Talk:Socialism/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

"and democratic control"

Why do people keep adding this in the first and defining sentence, when we have "social ownership of the means of production" which is broad and well compassing? Saying that "democratic control" is a defining feature is POV and denies the the fact that the USSR and Maoist China were socialist. LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

USSR had what people term "actually existing socialism". In general, neither China nor USSR ever claimed to have achieved socialism. BeŻet (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

They never claimed to have achieved communism, which was the ultimate goal. LittleJerry (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's amusing, also, that people here are assuming the only use of "democracy" that can legitimately exist is a liberal-democratic representative government. A patriot of the Soviet Union might argue that the phrase "all power to the soviets" was a far more complete democratic statement (IE one that brings rulership to the demos) than the bourgeois games of parliamentarians. So before shrugging off "democratic control" as "wrong" consider you may have an incomplete understanding of the word "democracy." Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

So the USSR and China were workers controlled? Give me a break. LittleJerry (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, the hallmark debate skills of Wikipedia. It's simple - the operating definition of words like "socialism" and "democracy" we use here are those supported by reliable academic sources, not whatever you might happen to feel is true in your gut. Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Specifically you removed a WP:RS when you cut the following:

.}}</ref> and democratic control, such as [[workers' self-management]] of enterprises.<ref name="Nove">{{cite web|last=Nove|first=Alec|authorlink= Alec Nove|title=Socialism|website=New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition (2008)|url=http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_S000173|quote=A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialised or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how.}}</ref><ref name="Horvat_Page_1516">{{cite book |last1=Horvat |first1=Branko |author1-link=Branko Horvat |editor1-last=Michie |editor1-first=Jonathan |editor1-link=Jonathan Michie |title=Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences, Volume 1 |date=2000 |publisher=Routledge |location=London and New York |pages=1515–1516 |chapter-url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Reader_s_Guide_to_the_Social_Sciences/ip_IAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1516&printsec=frontcover |access-date=15 October 2021 |chapter=Social ownership |isbn=9781135932268 |quote=Just as private ownership defines capitalism, social ownership defines socialism. The essential characteristic of socialism in theory is that it destroys social hierarchies, and therefore leads to a politically and economically egalitarian society. Two closely related consequences follow. First, every individual is entitled to an equal ownership share that earns an aliquot part of the total social dividend…Second, in order to eliminate social hierarchy in the workplace, enterprises are run by those employed, and not by the representatives of private or state capital. Thus, the well-known historical tendency of the divorce between ownership and management is brought to an end. The society—i.e. every individual equally—owns capital and those who work are entitled to manage their own economic affairs.

and I would strongly suggest you restore it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That's just one source. Who cares? The majority of sources define it more broadly as social ownership. Thats a peferctly fine and NOV definition. And RS define the USSR as both socialist and undemocratic so you don't have a leg to stand on there. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Clearly I care about that source and you have removed a reliable source just because you disagree with it. This is unencyclopedic - restore the deleted line. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jahir333.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Socialism, social ownership OR regulated private ownership

WP:SOCK drawer. Generalrelative (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I put three sources in the article for my sentence that socialism is social ownership "or private ownership modified by extensive government regulation and direction of the economy." Yet, it was reverted by couple editors, claiming it's not "common." But that's incorrect. I'm going to use this section to accumulate sources to show it's not some isolated fringe definition. I'm amazed Wikipedia has been not aware, or has been shielding. this common definition from readers. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Smith, Robert C. (2003). Encyclopedia of African American Politics. United States. Facts On File, Incorporated. p. 325. "Socialism is an IDEOLOGY that advocates government ownership *OR* REGULATION of the means of production and the distribution of goods and services in order to achieve equality. The basic aim of socialism is to replace *OR* MODIFY THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of the economy...with a system in which the government owns *OR* DIRECTS the operations of the economy....Socialism, unlike COMMUNISM, may allow some private ownership and production for profit, but the government plays an extensive role or planning and regulating..." Temin, Peter (1991). Lessons from the Great Depression. MIT Press. p. 111. "A socialist economy has the following properties: 1(1) public ownership *OR* REGULATION of "the commanding heights" of the economy, particularly of utilities and banking.." Mason, David S. (2011). A Concise History of Modern Europe. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 210. From the glossary: "socialism: a theory that advocates government ownership *OR* REGULATION of the economy with the principal aims of providing basic human needs and reducing social and economic inequality." Schneider, G. (n.d.). Economic Principles and Problems: A Pluralist Introduction. (n.p.): Taylor & Francis. "A socialist economic system is one in which the means of production are either owned *OR* REGULATED by society. Note that in most SME's, only 40-60% of the economy is controlled *OR* regulated by the state, whereas a fully socialist system would mean control *OR* regulation of most industries." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Google dictionary, Oxford Languages ("not common"? Really?), "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned *OR* REGULATED by the community as a whole." https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=socialism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Encyclopedia Britannica: "socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership *OR* CONTROL of property and natural resources....Society as a whole, therefore, should own *OR* AT LEAST CONTROL property for the benefit of all its members." https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism ("not common" sure.) Editors that reverted, do you still claim it's not common? Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Still getting reverted. Come on people. This is economics 101 and political science 101 stuff. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Please read social ownership. It's the appropriation of the surplus product, produced by the means of production, to society as a whole. It is not necessarily public ownership. BeŻet (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC) You're trying to use Wikipedia is a source for itself?! Read the sources above. There is a choice between ownership and government regulation. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC) If you actually think "social ownership" can include government-regulation of privately-owned means of production, then you shouldn't have a problem with making it explicit that the means of production don't have to be publicly owned. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC) But the sources you present don't negate that social ownership is the core element of different strands of socialism. You've just been erroneously using it as a synonym for public ownership. BeŻet (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Yes the sources I posted do negate that. They say there are two alternatives, ownership OR regulation. Therefore neither ownership nor regulation by themselves is a common element. Rather, the common element is having the characteristic of "ownership or regulation." Why anyone has to point this out to you, is ridiculous. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC) I'd appreciate if you worked on your condescending tone. Like I said, you seem to be confusing social ownership with public ownership, because the sources you are basing your changes on do not dispute that the core element of socialism is social ownership. BeŻet (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Pay attention to the sources. They do dispute that, via the word "or." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/or Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Show me the full quotation you are referring to. BeŻet (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC) The entire list of quotes from sources I posted at the start of this section. No need to quote them again. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC) None of them prove you right, so which one in particular is a good example of what you are trying to prove? For instance: A socialist economic system is one in which the means of production are either owned or regulated by society - fully compatible with the concept of social ownership. BeŻet (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Whether it's compatible or not with the concept of social ownership is not the issue. The issue is what the sources say. Do you understand how Wikipedia works? Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC) But the sources do not support your change, which is what I've been trying to explain to you all this time. Do you understand that if the means of production are still controlled/regulated by society, that still counts as social ownership? BeŻet (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC) I understand that in your own mind, you might think that regulation is the same as ownership. But you just thinking that or saying it without a source, means nothing on Wikipedia. The sources I listed clearly do not consider that the case, hence the use of the term "or". Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Please read Social ownership#Social ownership of equity BeŻet (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Please read the sources. Wikipedia editors' text is not a source for Wikipedia. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC) FYI, "social ownership of equity," social ownership of shares of a corporation, isn't the same thing has regulation. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC) And please stop enforcing your change if editors are pointing out what is wrong with them. BeŻet (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with my change. The use of the word "or" rather than "and" is sourced by all these sources. You're choosing to disregard what the sources are saying. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Social ownership type "equity"

Regarding "Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity.[12]" the term "equity" is not correct in this context. Equity has two definitions:

1. the quality of being fair and impartial.

2. the value of the shares issued by a company.

Neither of these make sense as a type of ownership. Meaning 1 has been used to refer to adjusting inequality due to past oppression. Maybe that is intended here, as the link points to Equality of outcome (but not Social equity!). "Equity" in that sense may be a motivation for social ownership but it is not a type of ownership.

Reference 12 does use the term equity in its list of forms of socialised ownership, but that is meaning 2.

I would suggest changing "of equity" to "citizen" and removing the link to Equality of outcome --Cdude1990 (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC on sentence discussing the definition of socialism

Should the sentence While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element and regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit be changed to While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element or regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit, that is, the "and" replaced with an "or"? BeŻet (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The above sentence is not really what I'm trying to say. The "or" sentence I've been putting in is: "Some definitions say that social ownership is the one common element, while some other definitions allow for regulation of the means of production by government or society, aimed at community benefit, as an alternative to ownership." [insert here the entire list of sources below] Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Editor opinions

• No - social ownership already encapsulated regulation and/or control by society. BeŻet (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

*Yes - There is no shortage of sources that say "or." Including even as mainstream as Google dictionary (which is from Oxford). Just Google "socialism." If the sources considered regulation to be the same as ownership, or "encapsulated" within ownership by society, they wouldn't be using the term "or." These common mainstream definitions, which are all similar, ought to be revealed to Wikipedia readers. It's against Wikipedia NPOV policy for us editors to take sides, being selective in displaying only a definition we think is the "correct" one.Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet !vote. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

:Smith, Robert C. (2003). Encyclopedia of African American Politics. United States. Facts On File, Incorporated. p. 325. "Socialism is an IDEOLOGY that advocates government ownership *OR* REGULATION of the means of production and the distribution of goods and services in order to achieve equality. The basic aim of socialism is to replace *OR* MODIFY THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of the economy...with a system in which the government owns *OR* DIRECTS the operations of the economy....Socialism, unlike COMMUNISM, may allow some private ownership and production for profit, but the government plays an extensive role or planning and regulating..."

:Temin, Peter (1991). Socialism and Wages in the Recovery from the Great Depression in the United States and Germany. The Journal of Economic History, vol. 50, no. 2, Cambridge University Press, 1990, p 297. "A socialist economy has the following properties: (1) public ownership *OR* REGULATION of "the commanding heights" of the economy, particularly of utilities and banking.."

:Mason, David S. (2011). A Concise History of Modern Europe. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 210. From the glossary: "socialism: a theory that advocates government ownership *OR* REGULATION of the economy with the principal aims of providing basic human needs and reducing social and economic inequality."

:Schneider, G. (n.d.). Economic Principles and Problems: A Pluralist Introduction. (n.p.): Taylor & Francis. "A socialist economic system is one in which the means of production are either owned *OR* REGULATED by society. Note that in most SME's, only 40-60% of the economy is controlled or regulated by the state, whereas a fully socialist system would mean control or regulation of most industries." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

:Google dictionary, Oxford Languages: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned *OR* REGULATED by the community as a whole." https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=socialism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

:Oxford English Dictionary (from which the Google definition is from): "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned *OR* REGULATED by the community as a whole.”

:Encyclopedia Britannica: "socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership *OR* CONTROL of property and natural resources....Society as a whole, therefore, should own *OR* AT LEAST CONTROL property for the benefit of all its members." https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

:Socialism and Communism. (2014). United States: Britannica Educational Publishing in Association with Rosen Educational Services. "Socialism....Society as a whole, therefore, should own *OR* AT LEAST CONTROL property for the benefit of its members....socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything...should be public property....Other socialists, however have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses."Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

None of your sources mention social ownership. BeŻet (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

:::Even worse for your case, then. If you think they're not talking about social ownership when they talk of government ownership or community ownership, then those sources don't even provide for social ownership as an option. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

No. There are already several sources talking about social ownership being a core element of socialism. What I'm saying is that your sources do not dispute that. BeŻet (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::The definitions from those sources do dispute that. That's not to say that they're correct. There is no correct definition. There's just different definitions. Writers, including socialists, disagree with each other on what socialism is. It's not our job to pick out a definition that we like or think makes the most sense to us. All I've been doing is trying to show is the differing definitions, with no preference for either, or any. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

No, per above. LittleJerry (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Care to explain your reasoning? This isn't a vote tally. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

See the statement "per above". LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - There is no shortage of sources that say "or". - though I would endorse the discussion below that a rewrite might be in order. Social ownership might always effectively incorporate a large degree of control, but social control does not necessarily require social ownership. Pincrete (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

See discussion above for more context. BeŻet (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

We're basically arguing over whether "or" means the same thing as "and." Think about that. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It's quite dishonest of you to be writing things like that. BeŻet (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Many of the sources being cited don't specialize in socialism or political ideologies. A Dictionary and a book on the Great Depression cannot be used as authorities on socialism. LittleJerry (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

:::Socialism and Wages in the Recovery from the Great Depression in the United States and Germany. The Journal of Economic History, vol. 50, no. 2, Cambridge University Press, 1997, certainly can be used as a source. It's by Peter Temin, an economist and economic historian, https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Peter_Temin Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC) :::And the Oxford English Dictionary can be used as a source as well. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dictionaries_as_sources Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I never said that dictionaries can never be used, only that it is probably not good enough when we already have better more authoritative sources, see (current cites 1-8). Also, a glossary for a History book and an Encyclopedia of African American Politics are not authoritive either. Its clear you're google minding sources for the definition you want. LittleJerry (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::One of those "Better more authoritative sources, see (current cites 1-8)" also happens to use the word "or": "Arnold, N. Scott (1998). The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study. Oxford University Press. p. 8. "What else does a socialist economic system involve? Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system." Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC) :::::Google mining? If you put "socialism" in Google, the very first thing that pops up is the definition '...or regulation.." Then look at entry just right under the Wikipedia one, and the Encyclopedia Britannica one comes up explicitly distinguishing ownership from control: "Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.". You don't have to mine very hard. Mining is too strong a word. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Precious delicate sweet little baby: Please do not make any changes until there is consensus. Please consult WP:RfC and WP:BRD. BeŻet (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

:What's that supposed to mean? I don't see anything in there forbidding editing while you're requesting comments. And BRD is exactly what I'm doing. How long do you plan sitting on this RfC? Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC) :By the way, you can stop trying to publicly denigrate me, labeling me "rude", in the edit comments. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

BRD isn't what you're doing if you keep edit warring. Please leave the article as it is until this RfC is concluded. — Czello 19:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

:::Please quote a Wikipedia policy that says one is not allowed to edit an article, or do reverts, while an RfC is going on. If there is one, I'd be happy to oblige. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:EDITWAR, WP:BRD and WP:RFC. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. (...) When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the associated talk page or seek help at appropriate venues. (...) When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comment. (...) Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change. (...) Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved. Now please oblige. BeŻet (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::"Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved". Fail. Look at the top of the page. It says: "This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines." https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment (WP:BRD isn't policy or a guideline either). You're really pulling all the stops to try to stop me from putting in what these sources say, aren't you? Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"Pulling all the stops" by trying to discuss things with you that several editors found contentious? BeŻet (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't insinuate that I haven't been discussing. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Precious delicate sweet little baby: I think you've missed the point about how WP:BRD works, but at least you've stopped reverting. — Czello 21:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Honestly the entire sentence is awkward regardless of which word we use. Look at it:

• While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element and regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit.

"Regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit" what? It reads like something was lopped off Is it supposed to be something like:

• While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, common elements include social ownership and regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit.

Or is it supposed to be something like:

• While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element, while regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit are also major aspects.

Or is it all intended to be one clause, so it should read:

• While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, one common element is social ownership and regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit.

The current version is weird because "is the one common element" applies only to "social ownership" and then there's this weird dangling clause mentioning "regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit" without really setting a context. Intuitively I think it is meant to say that that is also a common element, or perhaps that it's all meant to be one clause as in my final example, but that's not actually what it says in either version, and saying that social ownership is "the one" common element contradicts it. What exactly is the sentence supposed to convey? (Note that none of the example options I gave above are thoroughly thought-out so it might be necessary to go over the article and sources if there's a disagreement about what it ought to say - my point is that the current version is just confusing.) I feel like this issue might be leading to the confusion and disagreement above, because the ambiguous wording of the sentence makes it hard to say what the impact of "and" vs. "or" really is. --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. That's actually not the sentence I was proposing. Mine is, "Some definitions say that social ownership is the one common element[1][12][13] while some other definitions allow for regulation of the means of production by government or society, aimed at community benefit, as an alternative to ownership. [insert all the source above here]" There are competing definitions, differing ideas about what makes something socialist, and that's what I've been trying to display. Bezet apparently only wants to show only one definition. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The current version is a result of some of Precious' changes. In the version before Precious' changes it simply read While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element. BeŻet (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

:::The problem is you're choosing to display what some sources say, as to what's socialism is, and reverting away display of what other sources say socialism is, because they conflict with the former. That goes against Wikipedia NPOV policy. It's against policy to take sides. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe we should take a step back and think about what the sentence is / was supposed to convey, then. All of the sources for the "ownership" part either say "ownership and control" or something similar. So at the very least if we go back to the older version it could be tweaked to ownership and control. I also think that the original version doesn't quite reflect the nuance of Scott and Hastings, while Busky is talking about social ownership and control of the economy, which is perhaps very different than what a reader might think on reading the current sentence. Part of the issue is also that "social ownership" is undefined and is probably a term whose meaning isn't immediately going to be obvious to the reader - Hastings in particular takes pains to make clear that it can mean multiple things and can be achieved in multiple different ways. (Also hold up, Hastings is writing in The Oxford companion to Christian thought - is that really the ideal source to cite on the definition of socialism?) I feel like the entire sentence might be better-off rewritten from scratch; the concept of social ownership is certainly something that should be discussed in the lead, but maybe the focus should be on defining it rather than just introducing it. I think part of the reason I don't entirely like Precious' "or" versions is that I believe regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit is meant to be a form of social ownership or control as well, so it is misleading to present it as an alternative definition - ie. if the means of production are heavily regulated, then that is a form of social control, and effectively represents the principle that the economy is socially-owned. But digging into that would require more focus on what the sources say in terms of defining "social ownership and control." --Aquillion (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a good starting point. The main issue here is that implying that "regulation of the economy is socialism" would render every economy in the world socialist. This is not what any of the sources say, and needs to be elaborated on. Referecing social ownership in some ways tried to encapsulate that, as it covers many different types of ownership and control. I think it is also important to discuss what is meant by ownership and control to avoid incorrect conclusions. Precious seems to jump to a conclusion that if the economy is "controlled" rather than "owned", this implies a system of private property with interventions, which was one of their earlier suggestions. Meanwhile, if the system private ownership of the means of production is abolished, one may not necessarily talk about ownership at all, but rather control of the means of production by the community as a whole. BeŻet (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

::::I disagree that the sources are saying that just any type of regulation of the economy is socialism. But even if they were, you not agreeing with the definition, or that it conflicts with other definitions, is insufficient reason to not reveal the definition to readers. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC) ::::And the source in that "earlier suggestions" you're linking to says "government plays an EXTENSIVE role of planning and regulating..." "Extensive," not just some tinkering around with some regulations. I'd be happy to use the term "extensive" to clarify. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC) :::You say "if the means of production are heavily regulated, then that is a form of social control, and effectively represents the principle that the economy is socially-owned." I can understand you making that equivalency in your mind that if an enterprise is controlled by society then it's owned by society, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some sources that treat them equal as well, but there are sources that don't. And we can't just ignore them. We we have to present both definitions/conceptions, not choose one or the other. These sources I presented explicitly don't consider control (or regulation) to constitute social ownership. The Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, says, "Society as a whole, therefore, should own OR AT LEAST CONTROL property for the benefit of all its members." This source clearly considers control be less comprehensive than ownership. (An example would be business owned by private stockholders, but the business policies socially controlled/regulated to ensure what the business does is beneficial to the public good. This can be situation in some conceptions of market socialism.) Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree – the sentence is poorly written and unclear either way, and as a result I don't think this RfC is going to resolve the problem. I suggest writing a clear sentence based on the sources. Aquillion's suggestions offer a possible starting point. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

::Maybe I should start a new RfP. The sentences Bezet provided are incoherent either way, and doesn't represent what I'm trying to put in the article. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The main issue here is that implying that "regulation of the economy is socialism" would render every economy in the world socialist, not really. Regulation can - and often does - exist to protect monopoly or the interests of a particular group, or to protect the stability of the state or economy itself, rather than the actual members of the society. I appreciate that the "interests of society" may be difficult to define or measure, but the absence of benefit to the broader society is not at all difficult to measure. Pincrete (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

::::Exactly. It has to be a particular type of regulation. The regulation has to be socialist regulation: regulation by society, or through their agent government, in pursuit of socialist goals. The sources above mention that it's to "reduce inequality" or "for the benefit of" society, etc. There's no problem in making that clear in the text, so that the reader wouldn't draw the conclusion that any type of regulation is socialist. Or, that light-touch regulation is socialism. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I specifically omitted anything to do with the "benefit to the broader society" in my point. BeŻet (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Something to consider

Switch: Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3][4] of the means of production,[5][6][7][8] as opposed to private ownership.

To: Socialism is a philosophy of the political, the social, and of resource distribution(alternatively allocation) characterised by social ownership [1][2][3][4]of the means of production[5][6][7][8]as opposed to private ownership.

I think even Karl himself would have been rather confused regarding this affirmative attitude towards what he most likely would consider to be self proclaimed "experts" of resource allocation, i.e economists.

Or as he stated it himself: "Economists have a singular method of procedure. There are only two kinds of institutions for them, artificial and natural. The institutions of feudalism are artificial institutions, those of the bourgeoisie are natural institutions. In this, they resemble the theologians, who likewise establish two kinds of religion. Every religion which is not theirs is an invention of men, while their own is an emanation from God. When the economists say that present-day relations – the relations of bourgeois production – are natural, they imply that these are the relations in which wealth is created and productive forces developed in conformity with the laws of nature. These relations, therefore, are themselves natural laws independent of the influence of time. They are eternal laws that must always govern society. Thus, there has been history, but there is no longer any. There has been history, since there were the institutions of feudalism, and in these institutions of feudalism we find quite different relations of production from those of bourgeois society, which the economists try to pass off as natural and as such, eternal." — Marx: The Poverty of Philosophy

Pauloroboto (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Social Democratic Party of Germany

The party leads the current government. Such information should be added. The party has connections with Russian oil and gas industry. Xx236 (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

'Wikipedia is not a source' circumvented

Reference https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10455752.2021.1875603 uses Wikipedia article, which makes a circumvention of "Wikipedia is not a source".Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I assume that the reference should be removed.Xx236 (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I see an article that uses dozens of sources, and at one point mentions Wikipedia. I don't think the fact that it mentions Wikipedia one time invalidates the entire rest of the article. As long as the specific part that mentions Wikipedia isn't used as a reference, it should be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B124:6FA5:EF97:16EC:FBF4:3D1A (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

We should at least warn the readers that the article is based partially on one source, quoted by this Wikipedia and later quoted by the allegedly academic article, which ignores Wikipedia policy and ignores the original source. It is far from being fine.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Nothing about Social fascism

Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Social fascist seems like more of a pejorative than an actual political stance. X-Editor (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to remove all the (heavily) politicized ballast...

Vague complaint from WP:SPA; full of sound and fury, signifying nothing Dronebogus (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

...and to massively reduce the (politically and ideologically) bloated article back down to the actual core definition and the actual facts defining and explaining socialism. Anarchism, communism, social democracy, social capitalism... social welfare... for example each and all have their own main-articles and need (and should) not be included here in this article about socialism other than mentioning the (often highly debatable) influence of socialist ideas and ideologies upon them. Over 75% of this article's content does not provide any relevant information about the actual core topic of socialism. The vast majority of this article's content only discusses other topics more or less closely or loosely related to socialism, topics which are each and all honored with their own main-articles in Wikipedia. The informational value of over 75% of the article's content could easily be provided by just one single sentence stating: "Socialism and socialist ideologies form the basis of.... and influenced related political and economic and cultural concepts such as....." Instead of discussing these varoious concepts and terms related to socialism it would probably be much more helpful to replace these with a chapter on the common uses of the term socialism which is often incorrect and misleading, while at the same time pointing out the differences between the terms socialism, socialist, and social which by their strict definitions are NOT interchangable even though they are often (wrongfully) used interchangeably (not seldomly intentionally conflating them in order to mislead and misrepresent political views). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3022:df1:0:35b8:7962:4d17:3ae1 (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC) What specific parts of the article are problematic? X-Editor (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Etymology

The Latin word sociare means to associate or to be sociable and the Italian word sociare means to socialize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyfulism (talk • contribs) 04:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Socialism on the political spectrum

Should the opening paragraph be used to define where socialism stands as a position on the left-right political spectrum? Helper201 (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment I've started this here because this has been attempted to be removed by editors and IPs and therefore really should be removed until it gains consensus, rather than those who disagree with having a position placed in the lead being reverted. The onus is on the person placing this where they have to gain consensus if there is resistance, not the other way around. It is also not typical for political ideologies to be defined via giving them a place on the left-right spectrum in the leads of Wikipedia pages from what I can see looking around at the pages of other political ideologies. Helper201 (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It should definitely at least be mentioned to be a left wing ideology, because that's pretty uncontroversial and I think the IPs removing that altogether are adopting a fringe view. On the larger debate of whether it should say "left wing to far-left", I'm in favour of this wording but I am okay keeping it simply as "left wing" until better sourcing is found (which, really, shouldn't be difficult). That said, I personally think the past two sources used for "far left" are acceptable. — Czello 13:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes Wikipedia routinely describes various entities as "right-wing" or "far-right". Therefore, stating socialism's position on the left-right spectrum is appropriate. I think left-wing to far-left is best, as it depends on whether one is talking about (say) French socialism or Venezuelan socialism. That said, "left-wing" is better than leaving it out. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment entities as in political parties, yes, political ideologies or economic philosophies, no, it is not typically used in this context. Helper201 (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

From Naziism: Nazism (German: Nazismus) (/ˈnɑːtsiɪzəm, ˈnæt-/ NA(H)T-see-iz-əm), the common name in English for National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus, German: [natsi̯oˈnaːlzotsi̯aˌlɪsmʊs] (listen)), is the far-right ideology and practices associated with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP) in Nazi Germany. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Ehh, that's very clearly a non-sequitor: Nazism is a much more narrow umbrella of philosophies and the consensus for the "far-right" descriptor vastly more uniform and robust in established scholarship for it than "far-left" is for socialism. In fact, as far as I can see here as a random FRS respondent, there hasn't been a single source supplied as yet that describes socialism collectively as "far-left" or "left to far-left", whereas even the most lackadaisical search into RS for Nazism will turn up hundreds or thousands of "far-right" references demonstrating this as a traditional descriptor for both classical Nazism and it's descendant belief systems. It's a very different level of established sourcing, which is what this issue has to come down to at the end of the day. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Left wing is certainly better than leaving it out, but it is more neutral to describe it as being right wing as well. Naziism is exclusively right-wing, socialism is not. See the Guardian (not a right wing source by anyone's standards): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/20/socialism-neoliberal-capitalism-far-right Pbs123456789 (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment This is a misleading RFC. The existing text in the article states that "Socialism is a left-wing to far-left economic philosophy and movement"; Helper is edit-warring against several other editors to change this to state "Socialism is a left-wing economic philosophy and movement". Both of these formulations define where socialism stands on the left-right spectrum, but the original text does so more accurately and inclusively. If the opening is not to define socialism's political position, it should omit any reference to left altogether. This would be absurd (although some editors have tried to do this). RolandR (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment firstly I'm not "edit-warring against several other editors", unless you want to define one revert of an editor to be an "edit war". Not once has the 3RR rule been broken here. I have removed far-left because of the citations for it breaking WP:SYNTH. "If the opening is not to define socialism's political position, it should omit any reference to left altogether." That is exactly what is being discussed. Look at the two points you made; they are the same. Not defining socialisms political position and omitting left altogether are the same, as left is a political position. The discussion here is apart from where the ideology is on the left-right spectrum (if any) but is about whether or not it should be included altogether, which yes, includes any and all branches of the left and any and all other political positions. Helper201 (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment Also if we are going to define this ideology via placing it on the political spectrum and more than one position is given, a more explanatory way of doing should be used rather than "X to Y". This is one reason why the lead may not be the best place for this, as it should properly be explained why in some cases it is regarded as one position and why in other cases another. Using the "X to Y" way of doing things makes it sound like socialism in of itself lies between the left and the far-left for example, rather than detailing that the context of where, why and by whom socialism is being defined (such as in the examples of French socialism or Venezuelan socialism mentioned above) can influence or change this and also what type/variant of socialism can also change this. I.e., this is something more complex than what is typically placed within the lead of the page, simply because of the detail that will be required to go into to explain it properly for the reader. Helper201 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Leaning oppose.(Summoned by bot) I think the raised concerns about SYNTH here are understandable, and I'm not seeing anything that has been presented in terms of sources to establish that either "far left" or "left to far left" are dominant descriptors appearing in acceptable WP:Reliable sources, meaning the argument for inclusions is currently failing WP:WEIGHT and WP:ONUS. I can be moved on this with further argument and sourcing, but this is the baseline expectation under policy for inclusion, especially concerning such a far-reaching topic and potentially controversial change. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment Left-wing yes, far-left no. Left-wing already includes far-left. I don't see sufficiently strong scholastic consensus that socialism is as notable for being far-left as it is for being left-wing in general to justify including far-left in addition to left-wing in the opening paragraph. CurryCity (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The information should be mentioned, but not in the first sentence of the article. Yes, socialism is certainly a left-wing ideology. Yes, a subset of socialism is far-left. But the text as it stands now has two problems: It gives extreme prominence to this fact, by making it the first thing mentioned in the first sentence, and it does not explain it properly.

I think it is fine to mention the position of socialism on the political spectrum in the lead of the article, and even in the first paragraph. But in the first sentence? No. The fact that socialism is left-wing is true, but it is absolutely not the most important thing to know about socialism. None of the sources currently used mention "left-wing" or "far-left" as part of a definition of socialism, or as prominently as we mention it here. One source is the Encyclopædia Britannica entry on "Left" (not its entry on "Socialism"). Others simply use the label "far-left" for certain socialist organizations without emphasizing the importance of that fact. They just take it for granted as if saying that the Earth is round. These sources are certainly adequate to support the fact that socialism is left-wing (and that far-left socialists exist), but in order to mention that fact as prominently as we currently do, we would need sources that give it similar prominence. We would need sources that put "left-wing" or "far-left" into their definitions of socialism, or that emphasize the importance of this fact in other ways. And we would need enough of them to establish that this is a majority view among scholars (that socialism's left-wing nature is very important, or definitional).

Further, the lead of an article is supposed to summarize its contents, but the article as it stands now does not actually devote any space to talking about socialism's left-wing nature. After the first sentence the term "left-wing" appears only 11 more times in the body of the article (in a 19,000+ word article!), and in all cases it is referring to the "left-wing" subset of a socialist party or movement. 3 of the 11 instances are found in this one paragraph alone:

Left-wing groups which did not agree to the centralisation and abandonment of the soviets by the Bolshevik Party (see anti-Stalinist left) led left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks. Such groups included Socialist Revolutionaries,[138] Left Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and anarchists.[139] Within this left-wing discontent, the most large-scale events were the Kronstadt rebellion[140][141][142] and the Makhnovist movement.[143][144][145]

"The left" appears 8 times in the body of the article, including 2 that overlap with the above 11 cases of "left-wing" (because "the left-wing" appears twice), then once in the name of the Left Opposition, and once in the name of the Democratic Party of the Left.

The term "far-left" does not appear in the body of the article at all. It is only mentioned in the opening sentence and in footnotes serving as references for that sentence.

As such, I think it is actually WP:UNDUE to mention the left-wing to far-left position of socialism so prominently. Mention it in the lead, yes. The opening paragraph, maybe. The very first sentence, no.

In any case, this leads me to the second problem: Insufficient detail. As it stands, the article says that socialism is "left-wing to far-left" and then never elaborates on this. The topic never comes up again.

As a solution, I propose that the mention of socialism being left-wing should be moved out of the opening sentence but kept in the lead - perhaps at the end of the first paragraph, perhaps elsewhere - and expanded into at least a full sentence. For example, the sentence could say:

Socialism is left-wing, and some socialist thinkers and organizations are on the far-left.

It could be longer than that, too, but I think that is the minimum that must be said. "Left-wing to far-left" is just unclear. Does it mean that some socialists are left-wing and others are far-left? Does it mean that some scholars consider socialism left-wing and others consider it far-left? It's open to several interpretations. KS79 (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Avoid far-left in the lead. I feel like the real question being asked here is if we should include "far-left" in the lead, and I'd generally say no to that. The article and sourcing doesn't support it, the body doesn't discuss it, and without some sort of clarifying source it is mostly meaningless because "left-wing" encompasses the entire spectrum of left-wing thought. There's a deeper problem that "far-left" isn't a really well-defined term to begin with ("far-right" is used almost exclusively to refer to fascism or ideologies clearly adjacent to fascism, to the point where the term could almost be said to have been coined to describe it; whereas far-left can encompass everything from communists who want a centralized state controlling everything to anarchists who believe there should be no states at all - this is something we discuss with sources in eg. Far-left politics.) So saying "far-left" here without any clarification is meaningless, and the reason we have no clarification is because we don't actually have usable sources. Also note that to the extent that we define the far-left on far-left politics at all, the one definition we have a cite for there is that in France it is considered to be anyone further left than the socialists, which axiomatically excludes them. --Aquillion (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  What about "left-wing" like has been said in the discussion? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• "Left-wing" only, not "left-wing to far-left". As per my usual opinion on these RFCs, the term "left-wing" includes the entire left side of the political spectrum including "far-left", and therefore the phrase "left-wing to far-left" does not make sense. It's like saying someone can be found "somewhere between America and Texas". (Also: there are plenty of center left socialist parties in the world, which in my mind strongly implies that socialism spans the entire left wing, yet another reason for saying simply that it is "left-wing".) Loki (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of the descriptor left-wing. Per SnowRise's reasoning: reliable sources WP:RS have not been presented that this descriptor is part of the standard one sentence definition of socialism. Therefore, those who wish to include the descriptor have failed to show WP:ONUS that there is due weight WP:DUE to include the descriptor for a one sentence lead definition of the term. The current addition of the descriptor in the lead sentence is per policy a form of WP:SYN and should be removed. The relevant manual of style guideline for the discussion is MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Specifically:

If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist.

Here is a sample of one sentence definitions for socialism from different reliable sources:

"Socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." Merriam Webster

"Socialism is the set of beliefs that states that all people are equal and should share equally in a country's money, or the political systems based on these beliefs." Cambridge dictionary

Social is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Oxford dictionary

"Socialism is a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government." Random House

"Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources." Encyclopedia Britannica

--Guest2625 (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I would consider the sources except the last as cases of dictionary brevity and simplicity as opposed to encyclopedic detail. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

^this is certainly true. Social is merely advocating for the communal ownership of a "thing" regardless of what it is. It is a bit archaic for Wikipedia to describe it as a something merely "left wing". Pbs123456789 (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Far-left is not necessary in the lead, as "left-wing" already includes the far-left, so the phrase "left-wing to far-left" is meaningless. The phrase "centre-left to far-left" (people like Tony Blair and Keir Starmer have defined themselves as socialists) might make sense, but as that is the same as saying "left-wing", I can't see any sense in it. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Criticism

We need to improve the section about criticism to a higher standard. 217.74.150.17 (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Vague comments aren’t helpful. Dronebogus (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: agreed! — Python Drink (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

They are correct, though. Regardless of providing a critique with clarity, it can't be denied that the section has serious problems. Vedisassanti (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is very poor quality and does not reflect a consensus among academics (which should exist, but may not). For example, it does not address the distinction between socialism and communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.126.71.54 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Definition

I strongly disagree with the article's claim that Socialism is defined by public ownership. Searching Google for "socialism definition" gives, as its first hit, the oxford languages dictionary definition:"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Note that ownership is a sufficient BUT not necessary characteristic. To the extent that "the public" - as delegated to government - regulates and controls many (most?) aspects of the organizations that produce, distribute, and exchange goods and services, socialism is far broader that "public ownership". 40.142.183.146 (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Since I'm reactivating my WP account, there are a lot of things wrong with this article, most notably that it is TOO FREAKIN LONG. There's actually a tag at the top of the article, saying that it's TOO FREAKIN LONG. I suspect that because socialism is so near & dear to the hearts of so many WP-EN editors ... look at the user pages of the people who edit this article, collectively they look like a May Day Parade at Oxford in 1989 ... people just back up their intellectual dump trucks, dump in whatever they learned that day from their left-wing professors & drive away. This isn't a good way to build a good article. Flavor of the Month (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a rather specific and unusual definition of the public. A public doesn't necessarily imply a government and socialism necessarily includes both anarchist and destituent tendencies within it that are certainly anti-state and anti-governmental. I'm not going to bother much with Flavor of the Month's personal opinion of the politics of regular editors - that's entirely irrelevant and seems overly combative. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

LOL. There's nothing combative about me, but I do like having a little fun. WP editors who work on this & associated articles, on a regular basis, are either enamored with socialism or keeping their political beliefs concealed. Hence the "May Day parade at Oxford" reference.

When you're enamored with something & contributing to an article about it, bias creeps in. Hence the little disagreement we had on this page last year. Certain editors were eager to chatter in the mainspace about the death toll of anti-socialist policy in Indonesia, but exclude any mention of the death tolls of pro-socialist policy in China, the Soviet Union & elsewhere. Investigating their user pages was enlightening.

I want a shorter, more balanced article. You know, like an encyclopedia rather than a textbook written by a socialist ideologue. Chattering on & on about various socialist theories, who said what about it, etc. could be broken out into one or more sub-articles quite easily. And being candid about the human costs, when such theories were implemented, is essential. All the best -- Flavor of the Month (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose change - seems to be WP:RGW Andre🚐 02:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Far-left

Czello where in the citation you provided does it explicitly call socialism itself far-left? Helper201 (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"make a reengagement with far-left socialist currents" — Czello 13:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is what I saw. The problem is its calling currents within or of socialism far-left, not calling socialism itself far-left. Helper201 (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The point is that if socialism has far-left currents, then socialism is "left wing to far-left", as the original description read. — Czello 13:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this falls under WP:SYNTH. I mean I'm sure you could find far-right currents of conservatism; would that mean conservatism is far-right? No. I'm not saying that it couldn't be included somewhere else in the article to specifically say that currents of socialism have been referred to as far-left. My opposition is using this to define socialism as far-left as a whole. Helper201 (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

We're not saying that it's far left as a whole - we're saying it's left to far-left. Regardless, I've now added another source which is more explicit. — Czello 14:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The citation you are using isn't for that though, it’s for far-left. The bridging/linking is not what the citation is being used for. Also, can you please provide the quote for the new PDF citation both here and within the citation itself as a quote? It seems to be talking about parties, where does it call socialism itself far-left? Helper201 (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• That doesn't follow. Putting it in the lead implies that that is a significant part of the topic (significant enough to highlight in the first sentence of the lead, which requires exceptionally high-quality, extremely specific sourcing that emphasizes its central importance to the topic) - otherwise we could describe almost any political party as far-left or far-right in their first sentence by citing some random source that has a passing mention of their far-right or far-left elements, no matter how minor. Would you accept eg. a source describing far-right currents in conservatism, right-libertarianism or the Republican party as a rationale to describe those as far-right in their leads? (I can produce extensive sourcing for each of those, far more extensive and specific than what you've presented here. In fact, our article on Conservatism already contains a paragraph in the body on it, which by your logic could easily justify a mention in the lead.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I just saw this conversation, and I think it is a good example of the confusion created by the phrase "left-wing to far-left".

If I am understanding this correctly, Czello interprets the phrase as meaning "Socialism is a left-wing ideology and some types of socialism are far-left", so they found some sources that call certain types of socialism far-left (which is of course true, although I would argue not definitional).

But Helper201 seems to interpret the phrase as meaning "Socialism is an ideology that may be left-wing or far-left", in other words meaning that socialism as a whole is sometimes far-left (in certain countries, or at certain times, or according to some scholars). This is false, so Helper201 correctly points out that no sources support this.

The problem is the inherent ambiguity of the five words "left-wing to far-left". The phrase is unclear. It could mean all sorts of things, some correct and some incorrect. People who read it will easily get the wrong idea if that phrase is used in the article. That's why I argue that this information cannot be conveyed properly with just a short phrase. KS79 (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, apologies - just catching up on this thread. My interpretation of that phrase is that socialism is an ideology which can have left wing applications but can also have far-left applications. Not every form of socialism will be one or the either - it's a broad ideology which can spread across both "left-wing" and "far-left" depending on its application. However, perhaps I'm reading the phrase different to others. — Czello 14:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm an expert in political science. Let's get that out of the way.

I often compare politics to the label on a Campbell's Soup can. https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81ZFdtM-xBL._SL1500_.jpg And most people perceive themselves as occupying the little gold seal on the front. Moderate, middle of the road, totally reasonable. Yeah right. Not so fast.

"Socialism" is usually defined as left of center or far left, "fascism" as far right. The top edge of the usual two dimensional graph is authoritarian & the bottom edge is anarchy.

The truth of the matter, as I see it, is that a proper graph of political systems is three dimensional, not two dimensional. Notice that the Campbell's Soup label wraps all the way around the can & overlaps in the back. with a little bit of glue holding it on the can. Authoritarian communism & authoritarian fascism are virtually identical. That's the overlap. And authoritarian communism is a form of socialism.

This article needs to embrace this far more realistic graph of politics. Pretending that communism & fascism are as far apart as North Pole & South Pole is completely ludicrous. The truth is that even the most benevolent forms of socialism are as close to fascism, as the Soviet Union was to the North Pole. Flavor of the Month (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

In theory I agree with you - I am a believer in horseshoe theory - but ultimately the majority of sources still operate on a 2D political spectrum and so that's how Wikipedia has to operate. — Czello ^(music) 17:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism is nothing new and we don't really need your "expert" soup can research or the truth. Note that Stalinism in particular is being compared there, not the whole, broad communist movement. Authoritarianism is a central and integral part of fascism, but not of socialism and communism. The more authentic form of communism or socialism, the more polar opposite to fascism it is (cf. anarchist communism and other forms of libertarian socialism to forms of fascism). –Vipz (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Authoritarianism is a central and integral part of fascism, but not of socialism and communism. Dead wrong. 100 million dead wrong. To achieve "true socialism" or "true communism," you have to force people at gunpoint to surrender their private property rights. There's your Authoritarianism. Flavor of the Month (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Flavor of the Month: first, make sure you differentiate between personal versus private property. Factories are the most common type of private property socialists seek to have surrendered from owners (who do no physical labor but take surplus value off of those who do) to workers to democratically self-manage. Although many attempts at doing this country-wide were authoritarian in praxis, it's not a necessary attribute. Take Salvador Allende and explain your theory on his example. –Vipz (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

LOL. Factory owners pay their workers. It's a voluntary arrangement. Workers are free to seek other jobs for better pay, or start their own business. Allende nationalized major industries, health care, education and all farms over 200 acres. This was compulsory. Nobody had a choice to keep his 1000-acre farm. "Personal v. private property" is splitting hairs. If I'm forced to give up my 1000-acre farm but I'm allowed to keep my underwear, I don't see the difference between that & fascism, in terms of authoritarianism. Flavor of the Month (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Workers are free to seek other jobs for better pay, or start their own business: You must be aware the vast majority of working class people don't have such an option on the table. It's class warfare what you are describing - the clash of owner class and working class interests. A more equal and fair society would involve nobody having obscene amounts of wealth they made or inherited from exploitation, while hundreds of thousands of people are homeless and tens of millions are struggling to make ends meet. Chilean working class in 1970 democratically elected a Marxist socialist into office who tried his best to govern in their interest—giving them a chance to live with dignity. LOL all you want, but you are ridiculous if you are unable to tell differences between the Allende's presidency and Pinochet's dictatorship that followed it. –Vipz (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I support the proposed edit describing socialism as "left-wing to far left." This shouldn't be controversial. Flavor of the Month (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It should be left-wing to far-left unless we start applying no true scotsman type logic to things like "democratic" socialism. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I think defining what socialism is, then placing it on the political spectrum is better than the other way around. Therefore, oppose introduction of this wording to the first sentence of the article. –Vipz (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"social problems [that socialists] associated with capitalism"

@X-Editor: I understand WP:NPOV concerns but are there sources which state that only socialists associated social problems (such as, and quoting Historical Dictionary of Socialism to which the sentence is presently sourced: poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security) with capitalism? –Vipz (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, I was just concerned with neutrality concerns. Maybe the article could elaborate by pointing out the specific problems that you mention: "poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security" X-Editor (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Workable?

I've seen numerous accusations that socialism cannot work in practice. However, socialist places like Rojava and Zapatista Army of National Liberation work and use leftist ideas in their system with functionality. As a socialist myself, I do think that with worker cooperatives, nationalization of utilities, and implementing policies like wealth redistribution, workers' councils, etc., the system can work and bear fruit.

Either way, I say that we include this accusation in the "criticisms" section of this article. Western Progressivist (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"Socialism cannot/doesn't work in practice" is not criticism, it is an argument without any substance and does not need to be included. –Vipz (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Lede section cleanup

In my opinion, the paragraph on social democracy should be removed from the lede and integrated into the § Democratic socialism and social democracy section. The paragraph on socialist parties and socialist politics could be reorganized and integrated into existing paragraphs. –Vipz (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)