---

Should the topic of this article be:

• One A socio-economic system where there is social ownership of the means of production and the ideologies and movements supporting it, [1] or
• Two The ideology and movement generally called socialist, which supports some degree of social ownership and/or control of the means of production. [2]

TFD ( talk) 08:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Two Most sources about socialism are about the socialist movement and its ideology. While most modern mainstream Socialists do not advocate the establishment of a socialist socio-economic system, it would take a lot of surgical original research to determine which Socialists were pure and should be in the article and which do not belong, particularly over the history of the subject. Also, there are already articles about the Socialist state and the Socialist mode of production. TFD ( talk) 08:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• One We have a plethora of reliable sources ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]} defining socialism as a social and economic system by the broad yet distinctive characteristic of “social” or “collective” ownership, and not simply as a political movement calling for small degrees of social ownership. Additionally, common dictionary definitions also define socialism as a system. ^{[15] [16] [17]} The subject of this article has to primarily focus on socialism as a concept, and not the history of the political movement that aims to build a socialist system/society (this topic is already covered in History of socialism). We cannot rewrite the lead to focus solely on the history of the socialist movement or redefine socialism to mean a general critique of capitalism as TFD's recent edit [3] did. Scholarly sources and encyclopedias specializing in economics and political economy frequently define socialism as a system with positive characteristics that is routinely juxtaposed with the capitalist system, as opposed to a movement that simply critiques capitalism. Even when the subject of the socialist movement is discussed, this movement cannot be separated from its goal of a socialist system/society. The question of whether or not certain political figures are “genuine” socialists or not is completely irrelevant to this subject and, as TFD correctly notes, does not belong in this article. We have to recognize academic definitions and conceptions of socialism and refrain from using popular definitions and misconceptions that might be circulating in the media. - Battlecry 10:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• One.  Option two uses the word "socialist" to define "socialism" which is a little too circular for my taste. It also provides less information. Option one is preferable (but it needs a comma after the word "production"; otherwise it sounds like there is social ownership of the ideologies and movements.)
  Richard27182 ( talk) 09:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

ADDENDUM:  I took a close look at the RfC question and I see that it is not asking which statement should be used in the article, but rather what topic the article should be about.  My answer remains option One; but I'd like to rephrase my reasons.  I prefer option One because I believe option Two is too "soft."  I believe that Socialism generally calls for not just "some degree of" but total (or near total) ownership and control of the means of production.  And I believe that option One does a better job of representing this.
Richard27182 ( talk) 08:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Two Following standard Wikipedia policy, this article should be about what WP:RS call socialism and socialist. Darx9url ( talk) 03:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• One Option two is very circular. Socialism is far more than a movement about some degree of social ownership. How many would count as socialists even though they do not advocate a socialist socioeconomic system but claim to act under a banner? The article needs to focus on the concept of the socioeconomic system, not on the personal views of people acting under a banner. Helios932 ( talk) 11:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• One Option two does not treat socialism neutrally, defining it as the fantasy-alike proposal. It was (in some cases still is) very realistic for many decades. I came here based on invitation by RfC bot.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 13:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• One the other is confusing weasalspeak, generally...some. perhaps some of the editors here should focus on topics they are not generally emotionally invested in. Darkstar1st ( talk) 16:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Two To me it is clear that the proposal of a socialist economic system is part of the proposals of the socialist political movement and was created byt that movement of real people and organizations. In order to deepen the discussion on a possible socialist economic system wikipedia already has the article socialist mode of production. The fact is that not every socialist that has existed has advocated an actual socialist system but in many cases what they advocated were socialist measures and policies in the economy. But also we have tro take into account that there are many different proposed socialist systems with many differences between each other: market socialism, state communism, non state communism, mixed economy, mutualism, a system of workers owned cooperatives being the main ones. As such there is no single socialist economic system which does not mean not mentioning the proposal of a socialist economic system in the intro.-- Eduen ( talk) 00:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• One As Battlecry noted, most reliable sources define socialism as an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production, and that is what this article should be about. However, in order to appease all editors and avoid removing any information that some editors may feel is important, I have also come to support splitting the article into two and treating socialism as an economic system and socialism as a movement separately from one another, with the primary article being about socialism as an economic system. Vrrajkum ( talk) 02:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• One Per Battlecry's note, there is a socialism movement, which is not socialism as a system - it is a movement. To do otherwise is to engage in a circular reasoning process. Are we now to redefine that which has been quite well documented in primary and secondary sources? Wzrd1 ( talk) 03:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Both Although I haven't performed a systematic literature review, I believe the term has been widely used in both senses. As others have pointed out, there already exist articles focusing on them individually. I think this article should not try to monopolize one of them or exclude the other, but rather help the reader navigate the various ramifications of the subject. Eperoton ( talk) 04:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Eperoton: I agree with you to an extent, and would argue that Option One does an adequate job treating both concepts. Option One includes a discussion of the "ideologies and movements" that aim to achieve a socialist system/society. But the object of these ideologies and movements - the concept of socialism itself - needs to take precedence in this article. Doing otherwise would contradict many RS and be circular, as it would focus on describing a political movement without seriously addressing the goal of said movement (a socialist society). - Battlecry 09:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

One does not cover both senses since by defining socialism as public ownership it excludes self-styled socialists who do not. Two however includes one, since it is part of the ideology of some socialists. TFD ( talk) 10:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Would it be then fair to say that your dispute is not about which of the options the article should be limited to, but rather how it should be organized to cover both? This article currently has sections covering the history of socialist movements and a discussion of various theoretical perspectives on socialism as a system. Is the debate about which discussion should be placed first in the article? Both these sections seem to involve challenges in scope definition. The first has to reflect different visions of socialism as a system. The second has to exclude some movements self-described as socialist, either on principle (presumably Nazism falls under this category) or simply because it doesn't seem feasible to discuss all the the various platforms of parties with "socialist" in their name. The two problems are related: if an alternative definition of socialism is found in RSs and is not a WP:FRINGE view, it should be reflected in the article; conversely, if a movement that calls itself socialist advocates a system which is not classified as socialism by non-fringe RSs, its relevance to this article is doubtful. These details seem like something that would be worked out on a case-by-case basis rather than in one high-level discussion. Or is the dispute about the phrasing that should be used in the lead? WP:LEAD says that the lead should give a balanced summary of the article in its current state. Eperoton ( talk) 14:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to define the topic. If we define it as a system of public ownership that excludes parties and ideologies that do not advocate public ownership, for example, the Labour Party, and they need to be removed from the article. It is not having socialist in their name that makes parties socialist, but the judgment of reliable secondary sources. While they might take into account party names they also consider the historical circumstances of their creation, how they are perceived by themselves, competing parties, and similar parties in other countries, party ethos and international affiliations. Policies are of less importance because they tend to change. So in the 1950s Tories followed policies set by the Attlee administration (which were written by social liberals), while Blair followed policies set by the Thatcher administration (which were written by for want of a better term neo-liberals). TFD ( talk) 16:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This still sounds to me orthogonal to the system vs. ideology/movement distinction. To take more extreme examples, the relevance of National Socialism to this article or the relevance of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the article on democracy hinges on the whether the chosen scope of socialism and democracy as systems includes the systems embodied or advocated by those entities, which is a game of balanced RS representation. If the platform of the Labour Party is consistent with what RSs call a socialist system, then the definition of socialism as a system should be expanded to include it; if not, then it's not clear how socialism can be defined to include it without defining it as anything anyone calls socialist. P.S. Unless RSs make a distinction between socialism as system and socialism as ideology in the case of latter-day socialists. In that case, the lead should note that distinction. Eperoton ( talk) 17:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The authors of the Historical Dictionary of Socialism review the many definitions of socialism and conclude, "Within this diversity many common elements could be found. First, there were general criticisms about the social effects of the private ownership and control of capital - poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security. Second, there was a general view that the solution to these problems lay in some form of collective control (with the degree of control varying among the proponents of socialism) over the means of production, distribution and exchange. Third, there was agreement that the outcomes of this collective control should be a society that provided social equality and justice, economic protection, and a generally more satisfying life for most people." [4]

That is not to say that just calling oneself socialist makes one a socialist, but it does not restrict it to people who require total ownership and control. And I suggest per no synthesis that we use reliable sources to determine what literature and groups were socialist rather than doing so ourselves. That is similar to the democracy article where the topic is defined as ""a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly...[OED]" That obviously does not include North Korea but the reason we exclude North Korea is that reliable sources do not identify it as democratic. OTOH there are narrower definitions that would exclude Western Democracies (see for example "Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?".)

TFD ( talk) 23:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that line of reasoning. The lead needs to give the reader some definition-like substantive discussion of socialism, but (having come here via the feedback request service) I'm not familiar with the sources well enough to participate in discussing the technical details. Eperoton ( talk) 23:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Eperoton and The Four Deuces: This article should focus on covering the concept of socialism, which RS's define as a social and economic system characterized by "social", "collective" or "public" ownership of the means of production. One thing I feel I should point out is that the sources do not define socialism as "total social ownership and control"; they define social ownership as the major defining characteristic of socialism which by definition excludes widespread private ownership. The ideological perspective that TFD is trying to promote is contemporary social democracy (and perhaps the Third Way), which in contemporary usage is considered to be a distinct concept from socialism despite tracing its historical lineage to the same political movement. So while historically there have been major democratic socialist factions within the French Socialist Party, today that party is dominated by, and is defined as, a social democratic party (which does not aim to replace capitalism with socialism), as is cited on its own Wikipedia page.

The Third Way attempted to redefine "socialism" to mean a set of ethical values rather than a system to be juxtaposed with capitalism. This movement is largely limited to the British Labour Party (although its underlying premises have been indirectly emulated in many European Social Democratic Parties) and is not significant enough to warrant redefining "socialism", so as per WP:WEIGHT, and because "socialism" is widely cited in most RS's to be a socioeconomic system or economic theory, discussion of this perspective should be limited to the section on socialist politics in Europe. We also have a source that disputes the "socialist" orientation of the British Labour Party: Contrary to widespread belief, the Labour Party in Britain has never been a socialist party, rather a party of organized labour; but it has contained socialists and still does. Its commitment to common ownership was embodied until recently in a clause of its constitution and in many other statements…However, by the end of the 20th century the word ‘socialism’ had virtually disappeared from Labour documents. ^[18]

One final point I want to make is the treatment of socialism as a concept is very limited in this article. Due to the persistence of one or two specific editors, I had neglected to expand upon it over the course of the past few years because said editors greatly expanded the length of the "History" section from the perspective that this article should focus on the history of ostensibly socialist/social democratic parties and movements. While I am certainly not opposed to having sections dedicated to the History and political parties related to socialism, the scope of the article needs to focus on a more rigorous treatment of the concepts of socialism (the various forms of social ownership and "democratic control", what these concepts mean and their implications; the major proposed or existing models of socialism, etc.). This is consistent with the treatment given to other articles on abstract concepts. The article on Democracy, for example, primarily discusses the concepts related to democracy, the various forms of democracy, and provides us with a brief history of its development. It does not discuss ostensibly "democratic" parties, politicians or movements (such as the United States Democratic Party or Canadian New Democratic Party simply because they have the word "Democracy" in their names); nor does it attempt to distinguish between authentic democracies or democrats and unauthentic ones. This is a neutral treatment of the subject matter and the Socialism article should reflect that broad format, instead of describing the actions of self-described socialists. - Battlecry 03:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your source says, "Contrary to widespread belief, the Labour Party in Britain has never been a socialist party." I agree that the professors who write about history and politics, and global warming, evolution, UFOs, and colored races for that matter may all be wrong, but policy requires us to provide greater weight to mainstream views over minority views. TFD ( talk) 06:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It isn't clear if it is referring to widespread, non-academic belief or to widespread belief within academia. Regardless, the point is moot if we are discussing socialism as a system. The Labour Party might be a de jure socialist party, but actions often diverge from ideology and stated goals. The article should focus on the concept of socialism as a social and/or economic system and not on the actions of self-described "socialist" parties or politicians, regardless of whether or not they are authentically socialist. - Battlecry 09:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No one doubts that some people share the author's opinion, the question is what degree of acceptance their view has. I notice you have provided an incomplete section of the "Socialism" entry in the Oxford Companion to Socialist Thought. We do not know what else its author wrote, we do not even know who the author was. It is pretty clear that the only reason we are looking at this entry is that it supports your views. Why else would you reach for a book about Christianity to find a definition of political concepts? TFD ( talk) 14:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If we consult sources in economics and political economy, as cited in the existing article, socialism is defined as an economic system or a theory of economic organization and not as a political party or movement, so your point is moot. I am not knowledgeable enough on the history of the Labour Party to know if it was founded as a socialist party or as a non-socialist party that only included socialists in its ranks - nor do I think that is pertinent. My initial point still stands: this article should focus on the economic / political-economic concept of socialism as not on the actions of self-described socialist politicians or parties. - Battlecry 02:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Both as per Eperoton above. Also came here by Legobot call to this RfC and haven't delved into the literature and subject myself in depth, but the sense i have is that the article ought to treat mainly the political/economic philosophy, and also to explain historically about the many movements with socialism as a core ideology. It may be a long article and may need serious splitting out. I am troubled by describing "socialism" as "a movement" however, as it seems to underpin many movements, which might be seen as separate although in the end i suppose by ideology they are seen as united in some forms of understanding of socialism. So... of course it's complex, but i advocate for not imposing a false dichotomy between the ideological and the movement aspects of the subject. SageRad ( talk) 17:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@ SageRad: Socialism is sometimes defined as an "economic theory" or "political-economic theory", but this can mean something different from an "political-economic system". So I am curious, are you using the terms "theory" and "philosophy" here to mean the concept of socialism as an organizational form (a system) or to mean something else? If the former, Option One does propose to treat both the theory (socialism as a system / economic theory) and the movements associated with said system. - Battlecry 02:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Two - ideology as topic, common and similar approach to Liberalism, but the wording as shown to just say Socialism is the ideology of government control and direction of the means of production. The 'generally' and 'some' are implying boundaries of what is not socialism, and article can go into that kind of implementation details. Markbassett ( talk) 23:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This RfC is misrepresenting the views of other editors, myself included. No one has advocated questioning whether or not a self-described socialist is a genuine socialist for the topic of this article - that is completely irrelevant to the subject matter, which is the concept of socialism. In most reliable sources, including those sourced in the current lead, and common dictionary definitions, socialism is defined as a system based on some form of "social", "collective" or "public" ownership and a political/economic ideology that aims to create said system. Socialism is not defined by the actions of self-described socialist politicians or leaders, it is a well-defined concept. Wikipedia needs to reflect reliable scholarly consensus on the definition and scope of the meaning of "socialism" and not on popular definitions circulated in the media. Second, as many editors have repeated on this talkpage already, the "socialist state" is not the same thing as the concept of socialism as a system or ideology. Third, no one has proposed focusing the article solely on socialism as a system. There should be two more options added to this RfC as I suggested in previous posts. Therefore I suggest adding the following options:

• Three:The article has to discuss socialism as both a movement and a system giving equal weight to discussing socialism as a system, ideology and movement.

• Four: The article should be split into “Socialism (economic system)” and “Socialism (political movement)”, with the parent “Socialism” article becoming a disambiguation page providing redirects to both articles so as to not favor a single definition. - Battlecry 09:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You might want to re-read the RfC and re-write your comments. The RfC says nothing about "self-described socialists." And whether or not socilaism is "a system based on some form of "social", "collective" or "public" ownership" is the clear issue of the RfC. It is not a "misrepresentation.

The problem with your option three is that it combines different topics. Mars for example is a planet, the god of war and a chocolate bar, but we provide separate articles for each one.

TFD ( talk) 09:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I should amend "self-described socialist" to "parties with socialist in their name and self-described socialist politicians". Your reasoning in your comment in support of your position stated that defining socialism as a form of social or economic system requires us to engage in original research to determine who is a real socialist. That is what I was referring to. - Battlecry 10:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not that they have "Socialist" in their name, but that reliable sources call them socialist parties. And quite right, let's not engage in original research as to who is a real socialist, just follow reliable sources. TFD ( talk) 11:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The article does not need to focus on discussing the views of certain people or parties because they are socialist or not. If a person is to be mentioned, it should have some relation to the subject matter (socialism). For example, discussing Vladimir Lenin's (or any other notable thinker's) view of how socialism will function is fine. Discussing the political exploits of a politician that belongs to a party with "socialist" in its name, regardless of whether or not he is a socialist or not, is of far less relevance to the subject matter, which is again socialism as a concept. - Battlecry 11:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean that most of Lenin's works were not socialist, for example "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder? What if any work of Lenin would you consider socialist? TFD ( talk) 11:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder is a socialist work, but it does not describe or deal with controversies about the organization of socialism (as a social or economic system). As for whether or not it is relevant to the subject of this article, we would have to judge how noteworthy it is for inclusion in the section on socialist political ideologies (again this is why we can't simply have the article focus only on the movement, ideology or system). My point is, the article needs to focus more on discussing socialism itself - what social ownership and democratic management mean, the various forms they can take, the major models of socialism proposed (or which have existed), etc. - and less about the history of the movement that aims to build such a system. - Battlecry 11:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User Battlecry. You are free to go improve the wikipedia article Socialist mode of production and introduce all your abstract economic discussions. No need to split anything here.-- Eduen ( talk) 22:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Helios932, you say about that self-described socialists who do not advocate what you describe as socialism are not socialists. How do you suggest we draw the line? Were Labour and the SDP ever socialist and if so when did they cease to be so? Did any significant sections of those parties remain socialist and if so which? TFD ( talk) 11:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Really? The two offered choices for the RFC does not even address what actual Socialism is. How about editors do some homework and actually find out what Socialism is and what it is not before opening up an RFC and wasting people's time? Damotclese ( talk) 17:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I thought that socioeconomic system, political movement and ideology pretty much exhausted the possibilities. Can you tell us what else it could be and do you have any sources? TFD ( talk) 20:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Damotclese: Most reliable sources discuss socialism as a socio-economic system or a politcal-economic theory of social organization. I am curious how you would define socialism if it is neither of these concepts. - Battlecry 06:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why there is a fixation on discussing which party or individual is an actual socialist on this talkpage, nor why certain editors are insisting on using this article as a platform to discuss the politics of various parties and politicians belonging to nominally socialist parties. The Wikipedia article on Democracy, for example, discusses the concept(s) of democracy and gives an overview of their development. It does not discuss the party politics of the United States Democratic Party or the Canadian New Democratic Party simply because they have the word "democratic" in their name. Likewise, absent reliable sources, it does not go into diatribes discussing which politicians, parties or countries are "really" democratic. Likewise, this article should focus on the concept of socialism. Option two is essentially ignoring the topic of socialism in favor of describing the history and values of socialist and social democratic parties, politicians and leaders. In actuality, the concept of socialism has been discussed and debated by academic thinkers for over a century, and there is a broad consensus as to what socialism implies and a range of theoretical (and some historical, as some authors would argue) systems that fall under its category. I would also like to remind certain editors that Wikipedia should not reflect popular conceptions or misconceptions about the definitions of complex social science concepts like socialism. We need to utilize academic publications and encyclopedic definitions, even if these are not widely understood and accepted as the "common" definition in the wider society. - Battlecry 10:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

[inserted 10:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)]

If I am one of those "certain editors" that you want reminded that "Wikipedia should not reflect popular conceptions or misconceptions about the definitions of complex social science concepts like socialism," please note that my statements and opinions were based on my own understanding of Socialism, and I do not claim to be an expert in the field. If a consensus of reliable sources differs from my definition, of course I would defer to those sources.
Richard27182 ( talk) 10:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Richard27182: no you are not one of them because according to Battlecry, the common misunderstanding is that self-identified socialists (such as the member parties of the Socialist International) represent socialism. Option One is to exclude them from the article. TFD ( talk) 14:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi The Four Deuces.  I guess I just misinterpreted who/what Battlecry was referring to. Thank you for clarifying it for me.
Richard27182 ( talk) 08:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Richard27182 and The Four Deuces: To clarify, I was not referring to Richard27182. Also, option one does not exclude socialists based on their specific political strategy. Option one only suggests that the primary focus of this article should be on the concept of socialism itself rather than the parties or history of the movements that aim to achieve socialism. - Battlecry 08:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

[inserted 10:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)]

Hi Battlecry.  Thank you for clarifying that I was not one of those editors you were referring to. It was just a misinterpretation on my part.
Richard27182 ( talk) 10:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Saying "socialism is a "socio-economic system where there is social ownership of the means of production and the ideologies and movements supporting it" excludes parties or movements that do not aim to achieve social ownership of the means of production i.e., virtually all socialist parties and movements. TFD ( talk) 09:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@ The Four Deuces:The largest socialist parties were those of the former Eastern bloc. Marxism-Leninism in some form represented the bulk of the worldwide socialist movement by adherents and by of implementation of their goals. These parties largely defined socialism as a system or stage of social development. Even in the United States, most self-described socialist parties define "socialism" as a system based on some form of social ownership and/or "production to satisfy human need instead of private profit", or some variation thereof. Even the ostensibly "socialist" New Democratic Party in Canada made reference to social ownership up until very recently. If a party stops advocating socialism in some form, then they are no longer "socialist", even though its members may still be called "Socialists" (emphasis on the big-S).

Option Two is tautological. Even if we amended its language, changing "some social ownership" to just "social ownership", in essence, it boils down to arguing that socialism is a political movement that advocates socialism. My point has always been that the article should primarily focus on the concept of socialism, and not the history of people or parties that call(ed) themselves socialist. - Battlecry 11:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Your preferred version requires us to be fixated on which party or individual is actually socialist because we are going to have to surgically remove a great deal of socialist literature and history, from the Communist Manifesto and the revolutionary groups of 1848 who had "socialist in their names" to emergence of post-Communist and left-wing parties after 1989. BTW the Democratic and New Democratic Parties are democratic parties, unless you suggest we apply some narrow definition to democracy so that it is some sort of ideal state that has never existed. TFD ( talk) 11:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I was never in favor of the huge expansion of the History section at the expense of the economics and political theory sections that took place a few years back. That section needs to be greatly reduced in length, a more detailed treatment of the history of the movement can be given in a separate article. Aside from that, I don't see why we would have to significantly alter the article's content. The Manifesto of the Communist Party is widely recognized to be socialist literature, and its author is widely recognized as advocating for a post-capitalist socialist system based on social ownership, so there is no inherent contradiction with its inclusion in this article. We just have to discuss it in appropriate sections of the article (for example, it does not provide an outline for a socialist system, but it has historical significance for mobilizing the movement that would supposedly realize the emergence of a socialist system) - such as the History section. And my point in bringing up the article on Democracy as an example was not to question whether or not the U.S. Democratic party etc. are democratic parties or not, it was to point out that discussion of such parties is not important to the subject of Democracy. The article on Democracy correctly focuses on the concepts of democracy. Likewise, the Wikipedia on article should focus on the concepts of socialism such as the various recognized forms of "social ownership" and "democratic control", what those concepts and principles actually mean and aim to achieve, and an overview of the major models of socialism that have been proposed (or even existed as some authors might claim). - Battlecry 12:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Except that the Communist Manifesto does not call for a post-capitalist state. Most of the demands of the Communist Manifesto have been achieved: progressive income tax, a central bank, free primary education, abolition of child labor. Some of the nationalizations recommended later took place but were reversed. It is ironic that you would call it socialism when it does meet your definition. TFD ( talk) 13:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• I saw this RfC listed on the RfC page. Since I have a master's degree in sociology, I decided it might be worthwhile to take a look. My conclusion is that the original question, though well-intended, was so broad and all encompassing that asking for an RfC to finally decide the issue was maybe not the best idea because it was inevitably going to raise some ire where I am not sure any needed to exist. Socialism is both of the things mentioned in the RfC. We split hairs when we try to cordon of a part of it. While I understand there are other articles that also cover socialist topics, let's ask ourselves this: If a high school student heard about "socialism" in school and wanted to learn more by looking it up on Wikipedia, what should he/ she see when he/ she gets here? I think it is important to indicate a political distinction between socialism and communism (not to mention Communism, which is a third thing, kind of like catholic and Catholic), but as to whether the introduction describes it as basically economic or basically ideological, either way the high school student should be able to walk away with the right idea— as long as socialism can be distinguished from other sorts of socio-politico-economic movements, esp. those of the 20th century, and can distinguish between things like Swedish socialism and German National Socialism, which are, er somewhat different. But that all goes in the main body. Which is why this RfC is problematic, because it asks for a mandate for the entire subject to have a particular slant. An RfC like, "Should the lead sentence be X or should it be Y?" is MUCH easier to figure out than "Should the article on X be mostly about this aspect of it or that aspect?" which is a question that makes people run at the mouth (including myself!) </rant> KDS4444 ^Talk 12:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@ KDS4444:, the issue is what topic should be discussed in the article. The lead defines the topic, and the RfC presents two versions. Should it be 1. the socioeconomic system with public ownership of the means of production or 2. the political movement and ideology. So if the American high school student reads that Bernie Sanders is a socialist and comes here would he or she be better informed to be told that socialists support public ownership of the means of production, or that socialists support some degree of public ownership and/or control. It could be that definition 1. is correct and Sanders is not a socialist, but I think the article should cover the topic broadly and include "socialists" who do not necessarily advocate a socialist state. TFD ( talk) 22:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@ KDS4444 and The Four Deuces: I somewhat agree with KDS4444 about the article having to cover the major topics relating to socialism, both as a system and political ideology. Option One covers this better, as it recognizes that at the heart of socialism is a form of socioeconomic organization, but allows room to discuss the relevant ideologies and movements associated with said system. I disagree with TFD to some extent in that I don't think the article should concern itself with the views of political figures or politicians such as Bernie Sanders. At most, if there are academic sources identifying them as socialists, they deserve a passing remark in relevant sections (History or politics). But the bulk of the article should discuss the concept of socialism, its major conceptions and the characteristics associated with it (social ownership, et al.). A prospective high school student who reads the article and digests what socialism as a concept is can then use this information to determine whether or not, for example, Bernie Sanders is a or is not an actual socialist. - Battlecry 07:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not say the article should concern itself with the views of political figures or politicians such as Bernie Sanders. KDS4444 asked if a high school student would find what they were looking for if they read this article. The Sanders campaign has generated interest in the topic. I think he or she would be less informed to learn that socialism means the government is going to take away all private property. That does not mean he belongs in the article as Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If we go with your definition of the topic there is no justification to segue into organizations such as the Socialist International and its members that do not advocate your definition of socialism.

On the contrary, I think it would help this hypothetical high school student become educated as to what socialism is and how it might differ from capitalism. It would introduce him/her to a subject he or she might otherwise have never been properly introduced to, or taken an interest in. Learning that socialism means that all of society, or workers in companies, would collectively own the means of producing wealth and thus benefit from them would inform him or her about socialism - even if it might not conform to Bernie Sander's use of the phrase "democratic socialism" in his November speech. - Battlecry 10:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Certainly it would educate them on how a socialist socio-economic system might work but it confuse them by leading them to think that was what Socialists advocated. So we must somehow help them out there. We can say that when reliable sources refer to parties such as the Socialist Party of France as "socialists", they are misinformed or lying, or alternatively, that these parties have a hidden agenda to take their parents houses away from them. TFD ( talk) 12:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@ The Four Deuces: The Wikipedia article on the Socialist Party of France characterizes it as a "social democratic" party, which as you are aware tends to mean advocacy for a welfare state and degrees of state interventionism. There is a socialist faction within that party which advocates for a socialist system, but that appears to be a minority faction. I think you have to understand the context in which "socialist" is being used. Members of the Parti Socialiste are called big-S "Socialists", but they aren't necessarily socialists. In the same vein, members of the United States Democratic Party are called big-D "Democrats", which is not the same thing as a small-d democrat (an advocate of political democracy). Is this use of language confusing? It certainly is. But there is nothing Wikipedia can do to change the names of existing political parties and groups to match their dominant political ideologies. At best, we can note the context in which the terms "socialist" and big-S "Socialist" are used. We also need to be clear in distinguishing a socialist system, society and country from a government in which socialists have participated in. The latter does not make the system or country "socialist". - Battlecry 05:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So we should say when the Socialist Party of France says they are socialist they are misinformed or lying. Let's start the article by saying, "This article is about socialism. It has nothing to do with "Socialist Parties" that claim to be socialist but are really not." Ignore political science textbooks and accept Battlecry's naming system. TFD ( talk) 06:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@ TFD: The Communist Manifesto does advocate for the abolition of private property and the establishment of a post-capitalist state; re-read Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists, or at least its ending:

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production..."

The reformist measures enumerated thereafter are not the final goal; they are merely steps towards achieving the final goal. Vrrajkum ( talk) 06:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That is fascinating original research, but the Manifesto has limited claims. I would prefer we use definitions of socialism from reliable sources rather than Vrrajkum and Battlecry. TFD ( talk) 07:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State..."

"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

No original research, sorry. Vrrajkum ( talk) 07:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@ The Four Deuces and Vrrajkum: I think the point of contention here is the distinction between big-S "Socialists" and socialists. Just as we have big-L "Liberals" that are not the same thing as liberals, and big-D "Democrats" and democrats, etc., big-S "Socialists" belong to a party that is called "Socialist" but might not necessarily have socialism as their goal or dominant ideology. The subject of this article is about socialism as a concept, and not "Socialists" meaning members of political parties, their policies, etc., who have the word "socialist" in their name.

The author of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Karl Marx, is widely understood to have conceived of socialism as a post-capitalist system where social ownership, conscious resource allocation, and non-transferable labor vouchers displaced private property, market exchange for the means of production, and monetary remuneration. ^[19] The aforementioned primary source is not recognized as an articulation of socialism, but as a political document explaining the underlying theory of Marx's thought for the International Communist League, aimed at making an argument for socialism/communism. It does not go into any detail describing Marx's conception of socialism/communism, which involves the negation of private property in favor of social ownership. - Battlecry 08:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@ TFD: If "The reformist measures enumerated thereafter are not the final goal; they are merely steps towards achieving the final goal." is what you are calling original research, it is Marx who says that, not me. Read the section. Vrrajkum ( talk) 08:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

As Battlecry says, the Manifesto does not go into the final goal. The reality is that socialism existed as a political movement before some socialists developed the concept of what we call a socialist system. And ironically it was not the "final goal" of Marx, his final goal was a communist system. There is btw a connection between upper and lower case political groups. Parties were created with liberal ideologies in order to promote liberalism often called themselves liberals. Both Jefferson and Jackson promoted ideologies called democracy. It is not that Socialist parties have socialist in their names but that they have an historical connection with socialism, self-identify as socialists, are seen as socialists and most importantly for rs, are identified as socialist in reliable sources. The Labour Party and the New Democratic Party of Canada do not have socialist in their names, but they have it in their constitutions. TFD ( talk) 17:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Archaic definitions are welcome for inclusion in the etymology section, but the bulk of the article needs to focus on what RS define as the major contemporary definition of socialism. The Labour Party and New Democratic Party might very well have historical connections with socialism, but today their aims can hardly be called socialist. Either way, it is quite irrelevant. The article on capitalism mainly focuses on discussing capitalism as a concept and not the major parties that support(ed) or advocated capitalism historically. As other editors have noted in the survey above, defining socialism as a political movement is very circular and is tantamount to saying that "socialism is a political movement that aims to create socialism" while neglecting to talk about what exactly socialism, or the goal of the socialist movement, is. - Battlecry 09:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Capitalism is not an ideology, it is an economic system. There are no Capitalist parties. Why are you saying I have no mentioned the goal of the socialist movement? The goal is to correct problems resulting from capitalism by taking collective action including some degree of social ownership and or control of the means of production. I gave you a link to the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, I have presented it to you many times. While you are free to disagree with my replies, please do not misrepresent them. TFD ( talk) 10:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@ TFD: Are you willing to split the article into two and treat the history, policies, and proposals of Socialist parties separately from socialism as an abstract economic system? Vrrajkum ( talk) 01:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. If other editors agree, then we need to discuss how we handle disambiguation so that we do not end up with three articles. TFD ( talk) 01:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I don´t know why the users who insist on an economicistic article of socialism don´t go improve the socialist mode of production article. You are still free to do that.-- Eduen ( talk) 01:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Eduen: That article is exclusively about Marxian socialism, and should really be merged into a broader article such as socialism (economic system) or Marxism. But since Battlecry is the primary author of socialist mode of production, I will defer to him on that decision. Vrrajkum ( talk) 02:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Eduen and Vrrajkum: The article on " Socialist mode of production" was originally titled "Socialism (Marxism)" and was written to give a detailed account of the concept of socialism as a system and body of thought in Classical Marxist thought. At the time, a certain editor on here was adamant about drawing a distinction between "Marxism" and "socialism" (by which he meant contemporary social democracy), as I recall. Much of the information in that article can, and should, be implemented into the parent socialism article. Indeed, a good portion of that articles content already overlaps with the information in the parent socialism article already. - Battlecry 05:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources that could serve as a model of what you think a socialism article should cover? When I conduct a Google book search, I find mostly books about the socialist movement, books about Communist states and a few outlining how their authors think society should be organized. [5] I do not see any that concentrate on socialist systems in general. Before writing articles per notability we need to establish that the topic exists in reliable sources. TFD ( talk) 14:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Socialism definition disagrees with some sources. Excludes other forms of socialism.

That rules out other forms of socialism. Not all forms advocate social ownership. Other forms support DEMOCRATIC CONTROL of privately owned means of production. There are sources that point this out, such as Concise Oxford English Dictionary, August 2011, Oxford University Press: "A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned OR REGULATED BY THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/socialism

And then there is socialism that supports worked-owned PRIVATE firms (typically not-for-profit), which are NOT owned by society in common but only the workers at that firm.

Glaringly, the definition contradicts the rest of the article which speaks of various forms socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No One Hides ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 January 2016

@ No One Hides: You are mistaken. Cooperative ownership by workers is defined as a form of "social ownership", not as "private ownership". ^[20] In the context of Yugoslavia's economic system, "social ownership" specifically referred to worker-ownership at the enterprise level, contrary to other forms of social ownership. Worker-owned and managed firms have been referred to as a form of "social ownership" by Yugoslav economists such as Branko Horvat and Edvard Kardelj. ^{[21] [22]} In response to your second point, reliable sources define socialism as social or collective ownership and not simply as regulation of private enterprises, which is an entirely different concept. While academic publications exploring the concepts of socialism and socialization do sometimes mention a new mode of regulation of the economy under socialism, the use of "regulation" in this context refers to the economic dynamics at play (specifically replacing the law of value and market logic with alternative socialist economic dynamics) and not to government policies placing restrictions on market-oriented firms. ^[23] This concept of "regulation" is already covered in the second paragraph in the lead where it is contrasted with market-based socialism. Your final point that "democratic control" of private firms constitutes socialism is unsupported. A private corporation that practices workplace democracy is not considered to be socialism, nor does it change the nature of the economic system. - Battlecry 04:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether *I'm* mistaken, is not really the issue is it? The point is, an authoritative source says so. It says socialism can be merely where the means of of production are "regulated by the community as a whole." And this is what I mean by "democratic control." If the means of production are "regulated by the community," that's "democratic control by the community." And that's what I mean by "democratic control." But I don't want to argue semantics on whether "democratic control" means the same thing as "regulated by the community." I'm quite willing to use the term "regulated by by the community as a whole," as the source does. On whether "cooperative ownership by workers" is private ownership, you're mistaken. Anything not owned by the community (or all of the "workers" in the community) is privately owned. How the owners of the property manage the internal affairs is not relevant to whether it's privately owned. ----No One Hides — Preceding unsigned comment added by No One Hides ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 25 January 2016

@ No One Hides: Common dictionary definitions are not authoritative sources for complex political and economic concepts. Academic sources and encyclopedias specializing in political economy and economics define socialism chiefly as "social ownership", and employ that term to include cooperatives, as is sourced already in the article. Your use of "private ownership" to simply mean non-community ownership is incorrect. Cooperatives are forms of sectional (non-integrated) ownership, but that's not the same thing as private ownership in which an individual or separate class of owners appropriate the profit produced by an enterprise consisting of hired employees who aren't part-owners themselves. While it's true that this is very different from ownership by the community/society as a whole, RS's identify it as a form of "social ownership". As for "democratic management", that specific phrase actually isn't well sourced, but it links to the broad concept of "worker's self-management". Self-management is an entirely different concept from government regulation, referring to the organizational structure of enterprises in a non-hierarchical manner employing democratic-decision making processes. This is a feature or goal of many forms of socialism, but the common element identified by most RS's is "social", "collective" or "public" ownership, which may or may not be combined with regulated markets, free markets or non-market planning. - Battlecry 01:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@ No One Hides: Cooperative ownership is a form of social ownership, not private ownership. ^{[1] [24] [25]} It helps to think of 'private' ownership as exclusive or autocratic ownership of enterprise, whereas 'social' ownership indicates inclusive or democratic ownership of enterprise. This image may also be useful: http://s14.postimg.org/ontph8dzl/capitalism4.png

Vrrajkum ( talk) 20:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The image is not very helpful because it is talking about organizational structure and management within business, and business enterprise is largely synonymous with capitalism when understood to mean the profit system and dynamic of capital accumulation. Self-management can exist in private, public or collectively-owned organizations. Private ownership, as used by socialists and Marxists, refers to ownership by a distinct class of owners who subsist off the capital income. If society as a whole, or the working class as a whole own the means of production (we can say society as a whole if we take it to mean a system where there are no capitalists, thus the working class as a whole represents society), they can be organized as cooperatives, public, state, etc. enterprises - regardless of their specific form, they are not "private" in this sense anymore because the working class or society as a whole appropriates the surplus product/profits. - Battlecry 12:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's really incoherent, what both of you are saying. Imagine if an enterprise was being run as a "capitalist" business. It's not owned by the community, but is privately owned. It is private property. Now, let's say everyone at the firm get together and the decide to run it as a cooperative, no wage labor, of the type that you call "socialist." Your position is that it is then no longer private property? That's preposterous. It is private property regardless of how it's internally run. No One Hides ( talk) 00:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I never claimed that management (how an organization is internally structured) had anything to do with it; a collectively-owned (cooperative) institution can be run in either a hierarchical or cooperative manner and it would still remain a collective/cooperatively-owned entity. A cooperative or collectively-owned enterprise in a capitalist economy does not make the economy socialist, but if the economy were dominated by cooperatively-owned enterprises then it would be considered a type of market socialism. This form of socialism has been recognized since the 19th century, and cooperative (collective) property is widely recognized as a form of "social ownership", or as constituting a form of socialism, in reliable sources, where it is considered to be distinct from both public and private ownership. ^{[26] [27]} - Battlecry 07:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I see your citations, and I think you're misunderstanding "collective ownership" as the term is normally used and as used in your sources. Collective ownership is not a series of small isolated "collectives," each owning its own property/enterprise. That would be private ownership, since each means of production has separate ownership within the larger community. Collective ownership is the larger group (workers or community) owning all the means of production collectively. That's distinguished from public (state) ownership and private ownership. Your source says "There are three broad forms of property ownership – private, public, and collective (cooperative). Under private ownership, the three ownership rights ultimately belong to individuals, subject to limitations of disposition, use, and earnings. Under public ownership, these rights belong to the state. With collective ownership, property rights belong to the members of the collective." If "collective ownership" meant what simply you're saying, then there would be no term to label ownership by the community (or all workers in the community) collectively. No One Hides ( talk) 18:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@ No One Hides: The source uses the term "collective ownership" synonymously with "cooperative", and identifies it with "group ownership". The term used to describe non-state ownership by an entire community is "common ownership" or "common property". However, this is not to say I disagree with you entirely - "collective ownership" is vaguely defined, and sometimes means the same thing as common/community ownership. I would also make a stronger distinction between sectional (group or private ownership, or autonomous state-owned enterprises) and non-sectional integrated (common ownership, public ownership, etc.) economic units. However, reliable sources routinely identify "cooperatives" as a form of "social" ownership, as juxtaposed with private ownership. Indeed, the former Yugoslav economic system was organized around the idea of self-managed cooperatives, which was called "social ownership" and held in contrast with private ownership. Both forms of socialism (sectional cooperatives and community/public ownership) have existed since the 19th century, and both forms have been recognized as socialist in economic literature, so we include both forms in the definition of "social ownership" in the lead. - Battlecry 11:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's another source: "Socialism, social and economic doctrine, that calls for public rather than private ownership OR CONTROL...Society as a whole, therefore, should own OR AT LEAST CONTROL property for the benefit of all its members." http://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism If I start compiling sources, how many will it take to satisfy you? No One Hides ( talk) 00:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@ No One Hides: These sources have been discussed already on this talkpage and rejected because they are not specialized, and are tertiary sources. Furthermore, "control" isn't given a specific definition. Does "public control" refer to public management within enterprises (as the term control is meant within comparative economic systems), is it referring to a command economy (where prices are controlled and set by the state), or is it referring to something that exists within all extant capitalist economies - government regulation of the private economy? These are all entirely different concepts. The language "control" is confusing. Even though historically "socialism" was associated with controlled economies (due to the Soviet economic model), more contemporary reliable sources define socialism chiefly as "ownership", leaving the possibility open for social/collective ownership to be combined with controlled/planned economies or market economies. - Battlecry 02:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so if I started citing specialized sources, you should be fine with it then. No One Hides ( talk) 02:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the other editors will be fine with defining socialism as a state-controlled economy without public/collective/social ownership, and I am not aware of any socialist theorist who defines socialism as a controlled/command economy without social ownership. The second paragraph in the lead is written expressly to differentiate between non-market (controlled/command/planned economies) and market-based socialism, so it already accommodates a range of different economic forms. My understanding is, a state-controlled economy was never considered to be a socialist system or ideal. The association with a "command economy" (where prices, wages, etc. were controlled by the state) was due to the actual functioning of the nominally socialist Soviet-type planned economy, which did not conform to either the notion of socialism as a non-capitalist (as opposed to a controlled capitalist) system or as a market socialist system consisting of cooperatives. A more neutral term, one that many socialists did adopt themselves, was "planned economy" (or state planning). - Battlecry 02:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)