This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I think it would be proper, in order to maintain this article's neutrality, to add the word "radical" in the first part of the article. This keeps the "Socialism" article consistent with the "Fascism" article. Both are obviously considered to be "Radical."
For instance, the Socialism article is currently as such: "Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."
And the Fascism article is currently as such: "Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology."
I simply want to make the following revision to maintain neutrality: "Socialism is a radical economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."
That will be all...
Apparently, marxists feel that their political system is NOT AT ALL radical, and as a result, are reverting the article, and claiming that I am actually HARMING THE NEUTRALITY of this article by making these revisions! May I remind you not to be a hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.113.33 ( talk) 17:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
What, exactly, is your idea of neutrality?
President Barrack Obama's views and actions show him to be a strong advocate of national socialization. Should he not be included in the "21st century" section of this page? Invmog ( talk) 17:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Barack Obama is not a socialist. Anybody with even the most basic knowledge of socialism is perfectly aware of that. Jacob Richardson ( talk) 20:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
And besides, "national socialization" is a nonsense phrase. Get an education! 129.108.26.101 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC).
I was hoping we could get this article with out the mention of Obama in this manner, but I guess I was being too optimistic in mankind. If we're calling Obama socialist, we'd might as well call Bush fascist by those standards -- MercZ ( talk) 22:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
"Ownership" has at least 3 dimensions: 1) legal title; 2) effective control; 3) risk-reward. Socialists in academia and the mainstream media have tried to mis-define socialism by keying on who holds legal title. However, socialism is an economic, not a political system. Economically, legal title is irrelevant; the dimensions of control and risk-reward are what count. Any ideology or system that advocates government excercising substantial control over the means of production, at least in certain key industries, can therefore be called socialism. Any ideology or system that proposes to have government take over a substantial portion of the risk and/or reward is also socialism. Massive government subsidies and bailouts are manifestations of socialism. President Obama's effective control over General Motors and Chrysler is socialism. So-called "single-payer" health care systems are socialism.
Even if one refuses to accept the above clarification, one cannot reasonably dispute that "single-payer health care" by definition constitutes government ownership of the health care financing industry, if not the health care industry itself, and is therefore socialism.
President Obama's policies appear to be consistent with correctly-defined socialism. President Bush's economic policy and "aggressive defense" approach to national security, however, appear to be more consistent with National Socialist ideology than with fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly J Bailey ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that the widespread description of Obama as socialist is an important factor in society, particularly among the political right, but at the same time I think that it should be noted as largely baseless accusations and not as widely accepted. MattW93 ( talk) 13:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
We don't need a section to refute charges that Obama is a socialist or about the terms "socialism" and "socialist" being thrown around in a defamatory way. What we do need is a section describing the manner in which socialists went "underground" in academia and the media in the mid-20th century, and the fear that modern socialists have of the socialist label. I support public schools. I don't want a public monopoly or a heavy-handed approach, but I do want government to offer a good public education to everyone. That makes me a socialist, to a limited degree. Now why can't all the other, bigger socialists out there acknowledge what they are? It's as if they know "socialism = bad" without understanding the essence of socialism.
Gardentower ( talk) I very much agree that the activities of socialists, communists, etc. in the U.S. in the 20th century is very oddly missing from this long article. This article does a nice job of describing development elsewhere in the world, but the lack of a U.S. discussion makes it sound like the U.S. remains socialist/communist free. To be truthfull, robust sections need to be added describing people and their actions and plans in the late 1800's, the Wilson era, the dive for cover in the 1920's, the strong re-emergence during the Roosevelt era, the submersion in the 50's, the gradual infiltration throughout the 60-70-80's of the U.S. government/economy/social programs, and the full-bore power grap that has been happening since then to the present that has left us in a diseased stupor rotting from moral decay. Even better and to paint the full picture, lets add discusion of the efforts of non-Americans to subvert and collapse the U.S. political and economic system so as to "fundamentally transform" (i.e, neuter) the U.S. into something ripe for control by the elites. Gardentower ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC).
Having the legitimate right to control something is the essence of ownership. The essence of socialism is the belief that it is the legitimate role of government to ensure everyone's needs are met - that is, government has the moral right and responsibility to control all wealth in society, and the people, at least to the degree necessary to ensure everyone's needs are met. The implication of this is that the State ultimately "owns" everything, in precisely the same sense that medieval kings and lords owned everyone and everything subject to their jurisdiction.
Let's see a section about the phenomenon of how the mid-20th century socialists in academia and the media have so misshaped the public's understanding of socialism, capitalism, and the concept of ownership, that so many people think ownership is all about holding legal title - that the control and risk-reward dimensions of ownership don't really count, that the State can control an industry but that it isn't socialism as long as we hide behind the fiction of legal title? That's what we really need to see covered in the sections on socialism, market socialism, etc. Kelly J Bailey ( talk) 18:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Kelly B
The essence of socialism has everything to do with the role of government. I believe that each of us has a moral responsibility to help those who are in need, to the extent of our abilities. This belief is perfectly consistent with classical liberal and capitalist thought. However, nobody who advocates a compulory, government-run social welfare system can rightly be called anti-socialist. They may be anti- some particular form of socialism, but they're not strictly anti-socialist. The notion that it is the role of government - i.e., that government has the responsibility to establish social welfare apparatus that is compulsory (taxpayer funded or othewise) implies that government is socialist. Responsibility and authority necessarily go hand in hand, so the notion implies that government holds sovereign ownership of, which is to say it has the legitimate moral authority to control as it sees fit, all of societies wealth including the labor of its citizens. This is directly contrary to the classical liberal principle expressed by John Locke and others that WE own the fruits of our labors, that government has only the rights and authority which we explicity agree to give to it. All forms of socialism, social welfare state, so-called market socialism, etc., appear to be built not on classical liberalism, but on the age-old paternalistic theory that has been used to justify every form of authoritarianism since the dawn of time - that whoever is lording it over us under whatever political form, they lord it over us for our own good.
That is the common thread that binds all forms of socialism, and therefore merits a little better discussion in the sections on capitalism and socialism. Unfortunately, thanks to the dominance of socialist thinking in academia and the media, most of us no longer even know what classical liberalism. We've been trained to see only the weaknesses of capitalism. Few understand the essence of socialism, and are therefore unable to see that the flaws of socialism pervade President Obama's economic policies as they pervade all big-government social welfare programs. Which brings us to another point that should be included as a criticism of all forms socialism: the fact that they breed dependence and irresponsibility, as we've seen over the past 40 years. We see proof of this in liberal Democrat policies, as well as in socialist-lite policies of Republicans like Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.118.197 ( talk) 19:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be helpful for the article on socialism to elaborate further on the criticisms. For example, there are two important practical implications of the lack of "rational" pricing in a socialist system. First, there will be overproduction of some goods and services, wasting precious limited resources. Second, there will be underproduction and overconsumption of other key goods and services, inevitably leading to rationing and corruption.
Socialism breeds an entitlement mentality. The sense of entitlement results in fewer people being productive, productive people being less productive. The number of unproductive people and their consumption grows until the system is unable to sustain itself.
--And you don't think capitalism breeds entitlement? Like the rich who want tax breaks? What world do you live in?
Socialism breeds corruption. Citizens ask not what they can do for their country, but rather what their country can do for them. In effect, socialism mixed with democracy means that the citizens are selling their votes to the politicians. Power corrupts, and it is inevitable that despite the best of intentions, the government apparatus will also be corrupted as the people in power use their economic control to manipulate and oppress the populace.
--And you don't think captialism breeds corruption? So Wall Street is full of saints, eh? Again, what world do you live in?
Classical liberal ideology protects against such State-sponsored oppression, asserting that under "natural law" or "God's law" we are all completely free, and that government has absolutely no moral authority beyond that which we all agree to grant to it. Socialism, in contrast, suggests that the State has supreme paternalistic responsibility and authority over the people. Implicit in all forms of socialist thinking, including the predominant "liberal" Democrat thinking of the 21st century, is the idea that the State has sovereign ownership rights over all forms of wealth and that the people hold property rights limited strictly to those which the State in its eminent wisdom chooses to delegate. 97.127.118.197 ( talk) 21:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Kelly B
Please review WP:SOAP and WP:NPoV. Might be good to also consult WP:SYNTH. Then consider your proposal in light of those policies. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
hmmm liberal ideology rejects socialism you say? what profound insight you have. black rejects white. dry rejects wet. let's add this to the article. 76.103.47.66 ( talk) 08:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Can we stop this? I am a strong conservative, and I do not believe Obama to be socialist, just very, very, very, liberal. He is not a socialist. -- Carolinapanthersfan ( talk) 22:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Obama said on Letterman tonight that he is NOT a socialist. As far as I know, he's some well educated guy who talks a lot, but then again presidents tend to be. 192.12.88.7 ( talk) 04:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it should be noted that social democrats don't usually nationalize an industry or property without proper compensation to the owner. It was also common to develop those key industries using public funds. On a side note, EU countries are no longer allowed to have national industries, something that european social democratic parties seem to respect.
Libertarian socialism should get its own paragraph, I don't see how is it related to social-democracy.
85.55.152.51 ( talk) 13:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Ike, 7-September-2009
There is a page referring to social libetarianism as well btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjitsuzach ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
"Contrary to popular belief, socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
And any encyclopedia and dictionary disagrees that socialism is not a political system as well. Does anyone know why this is in the article? Jcchat66 ( talk) 04:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is the core meaning of socialism excluded? It is highly inaccurate not to mention a planned economy or centralized government of nearly all socialist advocates in history. Jcchat66 ( talk) 04:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not the core of socialism. The core of socialism is authentic democratic control of the means of production and public ownership. There may be a government. But there may be a government in any other economic system. Only a small group of Marxists, about half of Marxists, advocated a planned economy or centralized government. There are still Left Marxists, Anarchists, Democratic Socialists, Libertarians and Social Democrats among others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 ( talk) 00:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
"Fortunately the Socialist League is dormant for the time being. Our good Bax and Morris, craving to do something (if only they knew what?), are restrained only by the fact that there is absolutely nothing to do. Moreover they have far more truck with the anarchists than is desirable.... All this will pass, if only because there is absolutely nothing to be done over here [in England] just now. But with Hyndman, who is well versed in political imposture and capable of all sorts of folly when his self-advancement is at stake...on the one hand and our two political babes in arms on the other, prospects are no means bright. Yet now we have socialist papers abroad proclaiming at the top of their voices that socialism in England is marching forward with gigantic strides! I am very glad to say that what passes for socialism here in England is not on the march — far from it."
I'd like you to show me your 'dictionary' that says that socialism has to equal centralised, state-planned economy. My dictionary, OED of course, says that the only absolutely definable aspect of socialism is that it "implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market". Perhaps you will understand this to mean something different to myself, but in no way does this necessitate a planned economy in my opinion. Stopping the untrammelled workings of the free-market could be anything from full-scale nationalisation to providing limited welfare benefits to those who are unemployed.
Full quote from dictionary:
The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy.
Hasfg ( talk) 00:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Somebody keeps going and changing the spelling to American English. No edit summaries, no explaination. What's up? Simonm223 ( talk) 17:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The majority of the articles on Wikipedia are using American English. I believe the articles need to be consistent. I'm willing to fix the whole article if anyone agrees with me? -- Jt white93 ( talk) 20:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
To irate editor 96.243.2.186 above: Canada, which has English as an official language, actually has a larger surface area than the United States. So your comment that "America is by far the largest native English speaking country" seems to be false. I don't know why one would have expected you to know this, after all, it's not like it's next-door.
I would also wager that altogether there are far more English-speakers located outside the United States than within it. If you journey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language you will see that there are an estimated 500 million to 1.8 billion speakers of the English language. The population of the US however, is estimated to be just above 300 million.
Next, if you care to look ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate) you will see that the rate of literacy, according to the UN, is 99.0% in about 26 very highly developed countries. This includes the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, the Republic of Ireland and New Zealand (all predominantly English speaking). The rate of literacy in the United States is also 99.0%. Your suggestion of some great disparity between literacy rates in the UK and the US is laughable and clearly false.
And, yes, believe it or not there are many powerful socialist and otherwise left-wing parties either in power or in opposition in English-speaking countries, including those currently governing in the UK and Australia.
You are an idiot, you have absolutely no argument. Stop. Hasfg ( talk) 00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I made a few minor improvements to the lead section, but it still needs some work. The section as it exists now seems to be a mish-mash of different topics with no real sense of organization or flow. Spylab ( talk) 23:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand why the source for Churchill's quote is a biography of Friedrich Hayek. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#cite_note-91 I think it should be directed to Churchill's speeches instead. If this quote is really from Churchill, because Friedrich Hayek's Biography is the only source for this quote I've found. 84.177.250.140 ( talk) 12:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about them. They're not wikified at all, and it seems to really want to make the point that nazism is a form of socialism. It would argue it gives undue weight, especially since what it's talking about happened after the time period the section is about. Also, when it was first added, it used wikipedia as a source, and was directed copied from another article complete with blacktext '[1]' markers where sources would have been. Zazaban ( talk) 03:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Why does the article not mention that the United Kingdom is a socialist country, and has been for a long time? While the Labour party is perhaps not as socialist as it used to be in the 1960s, (and the Tories are more socialist than they used to be) I thought there was no dispute about the UK being a socialist country. Up until quite recently, the Labour party used to sing "We'll keep the red flag flying" at party conferences. Socialism - not to be confused with communism. Socialism is, I think, about fairness for all. Update: I see that other sections of the article that I had not looked at do mention the UK. 89.242.92.249 ( talk) 15:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
This article includes a lot about communism, when it is supposed to be about socialism. I wonder if it is unbiased or has been written by someone with a hidden agenda to tar socialism with the same brush as communism. 89.242.92.249 ( talk) 16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
You are right. This article does a great disservice to Socialism and students who use this site. The rootword of Socialism is social, which is more based in the interactive than it is an ideology or governmental administration. The root word of Communism is commune, which is economic and administrative in nature. Just in name the differences are obvious. Socialism is not adherent to any ideology, as history has shown.
There are extreme differences between Socialists, despite the fact this article tries to make them out to be all Communist/ Marxist. Infiltrating and posing as groups has long been a Marxist/Communist tactic in order to gain support and exploit such for their interests.
Friedrich List, who influenced many Socialists, was anti- cosmopolitan (multicultural), yet many Communists/Marxists are multiculturalists. Many Socialists throughout history have been racially conscious, but it fails to bandy that. This article tends to focus more on the Communists than it does real Socialists. List was influenced by the early American ideals, and it fails to highlight the American Constitution, written in the 18th century, which provided a clause for the support of the "general welfare" of the population, generally regarded as a "Socialist" clause; a clause many Communists/Marxists exploited to their benefit in the 20th century. List was pro-industrial revolution, whereas many of the so-called Socialists this article cites were not. It is said Socialists in China turned to the ideals of List and others of that school from the 19th century following Mao's rule, which are pro-industry policies and basically their industrial revolution. List warned against big, over-regulating government.
It tries to say this Communist/Marxist version of Socialism the article is writing about was an extension of the classical liberal ideals which brought about the modern middle class, despite the fact Marx criticized and objected to the much of the liberalism of the 19th century and did not like the bourgeois, just as many American conservatives today complain about liberalism, which tends to be more economic protectionist. It fails to accentuate the striking similarities between Marx's war on the bourgeois and modern American conservatives, where in that war these conservatives have enabled trade policies that have undermined the States' industrial production and middle-class, and organized labor has provided enough reason for companies to exploit these policies. Neither the conservatives nor organized labor have changed, resulting in a major underminization of America's middle class, as if they're are working in tandem.
It tries to paint Socialists as all left-wing revolutionaries, when there have been many kinds of Socialists from all political spectrums. It fails to discuss the tendency of real Socialists to be more nationalist, and the tendency of Communists to be more internationalist. This article is very non-inclusive and anti-diversity.
It could talk more about Socialists and Communists quarreling, and Communism's historic alliances with Conservatives. The same American conservatives supported the Iraq invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein, who was a Socialist. Ironically, their allies in the war were the British Labour Party, who tend to be more Communist/Marxist than they are Socialist. Just recently, British Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown did nothing concerning the buyout of historic, legendary British-staple Cadbury by a foreign company, against the ideals of List and other protectionists and nationalists. List was considered a chief rival of Marx's from the 19th century. During the Prime Minister's Questions, Brown attacked liberalism. In pointing out the anti-liberalism of people like Karl Marx and Gordon Brown, it doesn't mean that all Socialists are liberal, rather highlights the stain on liberalism individuals like Marx and Brown have caused in that people believe they are and were liberal, just like the stain on conservatism in America others have caused because people believe they are conservative. Conservatives have previously teamed up with Communist/Marxist-oriented interests, such as World War Two when the British Conservatives teamed with the Communist/Marxist-leaning American Democrats and Communist Soviet Union. British Conservative Margaret Thatcher opposed bringing down the Berlin Wall and sided with the Communists. Germany became a unified, Socialist-based state after that. Ronald Reagan, at his speech at the wall, encouraged a liberalisation of the Soviet economy, which had virtually become downtrodden. What happened there in the 90s is another story and not the vision most had. The 90s marked a vulturization of the remaining Soviet economy, rather than a liberalisation.
It fails to highlight that many Socialists throughout history have been anti-organized labor, and tries to act as if some Socialists never existed. Concerning the situation in the UK, just recently there has been discussion by the Labour Party of returning to a more intellectual based party, reminiscence of early Socialists who sought support from the educated class instead of organized labor.
A previous attempt to edit this article which was removed:
Differences include, for example, the fact that in 1847 there were considered two kinds of Socialists. There were those who stood apart from the labor movement and looked toward the educated class for support, not seeking to disturb capital and profit if at all possible. [1] These Socialists were the bourgeois, or middle class, movement, considered the real Socialists of that time and respectable. [1] To the contrary, the other kind of Socialist was the labor movement, who believed revolution was not enough and that complete social upheaval and change needed to occur. These Socialists were called Communists. Communists were considered the complete opposite of Socialists during this period. [1] The differences continued into the 20th century, with the emergence of National Socialism in Germany, which was opposed to Communism and Marxism. Friedrich List, considered the father of the National System of Innovation as well as the original European unity theorist, [2] is credited with influencing the new National Socialist order and whose ideas formed the basis of the European Economic Community in the 20th century. [2] [3]
In 1847 there were considered two kinds of Socialists. There were those who stood apart from the labor movement and looked toward the educated class for support, not seeking to disturb capital and profit if at all possible. [1] These Socialists were the bourgeois, or middle class, movement, considered the real Socialists of that time and respectable. [1]
To the contrary, the other kind of Socialist was the labor movement, who believed revolution was not enough and that complete social upheaval and change needed to occur. These Socialists were called Communists. Communists were considered the complete opposite of Socialists during this period. [1]
The differences continued into the 20th century, with the emergence of National Socialism in Germany, which was opposed to Communism and Marxism. Communists and National Socialists were enemies in World War 2. Friedrich List, considered a rival of Karl Marx and the father of the National System of Innovation as well as the original European unity theorist, [2] is credited with influencing the new National Socialist order and the European Economic Community of the 20th century. [2] [4]
Communists have been accused of being only Socialists in name in the modern era, providing "lip service" but being the complete opposite. [5] Karl Marx had a disdain for the bourgeois, and much of his writings were directed against the them. [6] Marx objected to the liberalism found in his host countries. [6] Trade unions in England were considered staunch conservative in the 19th-century, [7] and the National Socialists of the 20th century in Germany outlawed trade unions, as well as purging conservatives. In the 21st century, American conservatives have been called the new Communists, [8] and have been accused of hurting the bourgeois the most with their economic policies while their Tea Party protests have been accused of attacking the educated class. [9] [10]
U.S. President Barack Obama has warned against protectionism, [11] despite his campaign pledges to embrace such policies; [12] this with the enormous backing of labor unions and what has been called a "free trade depression." [13] Socialist Europe [14] instituted numerous protectionist measures, including on wire, steel, and iron products, as well as on aluminium foil and candles in 2009, [15] and as recently as 2010 was accused of being protectionist. [16]
Today the American conservative movement is mostly led by those who were called Trotskyites during the days of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union. [17] The main drive of the Bolsheviks and modern American conservatives was and has never been about economic systems and principle, rather control and globalism (internationalism) versus tradition and nationalism, [17] where real Socialists tend to be found in the latter. The decline of Bolshevism in Russia occurred when Stalin needed Russian Nationalists and Orthodoxy to fight World War Two, the very same Nationalism and Orthodoxy the Bolshevik-Communists, who were funded by Capitalists, had tried to destroy. [17]
Following the founding of Israel, the Bolshevik-Communists drifted more into the camp of the U.S. during the Cold War in the interest of fighting Arab Nationalism, which was a threat to Israel. [17] This movement, called Neoconservatism, is still the driving force of conservatism in America today and dominates both political parties, which has resulted in the modern wars led by the U.S. on the Middle East. [17] A leading Bolshevik-Communist publication today is considered the Weekly Standard, [17] whose writers frequently appear on FOX News. Barack Obama was heavily funded by the unions during his presidential campaign in 2008, [18] and FOX News gave him better coverage during the election than John McCain. [19] Obama has continued the same Neoconservative policies toward the Middle East he inherited, but campaigned against, and has escalated the presence of U.S. troops during his administration in that more soldiers are on the ground there than under G.W. Bush. [20]
Admitted Communist Van Jones has taken exact positions on ethanol as alleged "conservative" Glenn Beck, [21] [22] despite their arguments being debunked. [23] [24] Another characteristic of the Bolshevik-Communist, their hatred for Imperial Russia's Tsars, is found among American conservatives with their modern bashing of Obama administration officials, [25] despite the fact that many have concluded Obama is Bush's third term, [26] and did before he took office. [27] Steve Forbes on FOX Business championed a Lenin to deal with Obama's Czars, and Rush Limbaugh's rhetoric has been compared to Leninism. [28]
The same weapons disarmament policies the Communists pushed in the 1940s [29] [30] [31] to protect the Soviet Union, under the guise of peace, are being pushed again today by Obama toward resurgent Nationalist, Orthodox Russia, [32] who the Neoconservatives still view as an enemy. [17] Modern Russia has adopted "general welfare" policies, spearheaded by Vladimir Putin, which pay women to have children, in an attempt to reverse Russia's declining demographics, which has been successful. [33] Putin has been a main target of the West and Neoconservatives. [34] [35] Putin ironically has been a champion of the bourgeois. [36]
Despite popular belief that the early Soviet Union was a bastion of Communist scientific progress, the political entity was considered scientifically backwards up until the beginning of the Cold War, lacking key technology and where physics was virtually absent. Meanwhile, over 50% of the world's physics community was centered in Germany by the 1940s, where Socialism was found. [29] [30] [31] The same characteristic of the scientifically illiterate Bolshevik-Communists is found in today's American conservatives. [37] In one instance, death threats were issued to evolutionary biologists at the University of Colorado by a former Israeli citizen under the guise of "conservative" Christianity. [38]
Legitimate environmental concerns did not occur in the Communist Soviet Union until the 1980s, while such concerns were found in colonial America, and German Ernst Haeckel pioneered "ecology," which influenced National Socialism. [39] Today's American "conservatives" have as much interest in the environment as the Communists in the Soviet Union did, which was virtually none. They have been the biggest opponents of clean, alternative energy, [40] [41] accepting donations from countries such as Nigeria to prevent the proliferation of such. [42] National Socialists in Germany were at the forefront of conservation, curbing air pollution, creating nature preserves, and were heavily supported by environmentalists and conservationists. [43] Martin Heidegger is known as a leading environmental philosopher who was a National Socialist.
The same fear-based propaganda tactics of the Communists from the early 20th century [29] [30] [31] have been adopted by American conservatives [44] and British Labour [45] to push their Neoconservative Middle Eastern agenda.
Ferocious osmosis ( talk) 06:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. But no scholar or well-read individual takes the front page article seriously.
Ferocious osmosis ( talk) 07:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Albert Einstein was a noted Communist subversive, not a Socialist. He was affiliated with 34 Communist-front groups, serving as the honorary chairman of three Communist organizations. [46] The U.S. tried to block his application for immigration and suspend his passport for being an inadmissible alien because of his Communist activities, not Socialist. [29]
The Communists he was associated with were accused by the U.S. government of trying to deceive the public and the government by hiding Communist organizations using other names, and that these organizations were a threat to educational institutions. He was heavily involved with the organized labor, civil rights, and Israel movement. Changing names to hide their true Communist identity was a noted tactic of Einstein's circles. [29] The U.S. considered him highly undesirable. [29]
Einstein was accused of trying to distort and confuse the principles of science, while using such as a front for Communist activities and affiliations, which were associated with and funded by the Soviet Union. [29] Einstein personally corresponded with Joseph Stalin, [29] and wrote several articles for Communist publications. [30] Einstein's son lived in the Soviet Union. [29] During the trials of Alger Hiss, the U.S. considered Einstein for deportation, [29] and they had believed he was a Communist spy. [29] In 1948, Einstein was working with Robert Oppenheimer when charges were leveled that Oppenheimer associated with Soviet agents at a party where he received personal information of the first Soviet attempt to penetrate the Radiation Laboratory in California. [31]
Einstein was called a plagiarist, publicity-seeking dog, and charlatan, who rarely conducted actual scientific experiments. [47] His famous theory E=MC² is generally credited to Olinto De Pretto. [48] Nikola Telsa called Einstein's theories erroneous. [29] The Atomic Energy Commission never granted Einstein clearance. [29]
Socialists in Europe during the 1930s burned his literature. [49] In California during the 1940s, parents did not want their children exposed to Einstein. [29] Einstein supported the abolishment of the House Un-American Activities Committee, [31] and was a chief proponent of the Communist tactic of fear-based propaganda. [31] He was cited as being part of a circle of educators readily engaged in Communist-driven propaganda. [50]
Ferocious osmosis ( talk) 03:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You must be smelling your own crap because hardly can anything be smelled through this website. The anionic surfactant is on the front page of this article.
Ferocious osmosis ( talk) 11:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ferocious osmosis ( talk) 23:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Ferocious osmosis ( talk) 04:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ferocious Osmosis, many editors are struggling to try and keep the article, in a highly contentious subject where many hold strong opinions, balanced and fair. It already acknowledges that terhe are many strands of socialism, from those of us who do consider socialism and communism to be synonyms, to those who consider that socialism and communism are opposites, to those who think that anything whatwsoever that involves state action is socialist. Instead of posting long screeds here, could you make practical proposals for how you'd like to see the article changed, which we can discuss?-- Red Deathy ( talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm somewhat concerned about the description in the introductory paragraph of the subject being "based on economic rationalization to overcome anarchy of production in order to further advance the economy toward superabundance." The cited source is an anti-socialist opinion piece by Austrian economists Peter Boettke and Peter T. Leeson. The biases of that article may conflict with our own approved sources; their claim that "socialism is characterized by state ownership of the means of production" has already been disputed in this article and there's been a determination that this isn't a very useful description. But the relevant portion is extracted from this:
The ultimate end of socialism was the “end of history,” in which perfect social harmony would permanently be established. Social harmony was to be achieved by the abolition of exploitation, the transcendence of alienation, and above all, the transformation of society from the “kingdom of necessity” to the “kingdom of freedom.” How would such a world be achieved? The socialists informed us that by rationalizing production and thus advancing material production beyond the bounds reachable under capitalism, socialism would usher mankind into a post-scarcity world.
The first thing taught to introductory economics students is that conditions of scarcity are always present. This will remain true regardless of the allocation mechanism in place, as there are underlying issues of resource extraction and problems with all forms of allocation. The elimination of scarcity does not merely entail "egalitarian" distribution of goods and resources so that all possess; it means that all goods must be free goods, and all wants can be satisfied at zero prices. This is an extremely powerful claim and as Boettke and Leeson are Austrians, it would be in their interest to depict advocacy of socialism as wildly utopian. I'd recommend removing this portion unless corroboration can be found from actual major socialist sources. Cochise the Restorer ( talk) 18:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Defend it. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 21:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if it would fit to mention that Upton Sinclair said in " The Jungle" that with Socialism all people could work 1 hour a day, & Bertrand Russell said that we could all have a 4 hour workday? Whereas with Capitalism we make half the people work 40-80 hours a week while the other half starve...even though they work. http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html & http://www.zpub.com/notes/rfree10.html Stars4change ( talk) 04:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence from the lead section because it is a run-on sentence that confuses more than helps.
A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labour, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions, the method of resource allocation and post-monetary calculation based on some physical magnitude; [1] often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labour expended or individual contribution. [2]
If someone can split it up into smaller sentences and use plain English, feel free to re-insert it into the article. Spylab ( talk) 15:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I attempted to re-incorporate it into the lead section, feel free to modify it if you feel it is still difficult to understand. I also suggest revising the first sentence so it defines socialism as three distinct things: a political/social movement, an economic system and a political philosophy/theory; right now it only defines it as an "economic and political theory". Battlecry ( talk) 03:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Cooperative ownership and management of a businesses is not socialism. There are capitalist businesses today that are worker-owned and managed. Socialism is when ALL the means of production are owned in common by society or all workers. It is not businesses individually owned by groups of workers. That is capitalism, because that is still private ownership of the means of production. Cooperatives is just a way to manage the means of production that are owned in common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidosity ( talk • contribs) 04:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Having read the section above about using British spelling, I would have thought that every word should be spelt the British way. But having gone through the article, it seems to be a mixture of American and British spellings. I've been correcting many of them, but the whole article seems to be using both. Which one should be used then? Tripsin ( talk) 00:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Snowded, are you really saying that ALL socialists are in favor of abolishing money? Maybe you think that's a fundamental aspect of an hipothetical socialist society, and maybe you're right, but this article is suposed to describe ALL currents of socialism. Peace. 187.23.110.216 ( talk) 16:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
the tag has been removed twice. I was unable to find a source for the term in my research. Darkstar1st ( talk) 20:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't like the use of vocabulary in the current version of the article. It seems divorced from the rest of Wikipedia (and my knowledge of economics). If you click on some of the first unusual terms - "Means of Production", "Use-value", "Exchange-value", "Free Association" - they all go Marxist Theory pages. I don't think I should have to learn all of Marxist Theory in order to understand Socialism. Just because it's not the Capitalist page, doesn't mean you can't use the word "capital".
Also, I see "post-monetary system" as a biased term.
On a non-vocabulary related note, the introduction includes a Socialist's criticism of Capitalism. Rather than saying "A socialist sees capitalism as doing X which is bad because of Y", I think a more even way of phrasing it is "A socialist wants Y and capitalism doesn't achieve that because of X". This second way of phrasing it allows people to evaluate if Y is important to them and whether or not X does or doesn't encourage Y. The first way of phrasing it allows criticism of the social's view of capitalism and whether or not there are offsetting things besides Y that might make capitalism redeemable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.131.202 ( talk) 14:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)