Talk:Socialism/Archive 26

Socialist calculation debate
An editor has added to the lead, "The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate."

While the "debate" is about feasibility there is no evidence that any actual socialists ever used Ludwig von Mises' theories in constructing a model for a socialist state. Furthermore there is nothing in the source about the debate. It is a little confusing too that the sentence follows one about market socialism, which presumably allocates resources through the market and therefore would not be subject to Mises' criticism of non-market socialism. In any case this issue is too trivial for inclusion in the lead.

TFD (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The socialist calculation debate is broader than Mises' critique of socialism, and continues today in academic journals and books. It is widely regarded as one of the major topics in political economy that concerns itself with non-capitalist economic organization (and its criticism), so I think it is highly relevant to the subject of this article and warrants a brief mentioning in the lead. And just to clarify, Mises also leveled critiques against market socialism for its lack of financial markets. - Battlecry 02:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * First you would need to provide sources which you have not. Also, if this article were about the socio-political socialist it might make sense, but that is only a small part of the topic.  Is it an issue in the debates between Clinton and Blair or Hollande and Sarkozy?  TFD (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The topic of socialism is not limited to the party politics of social democratic parties and politicians (Clinton can hardly be called a "social democrat"), which is an entirely different subject altogether. - Battlecry 06:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have said between Clinton and Sanders. Clinton is a liberal and Sanders is a socialist.  But do not expect that either one will nationalize the means of production.  What is your point:  that Bernie Sanders wants to create a communist state or that he does not and therefore is not a real socialist?  TFD (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the question of Sanders was previously discussed on this talkpage already. Sanders might very well be a "democratic socialist", or he may not, but that is beside the point. He is not proposing socialism as part of his policy platform. This is recognized by scholars of political science and sociology, some of which describe his policy proposals as "social democracy"  and even by Bhaskar Sunkara, the editor of Jacobin magazine. - Battlecry  07:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If Sanders does not propose "socialism" as a policy platform is because the other candidates do not propose "capitalism" as a proposal either. It is actually very strange and naive to hear someone suggest that a politician will propose in elections a single word economic system. It just shows how user Battlecry can decide to ignore real socialist politics in order to keep forcing in this article his opinion that 1)there is a single socialist system and there are no socialist proposals and measures and 2)this identification with this single non-existing socialist system is the only measure to identify "real" socialists from "fake" socialists.--Eduen (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Battlecry, that is the point. Sanders is  proposing socialism and he explained it.  CNN reported on it.  It may not be the socialism they teach in party school, but it is what reliable sources say.  TFD (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What "reliable sources" define Bernie Sanders' proposals as "socialism"? If the media defined Nazism as "socialism" would Nazism then qualify as socialism, based on your logic? Some self-described socialist parties have even promoted what would be considered to be right-wing economic positions (austerity or economic liberalism, as did the Social Democratic Party of Germany during the inter-war period). Does this mean that "socialism" should also be defined as economic liberalism and austerity simply because a self-described socialist party advocated those measures? Note this is an entirely different question from asking whether or not those parties or groups are genuinely socialist - they very well might, and simply believe socialism is something to be achieved in the distant future. The point is, socialism has a definition and it clearly is not "whatever a socialist or social democratic politician/party does". - Battlecry 08:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I feel like right now is a fitting opportunity to revisit Engels' complaints about this exact problem. → Σ σ  ς. (Sigma) 08:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * CNN is not calling Sanders or his proposals democratic socialist, CNN is simply objectively reporting on Sanders' speech about what he calls 'democratic socialism.' Furthermore, Sanders repeatedly identifies his "socialist" policy proposals with Danish social democracy, and Denmark's own PM denies that Denmark is socialist.  There are actually many individuals in the U.S. who do not accept that Sanders is a socialist:


 * The New York Times, A Sensible Version of Donald Trump: "No, I don’t mean the way Bernie Sanders is a socialist. He’s a statist, not a socialist."


 * The New York Times, Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist Capitalist: "The weirdest thing about this fight is that Mr. Sanders, a Vermont senator, is not really a socialist."


 * The New York Times, The Year In Pictures 2015: "Bernie Sanders, the sort-of socialist from Vermont by way of Brooklyn, was giving Hillary Clinton a run, at least, for her mounds of campaign money."


 * Jacobin Magazine, The Socialism of Bernie Sanders: "There was nothing much surprising about Bernie’s speech [on democratic socialism]. This was... not “socialism” in recognizable form."


 * Actually, other U.S. presidential candidates do propose single-word capitalism, including the other two Democratic candidates (whom you would most probably describe as socialists because they favor reforming capitalism through policies):


 * Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential debate on CNN, Oct 13 2015: "And I don't think we should confuse what we have to do every so often in America, which is save capitalism from itself. And I think what Senator Sanders is saying certainly makes sense in the terms of the inequality that we have. But we are not Denmark. I love Denmark. We are the United States of America. And it's our job to rein in the excesses of capitalism so that it doesn't run amok and doesn't cause the kind of inequities we're seeing in our economic system. But we would be making a grave mistake to turn our backs on what built the greatest middle class in the history of the world."


 * Martin O'Malley in the Democratic presidential debate on CBS News, Nov 14 2015: "--everybody watching this tonight to-- please-- acknowledge that by going online at MartinO'Malley.com and help me wage this campaign for real American capitalism."


 * Martin O'Malley in the Democratic presidential debate on ABC News, Dec 19 2015: "We're not going to fix what ails our economy, we're not going to make wages go up for everyone by either trying to replace American capitalism with socialism -- which, by the way, the rest of the world is moving away from -- nor will we fix it by submitting to sort of Wall Street-directed crony capitalism."


 * Vrrajkum (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "...you would most probably describe as socialists because they favor reforming capitalism through policies)" Discussions become lengthy when editors do not listen to what other editors say.  Both this comment and an earlier reference to Tory socialism show that.  Socialism is not reform of capitalism.  It is however an analysis that social problems are caused by capitalism and recommendation that some collective action is taken to correct them.  Liberals like Clinton and O'Malley never acknowledge capitalism as a problem.  "Crony capitalism" is a distortion of capitalism and the solution is to remove the cronyism and return to real capitalism.  Nor do "tory socialists" advocate collective action.  The artistocracy will protect the lower classes from the parvenu.  There is irony too in saying that we cannot accept the media's determination of who is a socialist, then introducing media op-eds (which are not reliable sources) as proof Sanders is not a socialist.  TFD (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not an american and neither do i live in the US. From what you report here, users TFD and Vrrajkum, it seems Sanders has forced Hillary to talk about socialism. This clearly shows that left wing politics in the US might start to get closer to what happens in Europe and Latin america where the word "socialism" is not as taboo as it is in the US. And so these are clearly important notable discussions which deserve a mention in this article just as the episode with Jeremy Corbyn in the british Labour Party does. To user Battlecry i answer to him again that nasizm is not included at all in most reliable good works on socialism as part of socialism. On the other hand social democracy is considered an important part of the socialist tradition in most works dealing with the history of the socialist movement. It starting to look to me that the problem with user Battlecry´s sources is that they tend to be dense economic works on possible socialist systems but that tend to lack in general on a historical and political analysis and background. A good general work on socialism will clearly deal with history and politics. Otherwise those works will be closer to literature but not to the real socialist movement which intends to change the real world and which has done that. But also it starting to seem again that users Vrrajkum and Battlecry want to keep reducing acceptable or "real" socialists to communists and communism. Lets remind them that communism is clearly a part of socialism but on the other hand not all socialism is communism. And this includes both statist and anti-statist versions of communism. Otherwise we will be leaving out of socialism many important non-communist socialist thinkers such as Mikhail Bakunin, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Thomas Hodgskin but also the biggest contemporary socialist parties in the world such as the Chinese Communist Party or successful socialist governments in power such the bolivian Movimiento Al Socialismo/Evo Morales government. Frankly it seems that users Vrrajkum and Battlecry want us to more or less make this article the same as the communism article or that we erase almost 60 or 70% of the contents of this article and we clearly cannot do either of those things.--Eduen (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with Tory socialism. My main point was that the CNN source reports that Sanders calls his proposals 'democratic socialist,' not that his proposals are 'democratic socialist.' Simply calling oneself or one's platform socialist does not make one or one's platform socialist, or else Nazism would indeed be socialism.


 * The point is that Sanders does propose (what he thinks is) socialism, and his rivals indeed propose single-word capitalism. With respect to the rest of your comment, you're just repeating the same nonsense about myself and Battlecry; we are not, nor have we ever, proposed reducing socialism to communism, and Battlecry has explicitly explained that defining socialism to mean "social ownership of the means of production" includes systems as diverse as Proudhonian mutualism to the Soviet model to the Lange model. But since the discussion on this talk page doesn't seem to be headed anywhere productive, I continue to support splitting the article into two, as I have already done but that you refuse to support. Vrrajkum (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * User VRRajkum, you are always free to go improve the article Socialist mode of production. As such there is no need to split anything here.--Eduen (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to remind all the participants in this discussion that the question of whether or not Sanders' is a socialist is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter. Just as we don't define capitalism by the actions or personal beliefs of capitalists and their supporters, socialism cannot be simply defined by the actions of self-described socialists irrespective of whether or not they are actual socialists. With respect to the lead, I have come to agree with TFD about the line on the socialist calculation debate. Despite its relevance, it is probably best saved for the economics section of the article, so in the interest of shortening the lead I propose removing it from the end of the second paragraph. Another suggestion I have is removing the last line of the third paragraph in the lead (the one that describes democratic socialism), or at the least, shortening it to be more concise.


 * There is no consensus to split the article. The topic being discussed is the lead of the current socialism article. - Battlecry 01:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * With respect to Eduen's recent revert about the Soviet economic model representing a form of "dictatorship", this claim is provocative and irrelevant to the question of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc's economic system. State capitalism and command economies are economic systems, whereas a dictatorship most commonly describes a form of government. Describing Soviet-type planning or "Soviet socialism" as a dictatorship is conflating socio-economic systems with forms of governance and unnecessarily increases the length of the lead with arguably redundant information. For these reasons I suggest removing it, or moving it to an appropriate section in the article that goes into detail discussing critiques of the Soviet Union. - Battlecry 02:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I proposed before not incluiding a mention of the Soviet Union at all. Since that stayed i will want it to include the views of socialdemocrats and libertarian socialists on that regime.--Eduen (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The lead
At RfC: What should be the topic of this article? it was determined that the topic of the article should be the ideology and social movement, rather than the socialist system. I have therefore re-written the lead and will replace the current one.

This is just a start and I am sure it can be much improved. However, we need to respect the RfC and not revert back.

TFD (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a massive change to the lead and removes any mention of the positive features of socialism, namely the economic system and society commonly defined as "socialist" as the goal of the movement. The previous lead, while not perfect, was well-written and touched upon the concept of socialism as both a system and political movement. I strongly oppose the current version for reducing socialism to being a mere criticism of capitalism, or of social issues attributed to capitalism. I would suggest restoring the previous lead as a starting point and working on achieving a broader balance between describing socialism as a movement and socialism as a system. - Battlecry 03:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly concur with this. A lot of good material was obliterated with this change.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, the conclusion of the RfC was that the topic of the article is socialism as an ideology and movement, rather than socialism as a system. That requires replacing discussion in the lead about socialism as a system was socialism as an ideology and movement.
 * Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. It is not the place for extensive discussion that rightly belongs in the body of the article.  If there is a lot of good relevant material that has been deleted, then stick it in the body somewhere.  In fact the lead was far too long anyway.
 * TFD (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is got to be the single most devastating loss to this article that I've ever witnessed. What was once a concise and inclusive defintion has been turned into a vague criticsm of capitalism hardly worth it's own noun. What we have here is nothing short of the destruction of information. Socialism is not only a socioeconomic movement and political, but a system of organizing production and economy completely separate from capitalism. This new lead completely destroys that. The previous lead had managed to include all of these defintions in a manner that was easy to read for almost anyone. This new article reduces these informative defintions to vague mentions. I strongly oppose this new lead, as it is now worthless to anyone seeking to learn about Socialism, or to teach others.


 * As for the subject of length, the previous lead was 557 words, this new lead is 265 words, but has obliterated so much information that the words removed are hardly worth the changes. I would suggest going back to the old lead, and removing excessive information from that lead. Save for a few sentences, the third and fourth paragraphs may be completely removed and appended to the second paragraph if the space of the lead is to be condensed to under 300 words.Helios932 (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you think the changes do not reflect the topic agreed at RfC: What should be the topic of this article? Or do you disagree with its outcome?  TFD (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It is extremely difficult to separate the concept of socialism as a system from socialism as a movement. This latest change reduces the definition of socialism to be a critique of social ills attributed to capitalism, which by itself isn't the definition of socialism. Further, I would argue the previous version of the lead did not go into any excessive detail about the concepts described (such as "social ownership" or "reformism"), it merely provided a concise overview of the crucial concepts and major dichotomies in socialist thought without being exclusive. It was very inclusive of the diverse array of socialist systems and perspectives, which because of their wide variety, resulted in the lead being a little on the long side.


 * One point that can be added, taken from TFD's current version of the lead, is a line that describes something the socialist critique of capitalism, something along the following lines: "Socialists attribute various social ills such as unemployment, economic crises and social inequality as being inherent to capitalism". - Battlecry 06:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Three of the votes in the RfC insisted that socialism as a socioeconomic system was a critical part of the discussion. Just because more votes happened to vote for two, than the collective votes of people asking for one exclusively, and both points together, does not mean that we should completely destroy any remainder of Socialism as a socioeconomic system. There is no way that this is what was intended by the results of the RfC. The original lead, before this edit, answered both questions succinctly. There was a very strong suggestion to split the article into two pages, and the lead posted, at 500-odd words, managed to accomplish the synthesis of the two topics very well. This article does neither, and ignores the voices of those who were on the fence. That's not reasonable to do.Helios932 (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The previous version of the lead defined socialism as both a system and political movement. That is a good starting point; we can discuss edits to it. The problem is we have RS defining "socialism" as a system and other RS (mainly political science or history sources) that define "socialism" as anything that socialist parties and groups advocated. Regardless of whether or not we start the lead defining socialism as a "political ideology that seeks to create an economic system based on social ownership, etc." or as "an economic system based on social ownership, as well as a political ideology etc." we have to mention the concept of "social ownership" and the general idea of a non-capitalist socialist system. The RfC should have included this as an option (that the article has to discuss both concepts of socialism). Alternatively, we can discuss splitting this article into two distinct articles: "Socialism (political movement)" and "Socialism (economic system)", with "socialism" being a disambiguation page directing readers to both articles. - Battlecry 06:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add a final paragraph explaining that socialism can also refer to a system designed by socialists, such as the modern welfare state in Sweden. But the lead already says socialists advocate "action in some form of control or ownership by society should be taken to address them. Both the means and degree of action required however variy considerably, ranging from minor reforms to abandonment of capitalism altogether." That includes all the various definitions of a socialist state.

It seems we are just arguing the same issues as in the RfC.

TFD (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, we have many RS defining socialism as an economic system. In any common dictionary, socialism is defined vaguely as a system based on some form of public, social, collective, etc. ownership of the means of production. While it is true that socialism is also a political movement and political-economic ideology, we have to recognize there are multiple meanings. The current version reads like a lead for an article on a general "criticism of capitalism". As noted above, I would suggest restoring the previous lead and working from that as a basis. If we are going to split this article into two separate articles (one for the system and society, the other for the movement) then I would suggest making a new RfC with the following options:


 * One: The article has to discuss socialism as both a movement and a system; the political movement cannot be understood without covering the concepts of a socialist system and social ownership.


 * Two: The article should be split into “Socialism (economic system)” and “Socialism (political movement)”, with a parent ::“Socialism” disambiguation page providing redirects to both articles as to not favor a single definition.


 * Three: The article should be about socialism as a political movement and ideology.


 * Four: The article should be about socialism as a social and economic system.


 * The previous lead was really informative, concise and inclusive, albeit a bit long and lacking coverage in some areas. Structuring the article to give relatively equal weight to discussing socialism as a system, socialism as a movement, and specifically socialist criticisms of capitalism (reflecting the structure of the old lead) would be most appropriate. But if we are going to focus this article on socialism as a political movement, then I would suggest splitting the article in the way I outlined above under option two. - Battlecry 11:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly this article should focus on socialism as a political movement and ideology. The single socialist economic system does not exist since each particular socialist current proposes something different and, even inside particular ones like marxism and anarchism, there are many proposed systems inside it. But as far as actually bringing into reality something, what has mostly existed is socialist proposals and policies implemented by socialist movements and parties.--Eduen (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Socialism is an abstract concept and does not necessarily have to be something that has historically existed. There are a few parameters common to all proposed models of socialism; the movement is concerned with bringing said system about and consists of equally distinct and sometimes conflicting ideologies (there is no singular "socialist political ideology"). It could very well be that "socialism" describes something that has not yet existed in human history, although the systems of the former Eastern bloc and USSR are widely considered to be examples of "socialism" by certain thinkers. Regardless, this does not change the fundamental definition of socialism and either way, the article needs to talk about the characteristics of socialism such as social ownership, socialist planning vs. market socialism, what "democratic management" implies, and any attempts to bring such institutions to fruition (this covers the role of the movement). If "socialism" as a movement aims to build a system based on some form of "social ownership", and is a system based on "social ownership", then "social ownership" and related concepts are clearly a significant portion of this article's subject matter. - Battlecry 11:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We had an RfC on the topic and other editors disagreed with you. You are just repeating the same arguments.  And in fact the bulk of the article is not about a socialist state, it is about the socialist movement and ideology.  TFD (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How is it acceptable to ignore the editors who argued that Socialism as an economic system deserved mentioning to the point that the article should be split. This does not represent the RFC whatsoever, considering that other editors did not agree with you either. You're claiming that you had the only major opinion, which you didn't. The people who supported socialism as a socioeconomic system were divided between keeping it as this article, and dividing it in two. That is not grounds to completely remove such information from the lead. Besides, the way socialism was described in the original lead included both descriptions. The only real argument here, regarding the RfC, is the length of the lead, not the content.Helios932 (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * See the closing remarks at RfC: What should be the topic of this article?: "There is consensus for option two. The majority opinion cite WP:PTOPIC or use its logic. AlbinoFerret 17:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)"  Option Two was that the topic of the article should be the ideology and movement.  Option One, which was that it should be the economic system, was rejected.
 * When there is a primary topic, articles are not split - that is only done when there is no primary topic. If you want to create a new article you are free to do so.  But it would have to be called something like "Socialist state" (which already exists) or "Socialism (economic system)."
 * TFD (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We have many reliable sources defining "socialism" as a system, plus common dictionary definitions of "socialism" describe a system or state of society. How have we decided that the political movement is the "primary topic"? Furthermore, socialism as a "political and economic ideology" is not the same thing as the movement (the history of self-described socialist parties and groups). If we are going to split the article, then equal weight will have to be given to both concepts with "Socialism" becoming a disambiguation page. TFD's proposed lead are best for describing "History of the Socialist movement". If we are going to focus this article on the political/economic ideology of socialism, then we can reword the old lead as follows (however I still maintain that the original was most accurate):


 * Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. - Battlecry 11:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

ontent disputes are settled through resolution among editors. That means that sometimes the community will be wrong and you will be right, but you should respect the outcomes of RfCs and other dispute resolutions. I suggest it you are unhappy with the last RfC, you begin another. TFD (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In light of the RfC I have split the article into two. For now the political philosophy is the primary article, but we can keep the conversation going. Vrrajkum (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Eduen 12/27/15: "as i see in the talk section there is no significant discussion to erase all of this"


 * Eduen 11/1/15: "Exactly user Orangemike and thanks for sharing your opinion here with us. This simply shows yet once more that users Battlecry and Vrrajkum don´t have a consensus for their proposals for changes in the intro."


 * User Eduen never fails to astonish. Vrrajkum (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think that treating socialism as an economic system takes precedence to treating socialism as an ideology or movement, and users Battlecry, Helios932, and C. J. Griffin, at least, agree with me. However, I also think that the results of the RfC should be honored, so I split the article into two. But user Eduen, despite having actually expressed support for the majority Option Two of the RfC, refuses to honor it. Eduens gonna Eduen, I guess. Vrrajkum (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not what you personally think, but reliable secondary sources that determine what is the primary topic. Furthermore, that guideline requires us to use broader rather than narrower definitions.  Marx and Engels in 1848, Bernstein, Socialist parties and even modern Communists all fall outside your narrow definition.  We do not say conservatives want to return to feudalism or liberals support the the night watchman state, it would be seen as archaic.  Do you believe that the Labour Party in the UK, the German SDP and the French Socialist Party all advocate public ownreship of the means of production, or do you think they are not socialists?  TFD (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think they are not socialists. Vrrajkum (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You might be right. And equally they may not believe that the people you consider to be socialists are socialists either, just as Protestants and Catholics denied that each other were Christians.  However, policy requires that we do not determine who is or is not a socialist, but follow what reliable sources say.  For example, the categorization of parties by ideological family is widely accepted and it includes a category of socialist party that includes Labour, the SPD and the Socialist Party of France.  TFD (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * European social-democratic parties belong to the Socialist International. Clearly something belonging to something named "socialist" belongs inside the wikipedia article on "socialism". User Vrrajkum: "I think they are not socialists". User Vrrajkum, your personal opinions do not matter here unless you bring us reference support with that. --Eduen (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue here isn't which political group or political figure constitutes a "real" socialist, it is how socialism itself is conceptualized as. Either it is a socioeconomic system, political/economic ideology, or political movement - or all of these. Either the article has to accommodate all these concepts or it has to be split into separate articles with the parent "socialism" article becoming a disambiguation page redirecting users to the various concepts of "socialism". The majority of editors appear to be in favor of the current version of the lead, which accommodates all these concepts. - Battlecry 09:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is primarily conceptualized as a political movement and ideology as has been demonstrated to you. Vrrajkum's argument is that only movements and ideologies that advocate a socialist socioeconomic system are socialist, which if true would make your preferred lead perfectly neutral.  The reality however is that socialism is a movement that has advocated different policies at different times, just as has liberalism, which is why like liberalism it remains a political force rather than just an historical curiosity.  TFD (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * N. Scott Arnold, The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study: "To be a socialist is not just to believe in certain ends, goals, values, or ideals. It also requires a belief in certain institutional means to achieve those ends; whatever that may amount to in positive terms, it certainly presupposes, at a minimum, the belief that these ends and values cannot be achieved in an economic system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production." Vrrajkum (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No one doubts that some writers use socialism in that sense but the "Dismbiguatiion" guideline requires that the topic of the article should be the one that is most often meant and should be the broadest definition. The most common usage of "socialism" is for the movement and ideology, not the socioeconomic systems.  Even if you do not accept that, a topic that encompasses moderate reform socialism and the far left is a broader topic than one that only encompasses the socialist socioeconomic systems.  TFD (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * But also the biggest and most successful socialist organizations today happen to be mass political parties either in governmnet or in parliaments. As such we have to talk here also or perhaps even primarily about "policies" and "measures" alongside some sort of complete pure hyporthetical "economic system". Socialism today mostly asks for political and economic policies and not for "systems". And this especially after the failure of the Soviet Union. This is how Michael Newman puts it in his "Socialism: a very short introduction":


 * "its proponents have tended to identify socialism with the particular form that they have favoured. Lenin therefore once defined it as ‘soviet power plus electrification’, while a British politician, Herbert Morrison, argued that socialism was ‘what a Labour government does’. Yet socialism has taken far too many forms to be constricted in these ways. Indeed, some have viewed it primarily as a set of values and theories and have denied that the policies of any state or political party have had any relevance for the evaluation of socialism as a doctrine. This purist position lies at the other extreme from that of Lenin and Morrison and is equally unhelpful. In fact, socialism has been both centralist and local; organized from above and built from below; visionary and pragmatic; revolutionary and reformist; anti-state and statist; internationalist and nationalist; harnessed to political parties and shunning them; an outgrowth of trade unionism and independent of it; a feature of rich industrialized countries and poor peasant-based communities" (pg. 2)--Eduen (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The most common definition of "socialism" is as an economic system or state of society defined by a set of broad characteristics and not simply as a movement that is critical of the social aspects of capitalism. This is how specialized tertiary sources tend to define the concept as well as common dictionary definitions. We don't define a concept by the actions or policies of its proponents. Likewise, labels as used by political parties or groups can be problematic and outlive their descriptive relevance. While some "social democratic" or "socialist" parties in Europe may have initially been committed to some form of socialism, they may not necessarily be committed to it in the present day. That does not mean the definition of socialism has changed, it means the majority of the party have changed their views to better accommodate their political goals. For example, it would be absurd to conclude that the U.S. Democratic party represents the ideology of "democracy" while the U.S. Republican party represents "republicanism" despite their official name. We have to understand the context in which these names arose with secondary sources. "Social democracy" today tends to refer to something entirely different from reformist socialism. What can be mentioned in the relevant section of the article is that some political thinkers in the Labour party et al. have attempted to redefine socialism to mean an ethical doctrine as opposed to a system juxtaposed with capitalism. - Battlecry 01:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No it is not the most common definition, I have provided evidence and we had an RfC where the consensus was that you were wrong. Who are these socialists who are talking about it?  TFD (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have provided a definition which does not say what user Battlecry proposes. Proposals of a single ideal economic system have been proposed by socialists but also non-systematic measures and policies have also been proposed. Marx himself never proposed a systematic view of how "communism" or "socialism" would look like since he critiziced such proposals under the label of "utopianism". As such marxists themselves have proposed mixed economies, non-state communism, ultra statist communism, market socialism and other things. So in that way marxism itself does not propose a clear single economic system. Marx did, though, propose some measures in the communist manifesto which some marxists have followed and others have not followed. He did not call them "How a socialist system will be" but simply 10 "planks" or "proposals". So if Marx hinself did not propose a single model in a systematic way other socialists have also done the same thing and have fluctuated between more systemic and more "measures and policies" proposals. Marx himself focused more on "critique of political economy" in his writings and so he critiziced "utopian socialists" for proposing closed ideal models. As such the very plural socialist political movement more or less criticizes capitalism and proposes alternative measures, policies or system(s) to that. The socialist movement does not have a single socialist economic proposal and clearly not a single socialist system to propose.--Eduen (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You are repeating the same absurd claims you have made in the past and using a straw-man of everyone else's argument. Nobody claimed anything about a "single, ideal" economic system. Socialism is commonly defined as a system with a broad set of parameters, the most prominent being social ownership of the means of production. That is hardly a singular system as there are many forms such a system can take and there are many models that have been developed and debated within this context. Second, anyone who is familiar with Marx and Engels should recognize that their conception of "socialism" and "communism" were fundamentally different modes of production operating according to separate economic categories than those of capitalism, and not merely reforms (state-imposed regulations or welfare provisions, which have nothing to do with restructuring the way production and resource allocation is organized). Nobody is defining "socialism" as a specific economic system here (such as the Soviet model of planning, or Lange model, which would be singular systems). We are defining it by the broad set of parameters (social ownership and control) which characterize socialism and then expanding upon the definition with the meaning and aims of said parameters as well as the major recognized forms they can take in practice.


 * As for your edit to the lead, I have restored it for now because the original version used neutral language by recognizing that socialism can refer to both a system and a political movement in a concise manner. Socialism is not simply a definition-less political movement that proposes "policies or systems", it is actually defined largely by said system/proposal (social ownership etc.)- Battlecry 06:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It may be "absurd" that Socialists are called socialists. The Communist Manifesto for example did not advocate the sociopolitical socialist state and therefore should be excluded.  But policy requires us to follow weight.  Incidentally, Battlecry, do you belong to a socialist group that has 10 or 20 (or fewer) members and rejects all other self-declared socialists as traitors and class collaborators?  If so, this is not the place to promote your views.  TFD (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I am being accused of promoting my personal views by one of the editors who is heavily biased in favor of redefining "socialism" to mean social democratic politics? How quaint. And if you really must know, no, I do not formally belong to any political party or group. If you read any scholarly work about socialism (not the history of the politics of socialist parties) it would be evident that socialism is defined as, or at the least identified with, the social ownership of the means of production. Incidentally, this is the common conception of "socialism" where socialism is juxtaposed with capitalism on the basis of ownership. - Battlecry 07:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that user Battlecry is denying that socialists have also just proposed many times "measures" and "policies" and that they not always have a closed elaborate system in mind. Also User Battlecry wants us to reject self described socialist parties as not being "real" socialists while he does not provide us with the work which gives us this way of identifying "real" from "fake" socialists. In order to keep his opinions he is ready to engage in edit wars againts more than one user.--Eduen (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the definition given in the current lead is very broad, being inclusive toward systems as different as mutualism and a socialist planned economy. It also defines socialism as a political ideology/movement; it does not define it as a "singular economic system". Unless you have any evidence that my position is strongly biased, I suggest you retract your accusation. On the contrary, you are promoting a minority position advocated by a faction of the British Labour Party (Tony Blair, Anthony Giddens et al.) who attempted to redefine "socialism" to mean a vague ethical doctrine that aims to improve social conditions, which is hardly representative of the mainstream historical definition of the concept. This suggests an extreme bias, on your part, in favor of Third Way and/or post-war era social democracy. - Battlecry 07:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Socialist economic proposals: not just "systems" or systemic but plural just as the socialist movement is plural and since societies are composed of diverse individuals and groups
If you check the article on social-democracy you will see that i have not touched that article at all. On the other hand i have been a dedicated editor of the articles on anarchism and libertarian socialism. The fact is that historically the biggest specific anarchist organizations have been the ones who have adhered to a conception close to what in anarchism is called "anarchism without adjectives". I am talking about organizations like the Iberian Anarchist Federation, the ukraninan Nabat, the francophone Fédération Anarchiste and the Federazione Anarchica Italiana. In case you don´t know about it, it was proposed so as to mediate and include the three main anarchist economic systems proposed within anarchism: mutualism/individualist anarchism/left-wing market anarchism, bakuninist collectivist anarchism/something very close to the contemporary Parecon system, and anarcho-communism. As such an anarchism without adjectives organization is clearly a socialist organization just as anarchism is part of the socialist movement. On the other hand an anarchist without adjectives organization does not tend towards a single "anarcho-communist" or another single economic system but will tend towards an economic non-capitalist pluralism in the sense of coexistence of economic systems and economic pluralism as it is dealt in within the anarchist economics wikipedia article. So in this sense your insistence of a single socialist economic system does not enter into conflict just with the proposals and practices of social democracy/democratic socialism but also with an important part of practices and proposals within anarchism. This issue was well put by the influential French individualist anarchist Émile Armand who argued for a pluralistic economic logic when he said that "Here and there everything happening—here everyone receiving what they need, there each one getting whatever is needed according to their own capacity. Here, gift and barter—one product for another; there, exchange—product for representative value. Here, the producer is the owner of the product, there, the product is put to the possession of the collectivity". .

Also social-democracy has tended to advocate such a pluralistic logic to the economic system in order to give as many economic options to individuals as possible. As such state the following:

"The view that the economy should be put under collective ‘ownership and regulation’ could, however, also be interpreted more broadly. Social democrats have generally wanted a regulated market economy, which might alternatively be described as a mixed economy, where public ownership may be widespread but where there is no ideological barrier against the effective use of private property and profit-driven enterprise. No inherent contradiction exists between the mixed economy and the belief that the state should collect and distribute the windfall of economic activity and the collective resources of society. Indeed, in the social democratic conception of the mixed economy, ownership is a secondary issue. The more essential point is that the market ought to be regulated to the benefit of the community as a whole. The oft-repeated phrase among social democrats in Scandinavia that ‘the market is an excellent servant, but a poor master’ provides us with a concise summary of this perspective. In a mixed economy, the state can ensure that the consumption of resources is sustainable and that the distribution of welfare and opportunities is fair, while a large proportion of goods and services can be produced in the private sector, reflecting the economic laws of supply and demand. This pragmatic approach to the question of public or private ownership is coupled with a firm belief that democratically elected governments should intervene in the economy whenever necessary, in order to defend the interests of society as a whole. And the reduction of inequality, in order to create a society in which individual liberty is more evenly distributed, is perhaps the most basic and important of these interests." (pg. 9). I will also report to you that these authors also state that "Social democracy is an ideology derived from a socialist tradition of political thought. Many social democrats refer to themselves as socialists or democratic socialists, and some use these terms interchangeably." (pg. 7).

As such these two strand of socialism clearly tend toward multiple measures, forms and policies towards achieving socialist goals. This is why we should include also socialist "measures" and "policies" besides "system(s)".--Eduen (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Battlecry, I did not suggest that socialism should be redefined as social democracy, but obviously it includes it. Certainly many social democrats meet your definition. The Labour Party constitution from 1918 until 1994 called for common ownership of the means of production," and most socialist parties had similar clauses. The current constitution now says, "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party."  Does that mean they still call for a socialist socioeconomic system or that they do not know what socialism means.  TFD (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor changes to lead
I have made some minor edits to first line of the lead to make it more concise, accurate, and easy to follow. The wording has been modified to recognize the definition of socialism as socio-economic system, political theory, ideology and movement. The previous wording implied that socialism was only defined as a political movement and not as a system or theory of economic organization; the changes I made recognize that socialism is defined as all of these concepts, revolving around the proposal for a socialist system/society. The second change I made to the first paragraph was adding "variety", making it more clear that there are a range of possible/existing socialist systems and ideologies, as a few editors have been adamant in pointing out on this talkpage.

In the third paragraph giving an overview of socialist politics, I added a line to emphasis the diversity within socialist politics and movements. The two suggestions I have to slightly trim the length of the lead is, as per TFD's suggestion, remove the last line in the second paragraph on the socialist calculation debate (a more detailed account can be given in the economics section) and/or re-wording the last line of the third paragraph explaining the democratic character of socialism to be more concise. And because I have modified the first sentence to define socialism as a "variety" of systems etc., we can probably modify and shorten the last line of the first paragraph beginning with "Although there are many varieties of socialism...".

Finally, one concern I have with the lead in its current form is the inclusion of describing the Soviet-type economic system as "dictatorship" in the fourth paragraph. This is not simply a bias claim, it is irrelevant to describing an economic model. "Dictatorship" is a political concept, whereas concepts like "state capitalism" and the "command economy" are economic systems. While the Soviet Union aimed to create a socialist system, and at times described itself as a "socialist planned economy", notable analysts have questioned the extent to which it actually functioned as such. By contrast, the question of whether or not the political system actually constituted a form of dictatorship is irrelevant to the subject matter (but can certainly be discussed elsewhere in the article, where appropriate). - Battlecry 11:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as the Soviet Union being a dictatorship, that tends to be the view of socialdemocracy and libertarian socialism as well as partially the view of trotskism. On the other subject, socialism was defined previously as a political movement that has proposed economic and social measures as well as possible systems. That already fitted systems but it takes into consideration the fact that socialists in power have taken socialist policies and measures while tolerating the existence of capitalist labour relationships having them fit inside measures protecting and improving worker´s conditions. Overemphasizing closed universal single systems does not take into account pluralistic economic views within socialism such as those of the mixed economy in socialdemocracy and democratic socialism as well as those of anarchism without adjectives who want to provide a series of economic options for individuals and groups while maintaining the view of socialism as a correction of capitalist abuses and homogenizations/colonializations of individual and group lives.--Eduen (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It is true that a number of socialist tendencies consider the USSR to be non-democratic. So how does that address my point, how is it relevant for inclusion in the lead, and why does it pertain to the nature of the Soviet economic system? As for your second point, yes, socialists in power have not always advocated or pushed for socialism. Now what does this have to do with the definition of socialism? The topic of the article is not the actions of social democratic and socialist parties and politicians, it is the concept of socialism; which is widely defined as an economic system and political ideology. With the revised wording, I make it clear that "socialism" can refer to an economic system and a political ideology, theory and movement; however socialism revolves around a socio-economic concept even if we consider it to be a political ideology (since its central idea is social ownership in place of private ownership). By contrast, your preferred wording implies that socialism is not a form of social organization or economic system but only a movement defined as whatever self-described socialists do in practice, a circular definition ignoring reliable sources that define it as a system. And as far as I can recall, you have never had a consensus for your revision to the lead's opening sentence in the first place.


 * Socialists can advocate anything from austerity to stimulus; from regulated capitalism to Lassiez-faire capitalism. Does this mean that socialism should now be redefined to mean these things simply because self-described socialists or social democratic parties advocated these policies? Obviously not - even if we, for argument's sake, assume all self-described socialist parties are genuine socialists and not socialists-in-name only, that would not change the definition. - Battlecry 11:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Again user Battlecry. We have to deal here with self described socialists. We cannot do otherwise. I am still waiting for your realible politological method on deciding whether someone is a socialist or not. You cannot bring it because it does not exist further than relying on self described socialist movements acting within international socialist organizations (the Socialist International). The previous definition described also socialism as a possible system but clearly socialism iso what socialist and labour parties do as far as socialist measures and policies. The fact is that you are here accepting most of what i defend so there should not be any good reason for starting yet another edit war. And i don´t see any consensus besides yourself here. You have just reverted something which came out with the participation of more people than you and have come back to start yet another edit war.--Eduen (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You continue to fail at addressing my points and the questions I posed to you. On top of that, you continue to put misconstrue my position. The fact that you are so concerned with determining who is a "real socialist" or not suggests your main interest here is in promoting a political agenda, as opposed to providing a neutral description of socialism. Can you provide a reliable source that defines socialism as "what socialist and labour parties do as far as socialist measures and policies"? If the Social Democratic Party of Germany promoted economic liberalism during the inter-war years, does that mean socialism is now redefined to mean liberal capitalism because self-described socialists pursued those policies? - Battlecry 04:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * On the other hand libertarian socialists have said, in long books, that what the USSR produced is not socialism but state capitalism. The fact is that the controversy on who is a socialist and who is not is very complicated. Still you seem to posses that clear politological tool yet you continue to fail to share with us that fountain of wisdom which you only seem to possess. As such we have to treat as socialist what the sources say is part of socialism, the media and the academic works. Instead you seem to suggest only communist parties establishing a single state ownership pattern is what constitutes "real" socialism. You don´t want to accpet most governing self described socialist parties as socialist since to you they don´t want to implement what according to you is "socialism". As such your definition seems to seek to erase most of what this article is dealing with and what most general politological sources on socialism deal with, only to keep closed regime experiments with totalitarian tendencies. If that particular idea is what you are interested in I suggest you try instead to improve the communism article which could definitely be better.--Eduen (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of the classification of the Soviet-type economy as state capitalism or a command economy is not necessarily a criticism of the USSR, it is simply pointing out the actual processes which characterized its operation. This is a neutral presentation that is relevant to the description of (extant) socialism. On the other hand, inserting the claim that it was a "dictatorship" adds very little to the understanding of socialism. I suspect "dictatorship" was inserted into the lead to advance a non-neutral PoV.


 * Again, you continue to misconstrue my position and fail to address any of my points. My position is as follows: this article should discuss what socialism itself (as a social and economic system and society) is and how it actually functioned in practice. This includes an overview of the successes, characteristics, and problems of extant (Soviet-type socialism) and whether or not it said system actually functioned as a form of socialism. To do that, first we provide an overview of the theoretical concept of socialism, its major systems and models, how they would function, and how they might overcome the problems of capitalism and existing "socialism" (state capitalism). This is far more relevant to the subject than listing the political exploits of politicians who describe themselves as "socialist", or who might have simply been labelled as "socialist" by popular perception. The article should not take a stance on discerning who or who isn't a socialist; readers can then use the knowledge of this article to discern whether or not politicians, etc. in the media are socialists or not. Of course, theorists and political figures who contributed to the development of socialist thought and who are cited as such in reliable sources will be discussed in this article as well. In essence, instead of describing what socialists (or social democrats) do (especially when many of the actions are extraneous to socialism), the article should provide prospective readers with an overview of what socialism is and how it can function, or has functioned historically; along with an overview of the major ideologies and theories related to it.- Battlecry 03:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Again user Battlecry. Your are still free to go improve the article socialist mode of production. In that article you will not have to deal with politicians at all. In this article we have to deal mainly with a political movement just as the articles on liberalism, conservatism, fascism, communism and anarchism do. On the other hand socialism is mostly what socialists do. It seems to me you are forgetting that this "socialism" thing is something that particular humans do and clearly that is not just ideas on systems but also political movilizations, organizing parties and movements, governing countries and participating in parlaments. On a third issue it seems to me that you keep on trying to "purge" all non communist socialists out of this article in order to make this article more or less the same as the communism article. To you apprently only communists are "real" socialists and on that you are going againts all the references on socialists in general academic works on the subject and media mentions of socialism and socialists.--Eduen (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your claims are outlandish and disingenuous. There hasn't been any significant "purging" of information, and you continue to ignore my points and repeat your unsourced claims ad nauseam. Socialism is juxtaposed with capitalism, and is commonly defined as an economic system or theory of social organization. The movement revolves around this concept; socialism is not simply defined as what self-described "socialists do". There is no bias in favor of "communism" here (assuming you mean Marxism-Leninism), which if you've followed my comments on Wikipedia, suggests I'm anything but a Marxist-Leninist "communist". On the other hand, you are attempting to define socialism as reforms (the actions self-described social democratic parties take in government), which is (was) a strategy to achieve socialism, not the goal of reformist socialist ideologies and movements. Likewise, I don't think you are aware of the definition of communism. The economic systems of the former USSR and Soviet bloc are commonly defined as "socialist" in economic literature, were referred to as such by those states themselves, and were never considered to represent forms of communism. While you might not like to acknowledge this, it would be historically revisionist to ignore actual social and economic orders that attempted to construct socialism. - Battlecry 02:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)