Talk:Socialism/Archive 2

Debate

One of the funny things about this page is any perceived problem of the USSR is used to say "socialism is discredited", yet on the communist page, any perceived problem of the USSR is used to say "communism is discredited" as well. It's amazing how one country can be under two systems simultaneously and supposedly discredit them in the eyes of the Enfamil-weened American yuppies who like to edit these pages. Then their comments usually are "well this is a commonly held view of Enfamil-weened American yuppies, even if it's incorrect, so it will stay in as the main article, instead of just a small contrary abberation noted at the bottom". I guess growing up in a land where Ronald Reagan was yelling about how the Lord was on America's side against the atheist "evil empire", necessitating the arming of Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Contras, Pinochet, Iranians and so forth (some of these now considered official US bad guys), you get a rather warped view of the world. Of course, Wikipedia is owned and controlled by a wealthy American, so what would you expect? -- Lancemurdoch 08:09, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm neither an American nor a yuppie, Lance, so I suggest you keep your sarcasm to yourself. You clearly know nothing about the subject so perhaps you should and edit somewhere else. Adam

---

"Its key ideas are a belief in equality, both political and economic, as well as opposition to capitalism. The socialist view of social organisation is well encapsulated in the following saying (attributed to Marx): From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."

Opposition to capitalism has nothing to do with mainstream socialism in Europe today. Social democrats openly embrace capitalism in the society. The 'social' part has mainly to do with having a tad smaller gap between the rich and the poor than in U.S. This is, in general, done by higher taxation and unemployment assistance.

The term "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." is quoted wrong. That sounds more like Social Democracy (yuk!). What Marx said was (I'm not sure about the exact wording here though): "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." and he was referring to Communism after the revolution. Marx actually was openly against socialists. 'Communism was the only solution'.

The introduction should be re-written. Finlander 18:59, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Marx quote

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his work. " This is *not* a quote from Marx - it is need not work. As the person reverting this will not explain their reversion I presume it is out of ignorance. Secretlondon 17:10, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

I second that. A google search for "to each according to his work" didn't found anything, whereas "to each according to his need(s)" found many pages! If this quote subsumes what communism is, not what socialism is (or wants to be ;-)), then it shouldn't be included into the article -- but not changed. -- till we *) 18:53, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

That Marx quote is about communism, not socialism. From _Critique of the Gotha Programme_: "In a higher phase of communist society...society [can] inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". You see, he is talking about communism, not socialism. In Marxist-Leninist ideology, socialism is a stepping stone to communism, so while communism is "according to need", socialism is often called "from each according to ability, to each according to work" - in the 1936 USSR constitution for example. But the main point is Marx's quote is about communism, not socialism. -- Lancemurdoch 20:18, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But the it shouldn't be attributed to Marx, but to the 1936 USSR constitution

ARTICLE 12. In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." [1]

till we *) 21:38, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

While I tried to correct the intro -- showing the different quotes --, Wik tried to del the whole paragraph ("# (cur) (last) . . 22:43, Jan 8, 2004 . . Wik (better leave this out entirely)") -- can you say something why you think it is better to leave this out? -- till we *) 21:49, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

1) I don't think this is a general socialist principle. The Soviet constitution is no authority in that regard. 2) It makes no sense to make a contrast to communism when the next paragraph names communism as a form of socialism. --Wik 22:01, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Wik is right about communism being a form a socialism. Perhaps some of the issues about whether X is "really" socialism are more about how much adherents of a particular variant of socialism like or dislike other systems. --Uncle Ed 22:11, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see the problem, but I don't really see a solution. Because: there are some people who say that communism is just one kind of socialism (or even vice-versa). There are other people who say, that socialism (as in USSR) is the way to communism. Socialism in the sense of pre-19th-century proto-socialism in France and the UK is something complelty different to the different kinds of post-Marxian socialism, ranging from communism and anarchosyndikalism to social democratic movements. Another bunch of people would say: "they all are red commies, so what the f***?". So, I see that it doesn't really make sense with the quotes, but either way: there seem to be some things that have to be sorted out to make the article meaningful. Perhaps one should make this a disambiguation article ;-) ... -- till we *) 22:18, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

The solution is to clarify the various meanings of the terms. Some of the terms may need disambiguators such as an adjective or phrase: e.g., Soviet-style communism or Marx's theory of socialism.

The main point I remember from my university studies of Communist theory is that Marx and other theorists maintained that socialism was a necessary stage along the historical path to communism. This factoid stands out in my mind because my favorite book twits Marx for neglecting to explain how or why socialism would "wither away" into communism, while all previous transitions like that from capitalism to socialism necessitated violence. (This gets into foundation and superstructure, left-wing Hegelianism and the theory of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.)

Communist terminology is tricky, partly because the terms are esoteric, but also because various writers have their peculiar definitions. (Not to mention that some Communist politicians use the same word differently - even contradictorily. Reminds me of Arafat saying one thing in English to the West, and another thing in Arabic to his supporters.)

A major part of what I did a year or two ago was to begin straightening out some of this terminological confusion. It wasn't easy, because I had to curb my own anti-communism to write neutrally. --Uncle Ed 16:42, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Note Ed Poor

Ed, I snipped this little editorializing of yours out of the article:

Communist governments resorted to censorship and to restrictions on foreign travel, to prevent their citizens from finding out that workers were tens or hundreds of times better off financially in countries which permitted competition and profit.

If you want to pursue this angle, I think you should do it elswhere. I know you hate communism and I don't want to get into a long discussion with you here, but I urge you simply to consider the fact that the vast majority of workers in Russia are worse off now than they were fifteen years ago. Capitalism doesn't bring blessings to everyone. -- Viajero 21:53, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

...and regardless of what one thinks of the "blessings of capitalism", the passage clearly belongs in an article on Communism or even State Communism, not in an overview of Socialism. -- Jmabel 06:17, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

mmm...that particular passage ought not be in any article, I think, due to being massively POV. But at least a basic discussion of communism is in order for the article on socialism. Communism, unlike Nazism, is pretty easily arguably a form of socialism. On the other hand, comments talking about specific aspects of communism ought not be in the article about socialism. john 06:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you and I are disagreeing; my main point was that there is a far better article in which to take up the issue Ed is raising and, yes, it could certainly be expressed in an infinitely less POV manner. Not utterly irrelevant to this article, just better taken up elsewhere. -- Jmabel 06:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Real Socialist"

If someone knows what I'm talking about and is able to translate the Swedish word "realsocialism" to English I'd be happy. BL 09:42, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if this is still an issue, but if realsocialism means the same in Swedish as it means in German, then it shouldn't be changed to "reformist". It is clearly denoted with the east bloc systems, and could be "translated" as something like "state socialism in the east bloc with all its problems and failures" as opposed to "true socialist idea(l)s". Maybe some native English speaker could tell us if there is a English word for this concept (think of realpolitik) -- till we *) 14:42, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Changed it back to "reformists". Although "progressives" is a very similar word, reformist is very well defined while "progressives" can mean way to many things. BL 11:01, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

I see the opposite. Progressive has a clear meaning. reformist is impossibly vague and situational, and should not have wikilinks. Jack 11:11, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You see wrong, Jack. A thing can be progressive, like income tax. Movements and people can also be progressive. Indeed, reformism leads to progressive changes. But reformism is the subjective and progressive is the adjective. Social Democracy was founded on Reformism + Socialism, while Communism is a combination of Revolutionism and Socialism. BL 11:26, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

My comment was based on what I knew of "reformism", since that wikilink wasn't active. Either you wrote the reformist article, or fixed the link or something since then. Since I'm not familiar with this more specific use, I abstain from judgement. All I can say is that I'd not heard it used in quite exactly that way before. Jack 13:00, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Social Democracy was, before World War I, divided between reformist and revolutionary wings. The first world war generally sundered those wings, and thereafter, the reformist wings tended to dominate what was left of the "socialist" or "social democratic" parties of Europe. john 19:57, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

From the article:

Many socialist thinkers argue that free market economics, a hallmark of capitalist systems, generally results in profits for a few at the expense of the many. Many advocates of free markets, particularly in America, dispute this contention, claiming that people generally prosper as a result of free market economies; hence, that Capitalism works for the benefit of all.

This comment is better suited for an article about capitalism than an article about socialism. Generally speaking, arguments against X in an entry about X should be placed under their own subheading instead of being interspersed with the rest of the article. For that reason, this comment should either be removed from the article or placed under a "Criticisms of Socialism" subheading.

About editor's comments within the article: I have added the words Editor's note to comments another person inserted within the article itself. If you're going to add comments that disrupt the flow of the original article, the source and purpose of the note should at least be made clear. 198.87.103.16 14:43, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ideology

I hope I've at least come up with a decent structure for the "ideology" part of the article. Since I've done some very bold editing over the last few hours, and I'm not sure if there is anything like consensus for what I've done, I'm going to stay out of the article itself for a couple of days to give others a chance to react, although I'll gladly participate in discussion in this talk page. If people seem at least moderately happy with what I'm doing, I'll try to go on and do similar things to the other sections, or I'd welcome it if someone else clueful took that on. I think there is as much of a typology of state socialisms as there is of socialist ideologies. -- Jmabel 06:44, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Picture

Should the American Socialist Party campaign poster really be on this page? It only relates to a specific branch of socialism in early 20th century America.Saul Taylor 10:56, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Certainly not the worst choice. It dates from a time when the various strains of socialism were less sharply divided than today, and it relates to roughly the politics that most unqualifiedly refers to itself as simply "socialist": very radical, but not advocating violent revolution. No one picture is going to be representative, but I think it's a fair choice. -- Jmabel 18:40, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree that no one picture could possibly be representative and thats why I don't really think having a picture on this page is appropriate really (certainly that picture would be appropiate Socialist Party of America or History of American socialism but having it here seems a bit America-centric to me aswell as beeing a bit POV. Saul Taylor 13:42, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather see that fixed by balancing with, say, two more pictures (maybe one from a third world context and one from Europe), but I would not object to removing the picture from this article, as long as it was moved into a more appropriate article. -- Jmabel 19:39, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I definately would be appropriate on Socialist Party of America and I'd add it there if I knew how. I think your idea of adding more pictures would be an improvement but even then it would still seem a little POV unless we had representative pictures from Trotskyism, Social Democracy, Stalinism, Maoism, Anarchism, etc. Saul Taylor 08:04, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

moved from article

"Also, most Social Democratic parties in the world, especially those of Europe, have a membership that could be divided into three types of "Social Democrat", all categories are represented in all of the partys, to varying degrees based upon the peculiarities of their regional or national situation. There are those who would call themselves social democrats but not socialists (and likewise not marxists), those who would call themselves socialists (of some kind), but not Marxists per se, and those would call themselves both Marxist and Socialist. It should also be noted that the youth organizations in these Social Democratic partys generally produce literature far more to the left, i.e, more 'Marxist'. The best example of this is the German Social Democratic Party, or Sozis (as opposed to Nazis), where the leadership is generally non-Marxist and the youth league is generally Marxist, even using the terms socialism and communism somewhat interchangebly, or likewise believe Socialism to be a societal sub-phase between Capitalism and Communism."

This paragraph has a misleading premise, that social democrats are all there is to socialism. It also reflects a bias I am trying to smooth, wherein authoritarianism is not discussed. Jack 08:37, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make here Jack is that it is misleading to characterize social democrats (as opposed to societies which could be described as social democracies) as all being reformists. There is a broader range on the political spectrum of those who consider themselves social democrats. There could be mention of the fact that there are no uniquely identifiable stalinist or maoist strains in contemporary social democratic thought; though the stated influence and congruence with the ideas of marx, luxembourg, zetkin, and liebnekt, all socialist-communists for example, is a matter of public record.

My own feeling is that this is basically good content, but that it probably belongs more in an article on "Social Democrat" or "Social Democracy

than "Socialist". After all, the fact that Social Democrats have, within their ranks, various attitudes toward Socialism and Marxism is an important fact about Social Democrats, but not an important fact about Socialism or Marxism. -- Jmabel 17:18, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of recent edits

I think most of the recent edits have been beneficial. There are a few in the parts of the article I've worked on with which I have some issue. I'd appreciate discussion here, before I go in and edit again.

• The statement was removed that the Christian Social Party of Karl Lueger in Austria before and after World War I is not generally considered socialist. I think that statement (which was not mine) is true and relevant and should be restored. (It would apply similarly to the Christian Social Union in contemporary Bavaria.) On the other hand, I think it would be useful to provide at least one example of a group that could legitimately be called Christian socialists.
  • I've now addressed this, and also added a stub article Christian socialism. -- Jmabel 07:56, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• After "Do they advocate centralized state control of the socialized sectors of the economy" I had given Stalinism rather than Leninism as an example because it is blatant. Lenin was back and forth about this at various stages of his career, and the later groups that call themselves Leninist are divided on the matter. I was trying to avoid the need to qualify the one-word example. Still, I suppose that most people mean by "Leninism" the policies he actually implemented in power, and while those varied on how much of the economy should be socialized, they all centralized the socialized sectors, so I guess this is OK. Just wanted to point up the issue here.
• The addition of the questions "Does the power of the worker's councils then itself constitute a state form? In other words, through what legal and political apparatti will the worker's acheive this socialization of the means of production?" is pertinent (if misspelled), but whoever added them made no effort to answer them. As unanswered questions, they probably belong in the talk page rather than the article.
• I don't want to presume what someone meant by "Rev. Marxism" and "Ref. Marxism". I have my guess, but I'd prefer that whoever made these edits clarify instead of my having to guess.
  • This has long since been addressed. -- Jmabel 07:56, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• "Bernsteinism"? Never heard of it. I'll take your word that it's real, but it's news to me, and I'm pretty knowledgable on this. Could someone please link and expand in an appropriate article (or at least stub) with at least one useful reference?
• My sentence "Does their critique of the existing system center on the ownership of the means of production... or on the nature of mass production...?" was edited into "Does their critique of the existing system center on the ownership of the means of production... or on the nature of mass and equitable distribution...?" This doesn't even make sense to me, and I am very inclined to restore the original unless the person who changed it can reword more coherently.
  • This has been sorted out. It needed to be a 3-way distinction. -- Jmabel 07:56, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Again, the bulk of the edits have simply been improvements. Thanks to the several people who came in behind me and improved on what I wrote. -- Jmabel 17:58, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agreed that recent edits are an better than what had been going on previously. We are making progress - and your efforts are appreciated. However, much of the current text should be moved to articles on History of Socialism, Communism, Stalinism Communist state, and so forth (if not already discussed there). We need to be clear on the distinction between these terms. The article should clearly show how socialism has evolved in various parts of the world (i.e., a non-revolutionary, mixed capitalist/cooperative movement where key elements of the means of production are owned by the state and social security programs attempt to equalize inequality). Sunray 19:47, 2004 Jan 27 (UTC)

Probably right about moving, but let's first try to get it solid here, then disperse it out. Right now we seem to have several reasonably knowledgable people with somewhat different expertise and POV focused on one article, which is a good way to make a lot of progress relatively quickly. -- Jmabel 01:33, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Rev. was shorthand for revolutionary, as you probably guessed, while Ref., as you probably already assumed, is for reformist. I can go now and change those so out of my short hand so that it reads better. JCapone

In response to 'Do They Advocate ...', I did go back and clear that up. I hope it reads more clearly now. I'll report back when I substantiate my discussion of Bernstein, though any of you can get a good idea about what's going on with Bernstein and his version of Marxian Socialism as a reformist at the Marxist Internet Archive. JCapone 23:51, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Bernstein was a leading revisionist in Germany before WWI, but I've never heard of "Bernsteinism". john 02:10, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I went to look for a general description of Bernsteinism from the Marxist Internet Archive. It is slightly POV, IMO, but I didn't write it.

Bernsteinism

'A reformist trend in German and International Social-Democracy. It emerged in Germany at the end of the 19th century, and got its name from Eduard Bernstein, a German Social-Democrat, who tried to revise Marx's revolutionary theory on the lines of bourgeois liberalism.

Among his supporters in Russia were the Legal Marxists, the Economists, the Bund and the Mensheviks.'

JCapone 22:47, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Mensheviks were absolutely not revisionists. They were Orthodox Marxists, who continued to believe in revolution as the only way to achieve socialism. There was no genuine revisionism among the Russian Marxist parties. Both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were orthodox. Mensheviks were pretty close to the main body of what would become the Independent Socialists in Germany during WWI, like Kautsky and so forth. john 23:50, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to kick this back into gear by majorly rewriting the existing section on what is meant by a socialist economy. I've added some, moved some around, deleted almost nothing.

Right now, too much of this section (proportionally) is about whether or not the State Communist economies were socialist. I think that the content is relevant, but what we are missing is any discussion of other economies and the extent to which they are socialist or have socialist elements. Since I just made a big edit in what had been an article with a lot of hands, I'm going to give this a couple of days to let the dust settle. If anyone else wants to start writing on that, great, otherwise I'll eventually get there. -- Jmabel 07:56, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think what you have done has greatly improved that section. It's still not perfect (as you point out), but it reads at lot better now, and covers more ground. I've got a few ideas of other economies, however I'd need to do more research before I'm confident I can write about them from a NPOV. ShaneKing 08:03, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've recently abstracted a section "Socialism and the mixed economy", pulling together a lot of odds and ends from the article. I have added some content, and I believe I have not deleted anything except duplications of material. However, this section could probably use an editorial pass by someone else: It was a thicket, and I've only been able to do so much at one stretch. -- Jmabel 08:21, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've recently rewritten the section "The Socialist society that will succeed Capitalism"; I'm sure this is better than what was here, but it's probably still POV. Needs more work. -- Jmabel 08:50, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I happen to think that much of what TDC has recently added is worthwhile, though some of the way he did it is very POV. I'll get in there and try to NPOV it a bit. Also, I think responses to these criticisms of socialism, preferably duly sourced to respected writers rather than just "in response, socialists would say" would be in order. -- Jmabel 17:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That would indeed be a good addition. What I added today was just a rough go, and does need some work. I will most likely spend the next week or so adding more information on this section, so any POV issue cleanup would be appreciated -- TDC

TDC, do you really think this article is the right place for this material? I agree that it belongs together someplace, but to me this is not the obvious place. Nearly all of it seems to be a critique of central planning and an argument for free markets. I would think that it belongs either (positively stated) in free market or (as a critique) in Command economy.

While all forms of socialism involve some limitations of free markets, so do all existing forms of capitalism, in varying degrees. Also, not all forms of socialism involve central planning (consider, for example, participatory economics, probably the most serious effort to date to envision an efficient, non-centrally-planned, non-market economics). -- Jmabel 17:48, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I had noticed that on other, or most other, entries on economic models there was a criticsm section. That is the reason I had added it here. I do understand your point and if you could think of a more appropriate place for it, say marxism or PE then I think that idea could be entertained. -- TDC

I think Command economy is the best place for most of the "criticism" section. The criticisms are meaningless here, because they don't apply to all of the things called "socialism". Even if the vast majority of socialist systems had a command economy at its core, then the criticism would be better placed there, where its specific. DanKeshet 21:15, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Command Economy is an aspect to every form of marxism, except perhaps anarchism. At least in practice at any rate. Are you saying that there is no room for a criticsm section in this entry? TDC

TDC, this previous comment sounds very confused:

1. This is an article on Socialism, not Marxism.
2. As you could easily find out by reading the article, many (perhaps most) forms of socialism are not Marxist.
3. Your remark implies that anarchism is a form of Marxism. That's so wrong I don't know what to say to it.
4. While the communist states were, more or less, command economies ("less" being cases like Yugoslavia in its last 2 communist decades or the Soviet Union under Lenin's short-lived NEP), plenty of self-declared Marxists do not advocate a centralized command economy. Marx himself is hard to pin down on this, saying different things at different times.
5. Conversely, many command economies are not Marxist, nor even socialist. For example, Nazi Germany had many aspects of a command economy, as did Japan during its boom years in the late 20th century, or, for that matter, the US during World War II (and, one could certainly argue, the moving away from market mechanisms did, indeed, create some of the economic distortions your "critics" predict."

These are among the reasons why I think "command economy" (or, conversely, "free market") is where this content belongs.

Absolutely, there is room for a criticism section in this entry, or any politically oriented entry, but the criticism section ought to go in the article most relevant to those criticisms. These criticisms seem to apply to any command economy, socialist or not, and seem not to apply to a socialist but non-command economy (e.g. participatory economics or "market socialism"). I would think that a section in this article on criticisms of socialism would appropriately link to a section of criticisms of command economies, not contain it.

Do you feel that your comments do not apply to non-socialist command economies? For example, even Milton Friedman, whom you quote, and many of whose disciples advised Pinochet, was highly critical of the limits on freedom in Pinochet's Chile, saw these as raising some of the same issues as in a communist state, and pointed out that these aspects of Pinochet's policies were ultimately antithetical to a "free market miracle." -- Jmabel 23:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

1 I realize this is an article on socialism and not Marxism, but lets not spilt hairs, the two are extremely closely related, in both theory and application.

2. I would not agree. This may be true in theory, but all are statist forms of socio economic organization, and I believe the critiqe applies to all.

3. From what I understand, anarchism it the final stage of marxist theory or something close to anarchism. I suppose it depends on the defenition.

4. Plenty of self declared marxists do, but we are no speaking of personalities, but of concepts and ideas.

5. Yes, but once again we are dealing with threads that run through all statist societies.

I think you are trying to criticize my posts with a historical basis, but this is an entry on theory not history.

I tell you what though, I will revise in a few days and re post. TDC

Well, since your content is now in the article, and this article seems to be where you want it, I guess I will just do my best to work with it here.

Frankly, I feel like your edits (here and elsewhere) are more focused on advancing a particular political agenda than on strengthening the articles in which you are editing. For what I believe is a contrast to that, you might want to look at my edits in Conservatism. The fact that a political viewpoint is not one's own is no reason to try to turn an encyclopedia article into a polemic. -- Jmabel 02:53, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What you call "advancing a particular political agenda " I call interjecting some balance into some seriously skewed articles. TDC

---

I am half-inclined to add the following to the section on "profits and losses" after the quotation from a publication of the Socialist Party (England and Wales) but I think it's a little off topic. Still, I'm reproducing it here; it may belong (appropriately edited) somewhere in Wikipedia, and/or something to this effect (but probably not this) may belong here. Feel free to mine it.

Marx acknowledges both sides of this balance, in the concept now commonly referred to by Marxists as the "creative destruction" of capitalism (although the pithy phrase is Joseph Schumpeter's, not Marx's). For example, in an article published June 25, 1853 in the New York Daily Tribune, Marx wrote that, through bringing India into the world market and a laissez faire economy, on the one hand "the misery inflicted by the British on Hindostan is of an essentially different and infinitely more intensive kind than all Hindostan had to suffer before," but on the other hand it "produced the greatest, and to speak the truth, the only social revolution ever heard of in Asia" by "dissolv[ing the] small semi-barbarian, semi-civilized communities, by blowing up their economical basis," and that these "idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism." [2]

-- Jmabel 05:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Old text to be merged

This is text that was formerly here, but commented out when Adam overwrote most of it into History of Socialism. Incorporate as necessary.

The official economic system used in the People's Republic of China is "socialism with Chinese characteristics." In Chinese Marxist ideology, socialism remains the stage after capitalism, however the official ideology is that socialism must be reinterpreted to meet Chinese circumstances and can include elements such as a market economy.

In fact, because of the open nature of the Chinese definition of socialism, it has become very different from the definition used by Western social democrats. In contrast to the definition of socialism used by social democratics, the Chinese definition does not require state control over the economy or imply generous social benefits by the state, and some socialist government policies are resemble those those of conservatives in the West.

Also, because of the loose definition of socialism, economic arguments in the People's Republic of China are almost never evaluated in terms of socialism or anti-socialism.

Other political and economic theorists have used the term "socialism" to describe their as-yet unrealized social visions. In general their definition of socialism could be "the control of production, consumption, allocation, and distribution of goods and services through democratic means". Exactly how this broad description would translate into practical institutions is a subject of contention.

Some socialists argue that the concept of a centrally-planned economy is essentially sound, but that it must be subject to well-structued democratic controls and not allowed to descend into dictatorship. This description fits many dissidents within the Soviet bloc of Marxist-Leninist states, such as Czechoslovakian president Alexander Dubcek, who attempted to implement "Socialism with a Human Face" before his country was invaded and occupied by Warsaw Pact troops. It could also be said to apply to many "socialists" in capitalist countries up into the 1990s, when most people who had previously held this position decided that the collapse of Soviet central planning proved that command economics in general were doomed to failure.

Others have proposed socialist economies based not on markets or command planning, but on novel types of institutions they believe will serve better. "Participatory Economics", a system first described by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, attempts to co-ordinate local and largely self-governed councils representing workers and consumers through a few basic rules about how economic institutions may relate to each other. Council Communists and Social Ecologists, like some Anarchists before them, have argued that the basic organization of production and consumption ought to happen on the very small scale, with economic activity across communities handled on a case-by-case basis.

Still other socialists have argued that, once the means of production and the political system are in the hands of the working class, the free market is a perfectly good economic system. They believe that if individual workplaces are owned and controlled by the workers, economic exchanges directly between buyer and seller will efficiently and equitably allocate resources without the need for government regulation.

Social Democracy is another name for Democratic Socialism, although it is often used by more centrist political parties to distance themselves from Democratic Socialists. Essentially everyone who describes themselves as "socialist" describes themselves as "democratic" as well. However, it should be noted that the definition of "democracy" used is hardly consistent. Most Democratic Socialists believe above all in equality and co-operation, and accept some aspects of a free-market economy, along with Kenysian economic management. A good example of this would be the Labour Party. Clause IV of the Parties constitution reads:

"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

Clause IV shows us two things; first the unusual history(for a socialist organisation) of the Labour Party as reflected in emphasis on co-operation in Clause IV; Secondly the emphasis on "democratic socialist" instead of "socialist" or "social democratic". However, before Clause IV was re-written in the early 1990s, it explictly mentioned public ownership and Nationalisation, something that Labour was not alone in dropping in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Free-market conservatism was in the acendency across the world and almost all democratic socialist parties dropped the commitment to nationalisation. The modernisers ague they have been proven right as democratic socialism has had more electoral sucess in the past ten years than it had since its postwar heyday. Critics will respond, however, that European social democratic parties remain socialist in name only; socialist ideals have been foresaken for the tenets of liberalism solely to remain in power.

Marxist-Leninists believe that what is important is not periodic elections, but the class interest represented by the political vanguard which is in power. In the Leninist analysis, representative democracy as seen in the West is a sham because the real reins of power are held by the moneyed class, who would simply ignore the results if an unacceptably radical leader was ever elected. Critics allege that whatever the faults of Western-style democracy, the Leninist plan only works if the leaders are incorruptible and infinitely altruistic, an incredibly naive idea. They see Leninist claims of respect for democracy as cynical propaganda and nothing more.

Most other socialists see some form of political democracy as integral to the existence of socialism itself. This may be a representative democracy in the style of European parliaments and congresses, or another type, usually described as closer to direct democracy.

Conservative critics often charge that all socialist governments are anti-democratic, because the increased "size" and power of such governments represents a concentration of power unseen in capitalist socities. In addition, some believe that all economic organization not consistent with the free market is inherently in violation of individual human rights and by extension democratic principles, although people making this critisisms are often accused by socialists of using partisan rhetoric and of confusing socialism with communism.

As a political project, socialism has been in crisis since the fall of the Soviet Union and the modernisation of democratic socialist parties, Most socialists acknowledge the failure of turning the widespread reformist gains of the 1960s into a cohesive, powerful movement for social change. In the West, the prosperity of the postwar era preempted many of socialisms most urgent claims, while in the Third World, neo-colonialism effectly squelched all but a very small number of experiments in socialism.

--Jiang 08:31, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Disambiguation with Social Democracy

A very important thing to note is that on the European continent, and also in the British Commonwealth, Socialist is synonymous with Social Democrat , and NOT with anything else. This requires some disambiguation perhaps?

"This page is about the bolshevik style of Socialist movement, for social democrats, see: Social Democracy"

something like that maybe. Kim Bruning 12:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Something like that. The "taking" of the name of socialism by Marxists is a long-standing pracice (they appropriated the name communism and distorted its meaning too, but that is another story) but remains illegitimate. It also feeds into edit wars as proponents of Marxism try to characterize totalitarian Marxist-Leninist governments as "socialist". Fred Bauder 12:43, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Fred. Should not bolshevism be discussed in the article on Communism? Sunray 16:34, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)

In what way is socialism synonymous with modern day social democracy? The article on socialism should discuss both social democracy and leninist communism. And certainly "Marxists" hold some right to the name "socialism" - or were the German Social Democrats of 1914 not socialists? john 18:39, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Localized common use of language (for some definition of local). In Europe and in the British Commonwealth at the very least (which is a very large area), socialism just means social democracy. And it's not like you're really going to even find an explicit reference for it or anything, it's just assumed known. Like in newspapers: "today the socialists|labour came with a new proposal to ..." etc, usually throughout at least half of the political pages of any morning newspaper you'd care to pick up. Same thing for television shows, radio, you name it, practically every day. Um I really don't know what else to say, what other way were you looking for? Kim Bruning 22:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It can certainly be used that way. "Socialist" is used to refer to Socialist parties, and socialist parties, at this point, are generally social democrats rather than communists or other extreme leftists. But how would one describe, say, the New Left Review? As "Marxist" certainly. But to exclude Marxism from a discussion of socialism is ridiculous, even if when one says "the Socialists did this" one is not including such people. There are different meanings of socialist everywhere, including in Britain, Europe, and the Commonwealth. john 23:11, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am firmly with John here. This article should be broad, including social democrats, Leninists, and even social anarchists. It should make these distinctions clear, but it is the right place to look at the broad use of socialism and direct people elsewhere for the various streams or tendencies. -- Jmabel 20:11, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kim and Fred have both pointed out that in much of the world outside the U.S. use of the term "socialism" is coterminous with "social democracy." I've asked before (in fact several times) why we have separate articles on Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Leninism, etc, if they are all one and the same. If Wikipedia is to become a credible resource, how can we state that these are all "various types of socialism"? Sure socialism grew out of Marxist thought, but Marxism advocates revolutionary action to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Socialism, in Marxist philosophy, is but a stage before true communism.

The fact is, socialists have diverged from the path advanced in Marx's later writings (such as the Communist Manifesto). Socialism has become an evolutionary path rather than the revolutionary one espoused by Marx and Engels. Socialist parties and socialist (as opposed to communist) states worldwide advocate a mixed (socialist/capitalist) economy. If we were to truly follow Jmabel's advice we would have brief references to these other "socialisms" to show the connections and interactions - and it might become a decent article - God forbid!) Sunray 07:19, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

Whatever "Socialism" may mean today (and certainly the ruling parties of China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos all consider themselves to be "Socialist" in some sense), Socialism is not just a present day phenomenon, but a historical phenomenon, and one which absolutely can't be discussed without including Marxism. The German Social Democratic Party only abandoned Marxism in its official ideology in 1960 or so. Socialism simply does not just mean social democracy, even if in certain contexts it's mostly used that way. Furthermore, Marxist /= Communist. There have been many Marxist parties which are not in any sense Communist (in the Leninist sense of the word, which is surely the dominant one). john 02:07, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the history of socialism and its relationship to Marxism and Lennism is more than adequately covered in the article History of Socialism. Wouldn't you think that short, concise summaries of these relationships with links to the various related articles would make for a better, more understandable article on socialism? Should we not be trying to produce articles that: 1) inform the reader about the topic without repeating too much material that is covered elsewhere, 2) are written from an NPOV, and 3) are highly readable, with good links to related articles? How well does the article in its present state succeed at these goals? Sunray 02:33, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)

An article on socialism that ignores Marxism would be highly deceptive about what socialism is. Furthermore, it would be POV, because the ruling parties of various socialist countries, as well as various other Marxist parties around the world, all consider themselves to be Socialist. The article may suck at present, but the way to solve it isn't to ignore the most important intellectual source of socialism. john 02:56, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think the current article "sucks". I think most of it is a pretty good introduction to the breadth of meanings given to a very difficult and contentious term, and either directs people to the various articles where these more specific meanings are fleshed out or strongly suggests what additional articles need to be written. When there is an article on a term that is used differently by different authors and in different countries, the article needs to handle the full breadth, even if it does some of it by referring to other articles.

The one part I don't particularly like is "Opposition and Criticisms of Socialism", and I wrote much of it! It resulted because User:TDC insisted on bringing all of these criticisms into the article, and rather than have an edit war I expanded it to discuss how various strains of socialism might respond. Not terribly encyclopedic, but a reasonably NPOV way of handling a thorny area.

I agree that the article could do with more about "collectivism, solidarity [and] class struggle." There is much more here about socialism as an ideology than about socialism as a movement. I would suggest that much of the remedy would come precisely in adding a section (possibly between economic system and state?) specifically about socialism as a movement, but (with the one exception noted above, and I think that -- sadly -- it is one that is necessary so as not to simply take a socialist POV) I don't think there is much that could be eliminated: really, pretty much everything here is part of what you'd expect to find looking up socialism in an encyclopedia, including (for example) clarification that "national socialism" means Nazism and isn't really socialism. Consider the 16-year-olds using this for an overview. They aren't be the only audience, but their reasonable questions should be answered, and they should encounter signposts pointing in all relevant directions. -- Jmabel 03:30, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really think the article sucks. It certainly needs some work, though. I was mostly taking a rhetorical tack to argue against Sunray's suggestion that we remove all discussion of Marxism from the article. john 03:43, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)