Jump to content

Talk:Socialism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Large swaths of the 20th century section are about Communism, not Socialism

[edit]

They're related enough to be worth mentioning, but devoting multiple entire paragraphs to Communism, with no sources that mention socialism at all, is WP:SYNTH. It also seems as though much of this was copy-pasted from Communism (where it belongs!) --Aquillion (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this copy-pasting across the two articles took place in June and July 2023. –Vipz (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clear usage of slanted argumentation in supposed factual description

[edit]

Under the section on planned economy it is written "State socialism is unfeasible in this view because information cannot be aggregated by a central body and effectively used to formulate a plan for an entire economy, because doing so would result in distorted or absent price signals" This is a clearly a subjective opinion of the writer which if anything should be in criticisms of socialism. Nowhere is it mentioned either that 21th century computing, AI and statistics can be used to potentially predict with a high degree of probability the consumption of a population and required production. Midflyer (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Socialism is more of an economical theory than a political ideology. The modern invention of categorising socialism under the political umbrella terms such as "left-wing" ideologies is a modern invention produced by mostly non academic slanted sources and as a product of modern right-leaning propaganda. The definition of Socialism is simply: 'workers controlling the means of production' which is a purely economical definition and not a political ideological one. whilst socialism obviously branches off and can have progressive social elements social similar to left-leaning ideologies, it is important to make the distinction as the economical mode of function should be the focus point of socialism. Midflyer (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
your right. 92.9.187.0 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does seem to be very subjective. It would more correct to add that this is the opinion of a writer or a group of scholars or we can potentially remove it altogether if it's not significant enough. Frankserafini87 (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Socialism and Communism

[edit]

Reading the communist manifesto, their IS a distinction, and the terms weren't use interchangeably as the the page suggests.

Source:

"Thus, Socialism was, in 1847, a middle-class movement, Communism a working class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; Communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it."

Page 8 preface https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf Frederick Engels January 30, 1888, London 16:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023

[edit]

Request to add

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

MOS:SEAOFBLUE and MOS:OVERLINK toobigtokale (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Milei's Speech

[edit]

@Vipz This was not boiler plate "anti-communist propaganda" delivered by a nonentity. He is the president of Argentina, a well known economist, and his speech was delivered at the World Economic Forum in Davos. His speech, in its entirety, has gone viral on the internt and has been garnering widespread coverage in the press and media to the degree that it probably rings the notability bell in its own right. Google is your friend. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virality of Milei's recent speech is temporary, and it certainly won't pass a WP:10YEARTEST. It is in its entirety boiler plate anti-communist rhetoric, everything from making people poorer, through having always failed, to 100 million deaths. There is no original criticism here that an academic body of people could come around and uphold it to support its notability. Nothing dissimilar to hundreds of remarks about the same topics made by Trump. And again, this article and this section is not a catalog of speeches that 'criticize' socialism. –Vipz (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. The last thing this section needs is to be blown up with run-of-the-mill criticisms of socialism from reactionary politicians.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@C.J. Griffin Polemics and name calling do not lend themselves well to a sober discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point still stands. Politicians lie like they breathe, and I don't believe it would be constructive to start shoehorning their screeds into this section, be it Milei, Trump or anyone else. Besides, it is redundant. It is already noted in the last paragraph that "Many commentators on the political right point to the mass killings under communist regimes, claiming them as an indictment of socialism". That should be sufficient. Including each individual commentator (like Milei) seems to me to be undue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The speech covers a great deal more than that. Beyond which I would note WP:IDONTLIKEIT (already mentioned below). You seem to have a very strong prejudice here. Criticism of socialism is not ipso-facto a "screed." My point also stands. Polemics and name calling are not conducive to a constructive conversation, especially on a sensitive topic. Unfortunately, I do need to get some sleep. I will pop in later today when I have some time and we can continue the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a compelling argument. You are certainly free to disagree with his remarks. But the speech goes into considerable detail and has garnered massive coverage in the press and media. That coupled with who delivered it and where, and IMO it easily passes the customary standards for a mention in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: "I don't like it" isn't what I stated. I pointed out issues with this addition, and you just repeated what you previously stated without addressing any of my concerns. –Vipz (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz Your concerns as far as I can tell are that you do not agree with his speech, You believe that his position would not pass muster with an academic body. And you think it is similar to remarks by Donald Trump. (A point on which I strongly disagree, but then I have listened to the entire speech.) You also refer to the speech as part of a catalog of criticism "by just anyone." Not many speeches by the President of the United States get this kind of coverage. It appears that you believe his speech consists of the four sentences quoted. I am guessing you have not heard the speech or ready any of the coverage. FTR I have. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz I think we are in different time zones. It is close to 1 in the morning here and unfortunately, I need to get some sleep. I will be happy to have a look at this later in the day when I have a few minutes and continue our discussion. Good night (or day). -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. I've now got three people telling me they don't agree with the edit. While I don't agree, I will wait for the time being and see what kind of legs the speech has. If I choose to take this up again, I will open an RfC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Private Property Viewpoint

[edit]

The description regarding private property is not supported by the Iinked reference 311.

Socialists view private property relations as limiting the potential of productive forces in the economy. According to socialists, private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralised, socialised institutions based on private appropriation of revenue—but based on cooperative work and internal planning in allocation of inputs—until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant. shiznaw (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding More Historical Figures

[edit]

In the Socialism sidebar, there is a tab labeled "People" which includes a number of historical figures. While this covers a fair number of historical figures, I believe that it should cover more.

First, why should it do this? Socialism is, per the first Merriam-Webster definition, "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." By this definition, a wide number of people would fall under this label. However, a not-insignificant number of these people are not included in this list.

Second, why the Socialism sidebar? Socialism is, per its modern definition, a wide-reaching term that can mean a plethora of things. The most authoritarian Leninist to the most libertarian Anarchist could both (accurately) be called Socialist. So, all those who fell or have fallen into one of the the differing camps of Socialist theory deserve to be grouped under the Socialist label. And, as of yet, several people have not been added.

Therefore, to rectify this, we should start by adding the following people. I have provided the Wikipedia pages of the people who I am referring to for easy reference. Feel free to ask or criticize me about my inclusion of any of these people. I can elaborate wherever necessary.

This is not a comprehensive list, but instead just the people I could think of right now. Let me know if I added someone on this list that is already mentioned. Mr. Anarchyle (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism § Culture

[edit]

@WikiUser4020: these hatnote links seem to be {{See also}} content rather than {{Main}} articles for the section. There should also be less of them. –Vipz (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz Can you specify which links in your view should be in the {{See also}} section ? (Just to avoid any potential disputes) WikiUser4020 (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confused, I am not talking about the == See also == section, but the See also: hatnote. Please check out the hatnote templates I linked. I am not personally sure which links should stay, which is why I started this talk page post. What I am sure about is that it should 'point to a small number of other related titles' and that the wrong hatnote is being used, because main articles should be closely related to the topic, and there are usually very few of them. –Vipz (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz No problem. The original sentence was not clear but the changes have been made now. WikiUser4020 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Cultural socialism"?

[edit]

Charity seems to be an individual act. But can socialism be thought of as a kind of ingrained philosophy where the government or church-in-charge uses funds to aide those in need? (Food, medical care, fire wood in the past, etc.) And they do it for ethical reasons because they are fellow Humans. So far as I know, this has been happening since at least the Middle Ages in Europe and immigrated into North America with the planter groups in the 1600s. Am I missing the boat and don't understand my own words or is this article slanted in economic and political directions? Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of socialism is outdated and irrelevant and needs to be replaced with something that actually exists.

[edit]

Socialism does not actually exist according to the old definition that we continue to perpetuate.

Lets work together to redefine socialism according to how it actually presents in the world.

I've been writing about this on Linkedin and can share my thoughts here if that's more appropriate than sending links. Toosh42 (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toosh42 can you please elaborate on your issues with the current definition? –Vipz (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter because it's evident that this new account is just trying to promote their personal opinions and ideas. Reliable sources, reliable sources – and all they offer is their Linkedin. I cannot take this "proposal" seriously. Yue🌙 05:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's a very closed minded position to take Yue.
I'll respond properly soon. Toosh42 (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. there's no such thing as a socialist country. Not one.
2. Socialism is not mutually exclusive from Capitalism.
-There's not one democratic socialist country that doesn't also have a strong foundation of Capitalism. That doesn't exist.
-EVERY COUNTRY is on the SPECTRUM between these two systems -shifting a bit to the left or right depending on the party in power.
3. There's no country that is purely capitalist without any elements of socialism. that also doesn't exist.
4. Socialism exists the same way that capitalism does -in moderation and in balance depending on the government in power. Some countries have more socialism at some times, and more capitalism at other times depending on the political party in power, but at no time does the pendulum ever swing fully into end. Both are always held in balance.
5. many of the most prosperous countries in the world with the happiest citizens are also the most socialistic.
6. Even the most socialistic countries in the world don't identify as Socialist. Why not? Because they don't conform to the definition of socialism (NO ONE DOES!!). This alone should tell you that the definition of socialism needs to be updated to something that actually exists. 2001:4958:300A:7201:FDDA:FD8:D3C6:7BCC (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the preceding in mind (sorry I wasn't logged in), if I were to write the first paragraph of the definition, it might go something like:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing a spectrum of economic and social systems characterized by varying degrees of social ownership and government investment in the public realm.
In practice, most modern implementations of socialist principles exist alongside capitalist elements in mixed economies. No pure socialist or purely capitalist systems exist in the real world; instead, countries operate on a spectrum between these ideologies, with the balance shifting based on governing parties and policies.
Socialist principles are often integrated into democratic systems, particularly in some of the world's most prosperous nations with high citizen satisfaction. These countries, while incorporating socialist elements, typically do not identify as purely socialist states. The implementation of socialist ideas varies widely, influenced by factors such as the role of markets, degree of economic planning, and organizational structures in both public and private sectors.
As a political philosophy, socialism remains an influential force on the left side of the political spectrum in many countries. However, its practical application in governance often involves a nuanced balance with and against capitalist principles, rather than a wholesale replacement of private ownership as seen in Communism.
Examples of socialistic investments in the public realm include:
-Free education for K-12
-Free Libraries
-Free healthcare
-Public Transit
-Fire fighting
-Public parks
-Police
-Homeless shelters
-Low income housing
-Foodbanks
-Community Centres
-Highways and bridges (not including toll ones owned by private for profit companies) Toosh42 (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
since no countries exist that can be described as socialist, I propose that we either need to change the definition to something that actually exists, or create a new definition for what exists. Modifying the definition to match reality makes much more sense to me. Toosh42 (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"create a new definition for what exists" Wikipedia does not create definitions, it simply quotes those found in reliable sources. Dimadick (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thank you. Toosh42 (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialism&oldid=1246544616"