this talk page and the archives of it. 2. User Battlecry has to accept that both reformism and revolutionary socialism are part of socialism almost since the beggining of the 19th century. 3. User Battlecry can say this: "You consistently fail to understand the distinction between socialism as a concept and the actions/policies of self-described socialist or formerly socialist parties or leaders, the latter of which has little relevance to the subject of the article." So he thinks socialist politicians are not relevant to an article on a political movement. I am amazed that he can actually say this without noticing how absurd this sentence is. The fact is that user Battlecry wants us to focus on the writing of economists in this article. I remind him that the articles "socialism (marxism)" and "socialist economics" exist within english wikipedia.--Eduen (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
On the soviet union in the intro
"While the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally[29] socialist state led to socialism's widespread association with Marxism-Leninism and the Soviet economic model, many economists and intellectuals argue that the Soviet Union failed to truly establish socialism[30] and that it instead represented a form of state capitalism[31][32] or a non-planned "command" or "managed" economy."
This covers the views of trotskists and libertarian socialists on the subject of What was the Soviet Union? Since we are writing the socialism article either we also have to cover what democratic socialist/socialdemocrats and non-trotskist leninists think on the USSR also; or my preferred option, we rather not deal with this in an intro which is already very long. The democratic socialist/socialdemocrats main issue with the USSR was that they saw it as an authoritarian personalistic undemocratic regime while the non trotskist leninists opinions on it go from that it was the best thing in the world to that it lost its good course after Stalin in the case of staunch "anti-revisionist" stalinists such as the maoists, followers of Enver Honxha and according to those governing North Korea. A balanced neutral view on this following wikipedia policy issue only gives us these two options and clearly not this which i am citing here. My proposal on this is that we rather not deal with this in the intro since it is already very long. Also since the biggest socialist party and country in the world has not been the USSR and the soviet CP since the 1950s but the Chinese system and the Chinese Communist Party. Also the Chinese Communist Party regime still exists while the Sviet Union does not exist anymore since 1991. We could deal on this in the historical section but incluiding also the views of democratic socialist/socialdemocrats and non-trotskist leninists. --Eduen (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the identification of the USSR as a non-socialist economy - and specifically, a non-planned socialist economy - is a view shared by a range of different economists coming from a range of different perspectives[15] (including Orthodox Marxist perspectives and non-socialist perspectives). We are not talking about the bickering of political ideologues ("libertarian socialists" vs. "Trotskyists"). The line should specifically focus on the Soviet economic model and not the ideology of the USSR (the latter is filled with ideologue clutter about the USSR "not really being socialist"), but analysis of how the USSR's economy actually functioned is something that transcends political ideologies. But your sentiment is correct - aside from this brief overview, we need to leave more comprehensive discussions (about whether or not the Soviet economic model was capable of achieving socialism, whether it represented a transitional form, etc.) for further elaboration in the body of the article. -Battlecry 04:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- As per the discussion in previous threads, inclusion of the Soviet model in the lead is crucial because in many comparative economics textbooks the Soviet model is presented as the major model of socialism, though again economists are not convinced that it was "socialist" in the comprehensive sense of operating under different economic dynamics by neutralizing capital in the means of production. Regardless, this is the economic model that has been associated with socialism for much of the 20th century so it deserves to at least be mentioned in the lead. I propose the following alterations to make the information more specific:
- While the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally socialist state led to socialism's widespread association with Marxism-Leninism and the Soviet economic model, many economists and intellectuals argue that the Soviet economic model represented a form of state capitalism or a non-planned "command" or "managed" economy. -Battlecry 04:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- As far as this "new" proposal of yours it is more or less the same thing as the previous one and 1. it keeps excluiding the views of non-trotskists leninists and "anti-revisionist stalinists" as well as those of democratic socialists/socialdemocrats 2. the introduction is already too long. 3. The Soviet Union does not exist anymore and the biggest socialist party in the world since 1954 has been the Chinese Communist Party and that one still exists and still governs China so they could have as much if not more emphasis of mention in the intro. 4. This mention of the USSR in the lead might have been more pressing in the early 1990s. We are in 2015 already so over emphasizing this in the intro of this article will make it look a little outdated. 5. Please bring the references of these "economists" who say these things. Still i would not think anyway economists have to be considered the highest authority on a political movement so i don´t see why we should we giving this much importance to economists. Or at least we should give as much importance to economists as to political scientists and sociologists on this but i will think general works on socialism which go beyong disciplinary divisions are more reliable sources than the opinions of those in a single too specific field of social sciences.--Eduen (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: Again, your ignorance and misinterpretation of what I write astounds me. We are not talking about "political movements" or "Trotskyist views", we are talking about the Soviet-type economic system. Furthermore, this is a view held by many classical Marxists as well, not simply "Trotskyists". But that is beside the point, since we are not discussing Communist parties or Marxist-Leninist socialist states (which you seem to think we are) given your suggestion we discuss the Chinese Communist Party. The source was given in my previous post, plus there were two sources on the nature of the Soviet-type economy in the line you removed from the article. There is no widely-held distinct Chinese economic model in the literature that is associated with socialism, on the other hand economics textbooks have treated the Soviet model as the "traditional" model of socialism for much of the 20th century. We cannot exclude this information from the lead of an article on socialism. -Battlecry 06:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- We are talking about socialism. Why do you think that means the Communist Party of China and not the SDP and Labour Party? By all means write an article about Trotskysim. Is that what most people think is the topic? TFD (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: The Soviet Union developed the only system that has been consistently and widely recognized as being socialist (although you and I both might disagree with that). Hence we should mention that at least briefly in the lead. On the other hand, the Labour Party, etc. has not created a distinct system that has widely been regarded as being "socialist", it only participated in governments within capitalist economies. That is why more weight needs to be given to the Soviet model (which was adopted by the People's Republic of China until the late 1970s) as opposed to the "systems" (in actuality, they created no recognizable alternative to Western capitalism) of other self-described socialist parties. -Battlecry 06:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The Soviet Union needs to be mentioned in the lead; a single sentence is by no means overdoing it. It is the predominant historical example of "socialism" in contemporary usage, particularly in the U.S.; for example, user Capitalismojo (an American from Wisconsin, as you can see on his user page) argued above that "[f]or seventy years the USSR was the vanguard of socialism." Here is another clip from the recent American presidential debate to support that Americans' largely conceive of "socialism" as a Soviet-style system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHUmhGs1b7A&feature=youtu.be&t=2929
I understand that the USA is not the only country in the world, but Wikipedia's purpose is to educate people; as TFD noted the Sanders campaign has sharply increased the number of websearches for "socialism", and a short treatment of the Soviet Union in the lead is warranted in order to help expose people, especially Americans who may be victims of Cold War-era propaganda, to the debate over the Soviet Union's socioeconomic designation.
@The Four Deuces: I cannot find a source that says that the word "socialism" more commonly refers to the (theoretical) socioeconomic system rather than the (practical) ideology or movement, but I have tried to provide some evidence for my assertion that Americans largely associate the word "socialism" with the Soviet model (this fact is also the underlying foundation of Chomsky's "The Soviet Union Versus Socialism"). In addition to the Chomsky, there are numerous other sources that treat socialism as primarily a socioeconomic system rather than as an ideology or movement,[16][17] just as there are indeed numerous sources that treat socialism as primarily an ideology or movement rather than as a socioeconomic system; this dichotomy supports the notion of treating the two as being interconnected.
I understand that you are arguing that socialism as a socioeconomic system and socialism as a movement should be two different articles, but I do not agree. They are not distinct enough. For example, Apple Corporation and an apple (fruit) are two completely different entities that clearly warrant two completely different articles, but socialism as a movement and socialism as a system are reliant upon one another and thus simply do not have the same degree of distinction. In fact, the apple article actually treats both the tree and the fruit in the same article, because they are so closely linked. I again use Battlecry's argument that the establishment of a socialist economic system (as an alternative to a capitalist economic system) needs to be the "strong distinguishing feature" of the socialist movement, as "the socialist movement can only be understood in relation to the socialist economic system" that it is trying to achieve.[18] Vrrajkum (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- The disambiguation example was "Football." Soccer was the original game, but Tom Brown ran with the ball created rugby. When Canadian rugby players met U.S. soccer players, they developed American and Canadian versions of football. So they are absolutely connected. But we do not say, well most Americans think football is U.S. football, so that is the primary topic. A good article to explain the Soviet system is Communism, because that was the ideology of that state. TFD (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: How do you feel about changing the leading statement to read something like "Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish a socialist economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production"? This frames it in such a way that the (existing) movement takes precedence without precluding treatment of a (hypothetical) socialist economic system, and roughly follows the structure of Communism's leading statement. Vrrajkum (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
User Vrrajkum says: "I understand that the USA is not the only country in the world, but Wikipedia's purpose is to educate people; as TFD noted the Sanders campaign has sharply increased the number of websearches for "socialism", and a short treatment of the Soviet Union in the lead is warranted in order to help expose people, especially Americans who may be victims of Cold War-era propaganda, to the debate over the Soviet Union's socioeconomic designation."
The job of us here in the socialism article in english wikipedia is only to present socialism to english language readers. That´s it. For that we have to include all relevant views and something specific in the space where that has a merit. Our job here is not this little agenda of yours on focusing on what the americans think or do not think. This is not US wikipedia but english language wikipedia. English is spoken all over the world and as a primary official language in places like Canada, the UK, Australia, Nigeria and as second language all over the world. What you are asking for will be a bad case of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. And also i say this talking from outside the US and not living there and not being an american either.
I just send you back to my 5 reasons on why we should not deal with this in an intro which is already very long. Taking something said by user TFD i will think that perhaps the mention of the Soviet Union experience the way you want it might be more in place in the communism article but not in the wider socialism article. Still i warn you that there you might also have to include other views on the USSR besides the ones you want to include. To user Vrrajkum i repeat something that i told user Battlecry and that he acepted in a moderate way: There is no single "socialist economic system". Each subsection of socialism proposes an economic system of their own. As such there is only a socialist economic debate between socialist tendencies who have gone in some cases as far as fighting each other with arms.--Eduen (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: I do not at all understand what makes you think that I have a "little agenda of... focusing on what the americans think or do not think" based on my support for including a single sentence on the Soviet Union in the lead. In fact it is not only Americans, or even English language speakers in general, who commonly misconstrue the Soviet Union for being a socialist society. And with respect to your argument that there is "no single socialist economic system", if you actually look at the lead the third sentence clearly says that "there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them", and the second paragraph clearly goes into further detail on some different socialist economic systems. Vrrajkum (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- User:Vrrajkum proposes: How do you feel about changing the leading statement to read something like "Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish a socialist economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production"? This frames it in such a way that the (existing) movement takes precedence without precluding treatment of a (hypothetical) socialist economic system, and roughly follows the structure of Communism's leading statement.
- I agree with the first part of this. Specifically mentioning socialism as a political theory and movement first. As far as the second part i will say that a more moderate term will summarize this better saying "aims to establish a socialist economic system or a set of socialist economic policies based on social ownership and/or control of the means of production". This mainly since democratic socialists (eurocommunists, etc) and socialdemocrats are working withing the frames of parliamentary democracy and the existence of big capitalist enterprises. Sometimes they advocate nationalizations and sometimes they focus on enlarging the welfare state and planning and regulating capitalist bussinesses.--Eduen (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: A socialist economic system, not some vague "set of socialist economic policies", social democratic or otherwise, must indeed be held as the ultimate goal of the movement. I again reiterate that modern social democracy that advocates nationalizations, economic planning, and welfare state provisions within the framework of capitalism is not socialism, and claiming that it is is exactly the destruction of the word "socialism" that Ulli Diemer wrote about.[19] User Battlecry has also repeatedly warned about the need to avoid diluting the word "socialism" with the actions or policy proposals of self-described "socialist" parties.
- Also, with respect to your claiming on the article's edit history that there is no consensus not to use Encyclopedia Brittanica, I will simply copy and paste from above:
- "What user TFD is denouncing here, presenting personal opinions as facts, seem to clearly be the case of user Vrrajkum. He has decided to be more reliable than the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com dictionaries saying that he has "Removed inaccurate sources". Amazing.--Eduen (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: Actually both users Battlecry and TFD also agreed not to use Encyclopedia Brittanica above:
- "Personally I tend to avoid using the Encyclopedia Britannica as a reliable source in favor of more specialized encyclopedias on relevant subjects like political economy, economics, etc. which go into much more detail as to what concepts like "social ownership" imply. This might seem like a very complicated subject to describe on Wikipedia, but it only appears that way because comprehensive understandings of socialism (aside from histories of socialist and social democratic parties) are so sparse in mainstream politics, media and even in contemporary academia. -Battlecry 04:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)"
- "Social control means control by the people, not necessarily the government and certainly not the government if the government itself is not socially controlled. So to socialists the Bank of Scotland is owned by a bourgeois government and controlled in the interests of the bourgeoisie. I agree too that EB should not be used. It is a tertiary source that does not explain where it derives its definition. Far better to use the Dictionary of Socialism which explains that there are different definitions then explains the common themes with include varying degrees of social control and/or ownership. Another problem with the EB article is that it confuses socialism as a doctrine and socialism as an economic system. We do not have that with other doctrines, because we have separate terms for the two. For example liberalism is a doctrine that advocates capitalism. Liberalism is not an economic doctrine and capitalism is not an ideology. TFD (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)"
- I Have taken it out but still i will love to hear from user TFD on this. Again, as anyone can see, user TFD recommended you to go include this mention of the Soviet Union in the intro to the article Communism but not here.--Eduen (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP:LEDE guides us to summarize the body in the lede. There is a substational section on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the body. Substantial. Therefore something of that should be in the lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- I Have taken it out but still i will love to hear from user TFD on this. Again, as anyone can see, user TFD recommended you to go include this mention of the Soviet Union in the intro to the article Communism but not here.--Eduen (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- On whether to include a mention of the Soviet Union in the intro and if this is included how it should be included in order to maintain neutral point of view 1. it keeps excluiding the views of non-trotskists leninists and "anti-revisionist stalinists" as well as those of democratic socialists/socialdemocrats 2. the introduction is already too long. 3. The Soviet Union does not exist anymore and the biggest socialist party in the world since 1954 has been the Chinese Communist Party and that one still exists and still governs China so they could have as much if not more emphasis of mention in the intro. 4. This mention of the USSR in the lead might have been more pressing in the early 1990s. We are in 2015 already so over emphasizing this in the intro of this article will make it look a little outdated. 5. Please bring the references of these "economists" who say these things. Still i would not think anyway economists have to be considered the highest authority on a political movement so i don´t see why we should we giving this much importance to economists. Or at least we should give as much importance to economists as to political scientists and sociologists on this but i will think general works on socialism which go beyong disciplinary divisions are more reliable sources than the opinions of those in a single too specific field of social sciences.--Eduen (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- This doesn't address the point. We have a vast section on the USSR, it should be summarized in the lede per our PAGs. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The authors of the Historical Dictionary of Socialism review the many definitions of socialism and conclude, "Within this diversity many common elements could be found. First, there were general criticisms about the social effects of the private ownership and control of capital - poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security. Second, there was a general view that the solution to these problems lay in some form of collective control (with the degree of control varying among the proponents of socialism) over the means of production, distribution and exchange. Third, there was agreement that the outcomes of this collective control should be a society that provided social equality and justice, economic protection, and a generally more satisfying life for most people. Nevertheless, to a large extent socialism became a catchall term for the critics of industrial and capitalist society."[5]
That is the sort of source that we should use for determining the main topic. If anyone has a source that says most sources define it differently, then please provide one.
Eduen, what was it you wanted me to comment on?
TFD (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- I wanted you to comment on the Enciclopedia Britannica article on "socialism" that user Vrrajkum hates so much for some reason. Anyway if a mention of the Soviet Union is going to be in the intro it cannot be the one proposed by user Battlecry since it has to adopt a neutral point of view. Democratic socialists and socialdemocrats main complaint about the Soviet Union was that it was a totalitarian, authoritarian, personalistic overcentralized, inneficient system and that is also more or less the same criticism that libertarian socialists had about it een though they differ in a strong way in their proposed alternative political and economic system. On the other hand non-trotskist leninists tend to think the USSR was the greatest thing in the world and "anti-revisionist" stalinist think that it became "capitalist" or "reformist" or things like that after the Krusuchev government and that comrade Stalin is a hero of the world´s working class. All of that has to be mentioned in order to have a balanced neutral point of view according to wikipedia policy. If all of those points of view are not going to be included then i suggest we don´t include this in an already too long intro.--Eduen (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: A single sentence in the lead indicating that there is disagreement as to whether or not the Soviet Union's political economy truly constituted a form of socialism by no means excludes the views of non-Trotskyists, Leninists, anti-revisionist Stalinists, democratic socialists, social democrats, or anyone else. It simply does exactly that: indicate that there is disagreement as to whether or not the Soviet Union's political economy truly constituted a form of socialism, which is indeed worth noting as the Soviet Union is widely considered to be the foremost historical example of "socialism" in practice (not just by Americans).
- @The Four Deuces: Could you give your thoughts on this phrasing of the lead sentence? I feel that it strikes a good balance between the proposals of all editors who have given their thoughts, sources that are already cited in the lead, and remains consistent with The Historical Dictionary of Socialism that you cited above:
- "Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish a socialist economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production."
- We can further flesh out the rest of what your source suggests in succeeding sentences, e.g. "The goal of such a system is to solve problems traditionally associated with capitalism and private ownership, producing a more just and satisfying life for most people." Vrrajkum (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Marxists reject the notion of egalitarianism as idealistic and bourgeois, so it is contentious to define socialism in this way. Plus egalitarianism as used by more contemporary market socialist theorists refers not to "equality" of income as people might be confused, but equal power-relations that emerge from equalized "property income" or "capital income" (another way of saying the abolishing of class distinctions). The current opening sentence of concise and broad to be applicable to all forms of socialism, we should leave it as is and go into more detail in the body of the article. -Battlecry 00:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- I will remind user Battlecry that socialism is not synonymous with marxism. But still that there exists something called "economicism" which is the reduction of more complex social phenomena to economics. It is both something that happens in both vulgar versions of marxism and neoliberalism. Yet the two definitions that we are considering here do not talk about a socialist economic system.--Eduen (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Definition of socialism
As far as the definition of socialism that user TFD was brought us i can say that it coincides with the three basic elements of the definition also given by the book Socialism: a very short introduction by Michael Newman. He identifies 4 main characteristics of socialism:
the most fundamental characteristic of socialism is its commitment to the creation of an egalitarian society...To varying extents, all socialists have therefore challenged the property relationships that are fundamental to capitalism, and have aspired to establish a society in which everyone has the possibility to seek fulfilment without facing barriers based on structural inequalities...A second, and closely related, common feature of socialism has been a belief in the possibility of constructing an alternative egalitarian system based on the values of solidarity and cooperation. But this in turn has depended on a third characteristic: a relatively optimistic view of human beings and their ability to cooperate with one another...Finally, most socialists have been convinced that it is possible to make significant changes in the world through conscious human agency...These common characteristics help to distinguish socialism from other doctrines, ideologies, and systems, but it is also very diverse. This is not surprising when its evolution and development are considered. If modern socialism was born in 19th-century Europe, it was subsequently shaped by, and adapted to, a whole range of societies.
I will note on this definition that the author says socialism wants to create a different society. There is no emphasis here on the economic system and also clearly not a mention that they agree on a single different economic system and not a mention of "economic system". Also in the definition provided by a reference brought here by user TDF there is also not a mention of the socialist economic system. But also Newman says from the 20 century onwards there are 2 main dominant types of socialism:
"Chapter 1 looks at the foundations of the doctrine by examining the contribution made by various traditions of socialism in the period between the early 19th century and the aftermath of the First World War. The two forms that emerged as dominant by the early 1920s were social democracy and communism...Chapter 2 analyses the experience of Sweden in relation to the former and Cuba in relation to the latter. Despite their dominance, both communism and social democracy were increasingly challenged from the 1960s"
But i will also note how both definitions coincide on the fact that socialism wants an egalitarian society. That element is not included in the definition of our wikipedia article and i propose that we include that.--Eduen (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- User Vrajkum proposes this text for a definition: "Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish a socialist economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production." We can further flesh out the rest of what your source suggests in succeeding sentences, e.g. "The goal of such a system is to solve problems traditionally associated with capitalism and private ownership, producing a more just and satisfying life for most people."
- The two definitions brough here by me and by user TFD define socialism as also wanting an egalitarian society and do not mention a "socialist economic system as such. So instead i propose the following which will syntehsize all of this:
- @Eduen: "Socialist economic system" is needed as that is what is implied by "social ownership and control of the means of production", including by TFD's source. That is, a system involving social ownership and control of the means of production IS a socialist economic system, and it needs to be delineated as such. Furthermore, I asked you the question that I did in order to try and lead you to realize that establishing a socialist economic system is the means by which socialists will achieve a different, more egalitarian society.
- My proposal was influenced by the Communism article, which uses this phrasing:
- "In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]"
- @Eduen: I further note that your source says that "all socialists have therefore challenged the property relationships that are fundamental to capitalism"--in other words, people who advocate for the maintenance of capitalistic property relations, such as contemporary social democrats (not 1920s social democrats), are not socialists. Nor does contemporary social democracy produce a fundamentally "different" society from capitalism. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- The fact is that there is not consensus within socialism on a single system. The only thing we have is a tendency to advocate "social ownership" and/or "social control of the economy". For example Pierre Joseph Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker did not want a state but did not want large capitalist enterprises either or at least they did not want them to have a dominant effect on politics and economics. They wanted small enterprises of selfemployment and cooperatives. Anarchists as a whole see that social control of the economy is achieved by not having a state which is what usually enlarges enterprises through state privileges given to some over others, but they disagree on having an economy of communal property (anarcho-communism/council communism/autonomism), workers owned cooperatives (bakuninist collectivism), and small self employment and cooperatives in a non-capitalist market (mutualism and individualist anarchism/left wing market anarchism). Their "anarchists without adjectives" advocate a combination of all of these recognizing the practical troubles and the restriction of choices implied in trying to impose a homogeneous single economic system.
- As far as your insisting on democratic socialism/social democrats not being "real socialists" i remind you that he says afterwards "Chapter 1 looks at the foundations of the doctrine by examining the contribution made by various traditions of socialism in the period between the early 19th century and the aftermath of the First World War. The two forms that emerged as dominant by the early 1920s were social democracy and communism. (pg. 5)" As such obviously he thinks social democracy is part of the socialist movement and he proceed to deal extensively on european social democrats in his book.--Eduen (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: I never suggested that there is consensus within socialism on a single system; a system characterized by "social ownership and control of the means of production" encompasses all of the different socialist systems, including all of the ones that you just touched upon. In other words "social ownership and control of the means of production" is shared in common among all of the different socialist systems, and is what qualifies these different systems as being socialist.[20][21]
- I will remind user Vrrajkum for the 1000th time that also neither the Chinese nor the Cuban Communist parties advocate an economy on complete "social ownership" of the means of production anymore. The case of the Chinese Communist Party matters here especially since it is the contemporary largest socialist party in the world. As far as the particular case of the british Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn has said that his party lost its way after the 1980s. So he could be considered according to you logic also a socialist. The fact is that european socialist and social democrat parties are in a big way composed of people like Corbyn who have not liked the way their parties have behaved in recent decades but they will both stay in their parties and call themselves socialists. The article deals with the so called social democrat "Third way" so this issue is dealt well within the article. --Eduen (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Besides the libertarian socialists will think leninists are not socialists but "state capitalists" so this is not the only controversy within socialism on whether some tendency is "socialist" or not. There is also a book called The Cleanest Race which argues that North Korea is not a socialist or communist country anymore but that it has to be seen as a fascist regime.--Eduen (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- I will remind user Eduen for the 1001st time that "social ownership" does not mean "state ownership" and also includes other forms such as "cooperative ownership". You are right that the Chinese and Cuban Communist parties are not advocating an economy of complete "social ownership", because they are not advocating for socialist economies. Also, I'm not sure what "logic" of mine you are referring to, but as I have had to try and impart to you the correct definition of "social ownership" countless times now it's clear that you don't understand much of what I say. Vrrajkum (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Vrajkum, some ways "socialists [have] realize[d] their commitment to creating a different, [more] egalitarian society" is to support universal suffrage, universal health care, old age security, minimum wage laws, and ending slavery and child labor.
The Labour Party constitution reflects that: "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."
As Eduard Bernstein wrote, "I have extraordinarily little interest or taste for what is generally called the "final goal of Socialism." This aim, whatever it be, is nothing to me, the movement is everything."
And you never answered the question of how to treat the Communist Manifesto. It does not advocate socialism as you define it, which means that the Socialist movement predates advocacy of socialism by Socialists.
TFD (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
By this point it seems that according to user Vrrajkum socialism has never existed anywhere.--Eduen (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- If user Eduen insists on including "or social control" in the lead sentence, then by the same logic I can insist that we amend "social ownership" to say "social and/or state ownership" since we have reliable sources citing state/public ownership of the means of production as the definition of socialism. Of course, that would not encompass all the models of socialism... but nether would "social control" (which is ambiguous and isn't even discussed or given a meaning in the body of the article!). Eduen is clearly trying to push a non-neutral point-of-view and has become a roadblock to improvements to this article. And to answer user Eduen, unless one considers the Soviet-type economic model or Yugoslav economic to be socialism, then no socialism has thus far not existed on any meaningful scale. -Battlecry 00:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: The goals of universal suffrage and greater egalitarianism within capitalism have not been achieved by social ownership or a socialist system, so we cannot say that these are achievements of socialism per se. Socialism requires that certain ends be achieved using distinct socialist processes (commonly identified as "social ownership" and/or as "production for use" in place of the profit system). Furthermore, the fundamental goals of socialism - eliminating inequality based on capital ownership (or eliminating class distinctions, in Marxist parlance) and creating a superior economic mechanism as the basis for a society free of wage labor has yet to be achieved in any large scale. I refer you to the following source to highlight my first point: [22] -Battlecry 00:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- The fact is that you have a sentence after that saying that social ownership is not the same as state ownership. User Battlecry keeps on wanting to sell socialism as communism either of the no-state or of the statist type. On the other hand just because someone comes and proposes something, it does not mean it necessarely is an improvement. It could well be something that will ruin a good article. As far as the ONE socialist economic system user Battlecry has accepted that it has never existed. As such what has existed is the socialist political movement and so this article should focus on that but also it should mention the economic debates inside it. It already does that.
- As far as "it certainly presupposes, at a minimum, the belief that these ends and values cannot be achieved in an economic system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production" i will say that both social democracy and mutualism/left wing market anarchism defend small businesses and self employment as good sane forms of earning a living. These are also "private ownership" in a sense yet in a big part they are family or small societies. Even according to Mr. Marx, capitalism does not exist merely where there is private property and a market. Capitalism needs also the salaried relationship. If that is not present it is not capitalism. Also many places in countries where there has been an agrarian reform have small peasant farms with no or very few salaried situations as the main form of working in the rural areas. They will then sell their products in small markets. That is not capitalism either. Is that "social ownership"?--Eduen (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- I never claimed that socialism equals communism. The sources indicate that contemporary social democracy is not socialist because it does not advocate a socialist system to achieve its ends. Further, "social ownership" refers to a wide variety of forms, but Marx and many other economists initially took this to imply that market exchange in the means of production would cease and be replaced by some form of "planning" (or non-market allocation) under the view that a single entity cannot engage in "market exchange" with itself. Market socialism then arose as a distinct and widely-accepted concept, either as a transitional form and later as full-fledged model of socialism, which had a role for factor markets for allocating capital goods between socially-owned enterprises. And yes, according to Marx capitalism is not simply defined as "market exchange". It involves the existence of capital and the process of capital accumulation directing production (aka, the profit system) which in his view (and in the view's of his critics such as Mises) entailed private or sectional ownership of the means of production. The article already touches upon these two forms of socialism (market and non-market). But it is clear that you have no idea what these terms imply and what "social ownership" historically meant how its definition broadened to become inclusive of autonomous cooperatives. You also fail to understand that the term "control" or "controlled economy" refers to a command economy and NOT to worker cooperatives... there are no sources I can find that defined "control of an economy" or "control of the means of production" (See Abba Lerner's The Economics of Control: Principles of Welfare Economics) or "social control" as cooperatives. -Battlecry 01:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- You cited The Necessity of Social Control by István Mészáros, unfortunately the source material provided does not define "social control" as any form of ownership. The author is using it to refer to a sociological concept of social control that exists within capitalism in some form, and will also continue to exist in a new form under socialism. This is hardly suitable to include as the definition of socialism. -Battlecry 01:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have never suggested that "social control means worker´s cooperatives. Social control will also happen in a totally statizised economy since they will have to plan and direct the enterprises towards certain goals. Also i advice user Battlecry to go to other sources besides those of socialist economics. Since you have admitted that your "socialist economic system" has never existed then we can very well know that the focus should be on the politics.--Eduen (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Battlecry, you are correct that "The goals of universal suffrage and greater egalitarianism within capitalism have not been achieved by social ownership or a socialist system." That's because socialism is not social ownership or a socialist system but a political movement and ideology that identifies social problems, sees them as caused by capitalism and seeks collective action to address them. Socialists believe that ending slavery and providing universal suffrage would make society more egalitarian, which is the primary objective of socialism, at least in theory.
- Social democratic parties participated in the governments of the Scandinavian countries and helped contribute to the emergence of the Nordic model. But this model is not universally recognized as a "socialist system", it is recognized as a form of capitalism. Further, these policies failed to create a truly distinct form of society or economic system than those of capitalism. As for your question regarding the Communist Manifesto, I am not sure why my views on that document have any relevance to this discussion. -Battlecry 02:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- No it is not a socialist system but it was government by socialists following socialist principles. But that is not the issue we are discussing. The question is "What should be the topic of this article?" You keep repeating your position without providing any justification.
- The question about Marx is certainly relevant. Because your narrow definition will mean we have to exclude most of what mainstream sources consider socialist, including the Communist Manifesto, since the authors failed to meet your criteria for being socialists (at least when they wrote that book.) So when did the Marx and Engels become socialists? We need to know that for the article.
- TFD (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
So are you are asking for my personal definition of socialism? My understanding of socialism is a socio-economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and, in its more comprehensive form, a system that operates under a different set of economic dynamics than those of capitalism. I also include within the definition movements that predict, aim to bring about, or advocate for such a system. This is similar to the definition given on Wikipedia - it is also incomplete because we have to define what exactly "social ownership", "means of production" and (if we include) "social control" specifically mean. Hypothetically anyone who believes in the possibility of a post-capitalist economic system based on some form of social ownership is a socialist in my view; but I also recognize that even though many people may give lip service to socialism, in actuality they haven't truly grappled with the concept and ramifications of replacing capitalism with a socialist system, or even know how to bring it about. The Communist Manifesto is a document written by socialists criticizing capitalism, summarizing Marx's views of class struggle for a wide audience, and arguing for socialism/communism as the culmination of contradictions under capitalism. It is not a work describing a socialist system or what a post-capitalist society would look like, so if that is what you are asking, then no it is not a work about socialism in that sense. Marx's main contribution to socialist thought was his analysis and critique of capitalism - his understanding of socialism emerging from contradictions within capitalism as opposed to being an ideal envisioned by thinkers striving to create a "morally just" or "egalitarian" society. But it is widely understood that Marx offered little in the way of conceptualizing how socialism would function.[23] -Battlecry 04:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- You keep repeating your claim that socialism as you define it is the primary topic and never explain why you think it is. [Battlecry says, "socialism is a socio-economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production...." I heard it, I understand it, no need to repeat it.]
- The Communist Manifesto presents a series of demands and says that the only difference between them and other working class parties is that they represent the whole working class in all countries. Most of these demands have now been met by most Western governments, such as free education, central banks and graduated income taxes. It does not meet your definition of socialism.
- TFD (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: The demands in the Communist Manifesto do not constitute socialism, they are practical reforms ("immediate demands") that Marx believed were applicable to the developed capitalist countries at the time. They certainly don't represent Marx's vision of the realization of socialism, which entailed an end to the capitalist law of value. Do note that a number of these measures - free education, for example, but excluding Marx's call for state ownership - have been advocated by thinkers as diverse as Adam Smith and most thinkers who favor a capitalist economy and subscribe to a classical or modern liberal outlook. To get a better idea of Marx's concept of socialism and communism (which he used interchangeably at the time, note that just because Marx uses them interchangeably doesn't mean that I do), you should read Marx's Vision of Communism by Bertrand Ollman, who gathers together all of Marx's major scattered works on the subject. -Battlecry 05:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
User Battlecry´s edit wars
User Battlecry says "You have no consensus for your changes in the talk page. This page does not exist for you to propagate your personal views."
If user Battlecry does not achieve consensus, he can definitely resort to edit warring. But i will have to remind user Battlecry that on this he only has "a consensus" with user Vrajkum. User TFD also has opposed reducing this article to communism. I will suggest user Battecry to stop lying in his explanations for supporting his edit wars.--Eduen (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is no consensus to define socialism as "social control". I don't recall User:The Four Deuces agreeing with you specifically on that point either, and Vrajkuum and Helios932 were in agreement with my position on this. -Battlecry 01:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- "...Socialism in one form or another has been one of the world's chief ideologies for almost two centuries now. To turn this article into some kind of variant edition of articles like socialist state or socialist mode of production would be grossly inappropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)"
- No one here is trying to reduce the article to discuss Marxist-Leninist Socialist states or the specifically Marxian notion of the socialist mode of production. Those are words you continue to put into other editors' mouths. On the other hand, trying to reduce socialism to mean the policies of social democratic parties and their ethical doctrines is grossly inappropriate and tantamount to historical revisionism. -Battlecry 01:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Again, for the millionth time, this article is not about the policies of socialist parties which may have nothing to do with socialism or might simply reflect what is currently politically fashionable. The subject of the article is the concept of socialism itself. -Battlecry 02:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- No. We need to greatly reduce the History section and restore the lead as a start. If you do not cease continuously putting words in my mouth and accusing me (and other editors) of things I never proposed, as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks I will report you for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. This goes for your unilateral decision to delete material on the Soviet Union and your inclusion of "social control" as THE definition of socialism in the lead when most users in previous discussions on this talk page were in agreement that "social control" is vague and never clearly defined by any source. -Battlecry 02:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@Eduen: Where are you getting the idea that anyone is trying to reduce socialism to communism? Vrrajkum (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- And now come the threats. You simply have to learn how to get a consensus. If you can´t get it you just don´t have to assume that it is personal. Just improve your arguments and your references. And remember that your dissagreements are not only with me so don´t focus on me. More users have come here to dissagree with you so don´t think that i am your only obstacle for your proposals and this can be seen by anyone. Both "social control" and "social ownership" can be seen as vague. And this especially if you and user Vrrajkum are suggesting that social ownership is not only state or community ownership but according to you also cooperatives even though i argued that whether something is a property of a single person or of a small group that thing is not of the community or of the country or of society and so clearly "social ownership" calls more to something that is owned by a society and not by a group or a person inside it. As far as your wishes for saying things about the Soviet Union first try to get a consensus on incluiding something on that and then try to get an agreement on the text that will go there. Simply adding what you wanted in the way you wanted brough you reversals and criticisms and they were not only by me. So i suggest you relax a little bit.--Eduen (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- The only person who has consistently failed to get consensus for your version of the lead is you. Almost every other editor has agreed that "social ownership" is more neutral, all-encompassing and better-sourced than the ambiguous "social control" for defining socialism; and as far as I can tell every editor aside from you has agreed that we at least need to mention the Soviet economic model in the lead due to its historical significance. -Battlecry 06:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@Eduen: Social ownership is by no means vague, and is, in fact, very clearly defined by the following sources to include cooperative ownership:
- "A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialized or cooperative enterprises."[11]
- "In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialised ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity."[24]
I have now presented these sources which irrefutably refute your absurd, unsourced claim that "social ownership" is limited to state or community ownership multiple times. Your continued promotion of your own unilateral interpretation (which you have not provided any sources for) in defiance of these sources could indeed be construed as disruptive.
Social control is not clearly defined by any sources, but TFD provides us with a definition that is intuitively logical:
- "Social control means control by the people, not necessarily the government and certainly not the government if the government itself is not socially controlled."
- This is why I prefer "social ownership and democratic control," as it's less confusing for readers. Socialist journalist/activist Upton Sinclair, among others, defined socialism as such.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Your own interpretation of "social control" and the sources that you have brought for it treat "social control" in sociological terms, not in the economic sense of "social control" over the means of production. We have some sources which suggest that socialism necessarily entails (economic) social control over the means of production,[25][26] and if we choose to include "social control" in the definition of socialism then TFD's definition is the definition that we should use.
With respect to the Soviet Union, myself, Battlecry, Helios932, and Capitalismojo agree that it should be mentioned in the lead. You and TFD disagree. Orangemike's position is not clear. This gives us a 4:2:1 consensus that the Soviet Union belongs in the lead and I have reinserted it. Vrrajkum (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Eduen, the sources are clear that social ownership can include cooperatives as mentioned in Busky's book.[6] He provides the examples of housing co-ops and credit unions. Cooperatives were a feature of Communist states and the Soviet Union had collective farming. You are right though the terms can be seen as vague. One can argue whether any of these examples are really socially owned. Cooperative ownship also featured in capitalist states - mutual insurance companies, parterships of lawyers, accountants and even bankers, and luxury flats, but would not be considered socially owned.
- You are right that social ownership can be seen as vague. But we do not have to determine which co-ops are socially owned. We only need to explain what various sources said about them.
- I think too the Soviet Union should be mentioned in the lead, I just question the extent. Sources generally treat Communism as separating from Socialism between 1912 and 1919. So this article should concentrate on Socialist parties, while the Communism article should concentrate on Communist parties.
- TFD (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- So then if we are going to include a small mention (make it smaller than the proposal by Battlecry, this intro is very long), then we have to reach a consensus as far as the text that will go. Battlecry´s text pays to much attention to the particular views of (certain)economists when something good can very well come on the Soviet Union from more general works on socialism.--Eduen (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Communism is historically "scientific socialism", it would be absurd to attempt to remove the (arguably) largest branch of socialist thought from the socialism page. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Libertarian communists says the Soviet Union was never a communist situation but state capitalism. Anyway, if we are going to mention the USSR in the intro it will have to be as small and as neutral point of view as possible.--Eduen (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: You are the only one who objects to the treatment of the Soviet Union that Battlecry and I produced. Bear in mind that just because you object does not mean that there is not a consensus, as we established with the discussions about Encyclopedia Brittanica and whether or not the Soviet Union belongs in the lead. Vrrajkum (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: With respect to what you put to me a bit further up:
- "Vrajkum, some ways "socialists [have] realize[d] their commitment to creating a different, [more] egalitarian society" is to support universal suffrage, universal health care, old age security, minimum wage laws, and ending slavery and child labor."
This is indeed a more egalitarian society, but it is not a fundamentally different society. Again, the achievements of people who label themselves "socialist" while advocating for the maintenance of capitalistic property relations encompass exactly the destruction and dilution of the word "socialism" that Ulli Diemer was referring to when he said that "‘Socialism’ has become another name for capitalism, another form of capitalism: in ‘victory’, socialism has been more totally buried than it ever could have been in defeat,"[27] among some of his other remarks. Consider this other source:
- "[Socialism] is harder to define, since socialists disagree among themselves about what socialism ‘really is.’ It would seem that everyone (socialists and nonsocialists alike) could at least agree that it is not a system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production…To be a socialist is not just to believe in certain ends, goals, values, or ideals. It also requires a belief in a certain institutional means to achieve those ends; whatever that may mean in positive terms, it certainly presupposes, at a minimum, the belief that these ends and values cannot be achieved in an economic system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production…Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system."[28]
In other words, this source contends that being a socialist necessarily involves advocating the establishment of a "socialist economic system" as an "institutional means to achieve [socialist] ends", and that "[socialist] ends and values cannot be achieved in [a non-socialist economic system]". Busky also suggests that the establishment of a socialist economic system must be the ultimate goal of the socialist movement: "Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy."[29]
With respect to The Communist Manifesto, I am still working through it but note that it contains this sentence:
- "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."[30]
Which is incompatible with any sort of retention of capitalistic enterprises and does indeed imply the establishment of a socialist and/or communist economy as the culminating goal of the ideology. Vrrajkum (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen, Vrrajkum, The Four Deuces, C.J. Griffin, and Capitalismojo: Given that "social control" is not clearly defined and can be misconstrued to mean a variety of entirely distinct concepts (ranging from workers' self-management of enterprises to society-wide economic planning or even government regulation of a capitalistic economy, or most confusingly to a sociological concept) and the fact that we don't have any sources clearly defining "social control", I propose we amend the opening sentence to read as "social ownership of the means of production". I am also open to User:C.J._Griffin's suggestion to replacing "social control" with "democratic control" or "democratic management" - or even "self-management" (since we have a page on Workers' self-management that defines the concept as a broad category of management practices that have historically been supported by socialists ranging from anarchists to Communists), but I would like to hear other editors' thoughts on this.
- I also want to make something clear about mentioning the Soviet-type economic system in the lead: I am not talking about mentioning specific political views, or disputing the Soviet state's ideology. I am talking about mentioning only facts - that the Soviet Union was the world's first official socialist state, that socialism came to be associated with its economic system, and that many intellectuals and economists have pointed out that, regardless of the aims of the Soviet state, the Soviet-type economic system actually functioned on a hierarchical basis, with informal bargaining among enterprises as opposed to any model of consistent planning, and lacked meaningful worker participation. This is not an ideological statement and does not take any side in the ideological dispute between Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists, or between Libertarian socialists and Social anarchists - which I would argue is inappropriate for the lead. My approach to writing the lead sections of articles is to provide descriptions of the concepts and briefly cover major developments that are relevant to the concept (such as the USSR's economic system), while leaving further expositions of controversies to be discussed in the article's body. I thus propose the following for the lead:
- While the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally socialist state led to socialism's widespread association with the Soviet economic model, many economists and intellectuals argue that the Soviet economic model actually represented a form of state capitalism or a non-planned "command" or "managed" economy in practice. -Battlecry 06:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Being a socialist requires one advocate socialism in place of capitalism. But being a member of a Socialist party does not require one be a small-s socialist. -Battlecry 08:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- No it means adhering to what socialism is defined as in reliable sources. And to be included, we need reliable sources that identify groups as socialist. I have provided sources and you have provided none. We need to adhere to policies and guidelines which require that we use sources and do not invent our own definitions. TFD (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Againt user Battlecry. Social ownership is just as vague as social control. If cooperatives are "social ownership" then corporate law firms which are associations of lawyers are "social ownership". As such socialism means social control on the use value of enterprises and their service to society, whether owned by a private group or by an private individual or by the state. Also i oppose the specific proposal of mention of Soviet Union by user Battlecry since it is not in neutral point of view since it does not include the points of view of democratic socialists/social democrats and since it gives too much importance to the single views of economists.--Eduen (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Arnold writes, "The definition of a socialist economic system also requires the socialization or social ownership of the means of production." He does not say socialism requires the advocacy of a socialist economic system. Busky writes, "Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy." But he does not say how, when or how much. Presumably New Labour's "stakeholder democracy" would fit the bill. His book includes all the non-Communist Socialist parties.
But we have already agreed that socialism can have different definitions. What we need is a source that explains which definitions are most often used, which the Historical Dictionary of Socialism does.
TFD (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: We have sources clearly defining social ownership. Social ownership does imply that the surplus product accrue to society as a whole or the workers of an enterprise; that's what distinguishes social from private ownership. "Control" tends to refer to management of the economy or individual firms. You have yet to provide us with a source clearly defining "social control". Private ownership with "social control" (egalitarian management? state regulation?) does not constitute socialism, which implies social ownership (the surplus product belongs to society/workers). Again, I will ask you to refrain from re-inserting "social control" into the lead until you can gain a consensus. As it currently stands, you are the only user pushing for this definition. In response to your comment on my proposal for the Soviet Union's inclusion into the lead, we are not going to include your personal "social democratic" view of the Soviet Union into the lead. The proposal I provided is neutral and only describes the processes of the Soviet system, and does not succumb to any political tendency (this is another reason we need to focus defining the lead as socialism as a concept and system and leave political controversies out of it - we can't possibly satisfy every single so-called "socialist" perspective, we have to focus on facts and describing processes and characteristics, leaving expositions of major controversies to the body of the lead).
- @TFD: "Socialism" is used synonymously with "socialist system" and "socialist economic system". We should avoid confusing terminology like "egalitarian society" in the lead - that is an ideal socialists hope to achieve, but note it can mean a range of different things from absolute equality to the Marxian notion of a classless society (which is not egalitarian, as Marxists reject egalitarianism as a liberal concept). Discussion of the various goals of the socialist movement should not be presented as the definition of socialism or a socialist system, though they do need to be mentioned in the body of the article. -Battlecry 00:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless, all definitions highlight an economy based on social ownership of the means of production as the defining feature of socialism, and this form of society/economy is what the socialist movement aims to achieve. This is the common defining feature in all our definitions, regardless of whether or not the system/society or the ideology/movement is emphasized more. -Battlecry 01:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: The citation of Busky's work does not specifically mention socialist parties, it mentions the socialist movement. The movement is currently mentioned in the first sentence of the lead as a definition of socialism alongside mentioning the economic concept and I have no problem with the inclusion of the socialist movement. Right now I would like to seek consensus on the wording used to describe socialism - social ownership and control, or social ownership and "democratic control" - and see if someone can provide a well-souced definition of "social control" and its relation to socialism. -Battlecry 05:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- You are taking a quote out of context. You obviously did not read the book, do not care what it says and are only quoting it because it appears to you to support what you believe. Busky identifies the Labour Party and other socialist parties as socialist, but obviously you did not read the book beyond your cherry-picked sound-bite. Incidentally, I have read the book and brought it to RSN four years ago. See Greenwood Publishing Group and Further call for comments, Busky on American Left. TFD (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand what the classification of the Labour Party (as socialist or social democratic or anything else) has to do with anything. The Labour Party may very well be a de jure socialist party, but that doesn't mean this article needs to discuss their major policies or the divisions within said party because that is irrelevant to discussing socialism (either as an economic system or a political movement). Again, the policies of a self-described "socialist" party don't represent socialism anymore than the policies of the US Democratic party define the concept of democracy. -Battlecry 10:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- You are taking a quote out of context. You obviously did not read the book, do not care what it says and are only quoting it because it appears to you to support what you believe. Busky identifies the Labour Party and other socialist parties as socialist, but obviously you did not read the book beyond your cherry-picked sound-bite. Incidentally, I have read the book and brought it to RSN four years ago. See Greenwood Publishing Group and Further call for comments, Busky on American Left. TFD (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: The citation of Busky's work does not specifically mention socialist parties, it mentions the socialist movement. The movement is currently mentioned in the first sentence of the lead as a definition of socialism alongside mentioning the economic concept and I have no problem with the inclusion of the socialist movement. Right now I would like to seek consensus on the wording used to describe socialism - social ownership and control, or social ownership and "democratic control" - and see if someone can provide a well-souced definition of "social control" and its relation to socialism. -Battlecry 05:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Busky'a book does not describe Labour as merely "self-described" socialist, it says it is an actual socialist party. And Busky devotes most of the chapter on "Democratic Socialism in Great Britain and Ireland" to it. If you think your source is in error, why do you insist we use it? TFD (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- The definition of "social ownership" is so unclear in this intro that the current text says is "public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity". So social ownership clearly is a very confusing concept in this intro. As far as "citizen ownership of equity" clearly is a word of intellectuals and something no social or political movement uses. And so still user Battlecry has not given a good reason why we should not think of corporate lawyer´s firms which have a form of equal association as "social ownership". According to Battlecry those corporate lawyers are "socialist". The important category here is social control since even Cuba and China have stopped putting in practice an economy of total "social ownership". User Battlecry seems to want to suggest the only true socialists are North Korea. And on top he keeps insisting in his economicistic and idealistic definition of socialism with all this talk of his non-existing "socialist economic system" even though he has also accepted that each socialist tendency has proposed a different one. Lets also remember that not even the anarchists on themselves agree on a single one and also clearly the marxists don´t have a single one either. As far as the mention of the Soviet Union in the intro, lets see more proposals from other users since the particular one by user Battlecry is very restricted and wants us to put economists in an altar where we can honor them as the only ones who have reliable knowledge in social and political matters. If we don´t see another proposal i don´t think we can have a mention of that in the intro. Anyway that will be great in my opinion since this intro is already too long.--Eduen (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: You astound me. You are literally the ONLY individual who is confused by the term "social ownership", despite having MULTIPLE people explain it to you MULTIPLE times. It is very clearly defined as "public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these", which is by no means confusing and is very clear to everyone except you. With respect to corporate law firms, they are not cooperatives if secretaries, paralegals, and other subordinate staff are not joint owners of the firm and are instead subject to capitalistic relations.
- You mind-bogglingly continue to ignore the fact that "social ownership" is well-sourced as the defining characteristic of socialism and insist on promoting your unsupported viewpoint that socialism is instead vaguely defined by "social control," which you have not provided any definition for and are instead using in a manner that contradicts the definition that TFD gave us. Cuba, China, and North Korea NEVER had economies of "total social ownership," as I will adapt TFD's definition of social control to read that 'social ownership means ownership by the people, not necessarily the government and certainly not the government if the government itself is not under social ownership.'
- You also do not appear to understand the very simple fact that although there are many different socialist economic systems, they all have social ownership and democratic control of the means of production in common. Furthermore, if not for you, we would have a unanimous consensus to include the Soviet Union in the lead; you are the only one nonsensically objecting to Battlecry's treatment and the only one who continuously removes it from the intro.
- You are beyond any doubt a disruptive, rogue editor who does not appear to read what anyone else writes, has no interest in the consensus of other editors, and simply seeks to impose your own ludicrous views on the article, despite the fact that NO ONE else agrees with them. Vrrajkum (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Ownership by the people". That is a vague as one can get. The "people" have to be represented by something, either by the communal government or by a state. Still clearly cooperatives are not owned "by the people" but by a particular group of persons, not by "society". As such social control is the key term here since cooperatives can exist even in an environment of total neoliberal deregulation since cooperatives are mainly for profit organizations just as any other private enterprise. As far as user Vrrajkum he decided to "disagree" with the Encyclopedia Britannica thinking we should trust him more on a subject.--Eduen (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- But lets also take into account what is happening here. User Vrrajkum says i am the only one not agreeing with him and user Battlecry yet anyone can see in this thread of discussion the dissagreements that he and user Vrrajkum have also with user TFD. As such he should be more careful in analysing situations here. The last disagreement between user TFD and user Battlecry is on the nonexistent single socialist economic system that user Battlecry says that it exists.--Eduen (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree there is ambiguity in what constitutes social ownership, but that is a general problem with the definition of socialism. There is also ambiguity about social control. Liberals could argue that there already is social ownership and control of the means of production in the U.S. But that is a problem with the definition of socialism, not something we can resolve. Where I continue to disagree with V and B is that I do not see mainstream definitions of socialism as requiring any threshold of the amount of social ownership and/or control they must advocate. TFD (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nove's source states that a society may be described as socialist if the major part of its means of production are socially-owned. That's typically how I think of socialism and capitalism - that the major part of the means of production be owned socially (or privately in the case of the latter), not that either system requires total social/private ownership.
- In economics there is a distinction between ownership (income rights) and control rights (management). If we are taking "social control" to mean management (we still don't have any source specifically defining "social control"), then social control in this sense by itself does not constitute socialism. An enterprise might be privately-owned but controlled/managed by its employees or the state, but this is not socialism. On the contrary, an enterprise might be owned by its employees or the state but not managed by its workforce or the state (with autonomous management) and still be "socialist". Social ownership by itself (or social ownership AND control) are clearly more relevant to socialism than "social control" in this sense by itself. -Battlecry 02:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, it will always be a matter of opinion whether there is social ownership and/or control. Nove says for example, "Trotsky, too, spoke of ‘the lower stage of communism or socialism’, even while denying that Stalin’s Russia had reached that stage." But the issue we have been discussing is the topic of the article, whether it should be about the socialist ideology and movement or a hypothetical state that is a transition between capitalism and communism. As I already mentioned, we have the anomaly that socialism can refer to an ideology or a system, while we have separate terms for liberalism and capitalism. TFD (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD:
- "On the face of it, the dispute [between capitalism and socialism] seems to be about economic systems. However, some writers have used the terms 'capitalism' more broadly to refer to a society in its entirety or even to a culture. 'Socialism' has sometimes been used in a similar way, and it has also been used to refer to a social movement. Using these terms in such broad ways serves to emphasize the interdependence of social institutions and the interconnectedness of social phenomena generally. Though these interrelations and interconnections can hardly be denied, one problem with understanding these terms so broadly is that the dispute becomes very difficult to evaluate, since the objects of discussion are entire societies, cultures, or social movements and not just economic systems.
- The most natural alternative--and the one that will be adopted in this book--is to think of capitalism and socialism as economic systems. This way of understanding the subject matter of this dispute has a long and impressive historical pedigree and a high degree of contemporary relevance. On this understanding, the dispute between those who favor capitalism and those who favor socialism is a dispute about economic systems..." [The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism]
- Arnold suggests that the word 'socialism' is primarily used to refer to an economic system, but that socialism as a movement and socialism as a system are interdependent (which is what Battlecry and I argue); he further contends that if the socialist movement and socialist system are not treated jointly, that treating socialism as an economic system is "the most natural alternative." Also, I am not sure whether or not you read above that Arnold also argues that "To be a socialist is not just to believe in certain ends, goals, values, or ideals. It also requires a belief in a certain institutional means to achieve those ends... belief that these ends and values cannot be achieved in an economic system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production," which implies that being a socialist requires advocating that the majority of an economy be under social ownership and control. Nove explicitly says this as Battlecry noted, and furthermore The Communist Manifesto does indeed advocate that "capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society."[31]
- Also, I reiterate that socialism does not imply that a state would exist in some form. Busky notes that social anarchism is "a nonstate form of socialism", a point which I've already made. Furthermore, socialism being an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism is a Marxist notion; there are non-Marxist socialists who believe that socialism is a final stage in and of itself. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- More broadly, Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines do not necessarily compel us to separate socialism as an ideology and socialism as a system. As Arnold notes, they are interconnected and intertwined; they are not two discrete entities that merely have a name and/or other characteristics in common the way that American football and football (soccer) are. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- ou quote Arnold as saying socialism sometimes is used to refer to a society in its entirety. Quite true. The issue is which use is more common. See for example a Google books search for socialism. The majority of hits are for socialism the ideology and movement. Even Busky, whom you quote, devotes his entire book to socialist parties that do not meet your version of socialism. DISAMBIG says, "Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics...the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic." Certainly the socialist society is a subtopic of socialism. It should be mentioned here and have its own article. But this should not be the primary article. TFD (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is no single socialist economic system. There is only a very plural socialist political movement. As far as user Vrrajkum reverting my edition i don´t know why he wants to unite the sources for social control and social ownership. Each of these things has their own source yet he keeps reverting my editions suggesting that i am deleting social ownership. This is simply lying.--Eduen (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: I quote Arnold as saying that an economic system is the salient conception of socialism, and that "societies, cultures, or social movements" are less notable usages of the word 'socialism' than an economic system is. Therefore a socialist economic system should be the general topic for an article on the term 'socialism'.
- This is what user Vrrajkum put as a reason for his edit warring with me: "There is consensus on the talk page that "social ownership" includes cooperatives and is the defining characteristic of a socialist economic system, as supported by cited sources"
- I ask this user ¿where in the text there is being said that cooperatives are social ownership? Nowhere. And so if that is not being said it is impossible that i erased anything mentioning that in the text on the intro. As such you are lying or you simply were not paying attention to what you were writing. I only wanted to keep the references separate for "social ownership" and for "social control" since this has been an important subject of debate here. Nevertheless user Vrrajkum wants to unite them for some reason which he should explain to us here.
- On another subject if you are accepting up here that there is no single "socialist economic system" then how can you support keeping the current text which defines socialism primarely as an economic system. Which economic system of the various proposed by the different tendencies are you talking about? And if we are talking about the system proposed by the anarchists and by the stalinists we are talking about almost contrary systems since the first want no state and the second want everything to be owned by the highly centralized state. As such my proposal is : "Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish an egalitarian society through the means of social ownership and/or social control of the means of production." This also since the subject of the political system under socialism is also an important matter of debate inside socialism. As such the stalinists want a personalistic totalitarian hyperstatist regime while the libertarian socialists want federations of communes while the social democrats want a parliamentary democracy. This is whay we should not reduce this subject to an economicistic definition. The issue of the political system is just as important and in some cases more important than the issue of economics.--Eduen (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- You are misquoting Arnold. He does not say the socialist movement is less notable than the socialist society, he says it is a broader concept. Certainly the writings of Marx and Lenin, and political parties from the CPSU to New Labour are more notable than the hypothetical society and anyway DISAMBIG says the primary article should be about the broader concept. And certainly the election in Burma is more notable than obscure debates about the socialist society. TFD (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- The article has to address both the economic concept/system of "socialism" as well as the political movement and economic/political ideologies associated with "socialism". Marx and Lenin clearly distinguished between the socialist (post-capitalist) social formation and practical reforms within capitalism, even though they argued there would be some overlap during the transition period, it would be highly NPoV to overly focus on the practical reforms and policies implemented (or advocated) by social democratic/socialist parties. Whether we are discussing the economic concept or the political movement, "socialism" centers around the notion(s) of social ownership and post-capitalist socioeconomic formations.
- In response to Eduen, aside from addressing your same nonsensical rants ad nauseum, you are trying to define socialism by hoped for outcomes. We don't define systems by what some of its advocates hope will be the outcome of said system - we define them by their actual processes and characteristics. "Egalitarianism" or "equality" is a highly contentious term that can mean many different things, many of which socialists disagree with (Marx for example rejected egalitarianism as an idealistic concept). Because there are so many different possible reasons people have advocated socialism, this discussion and its controversies are best left to the body of the article. It would be highly NPoV to define "capitalism" as an economic theory that aims to establish a 'free society' through private ownership, for example, since that is not a universal defining characteristic of capitalism many advocates of capitalism would probably disagree with this hoped-for outcome that right-libertarians and economic liberals believe is essential to the definition of capitalism. -Battlecry 01:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course it must mention both. The problem is that you define it narrowly so as to remove most socialism. And Marx did support egalitarianism. TFD (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
User Vrrajkum´s confusion between social ownership and social control
- Someone changed "control" to "democratic control" in the opening sentence, but this does not appear to be a well-sourced modification. Would changing "democratic control" to "workers' self-management" be more encompassing, because that is a broad concept that has been championed by a wide variety of socialists that has its own page with an overview of the concepts' meaning. "Self-management" is basically democratic control of an organization by its members/workforce, which in some form of another, is considered to be a defining characteristic of socialist institutions. -Battlecry 01:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- If this were the article on libertarian socialism then the edition of user Vrrajkum will make sense as far as suggesting that social control means workers control of enterprises. The fact is that this is the socialism article and clearly stalinists and social democrats are not really that much committed to workers control of enterprises. The references use "social control" in the sense of planning of the economy for collective social or "democratic" ends. User Vrrajkum clearly is confusing things here and this view of his is not being supported by the references. Stalinists clearly want everything to be owned by the state and managed by state administrators while socialdemocrats did have at some points some initiatives towards workers control of enterprises but they have mostly gone towards having a strong welfare state and planning of the economy as well as favouring small and medium sized private enterprises. I thought that the point of "social ownership" was to include both state nationalized ownership and workers cooperatives inside that. Social control clearly is meant in the references as state or collective planning of thte economy whether the majority of enterprises are privately owned (both by large capitalists or small private bussinesses) or state owned (soviet and maoist planning of a totally nationalized economy) or owned by the local commune (anarcho-communism which is critical of bakuninist "workers ownership" of enterprises). Clearly we have to wait for user Vrrajkum to come clarify this. As the intro stands now it is unsupported by the references it uses. But also it is strange that user Vrrajkum was thinking this in his edit wars with me. It happens that user Battlecry was not thinking the same thing as that other user.--Eduen (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@Battlecry: I was the one who changed "control" to "democratic control" using C. J. Griffin's sources, as this sidesteps the issue of our not having any sources that explicitly define 'social control' in relation to socialism and is more intuitive for readers, as CJG said. I linked the words "democratic control" to workers' self-management, which I think should suffice.
@TFD: He implies that the socialist movement is less relevant to discussing the topic of 'socialism' than the economic system is; sorry if "notable" wasn't the best word, I was tired. Arnold suggests that the salient dispute between proponents of capitalism and proponents of socialism is generally conceived to be ("on the face of it") a dispute between "abstract types of economic systems," which supports the notion that an economic system is the primary meaning of the word 'socialism'. He notes that while BOTH 'capitalism' and 'socialism' have "sometimes been used" to refer to concepts broader than just economic systems, he suggests that such broad usages do not represent the primary usages of the terms, and that reducing them to economic systems better acknowledges their primary meanings. I am not arguing for such a reduction on this article, but WP:D says that the primary meaning of a term should be the 'general topic' of an article.
With respect to Marx and Lenin, certainly they advocated achieving a socialist system as a replacement for a capitalist system.
@Eduen: "This is what user Vrrajkum put as a reason for his edit warring with me: "There is consensus on the talk page that "social ownership" includes cooperatives and is the defining characteristic of a socialist economic system, as supported by cited sources" I ask this user ¿where in the text there is being said that cooperatives are social ownership? Nowhere. And so if that is not being said it is impossible that i erased anything mentioning that in the text on the intro. As such you are lying or you simply were not paying attention to what you were writing."
- The second sentence of the article says that cooperatives are social ownership.
- ""Social ownership" may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these."
- As do the sources that I've shown you multiple times, as well as user TFD:
- You keep arguing that defining socialism exclusively in terms of "social ownership" excludes cooperatives, which it does not.
"I only wanted to keep the references separate for "social ownership" and for "social control" since this has been an important subject of debate here. Nevertheless user Vrrajkum wants to unite them for some reason which he should explain to us here."
- User Battlecry explained above why "social control" does not suffice for the designation of socialism, and that socialism is better qualified in terms of "social ownership" or "social ownership and control".
- "In economics there is a distinction between ownership (income rights) and control rights (management). If we are taking "social control" to mean management (we still don't have any source specifically defining "social control"), then social control in this sense by itself does not constitute socialism. An enterprise might be privately-owned but controlled/managed by its employees or the state, but this is not socialism. On the contrary, an enterprise might be owned by its employees or the state but not managed by its workforce or the state (with autonomous management) and still be "socialist". Social ownership by itself (or social ownership AND control) are clearly more relevant to socialism than "social control" in this sense by itself." -Battlecry 02:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- As Battlecry noted, we do not have any sources which explicitly define 'social control' in relation to socialism, which can cause readers to become confused and is why the leading sentence was rephrased to read "social ownership and democratic control", as this is more intuitive for readers and is less likely to cause confusion.
"On another subject if you are accepting up here that there is no single "socialist economic system" then how can you support keeping the current text which defines socialism primarely as an economic system. Which economic system of the various proposed by the different tendencies are you talking about? And if we are talking about the system proposed by the anarchists and by the stalinists we are talking about almost contrary systems since the first want no state and the second want everything to be owned by the highly centralized state. As such my proposal is : "Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish an egalitarian society through the means of social ownership and/or social control of the means of production." This also since the subject of the political system under socialism is also an important matter of debate inside socialism. As such the stalinists want a personalistic totalitarian hyperstatist regime while the libertarian socialists want federations of communes while the social democrats want a parliamentary democracy. This is whay we should not reduce this subject to an economicistic definition. The issue of the political system is just as important and in some cases more important than the issue of economics."
- The third sentence of the article clearly says that "there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them," but that "social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms." Would you prefer to see the leading sentence be phrased as "Socialism refers to a social and economic system" rather than "Socialism is a social and economic system"? Vrrajkum (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: "If this were the article on libertarian socialism then the edition of user Vrrajkum will make sense as far as suggesting that social control means workers control of enterprises."
- Users TFD, Battlecry, and C. J. Griffin also use "social control" to mean workers' control of enterprises. "Social control means control by the people, not necessarily the government and certainly not the government if the government itself is not socially controlled." TFD (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- "The fact is that this is the socialism article and clearly stalinists and social democrats are not really that much committed to workers control of enterprises."
- Hence why they are not socialists.
- "The references use "social control" in the sense of planning of the economy for collective social or "democratic" ends. User Vrrajkum clearly is confusing things here and this view of his is not being supported by the references."
- How do you know what sense the references use "social control" in? None of them specify.
- "Stalinists clearly want everything to be owned by the state and managed by state administrators while socialdemocrats did have at some points some initiatives towards workers control of enterprises but they have mostly gone towards having a strong welfare state and planning of the economy as well as favouring small and medium sized private enterprises."
- Hence why they are not socialists.
- "I thought that the point of "social ownership" was to include both state nationalized ownership and workers cooperatives inside that."
- It is. Thankfully you seem to be acknowledging that cooperatives are a form of social ownership.
- "Social control clearly is meant in the references as state or collective planning of the economy whether the majority of enterprises are privately owned (both by large capitalists or small private bussinesses) or state owned (soviet and maoist planning of a totally nationalized economy) or owned by the local commune (anarcho-communism which is critical of bakuninist "workers ownership" of enterprises).
- How do you know what sense the references use "social control" in? None of them specify. Also, communism is distinguished from socialism.
- "Clearly we have to wait for user Vrrajkum to come clarify this. As the intro stands now it is unsupported by the references it uses. But also it is strange that user Vrrajkum was thinking this in his edit wars with me. It happens that user Battlecry was not thinking the same thing as that other user."
- To user Vrrajkum i have to respond that this was part of my point between distinguishing between "social ownership" and "social control" and having separate references for those two things. Also i have never argued for erasing "social onwership" as it seems you think about me. My argument was that some socialists favour social ownership (either state, communal or workers ownership) while others mostly just emphasize "social control" understood as having the national or local economy adjust to a social collective plan and objectives whether enterprises are privately or state owned or worker´s owned. As such my argument was for and/or and not for deleting one of those things. But these are two very different things. On the other hand proudnonian mutualists and individualist anarchists/left wing market anarchists don´t want collective social control but they will fit inside some sort of consideration of "social ownership" since they don´t want a state which will give privileges to particular enterprises and so turn them into big capitalist monopolistic or oligopolistic enterprises (anti-social types of ownership). They want an economy of small and medium sized bussinesses and cooperatives with no state planning or perhaps only for some infraestructure building. In their case only "social ownership" will apply. As such this article cannot be presented as finished to the general reading public.--Eduen (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- But "social control" has to stay in order to fit social democrats and the views of the current Chinese and Cuban socialist parties which only want to have social control/planning of the economy but not anymore an economy dedicated totally to "social ownership" or enterprises. They seem to want to have "social ownership" only in strategic sectors such as banking and infraestructures for example.--Eduen (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- We also have to take into account the confusing language of the real uses that the word "cooperatives" have had in real use. For example stalinist and maoist nationalized agricultural enterprises were almost demagogically called "cooperatives" when in fact there was no internal democratic administration of those enterprises and only state officials had a say in the decisions and in the hierarchy of them. And on top they kept the salaried relationship and so the only difference between those things and capitalist enterprises was the fact that in those the bosses were the party officials while in capitalism the bosses are the bourgoise owners and their hired administrators.--Eduen (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: "To user Vrrajkum i have to respond that this was part of my point between distinguishing between "social ownership" and "social control" and having separate references for those two things."
- None of your sources for "social control" even define it.
- "Also i have never argued for erasing "social onwership" as it seems you think about me."
- I never suggested that you did, I suggested that you think that qualifying a socialist economy exclusively in terms of "social ownership" excludes cooperatives, which you have indeed incorrectly argued ad nauseam.
- "My argument was that some socialists favour social ownership (either state, communal or workers ownership) while others mostly just emphasize "social control" understood as having the national or local economy adjust to a social collective plan and objectives whether enterprises are privately or state owned or worker´s owned."
- Social ownership is a necessary component of a socialist economy. Anyone who does not advocate for social ownership of the economy is not a socialist. Also, there are no sources specifying that "social control" means planning of the economy as opposed to workers' control of enterprises, which is the sense that myself, Battlecry, TFD, and C. J. Griffin use it in.
- "As such my argument was for and/or and not for deleting one of those things. But these are two very different things."
- Again, user Battlecry delineated the deficiences of using "and/or".
- "On the other hand proudnonian mutualists and individualist anarchists/left wing market anarchists don´t want collective social control but they will fit inside some sort of consideration of "social ownership" since they don´t want a state which will give privileges to particular enterprises and so turn them into big capitalist monopolistic or oligopolistic enterprises (anti-social types of ownership). They want an economy of small and medium sized bussinesses and cooperatives with no state planning or perhaps only for some infraestructure building. In their case only "social ownership" will apply."
- There are no sources specifying that "social control" means planning of the economy as opposed to workers' control of enterprises, which means that "social control" does not necessarily exclude Proudhonian mutualists or other anarchists.
- "But "social control" has to stay in order to fit social democrats and the views of the current Chinese and Cuban socialist parties which only want to have social control/planning of the economy but not anymore an economy dedicated totally to "social ownership" or enterprises. They seem to want to have "social ownership" only in strategic sectors such as banking and infraestructures for example."
- There are no sources specifying that "social control" means planning of the economy as opposed to workers' control of enterprises (which is how myself and other editors use "social control"), hence why the wording was changed to avoid confusion. Also, I reiterate that Cuba and China never truly had economies of "social ownership"; 'state ownership' actually does not imply 'public ownership' in terms of distribution of the surplus. Vrrajkum (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- "We also have to take into account the confusing language of the real uses that the word "cooperatives" have had in real use."
- No, we don't. Incorrect "real uses" of the word "cooperatives" do not affect the meaning of 'cooperatives'.
- "For example stalinist and maoist nationalized agricultural enterprises were almost demagogically called "cooperatives" when in fact there was no internal democratic administration of those enterprises and only state officials had a say in the decisions and in the hierarchy of them. And on top they kept the salaried relationship and so the only difference between those things and capitalist enterprises was the fact that in those the bosses were the party officials while in capitalism the bosses are the bourgoise owners and their hired administrators."
- This quote from user Vrrajkum can tell us a lot of what he pretends us to do in this article: I said "Stalinists clearly want everything to be owned by the state and managed by state administrators while socialdemocrats did have at some points some initiatives towards workers control of enterprises but they have mostly gone towards having a strong welfare state and planning of the economy as well as favouring small and medium sized private enterprises."
- User Vrrajkum responds "Hence why they are not socialists."
- So it seems that user Vrrajkum wants us to erase almost all tendencies and mentions here in this article and keep those who have "really" practiced this single socialist economic system according to him. This will mean only those who have never actually put their theory in practice or perhaps we should erase the whole article since no one has "really" practiced this unique single socialist economic system that user Vrrajkum thinks exists.
- From these comments it is clear that user Vrrajkum has not taken into account how language is determined by the use that interested individuals and collectives have of them. We have to report on the various uses and not try to set an almost moralizing standard which anyway is imposed from above by the will of the individual or group writing or saying something. Also you and user Battlecry have accepted that there is no single socialist economic system so the plurality of the debate has to be given its due in the main first sentence of definition. So user Vrrajkum wants us to legislate here on who is lying and who is "a true socialist". That clearly goes beyond what wikipedia has to do which is present a neutral point of view.
- For the sake of having a logical and productive discussion i suggest user Vrrajkum to consider that there is a difference between 1) the ownership of a particular economic enterprise and 2) the control and planning of the national or local economy which is an important characteristic of socialist critiques of the deregulation and lack of social control of laissez fair pure liberal economics. As such there are some socialists who favour more one or the other of these options or both of them. That is in a big part what the socialist economic debate is about. Here we don´t have to decide who is a real socialist and who is not but we only have to report on the debate and the main discussions within it taking account on the notability and social importance and influence of this. That is all.
- Anyway we will have to hear more comments of other users before the banner in the intro is removed. As it stands now me and user battlecry have noticed that user Vrrajkum confused things with his recent unilateral edition. We will have to take the banner out only when we hear more voices and a consensus is reached on this.--Eduen (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@Eduen: I don't think there are any serious issues with the lead. I see now you are making the claim that "social control" might refer to economic planning. This is addressed in the second paragraph which discusses non-market socialism and contrasts it with market socialism; there is no need to add "economic planning" or "social control" in this sense to the first sentence because it would be very exclusive and non-NPoV. And again, we have no source clearly defining "social control" with respect to socialism. Social ownership is the one common defining feature, even though it has a range of different meanings (in some cases it implies planning, in others it implies autonomous cooperatives). As it currently stands, the opening paragraph is really broad and inclusive of all the forms of socialism, so I don't see what the big issue is anymore. The one suggestion I might make is throwing out "democratic control" / "social control" altogether due to its confusing language and since we don't have any source clearly defining the concept or presenting it as a characteristic of all forms of socialism. -Battlecry 05:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
"Nominally" redux
Returning to "nominally". WP:V is the overriding policy. We must verify, using reliable sources, any controversial assertions in an article. There are no reliable source refs for the USSR being "nominally" socialist, therefore per policy it must be removed. Strong opinions do not overwhelm core wikipedia policy. Partisan or factional desire to remove the USSR from its place at the vanguard of socialist history does not trump verification and policy. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Richard D. Wolff says, "By the early 1930s, the subsequent leader, Stalin, made a pointedly different declaration: Socialism had been achieved in the USSR." So indeed they claimed to have achieved socialism and almost all sources about the Soviet Union say that. If you think that "nominally" implies they were not actually socialists, perhaps another term such as "officially" or "formally" would be better. But we should not state as a fact they were socialist, because it is disputed. TFD (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- The issue here is there is no agreement as to whether or not the Soviet economic model represented socialism, and official positions within the Soviet leadership held different positions on this. Sometimes the economic system was considered to be a transitional, state-monopoly capitalism, but later in the post-Stalin period it was officially regarded as "actually-existing socialism" alluding to the fact that it was not fully-developed socialism. But I think Capitalismojo is correct, the USSR should be identified as socialist in orientation. The initial wording I had chosen to describe the USSR's orientation was "constitutionally socialist" since this recognizes the fact that the Soviet state was the first de jure socialist state. -Battlecry 02:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- The implication would be that the state was in fact socialist. The constitution also de jure guaranteed democracy and protected fundamental human rights, including freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and freedom from arbitrary arrest and searches. TFD (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- nom·i·nal, adjective 1. (of a role or status) existing in name only. It is clear that nominal is not the appropriate word, and no mainstream historian uses it. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- We could say "formally", alternatively we could share that it was hailed as the first socialist country but this status was in later decades disputed by other socialist factions or theorists. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- When in 1917 it was hailed as the first socialist country, the meaning was that it was the first state established by socialists, not that it had achieved socialism. Debs for example said in the Canton Speech, "they have laid the foundation of the first real democracy that ever drew the breath of life in this world." By the time Stalin declared the country was socialist, there was considerable disagreement. So I would agree with "formally." TFD (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- We could say "formally", alternatively we could share that it was hailed as the first socialist country but this status was in later decades disputed by other socialist factions or theorists. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- nom·i·nal, adjective 1. (of a role or status) existing in name only. It is clear that nominal is not the appropriate word, and no mainstream historian uses it. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- The implication would be that the state was in fact socialist. The constitution also de jure guaranteed democracy and protected fundamental human rights, including freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and freedom from arbitrary arrest and searches. TFD (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- The issue here is there is no agreement as to whether or not the Soviet economic model represented socialism, and official positions within the Soviet leadership held different positions on this. Sometimes the economic system was considered to be a transitional, state-monopoly capitalism, but later in the post-Stalin period it was officially regarded as "actually-existing socialism" alluding to the fact that it was not fully-developed socialism. But I think Capitalismojo is correct, the USSR should be identified as socialist in orientation. The initial wording I had chosen to describe the USSR's orientation was "constitutionally socialist" since this recognizes the fact that the Soviet state was the first de jure socialist state. -Battlecry 02:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Capitalismojo: What dictionary are you using? Dictionary.com's definition of "nominally" is different.[1] Your source appears to take an inductive jump that is not necessarily true; semantically speaking, the word "nominally" does not imply "real", however it does not exclude "real". For example, Barack Obama is both the nominal and real president of the USA, but it is not inaccurate to characterize him as "the nominal president of the USA." Vrrajkum (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like you're using Webster. I disagree that "nominal" means "in name only", as it is again accurate to characterize Obama as any of the following: (1) the de jure president of the USA, (2) the de facto president of the USA, or (3) the de jure AND de facto president of the USA. That is, using a singular characterization does not preclude the compound characterization. The Free Dictionary's first definition of "nominally" does not use the word "only" either. [2] Vrrajkum (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Are you a native speaker of English? Your assessment is flat wrong. You can disagree all you want but the definition remains the definition. The fact is the fact. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Capitalismojo: No, "the" definition is not "the" definition, because there are different definitions. I am a native speaker of English and have lived in the U.S. my entire life, and I have always understood the word nominally to mean "in name" (not "in name only"), which is furthermore how I have always seen it used.
- Nor is it only "my" assessment:
- "Nominally" is preferred to "constitutional." The first implies de jure while the second implies de jure and de facto. It would be controversial for example to say that the Soviet Union was a constitutional democracy. It would seem odd too to call Indian a "constitutionally socialist state" even though the constitution says it is a socialist state. It is not the same thing as saying New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy.
- If TFD is correct, then I agree we should use the world "nominally" instead of "constitutionally" as a descriptor for the Soviet Union's claim to be a socialist state. I would disagree with the assertion that the lede focuses too much on the USSR - the economic literature and much of 20th century politics largely identified its economic system as socialist, so we should briefly note that. The controversy is not whether or not the Soviet Union was -really- a socialist state (that is a sectarian dispute among socialists), it is whether or not the Soviet economy represented a truly non-capitalist economic form. -Battlecry 23:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no RS ref for "nominally". Per core policy of wikipedia we don't use material for which there are no RS refs. Nominally socialist is a WP:FRINGE theory of the Bolshevik revolution. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's pretty easy to find reliable sources calling the Soviet Union nominally socialist. From Discovering Imperialism: Social Democracy to World War I, pg. 96: "In addition to its conquests in Eastern Europe and its troubled sponsorship of the Chinese Revolution, the nominally 'socialist' Soviet Union spent four and a half decades after WWII in a worldwide rivalry with America to sponsor 'client-states' and replace the failing empires of Britain and France. Yet Stalin's USSR, like the tsarist regime before it, remained a 'prison of peoples' that ultimately collapsed due to its inability to solve the national question or compete economically with the developed capitalist world." From the conclusion to Albert J. Schmidt's Soviet civil law as legal history (printed in The Revival of Private Law in Central and Eastern Europe): "This nominally socialist state was structured in accord with the most powerful ideological legacy of nineteenth century industrialism." That's just sources that use the term "nominally socialist" directly, of course, since it's easier to search for them. But the view that the Soviet Union claimed to provide a new "socialist" system while functionally continuing to act akin to a tsarist empire (and that this makes its socialism 'nominal') doesn't seem like a fringe perspective, at the very least -- nothing about those sources leaps out as me as obviously non-mainstream. Other sources using the phrase for the Soviet Union include The Strange Death of Soviet Communism, pg 184, or Robust Political Economy and the Question of Motivations (though the latter is obviously anti-Socialist, its conclusion takes the position that the Soviet republics were never genuinely Socialist in character, referring to them as having a "nominally socialist system" because corruption within them functionally duplicated a profit-and-loss system of capitalist societies.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Congratulations, good find on three google refs for "nominally". That doesn't suggest, however, that the mainstream view of historians or ecomomists is that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was socialist in name only. We could add refs that the Soviet Union was the only actually existing socialism, that doesn't make it the prevailing mainstream view. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Capitalismojo: The crux of your argument is that "nominally" means "in name only", which is not supported by all dictionaries and is not the sense that I was trying to use it in. I changed it to read "de jure socialist state", which is indisputable--just like it is indisputable that the Soviet Union was a de jure democracy. Vrrajkum (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
File:Nominally.jpg
Capitalismojo is incorrect and I restored the word "nominally". Vrrajkum (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Can a system be "socialist" but still include private ownership of means of production in most industries?
Given that at least some reliable sources define "democratic socialism" in a way that does not require public ownership of the means of production (it may be that different authors disagree on their preferred definition of the defining features of 'socialism'), I think the opening paragraph needs to be substantially altered to make this more clear--do other editors agree? I have found a number of sources that say that "Democratic socialism" does include the option of private ownership of most industries, for example p. 426 of the textbook Sociology in Our Time: The Essentials" says:
Sweden, Great Britain, and France have mixed economies, sometimes referred to as democratic socialism—an economic and political system that combines private ownership of some of the means of production, governmental distribution of some essential goods and services, and free elections. For example, government ownership in Sweden is limited primarily to railroads, mineral resources, a public bank, and liquor and tobacco operations
Similarly the textbook The New World of Politics: An Introduction to Political Science says on p. 159 that:
Democratic socialists, in contrast to orthodox communists, usually reject complete national or public ownership of the means of production and exchange. They are more favorably disposed to an economy that mixes public and private ownership. They are willing to leave in private hands much of the capitalist economy: agriculture, most small-scale industries, and almost al retail business. Some democratic socialists even make a strong case for what they call "market socialism."
In a discussion of the West German social democratic party (the SPD), p. 15 of the book Political Europe (a collection of articles from The Economist) says:
The policy declaration of the SPD in 1959 (the "Bad Godesburg declaration") contained no reference to Marx, and stated in as many words that private ownership of the means of production was entitled to "protection and promotion" so long as it does not hinder the construction of an equitable social order
In a later section on British social democracy, it says:
In Britain the concern was to counter the accusation that Labour was doctrinally committed to extending public ownership (or nationalisation) to an unlimited number of industries. The main intellectual influence was Anthony Crosland(1918-77) who argued persuasively in his major work, The Future of Socialism (1956), that the ownership of industry was largely irrelevant to socialist purposes, that social and economic equality should be the major priority and that nationalisation should be pursued only if it could be shown, in any particular case, to serve wider socialist purposes.
On p. 44 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism by libertarian theoriest Hans-Hermann Hoppe we find democratic socialism defined merely in terms of redistribution of some of the income from the means of production (obtained through taxation), not excluding private ownership:
What are the central features of socialism social-democratic-style? There are basically two characteristics. First, in positive contradistinction to the traditional Marxist-style socialism, social-democratic socialism does not outlaw private ownership in the means of production and it even accepts the idea of all means of production being privately owned--with the exception only of education, traffic and communication, central banking, and the police and courts. In principle, everyone has the right to privately appropriate and own means of production, to sell, buy, or newly produce them, to give them away as a present, or to rent them out to someone else under a contractual agreement. But secondly, no owner of means of production rightfully owns all of the income that can be derived from the usage of his means of production and no owner is left to decide how much of the total income from production to allocate to consumption and investment. Instead, part of the income from production rightfully belongs to society, has to be handed over to it, and is then, according to ideas of egalitarianism or distributive justice, redistributed to its individual members.
And in the textbook Politics: An Introduction to the Modern Democratic State, pp. 213-214 say:
The divorce between communism and socialism was originally rooted in difference over strategy: revolutionary or reformist. Both believed in the replacement of a private-property market economy with a socialized (collective or public ownership) economy under the direction of the state. Over time, though, democratic socialism came to accept the legitimacy of private ownership of property and ceased to call for collectivization of property. Even those elected socialist governments in the twentieth centruy (in France and the United Kingdom, for example) that nationalized private corporations in sectors such as coal mining and steel production made no attempt to replace the market as the primary means of allocating resources. Such partial (or sectoral) nationalization, long since reversed in most cases, is almost unthinkable today. Socialists still support collective ventures such as co-operatives or worker-owned businesses but are no longer committed to eliminating private corporations or restructuring the entire economy on an alternative basis.
These were just the first few sources I found searching for the keywords "democratic socialism private ownership" on google books, I'm sure plenty more can be found if we want to make clear that this is a common definition. Hypnosifl (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Hypnosifl: The issue here is terminological. "Democratic socialism" in these instances is being used to mean "social democracy", which is not an economic system but a political ideology and set of policies. As has been discussed above ad nauseum, the policies of self-described socialist (or labor/social democratic) parties don't define the concept of socialism and the object of the socialist movement. Almost any economic textbook on socialism will define the concept of socialism variously as public, collective or cooperative ownership of the means of production. The sources you have provided appear to be using the definitions loosely. The New World of Politics: An Introduction to Political Science defines "market socialism" as an economy that mixes public and private ownership. This is incorrect, as most authoritative sources on market socialism (and all the proposed models of market socialism) replace private ownership with either the dominance of public or cooperative ownership of the means of production. The first source, Sociology in Our Time: The Essentials, is defining "democratic socialism" as contemporary social democracy - this would be a good source to add in the Democratic socialism article, but it is distinguished from the concept of the socialist system which refers to a non-capitalist social system. Tertiary sources usually associate the Bad Godesburg declaration as the point where the German SPD ceased to be a socialist party and became a proponent of post-war era social democracy as a distinct ideology that rejected transition to socialism as a core part of its program. Likewise, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism is describing post-war era social democracy, which is conceptually different from pre-war era social democracy (which aimed to replace capitalism with socialism).
- Some of this information is relevant to include in the section about the history of the socialist movement, since it explains a particular historical current within one of the major branches of socialism ("democratic socialism"), but it would be grossly inappropriate and to attempt to redefine the concept of socialism to refer specifically to the post-war era Western European social democratic party platforms given that the "socialist bloc" (Eastern Europe, USSR, PRC etc.) operated under a different definition, and given that these perspectives represent but one tradition within the broader European social democratic / democratic socialist movement:
- The experiences of the war, coupled with post-war economic prosperity and the onset of the Cold War, served to moderate social democracy in Western Europe. In particular, most social democratic parties either abandoned or toned down their commitment to the socialization of the means of production...The revisionist position, represented in the Bad Godesberg Principles and the work of Anthony Crossland, believed that the attainment of social welfare systems and a mixed economy negated the need to aim for a socialist state to alleviate inequality; the radicals, in contrast, believed that such achievements were merely triumphs on the path to a democratic socialist state.[32]
- Most common dictionary and authoritative academic sources that explore the concept of socialism include, as a defining feature, some form of "social ownership" of the means of production. Contrary to popular misconception, the original concept of socialism has not disappeared merely because post-war West European social democratic parties rejected it. There are still papers and books being published about socialism and post-capitalism. -Battlecry 02:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's true that the sources I pointed to were not academic sources from the field of economics, so if it's true that public ownership of industry is taken as a defining feature of socialism among virtually all economists, that does seem like a good enough reason for keeping the opening section unchanged, though I think something should be added to the democratic socialist article to suggest that academics in other fields like political science do define social democracy as a type of "socialism" even if economists do not. On the other hand, if your reference to "most common dictionary and authoritative academic sources" implies that there is some reasonably large minority of academic economists who define "socialism" differently, I think the wikipedia policies on neutral point of view would require at least a brief note that not all economists define socialism to require public ownership. Hypnosifl (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Hypnosifl: According to Sociology in Our Time: The Essentials, socialism is defined as follows:
Socialism is an economic system characterized by public ownership of the means of production, the pursuit of collective goals, and centralized decision making. Like 'pure' capitalism, 'pure' socialism does not exist.
- I would also like to clarify one point by citing The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, where socialism is defined as a system characterized by the dominance of social ownership, not total social ownership of the economy. Likewise, capitalism does not imply total private ownership, just the dominance of private ownership in the economy. The sources defining democratic socialism above are in sections defining the mixed economy (in the sense of capitalism with regulations and a minority of public ownership), associating them with a political ideology that is commonly called social democracy in Europe (sometimes used interchangeably with democratic socialism). Both the "mixed economy" and "social democracy" (when used to refer to the former) are distinct concepts from socialism and a socialist economy. Textbooks on comparative economic systems distinguish between capitalism and socialism based on ownership of the MoP,[33][34] and define existing mixed economies as variants of capitalism (for retaining the defining characteristics associated with capitalism - private ownership, capital accumulation, markets and wage labor). -Battlecry 03:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- The Dictionary says "A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialized or cooperative enterprises." While that is probably a good definition for "socialist society", it is a poor definition for socialism. I notice that a recent Forbes column, which was commented upon by an editor called battler4cry, used this article to claim that Bernie Sanders was not a "democratic socialist." It's an odd definition because it excluses all democratic socialists as democratic socilialists.
- Sociology in our Times is an illustrated introduction to sociology. In my experience editors present these sorts of sources not because they are the best available, but because they say what they think.
- TFD (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Hypnosifl: As Battlecry explained, the sources you have provided describe social democracy, not necessarily democratic socialism.
- @The Four Deuces: This New York Times article also challenges Mr. Sanders' self-proclaimed label: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/upshot/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-capitalist.html
- "The weirdest thing about this fight is that Mr. Sanders, a Vermont senator, is not really a socialist."
- "“It’s not socialism, it’s social democracy, which is a big difference,” said Mike Konczal, an economic policy expert at the left-wing Roosevelt Institute. Social democracy, Mr. Konczal noted, “implies a very active role for capitalism in the framework.”"
No one questions that some writers use a social democratic/democratic socialist dichotomy although they differ among themselves on where to draw the line. But we should use mainstream terminology. If we consult standard textbooks, such as Political Ideologies: An Introduction, we see that the term is used to refer to the broad movement, although mention is made that some writers try to distinguish between two the types of socialism with no agreement on how to distinguish them.[8]
Incidentally, the "article" in the NYT is an op-ed, therefore not a reliable source. The author Josh Barro is a journalist, not an expert in political ideology, and has a B.A. in psychology. He seems to be taking Konczal out of context. He does not say Bernie Sanders is not a socialist but that his platform is more consistent with a social democratic rather than socialist system. In fact it could just as easily been presented by a liberal or conservative.
TFD (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- User:Hypnosifl was inquiring about socialism as a system, not any particular socialist ideology. Specifically he was giving sources that defined "democratic socialism" as the economic system that exists or existed in post-war Western European countries. This is an entirely different question about whether democratic socialism and social democracy are different ideologies with different goals. The economic systems of Western Europe are almost universally recognized to be forms of capitalism that differ mainly in their economic policies (their underlying allocation mechanisms, property rights regime, and wage-labor are capitalist). To analyze any system, we have to look at the fundamental processes which characterize it and not at hoped-for outcomes or the ideals that one hopes those processes will realize. If "democratic socialism" is being used to refer to specific social policies, then it is being used to describe an entirely different concept (one that more specialized sources tend to refer to as "social democracy" - though I do recognize that "social democracy" can also refer to reformism) from socialism as an economic system or socialism as a political movement. In response to user TFD, the article makes it clear that "socialism" is not only a system but has also been used loosely to refer to the political movement/ideology that aims to establish a socialist system/society. Both meanings are included in the first sentence.
- Regarding Bernie Sanders, he is not a "democratic socialist" in the sense that his platform and the political values he outlined in his recent speech have nothing to do with advocating socialism. Whether or not one advocates reforms to capitalism or social welfare is completely independent of one's advocacy for social ownership; whether that implies a non-market or market socialist system. -Battlecry 07:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- As far as Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn, if they call themselves socialist then they clearly have to be counted as such in this article. Their notability is also something important to take into account here in wikipedia. Socialism above all is a movement and there is no single socialist system but mostly just different proposals for a system or simply for social policies and measures. User Battlecry has accepted that yet he keeps sometimes saying that there is some single "socialist economic system" somewhere. And these socialist proposals sometimes tend to be very different and contradictory between each other. And as far as someone being or not being a socialist that is simply something that happens in political debates: accusations and labelings between people in political discussions. If libertarian socialists say stalinists are not real socialists but state capitalists or fascists with red flags, some socialists say democratic socialists and social democrats are not "real" socialists. As such Sanders and Corbyn views clearly are part of the subject of this article.--Eduen (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- I will also remind other users that someone like Benjamin Tucker also called himself a socialist yet he advocated no social or communal or state ownership at all. He advocated a market of small bussinesses without a state that will come to enforce things like patents or that will give privileges which will enlarge artificially some bussinesses over others. That is also part of socialism. As such user Battlecry, your single socialist economic system does not exist. What exists are people and political groups who are labeled and/or who self-label themselves "socialist".--Eduen (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- We have been over this issue ad nauseum before, socialism is a socioeconomic system and the movement aims to achieve this system. You simply cannot talk about the concept of socialism as a movement without addressing the definition of the system and form of society that movement is trying to achieve. That means we have to dedicate space describing "social ownership", "democratic management", "economic planning", "market socialism" etc. I would also like to remind Eduen that there is no one single "socialist movement" or socialist ideology either, just a range of proposals for how socialism might or should be brought about. And finally, one more point I feel I need to reiterate, using this article to describe the political positions and platforms of specific self-described socialist politicians is outside the scope of this article, regardless of their actual political ideology. This article should focus on socialism as both a concept (the economic system) and the broad political movement and its core dichotomies/history. -Battlecry 00:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- To user Battlecry i will remind him that we are not trying to write here a discussion of socialist philosophies but an article on socialism which is mostly thought of as a social and political movement and ideology. Politicians happen to be an important part of all that since socialism intends to have an impact in social and political reality and it has precisely done that. As such socialism is not just a literary phenomenon and clearly we cannot have a serious "socialism" article only paying attention to the discussions of intelectuals and their texts.--Eduen (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Notes
Notes have been collapsed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The lead
At RfC: What should be the topic of this article? it was determined that the topic of the article should be the ideology and social movement, rather than the socialist system. I have therefore re-written the lead and will replace the current one.
This is just a start and I am sure it can be much improved. However, we need to respect the RfC and not revert back.
TFD (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is a massive change to the lead and removes any mention of the positive features of socialism, namely the economic system and society commonly defined as "socialist" as the goal of the movement. The previous lead, while not perfect, was well-written and touched upon the concept of socialism as both a system and political movement. I strongly oppose the current version for reducing socialism to being a mere criticism of capitalism, or of social issues attributed to capitalism. I would suggest restoring the previous lead as a starting point and working on achieving a broader balance between describing socialism as a movement and socialism as a system. -Battlecry 03:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- I strongly concur with this. A lot of good material was obliterated with this change.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Again, the conclusion of the RfC was that the topic of the article is socialism as an ideology and movement, rather than socialism as a system. That requires replacing discussion in the lead about socialism as a system was socialism as an ideology and movement.
- Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. It is not the place for extensive discussion that rightly belongs in the body of the article. If there is a lot of good relevant material that has been deleted, then stick it in the body somewhere. In fact the lead was far too long anyway.
- TFD (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is got to be the single most devastating loss to this article that I've ever witnessed. What was once a concise and inclusive defintion has been turned into a vague criticsm of capitalism hardly worth it's own noun. What we have here is nothing short of the destruction of information. Socialism is not only a socioeconomic movement and political, but a system of organizing production and economy completely separate from capitalism. This new lead completely destroys that. The previous lead had managed to include all of these defintions in a manner that was easy to read for almost anyone. This new article reduces these informative defintions to vague mentions. I strongly oppose this new lead, as it is now worthless to anyone seeking to learn about Socialism, or to teach others.
- As for the subject of length, the previous lead was 557 words, this new lead is 265 words, but has obliterated so much information that the words removed are hardly worth the changes. I would suggest going back to the old lead, and removing excessive information from that lead. Save for a few sentences, the third and fourth paragraphs may be completely removed and appended to the second paragraph if the space of the lead is to be condensed to under 300 words.Helios932 (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think the changes do not reflect the topic agreed at RfC: What should be the topic of this article? Or do you disagree with its outcome? TFD (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- It is extremely difficult to separate the concept of socialism as a system from socialism as a movement. This latest change reduces the definition of socialism to be a critique of social ills attributed to capitalism, which by itself isn't the definition of socialism. Further, I would argue the previous version of the lead did not go into any excessive detail about the concepts described (such as "social ownership" or "reformism"), it merely provided a concise overview of the crucial concepts and major dichotomies in socialist thought without being exclusive. It was very inclusive of the diverse array of socialist systems and perspectives, which because of their wide variety, resulted in the lead being a little on the long side.
- One point that can be added, taken from TFD's current version of the lead, is a line that describes something the socialist critique of capitalism, something along the following lines: "Socialists attribute various social ills such as unemployment, economic crises and social inequality as being inherent to capitalism". -Battlecry 06:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Three of the votes in the RfC insisted that socialism as a socioeconomic system was a critical part of the discussion. Just because more votes happened to vote for two, than the collective votes of people asking for one exclusively, and both points together, does not mean that we should completely destroy any remainder of Socialism as a socioeconomic system. There is no way that this is what was intended by the results of the RfC. The original lead, before this edit, answered both questions succinctly. There was a very strong suggestion to split the article into two pages, and the lead posted, at 500-odd words, managed to accomplish the synthesis of the two topics very well. This article does neither, and ignores the voices of those who were on the fence. That's not reasonable to do.Helios932 (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- The previous version of the lead defined socialism as both a system and political movement. That is a good starting point; we can discuss edits to it. The problem is we have RS defining "socialism" as a system and other RS (mainly political science or history sources) that define "socialism" as anything that socialist parties and groups advocated. Regardless of whether or not we start the lead defining socialism as a "political ideology that seeks to create an economic system based on social ownership, etc." or as "an economic system based on social ownership, as well as a political ideology etc." we have to mention the concept of "social ownership" and the general idea of a non-capitalist socialist system. The RfC should have included this as an option (that the article has to discuss both concepts of socialism). Alternatively, we can discuss splitting this article into two distinct articles: "Socialism (political movement)" and "Socialism (economic system)", with "socialism" being a disambiguation page directing readers to both articles. -Battlecry 06:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add a final paragraph explaining that socialism can also refer to a system designed by socialists, such as the modern welfare state in Sweden. But the lead already says socialists advocate "action in some form of control or ownership by society should be taken to address them. Both the means and degree of action required however variy considerably, ranging from minor reforms to abandonment of capitalism altogether." That includes all the various definitions of a socialist state.
It seems we are just arguing the same issues as in the RfC.
TFD (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Again, we have many RS defining socialism as an economic system. In any common dictionary, socialism is defined vaguely as a system based on some form of public, social, collective, etc. ownership of the means of production. While it is true that socialism is also a political movement and political-economic ideology, we have to recognize there are multiple meanings. The current version reads like a lead for an article on a general "criticism of capitalism". As noted above, I would suggest restoring the previous lead and working from that as a basis. If we are going to split this article into two separate articles (one for the system and society, the other for the movement) then I would suggest making a new RfC with the following options:
- One: The article has to discuss socialism as both a movement and a system; the political movement cannot be understood without covering the concepts of a socialist system and social ownership.
- Two: The article should be split into “Socialism (economic system)” and “Socialism (political movement)”, with a parent ::“Socialism” disambiguation page providing redirects to both articles as to not favor a single definition.
- Three: The article should be about socialism as a political movement and ideology.
- Four: The article should be about socialism as a social and economic system.
- The previous lead was really informative, concise and inclusive, albeit a bit long and lacking coverage in some areas. Structuring the article to give relatively equal weight to discussing socialism as a system, socialism as a movement, and specifically socialist criticisms of capitalism (reflecting the structure of the old lead) would be most appropriate. But if we are going to focus this article on socialism as a political movement, then I would suggest splitting the article in the way I outlined above under option two. -Battlecry 11:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Clearly this article should focus on socialism as a political movement and ideology. The single socialist economic system does not exist since each particular socialist current proposes something different and, even inside particular ones like marxism and anarchism, there are many proposed systems inside it. But as far as actually bringing into reality something, what has mostly existed is socialist proposals and policies implemented by socialist movements and parties.--Eduen (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Socialism is an abstract concept and does not necessarily have to be something that has historically existed. There are a few parameters common to all proposed models of socialism; the movement is concerned with bringing said system about and consists of equally distinct and sometimes conflicting ideologies (there is no singular "socialist political ideology"). It could very well be that "socialism" describes something that has not yet existed in human history, although the systems of the former Eastern bloc and USSR are widely considered to be examples of "socialism" by certain thinkers. Regardless, this does not change the fundamental definition of socialism and either way, the article needs to talk about the characteristics of socialism such as social ownership, socialist planning vs. market socialism, what "democratic management" implies, and any attempts to bring such institutions to fruition (this covers the role of the movement). If "socialism" as a movement aims to build a system based on some form of "social ownership", and is a system based on "social ownership", then "social ownership" and related concepts are clearly a significant portion of this article's subject matter. -Battlecry 11:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- How is it acceptable to ignore the editors who argued that Socialism as an economic system deserved mentioning to the point that the article should be split. This does not represent the RFC whatsoever, considering that other editors did not agree with you either. You're claiming that you had the only major opinion, which you didn't. The people who supported socialism as a socioeconomic system were divided between keeping it as this article, and dividing it in two. That is not grounds to completely remove such information from the lead. Besides, the way socialism was described in the original lead included both descriptions. The only real argument here, regarding the RfC, is the length of the lead, not the content.Helios932 (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- See the closing remarks at RfC: What should be the topic of this article?: "There is consensus for option two. The majority opinion cite WP:PTOPIC or use its logic. AlbinoFerret 17:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)" Option Two was that the topic of the article should be the ideology and movement. Option One, which was that it should be the economic system, was rejected.
- When there is a primary topic, articles are not split - that is only done when there is no primary topic. If you want to create a new article you are free to do so. But it would have to be called something like "Socialist state" (which already exists) or "Socialism (economic system)."
- TFD (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- We have many reliable sources defining "socialism" as a system, plus common dictionary definitions of "socialism" describe a system or state of society. How have we decided that the political movement is the "primary topic"? Furthermore, socialism as a "political and economic ideology" is not the same thing as the movement (the history of self-described socialist parties and groups). If we are going to split the article, then equal weight will have to be given to both concepts with "Socialism" becoming a disambiguation page. TFD's proposed lead are best for describing "History of the Socialist movement". If we are going to focus this article on the political/economic ideology of socialism, then we can reword the old lead as follows (however I still maintain that the original was most accurate):
- Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. -Battlecry 11:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
ontent disputes are settled through resolution among editors. That means that sometimes the community will be wrong and you will be right, but you should respect the outcomes of RfCs and other dispute resolutions. I suggest it you are unhappy with the last RfC, you begin another. TFD (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Eduen 12/27/15: "as i see in the talk section there is no significant discussion to erase all of this"
- Eduen 11/1/15: "Exactly user Orangemike and thanks for sharing your opinion here with us. This simply shows yet once more that users Battlecry and Vrrajkum don´t have a consensus for their proposals for changes in the intro."
- Personally, I think that treating socialism as an economic system takes precedence to treating socialism as an ideology or movement, and users Battlecry, Helios932, and C. J. Griffin, at least, agree with me. However, I also think that the results of the RfC should be honored, so I split the article into two. But user Eduen, despite having actually expressed support for the majority Option Two of the RfC, refuses to honor it. Eduens gonna Eduen, I guess. Vrrajkum (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- It is not what you personally think, but reliable secondary sources that determine what is the primary topic. Furthermore, that guideline requires us to use broader rather than narrower definitions. Marx and Engels in 1848, Bernstein, Socialist parties and even modern Communists all fall outside your narrow definition. We do not say conservatives want to return to feudalism or liberals support the the night watchman state, it would be seen as archaic. Do you believe that the Labour Party in the UK, the German SDP and the French Socialist Party all advocate public ownreship of the means of production, or do you think they are not socialists? TFD (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: I think they are not socialists. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- You might be right. And equally they may not believe that the people you consider to be socialists are socialists either, just as Protestants and Catholics denied that each other were Christians. However, policy requires that we do not determine who is or is not a socialist, but follow what reliable sources say. For example, the categorization of parties by ideological family is widely accepted and it includes a category of socialist party that includes Labour, the SPD and the Socialist Party of France. TFD (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: I think they are not socialists. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- European social-democratic parties belong to the Socialist International. Clearly something belonging to something named "socialist" belongs inside the wikipedia article on "socialism". User Vrrajkum: "I think they are not socialists". User Vrrajkum, your personal opinions do not matter here unless you bring us reference support with that. --Eduen (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The issue here isn't which political group or political figure constitutes a "real" socialist, it is how socialism itself is conceptualized as. Either it is a socioeconomic system, political/economic ideology, or political movement - or all of these. Either the article has to accommodate all these concepts or it has to be split into separate articles with the parent "socialism" article becoming a disambiguation page redirecting users to the various concepts of "socialism". The majority of editors appear to be in favor of the current version of the lead, which accommodates all these concepts. -Battlecry 09:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- It is primarily conceptualized as a political movement and ideology as has been demonstrated to you. Vrrajkum's argument is that only movements and ideologies that advocate a socialist socioeconomic system are socialist, which if true would make your preferred lead perfectly neutral. The reality however is that socialism is a movement that has advocated different policies at different times, just as has liberalism, which is why like liberalism it remains a political force rather than just an historical curiosity. TFD (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen and The Four Deuces: N. Scott Arnold, The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study: "To be a socialist is not just to believe in certain ends, goals, values, or ideals. It also requires a belief in certain institutional means to achieve those ends; whatever that may amount to in positive terms, it certainly presupposes, at a minimum, the belief that these ends and values cannot be achieved in an economic system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production." Vrrajkum (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- No one doubts that some writers use socialism in that sense but the "Dismbiguatiion" guideline requires that the topic of the article should be the one that is most often meant and should be the broadest definition. The most common usage of "socialism" is for the movement and ideology, not the socioeconomic systems. Even if you do not accept that, a topic that encompasses moderate reform socialism and the far left is a broader topic than one that only encompasses the socialist socioeconomic systems. TFD (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen and The Four Deuces: N. Scott Arnold, The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study: "To be a socialist is not just to believe in certain ends, goals, values, or ideals. It also requires a belief in certain institutional means to achieve those ends; whatever that may amount to in positive terms, it certainly presupposes, at a minimum, the belief that these ends and values cannot be achieved in an economic system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production." Vrrajkum (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- But also the biggest and most successful socialist organizations today happen to be mass political parties either in governmnet or in parliaments. As such we have to talk here also or perhaps even primarily about "policies" and "measures" alongside some sort of complete pure hyporthetical "economic system". Socialism today mostly asks for political and economic policies and not for "systems". And this especially after the failure of the Soviet Union. This is how Michael Newman puts it in his "Socialism: a very short introduction":
- "its proponents have tended to identify socialism with the particular form that they have favoured. Lenin therefore once defined it as ‘soviet power plus electrification’, while a British politician, Herbert Morrison, argued that socialism was ‘what a Labour government does’. Yet socialism has taken far too many forms to be constricted in these ways. Indeed, some have viewed it primarily as a set of values and theories and have denied that the policies of any state or political party have had any relevance for the evaluation of socialism as a doctrine. This purist position lies at the other extreme from that of Lenin and Morrison and is equally unhelpful. In fact, socialism has been both centralist and local; organized from above and built from below; visionary and pragmatic; revolutionary and reformist; anti-state and statist; internationalist and nationalist; harnessed to political parties and shunning them; an outgrowth of trade unionism and independent of it; a feature of rich industrialized countries and poor peasant-based communities" (pg. 2)--Eduen (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen and The Four Deuces: The most common definition of "socialism" is as an economic system or state of society defined by a set of broad characteristics and not simply as a movement that is critical of the social aspects of capitalism. This is how specialized tertiary sources tend to define the concept as well as common dictionary definitions. We don't define a concept by the actions or policies of its proponents. Likewise, labels as used by political parties or groups can be problematic and outlive their descriptive relevance. While some "social democratic" or "socialist" parties in Europe may have initially been committed to some form of socialism, they may not necessarily be committed to it in the present day. That does not mean the definition of socialism has changed, it means the majority of the party have changed their views to better accommodate their political goals. For example, it would be absurd to conclude that the U.S. Democratic party represents the ideology of "democracy" while the U.S. Republican party represents "republicanism" despite their official name. We have to understand the context in which these names arose with secondary sources. "Social democracy" today tends to refer to something entirely different from reformist socialism. What can be mentioned in the relevant section of the article is that some political thinkers in the Labour party et al. have attempted to redefine socialism to mean an ethical doctrine as opposed to a system juxtaposed with capitalism. -Battlecry 01:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have provided a definition which does not say what user Battlecry proposes. Proposals of a single ideal economic system have been proposed by socialists but also non-systematic measures and policies have also been proposed. Marx himself never proposed a systematic view of how "communism" or "socialism" would look like since he critiziced such proposals under the label of "utopianism". As such marxists themselves have proposed mixed economies, non-state communism, ultra statist communism, market socialism and other things. So in that way marxism itself does not propose a clear single economic system. Marx did, though, propose some measures in the communist manifesto which some marxists have followed and others have not followed. He did not call them "How a socialist system will be" but simply 10 "planks" or "proposals". So if Marx hinself did not propose a single model in a systematic way other socialists have also done the same thing and have fluctuated between more systemic and more "measures and policies" proposals. Marx himself focused more on "critique of political economy" in his writings and so he critiziced "utopian socialists" for proposing closed ideal models. As such the very plural socialist political movement more or less criticizes capitalism and proposes alternative measures, policies or system(s) to that. The socialist movement does not have a single socialist economic proposal and clearly not a single socialist system to propose.--Eduen (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen and Vrrajkum: You are repeating the same absurd claims you have made in the past and using a straw-man of everyone else's argument. Nobody claimed anything about a "single, ideal" economic system. Socialism is commonly defined as a system with a broad set of parameters, the most prominent being social ownership of the means of production. That is hardly a singular system as there are many forms such a system can take and there are many models that have been developed and debated within this context. Second, anyone who is familiar with Marx and Engels should recognize that their conception of "socialism" and "communism" were fundamentally different modes of production operating according to separate economic categories than those of capitalism, and not merely reforms (state-imposed regulations or welfare provisions, which have nothing to do with restructuring the way production and resource allocation is organized). Nobody is defining "socialism" as a specific economic system here (such as the Soviet model of planning, or Lange model, which would be singular systems). We are defining it by the broad set of parameters (social ownership and control) which characterize socialism and then expanding upon the definition with the meaning and aims of said parameters as well as the major recognized forms they can take in practice.
- As for your edit to the lead, I have restored it for now because the original version used neutral language by recognizing that socialism can refer to both a system and a political movement in a concise manner. Socialism is not simply a definition-less political movement that proposes "policies or systems", it is actually defined largely by said system/proposal (social ownership etc.)-Battlecry 06:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- It may be "absurd" that Socialists are called socialists. The Communist Manifesto for example did not advocate the sociopolitical socialist state and therefore should be excluded. But policy requires us to follow weight. Incidentally, Battlecry, do you belong to a socialist group that has 10 or 20 (or fewer) members and rejects all other self-declared socialists as traitors and class collaborators? If so, this is not the place to promote your views. TFD (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: I am being accused of promoting my personal views by one of the editors who is heavily biased in favor of redefining "socialism" to mean social democratic politics? How quaint. And if you really must know, no, I do not formally belong to any political party or group. If you read any scholarly work about socialism (not the history of the politics of socialist parties) it would be evident that socialism is defined as, or at the least identified with, the social ownership of the means of production. Incidentally, this is the common conception of "socialism" where socialism is juxtaposed with capitalism on the basis of ownership. -Battlecry 07:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The problem here is that user Battlecry is denying that socialists have also just proposed many times "measures" and "policies" and that they not always have a closed elaborate system in mind. Also User Battlecry wants us to reject self described socialist parties as not being "real" socialists while he does not provide us with the work which gives us this way of identifying "real" from "fake" socialists. In order to keep his opinions he is ready to engage in edit wars againts more than one user.--Eduen (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Eduen: Incidentally, the definition given in the current lead is very broad, being inclusive toward systems as different as mutualism and a socialist planned economy. It also defines socialism as a political ideology/movement; it does not define it as a "singular economic system". Unless you have any evidence that my position is strongly biased, I suggest you retract your accusation. On the contrary, you are promoting a minority position advocated by a faction of the British Labour Party (Tony Blair, Anthony Giddens et al.) who attempted to redefine "socialism" to mean a vague ethical doctrine that aims to improve social conditions, which is hardly representative of the mainstream historical definition of the concept. This suggests an extreme bias, on your part, in favor of Third Way and/or post-war era social democracy. -Battlecry 07:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Socialist economic proposals: not just "systems" or systemic but plural just as the socialist movement is plural and since societies are composed of diverse individuals and groups
If you check the article on social-democracy you will see that i have not touched that article at all. On the other hand i have been a dedicated editor of the articles on anarchism and libertarian socialism. The fact is that historically the biggest specific anarchist organizations have been the ones who have adhered to a conception close to what in anarchism is called "anarchism without adjectives". I am talking about organizations like the Iberian Anarchist Federation, the ukraninan Nabat, the francophone Fédération Anarchiste and the Federazione Anarchica Italiana. In case you don´t know about it, it was proposed so as to mediate and include the three main anarchist economic systems proposed within anarchism: mutualism/individualist anarchism/left-wing market anarchism, bakuninist collectivist anarchism/something very close to the contemporary Parecon system, and anarcho-communism. As such an anarchism without adjectives organization is clearly a socialist organization just as anarchism is part of the socialist movement. On the other hand an anarchist without adjectives organization does not tend towards a single "anarcho-communist" or another single economic system but will tend towards an economic non-capitalist pluralism in the sense of coexistence of economic systems and economic pluralism as it is dealt in within the anarchist economics wikipedia article. So in this sense your insistence of a single socialist economic system does not enter into conflict just with the proposals and practices of social democracy/democratic socialism but also with an important part of practices and proposals within anarchism. This issue was well put by the influential French individualist anarchist Émile Armand who argued for a pluralistic economic logic when he said that "Here and there everything happening—here everyone receiving what they need, there each one getting whatever is needed according to their own capacity. Here, gift and barter—one product for another; there, exchange—product for representative value. Here, the producer is the owner of the product, there, the product is put to the possession of the collectivity".[1].
Also social-democracy has tended to advocate such a pluralistic logic to the economic system in order to give as many economic options to individuals as possible. As such state the following:
"The view that the economy should be put under collective ‘ownership and regulation’ could, however, also be interpreted more broadly. Social democrats have generally wanted a regulated market economy, which might alternatively be described as a mixed economy, where public ownership may be widespread but where there is no ideological barrier against the effective use of private property and profit-driven enterprise. No inherent contradiction exists between the mixed economy and the belief that the state should collect and distribute the windfall of economic activity and the collective resources of society. Indeed, in the social democratic conception of the mixed economy, ownership is a secondary issue. The more essential point is that the market ought to be regulated to the benefit of the community as a whole. The oft-repeated phrase among social democrats in Scandinavia that ‘the market is an excellent servant, but a poor master’ provides us with a concise summary of this perspective. In a mixed economy, the state can ensure that the consumption of resources is sustainable and that the distribution of welfare and opportunities is fair, while a large proportion of goods and services can be produced in the private sector, reflecting the economic laws of supply and demand. This pragmatic approach to the question of public or private ownership is coupled with a firm belief that democratically elected governments should intervene in the economy whenever necessary, in order to defend the interests of society as a whole. And the reduction of inequality, in order to create a society in which individual liberty is more evenly distributed, is perhaps the most basic and important of these interests." (pg. 9). I will also report to you that these authors also state that "Social democracy is an ideology derived from a socialist tradition of political thought. Many social democrats refer to themselves as socialists or democratic socialists, and some use these terms interchangeably." (pg. 7).
As such these two strand of socialism clearly tend toward multiple measures, forms and policies towards achieving socialist goals. This is why we should include also socialist "measures" and "policies" besides "system(s)".--Eduen (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Battlecry, I did not suggest that socialism should be redefined as social democracy, but obviously it includes it. Certainly many social democrats meet your definition. The Labour Party constitution from 1918 until 1994 called for common ownership of the means of production," and most socialist parties had similar clauses. The current constitution now says, "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party." Does that mean they still call for a socialist socioeconomic system or that they do not know what socialism means. TFD (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Socialist calculation debate
An editor has added to the lead, "The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate."[9]
While the "debate" is about feasibility there is no evidence that any actual socialists ever used Ludwig von Mises' theories in constructing a model for a socialist state. Furthermore there is nothing in the source about the debate. It is a little confusing too that the sentence follows one about market socialism, which presumably allocates resources through the market and therefore would not be subject to Mises' criticism of non-market socialism. In any case this issue is too trivial for inclusion in the lead.
TFD (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- The socialist calculation debate is broader than Mises' critique of socialism, and continues today in academic journals and books. It is widely regarded as one of the major topics in political economy that concerns itself with non-capitalist economic organization (and its criticism), so I think it is highly relevant to the subject of this article and warrants a brief mentioning in the lead. And just to clarify, Mises also leveled critiques against market socialism for its lack of financial markets. -Battlecry 02:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- First you would need to provide sources which you have not. Also, if this article were about the socio-political socialist it might make sense, but that is only a small part of the topic. Is it an issue in the debates between Clinton and Blair or Hollande and Sarkozy? TFD (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The topic of socialism is not limited to the party politics of social democratic parties and politicians (Clinton can hardly be called a "social democrat"), which is an entirely different subject altogether. -Battlecry 06:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have said between Clinton and Sanders. Clinton is a liberal and Sanders is a socialist. But do not expect that either one will nationalize the means of production. What is your point: that Bernie Sanders wants to create a communist state or that he does not and therefore is not a real socialist? TFD (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the question of Sanders was previously discussed on this talkpage already. Sanders might very well be a "democratic socialist", or he may not, but that is beside the point. He is not proposing socialism as part of his policy platform. This is recognized by scholars of political science and sociology, some of which describe his policy proposals as "social democracy"[2][3][4] and even by Bhaskar Sunkara, the editor of Jacobin magazine. -Battlecry 07:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- If Sanders does not propose "socialism" as a policy platform is because the other candidates do not propose "capitalism" as a proposal either. It is actually very strange and naive to hear someone suggest that a politician will propose in elections a single word economic system. It just shows how user Battlecry can decide to ignore real socialist politics in order to keep forcing in this article his opinion that 1)there is a single socialist system and there are no socialist proposals and measures and 2)this identification with this single non-existing socialist system is the only measure to identify "real" socialists from "fake" socialists.--Eduen (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the question of Sanders was previously discussed on this talkpage already. Sanders might very well be a "democratic socialist", or he may not, but that is beside the point. He is not proposing socialism as part of his policy platform. This is recognized by scholars of political science and sociology, some of which describe his policy proposals as "social democracy"[2][3][4] and even by Bhaskar Sunkara, the editor of Jacobin magazine. -Battlecry 07:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- What "reliable sources" define Bernie Sanders' proposals as "socialism"? If the media defined Nazism as "socialism" would Nazism then qualify as socialism, based on your logic? Some self-described socialist parties have even promoted what would be considered to be right-wing economic positions (austerity or economic liberalism, as did the Social Democratic Party of Germany during the inter-war period). Does this mean that "socialism" should also be defined as economic liberalism and austerity simply because a self-described socialist party advocated those measures? Note this is an entirely different question from asking whether or not those parties or groups are genuinely socialist - they very well might, and simply believe socialism is something to be achieved in the distant future. The point is, socialism has a definition and it clearly is not "whatever a socialist or social democratic politician/party does". -Battlecry 08:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I feel like right now is a fitting opportunity to revisit Engels' complaints about this exact problem. →Σσς. (Sigma) 08:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: CNN is not calling Sanders or his proposals democratic socialist, CNN is simply objectively reporting on Sanders' speech about what he calls 'democratic socialism.' Furthermore, Sanders repeatedly identifies his "socialist" policy proposals with Danish social democracy, and Denmark's own PM denies that Denmark is socialist.[5][6][7] There are actually many individuals in the U.S. who do not accept that Sanders is a socialist:
- The New York Times, A Sensible Version of Donald Trump: "No, I don’t mean the way Bernie Sanders is a socialist. He’s a statist, not a socialist."
- The New York Times, Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist Capitalist: "The weirdest thing about this fight is that Mr. Sanders, a Vermont senator, is not really a socialist."
- The New York Times, The Year In Pictures 2015: "Bernie Sanders, the sort-of socialist from Vermont by way of Brooklyn, was giving Hillary Clinton a run, at least, for her mounds of campaign money."
- Jacobin Magazine, The Socialism of Bernie Sanders: "There was nothing much surprising about Bernie’s speech [on democratic socialism]. This was... not “socialism” in recognizable form."
- @Eduen: Actually, other U.S. presidential candidates do propose single-word capitalism, including the other two Democratic candidates (whom you would most probably describe as socialists because they favor reforming capitalism through policies):
- Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential debate on CNN, Oct 13 2015: "And I don't think we should confuse what we have to do every so often in America, which is save capitalism from itself. And I think what Senator Sanders is saying certainly makes sense in the terms of the inequality that we have. But we are not Denmark. I love Denmark. We are the United States of America. And it's our job to rein in the excesses of capitalism so that it doesn't run amok and doesn't cause the kind of inequities we're seeing in our economic system. But we would be making a grave mistake to turn our backs on what built the greatest middle class in the history of the world."
- Martin O'Malley in the Democratic presidential debate on CBS News, Nov 14 2015: "--everybody watching this tonight to-- please-- acknowledge that by going online at MartinO'Malley.com and help me wage this campaign for real American capitalism."
- Martin O'Malley in the Democratic presidential debate on ABC News, Dec 19 2015: "We're not going to fix what ails our economy, we're not going to make wages go up for everyone by either trying to replace American capitalism with socialism -- which, by the way, the rest of the world is moving away from -- nor will we fix it by submitting to sort of Wall Street-directed crony capitalism."
- "...you would most probably describe as socialists because they favor reforming capitalism through policies)" Discussions become lengthy when editors do not listen to what other editors say. Both this comment and an earlier reference to Tory socialism show that. Socialism is not reform of capitalism. It is however an analysis that social problems are caused by capitalism and recommendation that some collective action is taken to correct them. Liberals like Clinton and O'Malley never acknowledge capitalism as a problem. "Crony capitalism" is a distortion of capitalism and the solution is to remove the cronyism and return to real capitalism. Nor do "tory socialists" advocate collective action. The artistocracy will protect the lower classes from the parvenu. There is irony too in saying that we cannot accept the media's determination of who is a socialist, then introducing media op-eds (which are not reliable sources) as proof Sanders is not a socialist. TFD (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am not an american and neither do i live in the US. From what you report here, users TFD and Vrrajkum, it seems Sanders has forced Hillary to talk about socialism. This clearly shows that left wing politics in the US might start to get closer to what happens in Europe and Latin america where the word "socialism" is not as taboo as it is in the US. And so these are clearly important notable discussions which deserve a mention in this article just as the episode with Jeremy Corbyn in the british Labour Party does. To user Battlecry i answer to him again that nasizm is not included at all in most reliable good works on socialism as part of socialism. On the other hand social democracy is considered an important part of the socialist tradition in most works dealing with the history of the socialist movement. It starting to look to me that the problem with user Battlecry´s sources is that they tend to be dense economic works on possible socialist systems but that tend to lack in general on a historical and political analysis and background. A good general work on socialism will clearly deal with history and politics. Otherwise those works will be closer to literature but not to the real socialist movement which intends to change the real world and which has done that. But also it starting to seem again that users Vrrajkum and Battlecry want to keep reducing acceptable or "real" socialists to communists and communism. Lets remind them that communism is clearly a part of socialism but on the other hand not all socialism is communism. And this includes both statist and anti-statist versions of communism. Otherwise we will be leaving out of socialism many important non-communist socialist thinkers such as Mikhail Bakunin, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Thomas Hodgskin but also the biggest contemporary socialist parties in the world such as the Chinese Communist Party or successful socialist governments in power such the bolivian Movimiento Al Socialismo/Evo Morales government. Frankly it seems that users Vrrajkum and Battlecry want us to more or less make this article the same as the communism article or that we erase almost 60 or 70% of the contents of this article and we clearly cannot do either of those things.--Eduen (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- @TFD: I am not familiar with Tory socialism. My main point was that the CNN source reports that Sanders calls his proposals 'democratic socialist,' not that his proposals are 'democratic socialist.' Simply calling oneself or one's platform socialist does not make one or one's platform socialist, or else Nazism would indeed be socialism.
- @Eduen: The point is that Sanders does propose (what he thinks is) socialism, and his rivals indeed propose single-word capitalism. With respect to the rest of your comment, you're just repeating the same nonsense about myself and Battlecry; we are not, nor have we ever, proposed reducing socialism to communism, and Battlecry has explicitly explained that defining socialism to mean "social ownership of the means of production" includes systems as diverse as Proudhonian mutualism to the Soviet model to the Lange model. But since the discussion on this talk page doesn't seem to be headed anywhere productive, I continue to support splitting the article into two, as I have already done but that you refuse to support. Vrrajkum (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- User VRRajkum, you are always free to go improve the article Socialist mode of production. As such there is no need to split anything here.--Eduen (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to remind all the participants in this discussion that the question of whether or not Sanders' is a socialist is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter. Just as we don't define capitalism by the actions or personal beliefs of capitalists and their supporters, socialism cannot be simply defined by the actions of self-described socialists irrespective of whether or not they are actual socialists. With respect to the lead, I have come to agree with TFD about the line on the socialist calculation debate. Despite its relevance, it is probably best saved for the economics section of the article, so in the interest of shortening the lead I propose removing it from the end of the second paragraph. Another suggestion I have is removing the last line of the third paragraph in the lead (the one that describes democratic socialism), or at the least, shortening it to be more concise.
- With respect to Eduen's recent revert about the Soviet economic model representing a form of "dictatorship", this claim is provocative and irrelevant to the question of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc's economic system. State capitalism and command economies are economic systems, whereas a dictatorship most commonly describes a form of government. Describing Soviet-type planning or "Soviet socialism" as a dictatorship is conflating socio-economic systems with forms of governance and unnecessarily increases the length of the lead with arguably redundant information. For these reasons I suggest removing it, or moving it to an appropriate section in the article that goes into detail discussing critiques of the Soviet Union. -Battlecry 02:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
RfC: What should be the topic of this article?
Should the topic of this article be:
TFD (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Survey
- Two Most sources about socialism are about the socialist movement and its ideology. While most modern mainstream Socialists do not advocate the establishment of a socialist socio-economic system, it would take a lot of surgical original research to determine which Socialists were pure and should be in the article and which do not belong, particularly over the history of the subject. Also, there are already articles about the Socialist state and the Socialist mode of production. TFD (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- One We have a plethora of reliable sources[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] defining socialism as a social and economic system by the broad yet distinctive characteristic of “social” or “collective” ownership, and not simply as a political movement calling for small degrees of social ownership. Additionally, common dictionary definitions also define socialism as a system.[22][23][24] The subject of this article has to primarily focus on socialism as a concept, and not the history of the political movement that aims to build a socialist system/society (this topic is already covered in History of socialism). We cannot rewrite the lead to focus solely on the history of the socialist movement or redefine socialism to mean a general critique of capitalism as TFD's recent edit[13] did. Scholarly sources and encyclopedias specializing in economics and political economy frequently define socialism as a system with positive characteristics that is routinely juxtaposed with the capitalist system, as opposed to a movement that simply critiques capitalism. Even when the subject of the socialist movement is discussed, this movement cannot be separated from its goal of a socialist system/society. The question of whether or not certain political figures are “genuine” socialists or not is completely irrelevant to this subject and, as TFD correctly notes, does not belong in this article. We have to recognize academic definitions and conceptions of socialism and refrain from using popular definitions and misconceptions that might be circulating in the media. -Battlecry 10:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- One. Option two uses the word "socialist" to define "socialism" which is a little too circular for my taste. It also provides less information. Option one is preferable (but it needs a comma after the word "production"; otherwise it sounds like there is social ownership of the ideologies and movements.)
Richard27182 (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- One Option two is very circular. Socialism is far more than a movement about some degree of social ownership. How many would count as socialists even though they do not advocate a socialist socioeconomic system but claim to act under a banner? The article needs to focus on the concept of the socioeconomic system, not on the personal views of people acting under a banner.Helios932 (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- One Option two does not treat socialism neutrally, defining it as the fantasy-alike proposal. It was (in some cases still is) very realistic for many decades. I came here based on invitation by RfC bot.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- 1 the other is confusing weasalspeak, generally...some. perhaps some of the editors here should focus on topics they are not generally emotionally invested in. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
This RfC is misrepresenting the views of other editors, myself included. No one has advocated questioning whether or not a self-described socialist is a genuine socialist for the topic of this article - that is completely irrelevant to the subject matter, which is the concept of socialism. In most reliable sources, including those sourced in the current lead, and common dictionary definitions, socialism is defined as a system based on some form of "social", "collective" or "public" ownership and a political/economic ideology that aims to create said system. Socialism is not defined by the actions of self-described socialist politicians or leaders, it is a well-defined concept. Wikipedia needs to reflect reliable scholarly consensus on the definition and scope of the meaning of "socialism" and not on popular definitions circulated in the media. Second, as many editors have repeated on this talkpage already, the "socialist state" is not the same thing as the concept of socialism as a system or ideology. Third, no one has proposed focusing the article solely on socialism as a system. There should be two more options added to this RfC as I suggested in previous posts. Therefore I suggest adding the following options:
- Three:The article has to discuss socialism as both a movement and a system giving equal weight to discussing socialism as a system, ideology and movement.
- Four: The article should be split into “Socialism (economic system)” and “Socialism (political movement)”, with the parent “Socialism” article becoming a disambiguation page providing redirects to both articles so as to not favor a single definition. -Battlecry 09:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- You might want to re-read the RfC and re-write your comments. The RfC says nothing about "self-described socialists." And whether or not socilaism is "a system based on some form of "social", "collective" or "public" ownership" is the clear issue of the RfC. It is not a "misrepresentation.
- The problem with your option three is that it combines different topics. Mars for example is a planet, the god of war and a chocolate bar, but we provide separate articles for each one.
- TFD (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- I should amend "self-described socialist" to "parties with socialist in their name and self-described socialist politicians". Your reasoning in your comment in support of your position stated that defining socialism as a form of social or economic system requires us to engage in original research to determine who is a real socialist. That is what I was referring to. -Battlecry 10:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- The article does not need to focus on discussing the views of certain people or parties because they are socialist or not. If a person is to be mentioned, it should have some relation to the subject matter (socialism). For example, discussing Vladimir Lenin's (or any other notable thinker's) view of how socialism will function is fine. Discussing the political exploits of a politician that belongs to a party with "socialist" in its name, regardless of whether or not he is a socialist or not, is of far less relevance to the subject matter, which is again socialism as a concept. -Battlecry 11:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Does that mean that most of Lenin's works were not socialist, for example "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder? What if any work of Lenin would you consider socialist? TFD (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder is a socialist work, but it does not describe or deal with controversies about the organization of socialism (as a social or economic system). As for whether or not it is relevant to the subject of this article, we would have to judge how noteworthy it is for inclusion in the section on socialist political ideologies (again this is why we can't simply have the article focus only on the movement, ideology or system). My point is, the article needs to focus more on discussing socialism itself - what social ownership and democratic management mean, the various forms they can take, the major models of socialism proposed (or which have existed), etc. - and less about the history of the movement that aims to build such a system. -Battlecry 11:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Does that mean that most of Lenin's works were not socialist, for example "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder? What if any work of Lenin would you consider socialist? TFD (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- The article does not need to focus on discussing the views of certain people or parties because they are socialist or not. If a person is to be mentioned, it should have some relation to the subject matter (socialism). For example, discussing Vladimir Lenin's (or any other notable thinker's) view of how socialism will function is fine. Discussing the political exploits of a politician that belongs to a party with "socialist" in its name, regardless of whether or not he is a socialist or not, is of far less relevance to the subject matter, which is again socialism as a concept. -Battlecry 11:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- User Battlecry. You are free to go improve the wikipedia article Socialist mode of production and introduce all your abstract economic discussions. No need to split anything here.--Eduen (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Helios932, you say about that self-described socialists who do not advocate what you describe as socialism are not socialists. How do you suggest we draw the line? Were Labour and the SDP ever socialist and if so when did they cease to be so? Did any significant sections of those parties remain socialist and if so which? TFD (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ Émile Armand. Anarchist Individualism and Amorous Comradeship
- ^ Josh Barro (20 October 2015). "Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist Capitalist". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 November 2015.
- ^ Samuel Goldman (15 August 2015). "Democrats Are Not Socialists, and Neither Is Bernie Sanders". The American Conservative. Retrieved 16 November 2015.
- ^ Nancy Marshall-Genzer (18 November 2015). "Explaining "democratic socialism"". Marketplace Elections. Retrieved 19 November 2015.
- ^ http://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders
- ^ http://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist
- ^ http://qz.com/538499/denmark-says-it-isnt-the-socialist-utopia-bernie-sanders-thinks-it-is/
- ^ Nove, Alec. "Socialism". New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition (2008).
A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialized or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how.
- ^ Kolb, Robert (19 October 2007). Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, First Edition. SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 1345. ISBN 978-1412916523.
There are many forms of socialism, all of which eliminate private ownership of capital and replace it with collective ownership. These many forms, all focused on advancing distributive justice for long-term social welfare, can be divided into two broad types of socialism: nonmarket and market.
- ^ Prychito, David L. (July 31, 2002). Markets, Planning, and Democracy: Essays After the Collapse of Communism. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 12. ISBN 978-1840645194.
Socialism is a system based upon de facto public or social ownership of the means of production, the abolition of a hierarchical division of labor in the enterprise, a consciously organized social division of labor. Under socialism, money, competitive pricing, and profit-loss accounting would be destroyed.
- ^ Hastings, Mason and Pyper, Adrian, Alistair and Hugh (December 21, 2000). The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Oxford University Press. p. 677. ISBN 978-0198600244.
Socialists have always recognized that there are many possible forms of social ownership of which co-operative ownership is one...Nevertheless, socialism has throughout its history been inseparable from some form of common ownership. By its very nature it involves the abolition of private ownership of capital; bringing the means of production, distribution, and exchange into public ownership and control is central to its philosophy. It is difficult to see how it can survive, in theory or practice, without this central idea.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Arnold, Scott (1994). The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study. Oxford University Press. pp. 7–8. ISBN 978-0195088274.
This term is harder to define, since socialists disagree among themselves about what socialism 'really is.' It would seem that everyone (socialists and nonsocialists alike) could at least agree that it is not a system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production…To be a socialist is not just to believe in certain ends, goals, values, or ideals. It also requires a belief in a certain institutional means to achieve those ends; whatever that may mean in positive terms, it certainly presupposes, at a minimum, the belief that these ends and values cannot be achieved in an economic system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production…Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system.
- ^ Rosser, Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr. (July 23, 2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0262182348.
Socialism is an economic system characterized by state or collective ownership of the means of production, land, and capital.
- ^ "What else does a socialist economic system involve? Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system" N. Scott Arnold. The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism : A Critical Study. Oxford University Press. 1998. pg. 8
- ^ Busky, Donald F. (20 July 2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. p. 2. ISBN 978-0275968861.
Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy. It is this idea that is the common element found in the many forms of socialism.
- ^ Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Leonardo Morlino (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science. SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 2456. ISBN 978-1412959636.
Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
- ^ Bockman, Johanna (2011). Markets in the name of Socialism: The Left-Wing origins of Neoliberalism. Stanford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-8047-7566-3.
socialism would function without capitalist economic categories – such as money, prices, interest, profits and rent – and thus would function according to laws other than those described by current economic science. While some socialists recognised the need for money and prices at least during the transition from capitalism to socialism, socialists more commonly believed that the socialist economy would soon administratively mobilise the economy in physical units without the use of prices or money.
- ^ Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists, by Schweickart, David; Lawler, James; Ticktin, Hillel; Ollman, Bertell. 1998. From "The Difference Between Marxism and Market Socialism" (pp. 61–63): "More fundamentally, a socialist society must be one in which the economy is run on the principle of the direct satisfaction of human needs..."
- ^ The Economics of Feasible Socialism Revisited, by Nove, Alexander. 1991. (P.13): "Under socialism, by definition, it (private property and factor markets) would be eliminated. There would then be something like ‘scientific management’, ‘the science of socially organized production’, but it would not be economics."
- ^ Kotz, David M. "Socialism and Capitalism: Are They Qualitatively Different Socioeconomic Systems?" (PDF). University of Massachusetts. Retrieved 19 February 2011. "This understanding of socialism was held not just by revolutionary Marxist socialists but also by evolutionary socialists, Christian socialists, and even anarchists. At that time, there was also wide agreement about the basic institutions of the future socialist system: public ownership instead of private ownership of the means of production, economic planning instead of market forces, production for use instead of for profit."
- ^ Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3-4, pp. 2: "Socialism has historically been committed to the improvement of people’s material standards of living. Indeed, in earlier days many socialists saw the promotion of improving material living standards as the primary basis for socialism’s claim to superiority over capitalism, for socialism was to overcome the irrationality and inefficiency seen as endemic to a capitalist system of economic organization."
- ^ "Socialism". Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved December 31 2015.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|access-date=
(help) - ^ Merriam Webster Online http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism. Retrieved December 31 2015.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|access-date=
(help); Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ The Free Dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism. Retrieved December 31 2015.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|access-date=
(help); Missing or empty|title=
(help)