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 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Me and user TFD are in favour of moving history section right after the lead section. Any counterarguments or else lets proceed.-- Eduen ( talk) 23:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposed edit. I think the order is fine as it is - if anything, economics and political theory sections should be up front because they are more crucial to the subject matter than a history of the political movement associated with socialism. The history section is currently poorly-written and only touches upon the history of the socialist/labor movement, and not on the intellectual history of socialism (equally as important given that socialism is primarily defined as an economic and social system). - Battlecry 09:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

About something entirely different, this structure is terrible;

• Social and Political theory
  • Marxism
  • Evolutionary and Institutional economics
  • Role of the state
  • Utopian versus scientific
  • Reform versus revolution

first, if its about social and political theory where is Anarchism, socialism, etc etc, secondly why is Marxism there (it doesn't make much sense).. Secondly, "Evolutionary and Institutional economics and the "Role of the state" does not belong in the same subsections of "Utopian versus scientific" and "Reform versus revolution"..... I'm in favor of adding the "History" section at the top if its drastically shortened - its too long as it is now.. This article should focus on Socialist philosophy/ideology/thought, and not the policies of certain socialist politicians who never contributed to innovate socialist theory. -- TIAYN ( talk) 14:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Battlecry, you have it the wrong way round. Socialism is a political movement that has generated economic and political theory. And, like other ideologies, it is normally described historically. See for example "Varieties of Socialism" in Political Ideology Today, pp. 84-114. [1] We are supposed to use tertiary sources as examples. If you can provide any tertiary sources that use a non-historical approach, then please provide one. Without history tying it together, it is confusing what connects say Maoism and New Labour. TFD ( talk) 22:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As i see it starting with history we can also take into account the context and the importance of certain ideas. As the article stands now it looks more like an article called "Socialist theory" rather than as an article about a political movement which has gone as far as governing entire countries for decades in many places.

"socialism is primarily defined as an economic and social system" User:Battlecry

¿Where is the support for this affirmation?

As far as establishing what socialism is i can bring out Encyclopedia Britannica which says it is a "social and economic doctrine" [2] and not a "system". In "Origins" it says that "The origins of socialism as a political movement..." so we can infer that socialism is also a political movement and so political movements are clearly not lines of writing in books by intelectuals isolated in some tower but ideas propagandized and put in practive by actual political groups. Anyway socialist ideas have not come from the minds of a few intelectuals who only discussed between each other but they have been in put in practice and propagandized by intentional communities, trade unions and political parties. Even socialist intelectuals such as Marx, Gramsci or Bernstein elaborated their ideas in dialogue with practicality of ideas and thinking as activists and militants within organizations.

Another source is The Encyclopedia of Political Science CQ Press. 2011. which starts its article on socialism saying that "Socialism was the most influential secular movement of the twentieth century, worldwide. It was a political ideology (or world view), a wide and divided political movement, and a socioeconomic model tried and developed on a large scale." Later it says "Socialism became a public social movement in western Europe of the 1840s, but it grew out of the radical Enlightenment and the leftist currents of the French Revolution (1789–1799)." (pg. 1554) So this other source says it is a "model" which is something close to a "system" but it also says that it is a political and social movement as well as an ideology.

Also lets take into account again the Encyclopedia Britannica article on "socialism" and it does something very close to what i am suggesting for the wikipedia article. It starts with an intro and it goes to a section called "origins" and then one called "utopian socialism" and it goes forward analysing chronologically a succession of movements and ideas in their context (Utopian socialism, Other early socialists, Marxian socialism, Socialism after Marx, Revisionism and revolution, Socialism in the era of world war, Postwar socialism, Socialism after communism).

Another argument to take into account is that socialism as a "theory" and as a "model" is already being defined in the intro. But when we are talking about socialism we are not talking about a theory or even worse a concept by a single author. We are talking about a very diverse set of positions implemented by specific movements very diverse on themselves and in all the world´s countries. As such coherence of ideas that could fit into all these very diverse and multiple movements is hard to maintain and so it is better to analyse the evolution of socialist ideas in their context in time and place.-- Eduen ( talk) 06:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

As i check again what is right after the intro, the "philosophy" section i can only say that it is a highly speculative and gravely unsourced text. I really think this section needs a lot of work and as it stands now it is the weakest section of the article.

On another topic:

"The history section is currently poorly-written and only touches upon the history of the socialist/labor movement, and not on the intellectual history of socialism (equally as important given that socialism is primarily defined as an economic and social system)." User:Battlecry

I don´t see what you are talking about. The history sections is clearly showing the history of socialist thought alongside the mentions of social events and movements as well as events. Otherwise how do you call some things that are in the titles such as "social anarchism", "syndicalism", "fabianism", "guild socialism", the discussion between "reform and revolution".

"I'm in favor of adding the "History" section at the top if its drastically shortened - its too long as it is now.. This article should focus on Socialist philosophy/ideology/thought, and not the policies of certain socialist politicians who never contributed to innovate socialist theory." User:Trust Is All You Need

Let´s take into account that we have almost 2 and a half votes in support of my proposed change. As far as the history section of something as worldwide and as complex and 2 centuries old is going to be long by necessity. As far as focusing this article on "philosophy/ideology/thought" i direct User:Trust Is All You Need to my previous intervention right before this one where i supported with highly reliable sources that socialism is not only an "ideology" or a "doctrine" but also a political and social movement. As such we have to do justice to both the ideas as well as the context where these appeared and in fact also not just "socialist ideas" but also "socialist movements and organizations". I am advocating here neither an extreme of philosophy and metaphysics nor a mere chronology of movements and events but a joining of the two and the best way to do it is to start with a chronological narrative of ideas and movements/organizations. As far as maybe an excess of "the policies of certain socialist politicians who never contributed to innovate socialist theory" i can say that we might want to improve this is this is the case and bring in more ideological detail especially in the last sections of history dealing with the post war and contemporary eras. Nevertheless we are not writing here either just a treatise of "socialist theorectical innovation" but a narrative of socialism and which according to the sources i provided it has to be not just the innovations but also the permanence and extentions of old or not too new ideas as well as socialist movements and organizations.

To summarize i can say that we can´t understand socialist ideas and theories without social realities, movements and organizations within a spece/time dimension. Also we can´t understand socialist movements and organizations without ideas and theories.-- Eduen ( talk) 06:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be in favor of moving the history section to the forefront if it were better written and included more information on the history and development of socialism itself - the development of models and systems of socialism, and not simply what socialists said or socialist parties did in what period. I agree with TIAYN, the history section needs to be shortened and possibly reorganized. On a related note, it seems like there is a strong move to remove anything citing Marxist ideas of socialism in favor of reformist/social democratic perspectives (defining socialism as ethical ideals or by labor struggles), which is a very Euro-centric view. For example, we have a section on "the Nordic model" which does not belong in this article. While I don't think we need to add a deluge of information on Marxism-Leninism, it's important to keep in mind as per WP:Weight that the vast majority of socialist movements and systems that have been called "socialist" were implemented by variations of Marxism-Leninism.

On a related note, it will be difficult to organize the versions of socialism chronologically. How would "market socialism" fall into the mix (it has been advocated since before Marx's time, but only really developed in the Post-War debate)? The same can be said for many other forms of socialism like planned socialism, that have been developed at multiple points in history.

I understand that "socialism" is also defined as a political movement, but fundamentally that political movement aims for the establishment of socialism, defined as some form of post-capitalism or alternative system to capitalism. Socialist political movements have pursued many different ideologies from conservative positions to social liberal positions. Without clear organization and distinction between socialism and what various socialist parties might have done/promoted in history invites the possibility that readers will equivocate "socialism" with "whatever x or y parties did historically" as opposed to a concrete, albeit broadly-defined, socio-economic model. - Battlecry 09:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Eduen and Battlecry: This is my problem, we have an article entitled History of socialism, which allows use to reduce the length of the "History" section, but we don't have an article entitled Forms of socialism, varities of socialism and so on, and because of that, this article has to focus on it. We all know this article is terrible, but since no other article solely focuses on the various forms of socialist ideology, this article has to do it, or someone must take the much harder step to create an article about it.. -- TIAYN ( talk) 09:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"I would be in favor of moving the history section to the forefront if it were better written and included more information on the history and development of socialism itself - the development of models and systems of socialism, and not simply what socialists said or socialist parties did in what period."

Well. if you could be more specific on what it needs to be better written and which particular parts are not good we could start fixing things.

"On a related note, it seems like there is a strong move to remove anything citing Marxist ideas of socialism in favor of reformist/social democratic perspectives (defining socialism as ethical ideals or by labor struggles), which is a very Euro-centric view"

Marxism has a strong "reformist" wing: President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has adhered to marxism and implemented his socialism from winning elections. Eurocommunism is a wholly marxist current developed from parliamentary Communist parties such as the Italian and French communist parties. I mentioned Chavez in order to avoid "eurocentrism". Even trotskists right now are participating in parliaments around the world such as the argentinian Workers' Left Front which has 3 members of congress and trotkists are also in the french parliament. The only section of socialism which one can very well say it is only "revolutionary" or "anti-parliamentary" as a whole is anarchism which does not participate in parlaments. Otherwise marxism today might actually have one of its main spaces of action in parliaments.

"For example, we have a section on "the Nordic model" which does not belong in this article."

The swedish social democratic party is part of the european parliament group Party of European Socialists. Actually in my view the swedish social democratic party might be more left wing than even the Communist Party of China which allows a billionaire to be a member and who forbids the establishment of independent trade unions in China.

"While I don't think we need to add a deluge of information on Marxism-Leninism, it's important to keep in mind as per WP:Weight that the vast majority of socialist movements and systems that have been called "socialist" were implemented by variations of Marxism-Leninism."

20th century leninist takeovers of states are well dealt in the article incluiding Vietnamese, Chinesese and Cuban in the "Post war radicalization section". Now "vast majority of socialist movements and systems that have been called "socialist" were implemented by variations of Marxism-Leninism." sound very vague indeed as a sentence. I don´t know where you can find support for this but even if one might not like it a very neoliberal party such as the spanish PSOE still has in its name the word "socialism" in its name just as the Chinese Communist PArty still keeps the "communist" label and so we just cannot avoid mentioning them here. In their origins they were very radical and the spanish PSOE had a strong marxist influence as well.

"On a related note, it will be difficult to organize the versions of socialism chronologically. How would "market socialism" fall into the mix (it has been advocated since before Marx's time, but only really developed in the Post-War debate)? The same can be said for many other forms of socialism like planned socialism, that have been developed at multiple points in history."

By now I can now accuse you of " idealism" by the extent to which you take theory and concepts as important in the real world. "Market socialism" is more or less a concept only of use of a few intellectuals. ¿where can i find a "market socialist party"? Nowhere. On the other hand something like " trotskism" has actually motivated whole parties and even "internationals" of parties around the world. The same goes for concepts such as "eurocommunism", "anarcho-communism", or "syndicalism". "Planned socialism" is not even a theory. Market socialism is a sort of theory while planned socialism at most it is only a concept. Also there has not even been self identified "planning socialists" and worse a movement or party called "Party of planned socialism" or something like that.

"Without clear organization and distinction between socialism and what various socialist parties might have done/promoted in history invites the possibility that readers will equivocate "socialism" with "whatever x or y parties did historically" as opposed to a concrete, albeit broadly-defined, socio-economic model."

Not every social movement or party had a whole "model" that it wanted to implement. Politics need to act in the real world and so it needs to be flexible. Let´s even deal with this in marxist terms. The whole distinction by Marx and Engels on "utopian" vs. "scientific" socialism was motivated by their view that utopian socialists depended too much on a specific model which was present too much in the proponents head and books but which did not rely in actual social and political movements for its implementations and not on actual people´s opinions on what a better life will be like either.-- Eduen ( talk) 10:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@ TIAYN: I completely agree. I think the article should focus more on explaining the different forms of socialism (the major economic models as well as political ideologies) and less on the history of the socialist movement, which has its own article to go into detail about socialist politics and parties. The "Politics" subsection already lists the major socialist ideologies/movements along with a brief description, and can serve as a good starting point. My biggest concern is that by over-emphasizing the history of socialist politics, we will de-emphasize description and in-depth discussion of what socialism actually is and its various subtypes (Decentralized, central planning, market socialism, syndicalism, computerized planning, etc) which should take precedence over historical political positions/political struggles socialists were involved in. - Battlecry 10:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"computerized" socialism. ¿Are you joking? this is ridiculous. Anyway i am supporting a content very much in like with what other enciclopedias will give us such as the Encyclopedia Britannica and very much what wikipedia itslef does for other ideologies such as liberalism, conservatism and anarchism. -- Eduen ( talk) 10:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Eduen:There are no "planned socialist" or "market socialist" parties, they are socialist systems to be implemented by socialist movements. The planned economy is one of the most widely recognized forms of socialism. And yes, computerized planning is a real concept in socialist economics - Paul Cockshott, Allin Cottrell, Andy Pollack and even Soviet academic Viktor Glushkov, not to mention recent articles on peer-to-peer coordination as a basis for post-capitalist system, have contributed to the development of this model of planned economy.

Ad hominens aside, aside from the Soviet economic model or Yugoslav model, socialism as a system is largely a theoretical construct. I have no qualms with describing political ideologies (Trotskyism, anarchism, etc) in this article whatsoever. But as your recent posts indicate, you are pushing a non-neutral point of view that focuses heavily on politics. The Nordic model is not a form of socialism - your personal opinion on the merits of the Swedish social democratic party are irrelevant to this fact. The definition of socialism does not change to mean whatever a socialist party/movement happens to support at the time.- Battlecry 10:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Battlecry and Eduen: First, the Nordic model isn't a model in the sense that its different from the rest of the world, because its capitalist, its just a more egalitarian version of it. To argue otherwise would be stupid... Secondly, I wasn't precise enough, and I my wording (as always) was a bit clumpsy.. I wan't the article to discuss topics such as; "Economic planning, Free association, Equality of opportunity, Self-management, Industrial democracy/Economic democracy, Public ownership/Common ownership, Production for use, Labour democracy, relations to trade unions, Egalitarianism, Equality of outcome, , Internationalism, Mixed economy, socialist democracy, socialist future, and so on... Why? Because all socialist movements have some of these in common.. Discussion about the Yugoslav model, Soviet model, Social democratic model, Third Way model, China model, Vietnam model should be mentioned, but I'm afraid the article will become to big if it does so.. Therefore, I suggest, that this article discuss the common denominators all socialist parties share. -- TIAYN ( talk) 13:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, I'm against the first sentence; "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy"... Its something more vague than that, its a philosophy.. It should be replaced with "Socialism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty, political and economic equality and an opposition to capitalism." Or something else, of course. -- TIAYN ( talk) 14:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

To say that the varieties of socialism are best presented historically is not to say that it should duplicate the history of socialism. See my example, "Varieties of Socialism" by Ian Adams. [3] Each variety arose at a point in history, and many have disappeared. Eurocommunism for example makes no sense unless one knows that Europe was divided between the captialist west and the Communist East, and becomes obsolete once those divisions end. "Red-green" alliances make no sense before pollution becomes an issue. Socialism would never have arisen except for the industrial revolution. TFD ( talk) 19:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The article that user TFD has brought to us starts saying that "there is no essential socialism but many socialisms". As such the user Trust Is All You Need says the scandinavian model is not socialism. I have to remind everyone of the long discussion over whether the Soviet Union was really socialism or whether it was just State Capitalism or Bureaucratic collectivism. The system of North Korea has been also called "fascist" by the book The Cleanest Race and an by others a "hereditary monarchy". So doubts about whether something is really socialist abound about almost everything associated by that name.

"My biggest concern is that by over-emphasizing the history of socialist politics, we will de-emphasize description and in-depth discussion of what socialism actually is"

You seem to be very sure that you know what socialism is. You know exactly the essence of it. Then bring your sources that tell us what it is. Up to this point me an user TFD have been the only ones who has brought outside reliable sources to this discussion. Anyway the users Trust Is All You Need and Battlecry are free to start the article "socialist models" or "forms of socialism" since that is what is the most important thing for them. As i mentioned before this was not even Marx´s view of socialism since the emphasis on intellectually created models is precisely what he denounced about utopian socialism. So in fact we don´t actually have a "marxist model" and so marxism on itself is a critique of capitalism which didn´t provide a model apart from a few sentences of what communism will be like.-- Eduen ( talk) 20:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Eduen: As said, the article should focus on "Economic planning, Free association, Equality of opportunity, Self-management, Industrial democracy/Economic democracy, Public ownership/Common ownership, Production for use, Labour democracy, relations to trade unions, Egalitarianism, Equality of outcome, , Internationalism, Mixed economy, socialist democracy, socialist future, and so on... Why? Because all socialist movements have some of these in common... I was not clear before, sorry, but no, I don't support Battlecry.. Secondly, what I ment was that Nordic model is not a model in itself (even Jonas Gahr Større, a member of the Norwegian Labour Party, refutes that the Nordic model is a model in the sense that it is dramatically different from other western economies), the nordic model is only a distinct model if you emphasize the welfare state only... The word socialism doesn't mean anything, and means everything at the same time. There is nothing clearly defined which is socialism, socialism is a common denominator, a term which gets thrown around from everyone from Stalin, Kim Jong-un to anarchist to social democrats and so on. Its philosophy. -- TIAYN ( talk) 21:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Eduen:And you seem to only want to discuss socialist politics without any reference to the object of said politics - a description of the socialist system(s). By your logic we should include a discussion of "National Socialism" because they nominally claimed to be socialist in their name. As for the Marxist method, the Marxist approach to understanding systems lies in an analysis of the processes that take place in a given society - not ideals or values. The predominant processes and relationships that take place within the Nordic model are capitalist, not socialist or non-capitalist. And while it is true that socialism is not an concise concept, there is a general set of parameters that most agree upon for its definition (the opening paragraph accommodates this variability).

On a related note, I don't think we need to over-rely on sources like "The Free Dictionary" and "Encyclopedia Britannica". General dictionaries are not the most reliable sources for understanding complex economic and political concepts; it is better to rely more heavily on specialized dictionaries and encyclopedias on political economy, political science and other related disciplines that will have more accurate and in-depth information on the subject.

@ TIAYN: By defining socialism as a vague ideology promoting "freedom, equality" you fall into the trap of describing hoped-for ideals (shared by many different philosophies, not just socialist ones mind you) rather than anything substantive. Many socialists, especially Marxists, reject the definition of socialism as a set of ideals or normative values to be implemented - so while your proposed lead might be appropriate for describing ethical socialists, reformists, social democrats and utopianists, it would be far less encompassing than the current lead.- Battlecry 21:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Battlecry: First, socialism does not have to be anti-capitalist; social democracy is still very much a socialist ideology. The Nordic Model is capitalist, and the only real difference is a much more benign welfare state and a larger public sector (of the largest national companies in Norway, only two of them are privately owned) found in other countries, but it still capitalism, but that doesn't make it inherently less socialist.. When it comes to Marxism, you can still practice capitalism and be a Marxist; for instance, the Communist Party of China believes that, through the inevitable development of socialism, that capitalist globalization will be replaced by socialist globalization which will lead to a new stage, the socialist mode of production.... But Marxism had values, it just believed that values were not enough, you needed analyzes, searching truth from facts and so on, pure values would not hold.... But again, socialism doesn't mean anything; if Tony Blair and Kim Jong-un can call themselves socialist, and both come away with it, it proves something; socialism is whatever people believe it to be... If socialism is anything, its the belief of social justice and democracy (what form of social justice and what form of democracy, and how these goals are to be reached is, however, an entirely different discussion).. I don't believe we can compare liberalism with socialism - socialism is much harder to define, and is in many ways unique since their exist extremely many different schools of thought.. While they also exist in liberalism, they don't in the same degree. So modeling this article on the liberalism article would be a bad idea. -- TIAYN ( talk) 21:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

As i check other politcal ideologies articles in wikipedia such as liberalism, conservatism, anarchism and fascism certainly one can identify a trend. The Liberalism article starts with intro-etymology-history. The conservatism article goes in the order of intro-development of western conservatism (also chronological narrative)-forms of conservatism. The fascism article starts with intro-definitions-history. The anarchism article goes into-etymology-history. So in this way the articles on main political movements and ideologies tend to establish a definition in the intro and in etymology and then go to history. Only in the socialism article we can see history in the very end just before "criticism" and previously before that the presentations of philosophy, economics, social and political theory, politics. So this clearly supports moving history after etymology as well as the example of the encyclopedia britannica. As of right now we still haven´t seen any sources supporting the positions of users Trust Is All You Need and Battlecry. Now the erasing of the well sourced affirmation of socialism as a social and political movement can be seen as vandalism so i will bring back that.-- Eduen ( talk) 23:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@ TIAYN:Socialism does not have to be anti-capitalist, just non-capitalist in form. It would be an oxymoron to say there is such a thing as "socialistic-capitalism" or vice versa. You are comparing apples to oranges here: socialism is contrasted with capitalism (social and economic system) rather than liberalism (political ideology). As for Tony Blair claiming he is a "socialist", that is up for political scientists and other scholars to decide on the validity of the claim. Most scholarly work I have read that mentioned "new labor" states that its policies and advocates are not socialist or no longer socialist. Again, if we are going to go by whichever political figure claims to be "socialist", we might as well include Adolf Hitler as a "socialist". Regardless, the meaning of socialism is relatively fixed - Kim Jong il and Pierre Joseph Prodhoun, despite being worlds apart in ideology, would both agree that socialism involves some form of "collective" or "social" ownership of the means of production. - Battlecry 00:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as Hitler being a socialist i will also oppose his inclusion here. All the sources i have been reading these days on socialism in general never mention Hitler or the NSDAP or Mussolini or at most as something that opposed socialism. Socialdemocracy is nevertheless included in all those sources. Anyway the objective of this line of discussion is to analyse the proposal of putting history right after etymology. As far as an explanation of what socialism is that is already provided by the intro and by the etymology and so i am arguing for history to follow etymology just as other articles on political ideology such as anarchism and liberalism do.-- Eduen ( talk) 02:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will agree that we should place "History" after "Etymology", followed by "Economics" etc., provided we revise the history material and condense it. But just to be clear, socialism is the opposite of capitalism as a system, not liberalism (which is purely a political ideology, not a socioeconomic system). All the political ideologies of socialism (reformism, revolutionary, vanguardism, etc) revolve around how to achieve socialism/a socialist system. So socialism is not quite the same as purely political concepts like liberalism and conservatism.- Battlecry 05:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

While the Social Democratic Party of Sweden is socialist, they never turned Sweden into a socialist state, nor ever claimed to. What a socialist state would look like and whether it has ever or can ever exist is debatable. Here is another source, Historical Dictionary of Socialism that describes definitions. TFD ( talk) 16:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

While the Social Democratic Party of Sweden may be nominally "democratic socialist", the vast majority of the policies they promote and things they do are not socialist. But socialist states have existed (the former USSR, etc.). What is debatable is whether or not these states were actually advancing toward a socialist system and socialist society, and whether or not such a system and society ever existed. - Battlecry 11:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Battlecry: The Social Democratic Party is social democratic, but democratic socialist (where have you got this from?)... Yes, it is debated wether the current states have been socialist; its a reason why people argue that communism failed because it was never tried out properly.... And while everyone agrees that were the states that called themselves socialist, its disputed wether they actual were socialist. The Social Democratic Party of Sweden is social democratic... Secondly, there is no difference between social democracy and democratic socialism (Blair called himself a democratic socialist, but he was on the social democratic right...).. -- TIAYN ( talk) 13:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Battlecry: Most scholars agree that the Soviet bloc was comprised of socialist states. What isn't agreed upon is whether or not these states had socialist systems (a socialist state can still preside over a capitalist or mixed economy) or whether they authentically represented the interests of workers. And it is quite irrelevant what Blair called himself. Democratic socialism seeks to replace capitalism with some kind of socialism, while social democracy focuses primarily on reforms within capitalism. Democratic socialists range from Trotskyists (like Kshama Sawant) to the Socialist Party of America (which rejects "communism" and social democracy alike). My point is, it does not matter what a politician describes himself as - Hitler called himself a "socialist" as well, but that does not necessarily mean he advocated a socialist system or society (nor does Blair, who used the term "democratic socialism" to mean broadly welfare capitalism and ethical ideals of justice). Regardless, it is up to scholars in relevant fields to decide on the validity of either of these claims.- Battlecry 08:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not know where you get your terminology, could you please provide a source. The only clear distinction is between socialists and communists, and that is mostly based on self-identification. The Communist Party of GB was communist, while Labour is socialist. Within Communism there were various splits that developed historically - Trotskyism, Maoism, etc. While self-identification alone is insufficient to categorize ideology, it is generally accurate, especially if it is what other parties believe. TFD ( talk) 19:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

So now User:Battlecry also agrees with me with moving "history" section after "etymology" and so i think we can proceed to do that. Now i will ask User:Battlecry to explain what he means by "condensing" the history section which i think means "reducing it". I think it has the lenght it should have since socialism is a worldwide phenomenon with more than 2 centuries of existence. Please point out to what sections he thingks are too long or what paragraphs are too long.-- Eduen ( talk) 00:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As anyone can see the current state of the "history" section has been condensed and improved as User:Battlecry. I think it is ready to be moved right after etymology.-- Eduen ( talk) 03:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As it currently stands, there is too much information in each History section which should be reduced significantly (a more detailed account can be provided in a page dedicated to the History of the Socialist movement/politics). Also the "History" focuses exclusively on political actions or political conquests of self-described socialist groups, and very little on the history of socialism itself (history of the concept, new insights in each period, etc.). And do I need to even mention the grave error in equivocating West European models of capitalism (Nordic, Rhine) with "socialism"? - Battlecry 10:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As the intro is currently, it presents the false proposition that there are two kinds of socialism: to each according to contribution or to each according to need. This is utterly incorrect and possibly an attempt to push an anti-socialist agenda through deliberate misinformation. The truth is that the former precedes that latter as two distinct phases of development, which is a very basic fact and doesn't require an advanced understanding. When I made the correction, it was reverted by the claim that it was too specific to Marxism, despite the fact that these two sets of terms are themselves Marxist. This page is routinely edited to be less and less factually accurate and it's getting downright ridiculous. -- Michaelwuzthere ( talk) 03:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Michaelwuzthere: You are correct, but only in a Marxist sense. Social democracy is still, officially a socialist ideology (hence the international organization for the social democrativ movement is named Socialist International). Modern social democracy does not plan or wish to create an economy "to each according to need", but rather a capitalist welfare economy based on "each according to contribution"... Socialism is not synonymous with Marxism, for the concept you're talking about, see Socialism (Marxism). -- TIAYN ( talk) 22:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

User Trust Is All You Need has dealt with the views within social democracy. Now as far as left communism and anarchism there is not a "transitional" phase between capitalism and communism. These views tend to see that socialization or communization has to happen at the same time as the elimination of the state. As such the view of socialism as a particular phase between capitalism and communism is only a marxist view which might not even be true for the whole of marxism since marxism also has parliamentary reformist and libertarian socialist wings. As far as the two views, they are clearly not an invention of marxism but exist previously to Marx.

Saint Simon already argued that those who work should be the only ones who receive the goods of society (thus To each according to his contribution). That principle might also be more or less what Mikhail Bakunin argued for in his economic scheme called " collectivist anarchism" and it was also what Pierre Joseph Proudhon argued for since he thought that the labour theory of value should be the standard of justice for individual remuneration. On the other hand " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" has been argued from radical republican positions already by someone like Louis Blanc in France. Thomas Paine even argued for a form of what we today call Basic income in his text Agrarian Justice from 1795. Lets remember that the influence of Marx was not very important in France until the end of the 19th century and that in Britain there is a local tradition of socialism which goes back to chartism and that later created fabianism and guild socialism which tended to show independence from marxism even within the First international. In fact " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" might not be so radical or unpracticed as a principle if we analyse the actual practices of Welfare states where we have practices like universal healthcare access and free educational fees which are given to those who request it and not by previous judgement of whether someone worked or not or on how many hours one worked but only as a citizen right. From this point of view even social democrats might be said to adhere to a form or a level of " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" since they tend to support socialized medicine and free educational fees.

As such we should do justice to that and remember that we are writing the socialism article and not the marxism article. For the particular view of Marx on socialism there already exists the separate " Socialism (Marxism)" article.

User:Michaelwuzthere: "This page is routinely edited to be less and less factually accurate and it's getting downright ridiculous."

This user is free to participate in the discussions on the edition of this article and to manifest what he or she might not be in agreement. If he or she has not done that it is only because he could not do it or because he did not want to. Anyone can check this Talk page to see the discussions which have gone with the editions in this article. Still User Michaelwuzthere is free to manifest here the things he disagrees with.

User:Michaelwuzthere: "This is utterly incorrect and possibly an attempt to push an anti-socialist agenda through deliberate misinformation."

Within wikipedia there is not a policy of asking someone whether that person symphatizes or rejects a particular idea or thing when editing an article. Wikipedia articles are written through the process of arguments and counterarguments supported by outside reliable sources and the issue of personal political alignement is irrelevant as far as the discussion which goes with the edition of articles.-- Eduen ( talk) 04:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Eduen: The fact remains that the two concepts in question are not an either/or proposal, as was previously suggested. The two methods of distribution, regardless of any single ideology, are reflective of different material conditions in the productive capacity of socialism: contribution being mandated by conditions in which commodities are too scarce to be freely accessible, and need being that they are not. The latter form is Communism, and it is also socialism, albeit in a most advanced stage hence Marxism's distinguishing it as an endpoint of economic development. So the two are both describing socialism, and this is reflected in the current standing while the additional and important point that the latter is widely viewed as a new stage is also linked, as it should be. Whether or not this distinction of the latter form being called communism should be made is the only thing I see as being debatable, and I am of the opinion that it should be, as the difference between socialism and communism is common matter of intrigue. -- Michaelwuzthere ( talk) 14:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Michaelwuzthere: You are talking Marxism, and Marxism has not monopolized the meaning of socialism! -- TIAYN ( talk) 14:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Trust Is All You Need: It's not Marxism, it's fact (and only logical) that the two distribution principles are reflective of two distinct material conditions. Distribution according to need would not be possible if the productive capacity could not support it. Distribution according to contribution would not be necessary if the productive capacity can produce abundance. Hence, the two should not be presented under the erroneous proposition that they are a conscious choice between two debatable ideas. -- Michaelwuzthere ( talk) 14:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Michaelwuzthere: The social democratic movement does not view as such, they don't believe that such a condition/productive capacity will ever be reached. Social democrats don't believe in two distinct material conditions, social democracy don't believe if you develop the economy a new mode of production will be developed, conceived. Therefore, what you say don't really make sense, cause the modern social democratic just don't believe in. Tony Blair doesn't believe in it, Francois Hollande doesn't believe in it, even Ed Miliband (the son of a Marxist), doesn't believe in it. Its hard to see how leading social democrats, who even call themselves interchangeably socialist, don't believe in it (that it can be part of socialism). -- TIAYN ( talk) 15:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Trust Is All You Need: Then it sounds like what you advocate is for a social democrat monopolization. Whether or not social democrats believe distribution according to need is possible is irrelevant to the fact that the concept of distribution according to need is what it is. The issue isn't whether or not communism is going to be realized, the issue is that the two distribution systems (as both are in theory here) are not an either/or proposition. -- Michaelwuzthere ( talk) 15:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Michaelwuzthere: For social democrats its either. While you may be correct in stating that these differences are not stated clearly enough (the sentence is a bit muddle, I accept that, but say socialism has to be to-tier, well that is wrong).— Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address

I dealt with the views of anarchists such as Bakunin and Proudhon before to show that the view of "according to their contribution" and afterwards "to each according to their needs" is a particular view of Karl Marx. The fact is that user Michaelwuzthere wants to force a marxist centered view on this article. I suggest to check the article Socialism (Marxism) to see how the view that user Michaelwuzthere is already dealt with by wikipedia in a whole article and i have never edited a single letter in that particular article.

"So the two are both describing socialism, and this is reflected in the current standing while the additional and important point that the latter is widely viewed as a new stage is also linked, as it should be."

¿Who are those that "widely" see things this way?

"Distribution according to contribution would not be necessary if the productive capacity can produce abundance. Hence, the two should not be presented under the erroneous proposition that they are a conscious choice between two debatable ideas."

There is the view that people should "earn" what they get and that lazy people who don´t work should get nothing. There is also the view that every person should have access to the available riches of the world and that calculating how much exactly one deserves and another person deserves is done under arbitrary modes of calculation. A plurality of views is what tends to exist and the particular view that "first this and then we go to this other thing" is another view among others.

The fact is that user Michaelwuzthere wants this article to adhere to a particular Teleology which will clearly not do justice to the subject of this article. At this point we can only ask user Michaelwuzthere to bring the sources that say that ALL socialism adheres to the teleology of socialism then communism or first "to each according to their countribution" and then "to each according to their needs". If he does not bring that support i think we should revert his particular proposal and acknoledge that there are two main views within socialism on this issue and send interested readers to the particular views to get informed about them.-- Eduen ( talk) 04:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Michaelwuzthere and Trust Is All You Need: Contemporary social democrats, by and large, don't advocate socialism. While some may officially believe that socialism will emerge or be implemented at some future date, the policies pursued by the vast majority of social democrats don't have that transition in mind. Michaelwuzthere is partially correct to notice the bias toward (contemporary) social democracy, where "socialism" is being presented essentially as an extreme form of American-style progressivism or European social democracy, that is as a vague set of moral propositions that have little to do with socialism itself. And while I will be the first to point out that "Marxism" is not synonymous with "socialism", the fact is Marx's basic conception of socialism has had the most profound impact on both Marxist (including classic social democrats) and non-Marxist socialist and anti-socialist thinkers, so it would only be natural for there to be brief references to Marxist views throughout this article.

Socialism is almost universally associated with the principle of "to each according to his contribution" (or known as the end of exploitation in Marxist parlance). We should not mention the communist mode of distribution ("to each according to his needs") in the lead (its irrelevant whether we are talking about anarcho-communist or marxian communist). We can talk about the communist mode elsewhere in the article, but it is quite irrelevant to the understanding of the majority understanding of socialism, which is not based on the communist/post-scarcity distribution principle. The lead should be kept as clear and concise as possible. More detailed information on the Marxist view of distribution and phases of communism/socialism are to be discussed in the relevant subsections of the article.- Battlecry 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Battlecry: "Contemporary social democrats, by and large, don't advocate socialism. While some may officially believe that socialism will emerge or be implemented at some future date, the policies pursued by the vast majority of social democrats don't have that transition in mind".. Thats Marxism (or Marxist inspired).... I do agree, however, to give more space to Marxism. -- TIAYN ( talk) 12:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@ TIAYN: It isn't Marxism. Market socialists, anarchists or anyone that juxtaposes socialism with capitalism would take this view. I will grant that it might be Marxist-inspired (many non-Marxists have been inspired by Marxist categorizations).

We need to be clear that Social democracy denotes a political movement. Social democrats might (and have historically) advocated socialism, but today they don't advocate socialism per se but have adopted variations of social liberalism. If social democrats like Tony Blair and Anothony Giddeons redefine "socialism" to mean a set of moral values, they are actually describing a different concept than the subject of this article, which is about an economic system juxtaposed with capitalism and a social movement that advocates such. While this minority perspective can be mentioned briefly, we must not give undue weight to this minority perspective, as in conflicts with the vast majority of academic definitions and discussions on this subject.

The Nordic model is a form of capitalism, but Swedish Social Democrats did for a short time in the late 1970s-early 1980s promote a socialization of companies through pension funds (Meidner Plan)-in that case Social Democrats could be said to be pursuing a type of socialism, as per the given definition of socialism.- Battlecry 12:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Battlecry: If you're thinking about socialism as a transitional period, or a stage of economic development, see Socialism (Marxism); that article is about the economic system.. Secondly, you don't have the privilege to state that the modern social democratic movement is social liberalist, a opinion most people would disagree with. Third, socialist don't need to oppose capitalism per se; Marx opposed the part's of capitalism which led to exploitation, and believed this exploitation would lead to class polarization and revolution, however, he admired capitalism for efficiency, its ability to conceive new technology swiftly and its ability to transform society.. Socialism and capitalism does not need to be polar-opposite in practice... Lastly, if you ask a person on the street what social democracy is, they would say socialist, not social liberal, however it is clear that social democracy is a mix of socialist and liberal values,, but that doesn't make it less socialist.. -- TIAYN ( talk) 12:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@ TIAYN: The Socialism (Marxism) article is about specifically Marx's conception of socialism, not about "the economic system", which is much broader than Marx's view. Wikipedia does not go by the standards of the knowledge of a person on the street. Socialism is juxtaposed with capitalism as an economic system, this is not a Marxist view. The policies of modern social democrats and European labour parties are strikingly similar to those championed by modern American liberals. If your definition of "socialism" is an indeterminable mesh of morals, the article ethical socialism exists to describe this position, and the social democracy article exists to describe welfare state policies and other "third way" policies. But the socialism article is about socialism as it is defined in its lead by secondary sources - as an economic system and a social movement that aims to achieve said system.- Battlecry 13:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Battlecry:, @ TIAYN: I personally wouldn't be opposed to altering current the reference to the communist mode of distribution if it retains the general principle of both modes being reflective of separate productive conditions and doesn't go back to being an either/or proposition, but I think it's pretty undeniable that the average reader will come to the Socialism article and have one of the first questions: "What's the difference between socialism and communism?" and for that reason I think that it's important not to remove it altogether. It should also be understood that communism is socialism, but with a free access distribution system. That's not just a Marxist conception, that's what communism is by all accounts. If we were to call this "lower-phase vs higher-phase communism" or "dictatorship of the proletariat", then we would be entering Marxist terminology, but as it currently stands, it's put into general economic terms as a distinction between two distribution systems based on two sets of productive conditions. Being that communism is socialism, and is such a universally known part of it, it is relevant to the lead on socialism and for that reason the clarification should be made. -- Michaelwuzthere ( talk) 14:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Michaelwuzthere: Agreed. This is an important distinction to make, and it is likely something prospective leaders will seek clarification on. but again I must provide a word of caution on the length of the lead. The lead should provide a brief, concise and easily understandable description of the general concept that isn't overly detailed and long. More comprehensive explanations can be explored in appropriate subsections of the article. - Battlecry 00:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"to each according to their needs" doesn´t have to be seem as "synomymous" with communist economics either. Like i mentioned before that principle is a form also of radical republicanism and it is just an extension of republican entitlement due to membership to a community and so free education and universal healthcare are features of advanced welfare states. Just mentioning "to each according to their needs" and "to each according to their contribution" is well enough and of course without implying any teleology but just two principles which have been important in socialist political movements and experiments.-- Eduen ( talk) 18:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like for this to be resolved ASAP, but I will be banned before I allow it go as absurd as I just found it. First of all, both modes of production/distribution are "hypothetical". Second, "In a socialist system, distribution is organized... contribution" is wrong, being that both systems are socialist. Furthermore, I am of agreement of a previous point brought up that referencing to communism should not be made exclusively Marxist, as there are several non-Marxist schools of thought on communism, and hence communism should be referenced by its fundamental universal characteristics.

In addition, while we have the background on communism being that it relates to an abundant output allowing free access, we also must have the background on contributionist socialism relating to a scarce output in which money is exchanged. If we have one, we must include the other.

I want wikipedia to be fare and have a scientific approach at this, but edit waring is not the way to do that. So I will propose a version, and it can be edited here until an agreement is reached. Here goes:

While commodities are scarce, they are distributed according to contribution through exchanging money. As technological and organizational advances in the productive forces yield higher output, commodities become freely accessible allowing for distribution according to need. This latter form of socialist production and distribution is known as Communism. The exact methods of resource allocation and valuation are the subject of debate within the broader socialist calculation debate.

-- Michaelwuzthere ( talk) 17:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You have no reliable source references for that statement. It seems to be merely your essay or opinion. Perhaps you could find some refs that might support each of the assertions in that proposed section. Capitalismojo ( talk) 19:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Capitalismojo: There is nothing in this version that isn't already in the current version, the only thing that is different is a more balanced wording. The current version is wrong for several reasons as I've already stated. -- Michaelwuzthere ( talk) 19:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine to include if there are refs. It is unref'd. Please find RS refs for statements. Capitalismojo ( talk) 19:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Capitalismojo: This is all in the ref that was previously added (which didn't need to be deleted, only happened through reversion) as, again, it's the same content only presented in a more concise form. In this case, it would make most sense to put in the updated version with the current reference. -- Michaelwuzthere ( talk) 20:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Capitalismojo and Michaelwuzthere: This reversion is inaccurate because it states that in a socialist economy money would be used when commodities are scarce. This is patently false, many models of socialism envisioned either calculation performed in kind, or the end of the operation of the law of value under socialism (implying the end of monetary calculation) either to be superseded by some form of labour vouchers (which aren't the same thing as money). My revision was worded more neutrally because it avoids mentioning specific uses of money under socialism (some conceptions of socialism do utilize money, others don't); and I specifically note that this is a Marxist view (it isn't shared by all socialists - many socialists don't believe a "communist" post-scarcity stage is possible). Finally, in Michaelwuzthere's version is again inaccurate to state that in a communist system "commodities" become freely accessible because by definition a communist system does not have commodities (freely-accessible articles of consumption are not commodities), hence why I substituted "commodities" with the more accurate and neutral terminology "articles of consumption". For reference, here is a copy of my revision of Michaelwuzthere's version:

In a socialist system, distribution of economic output is organized on the principle of to each according to his contribution. As technological and organizational advances in the productive forces yield an abundance of output, the articles of consumption become freely accessible allowing for distribution according to need. Marxists refer to this more advanced and hypothetical stage of production as communism. ^[1] - Battlecry 23:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Battlecry: Labour vouchers are a form of money, as a money is anything that is accepted as payment for a service such as labour. The distinction must be made that in socialism, a monetary (be it legal currency, labour voucher, etc.) exchange is made to access (all, most, some also depending on further specifications, which I think we agree doesn't need to be made here) commodities, while in communism, this exchange is no longer made as individual purchases are superseded by the unification of socialized production and consumption. The removal of the term "commodity" could have legitimacy in its use in communism, but, being that this is the lead of the article, I am unsure that "articles of consumption" is as easy to digest for the common reader. Perhaps "goods and services" or something like that? Also, it should be made clear that the primary reason for this contribution-based system is the matter of scarcity, the (inevitable or overcomeable, depending on the social-democrat vs communist discrepancy) reality that there is not enough of something being produced to be universally accessible. Furthermore, communism is not a Marxist view, there are several non-Marxist schools of thought on communism. While communism is part of Marxism, the present distinction is made on purely economic terms in order to differentiate communism from socialism in their forms of distribution. An exclusively Marxist view would include the dialectical-materialist basis of understanding communism, also referensing communism being classless (and having information on the class nature of the theory), stateless, and an historically inevitable point of full human social maturation, which it does not. And again, both socialism and communism are hypothetical, therefore it is superfluous to label communism as being a hypothetical system given that the primary subject is hypothetical. -- Michaelwuzthere ( talk) 00:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Michaelwuzthere: Labour vouchers, personal credit or other means of distribution technically aren't money because they are not abstract representations of exchange-value - they are not used within the production process (to acquire means of production and capital goods) in a socialist system. The source by Bockman used for the sentences preceding the information on distribution state that "socialists more commonly believed that the socialist economy would soon administratively mobilize the economy in physical units without the use of prices or money". However, I am aware that not all conceptions of socialism envision the end of value and money immediately (market socialism and mutualism being key examples), hence why I left it open in my revised version (as opposed to just stating that socialism would not use money). "Goods and services" would be appropriate as a substitute for "articles of consumption". - Battlecry 04:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Battlecry: I understand, so the simple solution seems to be to use "money or credit" as well as "goods and services." That being the case, this is the proposed version:

While goods and services are scarce, they are distributed according to contribution through exchanging money or credit. As technological and organizational advances in the productive forces yield higher output, goods and services become freely accessible allowing for distribution according to need. This latter form of socialist production and distribution is known as Communism. ^[2]

-- Michaelwuzthere ( talk) 14:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose it is best to not include references to money and "labor credit" in this section (I will cover the exact details and major variations on this thought when I re-write the economics section), especially since the source does not mention this. I propose a very slightly amended version as follows:

In a socialist system, while goods and services are scarce, they are distributed according to contribution. As technological and organizational advances in the productive forces yield higher output, goods and services become freely accessible allowing for distribution according to need. This latter form of socialist production and distribution is known as Communism. - Battlecry 03:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Michaelwuzthere: I have made the following modifications to the existing text. Do you find this amended version acceptable?

While goods and services are scarce, they are distributed according to the principle of individual contribution. As technological and organizational advances in the productive forces yield higher output, goods and services become freely accessible allowing for distribution according to need. This more advanced stage of socialism is often referred to as communism. ^[3]

This user says the following: "Eduen, you've made substantial changes to the article with very little discussion on talk, and in my opinion have hurt the article. Please discuss further what you'd like to do and see if you can gain consensus."

Clearly this user has not been careful enough to check the Talk section of this article to see that a long discussion preceeded the changes. Check the section in talk page "Moving "history" section right after the intro". Anyway the user Somedifferentstuff can very well state his/her opinions as far as the changes but he cannot blame anyone for being absent in a discussion.-- Eduen ( talk) 12:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Somedifferentstuff. In my week or two of absence, I have come back to find a bloated, sophomoric article that dedicates more space to the history of political movements and tangents on specific leaders or parties (for example The SNL doesn't deserve the length given, they haven't contributed to the development of socialism in a meaningful enough manner) that have very little, if any, relevant relationship to the concept of socialism. This material is best reserved for a separate article specifically about either socialist political movements or the history of socialist politics. The article is so bloated (specifically the History section and the direct copy-paste from other articles instead of providing brief summaries, or irrelevant quoteboxes by individuals like Martin Luther King Jr. simply because they happened to call themselves socialist at some point) as a result of these edits that there is little room for my planned expansion and revamping of the "economics" section, or any discussion of the concept of socialism. Much of the new sections of the article reads like something I would expect from a leftist website talking about the history of political struggle, or from a very general book on politics.- Battlecry 08:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The article was a mess in its current state. I've reverted to a previous stable version beginning after the Etymology section. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 10:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

There was however a consensus that the "History" section be moved after the "Etymology" section a few weeks back. Not all of the additions by Eduen were negative - but the History section needs to be slimmed down and place more emphasis on the history of the development of socialism (e.g.: early concepts, the 1930s concept of socialism being synonymous with planning, the rise of market socialism, latter 20th century developments of using shareholder systems/stock market for market socialism and economic democracy, cybernetics for planning, and modern concepts of P2P and participatory economics) as opposed to focusing solely on politics and political movements that have little relationship to socialism (or no relationship at all, such as the Nordic model of capitalism). This article should be less about what particular self-described socialists did (when elected or in some position of power) and more about what socialism is and how the concept has evolved.

On a related note, the article is already too large (over 200k). Directly copying and pasting paragraphs from other articles and adding excessive amounts of pictures that are of questionable relevance added to the size. - Battlecry 10:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Battlecry. My personal opinion is that the Philosophy Section is of more value to readers in "understanding what socialism is about" than the History Section, which they can scroll down to if they are interested. With that said, since you seem to agree with the other editors that the History Section should come first, then I won't debate it further. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 11:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Somedifferentstuff: I am inclined to agree with you, but for the sake of consistency with other articles on economic ideologies (such as Capitalism), I agreed that History should be placed after Etymology under the condition that it be streamlined and give more weight to the history of the concept of socialism as opposed to talking solely about the actions of political parties or the election of self-described socialist politicians to office. I think it would be prudent for us to discuss how we should organize the content - I can easily organize information on socialist economics and theory chronologically, which could fall under the "History" section. But I am leaning toward having two sections, one describing the Politics chronologically (as Eduen had done) and the other describing the development of the concept and socialist systems chronologically. Both these sections would have to be summarized where ever possible so the articles length is reasonable (more detailed descriptions can be added to their own Wikipedia pages). I was planning on re-writing the economics section in any case (most of this section was written by me a few years back, when my knowledge on the subject was more limited). What do you think of this proposal? - Battlecry 11:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Eduen, Somedifferentstuff, and Battlecry: While I don't have a problem with the current set up per se (worked out better than I had in mind), I don't get how the section on "North American" socialism is bigger than those on "Africa" and "Asia", and as big as "Latin America", since presently the United States doesn't have one (that is, they don't have a notable one).. Giving three lines to Sawant's election to the Seattle City Council is very off (in contrast the Brazilian Workers' Party only gets a mention...), and makes the article look very American-centric.— Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address

"The SNL doesn't deserve the length given"

Sorry but i don´t know what are you speaking of here. What is the SNL? This question in order to evaluate what you are speaking of.

As far as the Martin Luther quote i will agree that this particular quote is irrelevant in the context of the section where it is included since speaking about "democratic socialism" should focus on the fact that it participates in parliaments and that it wants to offer an alternative to "undemocratic" forms such as leninist coup d etats. But also it might be related to a problematic that has been pointed out here which is an excess of attention to the United States. I did not add the Martin Luther King quote if anyone is curious about that and i am open to taking it out in order to have space for more relevant and important issues.

"Not all of the additions by Eduen were negative - but the History section needs to be slimmed down and place more emphasis on the history of the development of socialism (e.g.: early concepts, the 1930s concept of socialism being synonymous with planning, the rise of market socialism, latter 20th century developments of using shareholder systems/stock market for market socialism and economic democracy, cybernetics for planning, and modern concepts of P2P and participatory economics) as opposed to focusing solely on politics and political movements that have little relationship to socialism (or no relationship at all, such as the Nordic model of capitalism). This article should be less about what particular self-described socialists did (when elected or in some position of power) and more about what socialism is and how the concept has evolved."

I respond back to this saying most of these things being mentioned in this quote have been the occupations of recent socialist intellectuals. I suggest incluiding this, of course with good sources, in the economics section where it belongs. I don´t think it belongs in history. As far as this article being about how the concept has evolved clearly the history section responds to that and it point to how an early discussion on models of socialism was criticized by Marx and Engles for being "utopian", idealistic and not very careful on seeing how reality is and how to change it. From there came other movements who entered into various discussions over the role of the state, over either reform or revolution, over whether the Soviet Union should be seen as a good model for socialism, China proposing a " socialism with chinese characteristics" and contemporary socialist led latin american governments proposing " socialism of the XXI century". All of this are explanations on how the concept has evolved which has of course guided the actual practices of socialists in power. As far as "the 1930s concept of socialism being synonymous with planning" i am not sure about that since fascist governments and the liberal economist John Maynard Keynes were also advocating some form of planning. Anyway if the sources are shown we might need to add something along those lines. As far as what has been "real socialism" and not we will be entering a very problematic discussion in which almost every opposing position to another said many times "that is not socialism". The history of concepts such as " degenerated workers state", " state capitalism", " social fascism" and others point out to endless discussions on this issue.

"as opposed to focusing solely on politics and political movements that have little relationship to socialism (or no relationship at all, such as the Nordic model of capitalism)"

User Battlecry seems to be very sure what "real socialism" or "true socialism" is. Personally i introduced a small mention on the discussion whether North Korea can be considered socialist at all when they have removed all mentions of socialism and communism from their latest Constitution and when the leaders there have been influenced highly by racist and ultranationalist thought while practicing a sort of hereditary monarchy form. Also i have read with interest about the quite long discussion on the Soviet Union being " state capitalism" or not and have noticed how the Chinese Communist Party now includes as members of the National People's Congress actual Billionaires. So in fact the Nordic Model being socialist or non socialist is one discussion among others on whether something has been socialist or not. I ask politely to user Battlecry to give us this "truth" that he has on what is real socialism and what is not.

"While I don't have a problem with the current set up per se (worked out better than I had in mind), I don't get how the section on "North American" socialism is bigger than those on "Africa" and "Asia", and as big as "Latin America", since presently the United States doesn't have one (that is, they don't have a notable one).. Giving three lines to Sawant's election to the Seattle City Council is very off (in contrast the Brazilian Workers' Party only gets a mention...), and makes the article look very American-centric."

So we might need to consider not mentioning Sawant in this article which might be notable as far as speaking of " Socialism in the United States" but not enough for discussing Socialism as a whole.

Since other users have given their complaints i should also get a chance of some of mine. I have suggested previously that having separate "philosophy" and "social and political THEORY" sections is redundant since "philosophy" and "theory" are concepts very close to each other and, in this context, they will more or less have to deal with the same thing, namely guiding philosophies and discussions guiding a practice. So joining these two sections into one and giving priority to the contents of the "social and political theory" section since it is better sourced and more strong and clear overall will solve some problems mentioned by other users. A problem that will be solved by this action is clearly article lenght. And this especially since a lot of what is being said in the "philosophy" section is very vague and a lot of whats is included there might be better to be taken out of the article entirely. This will also give us space in order to mention the recent theorectical developments such as "market socialism" discussions or cybersocialism proposals that one user wanted to include.-- Eduen ( talk) 19:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Also i have read with interest about the quite long discussion on the Soviet Union being "state capitalism" or not and have noticed how the Chinese Communist Party now includes as members of the National People's Congress actual Billionaires. So in fact the Nordic Model being socialist or non socialist is one discussion among others on whether something has been socialist or not. I ask politely to user Battlecry to give us this "truth" that he has on what is real socialism and what is not."

Socialism is a social and economic system based on the social ownership of the means of production and some form of co-operative or self-management within economic institutions. This can encompass a range of systems from market socialism to socialist planned economies. My personal viewpoints on the matter are irrelevant, as are those of other socialists. If an individual or political group that happens to be socialist advocates for austerity, for example, the definition of socialism does not become "austerity". Likewise, if an individual or group that identifies as socialist advocates a welfare state, the definition of socialism does not become "a welfare state". Just the same, if for example, an individual physicist or group of physicists believes in spirituality or metaphysical phenomena, that does not change the definition of physics to include a belief in spirituality. This shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand. The Nordic model does not fall under the definition of socialism because its economic processes and model of ownership is capitalist - regardless of whether or not the Nordic model was presided over by a "social democratic" party. If, however, the Nordic model was largely based on a form of social ownership, then I would be more inclined to state that it can be argued that it represents a type of socialism.

As for the overall organization of the article, we need a better balance between discussing socialism itself (models, the development of the concept, etc) and the history of its politics (which, after the recent changes by Eduen, dominates the article via the History section). The information on "market socialism" and even cybneretics isn't merely the providence of "recent socialist intellectuals", it goes back to the early 20th century. The article is far in excess of the 100k suggested by Wikipedia guidelines ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline). I could easily add realms of information on the economics of socialism and on different conceptions of socialism, but I understand that I would have to summarize most of the information to keep the length manageable. Eduen will have to exercise the same prudence with the History section. - Battlecry 23:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Battlecry: Practicing capitalism doesn't make it less socialist.. Stop with this POV pushing, socialism is not per definition an economic system (its an economic system according to some school of thoughts, but not everybody, and you don't have the right to chose which socialist school of thought is socialist or not!) -- TIAYN ( talk) 16:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that user Battlecry is clearly very sure that he heas the truth on what "real socialism" is. The soviet system has been many times identified as "degenerate workers state" and as "state capitalism" in long books in order to provide doubts on whether that was socialism. So his doubts on whether some form of socialism was really socialist is one among many others and all we should do in this article is report on the debates.

As far as the "market socialism" discussion it has been mostly an academic discussion. Not a discussion among wide socialist movements and leaders among each other but something discussed between economists. There is clearly a difference in importance between a discussion between Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, Marx and Bakunin, Lenin and Trotski, Marx and Proudhon, Deng Xiaoping and maoists, the Sino Soviet split, eurocommunists versus more stalinist leaders and the amount of attention and importance of the Lange model discussion.

As i have not received any objections as far as joining the "philosophy" and the "social and political theory" sections into one i will procede in the coming days. This also in order to have a better control of the article´s lenght.-- Eduen ( talk) 03:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I object to joining the "philosophy" section with "social and political theory". I might be able to work some of the social and political theory material into the economics section, but clearly there is a distinction to be made between the philosophy of socialists (which is normative) and theoretical perspectives and core theoretical dichotomies within the socialist movement (such as the different perspectives on the state held by socialists, the controversy between reform and revolution, etc). I am not saying that this section should not be improved at some point, but I am saying that this deserves its own separate subsection.

The discussions between Lenin and Luxemburg (to use as an example) have been discussions relating to revolutionary strategy and political discussions regarding how socialism might be established. They are not discussions about the nature of socialism (the ultimate goal of said revolutionary strategy). The latter subject is of utmost importance for an article about socialism (the object of socialist politics). Prospective readers will be interested in information about socialism and the object of socialist politics (as well as the major differing perspectives on what socialism will look like, such as the Lange model, mutualism et al.). While personally I don't see the Soviet model as representing a form of socialism, I am quick to mention it as a type of socialism only because it is widely regarded as such by economists, political scientists and historians, and because it was officially described as such by the leadership of the USSR. The same cannot be said for the Nordic model (confused American politicians and commentators notwithstanding), which even Swedes consider to be a form of free-market capitalism (the existence of welfare programs does not change either the system of ownership nor the economic processes that drive the Nordic economies). - Battlecry 04:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Eduen and Battlecry:

• 1st. The current set-up doesn't make sense; Marxism is a political philosophy, so why is that in the "Social and political theory" section? The title "Social and political theory" means political philosophy, either the section title goes or the whole section goes.
• 2nd. "The latter subject is of utmost importance for an article about socialism (the object of socialist politics)" ... Again, you're referring to the socialist mode of production... And at last, where is that socialism has to be an economic systems. The Soviets claimed they had a "socialist system" under NEP, and NEP was officially sanctioned as capitalism.
• 3rd. The Nordic model is capitalist, but that doesn't make it less socialist, the view that socialism is a stage, a different epoch or an alternate economic system is false.
• 4th. Socialism is in its very nature radical, It wants to break with the old to create something new, but doesn't make it anti-capitalist or a system of anykind.
• 5th. I agree that, when talking about market socialism, more emphasize should be given to practice and not theory; we currently have China, Laos and Vietnam (and Cuba initiating an "updating" of the socialist system), and we can always look at NEP. -- TIAYN ( talk) 19:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Historical Dictionary of Socialism provides what I think is the best overview of attempts to define socialism. Significantly, it says the first common element identified was "general criticisms about the social effects of the private ownership and control of capital - poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security." Thereafter, other than an agreement that socialists should do something, there is wide divergence over what action should be taken or how far society can be changed. TFD ( talk) 21:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)