Talk:Socialism

Archives

Earlier discussions:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Socialism and Nazism -- archive of extensive discussion on this topic from Jan 2004. Also includes the discussion that resulted in a bullet list of types of socialism (the two issues were intertwined). Inevitably, other topics were also touched on, but I have endeavored to leave in the present page the few clearly unrelated exchanges on the present page during that very heated period. -- Jmabel 09:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4
• /Archive 5
• /Archive 6
• /Archive 7
• /Archive 8 -- Archive of discussions begun from June 2006 to Dec 2006 and ending no later than Feb 2007.
• /Archive 9 -- Archive of discussions begun from January 2007 to March 2007, with no live discussions.

Plato

I don't understand what Plato is doing in this article. IMO he was a statist, but not a socialist. Can anyone explain why he should be mentioned, along with their sources? This follows from a smilar discussion at Talk:Communism#Plato. Grant | Talk 09:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains The Republic's relevance to socialism and, in particular, the issue of private property:

"There should be no confusion about private property. When Socrates describes the living situation of the guardian classes in the ideal city (415d-417b), he is clear that private property will be sharply limited, and when he discusses the kinds of regulations the rulers need to have in place for the whole city (421c ff.), he is clear that the producers will have enough private property to make the regulation of wealth and poverty a concern" [1].

-- WGee 01:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

From that it sounds as if only the Guardian (reader? ;-) class is "sharply limited" in the property it can hold. That it certainly different from conventional class structures, but I still wouldn't call it socialist. Some conservatives also favour limits on the ownership of property, the means of production and so on. Grant | Talk 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't consider Plato's means socialist, and I don't think anyone could consider his ends (strict hierarchies, etc.) socialist either. Jacob Haller 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is calling Plato or his ideas "socialist." The article simply says that "certain elements of what is typically thought of as socialism long predate the rise of the workers movement of the late 19th century, particularly in Plato's Republic . . ." That much is verified by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. -- WGee 02:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

there aren't none elements tipically of socialism in Plato. The limitation of property for only a class is not element of socialism. --Francomemoria 12:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I edited out that Plato reference months ago... In this passage he is talking about what is proper to the different classes of society - the rulers should have power but no wealth, the merchants wealth but no power and so on. This is not an idea predating socialism. Plato's views have nothing to do with equality (his utopia is highly inegalitarian) or social justice or social ownership of the common wealth, or anything like that. I think this should be removed. BobFromBrockley 13:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopædia Britannica refers to Plato's Republic in its article on socialism; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy devotes a section to communism in its article "Plato's Ethics and Politics in The Republic"; and even more encyclopedias refer to it in their articles on communism, including the Columbia Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia of Russian History, and the Legal Encyclopedia [2]. So I think it is appropriate to make a brief reference to The Republic when discussing the origins of socialism. -- WGee 18:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

agree with BobFromBrockley, is this encyclopedies wrongs this not a good reason for wrong also in wikipedia, unlucky i haven't source in English.--Francomemoria 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC) and in Stanford article communism section is not write that Plato is a back of socialism or communism, i've already tell critic on other, but britannica i can't see the socialism article is not free--Francomemoria 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

(You can access the socialism article on Britannica Concise for free [3].) I have just demonstrated that several reliable sources regard The Republic as relevant to the origins of socialism or communism. And according to WP:ATT, we must not refuse to conform to their opinions by deliberately removing all references to The Republic. -- WGee 01:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for link, also britannica not write motive for this back as Plato's Republic they write with not motivation it's not a serious work. if you wan report need a source that explain this back and not only write there is a back a Plato. --Francomemoria 10:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive

It takes me quite a while to scroll or drag or whatever technique to get to the bottom. Perhaps an archiving should be in order sometime soon? Fephisto 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree! Sorry to have introduced a new topic before this happened! BobFromBrockley 16:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism

I edited the Economics section to include reference to libertarian socialism. This was swiftly edited out. I'm not too precious about my own contribution, but I think that (a) it is insane that this page is not allowed to even MENTION libertarian socialism, as if it does not exist, and (b) the phrase "Anarcho-syndicalists and elements of the New Left influenced by Trotskyism propose..." which has returned where I introduced libertarian socialism is clunky and unclear. Here's the paragraph after my edit:

Many socialists do not advocate a state-managed economy, but instead argue for various forms of decentralized, worker-managed economic systems. These socialists are often called libertarian socialists. For example, anarcho-syndicalists call for workers to control the economy directly through trade unions. Elements of the New Left, council communists and some Trotskyists stress various forms of democraticworkers' control or workers' self-management. Other libertarian socialists and mutualists advocate the "cooperative economy," a largely free market economy in which workers manage the firms and democratically determine remuneration levels and labor divisions; in this system, productive resources are legally owned by the cooperative and rented to the workers, who enjoy usufruct rights. Another, more recent, variant is "participatory economics," wherein the economy is planned by decentralized councils of workers and consumers. In that system, workers are remunerated solely according to effort and sacrifice, so that those engaged in dangerous, uncomfortable, and strenuous work receive the highest incomes and can thereby work less.

Here's what it says now:

Anarcho-syndicalists and elements of the New Left influenced by Trotskyism propose decentralized, worker-managed economic systems. One such system is Jaroslav Vanek's "cooperative economy," a largely free market economy in which workers manage the firms and democratically determine remuneration levels and labor divisions. Productive resources would be legally owned by the cooperative and rented to the workers, who would enjoy usufruct rights. Another, more recent, variant is "participatory economics," wherein the economy is planned by decentralized councils of workers and consumers. Workers would be remunerated solely according to effort and sacrifice, so that those engaged in dangerous, uncomfortable, and strenuous work would receive the highest incomes and could thereby work less.

Here's why WGee edited it:

"Libertarian socialism" is poorly defined and is not used by the sources I consulted; nor are obscure council communists or mutualists mentioned (mutualism is not even compatible w/ Vanek's coop econ

What do other people think? BobFromBrockley 16:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound so huffy, but my edit summary is basically correct. As you can see in the article, I consulted an undergraduate comparative economics textbook as the basis of my edits, and it explicitly says what groups advocate what economic systems. In your revision, you wrote that Mutualists support Vanek's "participatory economy," although that is incorrect. First, in the participatory economy, wages need not be equal to the product of one's labor; second, the means of production are not owned by the workers, but by the state; third, Vanek admits that indicative state planning might be necessary in the participatory economy; finally, the participatory economy does not preclude the charging of interest or private ownership of land.

With regard to the ambiguity of the term libertarian socialism, Chomsky says that it is merely a synonym for anarchism, whereas other authors say that the term also encompasses council communism and autonomist Marxism. Even if the term were clearly defined, there would be no need to use an imprecise umbrella term when it could be replaced with the names of specific groups. -- WGee 23:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We should be careful with every term. The two versions speak of:

• Socialists
• Libertarian Socialists
• Anarcho-Syndicalists
• New Left
• Council Communists
• Some Trotskyists
• Mutualists
• Cooperative Economy
• Participatory Economics

Are there any economic proposals associated with some "libertarian socialists" (broadly defined) but not supported by any "libertarian socialists" (= anarchists)? If not, the blanket term should not pose any problems.

The Trotskyist reference drives me nuts. There are many traditions associated with Trotsky; some are more libertarian, some are more authoritarian. Similarly, there are many traditions associated with Stalin or Mao. The present statement seems at once too general (it doesn't say which Trotskyist traditions, e.g. POUM and Situationism) and too specific (it does address other traditions, e.g. in Hungary or Yugoslavia might be relevant).

The participatory economy seems to be a form of collectivism (in the anarchist sense). Collectivism may be a subset of mutualism, but not a synonym for it. (Mutualism encompasses much of individualism as well as collectivism). I think a general discussion of socialism should cover mutualism, but that's another issue. Jacob Haller 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(No accusation of huffyness intended!) I'm not too fussed about protecting my wording. I didn't mean that mutualism is variant of participatory economics but rather that participatory economics is a variant of non-state socialism. Obviously, whatever the paragraph says, it needs to be clear.

More generally, of course libertarian socialism is a vague and confusing term - as is socialism. An encyclopedia article on socialism should mention its main currents (and lib soc is a significant current of socialism, altho obviously not as significant as social democracy/reformist socialism and Communism/revolutionary socialism) and then indicate the specific groups under this term. My bottom line is that the article has to MENTION libertarian socialism somewhere; I can't understand why this is controversial.

Finally, the syndicalist/Trotskyist/"elements of the New Left" reference (in the article twice, I think both times replacing concise mentions of libertarian socialism): this formulation seems to me patently confusing and in need of changing. BobFromBrockley 16:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the misleading "influenced by Trotskyism" passage. As of now it only refers to "Anarcho-syndicalists and elements on the New Left," which is still far too narrow. IMHO, subbing libertarian socialists for anarcho-syndicalists woyld be better; listing more tendencies within LS would be best. Jacob Haller 08:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Whole paragraph should be removed. I never heard for "Jaroslav Vanek" and he seems like a non-notable person. -- Vision Thing -- 19:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

His economic system is notable enough to be mentioned in an undergraduate textbook about comparative economics. It's even mentioned in the general "Overview of Comparative Economics" chapter, which means that it is especially relevant to the subject. -- WGee 00:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether Jaroslav Vanek and these two systems are mentioned in some economic textbook is irrelevant. This is a general article about socialism, not detailed article about all possible socialist economic systems. As far as I can see, both "cooperative economy" and "participatory economics" are purely theoretical concepts which were never tested in practice. Giving them third of space which is given to Soviet styled economies is clear example of undue weight. -- Vision Thing -- 20:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about Vanek either way. But I strongly disagree with removing paragraph, as libertarian socialism - including co-op movement, IS important, whether or not it has been tested in reality. Equating socialist economics with Soviet system is very misleading, as vast majority of socialists do not identify with socialist system. I also agree with J Haller that term "libertarian socialism" is correct, rather than more obscure "Anarcho-syndicalists and elements on the New Left". BobFromBrockley 11:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In the past vast majority of socialist identified socialist system with Soviet system. Today vast majority of socialist identify socialist system with social democracy. "Libertarian socialism" is a group of fringe philosophies, which probably doesn't deserve any mention in the article, let alone any prominent coverage. -- Vision Thing -- 19:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Socialist economics/POV tag

I've put a POV tag there. Vanek response is pretty much irrelevant to the points Mises has raised in terms of economic calculation. It would be better if the whole section there would be shortened, that will make it NPOV. Intangible2.0 09:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The section is socialist economics, and that describes one breed of socialist economics, it isn't criticisms of socialism - maybe the Mises stuff needs moving? What are you suggesting is POV--Red Deathy 10:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of Vanek and don't think he should be mentioned in the article (although I suppose a text by him would be an appropriate footnote reference if the term co-operative econ remains. However, (a) I don't see in what way the para is POV. What's POV about it? (Yes, maybe Mises stuff in earlier para would go better in criticisms section.) (b) I certainly don't think the para should be deleted, as it is an important - it should be re-written, perhaps using some of the material from my suggested version above. BobFromBrockley 11:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Some users have a legitimate concern that the economic system of the Soviet Union is not being given its due weight relative to theoretical alternatives. However, the proper way to go about rectifying that perceived imbalance is to add more information about the economic system of the Soviet Union, not to remove all the information about theoretical alternatives. The section is currently too short considering the importance of its subject, so size cannot be used as an excuse to cut information. -- WGee 00:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. For example there is no mention that socialist economies in practice had large black markets. I should also mention that economic calculation applies to both theory and practice. Intangible2.0 17:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't propose turning the section into an anti-Socialist essay. And I'm removing the tag until you explain what, exactly, makes the section biased. -- WGee 15:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to any socialist country that did not have a large black market? Besides black markets in socialist countries are a good thing. They are the only way how people can actually get what they really want (like obtaining foreign currency, whereby needed goods from abroad could be obtained without the auspices of a socialist government). I am not trying to write an anti-socialist section. But one should also not forget that socialism, at large, is a dismissed ideology. Your comment is tantamount to saying that when writing about National Socialist race ideas, one should not mention how these ideas caused the slaughter of millions of people. Intangible2.0 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Virtually every developing country, whether Socialist or capitalist, has a rampant black market, so I fail to see how this is pertinent to socialism in particular. -- WGee 17:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC) In Socialist economies, black markets are the products of poor economic planning; in capitalist economies, black markets arise out of monetary mismanagement, market failures, or unenforceable laws. So why single out socialism? -- WGee 17:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight is part of NPOV policy. As for black market, I thought it's well known that USSR's economy would collapse much earlier if they had had well developed black market. It's the only thing that enabled them to keep going for such a long time. -- Vision Thing -- 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, I suggest breaking up the economics section into three sub-sections - Soviet Economy ; Mixed Economy ; Co-operatives. Move the stuff about economic calculation into criticisms This would be a much broader approach and would remove the apprent undue weight problem, IMNSHO.--Red Deathy 08:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent suggestion. Economic calc and black market stuff, if relevant, should clearly be in crit section, not this section. Only hesitation, am not sure "co-operatives" is broad enough term. Would "non-state socialism" be better? BobFromBrockley 11:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Those theories are not notable in any major way. If they are to be mentioned, that can be done in small section in Socialist economics, not here. Criticism should not be ghettoized if they can be naturally spread out through the article. -- Vision Thing -- 19:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I alone in thinking libertarian socialism is notable? And that co-operative and mutualist economic theories are fairly notable? If I am, I'll shut up about this! BobFromBrockley 15:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not alone. I tried adding coverage earlier. I believe Shawn did so as well. Jacob Haller 18:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The most notable libertarian socialist/cooperative-based economic systems are already mentioned, and this is about as much coverage as they should get considering the broad scope of this article. It's also as much coverage as some people will tolerate before igniting another edit war. -- WGee 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Mixed economy and co-operatives are as much part of the experience of actually existing socialism (sic) as the Soviet union - indeed, I seem to recall some dictionaries used to define socialism as a mixed economy and declared that total state ownership in the SU *communism*. The fact that in the UK today, in some regions, the state has a greater percentage of GDP than in some post soviet states indicates that mizxed economy 'socialism' (as some would call it) is alive and well and as deserving on consideration as the Pact planning.--Red Deathy 06:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"The most notable libertarian socialist/cooperative-based economic systems are already mentioned" - er, actually the term libertarian socialist doesn't otherwise appear on the page, and cooperative based economic systems are mentioned only v briefly in intro. We seem to be arguing over a few seperate issues here:

1. The title: "Socialism as an economic system" or "Socialist economic systems". I think that the section should be in the plural - it looks at state-based (Soviet model), mixed and (unless it's deleted) non-state. These are three v different systems, so I think plural is better.
2. One section or three subsections: Red Deathy's suggestion that the section should be broken up.
3. POV tag: As far as I can tell, the POV tag is over the mention or not of Mises and over the inclusion or not of criticisms, and possibly over whether Mises, Hayek and Friedman should be called classical liberal or conservative. I'm neutral about these. Couldn't we strike a compromise like "Liberal and conservative economists such as Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises argued that socialist planned economies were..."?
4. Libertarian socialism: The question of whether non-state socialist economic systems, such as co-operativism, mutualism, workers' councils, are notable enough to be included in the section - and whether they are allowed to be named libertarian socialism, non-state socialism, or the vague and weasly "Anarcho-syndicalists and some elements of the New Left..."

BobFromBrockley 09:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Given co-operatives from Owen onwards have been part of the socialist morass I think they're worth mentioning - also Venexuela (without further comment) is seeing worker co-ops as patr of the Chavez business (sort of). I think Socialist Economics suffices as a title.--Red Deathy 09:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Co-operatives should not dominate the section. Soviet Union is mentioned because it gives empirical confirmation of the economic calculation problem. One could mention Mao's China as well. Intangible2.0 10:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting that co-operatives should dominate the section - a couple of sentence in the third para of a 3-para section is all. Of course the Soviet Union is more important to the section's purpose. Soviet Union is not mentioned because it gives empirical confirmation of the economic calculation problem; it is given prominence in the section because its economy, for many, was prototypical of socialist economics (yes, Mao's China would also be relevant here, and I'd have no problem with Mao's China being mentioned!). I think RD's Socialist Economics as a title is sensible: is neutral on whether or not there are more than one systems. BobFromBrockley 11:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The new title looks good to me. I think, given the importance of economics to socialist criticism of capitalism and socialist proposals to replace capitalism, the whole section should be expanded. At the same time, this concerns economic systems more than political systems, we can break up both state-socialist and libertarian-socialist categories in this section and pair them other ways, e.g.:

1. General observations. The calculation problem could go here.
2. Soviet planned economy.
3. Soviet NEP, Chinese system.
4. Western mixed economies.
5. Cooperatives (e.g. Mondragon/MCC) and collectivist anarchist systems. Possibly also Yugoslav system and Kuzbass autonomous industrial colony.
6. Labor unions.
7. Socialist market economies. Mutualism, etc. as well as what Marx calls 'Bourgeois socialism' (in the Manifesto).
8. someplace in there, gift economies, anarcho-communism, and perhaps Fourier as well.

Perhaps some of these can be grouped together, certainly some topics will be longer than others. Does this sound good? Jacob Haller 20:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The title "Socialism as an economic system" was chosen intentionally in order to indicate that socialism is not only a political theory, but also an economic system. The title "Socialist economic systems" does not convey that meaning because it suggests that an economic system is only one component of socialism, when, in fact, an economic system can constitute socialism.

Two of the most prominent forms of non-state socialism are mentioned in the section: the free market "cooperative economy" and the democratically planned "participatory economy." There is no way that we could go so far as to discuss Mutualism, which is discredited by most socialists and has little historical significance, in this introductory article.

Finally, I still do not understand how the sentence "Anarcho-syndicalists and some elements of the New Left..." is vague: it states two specific socialists movements. If anything, libertarian socialism, an umbrella term that many regard as a synonym for anarchism (including Chomsky), is vague. -- WGee 22:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Socialism has been associated with several distinct economic systems. I listed seven general systems above, though some are mutually compatible. So the reference to an economic system was misleading.

Anarcho-syndicalism is way too specific. Elements of the New Left is way too vague. Moreover, some anarcho-communists, collectivists, mutualists, libertarian communists, autonomous Marxists, etc. propose similar systems without all being either syndicalists or elements of the new left. Finally, other elements of the new left propose completely different systems.

I'm not going to push mutualism in a short summary. But I'd like to see more thorough coverage everywhere, possibly including some coverage of mutualism etc. If we could coordinate corrections here with expansion of Socialist economics it might work much better. Jacob Haller 01:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The two contemporary socialist economic theories discussed in the third paragraph are the only ones notable enough to be mentioned in the textbook I consulted, and they have been proposed by syndicalists and New Leftists. Although other socialist groups might propose different economic systems, they are evidently not important enough to be discussed in this very broad article. -- WGee 03:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Not all syndicalists, or all New Leftists, propose either approach.
2. Not all proponents of either approach are either syndicalists or New Leftists. Jacob Haller 04:53, 28 April 2007 (UTc)

I've read nothing that suggests that Mutualists or autonomist Marxists support any of the two economic systems discussed in the third paragraph. Even if they do, they are too uninfluential (both historically and currently) to be mentioned in this general article. -- WGee 17:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Syndicalist economic systems

Syndicalists have not all supported either the cooperative or the participatory economy. I have rewritten the opening of the cooperatives statement to emphasize that libertarian socialists in general have shared those goals, but have proposed several different decentralized, worker-managed economic systems, not just those two. Moreover, not all syndicalists have been libertarian socialists. I have started another paragraph stating that:

Syndicalists focus on labor organizing. Most syndicalists expect unions to have a central role in socialist economics; some syndicalists have favored state socialism, more have favored anarchist communism, many have favored collectivist (e.g. cooperative and participatory) economies, and some have favored market economies.

Now I'm most familiar with the American (pre-Wobbly and Wobbly industrial unionist) tradition, e.g.:

1. state socialism Earl Browder, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, William Z. Foster
2. anarchocommunism Johann Most, Ricardo Flores Magon
3. collectivist economies apparently Bill Haywood
4. market economies Joseph Labadie, Dyer Lum, apparently Ralph Chaplin by 1919-20 Jacob Haller 19:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

When I added the third paragraph to satisfy the demands of several editors who were vexed at the omission of heterodox socialism, I made sure to mention only the two most notable economic systems to have found support among the anti-authoritarian left. My yardstick for notability was the overview section of an undergraduate textbook on comparative economics. Other economic systems proposed by anarchists or syndicalists are too insignificant to be discussed in the introduction of that textbook, and hence to insignificant to be discussed in this general article. -- WGee 05:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If any one system, besides unionism itself, can claim majority support among syndicalists it is libertarian communism, with cooperativism/collectivism claiming far less support. I am not aware of any systematic survey of syndicalist opinion on the matter. As written, the old text understated the range of syndicalist opinion, and misplaced the mode as well. Jacob Haller 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Economic System(s): Topics to Cover

Can we agree on what topics to include (and not to include)? I proposed the following list above:

1. General observations. The calculation problem could go here.
2. Soviet planned economy.
3. Soviet NEP, Chinese system.
4. Western mixed economies.
5. Cooperatives (e.g. Mondragon/MCC) and collectivist anarchist systems. Possibly also Yugoslav system and Kuzbass autonomous industrial colony.
6. Labor unions.
7. Socialist market economies. Mutualism, etc. as well as what Marx calls 'Bourgeois socialism' (in the Manifesto).
8. someplace in there, gift economies, anarcho-communism, and perhaps Fourier as well.

WGee argued against including the market economies. I'd like to expand the whole section, since this is one of the most important topics for the article. Also, can people say what they are most familiar with and most interested in improving? Jacob Haller 05:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree. These are things which need to go in the main article, Socialist economics, while this section of this article should be fairly succint. BobFromBrockley 10:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for spelling conversion

I feel compelled to bring this back to the table. Is there ANY way that we can convert the spelling in this article to British English? The reason I would favour this is because such would be the more European way to go in stylistic characteristic. Socialism is an inherently European ideology (at least in the systematic sense), it enjoyed a higher degree of success in Europe and elsewhere in the Non-American world, and the United States now more than ever is going the opposite direction of socialism. In fact the only relation the U.S. has ever had with this ideology (though an important one to note) is that it has played a role as the world's biggest opposer to it, why then should we use the American spelling medium in describing this ideology's history and socio-political attributes?EnglishEfternamn^talk_contribs 02:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy. WP:ENGVAR to be precise. --Guinnog 02:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewording of "condemned" to "criticized"

This pertains to the rewording of the word "condemned" to "criticized" (ugghh, having to write that with American spelling, yuck, but that is not the point), for the reason that there is no sufficient evidence that ALL socialists of the 19th century went to the extend that they "condemned" BOTH capitalism and private property. To add to this, "condemned" is a harsh word which implies malice and that socialist thought is "malicious", in fact I don't think well of this word being used to describe any type of opinion, and that is why I have re-worded the word in other articles in the past. Furthermore, while all socialists are ideologically against capitalism, it would be inaccurate to state that they all are against private property as well. We all know that not all socialists seek to do away or even alter rules of private property. If the sentence was reworded to describe capitalism only, then "and" would be appropriate, but since this is not the case, I think "and/or" is more accurate, and I don't see how it would be unencyclopedic. Bottom line, unless something could be cited that proves that all socialists, each and every one, condemned both capitalism and private property, the current revision might be acceptable,....but since it is unencyclopedic to use the terms "all", "nothing", "always", "never", except in very select cases, I don't see how even that would work. It is for this reason that I conclude the change is necessary, general consensus on this matter in the past has favoured this direction.EnglishEfternamn^talk_contribs 03:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises / Socialism as an economic system section

Can anyone tell me why he should not be mentioned, and how not mentioning him is NPOV? One can check Google Scholar, and easily see that one should mention Mises. Intangible2.0 08:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• (from rfc) Ludwig von Mises is a minor figure with little or nothing to do with socialism. There is no reason to press for his inclusion in this page.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 10:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. However it does help us get further here. Ludwig von Mises gives me 4,000+ hits in Google Scholar, which also shows that his Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth gives 300+ hits. Do you have any reference that can attest to the "marginality" of Ludwig von Mises? Intangible2.0 10:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I am not sure if Milton Friedman should be mentioned. I do not remember him writing particularly on this topic. Intangible2.0 11:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• (from rfc)Hayek is mentioned and the calculation problem is linked. That's enough information, and I see no POV problems here. Hornplease 12:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Intangible, Hayek and Friedman are Nobel laureates; Ludwig von Mises is not. That attests to the eminence of the former two and the less important role of the latter. -- WGee 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So where is that brilliant essay by Milton Friedman then? The reason why I want to include Mises here is because he started the debate. Hayek "weakened" the arguments of Mises, by moving into a direction of Walrasian equilibrium theory, which is a different epistemology altogether. Intangible2.0 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hayek may have weakened the argument in your eyes, but strengthened it immensely in the eyes of mainstream economic science. Adding Mises would unbalance the section, in my opinion. Hornplease 21:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in adding Ludwig von Mises together with Hayek and Friedman. He is certainly prominent enough to be mentioned. -- Vision Thing -- 20:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mainstream economists. Further, it unbalances the criticism towards the Austrian school. Hornplease 07:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Being bold

OK, I've gone and put in a few sub-headings and a start-up paragraph for mixed economies - let us know what you think - reckon it needs further knocking into shape...--Red Deathy 11:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The trichotomy is misleading. First, the central components of participatory economics are not cooperatives, but rather workers' and consumers' councils that plan the economy (that being said, the participatory economy could technically be discussed under the first heading). Secondly, the hybrid nature of market socialism and the pivotal effect of the economic planning controversy on mainstream socialism mean that they should not be lumped into the "Planned economies" section. Finally, "mixed economies" (i.e., the economies of all industrialized nations) are considered manifestations of advanced market capitalism; only libertarians would call them socialist. We can, however, discuss post-WWII indicative planning in the United Kingdom and France, but the eventual discrediting of dirigisme in both countries must be mentioned. For now, the subheadings should be removed, nor do I envision the section becoming long enough to warrant subheadings in the future. -- WGee 18:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a common enough trichotomy - I remember dictionaries whose definition of socialism was basically 'mixed economies', and certainly many 'socialist' parties for whom a mixed ecobnomy was the goal rather than the means to full communal ownership. The significant difference being that mixed economies were planning under liberal democracy. Now, from my own ultra-left POV, yes, these were just elements of a degeneratuive state capitalism, but from an NPOV a significant part of the 'socialist experience'. I think some sort of subcategorisation is improtant - yes, maybe co-operatives wasn't quite suitable for that para (I thought it read OK) but deserve a specific mention for their place in socialist economic thought/experience. Anyway, it was worth a try.--Red Deathy 06:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I liked the trichotomy (there's word I never used before), except I think heading the third section "Co-operatives" confusing, because what the third section referred to was the family of socialist economic systems which don't identify socialisation with the state. The most common term for this family is libertarian socialsm, which is an umbrella term (as is democratic socialism, for example) including co-ops, workers' councils, etc. "Anarcho-syndicalists and elements of the New Left" is a terrible way of summarising this family, as that leaves so much out - "elements of the New Left" being vague and more or less meaningless (what elements?) and "Anarcho-syndicalists" being too specific (just one of the currents that favour non-state systems). BobFromBrockley 09:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

VisionThing objects to libertarian socialist and to footnotes to Tucker and Kropotkin. Kropotkin described himself as a socialist. As a Misesite writes: "Peter Kropotkin, the famous late 19th- and early 20th-century Russian communist anarchist, stated that there are essentially two kinds of socialism: statist socialism and anarchism."[4] Tucker described himself as a socialist, indeed in the article JH's footnote cites[5]. "Anarcho-syndicalists and elements of the New Left" doesn't begin to capture the range of those who have proposed non-state socialist economic systems - e.g. William Morris, GDH Cole, Proudhon, to give three "notable" examples. BobFromBrockley 10:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Do Kropotkin's & Tucker's overviews of anarchism support my statement that "libertarian socialists propose several different decentralized, worker-managed economic systems"? Presumably, libertarian socialist systems include anarchist (socialist) systems (worker managed economic systems proposed by those who consider themselves both anarchists and socialists), council communist systems, autonomous Marxist systems, etc. Therefore, the set of libertarian socialist systems is at least as varied as the set of anarchist (socialist) systems it includes.
2. Is libertarian socialism the best term for the subject? Harder call. I noted the problems with generalizing about anarcho-syndicalism or syndicalism in general. I think statements about elements of the New Left [influenced by Trotskyism] were vague in the short version and screwy in the long version. Libertarian socialism looks like the best match, imho. The term includes stateless Marxists, etc. and excludes capitalists. Jacob Haller 19:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hitler also described himself as a socialist. Shall we add him to equation too? -- Vision Thing -- 13:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the 1st International included many individualist anarchist members, including William Greene. Even Engels describes Proudhon as a socialist (preface to the Communist Manifesto) and Marx describes Proudhon, and even some radical liberals, as socialists (Communist Manifesto, part 3, section 2), without endorsing their model. So actually excluding individualist anarchism goes against historical understandings of socialism and the socialist movement. Jacob Haller 21:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Socialist organizations

I added an international grouping to the list of socialist organisations and it was deleted without comment. I wonder what the reasoning is for the list of socialist organisations? Is it possible to list the main international socialist groupings? As it stands the list seems rather selective.

I pesonally think there should be short list, if one can be agreed, as some guidance, and they could perhaps be confined to international groupings, as they are currently, but with omissions. I know there is a discussion above which did not conclude this, but some organisations have been added since. Andysoh 14:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Userbox available

Code	Result
|{{User:UBX/Tax the rich}}	This user wants to tax the rich to provide health care, education and welfare for everyone.†$ £ ¥ €	Usage

--One Salient Oversight 01:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)*

• That's cool, but maybe I should amend mine to say "tax myself"...EnglishEfternamn^talk_contribs 18:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Socialism as an economic system

Although the section must be expanded, it should continue to focus on Soviet-style socialism, market socialism, and their bastions. Mixed economies (i.e., the economies of every industrialized nation) or welfare states are not considered socialist but rather manifestations of advanced market capitalism. Participatory or syndicalist economics can be discussed as well, but the focus should remain on the centrally planned economy of the Soviet Union, "socialism with Chinese characteristics," and the market socialist economies of Communist Hungary and Yugoslavia, in accordance with textbooks on comparative economics such as Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy (Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, 2004). -- WGee 02:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you say? "Mixed economies (i.e., the economies of every industrialized nation) or welfare states are not considered socialist but rather manifestations of advanced market capitalism." What?! Mixed economies are not advanced market capitalism. Mixed economies are by definition part capitalism and part socialism. See the article mixed economy. Mixed economy is manifestation of non-market socialist characteristics being introduced into what was a capitalist economy or capitalist characteristics being introduced into what was a socialist economy. Working Poor 02:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you actually read the provided source, or any other general textbook on comparative economics for that matter? -- WGee 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The majority of people who currently claim to be socialists - that is, social democrats - would consider mixed economies to fit their definition of socialism. The article does currently cover social democracy, so why shouldn't it cover the economic views of social democrats? If you believe that social democracy is not a form of socialism, that's fine, but you must then remove it from the entire article, not merely one section.

In any case, the economy section as it stood before was clearly inadequate. Please remove any paragraphs you deem inappropriate from the new section rather than reverting. -- Nikodemos 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that the reason social democrats call themselves social democrats, rather than democratic socialists, is that they are not socialists and do not consider themselves to be. Democratic socialists support slowly supplanting a capitalist ecoonomy with a socialist one, while social democrats support reform within the capitalist system, i.e. a mixed economy. That's my understanding of the difference between the terms. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My own personal POV is that you are correct, and social democracy is not a form of socialism. However, the largest organization of social democratic parties in the world is called the Socialist International, and many social democratic parties claim to be socialist (e.g. French Socialist Party). -- Nikodemos 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether or not social democrats consider themselves socialists; neither your contributions nor the section to which they were made concern that issue. Since you inserted information about contemporary Western economies (i.e., "mixed economies" or "welfare states") into a section entitled "Socialism as an economic system," the implication follows that such economies are socialist. My problem is that mainstream literature on comparative economics indicates that they are actually advanced capitalist economies rather than socialist ones, and thus should not be discussed in that section. I dislike your approach to expanding the section in general, as you have shifted the focus away from socialist economic systems and how they (would) work to the broad economic principles that socialists advocate. -- WGee 07:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is because I meant my edits to provide the framework for further development of the section. I strongly object to the previous state of that section, which not only gave ridiculous undue weight to the Soviet Union, but also seemed to be more concerned with Western criticisms of the Soviet economy than with explaining how that economy actually worked.

I will restore my edits, with some changes: 1. I will comment out the section on social democracy; 2. I will give a summary of the workings of the Soviet economy. -- Nikodemos 07:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I reinserted the paragraph about the liberal critique of socialist planning because the economic calculation problem actually engendered market socialism, which is discussed in the following paragraph. It would be unencyclopedic to omit the cause of the effect. -- WGee 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In theoretical terms, you had free-market advocates like Proudhon and Tucker active in the socialist movement in the 19th century (and others in the 20th century). In practical terms, the NEP was a mixed economy in the 1920s. Jacob Haller 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to mention earlier that we should add information about the NEP as a type of mixed-market socialism, although I think Proudhon's economic theory is too obscure and uninfluential to be included in this general entry on socialism. -- WGee 22:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a shorter summary of the liberal challenge would be in order (along with a note that it is, in fact, a challenge from liberal free market economists, rather than the vague notion of "western economists"). The reason I dislike having any argumentation in sections not dedicated to argumentation is because argumentation attracts POV-pushers. -- Nikodemos 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But the paragraph is only three sentences long, and the economic calculation debate surely deserves at least that much attention considering its impact on contemporary socialist economic theory. I understand your concern about POV-pushers running wild with arguments and counter-arguments, but in this case it is not helpful to force all criticism into one section. We'll just have to be extra vigilant. -- WGee 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is correct, the paragraph is short, but then again, the entire section is short. Undue weight is relative to the size of an article or section. Three sentences can be too much in a stub (such as we have here), or too little in a section that is 30 kb long. In any case, I will again try to stick to your suggestions while rephrasing the text and providing a link to the economic calculation problem. The ultimate solution, I think, will be to simply expand the section. -- Nikodemos 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

<-------Sorry for being so nitpicky, but there were a couple of problems with your rephrasing; see the edit summaries. Now that the market socialism paragraph has been expanded a bit, perhaps we could just leave the critical paragraph alone. Like you said, the ultimate solution will be to expand the section rather than condense the economic calculation debate into one sentence. Eventually, I hope to see a section that includes subheadings, comparable in length to the history section. -- WGee 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You do seem to be rather inflexible, but that's okay. Any inconvenience is more than made up by your role as a bastion against POV-pushers. :) (could I ask for your assistance with two other articles, by the way?) Getting back on topic, please do not remove my text explaining which socialists support the Soviet model. Starting out with "In the Soviet Union" seems rather abrupt and may create all sorts of different false impressions. The general template should be: *This group of socialists supports this economic model, and here is a description of the model*. How many models do we have, by the way? I count four as of now: Soviet, Trotskyist, market socialist, and "participatory". We should aim to expand each of them into sub-sections. Finally, note that the sentence "they argued that socialist planned economies would eventually fail" is original research. There is no such concept as the "failure" of an economic model in academic economics. There is only poor performance on various indicators. What liberals argued was that centrally planned economies would allocate goods and services in a non-optimal way, whereas market economies would allocate them optimally. -- Nikodemos 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I've adequately addressed your concern about who advocates what economic system by mentioning that Marxist-Leninists advocate central command planning.

We could replace fail with collapse, as in "to break down suddenly in strength or health and thereby cease to function." Either way, I'm quite sure that the reader will know what we mean. We are not writing scholarly economic literature; we are simply summarizing information in laymen's terms.

We should aim to discuss the following socialist economic models in addition to the current ones:

• worker-managed market socialism in Yugoslavia;
• decentralized market socialism in Hungary after the introduction of the post-1968 New Economic Mechanism, and János Kornai's critique of it;
• "socialism with Chinese characteristics"
• the New Economic Policy

-- WGee 02:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In my understanding, Trotskyist economic proposals vary as much as other Marxist economic proposals. The article implies that Trotskyists share common economic proposals (distinct from other Marxists) and, probably inadvertently, implies that these proposals influenced anarcho-syndicalism (et al.). There is some back-and-forth between anarchist and Marxist proposals (some direct and some via libertarian Marxism/council communism), but anarcho-syndicalism predtates Trotskyism. It is probably better to say that both influenced the new left. The typology of non-state (not necessarily anarchist) systems could use some work, perhaps cross-referencing non-state systems like collectivism (e.g. Parecon) and syndicalism with comparable state sustems (I've never studied the Yugoslav model) and non-state communism with decentralized forms of state communism (???) and so on. Jacob Haller 04:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mixed economies

The paragraph on mixed economies should be removed. According to the textbook Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy (Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 2004), the planned market economies of Sweden, Japan, and France were "varieties of advanced market capitalism," not forms of socialism. Our categorization of economic systems must not contradict those of mainstream sources. -- WGee 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC) That being said, I recant my earlier statement that it would be appropriate to discuss the immediate post-WWII economies of France and Britain. -- WGee 21:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, most political scientists would consider mixed economies to be at best, partially socialist, but most hardcore socialists would call refer to them as capitalist serving entities. Maybe this information should be moved to the Social Democracy article?EnglishEfternamn^talk_contribs 18:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a section on socialist economics - since nationalisation and the mixed economy were the actions (largely) of mnominally socialist parties, I think it shoudl say. Certainly, within popular definitions of socialism (which NPOVwise we should be aware of) mixed economies are a product of socialistickness. IMNSHO - certainly I think we need to mention something about nationalisation under capitalism. I don't dispute the source you cite (personally I'd call it state capitalism and have done).--Red Deathy 06:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, 'Dictionary of economics / Bannock, Baxter & Davis. London : The Economist in association with Profile books, 2003.' defines a mixed economy as a market economy, but also categorises Western European social democracies under socialism, so I'll restore the para.--Red Deathy 12:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The section is about socialist economic systems, not socialist economics. A mixed economy or welfare state in which a select group of industries are publicly owned may incorporate certain socialist economic principles, but it is not a socialist economic system. This is verified by the aforementioned textbook on comparative economic systems. -- WGee 18:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And the contrary is verified by the economic dictionary. I suggest we rename the section, if that's the bar, but mixed economies belong in there somewhere, else we're POV neglecting the work of self identified socialist movements in government. IMNSHO.--Red Deathy 09:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Red Deathy. Many movements and parties which have been called socialist (e.g. British Labour Party) advocated mixed economy. And why shouldn't section look at socialist economics and socialist economic systems? BobFromBrockley 11:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1.I brought another previous discussion from the archives to help with this ongoing discussion:

I notice WGee has reverted the headline 'Socialist economic practice' to 'Socialism as an economic system'. Of course these are two different things. So:

2. Maybe place 'mixed economies' under a separate heading: 'Socialist economic practice'? I agree with those (above) who argue that mixed economies, as a matter of fact of socialist post war government practice, (and especially since nationalisation is under so much criticism by modern political parties including previously 'socialist' ones) can hardly be missed out of an article on socialism.

3. In the 'Socialism as an economic system' section, one must, I think, avoid the implication that socialists in general think that the Soviet Union is socialist, or that its economy, with no genuine democracy to regulate the central plan, could be considered a socialist economy.

One the one hand no one would deny that those that call themselves Communist with a big C say that the Soviet Union is socialist, but in Europe at any rate, those that don't call themselves Communist, e.g. who call themselves socialists, (or of course Trotskyists, or in many cases Marxists) do not consider the Soviet union, or its economy, socialist.

In an article on Socialism, this distinction is imperative, and it should surely be stated at the outset.

4. WGee suggested an edit of the mixed economy entry. Here a slight first edit to a putative Mixed economy section called Socialist economic practice, to show a. that the term 'mixed economy' was the common term of the time: (I've quoted in full in the ref, but we need not) and b. that it is now widely understood that they remained capitalist and c. Some criticism from within the movement. Something like:

Socialist economic practice

In western Europe, particularly in the period after World War II, many socialist parties in government implemented what became known as mixed economies. These govenments nationalised major and economically vital industries while permitting a free market to continue in the rest. These were most often monopolistic or infrastructural industries like mail, railways, power and other utilities. In some instances a number of small, competing and often relatively poorly financed companies in the same sector were nationalised to form one government monopoly for the purpose of competent management, of economic rescue (in the UK, British Leyland, Rolls Royce), or of competing on the world market. Typically, this was achieved through compulsory purchase of the industry (i.e. with compensation). For example in the UK the nationalization of the coal mines in 1947 created a coal board charged with running the coal industry commercially so as to be able to meet the interest payable on the bonds which the former mine owners' shares had been converted into.

These nationalised industries would frequently be combined with Keynsian economics and incomes policies to try and guide the whole economy. Nevertheless, most economists, and many socialists, consider that these economies were (or are) capitalist economies, and the asperations of those who believed the mixed economy would abolish boom and slump, mass unemployment, and industrial unrest, were disappointed with the onset of the first world wide recession of 1973-4, the oil crisis of this period, and the monetary instability which followed. Some far left socialists, as well as some workers in the nationalised industries, also criticised the nationalisations for not estabilshing workers' control of the nationalised industries, through elected representatives, and the amount of compensation paid to the previous owners.

Andysoh 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be an excellent re-write: but I'm not so sure about splitting the sections, especially with regard to you health warning regarding the SU et al - I think they should remain in the same section, but then, I would, wouldn't I?--Red Deathy 06:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Good, well, I'm happy either way, so I'd be interested in what others felt. Andysoh 23:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Market socialism def.

I rm'ed 172's def. because at least one or two sources (Ollman, for one) I've seen would define market socialism as one that uses market mechanisms for allocation, not necessarilly in competition with a private sector (i.e. competition between state owned enterprises, and planned markets). I'll defer to an authoritative citation, obviously.--Red Deathy 13:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What you removed [6] is not my definition. Nikodemos keeps periodically deciding to either remove or change the reference to market socialism in the intro, seemingly piqued over the removal of (his preferred conception?) "libertarian socialism." (This is frustrating-- not the high quality of work I'd grown accustomed to expecting from him over the years.) I suppose I ended up restoring something different from what I thought I was restoring. Now that I have read the sentence, I see that it is not an adequate summary of all well-known understandings of the term. I will insert a new description. 172 | Talk 14:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my definition. I thought we were referring specifically to China's "socialist market economy," since market socialism was enclosed in quotations marks. This reminds me that we should expand the "Socialism as an economic system" section to include the various forms of market socialism, especially "socialism with Chinese characteristics," with its publicly owned "town and village enterprises." We should also discuss participatory economics in the form of worker-managed cooperatives, employee stock ownership programmes, and worker co-management, which has recently taken root in Venezuela. I will probably only be able to help expand the section sometime next semester, though, in early spring. -- WGee 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize. It's not your fault that sentence on market socialism keeps getting removed without warning. The definition was one of the ones out in the literature, just perhaps not the most widely accepted. 172 | Talk 01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Market socialism

I disagree with the definition of market socialism in this article: "have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, guide production and exchange." This is not the normal understand of market socialism. In market socialism the means of production are privately owned but prices are set by the government to influence production policies. Central planners are indeed guiding production. The definition is sourced but I'd like to see what those sources say. I doubt they say what this article says they say. Road to nowhere 18:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Briannica "Socialism" article says: "Others advocate a “market socialism” in which the market economy would be directed and guided by socialist planners." [7] Road to nowhere 18:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

See Market socialism definition above. And about 30 other threads. Jacob Haller 20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Touted - "solicit custom, pester;"

Hi WGee, Touted - "solicit custom, pester;" - touted is often used in a derogatory way. Rather than "Soviet economic planning was touted as an alternative to allowing prices..." If you don't like "presented" how about:

• Communists argued that Soviet economic planning was preferable to allowing prices...

Or something similar.

Incidentally, some room should perhaps be made for the criticism from Trotsky (who as you know first argued for the five year plan system) who argued that it was the snuffing out of democratic control through genuine workers' soviets that made the soviet planners remote and unaccountable. Perhaps following Hayek Andysoh 20:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WGee replied '"Touted" can also mean "to promote or praise energetically; publicize." This really isn't a big deal, except that it is best to be as concise as possible when writing an encyclopedia article".'

It is certainly only a word, but I think you are usually, quite correctly, very careful with use of words. Consider, for instance, how you would feel if the article said:

• In the West, liberal economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman touted the idea that socialist planned economies ...

I would tend to want to correct that too. Yet it could be argued that this is what Conservatives did, and energetically too. But this shows that we do have a POV if we keep "touted", with its negative associations, notwithstanding its positive ones, unless we use the same terms for Hayek, etc. "Argued" is the best term.

It would be useful if the editors would share their thoughts on this here. Alternatively, to keep things short, we could replace "was touted" with "was presented", my original edit. This is not a question of bias in favour of central planning, but of using neutral terms.

Andysoh 02:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a difference either way. I can see the slight negative connotation of "touted," but for me it isn't a very strong connotation. However, I would support using the term "argued" or something similar because, while the POV on "touted" might not be strong, "argued" is certainly NPOV, so there would be no reason not to say "argued."
On the issue of being concise, if the word "touted" is literally replaced with "argued" it is exactly the same number of words and the meaning is mostly the same; they may or may not have "touted" (Was it energetic? How publicized was it?), it certainly was their argument. Meviin 04:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Russian Revolution provoked a powerful reaction...

The following passage struck me as odd:

• The Russian revolution provoked a powerful reaction throughout Western society, one example being the so-called "Red Scare" in the U.S., which effectively destroyed Eugene V. Debs's Socialist Party of America. In Europe, fascism emerged as a movement opposed to both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism, presenting itself as a "Third Way."[6]

It might be better to put something like:

• The Russian revolution of October 1917 gave rise to the formation of Communist Parties around the world, and the revolutions of 1917-23 which followed. A Communist regime briefly held power in Hungary whilst there were revolutions in Germany and Vienna, and also in the industrial centres of northern Italy.

If we not too concerned about length, we need not abandon the USA information, which is significant:

• In the U.S., the so-called "Red Scare" effectively destroyed Eugene V. Debs's Socialist Party of America, which gave birth to what became the Communist Party USA. One of the founders, James Cannon, went on to become the leader of Trotskyist forces outside the Soviet Union. In Europe, fascism emerged as a movement opposed to both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism, presenting itself as a "Third Way."

Andysoh 00:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think definately your first proposed sentence and maybe the second too. "Provoked" kind of implies that the red scare was a sensible fight-back, and also that the revolution destroyed the SPA, which it didn't. I'd be inclined to stop at the first sentence, as Debs is mentioned a little earlier and Cannon is not so important in this context (e.g. why Cannon here but not, say, Bordiga or Sylvia Pankhurst or Gramsci). Keep up with this excellent editing! BobFromBrockley 15:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bob, those are good points. I have been working and re-working over your points:

1. Do you think that this (below) is better? In this version a mention of Cannon is not so out of place , and incidentally, Pankhurst and Gramsci ought to be mentioned in the article somewhere. But I take your points about the other problems with that paragraph.

So how about:

* The Russian revolution of October 1917 gave rise to the formation of Communist Parties around the world, and the revolutions of 1917-23 which followed. Communist revolutions across Europe seemed a possibility. Communist regimes briefly held power under Béla Kun in Hungary and under Kurt Eisner in Bavaria. There were revolutions, coups and uprisings in Germany and Vienna, and also in the industrial centres of northern Italy. In the course of the German Revolution, the German Communist leaders Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg were killed. In the USA, the Communist Party USA was formed from former adherents of the Socialist Party of America. One of the founders, James Cannon, went on to become the leader of Trotskyist forces outside the Soviet Union.

This is a very slight adaptation of the history of socialism article

2. If we discuss the red scares in the US and elsewhere, McCarthyism, withchunts, we should, perhaps somehow see if we can balance things out: we could easily find references to representatives of the capitalist class arguing that the communists were out to take away the property, savings, and even the money of ordinary people, and contrast it with where Marx and Engels argue in the Communist Manifesto that Communism was for the abolition of the property of the owners of industry and commerce, the capitalist class (like nationalisation), not to remove the "hard won" possessions from working class people. Property is defined in terms of productive (bourgois) property, i.e, capital, property which can turn a profit, create interest, rent or other earnings. (Discussed as you know in brief in II -- PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html].

“ We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor...Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! ... We by no means intend to abolish [the workers'] personal appropriation of the products of labor, ...that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others. ”

3. But I also think this point (in 2 above) is an important distiction to make in the section on the rise of Marxism, since it remains a common misapprehension about Marxism, although more so in the USA. But also the sentence on Marx in the otherwise excellent opening second para of the article, "For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism implied the abolition of money, markets, capital, and labor as a commodity", is problematic in this sense. I think it could be seen as unintentionally hinting at the interpretation of those opponents of communism to whom Marx and Engels replied in the Communist Manifesto, without putting the opposing viewpoint. I personally think it would be better to remove this sentence as attempting too much, and follow what the Encylopedia Britannica does.

The Encylopedia Britannica does not attempt to summarise Marxism in the opening paras. Instead, it points to the social deprivation to give the context in which socialist ideas arose. It introduces Marxism later on. We should perhaps give this approach some consideration in due course.

4. In addition the aricle is not about fascism, and that point on fascism in the original paragraph I questioned, as it is posed, is peripheral. However fascism is significant to socialism, and this undoubtedly was the intention of the paragraph. One needs to discuss the socialist viewpoint: that funding of fascism by big industrialists was, in the view of many socialists (who we can perhaps quote or ref) precisely to smash trade unionism, socialists and the soviet union, as a tool of laissez-faire capitalism, however fascism may present itself, and this might be worth working in.

Just some (a little less) hurried thoughts for feedback, sorry to go on. Andysoh 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re 1: Your proposed para is perfect. Yes, probably Gramsci and maybe Pankhurst should be in article somewhere.

Re 2-3: Am not sure right now, will read this.

Re 4: I think this is too controversial a topic to introduce, as it has been fought over at various other pages, e.g. Economics of fascism and Anti-capitalism, so I would steer clear of introducing it here. BobFromBrockley 09:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. OK. I'll leave (1) a few days to see if there are other views. I'll drop (4) on your advice, and I'll try to find time to attempt some specific wording for (2) and (3) to see if I can come up with something concrete to discuss here. Andysoh 13:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re 1: Was Eisner assassinated as well?

Re 3: I think the current statements about Marx in the 2nd paragraph of the intro pose POV and OR/Synthesis problems. Jacob Haller 01:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jacob,

re 3, I've drafted below a sentence at the end of the 2nd paragraph which might be better

Several encylcopedias I've looked at all find the origins of socialism in the industrial revolution and the impoverishment of the working class, and place in their opening remarks something along these lines:

"The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the 19th century. The Industrial Revolution had brought many economic and social changes. Factory owners became very wealthy, while long hours and impoverishment faced the factory workers.<ref>Commenting on the death of milliner Mary Anne Walkley, 20 years old, who died after working uninterruptedly for 26 1/2 hours, the respectable Morning Star, 23 June 1863, said, 'Our white slaves, who are toiled into the grave, for the most part silently pine and die.' Quoted in Marx, Karl, Capital, p365, Pelican, 1976 [8]</ref>. Socialists criticised the suffering and injustices resulting from the concentration of property in the hands of the capitalist class."

I suggest replacing the last new sentence with Socialists criticised the concentration of property in the hands of the capitalist class, and the injustices resulting from this concentration. or Socialists criticised the injustices resulting from the concentration of property in the hands of the capitalist class. Some socialists, most notably Proudhon, were pro-market, and not all socialists would have had strong pro-market or anti-market positions, and unfettered capitalism poses definitional, if not POV, problems. Capitalism as we know it includes both market and state institutions. Strengthening state regulation unfetters the state elements in capitalism and fetters the market elements in capitalism, and vice-versa. Early/mid 19th-century socialists had as little agreement on how their interaction created capitalism's injustices as present-day socialists do. Jacob Haller 22:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, excellent, I've added that into the draft above, and added 'suffering'. I feel we're missing feedback on this from some other editors, since it is in the intro, so am reluctant to proceed until we do, although it is not really controversial. Andysoh 13:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought Marx's ironic use of the quote from the free trade newspaper might make a suitable double reference for the assertion of long hours and impoverishment, although it gives nothing of the full horror of the circumstances described by Marx. But I am not concerned if editors think it is over the top. Incidentally there is some duplication of "since the 19th century" which can be removed in the intro perhaps.

Re Eisner, you are of course right. But I'm not sure I can incorporate the fate of Eisner in Munich (February 1919) without giving the impression that the whole post 1917 era was one of assassinations! Any help welcome.

Perhaps I can go ahead with 1. and you can enhance it.

Andysoh 22:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think: Go ahead with (1): proposed wording is definate improvement. (2) Although I understand your concern, I'm not altogether clear what you are proposing. Are you talking about where the actual red scare is mentioned, balancing this with a clear statement that Marx was not into appropriating property? Or are you talking about this being clear from the article in general? I'd be wary about overburdening a section that is essentially a short version of (a section in) another article. (3) Proposed redraft as worked out by both of you looks great to me. BobFromBrockley 14:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bob, have done 1. and thought I'd wait a bit on 3. in case any other editors wanted to pitch in, since its a line in the intro. I'll drop 2 and 4. Andysoh 21:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Archived old talk to Archive 8 and Archive 9

After several requests over the last twelve months (!) for some archiving, I split the old talk page into two archives (see top of page for details).

None of the discussions, so far as I could see, were current, or lasted beyond April, but if anyone wants to cut and paste any discussions back into here, they will have no difficulty at all in doing this. I made no attempt at refactoring the discussions. Andysoh 10:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Socialist influences of J.K. Rowling

There is a lot of controversy on the J.K. Rowling page on how to treat her idolization of long-time socialist Jessica Mitford and inclusion of names from Mitford's autobiography in her Harry Potter series, such as Dobby, the house-elf who inspired Hermoine to form SPEW to advocate on behalf of elf-worker rights.

There are moves to completely delete the Politics of J.K. Rowling, despite her many instances praising Mitford and subject of equity of magical creatures and mud-blood wizards in her books. If you take interest in finding a balanced article, please participate in the discussion. Despite the book being fictional, it does serve as an important allegory. Libertycookies 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Aspirations or "Rhetoric", theory or "agenda" - POV? And removal of link

A recent revert by WGee unfortunately changed "aspirations" back to "rhetoric", and "theory" back to "agenda".

Perhaps the reverting of these changes was an oversight, as these words, in their context, were clearly POV.

I have tried to improve the section a little with a reference to the semial work of the period. I also wonder whether the removal of the link to the article workers' movement, and the comment "we don't need any more links to crappy, inaccurate articles" is not really appropriate. I didn't restore the link, but would be interested in what the perceived inaccuracies in the article are, so that they can be changed.

Andysoh 00:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly this is another case of bourgeois censorship. I changed the article back to a more accurate form and I'll be keeping a close eye on it from now on. (Demigod Ron 02:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

original research and conflict of interest

It turns out that the latest changes to the intro by Paul Spicker is a kind of "original research", which is against wiki standards.

Our existing para, (despite its faults, carefully discussed,) was put aside (before Jacob helped out) for:

• collectivist values, such as values of liberty, equality and fraternity

with a reference to a book by a "P spicker, 2006, Liberty, equality fraternity, Bristol: Policy Press".

It is wrong anyway.

The French revolution of 1789's slogan, "Liberty, equality, fraternity" may, in today's world, seem quite left-wing, but in the view of many, it was the slogan of the overturn of the feudal order and the introduction of capitalism into France.

I think Jacob is right to try to revise these changes Paul made on Sunday, but I think it might be better to go back to what we had, and discuss it through on the talk page.

I am very much against reverting whereever possible, but I think in this case I would have.Andysoh 13:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not keen on these new bullet points - some are repetetive, some redundant (i.e. the Owenite one says they want to set uop a utopian community, but the list-set if of values underpinning tthe kind of society socialists want to see) - prior to your revert equality was listed twice. Basically, we have two key characteristics - equality and some sort of change of conditions of ownership...I preferred the para as it was prior bullets - it was teh best unhappy comprimise on offer...--Red Deathy 14:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to return the first para. The rest seems fine.

Minor suggestions for the first para:

Can we get democracy in there?

Do you think maybe we could use ‘society’ instead of ‘socio-economic system’ here, and introduce the latter more accurate term later on? It makes it more accessible.

The term ‘community’ could mean the ‘business community’ so it is problematic, but the following sentence clarifies this, so it’s ok.

So we would have:

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a society in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to democratic control by the community.

"This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or worker ownership of the means of production."

Andysoh 15:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't much like the old version, and I don't like the bullet-point version either. Depending how we define "property," "democratic," "control" and "community," that sentence can be hopelessly vague or incredibly narrow. Does "property" include personal possessions? Does it include personal means of production or only social means of production? Does "democratic" mean majoritarian-democratic, consensus-democratic, or something else? What does "control" mean? What does "community" mean? Does it mean "people in area X" or "partners and others affected by project Y"? Someone familiar with one definition (and not the other definitions) could 'read in' several generalizations about socialism, which describe some forms, but not other forms.

I got fed up with the whole issue. When Spicker rewrote the intro, I though the intro was now unambiguously too narrow to include several socialist philosophies, and initially added the dubious tag, then reversed course and added the two points about goals. Jacob Haller 15:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. My particular bug bear was that most people think of ‘property’ as personal possessions today. I don’t like ‘doctrine’, either!

But to a certain extent we find that the more precisely we define it, the more it eludes us. We may introduce more terms, and disagree on the precise meaning of those terms too!

One solution, which seems to be what the encyclopaedias have done, is to use just a few bold words to begin with and let the rest of the article fill it out with the historical survey.

How about indicating the ‘’main trends’’? If we do, taking the historical development of social democracy and also the Soviet Union, etc into account, then we cannot avoid a definition which looks something like that of the Oxford University Press Political dictionary:

• A political and economic theory or system of social organization based on collective or state ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Like capitalism, it takes many and diverse forms.

We could perhaps move up (and split into three) the last para, which is concrete and sufficiently well referenced, so that we have :

Socialism refers to a broad array of theories and political movements. A significant trend represents socialism as a society based on collective or state ownership of the means of production.

Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Some Marxists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production, while other have advocated nationalization only of the "commanding heights" of the economy and a plan of production under democratic workers' control and management.

Others, including Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to combine the cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with market forces, rather than let central planners guide production and exchange.

Anarcho-syndicalists and some elements of the U.S. New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils. Others may advocate different arrangements.

The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the 19th century. The Industrial Revolution had brought many economic and social changes. Factory owners became very wealthy, while long hours and impoverishment faced the workers.. Socialists criticised the suffering and injustices resulting from the concentration of wealth and property in the hands of the capitalist class.

Although socialism has its origins as a political movement in mediaeval Europe, with links to radicalism in some of the guilds and the egalitarianism of political dissenters like the Levellers, the word "socialism" was not current until the 1830s. It has been attributed to Pierre Leroux, author of "Individualism and socialism" (1834).

[end of intro]

Andysoh 17:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guidelines state that "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia ... If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy."

I made the initial edits because of the serious confusion throughout the article between Marxism and socialism. Although Marxists, and some right wing critics, have consistently argued that marxism and communism represent socialism, the claim has never accepted by the leading socialist parties. Anthony Crosland's classic "The future of socialism" (1956) identified the contributory traditions to socialism in the UK as including natural law; Owenism; christian socialism; the labour theory of value; fabianism; marxism; syndicalism; guild socialism; William Morris; the Independent Labour Party; planning; paternalism; and the welfare state. I have also corrected the mistaken claim that socialism was a movement of the later nineteenth century, with a reference to Leroux.

The reference to principles, now removed, referred to collectivist principles of liberty and fraternity as well as equality. Liberty, equality and fraternity are not confined to socialism, as Andysoh comments above, but that is because each has an individualist as well as a collective interpretation. Individual liberty, individual equality and freedom of association are liberal, not socialist, principles. The crucial distinction comes from the word "collectivist". Collectivist principles of liberty include aspects of "positive freedom" such as capacity and entitlement, liberation and empowerment. Fraternity typically includes mutual aid, solidarity and collective action. Socialism depends on the collective interpretation of these principles, and it is difficult to understand alternative forms of socialism like Christian socialism, guild socialism, Owenism (which is not simply "utopian") or the co-operative movement without them.

The article in this form still gives the misleading impression that socialism is synonymous with marxism or communism. The principal socialist movements in Europe, like the British Labour Party, the French Parti Socialiste and the Party of European Socialists, which is the largest bloc in the European parliament, are not marxist. Marxism is an analysis of society. Socialism is variously understood as a set of principles, a model society, or an approach to social, economic and political organization; it is possible to take any one part with or without the others.

Paul Spicker 17:10, 26 June 2007

You replaced definition sourced to Britannica for one sourced to your own work. Before making any major changes in the introduction of the article please try to achieve consensus on this talk page first. -- Vision Thing -- 18:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I added two alternative referenced definitions to the existing referenced definition. I wrote:

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements based around either

- * collectivist values, such as values of liberty, equality and fraternity ;

- * an ideal model of society, such as those envisaged by Owenists or utopian socialists like Fourier and Saint-Simon;

- * arguments for the control by the community of economic production, property and the distribution of wealth "

If you do not accept the first reference - I understand the reservation - try others. The Parti Europeene Socialiste, which is the largest bloc in the Europe Parliament, describes its central objectives in these terms:

"The object of the PES is to pursue international aims in respect of the principles on which the European Union is based, namely principles of freedom, equality, solidarity, democracy, respect of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and respect for the Rule of Law."

P Self, writing the contribution on Socialism in R Goodin and P Pettit (eds), A companion to contemporary political philosophy, Oxford: Blackwell, writes: "The rallying cry of the French Revolution - equality, liberty and fraternity - now constitute essential socialist values."

The article as it stands fails to address or include the mainstream of socialist thought. It is consequently seriously deficient.

Paul Spicker 19:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We were in the middle of discussing some minor changes to the intro, which I think will be helpful here.

At present the article is mainly about the history of socialist thought. Your quotes can make an important addition to the article.

But one cannot look at the current socialist parties, as they call themselves, and say, this is what they call themselves, so this is what socialism is. Or even, this is what they say they stand for, so this is what they in practice what they do. These may be widely separated things.

I agree with Vision Thing putting us back to where we were. The bullet points were not referenced as they stood, and could be criticised by the same criterion.

This would be the advantage of using the Oxford University Press Political dictionary, were we to revise the existing Encyclopeida Brittanica wording.

Jacob Haller is surely right to identify problems with a number of words in the existing definition, which do not appear in the OUP dictionary: "property," "democratic," "control" and "community".

Frankly, the OUP definition is clearer, and as long as it is made clear that it is only one trend, even if a substantial one, it is perhaps an improvement.

We could say

• Socialism refers to a broad array of theories and political movements. A significant trend represents socialism as a ‘political and economic theory or system of social organization based on collective or state ownership of the means of production'.[ref OUP dic]

We could add something along the lines of

• Today in Europe, according to some commentators, “The rallying cry of the French Revolution - equality, liberty and fraternity - now constitute essential socialist values” [Paul’s ref]

We would be mistaken not to recognise the irony in these lines carry however, and I would be interested in their context.

We should also discuss getting Crosland's right wing socialist views on the article in a UK section perhaps, alongside identifying the left wing trends in the Labour Party. But I think we cannot be too restrictive, or prescriptive, UK centric, and the definition of socialism is wider, especially historically in Europe. Andysoh 20:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OED gives 1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all. 2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common. - I tend to find OED defs to be of high quality, and that isn't an exception.--Red Deathy 08:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Even better, as an authority, and a starting point (except for the re-introduction of problematic terms 'property' (as opposed to 'capital'? - questionable) and community (business community?). It is essentially the same definition, but since nothing's perfect, an alternative might then be something like:

"Socialism refers to a broad array of theories and political movements. The most significant trend defines socialism in terms of a theory or policy of social organization which "aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all".[ref the OED]

"Today in Europe, according to some commentators, socialist values embraced by Socialist Parties such as the Parti Europeene Socialiste, which in 2007 was the largest bloc in the Europe Parliament, can be described as "The rallying cry of the French Revolution - equality, liberty and fraternity" [ref to R Goodin and P Pettit (eds), A companion to contemporary political philosophy, Oxford: Blackwell]"

This would give a contemporary feel to our article, and something to return to later in the article.

Incidentally Crosland's views are after a fashion well represented in our article, and reference to his The Future of Socialism will help the article specify the origins of the ideas it espouses. For instance, in addition to the theme of "continuous conflict", the Crosland theme is rehersed quite a lot in the section, 'Cold war years' and 'Contemporary socialism', if not in the sections above as well. What's lacking really is the views he was unsuccessfully arguing against within the Labour Party, Anuerin Bevan in particular and his In Place of Fear, and the constitutional committment (in clause 4 part 4) of the Labour Party to exactly the socialism defined by the OED which his colleague Gaiskill failed to get removed in 1959.

Anyway, just some thoughts. Andysoh 09:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the principles of the Socialist international are instructive - they are authoritative of a sort as they represent the hegemonic trends within contemporary socialism - I think the thing to note is the stress on equality - that is the minimum - after all, as the doc points out, Liberals and Conservatives are quite happy with inequality (of outcome). Something else for the pot.--Red Deathy 10:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The proposals here do not meet the objections. This article, wittingly or otherwise, tries to impose a primary definition on a disparate range of material. An encyclopaedia needs to reflect the range of concepts that are used, and that cannot be done with a single definition, negotiated or not.

The distortion of perspective permeates the article. Almost all the article is about communism, not socialism - and indeed, this article parallels the Wikipedia entry on communism very closely, in structure and content. Socialism does not have its origins in the late nineteenth century. I find it hard to believe that the reference to Leroux, who probably invented the word, has been removed. There is no reference to socialist values, and no place where they would fit this narrative. Ethical socialism, mutual aid and collective action disappear.

The need for change is urgent. This group of contributors must allow alternative definitions and understandings to be included. I have entered the POV symbol to warn potential users of the contentious and misleading nature of the article.

[[[User:Paul Spicker|Paul Spicker]] 11:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)]

I think you are being a little hasty, as any mediator will say. Wiki often suggests waiting a week just for suggestions to be responded to - people can't all be at their computers every day of the week.

The reference to Leroux has been removed while the matter is discussed in, hopefully, an inclusive manner. I certainly want it back in. I also agree with Red deathy about using the current Freedom principles of the Second international. So your points are being considered carefully.

Various socialist values did not fall out of the sky, they arose from somewhere. They should have a place in the article, if they can be attributed to someone or thing. The theories of Crosland, which some call revisionist because they attacked the constitution of the Labour Party and its core values, are already in the article, and can be made more specific. Bernstein is already highlighted. They are a legitimate trend.

I've made several suggestions and you've not yet made specific comments on them. I tried to suggest that we specify the "most significant trend" (historically, in line with various authorities) and made specific suggestions around the points you make.

You should make specific edit suggestions here in the talk page.

We established here a while back, quite correctly, that an historical approach to the subject allows for a rounded out factual view of what socialism is, how it developed, instead of an episodic or subjective view.

Historically this is properly given by the authorities we've cited.

Keep in mind that the UK history, as reflected by Crosland, is very different to that in Europe, marked, in the view of socialists in Europe in the past by a very low level of understanding of the ideas of socialism, by errors in underestimating the nature of capitalism (its crises, etc) as examined by Marxists in the previous century and meeting with a great deal of objections in the Labour Party at the time.

In the US, it is very widespread and one might say deeply ingrained that the West including Europe is capitalist and the East, the Soviet Union in particular, was socialist, as can be seen by the recent addition of "Katherine Verdery: Anthropology of Socialist Societies" link at the bottom of the page, which is typical. For this reason, we end up distinguishing various trends of socialism, and our main task is to ensure they are properly weighted, and where there are serious doubts about whether something is socialist or not, such as the Soviet Union, that this is made clear.

Nevertheless, the article ends prematurely, as the editors are well aware, and have been discussing developing it in various ways. Feel free to suggest sections and fill them out, not forgetting to reference them.Andysoh 12:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, to try and consense the conversation, bearing WP:LEAD in mind, the lead should introduce teh topic and give a brief over-view, it isn't definitive, nor should it try to be. Also, it needs to be wary of undue weight - minority positions can be examined in the later stages of the article. Given that most historic socialist parties had some sort of stated goal of common ownership, I think we can fairly put that into the lead, since it prepresents teh predominant definition fo socialism - with, as present, an indication that there is no one definition of the subject. I stand by the current def. as NPOV (it certainly isn't how I'd define socialism, personally, but it is the most NPOV we've come up with yet).--Red Deathy 12:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is not an historical account of socialism. It is a contentious, partial account of a particular strand of socialist views, primarily classifiable in terms of communism, and difficult to distinguish from Wikipedia's article on that subject. Alternative perspectives have been removed. The insistence that changes must be agreed on the talk page first is contrary to Wikipedia's recommended approach. Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View states that "The policy requires that, where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, these should each be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader ..."

I have responded to the proposition for a "compromise" with the argument that no single definition can encapsulate the conflicting elements. These positions have to be balanced by alternative viewpoints. I made a proposal above which, whatever its deficiencies, at least adverts to alternative positions, which was fully referenced, and did not seek to excise contrary views; the reasons for rejecting it appear to be that people think that a single definition from a dictionary is better. Citing dictionaries as authorities is generally enough to establish that a term is indeed used in the way suggested, which is not in dispute; it does not however establish that the terms is used primarily or exclusively in that way.

The POV symbol refers to the article as it is. I refer you to the guidance on the use of the symbol in the policy on Wikipedia: NPOV dispute. Please leave it alone. If you wish it to be removed, you must allow alternative perspectives to be recorded within the article.

[[[User:Paul Spicker|Paul Spicker]] 13:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)]

The problem is, the version you proposed above was tautologous, the disparate elements have a common core, or series of historically defined common coreas. Also, it's worth noting that historically socialism and communism were synonyms, for a substantial while - after all, the communist states called themselves socialist. Something like communal control of wealth lies at teh essntial core of historically hegemonic socialistic tendenaacies, and that is why the lead should kick off from that, and minor tendencies should be given due weight further down. I'm happy to hear of re-writing the intro, but I certainly wasn't happy with your prior offering. What, specifically, do you want to have included?--Red Deathy 14:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. was acting under the guidance: The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.--Red Deathy 14:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You might consider, Paul, that you initially placed what appeared to be your own definition with a reference to your own work. You did not start out very well, and it might be worth taking a breather before getting too heavy, take the tag off and reading what we have written.

By the way, please can you start your points by colons on this talk page to make it clearer where your talk begins.

In addition, I notice you seem not to have a functioning user name link. It would be good to fix that.

You exaggerate the similarities between the Communism page and the socialism page, but Red deathy is right to point out the relationship between the two. It could be argued that there has long been a trend which attempts to diminish or even hide this relationship.Andysoh 14:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I proposed inclusion of three central understandings of socialism, in place of the current one. They are socialism as a system of values; as a vision of society; and as a set of approaches to economic and political organisation. Each was referenced. They have been removed. These views are distinct and separable, and important factions accepted one while rejecting others - for example, the Marxists rejected ethical socialism and the social democrats rejected utopian socialism. Reddeathy is probably right to say that socialism and communism were closely identified for a substantial period (about 1918 to 1945) but in the period since the second world war the idea of socialism as a system of values has been the most prominent use of the term in Europe.

The article is biased, but that is not the central reason for invoking Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Normally the way to deal with bias is to present countervailing evidence, and that is what I began by doing. The central problem here is that two or three people have chosen to remove referenced material because it was not consistent with their views. This is counter to WP guidance and philosophy, and the repeated removal of the NPOV tag is a basic breach of Wikipedia policy. If it happens again I will need to go to the next stage of dispute resolution.

{Paul Spicker 15:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)]

Actually, they were synonyms in the 19th. Century, Morris, for example, used them interchangeably, 1918 was when the distinction began to set in. Your three distinct variations are not distinct, the second two are the same thing - a vision is of a set of approaches to economics (in fact with the Owenites it was something put into practice). Likewise, values are a set of economic practices if they are lived up to - and all of them have an actuating essence behind them which is egalitarianism, democracy and a critique of market behaviour. If they were that distinct they'd be different things, but out def. should look at the (predominant) commonality.--Red Deathy 15:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul, try to assume good faith. Most of the edits attempted to work on what you did. You introduced two references, one to your own work and one to Owen. Owen is significant, and we could have discussed that, but you seem to take into account insufficiently the history of socialism in Europe the 19th C, and I suggest it would repay study.

The division into those three bullet points was your own conception, and it was worked on, referenced or not. It remained original research. Your notion that Marxism rejects ethical socialism will be met by the question - whose ethics? The ethics of the working class or those of the capitalist class? This is not to say you are wrong and Marxism is right, but that there is more than one point of view on how many types of socialism there are, how they relate, and so on, and when you decide to edit an article in Wikipedia you have to accept that.

Try to consider that, however awful you may find the article, it is you who is breaching wiki policy with the POV tag, as red deathy has shown, and you would get nowhere in a dispute resolution.

The article needs improving. Just help to do that collectively rather than individually.

As it happens, I’m going to show you how below. Andysoh 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Red Deathy, consider Proudhon and Bakunin, both of whom, for all their differences with each other, considered socialism and communism two distinct ideas, supporting the former and opposing the latter. Both Proudhon and Bakunin opposed majoritarian democracy (favoring decentralization and what has been termed consensus democracy). And Proudhon favored markets... So of these three concerns, the second and third may predominate, but are not universal, in the socialist movement. Jacob Haller 01:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a visit to christianity may pay (benchmarking is always useful) last I checked unitarians may be excluded from the definition in the lead. That is not a problem, such differences can be addressed in the text, the lead is general. Jacob Haller you're quite right, I should have said critique of existing markets Prodhoun did indeed advocate something like a co-operative market economy (although by reduction to small property holdings and co-operatives he was advocating common ownership, as distinct from monopoly class ownership, arguably).--Red Deathy 07:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion in the NPOV dispute continues with the topic "The lead" immediately below. [[[User:Paul Spicker|Paul Spicker]] 11:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)]

The lead

Based on the use of the term by other self-described socialists, I'd point to:

• Social and economic egalitarianism, often including division or rotation of authority.

• Sometimes support for "to each each according to his work" or "labor has a right to all that it creates" OR

(Either determined by calculation or emerging from market/strike processes)

• Sometimes support for "to each according to his needs" or post-scarcity economics.

• Opposition to monopoly power.

• Sometimes support for community or state control of monopolies AND/OR
• Sometimes support for breakups of monopolies.

(Either via government intervention or via market competition or via division among communities)

• Usually opposition to concentrations of property (which overlaps with monopoly power).

• Sometimes favoring community control, as with monopolies (one option above) OR
• Sometimes support for possession standards or more limited property standards OR
• Sometimes support for land taxes, property taxes, citizens' dividends, or progressive taxation OR
• Sometimes opposition to inheritance, support for inheritance taxes, or support for voluntary distribution of larger estates. Jacob Haller 08:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that in part the first criterion (economic equality) drives the rest. Further, I'd say that at present the lead encapsulates all of the above, especially if you're clear that control by the community doesn't necessarilly mean state power, or even democratic power. But, I'd say that list provides a good basis for further discussion.--Red Deathy 09:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think on reflection that my initial proposal contains too little about the diversity of socialist views rather than too much. Here is an expanded version.

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements based around various combinations of

• (1)social values, such as liberty, equality and fraternity. The objectives of the Party of European Socialists, the socialist bloc in the European Parliament, are “to pursue international aims in respect of the principles on which the European Union is based, namely principles of freedom, equality, solidarity, democracy, respect of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and respect for the Rule of Law." The Socialist International declares that “Democratic socialism is an international movement for freedom, social justice and solidarity. Its goal is to achieve a peaceful world where these basic values can be enhanced and where each individual can live a meaningful life with the full development of his or her personality and talents and with the guarantee of human and civil rights in a democratic framework of society.”
• (2) a broad movement to improve society through collective action. Proudhon described socialism as “every aspiration towards the amelioration of society”; Owen argued for “a national proceeding” in the formation of character ; the Fabian society describes itself as “characterised by a passionate commitment to social justice and a belief in the progressive improvement of society”
• (3) an ideal model of society, such as those envisaged by Owenists or utopian socialists like Fourier and Saint-Simon;
• (4) a set of collective approaches to economic and political organization, based on workers’ movements, cooperation, mutual aid, planning and organised social welfare. Examples are syndicalism, guild socialism and the co-operative movement.
• (5) critiques of the social organisation of industrial society, including Marxism, William Morris’s anti-commercialism, anti-capitalism and anarchism
• (6) arguments for the control by the community of economic production, property and the distribution of wealth". J S Mill understood socialism to be “any system which requires that the land and instruments of production should be the property, not of individuals, but of communities or associations, or of the government.” .

There is no agreement among socialists about common methods. Crosland writes: “The various schools of thought which have classed themselves, and been called by others, ‘socialist’ - Owenites and Marxists, Fabians and Christian Socaialists, syndicalists and Guild Socialist - have differed profoundly over the right means; and no one means has a better title to the label ‘socialist’ than any other. The one single element common to all the schools of thought has been the basic aspirations, the underlying moral values.” "

Please note, as before, that this gives evidence for all points and does not remove the existing (single) reference. If you disagree, the proper procedure is not to suppress this submission but to counter it with other material.

[[[User:Paul Spicker|Paul Spicker]] 11:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)]

Right, obvious verfiaibility is a condition for inclusion, but that does not mean that verified material must be included, we could reject on grounds of style or context, or otehr policies - that's just for the record. Now, (3) is tautologous, since the ideal society is based on the precepts/values enumerated under other points. (2) reads to me like a continuation/re-phrasing on (1) i.e. improvement in terms of certain values. (4) is (2) reworded, since both deal with collective action for improvement. (5) well, not only socialists critique industrial society, Romantic anti-capitalists and reactionaries do too. (6) is just (2) & (4) again, or, rather, is an extrapolation thereof. I'll add that bullet points read atrociously (especially in a lead) and frankly, the above is just an exopanded version of the points already covered by the current lead, but in more detail (detail which belongs in the body of the text).--Red Deathy 12:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a substantive, not a stylistic, disagreement. Your comments seem to say that you do not agree that socialism has anything like the variety I am identifying, and you think that the current single definition encapsulates everything else. This view is not shared by any of the sources cited. Utopian socialism, in point 3, is neither equivalent to nor derived from other principles, like ethical socialism; a vision of society is not the same as any other point. Point (2) includes a very wide range of action, including action by the state (for the Fabians) and employers (for Owen); it certainly is not, then, equivalent to (4). I agree that (5) is not exclusive to socialists, but the purpose is not to exclude people from the definition of socialism who are claimed to be in it; this approach has been referred to as "analytical socialism", e.g. in the journal Imprints. (You will note, I hope, that in each of those replies I have cited evidence.)

The development of material in Wikipedia depends not on people censoring views that they disagree with, but on putting countervailing positions and evidence instead. I take issue with your assertion that "we could reject" this amendment. You are not a moderating group, and you have no right to do so. If you disagree, please think instead about how your disagreement can effectively be expressed and how other points of view can be incorporated.

[[[User:Paul Spicker|Paul Spicker]] 14:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)]

Well, I was just making the point that verfiability is a necessary but not sufficient grounds for inclusion, before critiquing your suggestion, wikpedia works on census and you are we for the purposes of that comment. Utopian socialism is necesarilly imagining socialism in action (i.e. logically it is a utopia that presupposes the concept of socialism), for example there could well be a Crosslandite utopia, which would be what would exist if Crosslandites always got their way. Just as a choclate eaters utopia presupposes chocolate and eating. If (2) includes a wide range of actions then it icnludes workers actions without the state, (4) is merely a refinement of (2). My complaints are not substantive, i don't disagree that these are features of socialism, but that the expression put forward above is repetatios and tautologous, and doesn't say much more than a (broad) reading of the current lead encapsulates. I am, therefore, putting forard my alternative, which is the status quo. So, for the record, I don't disagree with the general thrust of your point, but do disagree with your current way of expressing it I think Andysoh's suggestion below is very good, though, and could be a basis for moving forward.--Red Deathy 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rushed thoughts, sorry for being roughtly expressed:

A lot of work has gone into both these lists, but it remains the case that if someone says "Who says that socialist thought/ideas/action can or should be summarised that way?" we have no authority to turn to even though we have each one referenced (e.g. original research). And as red deathy showed, this can be disputed.

If we approach the question historically (in chronological order), we have no such problem.

Socialism refers to a broad array of theories and political movements. The term is thought to originate with Pierre Leroux [ref]"Individualism and socialism" (1834) A quote would be good![/ref].

Early thought identified with the socialist tradition, such as the diggers and levellers in the XX century believed that XXX XXX [ref]

The XX tradition of XX e.g. Saint simon believed that XXXX [ref] Proudhon, Bakunin etc [ref]

Socialist ideas were uinited in the Marxist viewpoint in the last third of the 19th century, which argued for the XXZ XX [ref]

In 1918 The constitutution of the Labour Party adopted as its aims "the common ownership of the means of production distribuition and exchange" [ref]

After the October 1917 revolution the Communist Party ... Soviet Union defined socialism meant XX XX, eventually covering half the globe, ?although other trends strongly disputed that this constituted socialism [refs]

In 1945 in Europe socilaist partys in power was "socialism" - Mixed economy, etc

in 197? the Party of European Socialists, the socialist bloc in the European Parliament, adopted the aims “to pursue international aims in respect of the principles on which the European Union is based, namely principles of freedom, equality, solidarity, democracy, respect of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and respect for the Rule of Law." [ref]

In 1995 the UK Labour Party changed its aims to be XXXX [ref]

[Intro ends]

Then the article can follow this summary through . Just rushed thoughts Andysoh 14:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on socialism says, before dicsussing the influence of marxism in depth:

“ In the perspective of intellectual history, all of these pre-Marxist socialist thinkers produced ideas of considerable intrinsic worth. But from the viewpoint of the subsequent development of socialism their ideas seem to be tributaries feeding the mighty stream of the Marxist movement that came to dominate the socialist tradition in the last third of the 19th century. ”

You may be able to access the entry here [9]

Andysoh 14:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Leroux is cited in the French entry in Wikipedia as defining socialism as « la doctrine qui ne sacrifiera aucun des termes de la formule Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité » - "the doctrine which would not give up any of the principles of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." The identification of socialism with those three principles is, of course, where we started.

In the historical summary, the main issue I would counter is the statement that socialism was "united" under Marxism. The quote from Crosland explains, fairly clearly, why it was not. The quotation from Britannica is an example of the kind of contrary position I have been asking for, and it might be included as a counter-argument. But it is a point of view - not an authoritative statement.

Andysoh's proposition would be better than the current, woefully inadequate, history. But it would not deal with the need to explain what socialism is and what the contributory positions are, and the article will remain fundamentally unbalanced until that is done.

[[[User:Paul Spicker|Paul Spicker]] 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)]

FWIW OED Gives the etymology as follows a. F. socialisme (1832), or independently f. SOCIAL a. + -ISM. See also next. The early history of the word is somewhat obscure. The first use of F. socialisme appears to have been in the Globe of 13 Feb. 1832, where it was employed in contrast to personnalité. In its modern sense it is variously claimed for Leroux or Reybaud, writing within three or four years after this. A different account, assigning the priority of this use to England, is given in the Encycl. Brit. (1887) XXII. 205; according to this the word originated in 1835 in the discussions of a society founded by Robert Owen. --Red Deathy 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree we have to be careful with the Pierre Leroux reference. For instance, Yes, he says this socialism did not give up the ideals of the 1789 revolution, but is this because it went further in its ideals, e.g. as Babeuf did? Incidentally Babeuf was very important to the development of Marxism – you might call the tradition he started one of the three strands which make up Marxism, although Babeuf could be excluded from the intro. It would be good to balance it out with the Owenites.

Re Marxism “uniting” I quoted above from the Encyclopaedia Britannica which says “But from the viewpoint of the subsequent development of socialism their ideas seem to be tributaries feeding the mighty stream of the Marxist movement that came to dominate the socialist tradition in the last third of the 19th century.” Crosland is by comparison by far the minority position, and this is particularly true when viewed internationally.

I tried to say no more and no less than that. It could be underpinned by any number of other references as well, but it does come as a surprise to English people because of our relative isolation from the continental tradition, and the fact that our English history, with many notable exceptions, can tend to downplay the continental tradition.

I have tried to say that the historical method is the only way to say what socialism “is” without departing into original research, or remaining with what we’ve got. Hope this helps Andysoh 15:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If we take into account Red Deathy’s marvellous research, we might re-arrange the intro to a construction something like this:

Socialism refers to a broad array of theories and political movements. Early use of the term is variously attributed to Pierre Leroux in 1834, who called socialism “the doctrine which would not give up any of the principles of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” of the French Revolution of 1789. or to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud in France, or else in England to Robert Owen considered the father of the cooperative movement.

Early movements identified with the socialist tradition include the levellers and the diggers at the time of the English Civil War of the mid 17th Century , the latter believing that land should be held in common.

Following the French revolution of 1789, Saint Simon, the founder of French socialism, argued that a brotherhood of man that must accompany the scientific organization of industry and society . Proudhon pronounced that “Property is theft” and that socialism was “every aspiration towards the amelioration of society”. Proudhon termed himself an anarchist as did Bakunin, the father of modern anarchism, a libertarian socialist, a theory by which the workers would directly manage the means of production through their own productive associations.

In the last third of the 19th century social democratic parties arose in Europe drawing mainly from Marxist ideology, which essentially called for the common ownership of the means of production.

In the twentieth century the Soviet Union and the Communist Parties of the Third International around the world came to represent socialism in terms of XX XX, although other trends strongly disputed that this outlook constituted socialism [refs]

In 1918 the UK Labour Party adopted as its aims "the common ownership of the means of production distribution and exchange"

In 1945 European Socialist Parties in power were considered socialist administrations. They established the 'mixed economy' with partial nationalisations and social welfare.

In recent decades Socialist Parties in Europe have redefined their aims. [ref German SDP; in 1995 the UK Labour Party changed its aims to be XXXX etc] and reversed their policy on nationalisations.

In 197? the Party of European Socialists, the socialist bloc in the European Parliament adopted the aims, "to pursue international aims in respect of the principles on which the European Union is based, namely principles of freedom, equality, solidarity, democracy, respect of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and respect for the Rule of Law".

By 1968 the prolonged Vietnam war (1959-1975), gave rise to the New Left, socialists who tended to be critical of the Soviet Union and social democracy. Anarcho-syndicalists and some elements of the New Left and others favored decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.[ref]. Trotskyists demanded the restoration of workers’ (soviet) democracy in the Soviet Union and other through political revolution. [ref]

At the turn of the 21st century, in Latin America Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez championed ‘Socialism of the 21st Century’ [ref], which included a policy of nationalisation of national assets such as Oil, a pan-American approach of XX Bolivar, and termed himself a Trotskyist supporting 'permanent revolution'. [news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6246219.stm]”

[Intro ends]

Andysoh 16:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I just dug out my copy of Crosland's book, and in my opinion, (of course I know Paul disagrees, I accept that) although Crosland lists the main influences, he makes it quite clear that the main influence on socialists is Marxism, at least up to that time. He opens the book, on page one, stating that socialists in the 1930s held the "predominantly Marxist analaysis" of revolution, and immediately spends some time setting out how will attempt to refute that outlook. He even terms his outlook a revision of the Labour Party's position - I thought that was a term used by others. Andysoh 20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I just figured out Paul's point about the question of socialism being united behind marxism, and re-worded this line above, together with trying to fill out one or two of the XXXs. Feel free to help out Andysoh 23:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

These outlines suggest that the social-democratic parties are the "highest stage of socialism," that Marxism-Leninism diverged from this in the early 20th century, and stopped developing, that anarchism diverged from this in the late 19th century, and stopped developing, etc. Moreover, some statements that Marxism represented the mainstream by 1900 may involve circular logic, e.g.: Jacob Haller 01:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Propose definition: Socialists propose state ownership of the means of production.
2. Deduction: Therefore anarchists, et al., are not socialists.
3. Observation: Therefore socialists, as observed after exclusion of anarchists, et al. propose state ownership of the means of production.
4. Propose definition: Socialists ...

Can I just say, this is all good stuff - although I'd add a small rider that the current wording is sufficiently broad to encompass all traditions - after all, control is a weak word ranging from statutory regulation (Health and Safety Acts, etc.) to nationalisation and even at a pinch mutualism - it has survived as a wording because it is so broad (alsmost to the point of meaninglessness)....oh, and also, Labour's current Clause IV "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."--Red Deathy 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Jacob’s points are very important.

I completely omitted the section we have on “Contemporary socialism”!

At them moment, in the introduction, we have

* Anarcho-syndicalists and some elements of the New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils. Others may advocate different arrangements.

I have removed “U.S.” as I think it can safely be argued that this applies in Europe and elsewhere.

Putting this into historical context, we might have something roughly like this

“By 1968 the prolonged Vietnam war (1959-1975), gave rise to the New Left, socialists who tended to be critical of the Soviet Union and social democracy. Anarcho-syndicalists and some elements of the New Left and others favored decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.[ref]. Trotskyists demanded the restoration of workers’ (soviet) democracy in the Soviet Union and other through political revolution. [ref]

“At the turn of the 21st century, in Latin America Hugo Chavez championed a policy of nationalisation of national assets such as Oil and termed himself a Trotskyist supporting ‘permanent revolution’. [news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6246219.stm]”

I’m not sure if this addresses some of Jacob’s concerns.

But hopefully this should address the lack of balance which suggests a monolithic socialism arising in the form of social democracy and the soviet union.

Still missing is the fact that both social democracy and the soviet union fought a continual battle against critical trends within them (vis Kinnock’s blast against Liverpool City Council at 1985 Labour Party conference, felt to be so central that it was used in the election campaign, and of course the extent of Stalin’s civil war against real or imagined supporters of Trotskyism, running through to 1937, etc).

Then you have Hungary 1956, France 1968, Czechoslovakia 1968, Chile 1971-3, Portugal 1974, Sandinistas, struggles in Southern Africa and the Middle East. These must be dealt with in the body of the article, I guess.

I’m not sure how to summarise Labour’s new constitutional aims! Perhaps wealth in the hands of the many – seems odd when the gap between rich and poor has got greater than ever.

The new wording of the first intro para of the current ‘live’ article is very good.

My only serious concern, shared with Jacob, was the reference to what Marx implied, and we have a new text for that (above).

But Paul, Jacob and others have expressed concern about it, and I suspect that it is not as accessible, or even felt to be POV, compared to our new version, especially to people whose concrete experience of what ‘socialism’ seems to mean does not appear to encompass this wording.

Andysoh 10:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The rise of the Soviet Union: Broke off contact?

I had trouble with the following two sentences opening the "The rise of the Soviet Union" section.

• "The Russian Revolution of 1917 marked the definitive split between Communists and social democrats. Communist parties in the Soviet Union and Europe dismissed the more moderate socialist parties and, for the most part, broke off contact."

Yet the fourth congress the Communist International (December 1922) discussed "Left Unity" and it became policy to unite with other socialists at local level in local struggles while criticising the social democractic leaders.

In Britain, of course, the CPGB attempted to affiliate to the Labour Party almost every year from 1920 until well into the late 1930s, and many Communist Party members or fellow travellers, like Jim Mortimer, entered the labour Party and ended up in leading positions. As a formulation, even with the equivocation, 'broke off contact' doesn't work. ("Dismissed" is not the best word either.)

Apart from the "Third Period", (when they practiced 'contact' with the social democracts of a different sort!) ideologically the Communist Parties were committed to various forms of collaboration with other left and petty-bourgeois parties, under the later Popular Front ideology and the preceding Two Stage theory in particular, but also dating from the fourth Congress which attempted to curb the ultra-left tendencies.

Of course this is only one side to it, but it is a side that is missing. Jacob also made some points I’ve incorporated here for clarity.

How about something like:

• The Russian Revolution of 1917 and the formation of the Communist International (also termed the Third International or Comintern) in 1919, brought about the definitive ideological division between Communists (denoted with a capital “C”) on the one hand, and other communist and socialist trends such as anarcho-communists and social democrats.

What do others think? Andysoh 22:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support this or similar wording, as this has bothered me about the article too! BobFromBrockley 10:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK I'll go ahead with this unless anyone objects Andysoh 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Decision time on the POV tag and re-worked alternative

Perhaps we should try to decide by the end of this week what to do about the POV tag?

I think the POV tag should go whether or not we change the lead paragraph.

Why the POV tag should go

Paul quoted Anthony Crossland’s passage on the origins of socialism as justification for the POV tag, in contrast to the assertions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. However right at the start of Crossland’s book, The Future of Socialism, (in the fourth paragraph) Crossland himself says that in the UK Labour Party in the 1930s:

"...the younger generation... for the most part took to Marxism, which thus had to wait almost a century before achieving a major influence on the British Left."

In other words, while on the continent Marxism had been a major influence since 1848 (Crossland implies), it took almost a century for it to do the same in Britain. He continues

"The Fabian tradition offered no effective counter-attraction – indeed, its best known leaders deserted, and became amongst the foremost exponent of the Marxist gospel... A very few socialist thinkers stood outside the Marxist stream." (The Future of Socialism, p4, Constable, (2006))

Furthermore this younger generation were playing a central role by the time of the 1945 Labour government and after. Crossland cites Professor Harold Laski, who was the Labour Party chair in the crucial years of 1945-6. He omits to mention Aneurin Bevan and his immensely popular In Place of Fear, which was reprinted ten years after it was issued, with its panegyric to Marxism, who brought in the NHS, often seen as Labour’s crowning glory.

The alternatives

Red Deathy prefers the first para as is. However since Paul felt strongly about the current lead paragraph, and Jacob felt it could be improved, and I felt it to be correct but not easily recognisably so, we all discussed alternatives.

New definition: My point was that, as a definition of what Socialism means in various contexts, one cannot simply develop a schematic of one’s own out of any historical context, referenced or not. It is open to charges of original research and, if the Marxism page is anything to go by, will be a matter of continual contention. Jacob or Paul could re-cast their outlines chronologically in terms of when historically these ideas emerged, or follow the suggestions I sketched out. This would be an indisputable concrete précis of socialism.

My proposal perhaps could be shortened and could undoubtedly be much improved. It now looks something like this:

Socialism refers to a broad array of theories and political movements. Early use of the term is variously attributed to Pierre Leroux in 1834, or to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud in France, or else in England to Robert Owen, who is considered the father of the cooperative movement.

Early movements identified with the socialist tradition include the levellers and the diggers in the UK in the mid 17th Century, the latter believing that land should be held in common.

Following the French revolution of 1789, Saint Simon, who is called the founder of French socialism, argued that a brotherhood of man that must accompany the scientific organization of industry and society. Proudhon pronounced that “Property is theft” and that socialism was “every aspiration towards the amelioration of society”. Proudhon termed himself an anarchist, as did Bakunin, the father of modern anarchism, a libertarian socialist, a theory by which the workers would directly manage the means of production through their own productive associations.

In the last third of the 19th century social democratic parties arose in Europe drawing mainly from Marx and Engels who developed what they termed ‘scientific socialism’.

In the twentieth century the Soviet Union and the Communist Parties of the Third International around the world mainly came to represent socialism in terms of Soviet model of economic development, the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production, although other trends condemned what they saw as the lack of democracy. Others, including Communists in Yugoslavia in the 1960s and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, reconciling the cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with market forces, letting the market guide production and exchange rather than central planners.

In 1945 European Socialist Parties in power were considered socialist administrations by some. In the UK Herbert Morrison said "Socialism is what the Labour government does", whereas Aneurin Bevan argued that under socialism the “main streams of economic activity are brought under public direction”. Some argued that capitalism had been abolished. Socialist governments established the 'mixed economy' with partial nationalisations and social welfare.

In recent decades Socialist Parties in Europe have redefined their aims. and reversed their policy on nationalisations.

In 197? the Party of European Socialists, the socialist bloc in the European Parliament adopted the aims, "to pursue international aims in respect of the principles on which the European Union is based, namely principles of freedom, equality, solidarity, democracy, respect of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and respect for the Rule of Law".

By 1968 the prolonged Vietnam war (1959-1975), gave rise to the New Left, socialists who tended to be critical of the Soviet Union and social democracy. Anarcho-syndicalists and some elements of the New Left and others favored decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.[ref]. Trotskyists demanded the restoration of workers’ (soviet) democracy in the Soviet Union and other through political revolution. [ref]

At the turn of the 21st century, in Latin America Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez championed what he termed 'Socialism of the 21st Century', which included a policy of nationalisation of national assets such as Oil, anti-imperialism, and termed himself a Trotskyist supporting 'permanent revolution'. [news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6246219.stm]”

[Intro ends]

Current definition: I’d be happy to stick with the current first para notwithstanding the issues we have raised, unless there’s support for a new version. If we stick with what we’ve got, we should remove the sentence on what Marx implied for the reasons discussed above. In addition, there is the slip of the fingers in relation to "late-19th century" in the second para, and the repetition of 19th century two more times, and two re-statements of the fact that socialism means different things to different people. These can go without loss.

I could do these changes to the ‘current definition’ unless we agree to work on a 'new definition'. Andysoh 20:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Current definition: This is an excellent suggestion - except the first sentence: (1) socialism has also referred to a system of society (and certain societies) not just to movements; (2) we should give some indication of what unites these disparate movements - could I suggest opposition to actually existing/contemporary capitalism - I realise that that is slightly circular, since it bounces off to the fiercely fought over lead at capitalism (been stable quite some while now though), but it actually probably is what unites the disparate socialisms. Overall though, my first preference is for the status quo, second for the above revision.--Red Deathy 07:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The POV tag needs to stay because the article as a whole, and the definition at the outset, is seriously, deeply imbalanced. Virtually all the comments about this issue on this discussion page put a point of view which see socialism as a common, unifying doctrine. This is characterised in the article as based on "the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" (the text until yesterday) or "a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community". Both "definitions" misrepresent the position by claiming a unity of methods and approaches which is explicitly denied in the literature.

Here are some examples from standard textbooks in politics. Vincent writes: "there is no such single thing as socialism.There are rather socialisms ... There are multiple definitions of the concept and nu,merous ways of actually conceptualizing it." (Modern Political ideologies, Blackwell, 1995). Heywood writes: "one of the difficulties of analysing socialism is that the term has been understood in a at least three distinctive ways. From one point of view, Socialism is seen as an economic model, usually linked to some form of collectivisation and planning. ... The second approach treats socialism as an instrument of the labour movement. ... in this book, socialism is understood in a third and broader sense as a political creed or ideology, characterised by a particular cluster of ideas, values and theories. (Political ideologies, Macmillan, 1998). Geogehan argues that socialists have no doctrin4es in common, but are linked instead by "family resemblance". "It is necessary to have a certain definitional modesty. It will not be possible to produce a definition of socialism that does full justice to similarity and difference." (Socialism, in R Eccleshall et al, Political ideologies, Routledge 1984.)

I have cited a range of alternative views to those stated in the article. You might not agree, but that is not a reason to censor the article to exclude the views you disagree with, or to continue to suppress the information that there are alternative views. The POV tag, which is the minimal intervention reommended in Wikipedia, at least tells readers that they need to be careful. It will need to remain until alternative views are taken into account.[[[User:Paul Spicker|Paul Spicker]] 12:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)]

Suppose we can take that as a vote for the alternative intro. You must noticed that the introduction alone states three times, in various words, that "A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as 'socialist.'" As regards the rest of the article, can you specify some specific views that are 'censored' - you mean unintentionally omitted - so that we can address this? Or views that are "suppressed", by which you mean, in fact, the same thing?

If not, it will be difficult to justify the tag. Andysoh 12:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul, but the article already says it is a broad array of doctrines, and note the "family resemblance" to do with "communal control" which is a weak term that ranges from nationalisation to health and safety laws - you're taking coals to Newcastle.--Red Deathy 12:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)