This page 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.

This article reaks of NPOV! Normally the Opposing Viewpoints/Criticisms section of an article contains ONLY opposing viewpoints, and they are well made here. But some jackass added in counter-points to the criticisms in a not-so-subtle NPOV way. Then when answers to those counter-points appear, *they* are removed as NPOV! It is a joke. Sept. 29, 2004

User:Kim Bruning recently changed (in =Related articles=) The "inversive" of socialism to " laissez-faire capitalism," removing " individualism." I don't have a specific opinion whether one of these are more accurate than the other, but this notion of an "inversive" strikes me as problematic. It's all a matter of what is inverted. Individualism has an arguably opposite philosophical ideal. Laissez-faire capitalism is an arguably opposite economic system, but then aristocracy or feudalism is an arguably opposite social system. Maybe mention all four as "inversives"? Not a big deal, just found it interesting how much of this is inevitably a bit POV. -- Jmabel 20:00, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, hmm, individualism and collectivism are opposites, and capitalism and socialism are opposites. Someone had simply crossed over their opposites. :-)

Aristocracy and feudalism are not so much opposite to socialism as they are orthogonal to it. (See among others: Belgium, United Kingdom, Netherlands, which still have some holdovers from aristocracy, feudalism and monarchy, but also have social democratic policies.)

Kim Bruning 21:07, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Applied Socialism is not opposite of capitalism by any stretch. The form of socialism which might be an opposite of capitalism would be an imagined utopia, certainly not anything which has legitamately occured. Also, when I think of socialism I think of the USSR or China, which arn't really all that different from feudalism at all. Additionally, while aristocrats were killed as a part of revoloutionary socialism, they were replaced by a new communist party aristocracy, w the same nepotism and class distinctions. Sam Spade 22:38, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Sam. (OK, except for his use of the phrase "applied socialism." But if we substitute "state communism"...) Mark this on your calendar. But again, no big. This is just a matter of a listing in the "see also" section and is of little consequence. -- Jmabel 02:05, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, well I live in a social democracy, and this country has close economic ties to several other social democracies (and democratic socialist states if you really want to split hairs).

Very very rough rule of thumb: If you pay no taxes at all, you have laissez-fair capitalism. If you pay 100% taxes you have pure socialism. Usually folks around these parts pay between 30%-60% taxes (depending on nation and income), so in practice most countries are somewhere inbetween the 2 styles. One is white, the other is black, no doubt about that I think. In practice however, people actually implement some shade of grey. (Darn us europeans, eh? ;-) ). Kim Bruning 07:48, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Where do you live? And where has anyone paid 100% taxes? Sam Spade 07:55, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Netherlands. And where has anyone paid 0% taxes? ;-) Kim Bruning 08:12, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

100% tax rate, or 100% marginal rate? At any rate, tax rates have nothing to do with socialism. One could envision an anarcho-socialist state with no taxes, or some sort of monarchical superstate with extremely high taxes entirely devoted to, say, war-making. john 08:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

There you go ruining a perfectly good rule of thumb. I wasn't claiming it would work outside of the western world or anything. Basically the rule works because taxes are basically collectivist in nature. So the higher the taxes, the more collectivist the government is going to be. Since socialism is a form of collectivism, the rule will work out fairly well in countries that combine capitalism and socialism. Try it out for say hmm, USA, UK, Netherlands, Sweden. Average tax rates will tend be higher in a country where the government ideology is more socialist leaning, and lower in a country where the ideology is more capitalist leaning. Remember it's only a rough rule of thumb though! Kim Bruning 08:28, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Rather a shallow rule of thumb though. Taxes predate socialism and will probably still be with us if socialism becomes a footnote in history.

Furthermore, taxes have only been "collectivist" for the past 200 years or so - and in many places, for much less than that. In the Middle Ages and the centuries that followed, taxes were used purely for the individual benefit of the landlord or king. You see, taxes only become "collectivist" when they are used for public works or social services. Socialism is not about the amount of tax, but about what is DONE with that tax money.

- Mihnea Tudoreanu

Who is "Morrelly" (one of the Enlightenment thinkers mentioned by anonymous contributor, presumably Capone)? Never heard of him. -- Jmabel 07:13, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Not sure why my last post here last night didn't show on here today. Information on Morrelly will come soon. Sorry, thanks. Capone

Will the bugles play the Last Post in chorus? -- Jmabel 23:37, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Um, not sure what you think you mean there Jmabel, but my highly adapted senses are suggesting to me the slightest bit of sarcasm - lol - anyhow, I think the recent edits from everyone have been pretty good. I didn't mean last as in final, but as in most recent. I wanted to respond earlier on Morrelly and will still have to later. Something's up with my browser here, but I think this article on Sociaism is better than ones in other languages on wiki, and is easily better than what you'd find in an encyclopedia sitting on your shelf. I think Wiki is a success. Capone 10 May 2004 5:24

My stenographer errored, not thinking I would have to remind the fool that Morelly is spelled with just one 'r'. It is so hard to find good help these days! Now you can Google his name and find Morelly, 'Code of Nature, 1755', his treatise on the evils of religion and public property, calling for a secular society based upon public ownership - Morelly nails it 100 years before Marx. Capone 6:20pm May-10-04

There were significant socialist elements within the Nazi program, or at least leveling tendencies; what was pernicious is that the benefits were extended only to ethnic Germans. Nazis were quite generous in their dealing with disadvantaged Germans. Even in the German army there was a marked difference in the way enlisted soldiers were treated as compared to the way they were treated during World War I. The program was to create a just society for ethnic Germans provided they were healthy, straight and not infected by Marxism. Fred Bauder 23:23, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Here here! *vigorously bangs shoe upon table top* Sam Spade 23:43, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. You can't create a just society by privileging a particular social group. And if that is one's goal, one is most certainly not a socialist. By your definition, all political forms except anarchism are socialism, since they all try to create a just society for someone. Apart from that, whilst the Nazis did use some socialist or levelling rhetoric, there's no evidence of them trying to implement such policies. What elements of social justice there were, particularly in the military which had been extensively reformed with the end of the junker class, came from the socialists and liberals active in the Weimar period, and survived into the Nazi era because they had had such universal benefit.

There is a discussion on this on archive number three. It's interesting information, but what does it have to say to us about Socialism that isn't already there? What is Spaed so excited about, that Nazis wanted to make an uninfected master race or simply that Fred is pointing this out? Please clarify? Capone 10 May 2004 5:31pm

I just like people agreeing w me, even if they don't know/think they are. I have been pointing out the lousy definition of socialism on the wiki for months now, and it seems to be paying off, even if only in trickles of cognition. On another note, the political pages on the wiki need a wiki-project, and the consistancy that would bring. Then we could standardize, and increase efficiency. Sam Spade 01:22, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

No, you've been using a lousy definition of socialism which is not on the Wiki, but which you think should be. john 01:39, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed, under the entry 'Communism' page 701 (page 486 in compact ed.) it states; "...the great distinction between communism and socialism is that the latter believes in payment according to work done, and the former does not." i.e. no critique on Capital just as before Marx's Das Kapital which was the harbinger of Communism, only a critique of the methodology in private handling, this the Nazis had. Furthermore the egalitarianism between nationals further seperated it from non-class equality conscious strains of Falangism & Fascism. Nagelfar 10:30, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Something about a mote and a plank comes to mind. Sam Spade 01:41, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Back to Socialism and Nazism. The Nazis were long on socialist rhetoric during their campaign for power but after the downfall of Roehm not much was heard of it in government. There were social programmes of various sorts - but there had been in Bismarck's time too. Private enterprise continued - under state direction - and dividends continued to be paid.

Even as a socialist myself, I have to concede that at the time racism and socialism coexisted. Think of Jack London, for example. George Orwell came out with some choice anti-semitic remarks in the 1930s.

"As evidence, socialists point to the fact that inefficient planned economies only exist in undemocratic conditions, where the people cannot reward or penalize the state for its performance."

I would reply that the Labour economy in the UK in the mid 1970s was an inefficient planned economy. Yes, its true that given democratic conditions, the people could and did change that by voting for the Tories who in turn made Thatcher the PM. But still, the inefficient planned economy existed for a long time before that comeuppance, so this "fact" is a dubious one. Anyway its a claim, not an objective reality one can "point to"! How much more POV a sentence than the above quoted could one fear to find! --

Also, I should say there is a logical problem with the recently inserted references to the effect that "a majority of socialists" believe this or that. Who did the poll? and on the basis of what non-POV definition of the population to be polled? Christofurio 20:50, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

I agree I went a little overboard and inserted some POV, but that was in reaction to the opposite POV that was in the article beforehand. Sorry. :(

However, as a side note, I'd like to point out that the UK never had a planned economy. A planned economy involves the nationalization of ALL industries, and public property over ALL the means of production. The UK simply had a market economy with a high degree of state involvement. And as for the Tories and Thatcher, I know many Brits who would say that they took the UK out of the frying pan and into the fire. But that, of course, is POV. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu

And I must say, emulating your candor, that I should have made the point in a way that doesn't invoke Socratic martyrdom. Clearly, though, the UK had enough of a planned and nationalized economy to demonstrate that there is a good deal of truth to the charges about planned economies from Hayek and so many others over the decades -- what hppened by the mid 1970s was what they had always said would happen. One doesn't need purity in the application of one's categories to draw conclusions from them. Such purity isn't available in the social sciences anyway.

The Thatcher situation demonstrates something important about the claim that democratic socialism can always correct itself. When such socialism goes wrong, the choice the voters have in the next election is not necessarily (or even probably) a choice between the inefficient socialists and a new breed of more efficient socialists.

Tell me, how much control did the general populace have over the way the nationalized sectors of the economy were run? As far as I remember, none. Thus the democratic incentive was weak at best, and non-existent at worst. And that is why things played out the way they did.

That seems a rather circular bit of reasoning. How would things have played out if Hayek and others were right about the problems of planned economies all along? Pretty much the way they did. How would you know that there were right, if they in fact were? You wouldn't, if you are determined to wish away evidence. -- Christofurio 05:09, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Then forget about the last sentence if you wish. You are still left with the undisputable fact that neither the people as a whole nor the workers had any say in how the "planned economy" was run. I am not "wishing away" or ignoring any evidence. In fact, I'm saying that Hayek's arguments are quite pertinent for any NON-democratic planned economy (that is, for any planned economy in which the planners are not held responsible for their actions). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu

As for the choice in the next election, I suppose that's a matter of dumb luck. Scandinavian socialism never faced the problems of UK socialism, did it? So unlike the UK, the Scandinavian countries did have "a new breed of efficient socialists" to correct any problems that might arise. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu

It seems to me that they have had and are having quite similar problems. -- Christofurio 05:09, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Really? Such as? They certainly have higher standards of living for their citizens than the Thatcherite (and post-Thatcherite) UK, at least. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu

Not really the time or place for my discussion of that! I don't think I can do justice to the situation over there in a sound bite. But keep contributing to wiki, as I hope to, and we may come back to that in good time. In the meanwhile, allow me to praise one Scandanavian socialist, Henrik Ibsen, whose own appreciation of the dangers of democracy was very keen and has had a great influence on my own views. See An Enemy of the People

By the way, Christofurio, while we're on the subject of POV, please note that your own rhetorical questions were highly POV (as rhetorical questions almost always are):

"Does something that is wrong when 49.9 percent of a population believes in it become right when a very few change their minds? Is that a bit like asking whether the killing of Socrates (by the first democracy) was a murder or a legitimate execution? Even if the rightness of majority rule is assumed, incentive questions remain. Couldn't the death of Socrates have had a severe disincentive effect upon the willingness of other dissenters to ask troubling questions in the agora? Could the imprisonment of a few millionaires have troubling incentive effects even if widely applauded?"

If that's not POV, then I don't know what is. And in any case, the issue of majority rule doesn't belong here. It belongs in the democracy article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu

I didn't raise the issue of majority rule. You did. You invoked it as a solution to incentive problems. That seems odd on a couple of levels. The incentive problem that many of us worry about concerns the incentives that private people will or won't continue to have under socialist governments. You change the subject when you talk about the incentives of the planners. I rewrote your discussion and I believe improved it considerably even from your own POV by saying that the planners CAN plan to keep incentives in. Tito wasn't the name of Dorothy's dog.

Lots of issues that belong in the democracy article also belong here, especially since you're trying to redefine socialism as something that can only happen given democracy! I've re-worked your re-working of my re-working of your wording. We're working together, despite (or because of) our different POVs, which is what makes wiki fun and exciting. As Jmabel points out, we should both work on the sourcing of our comments.

-- Christofurio 14:34, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think our POV's are embarassingly obvious by now. :) So, nice to meet you, I'm a trotskyist. And you are a classical conservative, I presume? My clues: 1. your nickname suggests pro-clericalism (you might be a Catholic); 2. your arguments suggest opposition to democracy, at least to some degree - thus you must be a monarchist if you're European or one of the "our country is a republic, not a democracy" types if you're American. Am I correct? ;)

Wrong, sorry. I am not a classical conservative. The label I prefer for myself is "anarcho-capitalist", if labels are necessary. As to your clues: 1. my label is simply derived from the HBO series "The Sopranoes," in which one central character is named Christopher and another is named Furio; 2. I am opposed to democracy because I am opposed to all notions of sovereignty. Democracy is simply a dangerously attractive form of the old fallacy. 3. I'm an American, but something of an Anglophile, who doesn't really care about debates over the word "republic" or other lexicographical niceties. Sovereignty is the problem, whether it is expressed through an abstraction such as "We the People" or as a pleasant-seeming elderly woman who enjoys her corgis.

As the great (American) philosopher William James would say, the best words are always those that get us most quickly to the things in dispute. -- Christofurio 02:38, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Then I suppose I need to refine my detective skills. In any case, this was only meant to be a friendly game - between two people that would be bitter enemies if they met anywhere else. Make no mistake, I'm not usually this nice to people who wish to see Humanity enslaved by means of the most immoral artificial concept ever invented - private property. But I guide myself by the principles of reason, so I like to keep my arguments civil. And this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, so I try to be especially polite.

I am no one's 'bitter enemy' -- and I appreciate your sentiments. -- Christofurio 23:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

However, you've made me curious. If you reject all forms of sovereignty, how can you accept private property, which is in itself an expression of authority and sovereignty? Government itself began as a form of private property. A ruling elite controlled a certain area of land (and all the objects and people on it) as their private property. In anarcho-capitalism, a person who owns a patch of land is effectively the government of that land. The system you are proposing is one that essentially means breaking up present-day governments into 6 billion tiny totalitarian police states. If a man trespasses on your private property, you can do anything to him, including killing him, correct?

Not necessarily. Without an anarcho-capitalist society, rules will develop through market-based negotiations among different protective agencies. I have previously referred you to on-line essays by David Friedman on this subject -- you should investigate further the page you initially saw as "empty." One of the working links there is to a chapter that discusses how rules analogous but superior to a sovereign's penal code and judicial system would likely develop.-- Christofurio 23:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

So how does that make you any different from Stalin, who had similar powers over anyone living on his "private property" (Soviet soil)?

It is throughly improbable that Stalin could ever have had control over anything more than a bottle shop in the absense of the myth of sovereignty, which in its Marxist-Leninist variant is the notion that some people, the Communist Party as "vanguard of the working class," have the authority to speak for the whole of that class as it comes to dominance in accord with the Big Hegelian Zig-Zag of history. Stalin and Trotsky were not different fromone another in their belief in that. -- Christofurio 23:30, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, returning to the topic at hand, I have reverted to my previous edit because your re-work of my re-work of your re-work of my wording was still highly POV. It said: "...especially when it impinges upon liberty of contract and the rights of persons, or voluntary associations of persons to own property", among other things. You are assuming that property rights are an established fact. This is POV (for example, I would argue that property is theft, and property "rights" represent privilege, not rights).

And YOU are assuming that the concept of "civil rights" can be defined in some coherent way that does NOT involve the protection of property rights and/or freedom of contract. You say here that "you would argue" that property is theft. I know you would. I believe your wording IMPLIES the view that property is theft, and its still POV if its an implication. So we still have a problem. Furthermore, I object when you repeatedly say that discussion of democracy by anti-socialists is a "shift" of subject. I have repeatedly proposed wording that indicates that the subjects "connect," a phrase that seems to be impeccably NPOV and invincibly true to boot. You keep reverting that into oblivion. Which of us is being shifty?

What exactly is the connection between freedom of thought and "property rights"? What exactly is the connection between freedom of expression and "property rights"?

The Ibsen play cited above might give you a clue. Or consider the fate of poor Joe Camel. If I am free to express myself, then I must be free to express the thought that "cigarettes are cool" and I must be free to do that by making a cartoon of a camel smoking one. If I'm a copy writer for a cigarette agency -- well, all artists are patronized by someone! That is one example of how the ideas of freedom of expression and property rights can't coherently be separated. -- Christofurio 23:30, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

What exactly is the connection between freedom of religion and "property rights"? It is not only possible to define civil rights without resorting to notions of property - it is in fact remarkably easy. Oh, and before you bring up the idea of "self-ownership", keep in mind that property involves the right to buy and sell.

I'm inclined to agree. I never really cottoned to the lingo of self-ownership prevalent among some liberatarians (although not, as a rule, among anarcho-caps). Its too conceptualist, inadequately pragmatic, for my purposes.

Freedom of thought, expression, religion etc. do not involve buying and selling.

They certainly do! Publishing, advertising, and religion are all big businesses and none the worse (in my eyes, anyway) for that. There is no coherent reason to privilege the not-for-profit over the for-profit section of the publishing or motion picture trades, for example.

They involve the notion that you may do what you wish with your own body, but they do not involve the notion that you can also buy or sell bodies. Hence they do not involve property.

Is the word "hence" here supposed to involve logical implication? If so, your reasoning is rather lame. Property is not about buying or selling "bodies," which is why I find it so easy to agree with you about prostitution, below. Property is about buying and selling THINGS, such as currency, chunks of soil, an interest in the future delivery of pork bellies, etc. And about the insistence that the results of these contracts be respected by others, whether those others be minorities OR majorities. -- Christofurio 06:11, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

And by the way, contrary to common belief, "selling your body" doesn't mean prostitution. That's loaning your body. Selling your body means selling yourself into slavery.

Again, I'm happy to agree with you. Isn't it nice to find common ground?

And I'm not trying to "redefine" socialism as something that can only happen in a democratic context (although it is true that, in my opinion, non-democratic socialism is a ridiculous oxymoron). I'm only giving the arguments for democratic socialism because those are the only arguments I know. I suppose non-democratic socialists also have some argument to defend their position, but since I don't know what their argument is, I can't really include it in the article, now can I? Perhaps a stalinist could help me out here...

I'd rather you not request such assistance. They've been known to use an icepick to the skull.

Good point...

Also, I was talking about incentive for the planners because that's what the original objection to socialism was talking about (claiming that planned economies are inefficient because the planners aren't planning things correctly). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu

In any case, I believe I have managed to find a suitable compromise between our revisions of the article. Look into it and let me know if it's ok with you. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu

I would agree that this should be replaced by specific sourced quotations. However, I think most of what was added is substantively on the mark, just poorly sourced.

I take your point and I'll work on it. -- Christofurio 14:34, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

We headed down this road when User:TDC inserted a bunch of unsourced "criticisms of socialism" into the article and I spent the better part of an evening tracking down (sourced) responses from socialist writers (also sourcing some of his criticisms!). Others have chosen to expand the conversation, but seem to have resorted to rhetoric like "a majority of socialists" or "it could be said". Someone needs to do the heavy lifting of hitting the library, or at least carefully searching the Internet, to track down appropriate sourcing. I'm rather busy right now, so if it is left to me it probably won't happen until July. Would someone else please take this on? -- Jmabel 06:53, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

"Socialists of all stripes seem to be united in their rejection of the claim of market rationality in determining prices."

Really? It seems to me that the Titoists of old used to concede this point. Have they all died, leaving no ideological heirs? Contemporary Chinese communists certainly consider themselves to be socialists, though "with Chinese characteristics" yet they seem to have conceded this point, allowing the creation of futures exchanges for just this reason. Before I delete it I'd like to know if anyone wants to defend it or propose a revision to take account of such obvious facts. -- Christofurio 23:48, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree, my own understanding of socialism is that the distribution factor was secondary to the productive. With conditions of public ownership, whatever forms distribution take are going to be relative to the development of the productive forces. This may include different kinds of markets, but primarily I think we are talking goods and services. Capone 30 mai 04

Just replace the beginning of that sentence with "Many socialists reject the claim of..." -- Mihnea Tudoreanu

That doesn't resonate with me, I'm afraid. Its just the kind of vague non-sourcing sort of sourcing of which Jmabel has (quite rightly) complained. I'll fix this when I've had the chance to do some research, and come up with the names of socialist theorists who have adopted this point and others who have contested it. -- Christofurio 18:26, May 30, 2004 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. But in the mean time, I'll go change the beginning of the sentence anyway, and keep it like that as a provisional measure. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu

I've implemented the idea you were so kind as to praise. I cited the dispute between Jonas Kornai and David Schweickart to cut short the endless "some socialists say this" and "other socialists say that" cabbage stuffing. Also, I've included the anthology and the ISBN whence come both of those quotations, at the bottom of the page. I'll try not to throw out my arm while patting myself on the back.

There appears to be no article titled "market socialism" -- may be a project. -- Christofurio 12:45, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

I've replaced disambiguation at the top of the page. For some reason it got deleted. As long as we have this disambiguation, I don't really mind what happens to the article. I'll just leave it to sort itself out, who knows, maybe eventually it will.

I'd suggest looking at the disambiguating pages. It might help to explain to folks what socialism is being practiced today at least. Then work backwards from there to see how these forms came about historically. Kim Bruning 12:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

The primary problem with the article is that it does not distinguish between socialisms that have some significant real world track record and theoretical socialisms. It mixes them up willy nilly completely confusing a potential naive reader who comes for actual information and who should be our target audience. A short section on theoretical socialisms that either haven't been tried or have a trivial track record would solve this. But then major surgery on the bulk of the article would be needed.

Second, the coverage of socialism light, or Social Democrats, as practiced, say, in Europe is skimpy or non-existent, yet this is one of the major ones actually going. What are their concepts? And are they truly "socialist"?

Third, the statement is made that socialism can be democratic. I would sure like to have some of these named as I can't think of a single live one (except theoretically, or socialism light, as above.)

Fourth, the section labelled "criticism of socialism" actually contains quite a number of graphs that are criticisms of capitalism!

Finally, there is an extensive article on capitalism that should be the contravening reference at the end, not the rather stubby article on laisez faire capitalism. wgoetsch 04:59, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"all [socialists] advocate the overt inclusion of non-economic factors in determining economic decisions."

What does that mean? Is there a sub-class of decisions that are "economic decisions" whereas others are non-economic? It seems to me that all decisions are "economic" in the sense of involving the use of material resources. The difference between economics and, say, sociology isn't in WHAT is studied, by in HOW it is studied. For much the same reason, whatever an "economic decision" might be, what are the "economic" versus "non-economic" factors involved in making it? This, like too much of this article, is just anati-analytic babbling. -- Christofurio

The thrust of this article is basically solid. Wiki is a success! Just because this article can feel as a pair of pants that won't allow itself to be ironed does not mean that the skeleton of the article is somehow inadequate. However, I have some opinions about what seems to be going a bit in the wrong direction with this article. i] great additions have not been woven in neatly, and as a result, there is a problem with flow or readability of the article and ii] the vocabulary is inconsistant or only halfway related terms are used interchangeably and iii] generally sound ideas are expressed in terms either POV or in terms easy to accuse of being POV, iv] the arguments against socialism do not deal enough with tackling the article above it about socialism, and rely instead some rather well known positions regarding the problems of socialism, v] the socialist positions do not respond to the 'allegations', vi] the arguments against socialism "at the end" of the article actually take up fully one half of the article. Certainly even, the arguments against socialism should be even further developed, but perhaps on another page, or related article? I think that the polemics against socialism should be limited on this socialism page, but should be further developed elsewhere, though not too far away. Capone 6-15-04

The introductory links are worded and conceived from POV. For one, all of these countries consider themselves socialist, not "communist states", so why are readers to be instantly urged to redirect their query? I am suspicious of this, and, as I stated before, I removed this misinformed introductory whatchamacallit once before and now it has re-emerged in a far more obviously POV form. I suspect this was the work of Kim Bruning who never actually reads this article and sees things like socialism in black and white. Can anyone defend the introductory links? Im going to scrap it. The related articles go at the bottom of the page, not at the top. Capice? Capone 6-15-04

I disagree- most of the countries that call themselves 'socialist' follow Marxism (or some derived version such as Marxism-Leninism or Maoism). Karl Marx called his idea Communism. End of argument -- Cynical 19:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, China also calls itself the "Democratic Republic of China," but it is neither Democratic nor a Republic. Likewise, none of those countries are socialist. -- Tothebarricades.tk 06:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong but you seem to be having a problem with this POV thing. How are you qualifying the terms Democratic or Republic? How are you defining socialist? What criteria do you use to qualify your statements and what makes you sure they are accurate? Besides, to what extent China describes itself accurately has little to do with labeling it a communist state, which we would also have scrutinize as much as the Chinese claims about themselves. Capone 6-15-04

I suppose catch-all terms can be tricky. If we're talking about any entity, we should discuss what that entity claims that it is, and various popular opinions to the contrary or in favor. Any other way leads to bias in one way or another. -- Tothebarricades.tk 19:19, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Or how about having links to different government-type pages (democracy, communism etc. etc.) and let the discussion go on THERE as to what is communist, democratic, republic or whatever, so that the country pages don't get clogged up with irrelevant garbage -- Cynical 19:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Diderot recently added:

"It should be noted that historical study has largely refuted the claim that any such tragedy actually occurred. In reality, access to the commons in the sixteenth century was constrained by a variety of cultural protocols and was far from equal."

"It should be noted"? "historical study has largely refuted"? "In reality"? Diderot, I happen to agree with your politics, but (1) I am dropping "It should be noted" and "In reality", which add nothing but POV and (2) I'd sure appreciate at least one reference rather than a remark on "historical study" in the abstract. -- Jmabel 19:10, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I could have worded that differently but I was pressed for time. My inclination was to remove the whole section and actually discuss Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" argument over at Tragedy of the commons but this is, as the warning notes, a controvertial topic. But, if there is going to be a TotC argument about socialism, I think the reality about the TotC as an argument from history deserves some mention.

I had intended to put a source, but since the actual history of the English commons is discussed at Tragedy of the commons, I thought I wouldn't, opting instead to simply make the link. This same case is made there. But for a print reference: Dahlman, CJ. The Open Field System and Beyond: A Property Rights Analysis of an Economic Institution, 1980. ISBN  0521228816 Over the last 25 years, there's been an explosion of interest in economic history, particularly of pre-industrial and early industrial Britain, that has obliterated a lot of preconceived ideas about the structure of pre-industrial production. This is one of those cases where an idée fixe has been destroyed, but the commons as narrative is more attractive than the alternative that seems almost self-evident to anthropologists: Modern (capitalist) property is simply one possible sort of social relation among a wide variety.

For the not-quite-so-left among us, this argument against the TotC is not an especially pro-socialist argument. It dismisses one class of anti-socialist argument, but you can find people who accept every word of it and then go on to say that capitalist property is simply the best set of social relations currently conceivable. They would claim that although it is not impossible for a superior alternative to existing relations to exist, socialism has not managed to put one forward. This is basically Hayek and von Mises' argument without the Whiggish bombast.

I'm okay with your change to the text. It's the better wording I should have used.

Diderot 08:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've been reading about Socialism for a very long time, and I have never seen the political praxis of Hoxha's regime discussed as anything other than ultra-doctrinaire Stalinism. Why is this given an entry as a separate form of Socialism? I would recommend it be deleted from the article, but given the controversial nature of the article, and my own natural reluctance with most things wiki, I wouldn't mess with it straight off. Suggestions? Hwarwick 10.23 PST tuesday, 2004

There are some ML groups that adopted criticisms of China after Mao's death and decided that Hoxha's Albania was the new and only true worker's paradise. (eg the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada and other groups associated with Hardial Bains). These are often referred to as Hoxhaist groups but you are correct there really isn't anything to distinguish "Hoxhaism" from othodox Stalinism except for time and place. AndyL 05:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Similarly several other now-defunct groups: Marxist-Leninist Party USA and, I believe, Congress of United States Marxist-Leninists. My own take is that it was convenient to claim connection to a country that was so closed off you could make it stand for almost anything, but that's neither here nor there. Yes, I'd keep the name in the list, because eventually we'll presumably have a relevant article there. -- Jmabel 02:45, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

... is not actually socialism, right? So I would think the newly added link in the article should be qualified with a remark, not simply added to the laundry list. -- Jmabel 02:45, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Well I don't consider it real socialism but I also don't consider Maoism, Stalinism or social democracy to be real socialism. What remark would you suggest be added? AndyL 04:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No specific suggestion, but this seems almost as dubious as including national socialism without comment. Maoism, Stalinism and social democracy all at least have clear descent from Marxism and consider themselves to be in the socialist tradition. -- Jmabel 02:56, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that the "yellows" were a pre WWI socialist movement that rejected "class struggle" and were basically reformist anticipating the split between social democracy and revolutionary socialism. AndyL 04:13, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was unfamiliar with that usage, only with it being used as a disparaging term. Our article on the topic sure doesn't say this, and should probably be revisited (by someone with more konwledge on this than I have, or I'd do it myself). -- Jmabel 04:25, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I have to go to a library and check it out and I don't have time. I think Lenin and other Marxists picked it up as a disparaging term but it originated as an actual movement in France. I doubt that the Zimmerwald Movement which Lenin described as "yellow socialists" would have accepted that term for themselves. AndyL 11:35, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I recently changed the last line of the economy section of this essay, adding that the 5th columns "Stalinists" and pre late 70's "Maoists" (ie, the members of the cpusa, PCdF, RU, etc.) also called the USSR and/or China 'real existing socialism'. This wasn't just used by the governments of these countries, but also among the intellegencia of the 5th columns in other countries. An undisputable example of this would be the semi-famous Browder ( an American Stalinist from the CP) vs. Schactman (an American Trotskyist then of the Left Opposition) debate in which Browder, as a 5th columnist, touts the Soviet line that the USSR us 'actual' or 'real' existing socialism. Okay, thats if from me today folks. Capone 7-25-04

Recent addition: "...or the 5th columns their revolutions inspired in other countries..." The point is probably legitimate, but the term "fifth column" seems ill-chosen. It originially referred to those within the Spanish Republic who secretly sympathized with Franco and (the Nationalist insurgents believed) would help them from within. the suggestion of falangist sympathizer is very wrong here. -- Jmabel 02:02, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

These claims, however, are controversial to supporters of socialism who wish to distance themselves from catastrophic failures in the past.

Is there any evidence of anyone other than a socialist who disputes these groups being socialist in nature? AFAIK it is only socialists who attempt to obscure the definition of socialism, not anyone from an objective or outside perspective. Sam [ Spade] 05:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Anyone other than a socialist..." - well, start with the vast majority of historians. The non-socialist nature of those groups is an established fact among the people who actually took the time to study them. I remember we had a WW2 historian explaining things a while back on this very talk page. So I suggest you tell me if there is any evidence of anyone other than a right-wing capitalist who agrees that these groups were actually socialist?

- Mihnea Tudoreanu

The sentence you inserted is POV. Certainly the Ba'athist didn't seem particularly socialist to the US when they provided aid to Iraq in the 1970s and 1980s and also when the supported the Ba'athists in their attempts to put down the Communist Party of Iraq. AndyL

I wasn't the one who originally put the sentance there. If it is POV, please provide a specific example of a non-socialist redefining the term to mean something other than a managed economy. Sam [ Spade] 05:56, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please provide a concrete definition of what exactly a "managed economy" is supposed to be. State intervention in the economy existed thousands of years before socialism was invented. The nazis and the ba'athists are no more "socialist" than, say, the Pharaos of Egypt, various Roman Emperors, or King Louis XIV of France. It's ludicrous to define "socialism" as "anything that is not capitalism".

- Mihnea Tudoreanu

Mihnea, I'm generally with you on what you've written here, but I think the Ba'athists are a trickier case, both in terms of lineage and practice. It seems pretty clear that their origin was a union of secular pan-Arabism and socialism, and even in practice Saddam Hussein's Iraq (especially early on) had some socialist aspects: there was enormous spending on hospitals and schools before (and even, until the embargoes, after) he proceeded to take the country into a series of disastrous wars. -- Jmabel 17:33, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Please provide a statement from a socialist stating that they deny it is socialist because "they wish to distance themselves from catastrophic failures in the past". In the absence of any evidence that this is what "socialists" are doing this statement is an inference which presumes to explain why socialists are making an argument, therefore it is POV. ie it is an OPINION regarding why socialists are putting forward a certain argument, not a statement of fact. AndyL 06:00, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam, could you please give context to what you are referring to? I gather it's a deleted sentence, I don't feel like rifling through the history to find it. What claims? What groups? -- Jmabel 06:05, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Basically, were talking about Nazi's and Communist states. The sentance was refering to Socialism#Other_ideologies_including_the_word_.22Socialism.22. This is an old argument that never seems to go anywhere, and will prob end up having to outlive either me, andy, or both of us ;) Sam [ Spade] 06:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, seeing the above argument, maybe it'd be a better idea if we make socialism itself a disambiguation page, and rescue all useful content to the pages pointed to. It's hard to talk about something when you can't agree on definitions, as we've now discovered. (Said to cries of: "but I *do* agree with him! It's just that he doesn't agree with me!" )

How can we solve this? Well, several systems that are socialist inspired (like Social Democracy and Communism) are solid, and can be discussed more easily. Also perhaps something like History of the Socialist Movement could be good.

This page is monopolising socialism, it's time to do some Trust-busting ;-) Kim Bruning 07:08, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is clear that no single definition of "socialism" exists. From what I gather, the term was first used, though loosely, by followers of Robert Owen in 1827. National Socialists were as 'socialist' as Utopian Socialists. As the term was not defined at its outset, how exactly shall we judge what is or is not 'socialism'? To say that National Socialists were 'not socialists' is ludicrous and false. It is equally ludicrous to deny that modern socialists wish to distance themselves from their predecessor.

Socialism 'was defined, if not at the outset, then soon thereafter. In general terms, socialism is concerned with public (communal) ownership over the means of production, and social equality. In fact, the most important feature of socialism is precisely its concern (and support) for social equality. It's safe to say that any "socialists" who support hierarchy and discrimination are not socialists.

And of course modern socialists utterly despise the people who ordered the slaughter of tens of thousands of their fellow socialists! The communists and the socialists were the very first victims of the Nazi regime, coming even before the Jews. No socialist harbors anything other than intense hatred for Hitler and the nazis.

- Mihnea Tudoreanu

The article is currently structured such that somebody here is more qualified to define 'socialism' than the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party. "Other ideologies including the word "Socialism" presumes to define meaning of 'traditional socialism'.

I sincerely hope that this (protection) is a good faith effort to confront these questions at hand. User:Plain regular ham (signature added by Sam [ Spade] 16:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Hear, all ye good people, hear what these brilliant and eloquent speakers have to say! Sam [ Spade] 16:14, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, all self-appointed political titles should be taken at face value. So why isn't North Korea listed as a Democratic Republic in list of countries by system of government? _{(Yes, I'm being ironic, in case you're wondering)} -- Style 16:26, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

Thats a straw man. Nazi's wern't socialists because they happened to have "socialist" in their name, they were socialists because of their economic and social practices, controlled economy, etc... Also there is something to be said for self labeling,even if it is imperfect. Sam [ Spade] 16:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What controlled economy? The Nazis did not control their economy any more than most present-day First World nations. Likewise, their economic and social practices were discriminatory, and hailed concepts of inequality. Certainly an anti-socialist policy if I ever saw one.

- Mihnea Tudoreanu

It's not a straw man, I'm just responding to the OP's complaints that somebody here is more qualified to define 'socialism' than the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party. As for your claim that the Third Reich was socialist, rather than fascist or corporatist, why don't you put your arguments in the logical place first? -- Style 16:49, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

Why isn't North Korea listed as a Democratic Republic in list of countries by system of government? While 'Democratic' and 'Republic' had been clearly defined prior to NK's adoption of the terms, 'Socialism' was not clearly defined when National Socialists put forth their philosophy. National Socialism initially bore minimal resemblence to other philosophies which used the term 'socialism'. As it developed, 'National Socialism' took on more dissimilarity from 'Marxism', but this in no way makes 'National Socialism', 'not socialism'. 'Marxism' is not the end-all definition so 'socialism' either. Socialism is the evolution of an idea through successful and failed implementations. 'Socialism' owns all of these implementations in any honest history of the term. The probability that the Nazi's supporters were such in part due to the mention of 'socialism' (a very popular term at the time) is also a lesson which should not be ignored. -- plain_regular_ham

Right, so let me get this straight: You're arguing that the term "socialism" does NOT, in fact, have any established definition, and therefore anyone who claims to be a socialist can be considered to actually be a socialist? By this logic, the term "socialism" itself is meaningless. If the only requirement for being a socialist is to say "I'm a socialist", then socialism can mean anything, and thus it becomes a completely irrelevant term. - Mihnea Tudoreanu

We've discussed this ad nauseum in the past. Nazism appropriated the term socialism because they were trying to appeal to workers but the term "national socialism" as it was used by the Nazis was a misnomer. The Nazis were incredibly hostile to the socialist tradition and were not a product of it but of the nationalist right. Considering that socialists were the first opponents of the Nazis and their first victims your suggestion that socialist are only distancing themselves from the Nazis after the war because it was a failure is incredibly ahistorical. AndyL 15:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I do not consider Hitler's loss in WW2 to have been the failure of National Socialism. I believe that the genocide before and during the war was a measure of catastrophic failure. I am aware that this has been discussed in the past. I am also aware that "the socialist tradition" is a misnomer. National Socialism is a part of "the socialist tradition". National Socialism should be lesson from which future 'socialist' causes can learn, yet current advocates choose to dismiss the opportunity. That is not just dishonest. That is frightening.

Any casual reading of Mein Kampf will make you notice that, as far as the Nazis were concerned, the genocide before and during the war was a smashing success. "Failure" is when you don't accomplish your goals. Genocide was one of the Nazi goals, so the fact that they accomplished it is certainly not any indication of "failure" - quite the contrary.

Furthermore, since the only "socialist" thing about National Socialism was the name, I fail to see how they belong anywhere near the "socialist tradition".

And finally, what makes you think that socialists haven't learned anything from the rise of the Nazis? The Nazis killed tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of socialists, so I expect most socialists have learned to fight against Nazism with all their might, and never allow something like it to ever rise again.

- Mihnea Tudoreanu

Further, does anybody have an explanation regarding the "Hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say" line above? User:Plain regular ham (signature added by Sam [ Spade] 16:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC))

It is the long form of "hear hear". It means I enthusiastically agree. Please sign your comments, I left instructions on your talk :) Sam [ Spade] 16:19, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"National Socialism is a part of "the socialist tradition"." Assertion does not make it so. Which writers and thinkers in the socialist tradition do the Nazis draw upon? AndyL 17:24, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Which writers and thinkers in the socialist tradition did any other proclaimed socialist draw upon? I do not know which particular tome the Nazis drew their inspiration from. Short of confirmation for this, if indeed we intend to make this the qualification for 'socialist tradition', I suspect that all but a very few 'socialist' efforts will need to be added to a heap of fake socialists. If you propose a claimed predecessor as a requirement for valid use of the term, we will apply this logic across the board. This method may prove to vindicate Hitler's membership. Who knows. Shall we proceed? plain_regular_ham

"they were socialists because of their economic and social practices, controlled economy, etc" So does this mean Bismarck was a socialist too? Look, we've been over this before, the commanding heights of the economy remained in private hands under the Nazis, the only things they nationalised were the railways and that was for military purposes as part of a war economy. Indeed, munitions manufacturers etc remained in private hands. AndyL 17:24, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see you are still responding to the questions that suit you? How about "If you propose a claimed predecessor as a requirement for valid use of the term, we will apply this logic across the board."? That was an interesting idea, wasn't it? Sam [ Spade] 18:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I'm sick and tired of Kim Bruning trying to split this page up. Social Democracy and Communism are no easier to define than socialism. How do you propose to split up Communism as the stage of Anarchy to follow Socialism, from Anarchy, or from Socialism or from the statist version of Stalin? What about Stalin as opposed to Tito? Mao? How does one seperate the various multitudes of Social Democracy? What about Democratic Socialism? It's a good thing that people who know little about socialism, like Kim Bruning, to make comments because thats who this entry is for - people who want to learn. I am still not convinced that Kim has even read the entry in the many many months that he/she has urged that it be divided up. Socialism is ambiguous. Just deal and live with it. The definition here is going to reflect that reality. Why Kim associates 'simpler' with 'better', I do not know. Why Kim is hung up on the format and not the content leads me to think he/she just has too much time to make mental farts on the wiki. Splitting this page up is never going to happen, the people who have been writing this page like myself and many others would never agree to that, this proposal has NEVER gained any steam or momentum and so I must again ask WHY Kim insists on the ol' head to wall bang fest. Capone 8-5-04

Well, these other pages already exist you see (check out the disambiguation at the top of the article). I'm just proposing a split to be polite, so as to preserve people's work. In the long run, it's these heated reactions that make me think that splitting the page up will be the only way to actually end the inevitable edit wars on this page. I'm just being slow and nice about it so far. Kim Bruning 21:02, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I hate to wade back into this. Some months back we created [[ Nazism and socialism as a place to take up a very controversial claim that could merit as much space as socialism itself and which certainly is not in accord with majority scholarly opinion. Yes, this article should link there. Why is more than that needed? -- Jmabel 22:22, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Appeal to comparison: can anyone show examples of respectable reference works -- including our sister wikipedias in other languages -- that make more than a passing reference to Nazism in their articles on socialism? (This is not a rhetorical question.) Conversely, can someone assemble a list of the presumably many that do not? -- Jmabel 22:31, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

wikipedias are easy (skipping non-latin script ones (unfortunately)) (also note that I'm speed reading these, so if it's somewhere hidden in the text, I might just miss it) :

national socialism in other wikipedia socialism articles

language	bool
da	no
de	no
en	yes
eo	no
fr	no
nl	no
pt	no
sv	no

Kim Bruning 07:32, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In short, the only citation to back the article is the article itself. -- Jmabel 15:22, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Outside of the American conservative movement it's unheard of to classify or consider Nazism a form of socialism. AndyL 09:19, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Review National Socialist literature, read among others, Mein Kampf, and also rent Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will'. In Mein Kampf, Hitler states that the reason he chose the red flag as background was to Tick Off the Marxists. Chapter 7. Hitler writes "The charge of Marxism was conclusively proved when it was discovered that at our meetings we deliberately substituted the words ‘Fellow-countrymen and Women’ for ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’ and addressed each other as ‘Party Comrade’. We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims.

We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings – if only in order to break them up – so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people."

Oxymorons like 'national-socialist' are consistent with fascist, not socialist, ideology, as in the fascist slogan 'long live death'. Americans on this list are going to have to come to terms with the fact that they are, by in large, the ignorant victims of their own country's highly twisted political culture. Maybe this is why these same Americans think they can secure peace by waging war, or protect their liberties by suspending them, or earn the respect of the international community by totally snubbing it. Good day. Capone 8-8-04

The nazis and the ba'athists are no more "socialist" than, say, the Pharaos of Egypt

Now that's sneaky. Sorry Mihnea but the Ba'athists are/were not Nazis. Ba'athist political philosophy, at least as it was originally conceived, did try to meld pan-Arab nationalism with socialism (though I would argue their version of socialism was distorted and had more to do with Stalinism (though the Ba'athists persecuted members of the Iraqi Communist Party), nevertheless it was a form of socialism as the term is generally understood and I think it is fair to describe the Ba'athism as a form of socialism). Of course, most of the Ba'athist ideology was thrown out under Saddam Hussein, both the pan-Arabism (in any meaningful sense) and the socialism - Husseintook over the party and Iraq with the help of the US but that's another story. Anyway, contrary to your claim that socialists try to run away from anything that didn't work out or was unpopular I have no problem putting Ba'athism in the socialist tradition (though in the authoritarian, Stalinist vein). This isn't because I like Ba'athism or Saddam Hussein and dislike Nazism, in fact I detest Saddam and see Ba'athism as a failure. Rather, the reason I would accept Ba'athism and reject Nazism as being broadly "socialist" is that the former is in the socialist tradition while the latter clearly is not, regardless of the misnomer. I personally detest Stalinism (indeed, my family suffered under Stalinism in Romania), but I nevertheless accept that it is descended from the socialist tradition whereas Nazism isn't for reasons explained ad nauseum elsewhere. AndyL 18:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add the links ast:socialismu, ca:socialisme & es:socialismo Llull 21:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Certainly! Go for it. This isn't the kind of thing you need to ask about, I do it all the time. -- Jmabel 22:25, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Is there still need for protection? David.Monniaux 11:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's hard to say. If (1) User:plain_regular_ham or someone else still wants to insist that the Nazis were socialists, rather than that they co-opted some socialist rhetoric and even a few substantive programs or (2) User:Sam Spade or someone else still wants to insist that anyone who believes in a significant government role in the economy is ipso facto a socialist, then we still have a problem. I, for one, am prepared to revert assertions to this effect. I don't mind having the article mention that some (specifically cited, known, published) people believe those things, but it should be clear that they are minority views among scholars and that these assertions do not belong in the narrative voice of the article. -- Jmabel 23:13, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

... so it would be very useful if User:plain_regular_ham and User:Sam Spade would signal their intentions in the event that the page is unprotected... -- Jmabel 00:23, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

yO. I intend to do what I always have, which is insist that the Nazi's were socialist because... they were. You can point out reasons why you think they weren’t, I can point out reasons why they were, but it doesn't matter. There is no consensus on the definition of socialism yet, and the article is going to continue to suck until we have one. I strongly recommend against unprotection until consensus is achieved in talk, and find statements like "I, for one, am prepared to revert" disquietingly anti-wiki, and perhaps even fascist in nature. We need no page tyrants here. Lets find consensus before we unprotect. Sam [ Spade] 00:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

yO. I intend to do what I always have, which is insist that the Nazi's were socialist because... they were.

See Begging the question.

"I, for one, am prepared to revert" disquietingly anti-wiki, and perhaps even fascist in nature.

Calling a fellow editor a "fascist" is a personal attack. It also rather denudes the concept of fascism and is thus insulting to the victims of fascism. Please place more care in the invectives you choose to hurl. AndyL 01:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Calling another editor a fascist is indeed a personal attack. Why you feel a need to mention it should be confusing, but isn't. Lets stick to the issues and refrain from threatening and attempting to intimidate one another. Sam [ Spade] 02:19, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I feel a need to mention it because you loosely used the term fascist to describe another editor's comments. Coming from a family that lived under fascism I find the fast and loose use of this term regrettable as I do the habit of some people to loosely accuse others of "fascism" because they say something you don't like. I'm glad you concede that doing so is a personal attack. Please refrain from making such comments in future. AndyL 02:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam, do I understand your comment above to say that I am a fascist? Minus the weasel-word "perhaps", that is how I read it. (Let me know if I am misreading you, but it sure seems clear to me.) Are you seriously asserting that a paragraph that included the sentence "I don't mind having the article mention that some (specifically cited, known, published) people believe those things, but it should be clear that they are minority views among scholars and that these assertions do not belong in the narrative voice of the article" displays a fascistic attitude? If so, I suppose it's no wonder you seem to have trouble seeing the distinction between fascists and socialists... -- Jmabel 05:12, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

"I intend to do what I always have, which is insist that the Nazi's were socialist because... they were." - Just because they called themselves "National Socialists" doesn't mean they were socialists. The "National" part was more integral in their philosophy. You can, perhaps, point to similarities if you'd like, but Socialism and Fascism are by no means the same, and an encyclopedia should make that quite clear. -- Tothebarricades.tk 05:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, American conservatives prefer the political expediency of linking socialism to Nazism to an actual analysis of the different ideologies involved. I don't know if conservatives outside the US are just smarter than their American bretheren or if the unfamiliarity that most Americans have with socialism makes it easier for Americans to fall for superficial comparisons. AndyL 06:14, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Response

Firstly, the odds of Jmabel being a fascist are quite unlikely, and I never ment to insinuate that in any way, neither as a pejorative, nor in a literal sense.

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that AndyL is insinuating that a) I am a conservative, b) American conservatives are unintelligent, and c) that I am a homosexual [1]. These are real ad hominems, and quite different from my point that "I, for one, am prepared to revert" is an anti-wiki, and perhaps even fascistic statement. Do you notice how I was referring to the statement made, the concept, and not the person?

Let us all divorce our disagreements regarding factual particulars and political interpretations from the sort of personal attacks and ugly ad hominem insinuations which have so long prevented progress in articles of this type. Debate the subject, not the personalities. Sam [ Spade] 17:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I was speaking of American conservativism in general and its habit of associating Nazism with socialism, something other conservatives don't do. Please don't be so grandiose as to see yourself as synonymous with the American conservative movement as a whole. As for whether or not you're gay or bisexual, I don't know, I don't care, you do seem to have an obsession with homosexuality however and that has been found to be an indicator of possible latent or repressed homosexual feelings. That's not an "ad hominem" by any stretch of the imagination and if you do have some latent homosexual feelings it's nothing to be ashamed of - you should try to stop sublimating them through homophobia, however. You did once suggest, however, that I should "get a girlfriend" in order to "relieve tension". Perhaps you should get a boyfriend? AndyL 17:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is all very funny. Given that only USAians want to think National-socialism is a form of socialism, maybe we should all tune into great American scholars like Rush Limbaugh and hear the truth that the rest of the world's people have been missing. Capone 8-20-2004

Let us all divorce our disagreements regarding factual particulars and political interpretations from the sort of personal attacks and ugly ad hominem insinuations which have so long prevented progress in articles of this type. Debate the subject, not the personalities.

Sam, that statement might sound sincere if it wasn't for the fact that it was made *after* you insinuated that an editor was being fascistic. I laud your advocacy of civility. I mourn your ongoing failure to follow your own advice. If you're going to make the sort of statement you make above you should at least preface it with an apology. AndyL 03:20, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PLEASE. David.Monniaux 08:32, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam, how exactly is it anti-wiki for me to say I am prepared to revert an unsourced assertion of something I believe to be false? As I said before, and I seem to need to keep repeating, minority views among scholars do not belong in the narrative voice of the article. I believe that is actualy wikipedia policy, though I haven't spent enough time perusing policy documents to cite it. So let us try to clarify what the dispute is about putting this in the narrative voice of the article. Sam: do you believe that it is in accord with wikipedia policy to put minority opinion into the article unsourced? Or do you feel that it is majority scholarly opinion that the Nazis were socialists? Or is something else going on here, and if so what? -- Jmabel 15:17, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Inclusion of minority POV

The inclusion of verifiable minority (even fringe) POV is the very basis of NPOV. Read up on it sometime. Sam [ Spade] 17:05, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From the NOV policy: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." -- Spleeman 22:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view as being correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to imply that popularity implies correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange. [2]

Sam [ Spade] 00:40, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So which group, exactly, in your opinion believes that the Nazis were socialist and can you provide citations or polls to prove it? (And don't shout.) -- style 01:10, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

(edit conflict w/ AndyL, sorry if any of this is redundant)

Sam, I will ask you once again and try to reword as clearly as I can:

Do you feel majority (ore even widespread) scholarly opinion is that the Nazis were socialists? Or are we in agreement that what you wish to place in the article is a minority view?

I still think this view is so narrowly held as to merit about the one sentence it currently gets in the article, with an appropriate link to a separate article where the issue is discussed, but perhaps (a) that one sentence could be reworded in a way that is more mutually agreeable or (b) in the interest of consensus we could add one well-cited paragraph on each side of the issue. I would strenuously object turning any large part of an encyclopedia article on socialism into a discussion of this side issue. Neither you nor anyone else has given even one example of a respectable (or even a not-so-respectable) general reference work that does so; I can point to Britannica and all the other-language Wikipedias as examples of not doing so. -- Jmabel 01:28, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

James Gregor has long insisted that fascism was actually a left wing ideology. Sam [ Spade] 05:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gregor also thinks that racial segregation and eugenics are good things. In any case, whether or not Gregor thinks fascism is "left wing" is irrelevent to an article on socialism as Gregor does not think fascism is a form of socialism. BTW, while Gregor argues fascism is left wing he also argues that Nazism is right wing. AndyL 05:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I guess I wouldn't know, I hadn't heard of him until I read his wiki-article. How about Hannah Arendt? Sam [ Spade] 05:24, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Go to the library and sign out a copy of her Origins of Totalitarianism. The best way to find out what someone thought is to read what they wrote. Don't think you'd like her though since she didn't think Nazism was a form of socialism. AndyL 05:39, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arendt liked to run with a racist Nazi here, and a reconstructed Marxist there. Is it polite to suggest that like many people her thoughts followed what was between her legs? That someone can have some sex with a fascist doctor and a near-communist one dosen't really establish a link between Fascism and Socialism. Capone 8-24-04

By "run with" do you mean "married"? I gather the near-communist you have in mind in this screed is Heinrich Blücher, whom she wed in 1940. Was it somehow suspect of her to have sex with her husband? I get the Heidegger reference, of course, but this sort of evasion of someone's thought by critizining their marital and/or extra-marital choices illustrates Arendt's concept of "banality" pretty well. -- Christofurio 16:06, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Sam, Arendt was very fond of the concept of totalitarianism covering certain extremes of both left and right, but I've read quite a bit of her work and can't think of anywhere she describes the Nazis as "socialist". Capone, I've never seen you make similar comments about who a male had as lovers. I presume you are referring to Heiddegger in the one case and I'm not even going to conjecture on the other. Still, this seems a very inappropriate remark. I think it is neither "polite" nor accurate to suggest that her thoughts followed what was between her legs: it's not like she "let off" either communism or nazism/fascism at all easily in her writings. -- Jmabel 21:50, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Only because I am familiar with Arendt's writing do I make these remarks. It very very much matters who one wishes to be around in their life, and what one thinks. On banality, Arendt is dead wrong. It is banal to be against banality for anti-banality's sake. One look at where the beatnik/hippy/punk rock cultural movements produced as far as cliches go can sum up what I'm saying basically.

Capone, I'm sure you meant something by these last two sentences, but, frankly, they are incoherent. Could you please rephrase this so that we have a clue what you mean to say? -- Jmabel 17:51, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Where Arendt ended up was a hypocrite whose contribution to a serious discussion on totalitarianism amounts to very little. In striving not to be banal, she did things considered banal in the intellegencia. Why Jmabel has a problem with this, I do not know. Perhaps people are offended with the idea that people's personal relationships somehow effect their politics. What a stretch! My own ideas about Arendt are that she confused the general backwardness of the times re women's oppression, and the often chauvinistic views that many men of all political stripes were bound to have; in short, the way she was treated by her fascist and communist male relations had an impact on her views on fascism and communism. The real issue was male chauvinism and she thought it was the sometimes unrelated ideas that these chauvinists had. AND YET I AM ACCUSED OF MALE CHAUVINISM for pointing this out?!? Yes, there are virulent strains of anti-semitism and male chauvinism which are obvious in both Stalinism and Nazism. But there is no such anti-semitism in Mussolini's Fascism or Marx's Socialism. Many jews were important players in the Fascist Party, and pre-fascist intellectual groups from the early 1900's through the 1920's and early 30's, until the formal alliance with Germany in 1938 in which Italy had to adopt Germany's racial hygeine laws. Arendt is dead wrong that there is anything inherently anti-semitic in Marx's essay on "The Jewish Question", in which Marx says that the only possible way to end anti-semitism is for Jews to give up on Judaism and go secular. Missing from Arendt's analysis of Marx's view is that he called on Christians to give up on Christianity as well. Besides, these were early writings in which Marx was still more of a Hegelian and was concerned here with the perfection of the state, not the overthrow of the state and the building of a revolutionary society free of any state whatsoever that he is famous for.

Importantly, it isn't because of her hypocrisy between her personal and intellectual life that I draw the conclusion that her analysis is bad. It is from the fact that her analysis is bad based upon my own reading of her work that the hypocricy between her personal romantic choices and her stated views becomes both interesting and relevent. I read what she wrote before getting into her biography. What can others say along these lines? I have no interest in discussing Arendt other than that she is by no means an authority on fascism or communism, and do not think her historically insignifant analysis of communism and fascism belong on this page. Capone 9-7-04

wow, whats up w all these ad hominem attacks on figures of authority? I find it amusing that she had sex w persons of various politics, if it is true. I don't however find it relevant to her expertise, nor the value of her commentary. Sam [ Spade] 01:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

She's accused of being somewhat hypocritical in her writings on Heiddegger who she's thought of being something of an apologist for in regards to his fascist leanings. AndyL 04:34, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes exactly what I'm getting at. Thanks Andy Capone 9-7-04

That's not all that you were "getting at" though. Because you initially treated her relations with Heidegger as somehow equivalent to her relations with her husband. Is it scandalous for a married couple to have sex now? -- Christofurio 00:52, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

In terms of the more substantive questions here (rather than scurrilous sexual attacks), my understanding of Arendt is that she sees both Stalinist Communism and Nazism as forms of "totalitarianism," but that she sees them as arising out of different initial ideologies - the former out of marxian socialism, the latter out of anti-semitic racism. john k 04:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wow...just plain ol' "wow".

This discussion has certainly devolved. It needs to be resolved (i.e. get the page unprotected), and everyone seems to be a bit batty about the whole thing...so forget about Hannah Arendt and whoever it is she slept with for a moment, and get down to whatever the hell this is all about.

Belief that "national socialism" is a form of socialism is a minority view. Period. So what's the problem? Obviously the lines that started this whole quagmire were mind bendingly POV ("catastrophic failures of the past" and what not), but it is a view held by a small minority. But...the minority view should be expressed in some way...however, it should be stated that it is the minority view, and that it holds little ground...none of this "distance themselves" crap. I'm sure it could be put into the article without POV and without misleading anyone.

The Nazis did co-opt several socialistic policies...BUT, many of these were dropped from national socialist idealogy and were never used after the left leaning memembers of the party (e.g. Roehm and Strasser) were murdered on the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler was an anti semite after all, and using policies espoused by Marx (who was Jewish (DUH!)) would have been unthinkable. I'm sure all of this has been said before, but we may as well go over the facts.

Nazism and totalitarian communism don't fall far from each other...but that doesn't make nazism socialistic because it claims a few leftist policies and then runs the state with its nuts in a vice...it's the equivalant of saying that the British National Party is "socialist" because their economic policies are more left than the current Labour Party administration. That's just my opinion, which (opinion) is what we want to avoid here.

So you see why I'm just not seeing what the problem is...anywho...I'm just trying to get the pot stirred up again, and get this resolved. That's all I have to say, as I have no interrest in engaging fully in this bemusing argument. Quit attacking each other, get Arendt's sex life out of your minds, relax, think "calm blue ocean" or "serenity now" (whatever)...and engage in civilised debate. Yossarian 06:40, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

In the introduction to this article:

Other variants of Socialism include Marxism, Communism, Anarchism, and Libertarian Socialism

Does Anarchism really belong in this list as a form of socialism? As a political ideology it has things in common with socialism, but in theory and practise it differs enough from socialism that I wouldn't call it a variant of socialism.

Since libertarian socialism is also mentioned as a variant of socialism, which could be described as a intersection between socialism and anarchism, I propose to remove anarchism from this list of variants. -- Martin Wisse 10:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anarcho-syndicalism is surely a form of socialism, isn't it? john k 16:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of socialism and, more specifically, it's a form of libertarian socialism. To say "anarchism, and libertarian socialism" is definitely redundant. One of them should go. - Nat Kraus e 16:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In English-language usage, "libertarian" is somewhat misleading here. If we are going to change, it should probably be "Marxism, Communism, and some forms of Anarchism."

I think that it misleading without highlighting the differences between anarchists and socialists, and especially between anarchists and communists. They might all fit under a broader "power to the people" sort of ideology but in vastly different ways. -- Tothebarricades.tk 19:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Certainly there is a sharp differentiation between anarchists and communists. I would point precisely to 1848 as the point where these two ideologies diverge. But I would content that that 'broader "power to the people" sort of ideology' is socialism. Can we perhaps say, "Marxism, Communism, and Social Anarchism"? I think it is very important to indicate up front that socialism and anarchism have an intersection: I would contend, in fact, that Marx and Engels' (perhaps token) embrace of "the withering away of the state" is a nod precisely to sharing an essentially anarchist vision of the "good society", even if they believed in a radically different path to get there.

I can see that this is going to be one of these places where we can't please everyone. I'm open to other possibilities, but I am concerned to see acknowledgment early in the article that anarchism and socialism overlap as polictical currents. -- Jmabel 23:24, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I like the proposal to change it to "Marxism, Communism, and some forms of Anarchism", perhaps with the example of libertarian socialism. I agree it is important to acknowledge the shared history of anarchy and socialism, but some emphasis must also be placed on the fact that the modern forms of both are distinct ideologies. -- Martin Wisse 14:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edited the phrase accordingly, if someone thinks more needs to be said in the body of the article, go for it. -- Jmabel 17:29, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I added "(Note: Anarchism is loosely similar to Socialism in that it rejects the capitalist system, but has a number of stark differences with Socialist theories (particularly "centrally planned" or "State" socialism, as opposed to "libertarian socialism"); Most anarchists would reject being called "Socialists")." I think, personally, that it's important to note this. If anyone disagrees, or think that I'm overspecifying, speak up ;) -- Tothebarricades.tk 18:13, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can anyone substantiate the claim that 'most' anarchists do not consider themselves socialists? There are as many shades of anarchism as there are socialism and communism, and many or most of the anarchist trends shade either loosely or directly into communism/socialism.

You can only resolve this with a poll. I doubt that most anarchists in the United States consider themselves socialists. The subsets of the libertarian, christian and objectivists that tend towards the anarchial extreme, reject coercion, which is a necessary component for maintaining all but the most utopian socialism.-- Silverback 10:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Many or even most anarchists agree with Marx on his analysis of capitalism, the working class as the agent of change, the nature of class society, and the theory of historical materialism. Many anarchists would point to the difference with Marx being over the questions revolving around the leadership of the 1st International and the question of authority and leadership itself. Here they side with Bakunin. But given that Bakunin and others simultaneously considered themselves anarchists, socialists, and communists, well, I'm not sure that one particular anarchist editor on the wiki not wishing to be 'confused' with socialism is enough to substantiate this sort of claim in an encyclopedia entry. Anarchism = Communism/Socialism without the transition of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, going directly from the final stage of capitalist development to full fledge socialism-communism (as opposed to Leninist [two-stage] Socialism or the society laid out by Marx as a transitional regime in 'Critique of the Gotha Programme'). Capone 02:13, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)