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.

I have reworked the following sentence:

Also, there is concern that socialism advocates equality in material wealth over equality in liberty.

As follows:

Also, market liberals frequently argue that the more equitable distribution of wealth advocated by socialists can only be achieved by a corresponding reduction in political freedoms.

The reason it needed a rework IMO is that socialism does not "advocate equality in material wealth" as far as I am aware. Only the more radical forms of socialism advocate that. Socialism in general just advocates a more equitable redistribution of income. So the phrase as it stood was not quite accurate.

Secondly, socialists definitely do not "advocate equality in material wealth over equality in liberty". I think you'd find no shortage of socialists who would vehemently disagree with that construction.

So basically what I've tried to do is rework the sentence so that it still reflects the previous editor's intentions without misrepresenting the position of socialists. Hope this meets with everyone's approval. Gatoclass 05:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Equitable" is a POV term. The distribution of wealth that socialists want is not necessarily equitable (meaning fair). Wealth inequality can be very equitable to someone who favors a system where people are rewarded according to their production and are allowed to get rich from it. By the way, communist models do advocate equal wealth --everything is owned collectively. No private property translates into everyone owning an equal share of everything. RJII 05:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems a little nitpicky but I understand what you're saying. However, your substitution does not read very clearly. Care to have another go? Gatoclass 05:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the word you were looking for was "egalitarian." RJII 05:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just went back and changed "equitable" to "even". It makes the sentence a little more readable and, I think, eliminates the cause of your concern. Regards, Gatoclass 05:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not entirely happy with "egalitarian" because I don't think all socialists believe in economic "egalitarianism", ie same outcomes for everyone. Rather, there is a belief in the importance of income redistribution from rich to poor to see that the gap does not grow too wide. That isn't properly described as "egalitarian".

Therefore, I've substituted "even" for "egalitarian", which I think should satisfy both our POV's. Also, I've reverted the phrase "the socialist advocacy" because there is no such thing. There are many different socialist advocacies, not just one, as the article as a whole explains. Gatoclass 06:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to include a summary of this edit on the history page.

Just a minor edit to fix a couple of typos, and to remove the bolded phrase from the following paragraph:

Criticism from all parties ranges from disagreements over the efficiency of socialist economic and political models, to condemnation of states described by themselves or others as 'socialist'; of the latter, there is much focus on the human rights records of communist states, though these critics are believed to view communism and socialism as the same entity.

Since "these critics" obviously refer to a wide range of different critics (see previous paragraph), there is no justification for claiming that they all "view communism and socialism as the same entity". Indeed I'm quite sure there are plenty of critics of communism's human rights abuses who do NOT view communism and socialism as the same entity. In fact, I could probably count myself as one of them.

I never said that all critics of Socialism view Socialism and Communism as the same entity, but some of them do, and I posted this sentence because it is not fair game (in my opinion) to criticise socialism by attacking the record of communist countries. Again, Communism and Socialism are not the same.

Also, I have omitted what I felt to be a straw man fallacy. It was a reference by Albert Einstein in which he stated that socialists "reject individualism". This cannot be applied to the entire ideology, therefore, it is at best a POV.

-English Efternamn

I posted this sentence because it is not fair game (in my opinion) to criticise socialism by attacking the record of communist countries.

If so, then I'm afraid your contribution has had the opposite effect, because it only underscores the idea that there is no difference between the two. The earlier edit emphasized that the states most commonly associated with human rights abuses are communist states, which seems appropriate to me. Gatoclass 04:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: I decided to delete the above phrase again, on the assumption that you will recognize it is not having the intended effect on readers (since it had the very opposite effect on me). Regards, Gatoclass 05:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that everyone's basic needs should be met. That's a little simplistic but as far as I can tell, there is no Version of socialism that fits. Is this a new thing, where the particulars of how that's to be carried out are a seperate issue? Is this covered under some other more philisophical than political name? Please let me know, or perhaps it's time to remove the baggage from "socialism" and let it be important for humanist rather than historical reasons.

Please respond: Advocate@gmail.com

I think this article should start wiht a dictionary definition so that the topic is known. As for your question the welfare state was a (german 19th century) compromise between capitalism and socialism created for that purpose 71.192.98.234 23:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"while Nazis rejected the internationalism, egalitarianism and social class-oriented perspective of the socialists. (See: Nazism and Socialism)."

Nazism and Socialism no longer exists. Though I should also note the bias noted before, that Nazis didn't reject "social class-oriented perspectives" of socialists. As in Triumph of the Will where Hitler states "There must be no class distinctions among our people; never let such notions take root among you." echoed many times like in Dieter Schwarz's critque of Freemasonry in an SS publication; "National Socialism stands for unconditional duty and responsibility. The world view of National Socialism is Nordic; that of the Freemason is Asiatic-Jewish. The National Socialistic position is racially conscious; that of the lodges, anti-racial and pro-Jewish. The communality of National Socialism is the living feature of racially related types, the racial community, not the caste system and clique of interests of the bourgeoisie organized in the lodges. National Socialism contrasts an unconditional racial nationalism against the cosmopolitan internationalism of Freemasonry". Any similar Nazi quote is the same on matter of their ideology; anti-bourgeoisie, anti-monarchist. Pro-egalitarian within their own nationality. A reduction to equality of a racial matter; i.e. making everyone racially equal, can be seen as the whole rational of Nazism down to the holocaust. Certainly not Leninist, but more socialist inspired than Italian Fascist inspired for certain. Nagelfar 17:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good point. Go ahead and add it :) -- infinity 0 13:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. I would agree that yes, as with many ideologies across the board, there are common themes. But, even if you can resolve the two (racial) as ideologically egalitarian, the Nazis took completely different approaches: insofar as you're arguing the Nazis were for redistribution, the approach to the issue of race consistent with this would be to encourage, not ban intermarriage. Conversely, had the Nazis taken the same approach to poverty that they had with race, then they would have simply culled anyone who wasn't already well off to begin with. I've tried to make the claim less strong. I think what we really have here is that Nazism shares with many doctrines of socialism a prior notion of austerity, from influences like Sparta and Stoicism, and Nazi leaders used any links with socialism for maximum effect on audiences with socialist sympathies (any claim by a politician that can further their own goals, particularly when made in a propaganda effort, is suspect). 'Bourgeois values' have been attacked by democratic revolutionaries and conservative aristocrats alike since the time of imperial Rome and before; it's hardly evidence for socialism. That said, the evidence might be worth including and discussing in the Fascism and ideology page -- Nema Fakei 16:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that socialism's class views are based on the idea that there are several contending classes, thus, class struggle. Nazism takes a holistic approach to society, what we could call organic, and considers that there are several classes, that this is well, and that they must cooperate within the framework of the Volksreich. I copy some text from the translator's note to Mein Kampf to illustrate this point. "Another word I have often left standing in the original is völkisch. The basic word here is Volk, which is sometimes translated as People; but the German word, Volk, means the whole body of the people without any distinction of class or caste. It is a primary word also that suggests what might be called the basic national stock. Now, after the defeat in 1918, the downfall of the Monarchy and the destruction of the aristocracy and the upper classes, the concept of Das Volk came into prominence as the unifying co-efficient which would embrace the whole German people. Hence the large number of völkisch societies that arose after the war and hence also the National Socialist concept of unification which is expressed by the word Volksgemeinschaft, or folk community. This is used in contradistinction to the Socialist concept of the nation as being divided into classes. Hitler's ideal is the Völkischer Staat, which I have translated as the People's State." Emphasis mine. Eulen 19:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Marxism was the branch of socialism devoted to class conflict. The perception of egalitarianism through Nazisms "organic" view of society as you put it, coupled with the opposition to class consciousness that there was in the Nazi ideology, is analogous to a socialist substrata in their belief that opposed the capitalist mode or production. This was in direct contrast to Marx's concept of the matter that classes must war to achieve a social class equality or "socialistic" condition of society, but not at all in contrast to a socialist desired framework that such a socialistic condition of society could or should be reached. Nagelfar 01:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. By the way, the word organic isn't an invention of mine, it was often used by fascists and nazis. I quote again from mein Kamp. "The founding of the National Socialist German Labour Party incited a movement which was the first to fix its aim, not in a mechanical restoration of the past - as the bourgeois parties did - but in the substitution of an organic People's State for the present absurd statal mechanism." Organic here doesn't mean, as you seem to suggest, socialist or egalitarian. This seems to be a common misunderstanding. Organic means that each member of the body politic has their function, ones to serve and ones to lead. there's no equality involved anywhere in there, only the proposal that each person takes their proper position in the body that is the State, and functions for the common benefit. I can see why you could claim Nazism to be collectivist, but not socialist. Eulen 15:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I added some content which should help, and generally overhauled the " Socialism#Other_ideologies_including_the_word_.22socialism.22" section. Sam Spade 11:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the socialism article is to discuss things that are common to all forms of socialism. Controversies about specific ideologies and their relationships with socialism should be placed in the articles on those specific ideologies - or, if the controversies are too lengthy, they should be split off in articles of their own. Sam, you copied and pasted a large volume of text into this article; so large, in fact, that a huge chunk of the article supposedly on "socialism" ended up being devoted to "other ideologies including the word 'socialism'". That is clearly inappropriate - and since the text was copied and pasted, you can't accuse me of reverting your hard work. Each of those controversial ideologies including the word 'socialism' should get about a one-paragraph summary here, and a link to other articles where they are discussed more in-depth. In particular, I think we should restore the old article on Nazism in relation to other concepts. -- Nikodemos 11:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In connection with the above, I wish to suggest that we move around a few sections of this article so as to deal with general socialist ideas first and specific branches of socialism second. And while we're writing a paragraph about each of the ideologies that are controversially associated with socialism, we should also write at least that much about those ideologies that are universally regarded as socialist (e.g. social democracy, communism, etc). -- Nikodemos 12:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The new structure that I propose is the following:

• Socialism

  Needs a longer intro that explains the common themes present in all forms of socialism.

  • Development of socialist thought

    A summarized version of the main article history of socialism.

  • Socialist systems and societies

    A section covering most of what is now covered by "Socialist theory": Descriptions of the different kinds of societies that different socialists call "socialism".

  • Branches of socialism

    A section covering the accepted branches of socialism with at least one paragraph for each major category. The categories are:

    • Democratic socialism
    • Social democracy
    • Marxism
      • Leninism
    • Libertarian socialism
    • Christian socialism
    • Other branches
  • Socialism and other ideologies

    A section covering the relationship between socialism and ALL major ideologies (not just Nazism but also liberalism, conservatism and so on) with about one paragraph for each ideology.

  • -- The remainder of the article should stay unchanged --

I disagree regarding the ideologies claimed by some (or many, in the case of nazism) to be socialist. They need to be handled very differently from ideologies nobody considers to be socialist. Have a look at how the article now stands and tell me what you think. Sam Spade 15:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Every ideology (with the exception of libertarianism, probably) is considered by someone to be "socialist". You are going too far in accomodating every fringe view. Nazism doesn't deserve more than a paragraph here - certainly not its own subsection - because controversies of the form "is A a kind of B?" should be covered in articles dealing with A, not in articles dealing with B. -- Nikodemos 16:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Way too long for this article, and much of what you added was fringe POV and irrelevant. You may want to consider starting a new article, Ideologies containing the word socialist, because this article is supposed to be about normal forms of socialism. Dedicating half the article to non-socialism wastes space and clarity. -- infinity 0 16:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Here, take this towel, your POV is showing. Sam Spade 23:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of altering the old introduction, since it seemed to be rather like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark.

-- Train guard 16:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think putting the disputed idelogies into "types of socialism" is POV. I am OK now, after making some changes to the structure, but I still do not know where "differences between schools" should go. In "theory", or in "types"? -- infinity 0 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should start with a dictionary definition so that the topic of the article is well defined. I always thought of socialism as a way to link the economy to political planners; i.e. mainly an economic theory. The most common form of socialism is 'international socialism' which is the probably the version of socialism most people identify with. But not everyone sings the 'internationale'; nationalistic socialism is a definite strain of socialist thought. Many would be socialists are very interested in promoting the peculiar culture of the nation, nazi and baath can fairly be considered part of this class, depending on the defintion offered for socialism. Mrdthree 23:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

(I am putting my comments in brackets.)

I think the article should start with a dictionary definition so that the topic of the article is well defined.

(Why? What is so special about a dictionary definition? Who relies upon dictionary definitions in academic or other forms of discourse? Is this some American affectation?)

I always thought of socialism as a way to link the economy to political planners; i.e. mainly an economic theory.

(I'm afraid that that is not the case. Most socialists, throughout history, would say that the economic dimension grows out of a philosophical statement about the nature of man.)

The most common form of socialism is 'international socialism' which is the probably the version of socialism most people identify with.

(I have no idea what you mean by "international socialism". Do you mean marxism? What?)

But not everyone sings the 'internationale'; nationalistic socialism is a definite strain of socialist thought.

(I think that you mean 'social democracy.)

Many would be socialists are very interested in promoting the peculiar culture of the nation, nazi and baath can fairly be considered part of this class,

(Look, the Nazis were not socialists. Name me one reputable poltical theorist or historian who suggests that they were.)

depending on the defintion offered for socialism. Mrdthree 23:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am now going to add my contribution once more. Please do not revert it.

-- Train guard 11:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your contribution is the second paragraph. Please READ the changes before you think they have been deleted. -- infinity 0 11:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I meant 'put it in its proper place' so that it makes sense. Which I hope that I have done.

-- Train guard 11:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A succinct definition first is better; otherwise readers get bored. -- infinity 0 11:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if you are putting (in my opinion) the cart before the horse? There is surely a confusion of ends and means here. Socialism is, first and foremost, a view of the nature of man. That man is not a finite entity but capable of improvement. That is the end in view. All else, including perhaps the notion of social justice, are but means to that end. There is no point whatsoever in talking about distributive justice, notions of exploitation, or economic systems, unless that is established first and foremost. I really want my version back where it was, butnot out of arrogance - I genuinely believe it to be right. But I will not change it. Instead, I hope to convince you that this is the best arrangement. (Being English, I am prone to the Pelagian Heresy. Bear with me....)

-- Train guard 13:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your version might be the more "logical" one in that it starts of with premises and concludes into socialism, but that's actually POV, since you're asserting that the logic is correct. We should say what socialism is, then explain what it might follow from - it's the wrong order, yes, but avoids asserting a specific starting point. Most readers, when they read the page, just want to know what socialism is, without getting tangled in the details. -- infinity 0 13:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't POV. Socialist thinkers from Robert Owen to Karl Marx have all begun with a philosophical view that the nature of man is not fixed or finite, but is changeable. This is in contrast to the religious concept of 'original' or birth sin and the Hobbesian view of human nature. And this is entangled with a defintion of social justice, for without this, change cannot be undertaken. Now that is what socialism is, which is presumably what people want to know. It is not a premise. It is the thing itself. The next section, which flows from it, deals with process, or (if you like) how socialism is to be implemented. Please do not be so dogmatic in your thinking, or influenced by American approaches to this concept that leave a great deal to be desired.

-- Train guard 10:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with America. Yes, we can explain how socialism was created and what the creators theorised, but not in the intro - the intro should give a brief description of what socialism is. You could elaborate on it in the "socialist ideology" section. If you can provide a few sources which show that "Socialist thinkers from Robert Owen to Karl Marx have all begun with a philosophical view that the nature of man is not fixed or finite, but is changeable," that would be very good. -- infinity 0 11:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

But that is what socialism is! My version of the introduction is a definition. It is not an explanation of why socialism was created. Why you cannot perceive that is a complete mystery to me.

As to the other matters, I suggest that you refer readers to Owen's 'A New View of Society' or any decent exposition of Marx. (Such as the recent biography by Francis Wheen).

-- Train guard 12:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a paraphrase (perhaps) of the OED definition of socialims: "A theory of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all. " Etymology is French and initially coined in 1832 to contrast with individualism (personnalité). http://dictionary.oed.com/. THis is the online OED, which revises itself. last printed version is OED2. This is the citation form they reccomend:The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. 4 Apr. 2000 < http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50229733>.

MS Encarta Intro paragraph: "Socialism, economic and social doctrine, political movement inspired by this doctrine, and system or order established when this doctrine is organized in a society. The socialist doctrine demands state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and distribution of wealth, to be achieved by reconstruction of the existing capitalist or other political system of a country through peaceful, democratic, and parliamentary means. The doctrine specifically advocates nationalization of natural resources, basic industries, banking and credit facilities, and public utilities. It places special emphasis on the nationalization of monopolized branches of industry and trade, viewing monopolies as inimical to the public welfare. It also advocates state ownership of corporations in which the ownership function has passed from stockholders to managerial personnel. Smaller and less vital enterprises would be left under private ownership, and privately held cooperatives would be encouraged." http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577990/Socialism.html Mrdthree 23:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

COntrasting definitions paraphrased from OED:

capitalism: private ownership of teh means of production.

communism: A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership... the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants.

communalist, an adherent of the Commune of Paris of 1871, a supporter of the principle of the communal organization of society.

authoritarian-Favourable to the principle of authority as opposed to that of individual freedom.

fascist-the advocacy of a particular viewpoint or practice in a manner perceived as intolerant or authoritarian.

Market- medium of exchange reflecting interaction of supply and demand OED views market as a capitalism vs. socialism neutral concept. Mrdthree 00:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the intro a little bit, and merged two paragraphs which basically said the same thing. It's not always a government which controls the MOP - eg. in lib socialism, there is no government. -- infinity 0 10:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Mrdthree, could you give the links to the MSN Encarta source, and the edition of the OED you are using? We could add them as inline sources in the article. -- infinity 0 10:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I put in links above to the sources I used. The oed is not public access though. Mrdthree 15:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That's OK; it doesn't have to be accesible via the web - so long as we know what edition it's from. I'd like to eventually source the entire article with inline sources, so that this can become a featured article. -- infinity 0 15:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In the intro, the only thing I dont like is having qualifier in the first sentence-- the stuff in poarantheses. If most socialist theories have a political component, incorporate into 'political' into the sentence (it is the popular understanding in america). Mrdthree 15:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, it'll be hard to rearrange it that way. How about putting the stuff in commas, instead of parentheses? -- infinity 0 15:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Tried it didnt like it. I'll research it later. Though I think teh first sentence could be split into two sentences somehow. Mrdthree 15:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting to the previous version, because your new version makes it seem like the ends of the political theory is the state (which it isn't always), and it also takes away the point that the word itself can also mean the political theory. -- infinity 0 16:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but my point is there are two articles. The OED doesnt mention the government, the Encarta does. I was thinking divide it into two sentences. Mrdthree 16:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

TBH, Encarta isn't a very good source. If it thinks government is a defining aspect of socialism, then it is wrong. -- infinity 0 16:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you could find a mainstream source in america that doesnt mention the government. In fact the more I look into it there is a differnce in meaning between UK and US, canadian and australian sites tend to favor american definitions although dictionaries indigenous to these countries seem scarce. 'public' appears in place of government ownership in some cases. Mrdthree 16:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not the difference in meaning between countries - I would probably guess that the MSN Encarta is written by someone more biased. They forget anti-government forms of socialism such as libertarian socialism and anarchism. -- infinity 0 17:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say "public" is more correct than government. -- infinity 0 17:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough then thanks. Mrdthree 17:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

if there is to be aPOV dispute, it needs to be articulated. 17:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the controversial ideologies that have been labeled as "socialism" should go into the Socialism and other ideologies section, and that section should only discuss these ideologies. After all, the only "other ideologies" that should be discussed in an article about socialism are those that have some claimed relationship with socialism. -- Nikodemos 17:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, putting "Baathism", etc into their own headings clots up the TOC. Also, putting them into "Types of socialism" is POV. -- infinity 0 18:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I made it clear that they are not universally agreed on as socialist, but putting them anywhere other than where they are (like a section for discussing non-socialist ideologies) is extremely biased, as I'm sure you can understand. Try thinking from the POV of an islamic socialist for amoment, and see what you think would be fair.

NPOV requires a compromise all reasonable, informed parties can live w. Sam Spade 18:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV requires thinking from all viewpoints. Since whether they validity as socialists is disputed, they should have their own section, neither "socialist" or "non-socialist". I'll go remove the headings and replace that section with shorter versions, as you have not objected to that, for now. -- infinity 0 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't mnake claims like "The German Nazis ("National Socialists") used the word "socialist" in their official name, but most scholars argue that this was done purely for propaganda purposes" or "The Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party is viewed by many as being not genuinely socialist, despite it employing the word "socialist" in its name."

who are these "many"? How can you cite "most scholars"? Is there a scholars poll you are aware of? If so, lets see it! I am ok w trimming, I have been doing that myself if you havn't noticed. Its this POVing and uncited claims which I take issues w. Sam Spade 18:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As Infinity pointed out, they need their own section. The only question is what the name of that section should be. "Ideologies which are sometimes considered to have things in common with socialism" is too long. "Other ideologies claimed to be socialist" is inaccurate, because no one claims that all Catholics, for example, are socialists. Likewise with liberals (which should be added, by the way, since some liberals are claimed to be socialists). "Other ideologies and groups" is vague, but allows us to explain what we're talking about in an introductory paragraph. So it gets my vote. -- Nikodemos 18:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Other ideologies makes it clear they arn't socialist. Its not acceptable for discussing things like islamic socialism and nazism. Sam Spade 18:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, what's your problem with my other edits, such as merging the schools and types sections? Show some respect. Also, what's wrong with "other ideologists claimed to be socialist"? It shows that the majority doesn't consider them to be socialist. -- infinity 0 18:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, what "uncited claims" are you talking about? PLease note, I am not the one making them; the paragraph I am replacing was originally written by someone else. I just replaced it with that because it's shorter and more concise than your long-winded essays. -- infinity 0 18:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Other ideologies doesn't make anything clear, Sam. Especially if you place it after a list of ideologies that are socialist. Readers may interpret "Other ideologies" to mean "Other socialist ideologies". Or they may not. Like I said, that title doesn't make anything clear. -- Nikodemos 18:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, after reading your version, WOW. You say I put weasel words in (note again, it wasn't me who wrote it) but there are lots of stuff in your version such as "some have labelled the Ba'th Party a fascist movement" - who? Please hesistate to criticise other people's versions before looking at your own. -- infinity 0 18:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, what's your problem? Why do you insist on reverting to your own version and working from that? This is a collaborative effort. -- infinity 0 21:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep insisting on putting the sections under their separate headings? Why do you keep insisting moving the section "schools of socialism" away from "types of socialism"? -- infinity 0 21:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert me in the middle of what I clarified as a complex edit? Discuss, rather than revert. I restored all beneficial edits (and even some that might not have been) addressed your concerns (like calling tha ba'ath party fascists), and compromised left and right. What I did was hardly a revert. Your interuption of my compromise was however quite vexing and unreasonable in my estimation. Sam Spade 21:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[1] - this is a blatant revert. Like I said, this is a collaborative effort. Work your changes ON the current version - did you really mean to split up "types" and "schools" of socialism? Please say what you are trying to change, then I might be able to help as well. Overhauling the article back to your version is very aggressive and unfriendly. -- infinity 0 22:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, there have been about 4 other editors editing this article today and none of them have changed back to your version.

Things wrong with your version:

• Too Many Headings
• Splits up schools and types

Could you at least explain the reasoning behind these? -- infinity 0 22:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday, I rewrote much of the Ideologies not universally agreed upon as "socialist" sections. You can view the edits I made here. What is wrong with them? I included some information from the previous version (before you started editing) and cut out some irrelevant bits from your version. -- infinity 0 22:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You are injecting the article w irredeemable bias. I know no healthy way to respond other than to revert you. Sam Spade 22:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please point out specifics rather than accusing me of bias without anything to back up that claim. What is wrong with the current structure, and what is wrong with my edits? -- infinity 0 22:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've pointed out the things I disagree with about your version. Please at least have the respect to do the same thing for the current version, rather than forcing through your version just because it is yours. -- infinity 0 22:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried, but I got edit conflicts repeatedly. I'll try talking to you again in 24hrs or so when we both calm down. Sam Spade 22:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

How about talking it over on the talk page right now? That way we'll get an idea of what the other person is TALKING about. -- infinity 0 22:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My first observation about this article is that the "ideologies not universally agreed upon as socialist" are given about as much space as the ideologies that are universally agreed upon as socialist. This is a clear case of undue weight. Some ideologies that are universally agreed upon as socialist aren't even mentioned, like the several important branches of Marxism. I have been busy elsewhere for the past two days, but I intend to start doing some serious editing of this article today or tomorrow. -- Nikodemos 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns at face value. Varieties of marxism (like stalinism, maoism, etc...) should get at least as much space as nazism or islamic socialism or whatever. Sam Spade 11:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's not fill the article with stuff that's already in articles. Atm, I think the content is fine, just the "disputed ideologies" needs to be cut down, and perhaps moved out of "types". -- infinity 0 11:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't agree at all. Sam Spade 11:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say "some consider anti-thetical". Some socialists consider totalitarian socialism to be anti-thetical, but totalitarian socialism is still considered to be socialism. -- infinity 0 15:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos, I think what you wrote is good, but too long for the intro. Take Capitalism for example - the intro is in about 5 lines. Much of the current intro could probably go into the first section. -- infinity 0 20:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the editing behaviour of most anons, there are a significant number of people who read only the intro to an article. Thus, I believe intros should be at least a few paragraphs long. The capitalism intro is ridiculously short (and, if I remember, it got that way because editors couldn't agree on a longer definition of capitalism so they settled on the very bad compromise of hardly defining it at all). I wish to move back most of my text into the intro. -- Nikodemos 22:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What should be included in the intro? I was thinking just a brief definition and a little on the history. -- infinity 0 22:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Marxism should definitely be mentioned, and I would argue that the introductory paragraphs of socialist theory should all be moved to the intro. After all, if you're going to give a brief overview of what socialists believe, why move part of it further down rather than putting it all at the beginning of the article? I don't like intros that give just a brief definition. The intro should be a concise summary of the article. Readers shouldn't have to search through the article for explanations of the basics of socialism. That's my view. -- Nikodemos 03:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A journal article typically has a 300 word abstract, a thesis 500 words. This is 520 words. THe only article I can find with a longer intro is the communism article. I wonder who wrote that. Mrdthree 19:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me, if that's what you're implying. -- Nikodemos 02:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Just cause teh intro is longer doesnt mean people will read it. In fact I am now less likely to read teh intro, because its too long. I would rather see the defniintion some history and go straight to the table fo contents to find the issue that interests me. Same with the capitalism article. Though maybe that could use a little history. Mrdthree 07:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And if the table of contents points you to subsections about (a) the history of socialism, (b) variations of socialist theory and (c) branches of socialism, where exactly would you go for a more detailed definition of socialism in general? -- Nikodemos 02:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

History of capitalism and History of socialism both exist. Much of the stuff in the article is already in separate articles, so I don't think having so much information like Sam Spade is cramming in is helpful. Similar reasoning for the intro - a long intro looks like a tiring read. -- infinity 0 18:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The article currently contains a lot of information that was merely copied over from other articles. I consider this an acceptable way to quickly fill in new sections, and it may be useful temporarily, but we should be careful to edit all that material and properly integrate it eventually. -- Nikodemos 02:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Socialism/Inclusive

• Socialism/Exclusive

Sam, I hope I can convince you to scrap the headings under "controversial classifications". For one, that Nazism is a form of socialism is a very fringe view. Second, those schools simply aren't notable as being a school of socialism, and aren't major. And thirldy, by giving them each a separate heading, you give them the same focus as the other schools. -- infinity 0 18:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just came here to compliment what you have done. I was expecting to revert the article first thing, but now I see I have no reason to. Good job! Sam Spade 10:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Be careful of over reaching w citations. The following 2 "cites" don't actually back up what they claim:

However, it has been suggested that the Party was so named purely for propaganda reasons. ^[1] Virtually all who consider themselves socialist do not regard Nazism as a form of socialism. ^[2]

Sam Spade 10:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Number one says "In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany." -- infinity 0 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Number two says "To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right." -- infinity 0 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I will add number one back in. I realise number two requires some assuming good faith on your part, so I'll wait for a response. I've reinserted "The Nazis were in fact extremely hostile to other socialists in their country, and even purged socialists from within their own party in the Night of the Long Knives." - because they did, and I think it's important to point out that they persecuted other socialists as well. -- infinity 0 15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What socialist state didn't persecute other socialists? Even Modern Soc Dem govt.s persecute Nationalist socialist and revolutionary socialist groups. Sam Spade 15:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In the Night of the Long Knives, the Nazis purged the "socialists" within their party whilst retaining the "nationalists". Which Soc. Dem. government persecutes rev. socialist groups to the point of executing them? -- infinity 0 15:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove that night of the long knives bit because it was wrong, but because it is uninformative and poorly worded. It gives no insight. Strasserism needs to be mentioned.

Regarding "to the point of executing", have a look at Nuremberg Trials. Its really not my point if people are executed or not, but theres your answer. Sam Spade 15:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the Nazis persecuted socialists everywhere, even within their own party, in favour of people who were more nationalist, and less socialist. -- infinity 0 16:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's fine at the moment. Though, a cite supporting "victory of the right over the left" would be good. -- infinity 0 16:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you remember when you accused me of stacking the article w cites from a single POV? As a random example, Lynn Walsh doesn't strike me as particularly notable, either as a socialist, or as a critic of baathism. Sam Spade 16:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's the only source there, though. -- infinity 0 16:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I didn't delete it. Somebody else might someday tho. If you wrote an article on her it would help (assuming she is encyclopedic) [2]

Anyway my point was that we need to do a better job of Wikipedia:writing for the enemy. The article is not ment to promote a Socialist POV, but rather a NPOV of socialism. There are a huge amount of ties between the far-left and far-right, which I can easilly cite if I have to balance out the contested section. Are you familiar w Bill White (neo-Nazi) for example? Sam Spade 16:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean taking all views equally, though. I think you're putting too much emphasis on the reasons why socialism and nazism are linked, and not enough on the counter-arguments against that. -- infinity 0 16:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, over 2/3 of the current Nazism section talks about why it's a type of socialism. That's overweighted. -- infinity 0 16:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Compared to what was there before? Sam Spade 16:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What was there before, about 1/8 of the section talked about why it's a type of socialism. -- infinity 0 16:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Very honest of you, I appreciate that. Sam Spade 20:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it OK now? -- infinity 0 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the biggest difference between forms of socialism. We need to discuss it in detail. Sam Spade 16:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What changes do you wish to make? -- infinity 0 16:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not me, this was just a request/suggestion, contribution of bulk content is not my specialty. My focus is on the finer touches ;) Sam Spade 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the details either, but I'd say the article is roughly balanced (perhaps the Stalinist section could be cut down further, it's not notable outside Soviet Russia). The current "lib socialism" section is rather short, I'd say. Most of early anarchism was almost completely libertarian socialism. -- infinity 0 20:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The progression from Bolshevism under Lenin to Fascism under Mussolini to Nazisim under Hitler is similar to the progression from Babeuf to Marx to Lenin. All have followed a similar pattern of a utopian paradise from revolutionary action for a slecet worth group of people. Fascism has its roots in revolutionary Socialism. Hitler himself said that "National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order." The similarities are too numerous to be written off.

1. Street violence tactics of the Bolsheviks, and early 20th century socialism in general, with the street violence with the Fascist.

All kinds of political movements have used violence. Cadr 23:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many, if not all, have used violence or the threat of, but in the case of both fascists and socialists it was both a means and an end, not unique to the two, but a very prominent feature. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Violence was not a part of the mainstream socialist movement in 20-30s Germany. The Social Democrat Party (which was still more-or-less socialist) was committed to parliamentary democracy. It was only the Spartacists and the KDP who believed in violent revolution, and that was very much as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Despite what you say, Socialist ideology has never glorified violence, or viewed it as an admirable thing in itself -- whereas of course Nazi ideology has. War and conquest are the bread and butter of Nazism, but totally antithetical to any form of Socialism. Cadr 13:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

1. The promotion of the respective leader to cult like superhero. Can you admit that there are not similarities in the throngs that publicly worshiped Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler? State sponsored events, where the “masses” chant the name of the leader in lockstep unison.

Leader worship is inherently anti-socialist, since it's uncollectivist and undemocratic. Certainly, there were many similarities between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, but Stalinist Russia is not considered to be a Socialist state by many. It didn't even claim to be a Marxist state (Marxist-Lenninist, which is quite different.) Cadr 23:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What is and is not "inherently anti-socialist" is a matter of opinion in this case as many "socialists" were indeed the subject of hero worship: Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, and Kim, just to statrt with.

You yourself put "socialist" in scare quotes. Hero worship has been an element of many totalitarian states, including Nazi Germany and the Communist Russia, but it isn't part of socialist ideology. Socialist polotical theory provides no basis for any kind of Fuhrerprincip, but (of course) Nazi ideology does. Cadr 13:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What is and is not part of the theory is not the issue, the fact is nearly every self proclaimed socialist state had included cult like hero worship. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

So has the Roman Empire. Was the Roman Empire socialist? Also, every self-proclaimed socialist state is also a self-proclaimed democracy. Can we therefore say cult-like hero worship is a part of many democratic regimes? -- Nikodemos 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Fascist brown shirts and socialist red shirts.
2. The clenched fist of the socialist and the stiff armed Roman salute.
3. The respective anthems of the Internationale and the Giovinezza
4. Socialism and Fascism both used science as a way to justify their ends.

Along with just about every political movement in the 20th century (to exaggerate only slightly). Cadr 23:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The concept of scientific socialism was based on the enlightenment view that the application of science could be used to create a rational theory of socio economic organization. This is particlular to Socialism and Fascism, but please provide examples o the contrary. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea that science could be used to create a rational thoery of socio economic organisation is not peculiar to Fascism and Socialism. Keynes for example, was not a Socialist. (Unless of course, you define Socialism to be any form of state intervention in the economy, in which case you can trivially say that every political ideology apart from laissez-faire capitalism is socialist.) 13:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

1. The use of color for the Nazi flag. Red was used by Hitler for the social identity of the movement, white for the national identity of the movement.

Don't believe Nazi propaganda. Cadr 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It not a matter of belief or disbelief. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is: you apparently take the Nazis seriously as political philosophers, and believe even their most obviously propagandistic and ridiculous pretenses to be some kind of left-wing movement. Hitler's political philosophy is hokum, a disjointed hodge-podge of Nietzsche, reactionary Conservatism and social Darwinism. Mein Kampf is full of passages denouncing Marxism/Communism/Socialism and collectivism, for example:

It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in this world has ever been achieved by coalitions, but that it has always been the success of a single victor. Coalition successes bear by the very nature of their origin the germ of future crumbling, in fact of the loss of what has already been achieved. Great, truly world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions.

Cadr 13:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And why should we not take fascism as a serious political philosophy? It was one of the most prominent socio economic systems of the early part of the 20th century. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I take it seriously as a political reality, but not as a political philosophy. Cadr 22:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fascism and Socialism both sold a bill of goods whereby they would mobilize the common man and proletariat through a mass revolution to destroy the bourgeoisie. Solidarity would ensue and a brave new world would arise through the use of state power. Sam contrasted the that usage of capitalism with Jewery, but Marx had ethnic grudges that would make Hitler blush.

The next world war will make not only reactionary classes and dynasties disappear from the face of the earth, but entire reactionary peoples as well. And this is also to be considered progress The Magyar Struggle, January 1849

Not to mention the fact that 19th century socialistic movements were rife with anti-Semitism, after all Bebel did not call anti-Semetism the socialism of fools for no reason. The similarities are far to many. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nazism certainly used some Marxist ideas about class warfare, but for very different ends than those of Marx. As I mentioned previously, Marx used many ideas from Smith and Recardo, but that doesn't mean he was really a laissez-faire capitalist. Anti-semitism was rife everywhere in 19/20th century Europe, so it's not much of a link. Cadr 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Nazis clearly weren't interested in destroying the bourgeoisie. They didn't -- as a point of fact -- when they came to power; and if they had every seriously threatened to do so, it is highly unlikely that they would have got support from von Papen and those on the Conservative right of German politics. It would also be difficult to explain why they got no support whatsoever from the social democrats or the KDP. AND, the destruction of a socialist revolution by the Freikorps (proto-Nazis) would also remain a mystery. Cadr 23:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the debate as to what Socialism is in theory and what it is in practice. The comments of people like Hayek and Arndt compare socialism to facism and find the similarities of the two in practice to have many more similarities than differences. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not really an accurate characterisation. In the comment above, I pointed out that the Nazi movement in Germany had radically different historical roots to the Socialist/Communist movements; indeed, the two were often in direct opposition. I also pointed out that the Nazis did not destroy the bourgeoise or repossess industry on a large scale, whereas the Communist revolution in Russia really did restructure society (although of course it subsequently set up a new class structure). The first is a historical difference, the second a practical difference -- neither is purely theoretical. Hayek is only interested in analysing political systems in terms of their distance from laissez-faire capitalism. His conclusion is perfectly true but also utterly banal: Nazism and Socialism are both very different political systems from laissez-faire capitalism. By defining socialism as essentially any deviation from laissez-faire principles, Hayek is able to equate Nazism and Socialism by equivocation, but there is no substance to his analysis. Cadr 13:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's your own view, and original research. -- infinity 0 22:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are refering to my comments, it is my view, but it is also the view of others, so it does not qualify as OR. Torturous Devastating Cudgel

It's the view of two scholars who are not recognized as authorities on the history of Nazsim. Fascism, or Fascist ideology. Great numbers of scholars who are recognised as authorities in these fields hold very different views. Cadr 13:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Its more than two scholars, and I could elaborate if you would like. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The few similarities between some components of Nazism and some components of socialism are used to demonstrate that the entire ideologies are intertwined. This logic is fundamentally flawed and purposely misleading. The execution of large public works projects, a demand for total employment, and state interventionism are not defining tenets of socialism. To the contrary, they indicate the fascist desire to impose state control over the individual. The differences between the goals and ideals of Nazism and socialism are diminished in order to demonize socialism. Also, the section attempts to liken socialism and Nazism by emphasizing the brutal practices of individual socialist autocrats; however, the oppresive, violent policies of a few rulers are in no way representative of socialism. The section is irrelevant to the ideology of socialism, the alleged similarties between Nazism and socialism are over-emphasized and misleading, and, overall, the very basis of the section is POV and unnacceptable. --- WGee 05:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so your a socialist then? Since when does a socialist state fail to oppress and control the individual? Where do Nazism, fascism and Communism differ in practice? What difference do they have, even in theory, other than difference of emphasis? Hitler wanted an Aryan empire of supermen, Marx wanted a Dictatorship of the proletariat. Both ideas resulted in a ridged autocracy. Sam Spade 11:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm, by "dictatorship of the proletariat" Marx ment an essentially democratic system of worker control of the means of production. Nothing like an Aryan empire of Supermen. The differences in theory are innumerable (e.g. celebration of violence vs pacifism, social darwinism vs equality, nationalism vs internationalism, democracy vs the fuhrerprincip, collectivism vs comepetitive individualism, ...) Cadr 14:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cadr, what you are arguing is what socialism sells itself as and what Sam and I are arguing is regardless of what socialism and socialist have peddled to the faithful, socialism in practices looked very similar to fascism in practice. Its all a moot point anyway, the inclusion of this information meets all the relevant guidelines: WP:Cite, WP:V, and notability of the source. The issues is, to say the least, academic. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you read Sam's comment? He asked: "What difference do they have, even in theory, other than difference of emphasis?". So in fact he wasn't just talking about socialism in practice. Cadr 22:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What socialism "sells" itself as is what socialism is. You seem to define "socialism" as "whatever socialists do in practice", which is a circular definition (socialists are those who support socialism and socialism is what socialists support). If socialism is whatever socialists do in practice, then who are the socialists? Any people who call themselves socialists? Then "socialism" is just a label and doesn't mean anything at all.

What you and Sam appear to be arguing, TDC, is that all dictatorships are essentially the same. This is an absurd oversimplification, and would lead one to conclude that virtually all human government prior to the 18th century "were essentially the same".

Yes, of course socialism and fascism share some characteristics, but - and here is the catch - those characteristics are also shared by numerous other ideologies and forms of government. Can you name one thing that fascism and socialism have in common and that is not equally shared by a plethora of other ideologies? -- Nikodemos 16:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Socialism != stalinism. // Liftarn

What you folks are trying to argue is that the "socialism" practiced by historic socialist states utilises similar means to fascism. First of all, it must be explicitly stated that only the practices of historic "socialist" states are compared, not whole ideologies; right now, the section is extremely misleading. Also, one cannot accurately compare Nazism and socialism without comparing them in theory. The theories are deliberately under-emphasized in an attempt to prove how much Nazism and socialism are alike.

It is also hotly debated whether or not Mao, Stalin, and others even espoused true socialism, yet this is not mentioned at all in the section. Thus, it seems quite obvious to me that the section is slanted against socialism. So no, the section does not meet all relevant guidlines/policies, espcecially WP:NPOV and WP:NPOVUW. : WGee 16:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree WGee and I think you've put your case very well. So, why haven't you edited the page yourself? :) Gatoclass 06:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Both the Nazism and Fascism sections should go. The idea of listing forms of Fascism as supposed variants of Socialism is absurd. Fascism is a right-wing philosophy, which came to power in every case in direct opposition to Communism (it would be valuable for the writers of these sections on Fascism and Nazism to read a bit about the rise of Hitler and Mussolini). Once in power, the Nazis rounded up Communists to send to concentration camps. It is also blatantly clear that the central tenet of Socialism - the equality of men - is in direct opposition to the racism espoused by Fascism and Nazism. Given all this, the purported relation between Nazism and Socialism or Fascism and Socialism is completely unfounded. The linkage of these concepts is an intellectually dishonest attempt to throw dirt at the idea of Socialism. The two sections in question are thus heavily POV, and have no place in this article.

Have a look:

National_Socialist_Program#German_Party_Platform

That looks pretty socialist to me! Sam Spade 15:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

They didn't act on this policy. If you read the intro, These, like much of the program, lost their importance as the Party evolved, and were ignored by the Nazis after they rose to power.. -- infinity 0 16:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how the platform is any more socialist than the present constitutions of most European nations, as well as many other countries around the world. Please also note that the Nazis did not, by any means, apply the full platform into practice after they took power. -- Nikodemos 16:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nazism is an abbreviation for "National Socialist German Workers Party", and Nazi leaders described their ideology as socialist. However, it has been suggested that the Party was so named purely for propaganda reasons.[14].

There were ideological shades of opinion within the Nazi Party, notably strasserism, but a central tenet of the party was always the leader principle or Führerprinzip. The Nazi Party did not have party congresses in which policy was deliberated upon and concessions made to different factions. What mattered most was what the leader, Adolf Hitler, thought and decreed. Those who held opinions which were at variance with Hitler's either learned to keep quiet or were purged, particularly in the Night of the Long Knives, which has often been viewed as a victory of the Right-wing of the Nazi party and the SS over the Strasserists and Röhm's SA. This is comparable to the behavior of many Communist states such as that of Stalin in the Soviet Union or Mao Zedong in China.

It has been argued [15] that the Nazi war economy, large public works projects, demand for total employment, and state interventions such as the National Labour Law of January 20, 1934 [5] are indicative of socialism. Efforts were made to coordinate business's actions with the needs of the state, particularly with regard to rearmament, and the Nazis established some state-owned concerns such as Volkswagen. Independent trade unions were outlawed, as were strikes, much like the practices of State communism.

Many socialists reject the racialist theories and totalitarianism of the Nazis, while Nazis rejected the internationalism, egalitarianism and the class struggle policies pursued by many socialists.[16]

Paragraph 2 and 3 focuses entirely on the similarities.

Paragraph 2 is the largest paragraph, being 6 lines, and explains in unnecessary detail about the "leadership" in Nazi, and it being similar to USSR. In fact, this "leadership" issue is an issue many socialists disagree with; it is not representative of socialism like it is made out to be. The point links anti-socialist characteristics of the USSR and Nazi with socialism which is heavily POV.

Paragraph 3 says way too much about the economic reforms. Again, it pushes the POV that USSR and Nazi are both socialism, which is heavily disputed. "Independent trade unions were outlawed," is a criticism socialists make against the USSR to denouce it as socialist. It also has WP:Weasel words: - "it has been argued" - who? Answer: anti-socialists.

Paragraphs 1 and 4 are the only paragrphs giving a different view, and combined they are both shorter than any one of the other paragraphs. -- infinity 0 15:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My version, which was written to improve the POV of the above. Feel free to point out any bad things.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 say why nazism isn't socialism - it's the main view so it should be mentioned first. Paragrphs 3 gives views and counter-views on the economy. Paragraph 4 gives a view on the cult of personality. -- infinity 0 15:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "main view"? Were seeking balance, not a pro-leftist POV. Show me some evidence that Nazism being socialism is amarginal POV, and I'll consider such an interpretation of policy. As is, I have cited Hayek and Arndt, two well known authoratative scholars on the subject. Who are you citing who claims Nazism isn't socialism? Sam Spade 16:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That Nazism is socialism is a minor view, and to dedicate 2/3 of the section to it is unbalanced. Hayek is known for his anti-socialist bias. Arndt does not argue that Nazism is socialism, merely that the totalitarian regimes are related. I cite Leon Trotsky, a well known person everyone considers to be socialist, and two other sources arguing against the POV, and stating that the POV is minor. -- infinity 0 16:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not trying to push a leftist POV, but only give the main view the importance it deserves. Please stop accusing me of POV. You've done this ever since you started editing this article and at some point or another it will become a serious hindrance to me assuming your good faith. -- infinity 0 16:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh for the last time, Sam: Hayek was an economist who was (A) not an authority on the history of Nazism and its ideology and (B) equated any form of government intervention in the economy with Socialism (or some minor variant thereof). Previously, someone (I forget who) posted tons of references showing that the mainstream interpretation of historians is that Nazism and Socialism are quite distinct ideologies, though of course they have influenced each other. (As indeed the ideas of Adam Smith influenced Marx -- but no-one would equate laissez-faire Capitalism with Marxism for that reason.) Cadr 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Replace "capitalism" with "jewry", and "worker" with "aryan", and then tell me how much difference you see. Sam Spade 20:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Replacing capitalism with jewry is actually a very, very, major change. So is replacing worker with aryan. But that's besides the point. What about my suggested replacement? I think it gives enough space to the "similarities" arguments. -- infinity 0 20:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your version has fewer citations. Sam Spade 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I took out one, the "national labour law" because the source only said that it existed and gave no information about what it actually was whatsoever. -- infinity 0 21:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It is the most explicit act of socialism on the part of the nazi's of which I am aware, and provides explicit evidence of their labour laws. Sam Spade 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, but that does not show their similarity to the concept of socialism. I didn't think it was relevant - there is already two examples of their "economic policies" being similar to socialism - that's enough. I left in the part about "outlawing trade unions," but I am not going to say "similar to USSR" because that is OR, and not a similarity to socialism (people criticise USSR for this for being anti-socialist, even). -- infinity 0 21:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"people" say everything imaginable, but the Soviet union is one of the most verifiable instances of socialism (according to experts) ever. Sam Spade 21:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean everything the USSR did was socialist, and in fact many experts disagree that USSR was socialist at all, instead calling it state capitalism. To make the said claim that "outlawing trade unions shows socialism", you need a source linking outlawing trade unions to socialism. Most socialists are supportive of trade unions.

What other stuff is lacking in my suggestion? -- infinity 0 21:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-socialists argue that the Nazis' large public works projects and state interventions are indicative of socialism[5] Efforts were made to coordinate business' actions with the needs of the state, particularly with regard to rearmament, and the Nazis established some state-owned concerns such as Volkswagen. However, independent trade unions were outlawed, as were strikes. The Nazis did demand some nationalization of big industries and land reform before their rise to power, though when they did eventually seize power, these demands were largely ignored.

Thats a rather clear POV coming out there, in a few places. Demands ignored, "anti-socialists argue", "however". What soviet state allows labour unions? Sam Spade 22:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They did ignore their own own policies, though - at least according to National Socialist Program. If you think "demands were ignored" is POV, then how about "did not act on their own policies?" The people who argue similarities with Nazism and socialism are anti-socialists - certainly both the referenecs given are from people who are fiercely anti-socialist.

Soviet states didn't allow labour unions, but that would be an argument showing the totalitarian nature of both regmies (as Arndt suggests). Socialism is for labour unions, eg. syndicalism. -- infinity 0 22:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting for a reason on why the below version is worse than the disputed version. -- infinity 0 16:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Nazism is an abbreviation for " National Socialist German Workers Party", and Nazi leaders described their ideology as socialist. However, it has been suggested that the Party was so named purely for propaganda reasons. ^[3]. The Nazis also had a hostile purge within their own party, the Night of the Long Knives, which has often been viewed as a victory of the right-wing of the Nazi party and the SS over the more socialist Strasserists and Röhm's SA.

Many socialists reject the racialist racist theories and totalitarianism of the Nazis, while Nazis rejected the internationalism, egalitarianism, class struggle, and common ownership of the means of production advocated by many socialists. ^[4]

Anti-socialists argue that the Nazis' large public works projects and state interventions are indicative of socialism ^[5] Efforts were made to coordinate business' actions with the needs of the state, particularly with regard to rearmament, and the Nazis established some state-owned concerns such as Volkswagen. However, independent trade unions were outlawed, as were strikes. The Nazis did demand some nationalization of big industries and land reform before their rise to power, though when they did eventually seize power, these demands were largely ignored. they did not act on most of these policies.

Opponents of socialism also argue that the absoluteness of what the leader of the Nazi Party, Adolf Hitler, decreed is similar to the cult of personality in the totalitarian regimes of Communist states such as that of Stalin or Mao Zedong.

(first two are from elsewhere on the talk page)

Other comments

The discussion should be why the previous version is better than my suggested version. I have pointed out several faults of the previous version, and have addressed them in the suggested version. As of now, I think the suggested version is better than the previous version. Feel free to point out any flaws so we can fix them, but for you to justify reverting you must explain why the suggested version is worse than the previous version. -- infinity 0 15:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your section is a great improvement over the old one, though I have a few problems with it.

Many socialists reject the racist theories and totalitarianism of the Nazis, while Nazis rejected the internationalism, egalitarianism, class struggle, and common ownership of the means of production pursued by many socialists. ^[1]

The policy of nationalization in an undemocratic fascist state is intended to give the state control over the means of production, not the people (as advocated in socialism)

According to Wikipedia: Racism refers to a belief system that advocates discriminating against people based on a perceived or ascribed "race". The racial segregation and supremacy advocated by Nazism clearly fits this definition. Racialism is an is merely an emphasis on race, and it is used often by white supremacist organizations who claim to not be supremacist. The Nazis did more than emphasize race, they discriminated based on it.

WGee 16:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

But, the Nazis did do some state co-ordination of the MOP which is why the anti-socialists argue that Nazis were socialist. -- infinity 0 16:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i just needed to add some support for my suggestions. --- WGee 16:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

State coordination of the MOP is not exclusive to socialism (in fact, it is a necessary component of fascism, neoconservatism, and other political ideologies), and it is not the same as the common ownership of the MOP advocated by socialists. --- WGee 16:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit the suggestion (section above). Though, you need to back up what you write with sources (you might be able to reuse the ones already there, I dunno, you can check). Also, try not to waffle on too much and keep it concise. Mark what you have deleted with <del>deleted text</del> tags and what you have inserted with <ins>inserted text</ins> tags. -- infinity 0 16:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. --- WGee 17:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's a start, but "racist" is a pretty strong word and could be contrued as an attack. I'd say racialist is better, since they actually try to justify their racism. -- infinity 0 17:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that racism is a loaded term these days, but there are places for the word, and Wikipedia should not be bound by political correctness. Racialism implies a lack of racist discrimination, so it would be inaccurate in this case. --- WGee 17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

But racialist is more relevant, as it talks about racism within a political theoretical sense. It's not political correctness; it's a fact that readers immediately associate negative things with racism, and perhaps not all of those negative things the Nazis did. Racialism doesn't imply they're not racist, but instead allows the reader to not immediately jump to the conclusion Nazis = racism = bad without reading up on it. -- infinity 0 17:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Racialism is different, it implies a lack of antimosity. Racialism is the broader catagory of people believing races are signifigantly different, with pro's and cons. Racism is when you think one group totally sucks (like how nazi's viewed jews). I don't think Hitler would mind being called a racist. Trying to suggest ordinary socialists arn't racists is absurd however, socialism is rife w racism. Consider Marx and Bakunin, fer crissakes, much less stalin's purges! Sam Spade 22:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, why did you revert? -- infinity 0 22:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, why did you remove the POV-because notice? -- infinity 0 22:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How many times have I warned you about "most" and the "majority of" and etc..? You can't cite sources you don't have. You have no magic understanding of what most socialists do or think or whatever. If you have a source, cite it. Also, the reverts are completely out of hand. I don't feel that you are respecting other editors when you revert several times a day and make claims and demands such as you have been making in your summaries. No one is required to respond within 30 minutes. Sam Spade 23:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, what is better about the old version? Of course the suggested version isn't perfect; it's meant to be an improvement on the old version. -- infinity 0 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the old version makes all the faults you claim the suggested version does; and it also gives undue weight to that view. You are the one showing no respect, reverting always to your version and not accepting other editors' edits and compromises. -- infinity 0 23:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

But it is not. And despite your furious demands for why, I have explained why a number of times. Sam Spade 23:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you haven't. And if you have, please provide the diffs. I answered all your points both here and on your user talk page. And you have not touched upon why the old version is better than the suggested version. -- infinity 0 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, the main question you have to answer is why is the old version better than the suggested version? My objections are above. -- infinity 0 23:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The old version has more links, both to cites and to other articles. It doesn't make dubious claims, and it is more balanced. I'd like to see you citing more experts. Sam Spade 23:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I will support Infinity's version for now. The old version had only a few sources anyway, and it was skewed against socialism. -- WGee 00:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed "Most socialists" to "Socialism" in the second paragraph and "Nazis" to "Nazism" to indicate that this is a comparison of theories, and to adress Sam's concerns. --- WGee 00:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC) I changed "Most socialists" to "Socialism" in the second paragraph and "Nazis" to "Nazism" to indicate that this is a comparison of theories, and to adress Sam's concerns. --- WGee 00:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I worry that that policy might be worse, though. It's one thing to report a consensus, another to go by definition. Socialism per se does not inherently preclude a racist element, indeed most broad political terms do not. However, only a handful of socialists are in any way racist in their politics. As to whether we should report a consensus at all, not to do so would be a serious omission. Unfortunately, it's much harder to prove a consensus (indeed, unless there was a decent study going, which is unlikely, you'd have to collect so many sources it'd count as OR); if you can find some sort of disproof of there being a majority among socialists, Sam, please do tell. -- Nema Fakei 11:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is WGee not signed into his account.... I would argue that most, if not all, strands of socialism preclude racism, as distinction by race is generally seen as a capitalist method of dividing the proleriat masses, a hurdle to worker revolution. And, like Fakei said, only a handful of socialists can be considered racist. I will also agree with him that Sam has the burden of proof in this case. 142.46.54.15 14:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't provide a disproof because their is no proof. Such a study is absurd, as I well know given my background in sociological research. Suggesting I have the burden of proof is so laughable I may become sick ;) Sam Spade 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's very hard, if not impossible to find a source stating explicitly that most socialists don't think of nazism as a form of socialism. But why does that mean it shouldn't be mentioned? It is an obvious fact. -- infinity 0 20:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that you should find as many socialist sources as possible that endorse any sort of racism or Nazism, since you believe that the majority of socialists don't reject racism. If you can find some prominent socialist philosophers who advocate a form of racism, then perhaps your argument will hold ground. Otherwise, we can only assume that most socialists rebuke racism based on the nature of the ideology and the sources we have that indicate this. WGee 21:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree. Claiming racism is linked to socialism is a more complex claim than claiming racism is not linked to socialism, since socialism is anti-racist by most standards. By Occam's razor, the burden of proof is always upon the more complex claim. -- infinity 0 21:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What standard states that Socialism is non-racist? Marx and Bakunin and Stalin and Hitler... all racists! Sam Spade 21:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, Marx != Socialism? (And Bakunin was an anarchist, not a socialist...) Besides, I've never heard of Marx being racist? -- infinity 0 21:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Same. A fundamental component of socialist theory is egalitarianism, and I'm pretty sure egalitarianism is anti-racist. WGee 22:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the point is that we don't need "standards" in the article, we simply need reputable sources. So far, most of the sources state that socialism is anti-racist. -- WGee 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of denouncements by Sam:

• "Marx was a rasist" - unproven and a denouncement. Just read Karl Marx - this was a humanist, not a racist.
• "Socialism is racist" - unproven and a denouncement. Furthermore Socialism is a concept and is not equal with self declared "really existing socialism". de:Realer Sozialismus -- SGOvD webmaster ( talk) 19:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation

Socialism is a world-view and was the result of critisism on capitalism of the 18th and 19th century that aims to remove this economic system. The basic economic policy is the abolishment and nationalization of private ownership of all means of production and also centralized planning and controlling of the economic processes to avoid all negative social consequences of economic acting. The main goal was the overcoming of social differences in economy and society and also the improvement of the living conditions of the working population.

The representations of socialism of the 18th and 19th century was the utopian socialism and the economic socialism. The utopian socialists eg. Robert Owen and Charles Fourier aimed a social and economic ideal state that was to be archieved by enlightment and an rational manner of acting. In opposition, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels tried to explain Socialism in an scientific way. In this concept, socialism is the result of the collapse of kaptialism and the revolution by the working class and also the early stage of an society without classes and rulers: the communism.

The former union of soviet socialist republics and other eastern block countries that were influenced by the ruling communist party called their own concept "really existing socialism". This concept is also called "planned economy".

Source: "Das Lexikon der Wirtschaft", de:Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, http://www.bpb.de/publikationen/ESMN42,0,0,Das_Lexikon_der_Wirtschaft.html

-- SGOvD webmaster ( talk) 19:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The following was removed:

However, it has been suggested that the Party was so named purely for propaganda reasons.<ref> Simkin, John. Nazi Party - NSDAP from the Spartacus Educational website</ref>.

The reason given was "strange claim." Why is it strange, though? A source was given, wasn't it? -- infinity 0 20:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The abbreviation and the rest was a strange claim. Suggested propaganda? Of course it was propaganda, there's nothing to suggest. They called it "social" since they wanted to take money from the jews and give it to the "poor" "Aryan" people since they blamed the jews (and the freemasons and the communists... see: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) for almost everything especially for enrichment. They sayed that they would own the financial capital and enrich themselves with high interest rates so they were blamed to enslave the working poor without the need to work themselves. Manpower was seen as positive capital, called „schaffendes Kapital“ (productive financial capital) and "working" financial capital, called „raffendes Kapital“ (rapacious capital) was seen as negative. -- SGOvD webmaster ( talk) 08:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was only trying to be NPOV with saying "suggested", because Sam Spade would have crucified me for saying outright "However, the Party was named for propaganda reasons". How about reinserting the reference? It's a good source. -- infinity 0 11:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda means they wanted to publish their goals, now this should be normal for the name of a party with an own definition of "social". Feel free to reinsert the reference, I just removed it because I reformulated the sentences. -- SGOvD webmaster ( talk) 12:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

@ Infinity0: Thank you for reinserting the reference, but User:Sam Spade seems not to be interested in user discussions nor in a consensus and I am not interested in an edit war. -- SGOvD webmaster ( talk) 21:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam, could you please state your problem? No other editor has raised an objection to the version which is currently on the page. -- infinity 0 21:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You say that alot, please scroll up. Sam Spade 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I scroll up and I see that your objections have been answered to, not only by me. If, as Cberlet says, you have been inserting this sort of thing for months, then you have problems. Please stop it. Furthermore, whatever POV you think my version is biased towards, I think your version is much more biased. -- infinity 0 20:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please discuss changes before you make them to help build a consensus. --- WGee 22:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The claim that Nazism is a form of socialism has been placed by Sam Spade on a number of pages over many months. When most editors reject the claim as marginal, and remove or limit the text, Sam Spade simply moves to another page and starts the process all over again. Most recently a vote was taken as to where this argument belongs. The discussion and vote is here: Talk:Fascism_and_ideology/Archive_1#Dispute. There was clear support for keeping the discussion on the Fascism and ideology page. Most of the discussion from this page is already on that page, as is a lengthy discussion about fascism as a form socialism. A one sentence summary and a link to the Fascism and ideology page is all that is really appropriate on this page given the marginal nature of the claims.-- Cberlet 19:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO are Sams edits contrary to Wikipedia:Consensus. -- SGOvD webmaster ( talk) 20:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Some examples of where this debate started: [3], [4], [5], [6].-- Cberlet 22:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A one sentence summary and a link to the Fascism and ideology page is all that is really appropriate on this page given the marginal nature of the claims.-- Cberlet 19:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, even though there are some serious problems with that page. -- WGee 02:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Lots of problems with the Fascism and ideology page. Good collaborative editing could fix them.  :-) -- Cberlet 03:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Some time when I don't have tons of homework I could possibly help edit/discuss that page. -- WGee 07:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, same here. I need to prepare my university app in the next few months. Wikipedia will have to be pushed to one side, unless something disastrous happens. -- infinity 0 16:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Cberlet. Cadr 15:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Sam Spade has done this "revert w/o discussion thing" on several articles, including God and Human. Looking through the histories of both articles, I see the same pattern - a few users revert Sam Spade's edits, saying "this is the consensus version, quit edit warring" [7] [8] [9] [10], and Sam Spade replies to the effect of "my version is the consensus version" [11] or "read the talk page" [12] [13] or even simply "restore" [14] [15]. I do not know the details, but on the surface these separate incidents seem remarkably similar to the one we have witnessed here. This may be indicative of problems with Sam Spade's attitude towards disputes, especially when consensus is against him. I think it would be best if an RfC was opened on him, for other editors to input their comments, because I don't think that the way Sam Spade deals with such disputes is healthy to the wikipedian community or to himself. What do people think? -- infinity 0 23:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this is the place to discuss the article, not other users. Take that to my talk page, or an appropriate policy page. Secondly, show me an article I have reverted w/o discussion. Sam Spade 13:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know where else to put it. When the RfC begins, I'll move the stuff there. But please, Sam, this is not meant to be an attack upon you, but constructive criticism. You have reverted articles without discussion, or very very little of it. Simiarly, I don't want the RfC to turn into a bitch-fest - all I want is for editors to point out aspects of your behaviour that is unfriendly and/or agressive and/or harmful, etc, so that hopefully you can see things from your opponents' point of view instead of continuing along believing you are right and they are wrong. -- infinity 0 17:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We're having a similar problem on the God article where there was an attempt at discussion which basically resulted in almost all the editors agreeing on the version that wasn't Sam's. Since then he has continued to revert there and claiming that we need to go to the talk page. JoshuaZ 23:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What Josh noted about the God articler is what happens on the Human page article, where Sam has insisted on inserting POV info on spirituality over and over and over (both in the intro and in the religion/spirituality section). Admittedly this has slowed down in the past few days, and Sam appears to be cooperating now, but he has caused significant disruption over the course of the past month or so. In fact, possiblty in light of this discussion Sam made a true NPOV proposal today. I'd like to AGF, but history makes it hard. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Spade - I've started the RfC on Sam Spade based on his reverting and avoidance of discussions on various articles. Feel free to comment, but please remain civil. -- infinity 0 17:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you sound like a bully. Thewolfstar 20:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet said: A one sentence summary and a link to the Fascism and ideology page is all that is really appropriate on this page given the marginal nature of the claims. 19:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I believe it is time to seriously discuss this suggestion. Does anyone else agree or disagree with Cberlet's proposal? -- WGee 01:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a little longer - say, one or two paragraphs (half the size it currently is). And is there consensus to remove the tags from that section at the moment? -- infinity 0 14:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If there are to be one or two paragraphs, they best be very short, in my opinion. I really don't feel it necessary to explain in any detail socialism's alleged links to fascism in this article. And as for the consensus, I'm not quite sure, since Sam and I were virtually the only ones to discuss your new version. -- WGee 21:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely not consensus in regards to that section. Sam Spade 11:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is not written with neutrality. Editors, please read what you have written here: A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.[1][2]

This may be written, with a more neutral perspective like this:

~ According to Socialists, a primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.[1][2] ~
Thewolfstar 20:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

~ this has been copied from an (above) conversation and inserted below.~

Sam, could you please state your problem? No other editor has raised an objection to the version which is currently on the page. -- infinity 0 21:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You say that alot, please scroll up. Sam Spade 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I scroll up and I see that your objections have been answered to, not only by me. If, as Cberlet says, you have been inserting this sort of thing for months, then you have problems. Please stop it. Furthermore, whatever POV you think my version is biased towards, I think your version is much more biased. -- infinity 0 20:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Because someone named Cherlot says something, does not automatically make it true or increase it's relevance, true or not. This tactic, obviously meant to intimidate, reminds one of those used by modern public schools, Gossip Groups, Puritans, states, states and federal government of the United States, Nazis, Communists and Socialists, the GW Bush boys, and last but not least the obviously Democrat Party editors of the Democrat Party article. Peoople who are interested in freedoms do not use tactics. Thewolfstar 20:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please clean this statement up it is POV:
A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.

Maybe it could read:

Socialists state that a primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.

No, it was neutral as it was written previously. It is an unquestionable fact that socialist theory stresses egalitarianism and material equity. You may not feel this way about the ideology, probably because you believe that the brutal regimes of Stalin and Mao, for instance, represent socialism. We are not talking about socialism as practiced in the 20th century in this sentence; we are talking about socialist theory, which is created by socialists themselves, not by anti-socialists. -- WGee 06:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

---

WGee,
Please don't try and get into my head and tell me what I probably believe. I don't need to mix up Socialism with 20th century Socialist Regimes. They did that for me. Apparantly Socialist theory doesn't work or do what it claims to do.

Does Socialist theory say anything about the fact that this claim can't be true because it advocates a government which is run by a few people, thereby making it's equality assertion impossible? Thewolfstar 07:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Based on the comment above, I stand by my suggestion that your understanding of socialist theory is skewed. Once again, you are confusing the ideology of socialism with the autocratic, self-described socialist regimes of the 20th century. -- WGee 02:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Does Socialist theory say anything about the fact that this claim can't be true because it advocates a government which is run by a few people, thereby making it's equality assertion impossible? Thewolfstar 07:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Does Socialist theory say anything about the fact that this claim can't be true because it advocates a government which is run by a few people, thereby making it's equality assertion impossible? Thewolfstar thewolfstar 06:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot answer your question because its premise is fundamentally flawed. It is also a propagandistic question, and I would ask that you not use article talk pages to attempt to justify your personal views with misinformation. Also, before making such unfounded claims, I would urge you to read socialist philosophy. -- WGee 20:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thewolfstar, please stop making aggressive, provocative and disruptive comments like "You sound like a bully", "his tactics" etc. If you think there is something wrong with the article say so in a polite manner so you don't sound like you have a hidden agenda. -- infinity 0 22:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Socialism does not inherently advocate an oligarchic government. The question is not answerable because it makes as much sense as asking what Islam has to say about the fact that Mohammed was actually an arthritic stickleback living in a remote village of eastern Norway: He wasn't, so the question cannot be answered. -- Nema Fakei 10:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any official Wikipedia policy about number of links from one site. Is there any? For now, I added unbalanced tag on article because of the unbalance between number of pro and anti-socialists links. -- Vision Thing -- 17:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Giving lots of links to one site is WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -- infinity 0 17:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds? WP:NPOV#Undue weight doesn't say anything about that. Can you quote something from it that supports your view? -- Vision Thing -- 17:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Use your common sense. 10 links to the same website is spam, and an advert for that website. -- infinity 0 17:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm using common sense. Also, there is Wikipedia policy about link spam Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming and this case isn't mentioned as link spam. -- Vision Thing -- 17:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is crazy there are loads of inappropriate links in the "pro" section. I'll try cutting down on some to balance this up a bit. - FrancisTyers 19:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Cull

• Aaron C. Donahue Predicts Advancement of World Wide Socialist Movement
• Donahue: The World Needs Socialism
• Socialist Worker Newspaper (USA) News and action from around the US and the globe
• Socialism Today, Socialism Today, the theoretical journal of the Socialist Party
• Revolutionary Communist Party USA Revolution paper online
• Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, Atlanta Youth organization and supporters of the RCP, USA
• Revolutionary Internationalist Movement Coalition of various Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties from around the world
• Marxism Online
• Pathfinder Books, Socialist bookstore online
• The Socialism Website

That'll do for a start. - FrancisTyers 19:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• In Defence of Marxism, news and analysis
• Socialist Party USA
• Libertarian Communist Library Archive
• The Soul of Man under Socialism By Oscar Wilde

And that'll do to finish. Doesn't look so unbalanced now. - FrancisTyers 19:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we please stop this petulant POV pushing? The block of text about the deaths attributed to "socialism" actually comes from old political polemics about communism, and does not belong on this page even if it was properly cited, which it is not. Without discussion, it is entirely appropriate for some of us to keep deleting it.-- Cberlet 13:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's almost entirely that single anon (60.234.157.64). One user, on seeing the anon's text reverted, attempted to add in a short note of the 100,000,000 claim (possibly trying to be NPOV). -- Nema Fakei 00:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cberlet entirely. -- WGee 03:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why it doesn't belong to this page? Communism is listed as one of four main types of socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 16:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It was not "socialism" itself that caused the deaths, it was the totalitarianism of the communist regimes in the USSR, China, etc. Note, too, that in the cases of the USSR and China, the mantel of socialism was adopted (as it was by the Nazi party -- Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) as a justification for attaining and holding political power. While Lenin himself may have had socialist leanings, Stalin and Mao were only in it for the power itself. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

One of common criticisms is that socialism leads to totalitarianism. Also, Stalinism and Maoism are listed as forms of communism and communism is listed as form of socialism. Therefore, there is no reason to say that criticisms directed to Stalinism and Maoism don’t belong in the Criticisms of socialism section/article. -- Vision Thing -- 12:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing, firstly, the section "Criticisms of Socialism" should be a summary of the main article: unless it's part of the CoS article, it doesn't belong in the summary. Sedond, highlighting one claim, indeed, one disputed statistic, is giving undue weight to that claim: a summary should be a short overview. Thirdly, the claims are specific to communist states, for which we have dedicated pages. Hope this clarifies. -- Nema Fakei 20:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

1) It’s easy to expand CoS article once we agree about this issue; 2) I don’t think that anybody relevant disputes that the millions were killed, only the correct number is disputed; 3) there is no such thing as communist state – it’s oxymoron by definition; USSR and China considered themselves socialist states. -- Vision Thing -- 12:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

RE from 60.234.157.64: Sorry about the POV of my edits. I didn't realise at the time that I was being way too one sided. Don't worry, I'm not a Bush supporter or anything. I have made some NPOV revisions, and I realise that there is a clear, distinct difference between the old dogmatic type of 'socialism' of regimes of old, from the modern, dynamic type today. So I have made it clear in the edit, that the regims which caused those deaths were not of the same sort of socialism advocated today.

Michael40, I reverted your previous edit. I reverted because (a) it is POV - who says socialist states have "murdered" so many millions? (b) it is inappropriate for the socialism page, and is better suited for the State Terrorism page or something similar (c) undue weight - it is far too long in comparison to other sections. Gatoclass 12:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The definition of Socialism in the intro is far too shallow, in fact, it reads almost like a definition of Leninism/Stalinism -- Socialism goes far beyond the control of the means of production, and is not synomymous weith Communism or Leninism/Stalinism. Also, the intro really is too long. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Socialism is any economic system in which the means of production are owned and controlled collectively or a political philosophy advocating such a system." I'm pretty sure that all forms of socialism advocate some sort of common ownership of the means of production. This is merely a core feature of socialism upon which variants are built; it is not an exhaustive definition.

"A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole." Is this not true for all forms of socialism?

Certainly there is room for other reputable definitions, however. Care to suggest any?

And as for the intro, I agree with you there.

-- WGee 03:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

My point (assuming I had one) was that Socialism is more than just an economic system (in other words it is not merely in opposition to Capitalism). Let me think about the intro a bit (if I could find one of my college papers -- I was a PoliSci major -- I could just crib from there.)

"all forms of Socialism" gets tricky. Some economic/social/political systems that proclaim (or have proclaimed) to be Socialist are really totalitarianism presented in pretty, yet meaningless, wrapping of Socialist clichés. This of course explains the dread of Socialism in the US, where it is too closely associated with Communism. The irony, of course, is that some of the cornerstones of our economic/social/political system are essentially Socialist: Social Security, Medicare and Medicade, Unemployment Compensation, Worker's Comp, full suffrage, etc. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a wider definition of socialism is needed, or at least an admission that there are several different systems or ideals called "socialism". My rough impression is that variants which insist on the state (or "the people") owning the 'means of production' would be Communist-type socialism. USSR and the 'captive nations of East Europe', Red China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.

But there are non- Totalitarian varieties of socialism, aren't there? Orwell, who opposed totalitarianism, also liked (what he called) "democratic socialism".

So can socialism also be any ideal or system aimed at achieving an equitable distribution of wealth? From Robin Hood's simple idea of "taking from the rich, giving to the poor" to government taxes paying for municipal services like garbage collection or running electric generation plants; health insurance for the indigent or retired; etc.

Part of the problem of definition could be that some advocates associate "socialism" with Marxism-Lenisism (simply because it's one of Marx's theoretical stages) and refuse to look at any other type. I'm completely open-minded: that's an advantage that comes from not knowing very much! So if you don't like the way I butchered the intro you won't get any lip from me; let's just work together on figuring out what socialism is. -- Uncle Ed 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, see my comment to WGee. Oh, for practical purposes, modern Socialism tends not to aim for equitable (the original word, I believe, was equal -- equitable doesn't mean the same thing, of course) distribution of wealth per se, it aims at "levelling the playing field", for example assuring that all citizens have health care (not merely access, but the real thing). BTW, our system of progressive taxation can also be seen as socialistic.

Oh, re "paying for municipal services like garbage collection or running electric generation plants;" -- those are actually pragmatic decisions taken for economic and political reasons (for example, an outbreak of cholera decreases productivity thus the economy suffers; inability to provide basic needs (electricity is now one) tends to lead to political strife, that again reduces productivity and threatens the state.) The Roman Empire, which was hardly sociaslist, recognized those factors and therefore provided aqueducts, baths, fire protection, trash collection, etc., funded by the imperial treasury. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

While the policies you mention would be supported by most socialists, they are not socialist policies, they're actually tinkering with capitalism. There're various names for this - social-democratic, reformist, and so on, and I'll grant that pretty much any socialist party is likely to begin with arguing these reforms before trying to implement socialism proper.-- Nema Fakei 11:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible for a state to be totalitarian and socialist simultaneously. If such is the case, then the means of production are not owned and controlled by the people/collectively, and thus socialism does not exist. Also, I agree with Nema Fakei: the "non-totalitarian socialist" policies you described are merely social democratic reforms, and not widely considered to represent socialism.

Which policies would they be? Specificity would be appreciated (or at clarify to whose post you were referring). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My rough impression is that variants which insist on the state (or "the people") owning the 'means of production' would be Communist-type socialism. Your statement is somewhat of an oxymoron because communism (although it has been hijacked by totalitarian Communist Parties) entails a stateless political organization. And thus you wrongly equate communism to authoritarianism in that comment and in others. Moreover, the intro says "This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils or community councils, or it may be indirect, exercised through a State", so surely adequate attention is paid to the less authoritarian branches of socialism.

-- WGee 16:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. In communism proper there needs to be a temporary state. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The question has arisen on this talk page, reflecting (I assume) a similar question in the "real world" outside Wikipedia, about whether a state can be "totalitarian" and "socialist" simultaneously. I daresay this depends on how each of those terms are defined.

If the USSR was considered to be in what Marx defined as the "socialist" stage of history (or economic development) - AND if the USSR was considered to be totalitarian in the usual "controlling all aspects of society" definition - then there's no conflict.

However, people disagree about applying the term "totalitarian" to Communist governments like the USSR. In fact, they often object to labeling the it "Communist".

Making it even harder to agree, is the slippery nature of the term "socialism".

According to my university studies of Marxism-Leninism, the state is supposed to control the means of production in during the transition from Capitalism to "communism" (lowercase is essential here). And the name of this historical phase is "socialism".

Perhaps the dispute is over whether state ownership in the name of "the people" is recognized as authentic or not. Some critics of the USSR branded the Communist Party as a " Nomenklatura" or new " ruling class" and denied that the government gave "the people" a voice in anything. They argue that "the people" didn't own or control the farms or factories but that "the state" did.

Perhaps this means that the Soviet economy was not "really socialist". Or maybe it's just a terminological quibble. Critics of Communism generally lump it all together by saying that the Soviets didn't allow ownership of private property, i.e. large businesses, factories, farms, etc.

And that leads to their main objection to socialism: that it retards or even reverses national economic progress. One reason given for the (imputed) failure of socialism is that it destroys incentives. Another is that central planning almost always winds up ignoring demand. -- Uncle Ed 02:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If the USSR was considered to be in what Marx defined as the "socialist" stage of history (or economic development) - AND if the USSR was considered to be totalitarian in the usual "controlling all aspects of society" definition - then there's no conflict.

In Marxist theory a totalitarian state cannot be socialist, for when socialism exists "the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat"; therefore, there is a conflict.

-- WGee 18:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll have difficultly finding in Marx any theory which is compatible with the practice of the USSR. Even Marxist-Lenninist theory is not ostensively totalitarian (so far as I know, it's very important to distinguish the two, btw). It is certainly not a "terminological quibble" whether the state is an organisation which works in the interests of the proletariat -- it's a pretty fundamental issue concerning the nature of the state and the society.

Of course, we can say that the USSR (and other such states) claimed to be implementing a Marxist-Lenninist ideology, and that many critics of socialism/communism/etc. claim that a good faith attempt to implement any socialist/communist ideology inevitably leads to totalitarianism. But that is not quite the same thing as saying that a totalitarian state can be socialist according to socialist theory. Cadr 11:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Cut from article:

and they reject individualistic schools of thought which assert that society is the voluntary creation of individuals who chose to interact with each other. ^[2]

Who are "they"? Socialists in general? Or a particular brand of socialist identified by Einstein?

This critical quote certainly seems to fit Communist governments such as the USSR, North Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

By the way, shouldn't we have an article on socialism and Communism which compares and contrasts the two ideas? If they are so different as to be distinguisable, it shouldn't be to hard to describe their differences. -- Uncle Ed 18:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Socialism (in its non-Marxist sense) is an umbrella ideology, which encompasses communism; therefore, there is no difference between the two, per se. I assume you are referring to Marx's definition of socialism, however. The distinction between Marxist socialism and communism are well expalined here: Socialism#Transition_from_capitalism, in my opinion. -- WGee 02:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That entry you removed should stay because it is necessarily true. Since socialism holds that the individual and society are inseperable, it is absolutely opposed to individualism, which holds that the individual and society are seperable. It is not "asserted by some" (btw, we should refrain from using weasel words); it is a logical fact. Also, what is there to suggest that Einstein was talking about only a particular current of socialism? -- WGee 02:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with that, but it varies in degrees along the socialist spectrum --the closer to communism the less regard for the individual. In pure communism, the individual is analagous to a single cell in a human body --he matters only insofar as he contributes to the functioning of the whole organism. "Society" is the the organism --the individual is not. In individualism, the individual is the real organism and society is not, but is simply individuals interacting. In communistic socialism, the individual is treated as a means to the collective organism's ends. In individualism, the individual is treated as an end in himself. RJII 02:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

According to physicist Albert Einstein, "the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development". [16]

I'm not sure what he means by "predatory phase", since we have no article on it. It's an idea he attributes to Thorstein Veblen. -- Uncle Ed 19:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Competition v cooperation. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim's interpretation certainly seems logical. -- WGee 02:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the POV of my edits. I didn't realise at the time that I was being way too one sided. I'm kinda new to wikipedia. Don't worry, I'm not a Bush supporter or anything. I have made some NPOV revisions, and I realise that there is a clear, distinct difference between the old dogmatic type of 'socialism' of regimes of old, from the modern, dynamic type today. So I have made it clear in the edit, that the regims which caused those deaths were not necessarily of the same sort of socialism advocated by most today. Sorry for engaging in an 'edit war'. At the time I thought it was just you people being obnoxious. I hope that this new edit is more appropriate. But please can we make a compromise there and not have to continue the old story of 'me edit, you revert, repeat'.

Ok, I think something similar to what you've added would be very useful in the Criticisms page, and I'd like to discuss that there. The reason why I don't think it belongs here is that, well, if you look down the Socialism article, you'll see that it's very long; there are lots of sections which link to dedicated articles: e.g. the section Socialism#An economic system is a synopsis (which I would argue is too long) of a main article on the subject Socialist economics. Likewise, the CoS section should be a brief outline of the subjects covered in the main article Criticisms of socialism. There's no need to repeat the full text. Oh, and thankyou for being prepared to talk. (P.S. do 'sign' comments by typing "--~~~~" at the end of your posts, so we know who's speaking) -- Nema Fakei 12:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro says that socialists would like to "create a more just society that would reward hard work." Then, they give a Marxist source. I don't see anything saying that in the source. Communists are opposed to people being paid according to their work, but would rather see people being paid according to their "needs." "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." RJII 03:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Because we are trying to define the goals of the ideology, it is nessecary to cite the works of those who have played a fundamental role in developing the ideology: in this case, Henri de Saint-Simon, the founder of French socialism. After I read the source myself, I'll discuss your concern with the wording used in the article. -- WGee 01:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I understand that there is a problem with the unnecessary length of the Socialism article. But can we please possibly put in a diluted version in the Socialism section (in addition to the full version or something similar in the 'Criticisms of socialism' article? BTW wasn't aiming those angry remarks at oyu. That was intended for Gatoclass, who is blatantly filtering information, presumably due to political bias.

No, I'm not "blatantly filtering information", you are blatantly POV pushing.

Folks, what are we going to do about this guy? I'm relatively new to Wiki myself, and I don't really know how to handle this sort of attack on a Wiki page. Gatoclass 07:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can see, this particular anonymous user (assuming that the different IP addresses that have been pushing the same edit are indeed distinct users) seems open to discussion of the idea, its probably best just to take a deep breath and relax — though it would be nice if everyone could WP:AGF (it does tend to cut down on the number of inappropriate comments). This dispute has not yet reached the point of a bona fide edit war (I hope — its only been going on about a day). One might hope that this text being included on the criticisms of socialism page and a mention being made that critics of socialism take aim at the human rights records of regimes that "claim" to be socialist should be enough. More value could be added to this page by diversifying the brief summary of criticisms of socialism (two-thirds of that section describes who the critics are rather than what they say — information that, without specific names — is questionable at best and relatively unhelpful to understanding the main bones of contention. ^iggy _talk 07:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

One might hope that this text being included on the criticisms of socialism page

Um, not any more. I reverted it there too :b

a mention being made that critics of socialism take aim at the human rights records of regimes that "claim" to be socialist should be enough.

That's already been done, hasn't it?

it would be nice if everyone could WP:AGF

Oh, I'm sure he's editing in good faith. That's what worries me :) Gatoclass 08:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, can we get sorted what to add to the CoS article first (i.e. see its talk page)? That seems the most straightforward way of going about it. -- Nema Fakei 10:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have my doubts that this material is suitable for the CoS page either. For one thing, there are a plethora of different forms of socialism and socialist governments and to suggest that they are all somehow implicated in mass murder is ludicrous. Gatoclass 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's as may be, but it's a matter for discussion on the other page. To be honest, the entire CoS article suffers from the same problem.-- Nema Fakei 13:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Gatoclass, can you name one socialist regime so far (and I mean REAL socialism, or something close to it, not the type seen in Venezuela or Bolivia where a huge portion of the means of production is still privately owned) which HASN'T mass murdered it's own citizens. And btw, even with Venezuela there are widespread use of torture, intimidation, police brutality, assassinations, censorship, electoral fraud, against anti-chavez people (aka Gestapo tactics). Oh and did I forget to mention giving $1,000,000 US to Al-qaeda, AFTER 9/11 and more to numerous other terrorist groups who have massacred huge numbers of civilians (shining path for example). And yes all regimes so far which have contibuted to the 100,000,000 murders which I have mentioned have voluntarily identified themselves as Socialist and have been widely identified under that definition by mainstream media, historians and economists alike. I have not used wikipedia as my source originally, but I have found on the Democide wikipage that in fact I was wrong - MY FIGURES ARE TOO LOW! I'M SO VERY SORRY! It is actually more than 140,000,000 human individuals murdered, not 100,000,000. MY SINCEREST APOLOGIES GATOCLASS - I REALISE HOW WRONG I WAS! These are therefore acceptable by wikipedia already, so you ARE filtering valid information in a biased manner if you continue to remove my edits and cover-up this data. -- The previous unsigned comment was made by 130.216.191.184.

________________________________________

NOTE TO ALL USERS. This guy is a vandal. Check his edit history. He's been reported to admin. Edit: it appears this guy is operating out of Auckland Uni. So I guess there's no way of knowing whether every edit from this IP is by the same guy.-- The previous unsigned comment was made by Gatoclass.

Calm, please, both of you. I'll remind you of Wikipedia's policy of Assume Good Faith. Now, 130.216.191.184, I assume you are Michael40/60.234.157.64? If so, can I please ask that you use your account - it makes things a little easier to keep track. In any case, can everyone remember to sign their comments? I know we all forget sometimes.

OK. "can you name one socialist regime so far" No, I can't. There has been no country that adheres or adhered to socialist theory. "have mentioned have voluntarily identified themselves as Socialist" Will you be counting them as democracies, too? The USSR et al claimed to be democracies, after all. No? Well, then. Incidentally, even Lenin claimed that the USSR could have more accurately been called 'state-capitalist'. Democracy is an essential part of socialism. Granted the term has been abused by the media and by politicians, but that doesn't mean WP should dispense with accuracy in favour of widely held misconceptions. Now, while these claims are criticisms that get held not just against totalitarianism where they belong, but against socialism as a whole, they are very detailed. Moreover, it is entirely improper to include such information in a summary when the information does not exist in the CoS article. Please contribute to the discussion there. Note that it isn't just me and Gatoclass who are reverting your edits. The consensus seems to be that the chunk you keep adding is POV. Continuing to reinsert the text against consensus is very much against Wikipedia policy, and it's more likely to result in absolutely none of the text ending up in the articles, instead of it being integrated where it makes most sense. I understand you're new(ish), but that doesn't mean you can't take this advice now.

-- Nema Fakei 10:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Some good points there about socialism and the USSR. -- WGee 20:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The text seems to be getting somewhat closer to NPOV — at least as far as a vitriolic can get. Nevertheless, its length and specificity points to it belonging on the CoS article, as Nema has consistently argued, if not on the Criticisms of communism, which ably covers this topic — and with actual, reputable references (it might be worthwhile to examine that particular page for an example of a reasonably NPOV way of handling such divisive and emotionally-charged issues). As it stands, the text cites no sources (never mind reputable sources) and is full of weasel words. Please stop adding this text to this page — it will be reverted. ^iggy _talk 08:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a question of maintaining neutrality in this article, something I am not sure is a key component of importance to some users, therefore I dispute the neutrality of the edits that have been made. I once again removed the Einstein reference which states that "Socialists reject individualistic schools of thought..." Again, this concept cannot be applied to the entire ideology as individualism within socialist branches differs.

Gatoclass, please refrain from using a neutral page to promote conservative, or any other non-neutral viewpoints. I will take this up with the proper Wikipedia authorities if necessary.

Have a wonderful day!

-English Efternamn

EE, how you've managed to conclude I'm a "conservative" given my rather strenuous attempts to defend this page from rw POV pushing over the last few days is a mystery to me. But I guess if I'm being attacked from both sides of the fence, I must be doing something right :)

I deleted your phrase not because I am a "conservative", but because, as I was at pains to try and explain, your phrase was ambiguous and liable to lead readers to the very opposite idea of that which you intended.

In any case, Nema Fakei's compromise edit, though still unnecessary in my view, is acceptable to me. Regards, Gatoclass 02:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey! No need for that ("Gatoclass, ... necessary"). Please Assume Good Faith.-- Nema Fakei 00:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

One such theme is the idea that humans are inherently social beings who require social interaction and the companionship of others in order to survive and develop both physically and mentally. Therefore, socialism is necessarily opposed to individualism, which asserts that humans do not require social interaction and companionship. Why is this seen as a criticism? Opposition to individualism does not imply that socialism is tyrannical, solely concerned with the collective, or opposed to individual liberty; it means that socialism rejects theories that assert that society is the voluntary creation of individuals who chose to interact with each other. (This clear and precise wording was previously included in the article.) Socialism holds that the society is the fundamental unit of social organization (hence the name socialism). -- WGee 01:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but the reference is still unnecessesary and still a strawman. I will continue to remove it, it has no place in this article.

EnglishEfternamn

Could you please explain why you consider the referece a "strawman"? Einstein says: "It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished", which is in direct opposition to individualism. After reading the source and my previous comment, are you still contending that socialism isn't opposed to individualism?

Your substitute is not adequate, either: therefore, it is asserted by some critics that socialistic is less individualistic. Firstly, the use of a weasel words is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia because they only serve to mask personal opinions (as is the case here): please read WP:AWW for more information. Secondly, socialism is less individualistic than what? Your entry is quite ambiguous and uninformative. Finally, I have a reputable source to defend my edit, whereas you do not. Overall, your edit violates two Wikipedia policies: No Orginal Research and Avoid Weasel Words.

By the way, on what grounds do you consider Einstein a critic of socialism?

-- WGee 01:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I see a problem with the Einstein quote not because of its opinion of socialsm, but because Einstein was a Physicist and Mathematician. He is not known as an SME on politics, so his musings on the subject are essentially irrelevant. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Cut from article:

Socialist theory is diverse, and there is no single body of thought that is universally shared by all socialists. Rather, different socialist ideologies have arrived at similar conclusions by different paths. There are some common themes, however. One such theme is the idea that humans are inherently social beings who require social interaction and the companionship of others in order to survive and develop both physically and mentally ^[3]. Individuals cannot maintain their humanity if they are separated from the rest of society for too long. Thus, socialists believe that the individual and society are inseparable, therefore, it is asserted by some critics that socialism is less individualistic than Conservatism Libertarianism, or other ideologies that support market economies.

If we substituted the words "sociology" and "sociologists" in the first sentence, this paragraph would make just as much sense. So what is it doing here, instead of in the Sociology article?

Also, I don't follow the reasoning (not that I disagree, I simply can't understand) about keeping one's humanity vs. "individualism". Anyway, it sounds like a point of view that our readers would like to know more about. Whose argument is this? Is it a commonly made one? Is their less (or more) interaction in market economies than in planned economies? What evidence is there that letting people choose what price to buy and sell goods and services leads to greater social contact (or less frequent)? Or that this causes them to be "individualistic" in any sense (see individualism)? And what does this have to do with individual initiative and innovation, which often lead to advances, breakthroughs and progress (as in science and engineering)? [Okay, I'm an engineer, I'm biased; but I'd still like some answers!] -- Uncle Ed 20:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, there are many such cases: cosmological and cosmologists, culinary arts and culinary artists, art and artists, conservatism and conservatives, liberalism and liberals, Christian and Christians, Hinduism and Hindus, Islamic and Muslims, etc. Bottom line is that the comparison is not a valid one.

As WGee notes below there seem to be some fundamental misunderstandings regarding the definition of individualism.

Re "And what does this have to do with individual initiative and innovation..." -- I assume you mean what impasct does socialism have on these two items, and the answer would be "none". The difference however is that in a capitalistic society, especially in the conservative view of such a system, the goal of individual initiative and innovation is essentially to acquire wealth for oneself and has little to do with the impact on society. In a socialistic society the goal would be more geared toward the benefit the innovation could bring to society rather than to the individual. There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with either system, it is really a matter of personal preference which is often driven by cultural values. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cannot socialists hold the same views as sociologists? After all, Marx and other leading contributors to socialism were sociologists (among other things). I believe that part of this argument stems from a disagreement on what individualism actually is, so let us clear things up:

According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, individualism is (1) : a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount; also : conduct guided by such a doctrine (2) : the conception that all values, rights, and duties originate in individuals b : a theory maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual and stressing individual initiative, action, and interests; also : conduct or practice guided by such a theory

• interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount: This is directly opposed to socialism, which stresses that the interests of society must be ethically paramount.

• all values, rights, and duties originate in individuals: in socialism, all duties originate in society (i.e. citizens have the duty to work for the common good).

• economic independence of the individual: All forms of socialism advocate some form of economic collectivism, which is evidently contrary to the ideals of individualism.

Thus, on what basis do you contend that socialism does not reject individualism?

-- WGee 22:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This dispute arises from the inclusion of the statement that socialism rejects individualism, so I kept it out for now. However, nobody has provided a reason as to why the rest of the paragraph should be excluded, so I re-inserted it, for there must be some mention of society within the context of socialism (the name "socialism" wasn't chosen at random). -- WGee 22:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

See Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme [17], in particular this paragraph:

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This _equal_ right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right ofinequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded _only as workers_ and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

Cadr 13:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you still argue that communism is opposed to rewarding hard work, RJII?. This source should be inserted next to the disputed statement. -- WGee 15:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not meaning to start an argument here, but here are the two paragraphs that immediately follow that one:

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

We might also note:

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the _value_ of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

^iggy _talk 17:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but that was Marx's personal utopian vision of the future. This isn't an article about Marxism, it's an article about socialism in general. The quote I gave shows that socialists, at the very least, are not necessarily opposed to rewarding people for hard work as a matter of practical necessity. Certainly, there are plenty of vaguely socialist economic docterines (e.g. participatory economics) which are explicitly committed to rewarding people for hard work. Cadr 17:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know... Marx's language is a little loaded. It would be better to find a quote from a Socialist author who actually supported rewarding hard work. I'm not denying that they exist — just that Marx is the wrong person to quote in this connection. ^iggy _talk 17:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there are some socialists (e.g. "market socialists") that would support payment or "reward" for work (to a degree at least), but certainly not communist socialists. So, a blanket statement that that socialists wish to "create a more just society that would reward hard work" is false. Communists are staunchly opposed to such an idea, as a central principle of theirs. RJII 01:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Until I can find a quote from a more orthodox socialist, I'll suggest Parecon's concept of reward for "effort and sacrifice". Cadr 18:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Central to communism is the idea that people should not be paid according to their labor, but to receive goods according to their need. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." For example, Joseph Déjacque wrote a letter to Prouhon (who supported a market economy where payment was in proportion to labor exerted) criticizing him for his support of reward for work. He admonished Prouhon, saying, "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." In communism, no matter how hard you work, or how many hours you work, it's irrelevant in regard to what you receive. That's the only way that the goal of wealth equality can be achieved. If people can make more money by working harder than others, then they can accumulate wealth. As a result, class distinctions form which is anathema to communism. Communists are strongly opposed to being "rewarded for hard work" or even rewarded at all for work. RJII 01:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite true, RJII -- they would only accumulate wealth if they received capital in exchange for their labour, but they might just get a reward (say, some luxury or other). "...to each according to his need" is just a slogan in the Communist Manifesto, it's not a central principle of Marxism. Note also "from each according to his ability" -- that would surely imply that laziness is not to be tolerated, since a lazy person would not give according to his ability. For sure, some communists oppose any reward for individual hard work. But I've shown that (a) Marx was not opposed to rewarding hard work in the first, non-utopian stage of a communist society (i.e. the sort of society that most realistic socialists might seek to build). Second, that there are plenty of libertarian socialists and anarcho-syndicalists who have no objection to rewarding effort (see participatory economics, etc.). To take another example, George Orwell in [18] suggested limiting income disparities to 10:1, so that there would be room for giving people incentives:

It is no use at this stage of the world’s history to suggest that all human beings should have exactly equal incomes. It has been shown over and over again that without some kind of money reward there is no incentive to undertake certain jobs. On the other hand the money reward need not be very large. In practice it is impossible that earnings should be limited quite as rigidly as I have suggested. There will always be anomalies and evasions. But there is no reason why ten to one should not be the maximum normal variation. And within those limits some sense of equality is possible. A man with £3 a week and a man with £1,500 a year can feel themselves fellow creatures, which the Duke of Westminster and the sleepers on the Embankment benches cannot.

Cadr 16:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Not all communism is Marxism. Communist anarchists oppose all payment for work. They advocate the abolition of money, and the amount of labor exerted in production by any individual is irrelevant. There is no payment --for anything. No buying and selling of anything at all. There is only distribution "according to need." RJII 02:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Communists are strongly opposed to being "rewarded for hard work" or even rewarded at all for work. RJII 01:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC) - That sounds a lot like the last company I worked for :) Gatoclass 03:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this an article on Socialism or Communism? While both owe much of their ideology to Marx, they really are fundamentally and functionally different ideas in the end. The closet analogy I can think of would be the three Abrahamic religions -- they all derived from a single Semitic mythology, yet their differences significantly outweigh their similarities. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Socialism, to answer your rhetorical question. I'm personally not convinced that the two terms can be defined precisely enough to say what, if any, the difference is between them. Generally, socialism seems to refer to more moderate views than Communism, but not necessarily (libertarian socialism is pretty radical, for example). Both seem to mean more of less the same as "Nazism" in US political discourse (i.e. just a scare word). Cadr 16:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

According to this article, socialism is an umbrella ideology that encompasses communism; however, according to Marxist theory, socialism is utterly distinct from communism. In Marx's definition of socialism, people are paid wages according to the social value of their labour, so income inequality still exists (but not income inequity); class divisions and the state still exist as well, but the state is controlled by the proletariat/working class via representative democracy and most productive property is held in common (thus eliminating exploitation by the capitalist class). In communism, class divisions and the state no longer exist, and all property is held in common, eliminating the need for money and wages (which would be replaced by vouchers of somekind or a gift economy, to allow distribution based on need).

So, socialists only wish to establish the less-radical socialism phase of society, which is why they are viewed as more moderate than communists, who wish to "go all the way".

-- WGee 19:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Communism is the purest, or most extreme, form of socialism. Those socialists who are not as dedicated to an extreme form of equality and would like to see people paid according to their work water it down by introducing market reforms, such as market socialism. But, of course workers aren't even then going to get fully what they've earned, because there's going to be a lot of taxation and wealth transfers in order to prevent too much inequality. So, even with market socialism, it's still arguable that people are "rewarded for hard work" but certainly not so for communist socialism. RJII 03:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to Marx, socialism is not a "form" of communism; it is a totally different phase of society. But clearly you don't subscribe to his philosophy. Socialists aren't committed to economic equality at all, only economic equity or fairness. -- WGee 04:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Socialism is not a form of communism. Communism is a form of socialism. And, if Marx disagrees with that, that doesn't really matter. He's not a secondary source on socialism. Saying that socialists are committed to "equity" or "fairness" says nothing at all. Capitalist are committed to the same. The difference is what they percive to be equitable. Socialists think that it is unjust for some people to be poor and some to be rich. They don't like wealth inequality. The communists take that to an extreme and want absolute wealth equality while market socialists allow wealth inequality as long as it's not too extreme. RJII 04:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say that communism is not merely a form of socialism, according to Marx. -- WGee 04:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing your orginal idea that communists (most of them) are opposed to payment based on merit. The source that says something to the effect of "socialists reward hard work" is probably using the term socialist in its Marxist sense, as I explained it. This is where the problem begins. You are referring to socialism as the broad ideology that includes communism. -- WGee 04:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And, this article includes communism as one of the "types of socialism." There is a large section on communism. So, we have to be very careful making blanket statements about socialism. Saying that socialists in general are for being rewarded for work is false. RJII 04:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we not only need to re-examine the source, but also re-examine the article's definition of socialism. We should make clearer the two definitions of socialism, and decide which one should be prominent in the article. For example, the Encarta Encyclopeadia uses a more restrictive definition of socialism than the article: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577990/Socialism.html -- WGee 06:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My goodness, what a load of tripe! And that's supposed to be a professionally-written encyclopaedia? "Saying that socialists in general are for being rewarded for work is false." Um, no. Can you cite some socialist sources opposed to work should be rewarded? There are plenty of socialists in favour of proportionate (egalitarian) wealth inequality, so long as it does not become disporportionate. [19] explains a detailed way of doing it, "Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations." "We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor (&ff.)" Comm. Manif. Ch. II. -- Nema Fakei 10:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Déjacque: "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature" (Letter to Proudhon). Carlo Cafeiro : "If we preserve the individual appropriation of the products of labour, we would be forced to preserve money, leaving more or less accumulation of wealth according to more or less merit rather than need of individuals" (Anarchism and Communism). Communists are opposed to private property. If people are paid for their labor, that payment would be private property. Private property creates class distinctions, so they favor collectivization of whatever is produced. Florence Conference of the Italian Federation of the International: "The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity." "Needs" are the "only rule" --the amount of labor you exert is irrelevant in regard to what you receive. RJII 14:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

To give an extended quote from the Communist Manifesto:

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Clearly, mainstream socialist/communist thought is not opposed to people being rewarded for labour, at least to a certain extent. Proudhon wasn't either, and he's often considered a proto libertarian socialist. The people you quote a relatively minor figures in Communist/Socialist thought, and shouldn't be given too much prominence in the article. Cadr 14:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon was in favor of a right to the product of labor, and payment in accordance with how much labor a person exerts. That's why the communist were opposed to Proudhon. And, if there is no money in a communist system, how are people going to be "rewarded" for their work? They're not. Everything produced is relegated to a collective pool and becomes the collective property of everyone in the collective. That ensures equal wealth distribution and the lack of class distinctions. RJII 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Communists were opposed to wage labour overall, but not to a right to the product of one's own labour, as shown in the above quote. The idea was that industrialisation would simply make any other form of private porperty (except toothbrushes etc.) obsolete, because the division of labour and industrialisation would make it impossible to say what exactly the product of anyone's labour was. But as the manifesto says:

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

As I said, this is an article about Socialism and Proudhon is often considered to have been a (proto) socialist. Hiss support for the right to the product of one's labour therefore supports the idea that socialism isn't inherently opposed to reward. As for the question of how people can be rewarded without money, use your imagination! Also, money != capital. Capital is money which can be used for the exploitation of labourers (i.e. used to pay wages). Cadr 14:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, socialism is not inherently opposed to reward. That's not my point. My point is that the communist form of socialism, is. Therefore, it's wrong for the article to say that socialists in general support reward for work. It's not true. RJII 04:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we would need more sources to establish that that's a correct interpretation. Marx himself is rather ambiguous on this point (as the quotation I provided a bit further above shows). Cadr 14:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Socialism has, as one of its goals, equal distribution of wealth. True or false? (If not true, just ignore everything that follows.)

False. "Equitable" would be more like it. Absolute wealth equality is a straw man, advocated by virtually no-one -- certainly not as a practical goal rather than a near-impossible ideal. See for example the Orwell quote above, or Nema Fakei's comment. Cadr 14:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The goal of equal distribution of wealth may or may not be in contradiction to the principle of allowing people to have incentives to work harder or smarter. I think this is the key point.

Another goal of socialism is (for some writers, theorists and politicians) to improve the economic lot of the average citizen. Sometimes this is measured by the " median" income: Half the people make more than this, half the people make less.

This second goal also may or may not be in contradiction to the goal of equal distribution of wealth; if it is, there are tradeoffs to consider. Like, if we can raise the lot of the lower classes tenfold, shall we allow the rich to get 100 times richer? Or is is better to raise the lot of the lower classes two fold while preventing the rich from getting richer at all? Or something else?

It really depends on what each socialist's goals are, and how they rank them. If "sticking it to the rich" is one's primary goal, then he'll advocated killing the Capitalists and landowners (and as in Cambodia the intellectuals). If "no one has more than anyone else" is the primary goal, then you'll focus on expropriation ( nationalization) and control wages and prices.

Main arguments against socialism claim that whatever the mix of goals, they all ought to fail (theoretically) or all have already failed (actually). Solzhenitsyn made this claim in 1978. (It's not "my idea", I'm trying to write neutrally here.)

Arguments against socialism generally claim that its goals (or some of them) can be better achieved by a market economy of some sort. Usually the first thing free market advocates concede is that monopolies should be forbidden: no "cornering the market" should be allowed, because that would breake the supply and demand cycle that keeps prices down and quality up. (Thus, it is rare to find a "pure" free market advocate.)

Another argument against socialism as that "collective ownership" when enforced by law turns into state ownership, and that government's inherent ineffeciency wipes out any advantage of " economies of scale". An example is street maintenance or garbage collection in any large American city. A more poignant example is the inability of North Korea to grow enough food.

Part of the inefficiency (according to socialism opponents) is the removal of incentives: someone who works twice as hard or ten times as smart is forbidden by law to profit from his extra labor or his innovation. Anecdotal reports say that a worker who doubles his output merely draws down the opprobrium of his peers: "Hey, stop working so hard, or the bosses will just raise the quotas again!" (needs source, I forget where I read this).

The point of this long comment is not to PROVE that socialism is or is not an admirable ideal; a workable system; or as good as free market Capitalism. I'm just offerering a few ideas that might improve the article. Other ideas, which I haven't read about anywhere yet, might include experiments with socialism which have worked out well. Friends tell me I "just don't understand" things like democratic socialism or social democracy, which I vaguely suppose are attempts to have a socialist economy and a democratic (i.e., non-Cuba style) government - or some kind of free market + socialism blend. -- Uncle Ed 13:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Many socialists also advocate a free market without capitalism, for example market socialism. // Liftarn

This is often something that is overlooked. Revolutionary groups began to adopt socialist ideas, and increasingly more radical ideas, and leftist groups were prominent even before the Soviets sent their advisors. However, this systemic bias somehow always concentrates on the CPC's development especially after the Chinese Civil War, and not of the communist movements before Soviet intervention in Chinese politics. Please fix this. See Chinese anarchism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} ( Be eudaimonic!) 04:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Vandal!! This IP address is for the entire University of Auckland, and so is shared by more than 25,000 users. I am not responsible for the reckless actions of those other random people. - 130.216.191.184.

As it says on your talk page's header(and many other IP talk pages), "If you are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself."-- ᎠᏢ 4 62090 ^Contribs 16:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding neutrality and factual accuracy dispute tags to the article as a result of the recent edits on this page, many of which are clearly POV. I don't have time to really edit or look over it all, but including the nazi germany as an example of a socialist country without any talk of the controversy surounding such a label is clearly non-neutral. The Ungovernable Force 05:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This article needs more than dispute tags; it's atrocious. I couldn't believe how bad it was after looking at this article for the first time in at least more than a year. It reads like a bad high school debate team discussion. It's so bad I'm tempted to stay up all night with a few cups of coffee to rewrite it entirely myself. More likely, I'll be rewriting it sometime in the next week. 172 | Talk 06:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm studying for a chem final, or else I'd be doing more. I really shouldn't even be checking my watchlist right now but I couldn't resist. I just looked up pH. Yawn. I'm totally going to fail!!! The Ungovernable Force 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's plain vandalism. Just revert to last good version instead. It seems it's yet another The Middle East Conflict Man sock puppet. // Liftarn

- User Freeway

Why do I doubt that? Anyone up for a checkuser? The Ungovernable Force 05:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Liftam was referring to you. Gatoclass 14:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Freeway is actually blocked as a sock puppet or impersonator of The Middle East Conflict Man. Both have the same tactic of inserting offensive images in the article. Just as the Liberalism article has no images of Augusto Pinochet those images do not belong in this article. // Liftarn