Talk:Socialism/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Socialism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Social anarchism

I have removed the Social Anarchism subsection under "Social and Political Theory" because it is a direct copy of the entire lead section of the dedicated social anarchism article. Furthermore, I fail to see why social anarchism requires its own section. I suggest adding a concise or paraphrased line or two under the "Political movements" subsection, where the other major socialist movements are listed and briefly described. Battlecry (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

i don´t see why marxism deserves an extensive treatment under "Social and political theory" while anarchism does not. Anarchism was just as influential than marxism in the americas and western europe until the 1920s and in some countries such as those in the western mediterranean (france, italy, spain) and latin america (incluiding argentina, mexico, brasil) definitely more important than marxism. in the first international it was equally present as marxism alongside non marxist currents.--Eduen (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Article is too long

This article is still way too long, making it difficult to read and navigate comfortably, so I've re-added the tag; it definitely needs to be less than 100k and closer to 80k would be better. More use of WP:Summary style, where material is split to sub-articles, leaving a summary here, would really help. Johnfos (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Let´s reduce the part on marxism in "social and political theory" and the parts on social democracy and stalinism in "history" and the problem might be solved. the part on "marxism" even talks about che guevara.--Eduen (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Redundant Idiocy

Moved below out of the length thread above. What is occurring on this talk page is the single best argument for the class system (albeit not the current one) in action.

This has been addressed and there was also a summary of the what is in the archives which it was requested remain on this page but it was stupidly archived so now the people are in fact looking like what they on average are . 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody understand the above comment? Can it be archived as meaningless nonsense? RolandR (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

the lack of any grammar is horrendous, but archive summaries are a good idea.· Lygophile has spoken 14:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it the dangling participle oh Church Lady of Engrish Grammar? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Particularly the phrase "now the people are in fact looking like what they on average are". Please explain what you mean if you are interested in a sensible discussion here. RolandR (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

seems obvious he's trying to call people idiots without using the word.· Lygophile has spoken 13:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

i suggest this thing be erased as no specific issue regarding the article is brought up.--Eduen (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The impasse here reflects that in your society. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What is Socialism?

This should define the difference between Communism and Socialism.--86.29.135.94 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Rambling list of countries and stuff

The USSR

Thier Marxist-Leninist beliefs typify socialist communism! They also used 'Socialist' in thier national name!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Cuba

Thier Marxist-Leninist-Castroist beliefs also typify socialist communism! They also used 'Socialist' in thier national name! most Communist states folowed the Soviet Union's verient.-- --86.29.140.96 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Red China

It was originally a Maoist state, but the PRC ditched this deviant form of communism for Marxism-Leninism, despite using the term "people‘s republic" in there national name! The term was also used by Mongolia, East Germany, The Congo-Brazzaville and Vietnam at various points in their socialist eras.--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Clement Attlee

Clem, as he was known at the time, was a socialist, but not a communist. He created the British NHS system. Labour used to sing the Red Flag song and wave there red flags back then with pride and joy as the party AGM closed in Blackpool every year!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nepal

Nepal elected a Maoist government in 1996, which was removed in 1997 by the king, and has had one since 2008, which exiled the king. --86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The IRA

I believe the IRA clamed to be a ‘Socialist’ movement in the late 1970’s!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The ANC

I believe the ANC clamed to be a ‘Socialist’ movement in the 1960's and 1970’s.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder

Both Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder have both described them selves and their parties as reformed socialists from time to time in the early 2000’s.--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Algeria, Libya, Iraq and Syria

Algeria, Libya, Iraq and Syria been accused of being Islamic Socialist states in the late 1970’s and most of the 1980's by various Western sources, such as the CIA, MI5 and Mossad!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sweden

Sweden has been a Nordic Socialist state since the 1970's, yet it's all about a no smack policy in it's schools, environmentalism and good public transport, not nationalization or foaming at the mouth Bolsheviks as some British and American radicals have claimed in recent years!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

India

The Indian Constitution says that India is Secular Socialist and Hindu Socialist.--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Animal Farm investigated

Both socialism and communism were put under the spotlight by George Orwell's book Animal Farm and the later 1954 cartoon film. Boxer the horse was a socialist worker, if not a full blown Commy, while Napoleon the pig was a corrupt datcha communist that would have felt at home during Leonid Breznev's later years as Soviet premier.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin the donkey had socialist tenancies and was probably a social democrat, but definitely not a Red. Snowball the pig had ideas similar to Trotsky's idea of Permanent Revolution and was probably a full blown communist and not a socialist. Their idealistic little ditty Beasts of England was a freedom song that had no political colours to it, but the ideology of Animalism was a piss take on the failure of both communism, socialism and lefties in general! --86.29.141.168 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Lark Rise to Candleford investigated

Both Lark Rise to Candleford and the modern Lark Rise to Candleford (TV series) mentions situations and ideas that can be considered to be relevant to socialism in late Victorian rual England.

1 Episode- The young country girl Laura Timmins leaves her friends and family in the hamlet of Lark Rise to start her first job at the post office in nearby town Candleford. Postmistress Dorcas Lane gives Laura a warm welcome but other residents of Candleford aren't so generous. When Lark Rise residents challenge the post office's 'eight mile rule' that forces them to pay for delivery of telegrams, Laura finds herself torn between communities.

Episode 6- Robert takes pity on a homeless family and brings them to stay at his house for the night. In the morning the family have departed, leaving their little daughter Polly behind. Lady Adelaide meets the girl and falls in love with her, wanting to adopt her, but Sir Tim thinks that adopting Polly would be inappropriate. Tim takes Polly to the Post Office where everyone struggles to think of a solution to the problem. Twister's delusions grow worse as he sees visions of his dead sister, and Queenie worries about his health.

Episode 31- When the Lark Rise school loses its teacher, Emma steps in and discovers a talent she never knew she had. But Margaret also covets the role of teacher, and the two women become rivals for the job. Over in Candleford, Thomas and Dorcas are at odds. The postman is agitating for better working conditions, and Dorcas isn't taking it well.

Episode 34- When the postmaster at Inglestone, with an old score to settle, tries to force Dorcas into selling up, she is faced with the heartbreaking prospect of losing her home and denying Sydney his dream of running the post office one day. --86.29.141.168 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Like this gem I found on a socalist related page!--86.29.135.94 (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The definition in the article does not cover all forms of socialism. For example, market socialism or social democracy. It should be said that there are various forms of socialism. Doctor Procedure (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No it shouldn't because that would be OR, making clear what each is is sufficient. Collapsing this long list of ... stuff rather than deleting it, although the latter would be justified. See also Archive 11. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Just one thing clear, In your talk, you mentioned, that Algeria, Libya, Iraq and Syria are socialist because of claims by CIA, MI5 and Mossad. By that, the CIA and MI5, also the Mossad should have no contributing effect on the economic ideal of these countries. There is no word of a Libyan, Algerian, Iraqi or Assyrian source that these countries are socialist. And with all due respect, already the 3 digits, C I A, clarify that most of these claims are unsourced, unreliable and false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.247.203 (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The USSR was communist and that's that . No matter what they called themselves they were as much socialists as Hitler was a socialist for spreading National Socialism. Socialism is "Central Left" .. it's not everything with the word social in it's title.83.101.79.66 (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Socialism the new US propaganda!

The way the united states is portraying socialism in the media as the new communism is spilling over into wikipedia I see ! Editors , please do something about this . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.79.66 (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for showing that European doesn't imply smart anymore than American (uniformly) implies stupid. 72.228.177.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Apparently it does. Kudos to you for giving yourself the benefit of the doubt. 83.101.79.66 (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

both of you stop. that's going nowhere, and neither of you are making any sense. you're not the one to talk about who's stupid.· Lygophile has spoken 15:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

i don't think it's that bad. what parts in particular do you consider USA pov?· Lygophile has spoken 15:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This article should start with what socialism means and stands for today , specially in democratic countries who have socialist parties. Starting with some archaic definitions prone to misinterpretation by "Joe Average" , makes this encyclopaedia less of a tool for understanding and more of one for fuelling common misconceptions. Not to mention the picture of Stalin on the side.. ,This article is made up in such a way that any layman glancing at that wanting to know what the word means thinks socialism = communism. Modern socialism and the values the socialist parties stand for should be central in this article. 83.101.79.66 (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The other articles about major ideologies, Liberalism and Conservatism, also explain the core beliefs and historical development. The history is important first because articles are supposed to cover subjects throughout history not just today, but also because it helps to explain socialism today. As stated in Political ideology today, "the ideological beliefs that prevail today are the outcomes of often long and complicated developments...."[1] TFD (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In it's current state , this is only confusing at best , fuelling ignorance and hatred at worst. I agree that all elements in their current and relevant forms have their place here. Organising it in a way as to make the primary meaning and relevance of socialism today the central theme is a minimum . Making an article like this , portraying socialism as being communism shows a clear agenda. It is a witch hunt in the making , and a tragedy wikipedia is dragged in the mud along with this.83.101.79.66 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that we would find it difficult to all agree on what that primary meaning and relevance is. In my country, Australia, the word socialism is rarely used in daily political discourse at all. It is largely irrelevant. In the USA, the country in question, one of the major sides of politics likes to use socialism and socialist as insult of the strongest kind. It is very relevant, but cannot be represented by a global article about its history and philosophy. HiLo48 (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The ALP in Australia , The SP in Holland , the SP in Belgium , SPD in Germany , SDP in Japan , the Labour Party In the United Kingdom .. The central left parties around the world . The ones who call themselves socialists. Their values which are comparable , and what they stand for in today's world is what this article should be about first and foremost. Not some archaic descriptions which only serve to confuse and fuel hatred.Quote from article : "..political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.." . Are you all trying to convince people the aim of for example the labour party in Britain is to to start up Kolchoz and Sovchoz equivalents ? This is way beyond POV issues imo.83.101.79.66 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be highly POV to restrict this article to centre-left and social democratic positions and groups. Communists and Trotskyists consider themselves, and generally describe themselves, as socialists. Many anarchists also use the term. To exclude these positions would not be acceptable. RolandR (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There has to be a place in Wikipedia for what our IP contributor describes as the "archaic descriptions". History is part of Wikipedia's job. The usage by modern political parties outside the USA is certainly a perspective worthy of coverage. If it can be well sourced, without too much emotion, current usage in the USA should be covered too. Not sure how we can put all of that in one article. HiLo48 (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain how the article misrepresents modern socialist views? TFD (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The first bit of the meaning of the word is already provoking , as stated above.(No the British Labour party isn't in the habit of building Kolchoz) 83.101.79.66 (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

@HiLo48 If you think a split is desirable , I would encourage the current article to portray what is currently taken as being socialism in the democratic countries with socialist parties. And maybe have the etymological article on the side. 83.101.79.66 (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

@RolandR They can call themselves whatever they want . They remain communists . As I pointed out above , Hitler called himself National Socialist . Whatever people call themselves it doesn't make them socialists.83.101.79.66 (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

he's right, actually. it's all worded just fine, for the most part, but the coverage has never been great. there's practically nothing about socialism in modern europe, even where it seems to go into that it doesn't. it's one long tale of historical development. yes, it should describe the hostry of socialism, all article have a section called "history". but in this article that's all there is. it should be approach similarly to Liberalism, but instead, it reads more like an article on an institution, like what you would expect to read in Capitalism. but even if you go to that article, you will find a lot of modern arguments advocating capitalism. there's nothing like that in this article. it has always been attacked the hell out of until nobody cared anymore. arbitration commitee has even been involved before. but that didn't fix the coverage. there just isn't good coverage; it's pedantically all just about history. you don't see the same in any other article.· Lygophile has spoken 18:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The article can't be really good because of the OR bogey: somebody will have to give a core definition of socialism around which an organization and articulation can be made such as I've done in this talk space (probably as Lycurgus). It's probably true that it reflects a fog of concepts situation on the part of the largely American editorship, but I haven't reviewed it in a long time. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. The article does a better job explaining socialism than most textbooks; it presents a technical definition covering the economic mechanism and the social relations that define a socialist economic system and society, a definition initially universally shared by social democrats, anarchists, communists, libertarian socialists and democratic socialists. The article does a good job explaining all the major socialist political movements and their strategies for achieving socialism as well as the different conceptions of socialism (market socialism, cooperative socialism and economic planning). Your suggestion that the article define socialism as it is defined in "modern" "democratic" countries would make for an extremely biased article, as most of the Social Democratic and labor parties abandoned socialism at some point during the second half of the 20th century and only retain the name "socialist" out of tradition. This perspective is covered more extensively in its own article, under its proper name: Social democracy.

I haven't stated that anything in this article is wrong . And let me underline that again. I'm sure the article is made in detail. I am worried about exactly what you state here quote : "Democratic and labor parties abandoned socialism at some point during the second half of the 20th century and only retain the name "socialist" out of tradition" These people are today's Socialists. They call themselves socialists , and when political debated in the united states allude to things like "socialist European countries" for example , they mean Social Democrats. Who is at fault here .. The Europeans for using the word as it has evolved for them over the years , calling themselves socialists .. Or Americans who use the word in it's original definition associating it with the (currently) wrong group of people , alluding most of Europe is filled with Stalinist instead of meek little social democrats. At the very least , i would propose there being a general disclaimer at the top , like there is with a lot of articles these days , when someone comes and reads this , these points are made clear. Unlike this article it wouldn't need multiple pages to explain , just a few underlined noticeable lines of text should do the job of saying : 1) Most of the world's Social Democrats call themselves "Socialists" , And should not be mistakenly taken for Leninist-Stalinist. 2) The term Socialism is often used in debates with an agenda intentionally making it allude to the previous point 1. Kind people who keep these articles neat and tidy , do not mistake , this page is the first thing the person who wants to know just a tad more goes to when they hear socialist in their surroundings. Looking up this article they will not get am explanation for what they heard . I am not asking for anything to be changed removed or rewritten. I am asking for a change in how this article is organised and if possible some indicator at the top .83.101.79.66 (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, this article does not conflate socialism with the socioeconomic system of communism; suffice to say, the Communist movement (ie, Leninist political movements) is a socialist movement that differs from other socialists in the proposed methods for achieving such a society. The article gives a brief description of the socialist perspective, it does not go into much detail because the article is already long enough; a more comprehensive socialist perspective on capitalism can be found in the following article: Socialist critique of capitalism.Battlecry (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere in the back of my mind , I would think a person calling himself "Battlecry" and defining himself as "This user is a socialist." is not completely neutral and objective. I could be wrong. 83.101.79.66 (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ian Adams description of socialism provides a good example of the topic described from a neutral point of view.[2] I would not use it as a source because it is an introductory textbook, but we should be able to find something similar. TFD (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

yes there is an article about [[social democracy], although actually a lot of socialist parties adhere to democratic socialism. however, this is the main article on socialism, and as such this article should make mention of active socialist parties or ideologies. it doesn't this article seems only to validate any form of socialism that is no longer around, while banning all forms of socialism still found today. and that is incredibly wrong.

and if you actually go to the article on democratic socialism, that still won't help because it has exactly the same problem. even social democracy, in the little bit it has about the present, most of that is about america.

all these articles can be renamed "timeline of socialism" etc and there wouldn't be any misnaming. there is not a single word about the actual ideologies.· Lygophile has spoken 16:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Socialism" is a very broad topic and so this article reflects this well more or less. It includes "utopian socialism" like Charles Fourier, it has to include "real socialism" as the leninist systems called themselves, the broad tradition of anarchism which even it its section which calls itself "individualist" it is anticapitalistic, it has to include hugo chavez and also the social democrat governments of Sweeden and the post war Labour party and left communism such as Rosa Luxembourg and Anton Pannekoek. Like it or not marxist-leninism is part of the tradition. Also I don´t really see the difference between "democratic socialist" and social democracy and so the "layman" who might come to check this article will well see socialism is a very diverse tradition and that includes even radical antistatists and libertarians like Fourier or Bakunin as well as authoritarian and centralists like Stalin, Mao etc and also a section of it which embraces parlamentarism such as social democracy. Maybe we could reduce the huge size of the picture of Stalin and not just for exagerating his historical importance in socialism but also to reduce the weight of this article. But anyway someone will see stalin´s picture but also the picture of Bakunin speaking at the First International, Charles Fourier, Clement Attlee, Rosa luxembourg, Kwame Nkrumah and Hugo Chavez. I do have to complain that the part on Revolutions of 1917–1936 presents a vision biased towards leninist bolchevik point of view of things and could as well report on the revolutionary wave that went from the Mexican Revolution up to the Spanish Civil War. And also there could be a paragraph which might touch on the collapse of the soviet system and state how anarchists, left communists, troskists and radical social democrats manifested that the soviet system was an authoritarian bureaucratic degeneration of socialist ideas and practice.--Eduen (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the definition in dutch from wikipedia:

"Socialisme is een maatschappijvorm gebaseerd op gelijkheid, sociale rechtvaardigheid en solidariteit, of de verzamelnaam voor een verscheidenheid aan politieke en ideologische stromingen die naar een dergelijke maatschappij streven"

Translated:

"Socialism is the drive towards a society based on equality , social justice and solidarity , or the collective of diverse ideological and political movements that strive for those goals."

Added this as the first line of this article as a direct result of these talks. Being very minimal a change , it takes away from the very imposing and hard-edge english definition which is currently:

"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3]"

Taking nothing away from the current article's content , this makes imo the definition more mainstream and current. This being a translation of the Dutch entry , this is not an addition merely a translation. Hoping for positive feedback about this 83.101.79.144 (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I like it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have refrained from changing anything yet.. I would prefer to make a sandbox copy of the main page , change it , and put a link to it here . so it can be commented on before making anything permanent and disputes starting.83.101.79.144 (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Added and immediately reverted , creating something similar to a temporary page . Proposed change is viewable here : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=394951303&oldid=394918997 Changed 2 parts in the introduction as said above: 1 a more current and milder general definition without removing the original , 2) a paragraph with some relevant current information about most of what socialism defines today. These 2 things seem important to give people that come and glance at this article the right impression. Some more explanations can be found in the main body of the article. References of countries with multiple socialist parties can easily be added as references though I would only see it as cluttering , these things are easily found in wikipedia. Belgium , Holland , a lot of European countries and more have both central left and extreme left parties , and could be named . The terms democratic socialism and others could link to their respective articles though .. again this is merely a temporary thing awaiting comments from you all before applying. 83.101.79.144 (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a very politicized and biased point of view, as it ignores socialism and defines the values of the socialist MOVEMENT. Socialism has historically and remains to this day, at the very least, an economic system where the public or the workers manage/own the means of production. Any modern dictionary entry will have a definition consistent with this definition; it gives the right impression as to what socialism is (an alternative or post-capitalist economic system and social structure, as opposed to a political movement within the capitalist system that does not seek to alter capitalism in any fundamental way).

Socialists do not advocate "equality", they advocate a form of pure meritocracy (distribution based on contribution) based on equal power-relations (in the political context, "equality" is often just a weasel word used conjure up negative emotions regarding equal reward regardless of ones contribution). Your definition mirrors average American misconceptions about socialism being about equal shares and social justice in the form of welfare programs. I am sorry to burst your bubble, but modern social democratic welfare states are not the definition of socialism.Battlecry (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider you as objective in any way. There is no bubble to burst I'm sorry. I am not socialist in the least I am not fighting for a cause . I would define politically as very very boring. How about telling the Dutch how wrong they are and cutting pieces out of their article . You seem only to be content with an English language article that makes socialism look like it is a stepping stone towards communism . I would like the people that look up socialism , to get a view of what most of the socialists today are. Not the militant views of the dwindling elitist activists of some particular faction. quote "...advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources..." this ?? If I showed this to socialists in my country they would think someone was playing a prank on them. As stated before , there is a historical section to most articles in wikipedia . It is high time most of this article gets put on there. I'll take this chance to mention I didn't actually change anything to the article for the sole reason of wanting help from the active people on here in finding some middle ground on this . A discussion page seems like a good place to gather ideas. 83.101.79.144 (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to you to redefine socialism to your own taste and standards, and exclude from the article or the definition those who, in your view, are "extremists". In my opinion, most European social democrats have ceased to be socialists, and I would not so define them. But my view is no more encyclopaedic than yours, and has no place in this article. Nor are you any more objective than Battlecry, or myself; you merely have a different point of view. Your proposed addition introduces a highly contentious redefinition of the subject, badly written and replete with weasel terms, unsourced arguments and dubious assertions. There is no way that this edit will be accepted by the majority of editors here. RolandR (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The definition of socialism given is accepted by all socialists (including most traditional European social democrats, who aimed for nationalization of the means of production). Simply because some parties that call themselves "socialist" have abandoned socialism and have decided to focus on reforms within capitalism does not change this fact. This is an objective criteria for determining whether or not an ideology or system can be characterized as being socialist. My criteria is far more objective than your emotion-driven arguments. By your own criteria, the German Nazi party would be considered socialist because the word "Socialist" is in their party name (they initially had some socialist elements, but those were subdued and purged before the party rose to power. The same is true of "mainstream" labor and European social democratic parties today. The party ideology changes, but the objective definition of socialism remains.) That being said, it is the prerogative of Dutch-speaking editors to correct and maintain their articles, not mine. I suspect you are confused about big-S Socialists (members of the Dutch socialist party) and small-s socialists (advocates of socialism). The difference is akin to comparing big-D Democrats (members of the US Democratic party) in the United States to small-d democrats (advocates of democracy) worldwide. And nowhere do I try to portray socialism as a "stepping stone to communism". But it should be noted that small-C communism (Marxist conception of communism) is a mature form of socialism; big-C Communism (the Communist political movement) is a subsection of the broader socialist movement.

What would be acceptable is adding a small line somewhere in the lead describing the values of the social democratic movement; eg, "Modern social democrats aim to create a society based on equality, solidarity and social justice", or a section in the article describing the common values and ideals of the broader socialist movement. Battlecry (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

RolandR says "It is not up to you to redefine socialism..." Well, it kind of is. It's up to us to provide a relevant definition of the way the word is used today. The old article definition is about 100 years out of date. Or American. HiLo48 (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion is getting rather pointless. Anyway speaking as an anarchist I can say more or less the article seems to me well balanced after the additions I made. I really could not say now that the article is too biased towards marxism or marxist-leninism or in the other case towards socialdemocracy and I will to check that one of these things will not happen in the future. Anyway lets remember that the subject which we are dealing here is very complex and old and so for example the issue of "market socialism" is relevant in anarchism, social democracy and marxism. Communism is important in anarchism and marxism. "Democratic socialism" is relevant for both socialdemocracy and marxism (electoral marxist parties) and State socialism tends to be the position of both the majority of marxism and of all socialdemocracy--Eduen (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Misconception in Lede

Socialism is an idea, an intellectual current, tendency, or movement, whatever, and a fairly general and clear one at that. It is not a specific "economic and political theory" with the laundry list of properties stated, although of course these are elements of various programs correctly identified as socialist. How did that get there without tagging? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What wording would you like to see there? HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate for me to recompose it unilaterally I think, the substantive basic issue is the one stated and it's pretty glaring, so something ultimately will surely displace the current text. My opinions on the matter are recorded in earlier threads in the archives. The first sentence of this thread identifies the thing which is misidentified in the current text. The part about clarity is subjective to me, but the rest is general/objective. Lycurgus (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What's about making this article redirect to Socialism (disambiguation)?87.89.44.229 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you even know what a disambiguation page is for? Articles do not redirect to a disambig page; it exists to help readers ascertain which usage of an ambiguous term is the one they are seeking. In this case, you have recreated a disambig page previously deleted following a discussion; and the page shows the same problems which led the earlier one to be deleted. I have therefore nominated it for speedy deletion. RolandR (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I consider that suppression was not a good idea, because in 2010 there is no common point neither in ideology nor in what they are between for instances socialists republics which is a form of constitution of eastern countries during the cold war, and french socialist party which is a pragmatic political party nowadays.

I noted a disambiguation page does exist for Republicans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican , and in one way it is justified because there is no common point neither in ideology nor in what they are between republicans from United States and republicans from Spanish Civil War.

Moreover I add that, in my opinion, the socialism article as it exists today in wikipedia looks like an article about republicans could look like if it tries to synthesizes as a same concept in a single article: the ideology in support of republics or against monarchy; Classical republicanism; Irish republicanism, Roman Republic, and republicans during Spanish Civil War.

To conclude, of course that when mixing such information make sense it can be mixed; but elsewhere it is non-sense to mix unrelated information; wikipedia should be clear, consistent, accurate and efficient. For efficiency, think to the reader who search information about socialism as in cold war, but also think to people who search for information on Chinese socialism doctrine, but also to those European people who search for or translate literally information on their political party. A disambiguation page is useful.

Although, because I am not fluent in English I hope you will improve the English wikipedia without me! 87.89.44.229 (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for probably not following the correct etiquette in this discussion, i just wanted to note that there is a page that clearly pinpoints the glaring issues with this article on Socialism: http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/pol.htm This is really jarring for a European user, since it is obvious that no European socialist party could recognize itself, or even his history, in this article, as noted in the page I linked: "The Marxist analysis of society is irrelevant to much of the mainstream of European socialism, which grew from a range of religious, occupational and communal groups." According to this view, Wikipedia's article is irrelevant, maybe even worse than that: wrong. "Marxists want to claim that socialism is just another name for Marxism; right-wing critics want to describe socialism as communism by another name, with the state running everything." It is to me abundantly clear that the article should be at least be tagged heavily.

This article should provide a technical discussion as to what socialism is, not a European-centric view based on currently prevailing political parties (of which there is already an article dedicated to, see: Social democracy). Furthermore, this article hardly provides strictly a "Marxist" definition of socialism - Marxism and socialism are different concepts first of all; Marxism is a methodology for understanding social and economic change, while socialism is a socioeconomic system. Secondly, many of the prominent Social democratic parties in Europe today (such as the German SPD) were initially heavy influenced by Marxism. In actuality, this article presents a wide variety of perspectives on socialism (some of which conflict with each other), ranging from economic planning/post-capitalism to market socialism, cooperative socialism and anarchism.

Perhaps a redirect option at the top of the page along the lines of "For a European-centric view of socialism, see ocial democracy" would satisfy our European friends. Battlecry (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. However, this make me wonder:

Is each european nation centric-view common?
Is the Arab/African-centric view, north-american centric view, south-american centric view, URSS centric view and chinese centric-view equal?

If not, might be a reference to Socialism (disambiguation) might be easier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.89.44.229 (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Democratic socialism" and socialdemocracy

By reading the articles on socialdemocracy and "democrcatic socialism" one cannot really see the diference between both. Both happen to be a form of parlamentary socialism which is not leninist. Supporters of this diferentiation please come argue it.--Eduen (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of socialdemocracy is base on my understanding of the actual Party of European Socialists: a party interested by social issues which can slowly agree with deregulation (electricity, train, planes, phone, postal, ...). But in English and in the past century socialdemocracy might had a different meaning... I just do not know.

For Democratic socialism, According to the Democratic socialism article:

* «Democratic socialism is (...). The term is sometimes used synonymously with 'social democracy', but (...) many self-identified democratic socialists oppose contemporary social democracy because social democracy retains the capitalist mode of production.», What I understand here is that Democratic socialism is not a concept but a label or a brand which might be used in different usages:

* Might be that some theories was given that name. but for such potential theories I just do not know.

* I assume that in the century of cold war, it was used to qualify sovietic socialism such as east germany was qualified as Democratic: «The term democratic socialism can be used (...) to refer to a version of the Soviet model that was reformed in a democratic way. For example, Mikhail Gorbachev described perestroika as building a "new, humane and democratic socialism".» «(...) some former Communist parties have rebranded themselves as democratic socialist, as with the Party of Democratic Socialism in Germany». In my opinion, this is a communist (I mean such as the french communist party) party affiliated to Party of the European Left and member of European Parliament Group GUE/NGL. It is a party which is, for instance, and for what I understood, against deregulation laws and for the property of (???) by the State. Those communist party, for what I know never won any national election as a leader party.

The social democrats article is probably clearer: «In many countries, social democrats continue to exist alongside democratic socialists, who stand to the left of them on the political spectrum.»

«The two movements sometimes operate within the same political party, such as the Brazilian Workers' Party[7] and the Socialist Party of France.» For France, I just wonder how this sentence should be understand. Because it is both in the same time true due to politicians searching votes and false due to the existence of a communist party outside of the socialist party!87.89.44.229 (talk)

Point of view of german people who have both a Social Democratic Party of Germany and a Party of Democratic Socialism should also be of interest.87.89.44.229 (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of democratic socialism is that democratic socialists aim to create more direct democracy from the grass-roots level and abolish capitalism in favor of socialism. Modern social democrats, on the other hand, are parliamentary parties (they want to preserve and act through parliaments) and aim to create social welfare programs and nationalize a few industries, but basically maintain the current system as it is. Battlecry (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are about right, but unfortunately, those terms are political labels and like with many political terms, the meaning can highly change from country to country, because they are closely related to national history.

Now, my understanding of democratic socialism is poor. This label seams to be claimed by parties which aims to abolish capitalism in favor of socialism; but as they are not in the government it is unclear how they consider democracy. Modern social democrats, on the other hand, are parliamentary parties (they want to preserve and act through parliaments) and aim to create/keep social welfare programs. They may nationalize or keep nationalized a few specific organizations, but basically maintain the current system as it is: For instance they can accept Public-private partnerships and french socialists neither nationalized private leasehold motorways nor stop their licenses. 87.89.44.229 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

they are not, or at least not usually, in the government per se (mostly because other parties don't wanna work with them), but they are electible and they are in the parliament and the senate.· Lygophile has spoken 21:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

social democratism is basically the area around welfare capitalism, and many social democrats are indeed welfare capitalists, and would identify as such rather than as a socialist - in fact they may object when being refered to as socialist. democratic socialism is a wide branch of socialism that ecompasses the range of socialist ideals involving an egalitarian society where the economy is democratically regulated rather than directly by offer and demand or by a dictatorship, and which are aspired to be attained by democratic socialists through democratic means (which may include forms of activism). in fact the distinction between socialism and democratic socialism is almost none, and the term only came to use to distentiate from Stalinist and Maoist Totalitarian Statism.

major difference if you ask me: one being the major form of socialism, the other being a form of capitalism.· Lygophile has spoken 15:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Might be. Social democrats can be seen as welfare capitalists. You are right that distinction between socialism and democratic socialism is almost none as meaning of brands depend on their context, particularly in politics. And you are right: socialism practice does not have the same history in European union countries, russia and china. 87.89.44.229 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

To criticize the article I add both:

* When geographical distinction might be god, Continental based distinction between Europe and Asia is not pertinent, because in my opinion it misses that European union countries, URSS and china have different history specifically regarding to socialism. Might be it could be seen as Western europe, URSS, and China, East germany and so on as a trap ;

* Europe section is only focused on Revolutionary Communist League and other communist / European Anticapitalist Left parties, when there is a (capitalist) European socialist party of importance in Europe parliament and in history of European nations. It should be written than in European parliament, there exist two parties which claims socialism, with opposite views on capitalism. 87.89.44.229 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

European socialist party in introduction?

Is european socialist party related to socialism? Should its ideology (social democraty) and/or existence be mentioned in introduction? I do not know in English, but in France I just know one party whit the name socialist (the french socialist party). Considered in its pan-European level (european socialist party) and European parliament level (S&D), it is probably the biggest socialist party of the world. But it is not only referred to in introduction of this article about socialism! 87.89.44.229 (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Social democracy is a political movement and just one out of many socialist movements; it is not the ideology of socialism. The subject of this article is socialism, which is a type of social and economic system; the introduction should focus on a brief discussion on what socialism is and less about a particular political party that retains the name "socialist" out of tradition. Battlecry (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that socialist movement in line with Social democracy are a movement and not ideology. I agree that this socialist movement is not inline with the original socialist ideology. So if those are two different concepts of socialism, a link to socialism (disambiguition) should be added! 87.89.44.229 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Socialism is a product of controlling the means of production, the minority, taking the marxist social structure, the few being at the top- have provided concepts and ideologies to suite - PARADIGMS, for those who had no aspriartion to grow or develop, the control of the paitent from the putting out system, for example, even though mutual obligation is good for communities with NO!, competitiveness/occupations, Socialism is the introduction of the factory time and the doing away with the seasons..... Mutaul obligation...it doesnt make the rich richer, it gives birth to functionalist socialism (control)LeeH1974 22:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC) conflict of culture and nature. Socialism and its birth can be attached to opression and hierachy. Mutual obligation, paternalism living within your means, did not stand a chance against socialism, unionsim put up a battle, The hidden paradigm,,, unionism... is the maker of wars.--LeeH1974 22:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposition of sentence to introduce Lede.

I propose to add the following sentence to introduce the introduction:

Socialism is a term used interchangeably with related, but distinct concepts, claimed by (political) organization such as Social democracy, economic planning, Communism, Cooperatives and Marxism. When this definition is true everywhere, term socialism is generally used, to refer to one of those concept, which one depends on different point in the history or on the globe, and of the community using it.

Additionally, socialism term refers to an economic system, a political philosophy, a kind of society or specific political parties. 87.89.44.229 (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of this is covered in Socialism (disambiguation). This content is uncited, apparently original research or synthesis, and certainly not appropriate as the opening sentence for an article. There may be a case (though I am not convinced) for including this later in the article, in a note on other uses of the term. RolandR (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue here, is that if the first sentence «Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3]» is partially true it is also partially false, by the simple fact that socialist parties in countries such as France and Spain do not have such a policy in the last 10 or 25 years. When I recognize that this economic and political theory exist and has to be documented in wikipedia, I believe that this introduction sentence hide to the reader, the simple fact that this sentence is not accurate and in one way opposite to what some socialist parties do. So the issue here is just to know how to handle this ambiguity. Larousse seams good, beacuase it just give the different meanings, and then develop each point in a consistent way which is not ideological, when english wikipedia first focuses on one point and then mix different concept which have poor or unclear relationship all-together.

If we consider most of this is covered in Socialism (disambiguation), what's bout adding a single line to indicate the existence of Socialism (disambiguation) article, in the same way there is a link to Socialism (Marxism)?

Else, each point (Social democracy, economic planning, Communism, Cooperatives and Marxism) uncited, apparently original research or synthesis should be easily checked to determine relationship between the term socialist and each concept. A google (such as books.google.fr) or gallica ( such as gallica.bnf.fr) search with both terms should help to determine if both terms match in the spoken language, or in authorized historical sources.

For me, it seams obvious that what did socialist parties in recent years in Spain and in France is about the opposite from what did the communist party in (socialist) URSS. And here, I do not consider China. Should this be cited or justified?

Is a source such as http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/nom-commun-nom/socialisme/92317 acceptable? 87.89.44.229 (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Logically, it would be just as tenable to argue that the parties in Spain and France are no longer socialist. But this is not our task. We quote the many verifiable and reliable sources; if there is a valid alternative definition, we can quote that as well. But Wikipedia should not determine which of these is "correct"; that would be our own original research. RolandR (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Discovery chanel has it own definition of socialism, and its definition of socialism, in my opinion, matches definition of social democracy.

Socialist term is used with this meaning in some articles of USA today , and so on, this meaning does not match the first sentence in the introduction of this wikipedia article (which is linked to by socialist article). 87.89.44.229 (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

monetary socialism

is it me or is the part about monetary socialism completely missing? the US dollar for example is completely dictated by global trade Markthemac (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If by "monetary socialism" you mean the price-controls (prices based on technical considerations rather than scarcity) that existed in the Soviet system, then no, the value of currency dictated by the flow of goods and services would not be "socialist" but purely capitalist.Battlecry (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

it's like how a trade deficit will push down the value, no government has true control over the value of it's currency (at this point china has more control over the value of the dollar) Markthemac (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Kibbutz

Should a paragraph be introduced to explain Kibutzim? These were one of the most successful socialistic communities. 216.99.52.122 (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised there's nothing there already. Somewhere in the After World War II section would make sense. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Far too much human freedom?"

I don't think this line belongs in the opening section. Certainly some people who identify as socialists may believe this, but a socialist of a more libertarian persuasion - a left-communist or council communist, anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist or libertarian socialist, etc. - certainly wouldn't.

I re-worded the sentence. Beach drifter (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Zeitgeist movement

I think the Zeitgeist movement and its predecessors (the Venus Project, Technocracy Incorporated) should be mentioned in this article for rehashing old socialist economic concepts in the form of the "Resource-based economy" - which is basically a form of socialism, where production is carried out for use and not profit, the means of production are commonly owned, and money, wage-labor and financial calculation as a whole cease to exist. Furthermore, the Zeitgeist movement champions similar strategies to those of the Utopian socialists of old - they aim to create futuristic, self-contained communities to demonstrate the superiority of their ideals, much as Robert Owen and Charles Fourier attempted to do. The resource-based economy should be mentioned under the planned economy subsection as a resurrection of socialist economic principles, and the Zeitgeist movement should be mentioned as a contemporary expression of Utopian socialism. Battlecry (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede/Defintion

What is going on with this definition? How and when did socialism become synonymous with a command economy/communism? This takes away from the descriptiveness of the terms, does not describe countries that actually consider themselves to be socialist, and is not in line with the ways in which this academic term is used in academia. This article is of extremely poor quality. The lede is cited using a dictionary definition and a broken link to an MSN Encarta page. I'm going to do what is needed to correct these issues and I'll include citations from undergraduate and graduate textbooks as needed. Otherwise, this page is of extremely low quality and represents a personal blog rather than an informative and objective article. In the future, please work with me as much as you can, because what is here is simply incorrect. You can voice any concerns that you have here, but in the meantime, know I can cut-and-paste just as quickly as you can.Nelbev (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Socialism/Communism were originally synonyms for much the same thing, see William's 'Key words'. the problem is that the article needs to encompass anarcho-socialists, Stalinists, Social democrats, etc. who all would describe themselves as socialist but stand for very different things. Please be aware of WP:BRD and don't make any substantial changes without consensus, your comments above sound a bit much like you're declaring an edit war, which isn't helpful.--Red Deathy (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This lede reads like the aftermath of an edit war in which the more reasonable person gave up. It seems that there should be more discussion on this page. I haven't checked the archives. It sounds like you are familiar with how all this destruction occurred here and have identified the problem. I agree that these are the different ways in which the term is used, but by referring to the original (archaic?) use of the term, the lede and definition only reflect one of the current meanings. Why only have the socialist/communist meaning in the lede when the body of the article and the use of the term in reality encompass much more? Is it because this is the meaning that is used by the political right-wing in the US? If so, the lede is biased, lacks NPOV, and is deserving of my rude intervention. The Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science reads -> Socialism - A much used, and abused, term. It can be employed to refer to quite different social and political systems. In eastern Europe before 1989 the socialist states referred to the Communist countries; while all other states, including those where SOCIAL DEMOCRACY prevailed were known as capitalist countries. In western Europe socialism was regarded by most observers as quite different from Communism, the Soviet political and economic system. This was because DEMOCRACY had come to be seen by them as an essential ingredient of socialism.. These two sides of socialism should be reflected in the lede. I believe there are comparable terms used in the body.->Nelbev (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, from my POV socialism does mean a stateless, classless, moneyless society - but I have to accept the consensus position. The current definition, including 'controlled', as it does, thereby encompasses simple state regulation and the current Socialist international (e.g. UK Labour Party) version of "socialism". FWIW most of the contributors to this page have been UK based, AFAICS. Anyway, what are you proposing as the alternative Def?--Red Deathy (talk) 08:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to quote the OED def (ref. 1) "Freq. with capital initial. A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy." Moving nearer to that wording may be helpful. As might adding a plural, i.e. 'systems' rather than system...--Red Deathy (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. “The state withers away.” Actually, many Marxists even miss that one. But, yeah, the way this lede is set up, it is stuck forever describing the vanguard. Being from the US, the only real-life experience I've had with a socialist party is through the Frenchies I got to know when I was there. That's the other thing: I didn't notice any mention of the French Socialist Party in the article. Is that because they aren't socialist enough for this article? Anyway, it sounds like you've got an idea that incorporates these concerns. I don't (think) I have access to the OED definition, and as good as it may be, an encyclopedia lede and definition could and probably should go into more detail. I think you've outlined that detail very nicely. The key points to make are that there can be democratic elements to socialism. This may indirectly address your (and Marx's) understanding that socialism allows for a pure form of individual expression, that being a form of democracy, and that the term is also used to describe a command economy with a one-party system. When and where is socialism used to imply a command economy in the UK? In the US, it is generally the right-wing who uses the term this way, while those who are interested in socialism tend to think of it differently and use the tern communism instead.Nelbev (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, one of the first references is to the Socialist International, of which the French SP is an affiliate (it's worth reading that link). I think the lead as such is compatible with the published opinions of the SPUSA (and the WSPUSA, which is the second reference). Nothing in the current lead excludes democracy, although we cannot, on consensus grounds, exclude non-democratic socialism from the definition. I doubt any leftists would describe it as a 'command economy' but plenty of the labour left do call for nationalisation of the 'commanding heights of the economy' and more public ownership, I suspect the same is true of the French SP, and certainly their Trotskyist rivals in Lutte Ouvrier...All that said, I think there is some scope for making democracy more explicit than it is currently, its there for those who have eyes to see it...--Red Deathy (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead does not suggest any specific type of socialist economy, nor does it imply a command economy; it defines socialism as an alternative system to capitalism based on production for use and some form of co-operative ownership over property. This definition is shared by the vast majority of the socialist movement, which is mainly divided on the strategy used to build this system. As such, the lead does not suggest what type of coordinating mechanism will be used in a socialist economy, which can be central planning, decentralized planning, self-management, the market economy, or a combination thereof. The lead also defines socialism as a political movement, covering the basic strategies of the major socialist political movements. I fail to see how the lead is biased and exclusive in any way. Battlecry (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry this response has taken a while - hope you get it, Battlecry. This lede certainly does define a coordinating mechanism and therefore rules out market coordination. Valuation is based on Marx's labor theory of value which is implied by, "accounting is based on physical quantities of resources, some physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labor-time." This is theoretical Marxism, not socialism as we see it today. The lede also focuses on property rights which is shown in, "an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively." As phrased it seems to imply that the means of production are exclusively owned and controlled cooperatively, that is, there are no private property rights. This rules out markets which are a major part of existing socialist countries. This lede shares the same problems with the lede on capitalism. As Frank Stilwell puts it, they define capitalism (here socialism) in such a theoretical way that such a system is found to not exist in reality. In reality, actual existing socialism and capitalism are both mixed economies with representative democracies. The difference is a matter of degree, not kind. The way this article is now, even Sweden and Norway wouldn't qualify as socialist countries. They wouldn't be capitalist countries either. So how do you classify them? What about the US? It's not a capitalist country given the wiki definition of capitalism. So what is it? There are measures of degree of government intervention and this can be reflected int he lede by stating that socialist countries have a "significant" level of public ownership. The fact that they are also democracies should also be mentioned as a socialist system, by definition, involves politics, government, and economies. I'll make these changes as soon as I have the time to make sure it is done correctly.Nelbev (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You stated, "The way this article is now, even Sweden and Norway wouldn't qualify as socialist countries". This is because neither Sweden or Norway is a socialist country. They are, like the US, mixed economies which are capitalist in nature (the means of production are mainly held in private hands). The main tenet of socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. What you find in Norway, Sweden, and the US is that the majority of the means of production are privately held. An easy way to distinguish which label a country receives is by asking this: Are over 50% of the means of production in private hands (this would be considered a capitalist country) or under common ownership (this would be considered a socialist country). This is why you never hear Cuba referred to as a capitalist country. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nelbev, you are confusing socialist politics (a political ideology and movement) with socialist economics (a group of theoretical or hypothetical future economic systems). First off, Sweden and Norway have been governed by social democratic parties and have implemented a range of policies to benefit their constituents. Granted, some believed these reforms would eventually and gradually pave the way toward a socialist system, while democratic socialists tended to believe they could not achieve socialism by themselves but were worth supporting in the interim. Regardless of ones position, these policies are not the same thing as socialism (which has a specific, technical definition); for example, when the Republicans come to power in the United States, their policies do not (and rightly so) define Republicanism. Furthermore, different socialist political movements have different strategies for achieving socialism - had a Leninist Communist or an anarcho-syndicalist party taken power in Sweden, their path to building socialism would have been radically different from the social democrats. Their policies, again, would not define socialism as an economic system. Secondly, you claim that the following line implies Marx's labor theory of value: "accounting is based on physical quantities of resources, some physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labor-time". This is incorrect; there is a list of three different means for quantifying resources and use-values, the last of which is the (mis)application of Marx's concept socially-necessary labor time to a hypothetical socialist economy. While personally I don't agree with that particular position, it is worth mentioning along with the other accounting mechanisms because it is and has been a major proposal for socialist economic systems, particularly by anarchists, cooperative market socialists and syndicalists. Thirdly, you are correct in claiming that the lead clearly defines the property-rights structure of socialism. Again, it lists a range of different possible configurations property rights over the MoP can take under socialism: public (state) ownership, common ownership (free access) and independent cooperatives. All of these configurations are very different from each other, and aside from common ownership, cooperatives and public enterprises do not in any way exclude market coordination. The various proposals for market socialism typically includes a mixture of cooperatives and public enterprises operating in a free-market economy - so your point that the given definition excludes market socialism or market coordination is moot. Fourth, the reason why the given definition does not appear to exist in reality is precisely because socialism has not yet existed on a large scale. All of the world's economies operate under the laws of capital accumulation and seek to generate a financial profit; most are dominated by private enterprises. Unless you are defining socialism as the system that existed in the Soviet Union and other Communist-run states, which is debatable itself, socialism has not existed on a large scale to date. As per capitalism, the United States (and Sweden for that matter) fits the definition of capitalism: the means of production are almost entirely privately-owned, and enterprises compete to generate a profit. I hope this clarifies the issue for you. Battlecry (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff: I agree that Sweden is a mixed economy. A socialist economy is a mixed economy. Is an economy that has 60% of government ownership not a mixed economy? Obviously things are more complicated than this contradictory statement claims. A socialist country is not mixed, yet it has a mix of 51% government ownership? If socialism is not mixed than what is the difference between communism and socialism? Marx considered socialism to be a prelude to communism. It is in communism in which 100% of property is commonly owned. He explicitly mentions a “petty-bourgeois socialism” in which the business class still exists.

I was explaining the vernacular which is used to label different countries today. Almost every country on the planet currently has some sort of mixed economy. If the majority of the means of production are in private hands (i.e. Sweden, Norway, US) then that country is referred to as being capitalist with a mixed economy. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's another layer of complexity here. I had the same issue with editing capitalism: the folks there didn't want to say capitalism was mixed! The term socialism(and the term capitalism) is used to mean many different things, but it would be nice if they 1) actually referred to economic systems which actually exist (since people do use the terms that way and this article clearly states this is about more than theory), and 2) be comparable to communism, i.e. is socialism a mixed economy or a synonym for communism?, and 3) mention the roll of democracy in a socialist, political-economic system. I believe what I'm proposing does all this. Socialism as a theory is addressed on the Marxism page (as is noted) while a socialist economic system is a mixed economy, with significant cooperative ownership and regulation, and possibly a form of democracy. This would include the Scandavian model (as many people do) but may better apply to "new" Cuba and China. Meanwhile communism may be better applied to the former USSR and perhaps old Cuba.Nelbev (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the terminology is confusing and I think there are various reasons for that. China is a good example. The ruling party is the Communist Party of China, yet at the same time the private sector is responsible for a large part of their GDP. Go figure. Regarding the Scandanavian countries, they are all capitalist countries with strong welfare systems. This is not the same thing as socialism and should not be conflated. Remember, the main tenet of socialism has to do with who owns the means of production. When I think of modern socialist/communist countries I think of Cuba (even after the reforms) and Viet Nam. I would stick China in there too even though it's fuzzy. North Korea is kind of its own animal so I'm not exactly sure where they belong. Venezuela is moving towards it but that is heavily dependent on Chavez staying in power. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Battlecry: I’ve seen a distinction between theoretical socialism and actual existing socialism (feasible socialism) in the literature, but I’ve never seen the political/economic distinction you make. If fact, I’m not sure how socialism could be divided like that considering the interplay of government and the economy in socialism. My point in mentioning the labor theory of value was to point out that including it in the lede necessarily excludes markets as part of socialism. If the value of a product is determined by labor then it is not determined by the market forces of supply and demand. This again excludes markets. I didn’t intent to comment on Marx’s version of it, which I’m not well-read on aside from the fact that Marx was a classical economist and the classicists such as Smith, Ricardo, and Marx all believed in the labor theory of value. As for property rights, the lede reads, “an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively.” This should read, “an economic system in which ‘’a significant amount of’’ the means of production are...,” if you want to incorporate market socialism as you claim. Otherwise, the implication is that all the means of production in the economy are publically owned. It sounds like we’re arguing about how specific the lede should be. It seems that the definition can be made more informative with a short extension, so I’m not sure where the disagreement is. Nelbev (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Compulsory Charity as Socialism

Consider a state where membership to the church is mandatory. And that church teaches the obligation of tithing. After collecting that money, the church redistributes to the poor. This is a governmental system of redistribution of wealth. Socialist values were being practiced long before the 1700s. It would also be helpful for this article to discuss antecedents to what today is accepted as socialism. It could even draw parallels between the church and subsequent governments to historical abuses of such powers.--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Did the money primarily go to the poor, or to the building/maintenance of churches, sustenance of monks, and church military campaigns?98.95.164.190 (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Tithing went to the everything, from feeding the poor, caring for orphans, upkeep of structures, equipment, etc. Just like any socialist state. Socialism as a ancient practice is quite common ... but ... almost always voluntary. That is the fundamental difference between a secular tithe (the income tax) and the voluntary tithe, the use of force, and absence of choice. If one examines all the many brands of socialism, you either have voluntary socialism (more Judeo-Christian/Libertarian/Conservative) ideals, and involuntary socialism, (more pronounced in communism, or modern-day 21st Century Socialism and by the New Left.) It is a trust issue. Can humankind be trusted to choose to help their fellow men and women, or must they be compelled? That is basically the two opposing political systems in a nutshell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.222.158 (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Add National Socialism to the article

having searched the archives no consensus has been made, yet the article still lacks one of the largest Socialist movements in history. many other things can be said about the national socialist, but let's not confuse what people who followed this movement did outside the scope of socialism, instead let us report what rs claim about socialism.

excepts from the 25 point plan:

7 We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

10 The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.

11 Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

13 We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). (wouldn't it be great if we could seize industries from bush, actually we did, during ww2, the US gov seized Prescott Bush(w's granddad) bank/aluminum company and assets related to war profiteering)

14 We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15 We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16 We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17 We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

18 We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

19 We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

20 The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

21 The State is to care for the elevating national health

22 We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to present original theories not previously published. I suggest you remove your comments while are disruptive and boring. TFD (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

1834 the term Nationalsozialismus first appears in Print: Börsenblatt für den deutschen Buchhandel, page 36. since the term has been around almost as long as socialism, and shares a common term, perhaps it be wise we include it here. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide a secondary source otherwise it is original research. TFD (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

secondary source to what? i am not suggesting we add the plan above, rather the ideology national socialism. the points above clearly express socialist tenants. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that you are presenting this list in order to prove a point rather than to improve the article. Please provide a source in a book about socialism that explains how this is socialism, otherwise it is just original research and further disruption. TFD (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

no, the list is an effort to explain nazis were indeed a form of socialism. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery. are you seriously asking for a source to confirm abolishing unearned income is socialism? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to "explain nazis were indeed a form of socialism" then you need a source that explains this. Why do you seem to have such difficulty in understanding WP:OR? Why can't you find any sources that support your opinions? If you think that the world has ignored something that you have discovered to owe it to the world to publish your ideas and knock some sense into everyone. TFD (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

do you consider this whole section OR also? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism#Nationalist_and_ethnocentric_socialism Darkstar1st (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks fairly well sourced to me and supports TFD's position --Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It sounds as though you are trying to paint the nazis as a socialist movement, which is ridiculous because it ignores history. Did the Nazis abolish unearned income, seek to eliminate the accumulation of capital and promote equality and cooperative workplace relations? No; instead they affirmed inequality, protected private ownership over productive enterprise, and suppressed socialist political parties in Germany (outlawed the SPD and KPD). The platform listed was never intended to be implemented, it was designed to gain support from the working-class. On top of that, the demands made sound more like a combination of state capitalism and a social welfare state because they do not seek to go beyond profit-seeking enterprise.Battlecry (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

you maybe confusing the national socialist party, with national socialism, which was coined in 1834 the term Nationalsozialismus appears in Print: Börsenblatt für den deutschen Buchhandel, page 36. in the article types of socialism, National Socialism is included, why is it not included here? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No it's not; except to note that the Baath Party had both socialist and national socialist origins. RolandR (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, i restored the article just now. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are arguing that an unacceptable POV edit which you made to another article, and which I have now reverted, is justification for making the same unacceptable POV edit here? Nice try, but no. RolandR (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

no, i am arguing national socialism should be included on the socialism page. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You need secondary sources. Articles are here to inform readers, not score ideological points. TFD (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Goals

Would anyone else agree that 2/3 of the "Goals" section is anti-capitalism? The focus is primarily on criticism of capitalism instead of what socialism is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.195.247 (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The section should probably be renamed, possibly to "Socialist perspective on capitalism" or the "Philosophical basis" of socialism. Battlecry (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research

An editor has inserted, "An early use of the term Socialist appears in 1738", citing a book published in 1738. This is original research. In order to include this we need a secondary source that makes this observation. Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the views of secondary sources, not advance knowledge become contemporary scholarship. The editor should find a secondary source before re-inserting this snippet. TFD (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If the book was published in 1738 and uses the term socialist them were exactly is the OR? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This would be original research even if the term did appear in the book cited. But I have just looked at it on Google Books[3] and on the Internet archive[4]. The term "socialist" or "socialism" does not appear in either edition. So this looks to me mot so much "original research" as "original invention". RolandR (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Roland, page 69, line 8, word 4, Socialist. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Google Books page 69 line 8 word 4 "doctrine". Internet archive page 69 line 8 word 4 "the". The word "socialist" is not in either edition. Where are you citing from? RolandR (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

in your copy it is page 83, near the bottom, in original old school type, reads the following: Moreover, Mr. Rule, to shew his Parts, longs for an Adversary like himself. I wish, says he, a Socialist would make it appear, by a solid Refutation, what Ignorance I have discover'd in my Writings, I am ready to defend it. the actual source i posted was the translation into modern english by monroe, as my keyboard wont make the funny looking "S" that looks like and "F". Darkstar1st (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The phrase does not appear in the Internet Archive edition. In the Google Books edition, the phrase I see is "I wish, says he, a scholist would make it appear". I repeat, the word "socialist" does not appear in either edition; this is a misreading of the original text, either by you or by the secondary source you copied this from. RolandR (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Roland, you still are not using the source i listed, the john monroe transcription. who's translation are you using? i suspect you are using googles machine ocr to arrive at the word "scholist", or perhaps your own translation? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(out)It would make far more sense to write I wish a Scholist would make it appear than a socialist. I am unable to find the full phrase from the internet copy I downloaded however and am unable to ee the context used. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The scanned Google book - which is not OCR'd but the original typeface - clearly says Scholist - OED defines that as " Obs. ? One who has nothing but school training, a mere theorist." "Socialist" would make no sense in that sentence--Red Deathy (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I am looking at what appears to be a photocopied image of the original volume; it clearly says "scholist". The only online version to use the word "socialist" is the Google digitised version; I suspect that the error is caused by sloppy proof-reading of an OCR error. To verify this, I have uploaded a screen print of the version I read[5], which should establish without doubt that "scholist" is the correct reading. RolandR (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Having finally seen the full context (well done for the scan) it is undoubtedly scholist being used, socialist would make no sense within that context whereas Scholist most certainly does. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Darkstar, if, as you state elsewhere, you "blew the dust off" the book itself in order to copy out the text, then I am amazed that you should have arrived at this aberrant reading. I can understand a machine reader making this error, but not a sentient human reader. RolandR (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

@red, the scanned image appears to spell "fcholift"? you are mistaken the only online version is the machine translation, the published transcribed version by john monroe was referenced in the source i listed [6]. i can see how scholist would work also, but the very old dusty copy of Monroe's transcription clearly says "socialist". @roland, if you would view the actual source i referenced, you would be less amazed, as it is a RS, published, and doesn't uses the funny looking f/s. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The Google version is scanned, which is why you are able to search it. It says it was digitized by the University of Michigan in 2006. This is a good example of why we should use secondary sources instead of conducting original research. TFD (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

if you follow the link i post above you will see even though digitized, it is also an image of the actual page from an old book published well before 2006. several editions of this book have been published, some under the pen name Jacob Curate, [7]. i find it amusing you are using OR to translate fcholoft, into scholist, while trying to prove OR against a published edition. none of the many reprints have even translated the word into scholist, which actually cannot be found in any image from a published edition.

Crokatt, Gilbert: The Scotch Presbyterian eloquence. - 1692
Crokatt, Gilbert: The Scotch Presbyterian eloquence. - 1694
The Scotch Presbyterian eloquence, 1718 dedication sgd Jacob Curate [ie Gilbert Crokatt and John Monroe]
and several more reprints by several publishers. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I find it amusing you are using OR to translate fcholoft, into scholist". I did not such thing. Your new link by the way is to an edition published in 1847, not the version from 1738. TFD (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

tfd, plz see the original source which ahas been reverted. this book has been republished many times, my recent example was of the pen name, not the date. even if you did claim fcholift means scholist, you would still be wrong, there is no such word, scholiAst from the Greek schole, σχολή (properly, loitering (as a withholding of oneself from work) or leisure; a 'school' (as vacation from physical employment)), the meaning has since changed, lol, some. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I am translating nothing; I am simply reading English. The word in the text I read is not "fcholift" but "ſcholiſt". It is printed using a long s, not an f. No translation needed, merely English literacy. RolandR (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

scholist is not a word, perhaps the several publishers got it right? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check out Red Deathys comment above that gives the Oxford English Dictionary entry on it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter what word was used, only that it was not "Socialist". PS, there was no standardized spelling in 1738. TFD (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec again)I have posted a screenprint of the OED entry[8]. Whatever anyone thinks, that is the word used in the original. Later transcription errors may have corrupted this to "socialist", but, as noted above, that would make no sense, where scholist clearly dies. Stop digging, Darkstar, and admit that you got it wrong. RolandR (talk)

Saddh, the word scholist does not appear in oxd, or any other dictionary ever printed. tdf, it was socialist, and it was printed in 1738. the same book had been printed earlier several times in different type. you are challenging my edit with a different book, please use one that includes john monroe as those editions are in modern type. roland, i am trying to educate you and the world on the origin of the term, the first time it appears in RS print. i make no claims to who got what wrong, rather reporting facts. you have yet to prove the source i listed, author/publisher/edition and all modern english editions of the book are not reliable. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar, you are wrong. "Scholist" does appear in the OED; look at the screenprint I posted. And it is the word used in the original text. I don't need you to "educate" me, and you are not "reporting facts". You appear to be making them up. And the onus is on you to establish that the source you claim to be using is reliable, not on me to prove that it is not. RolandR (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

then why the question mark before the definition, and the etymology part about it being an error in your screenshot? all other dictionaries including Websters consider it a misspelling. if it is a word, when has it appeared in print? [9] Darkstar1st (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, your link clearly says "1847" and the title page (page 1) states, "LONDON: PRINTED FOR THE BOOKSELLERS. MDCCCXLVII. TFD (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

tdf, i explained above this was a link to one of several editions. i post this to show the different editions used pen names, this edition was Jacob Curate. the 1738 edition attributes Gilbert Crokatt, John Monroe and is in modern type, and has the word socialist. the 1692 version the other editor found was attributed to Gil Crokatt alone and in the old type. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No it is an 1847 edition. Anyone can see that by clicking on the link that you provided and looking at the title page. Incidentally, it is reasonable that editors should be able to disinguish a long s from an f, especially ones who spend a lot of time reading texts from the 1700s. TFD (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

tdf, i apologize for having such a hard time explain myself. 1. the Jacob Curate edition i linked in discussion is from 1847. 2. the edition i sourced in the article edit is the 1738 crokatt and monroe edition. the 1692 edition the other editor interpreted to mean scholist was the gil crokatt/old school type edition. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I "interpreted" nothing. I simply read the text; the word is "scholist". The version I used, and posted online, is the one I found on Google Books; it is a scan of the 1748 edition, printed in London. RolandR (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

here is page one, dated 1738, see, no goof f/s: Honourable Purchaser,—Be aware when in quest of my Chap Books, issued from the place where I do my business, that you take a view of the Sign over my Door, & of the Painted creatures & figures which represent the venders of my Articles in London City My emblem of trade is represented below on this Title-page. As I have travelled far to get this Original printed with the wedge, you will please not to Buy the uncorrected & faulty Editions, which some Florentines have thrown off in poor imitation of mine, trying to filch my labours, and resorting to imposture. You have only to observe the Execution of the Y & you cannot be Jewed :—the brOad leg points to destruction, the narrow to life.—-god Save The King.

Imprinted for Mr Van Anker, living in the Row called Broompjes, Rotterdam, where the Book is Lettered & Entered ; by James Wilson, Laigh Kirk Close, Glasgow; and Pub'ished & Sold in London by Mr. Christopher Braddock, in Clifford's Lane, Fleet Street, over against Bell &r> the Dragon; by Mr. Thos. Dicas, next door to the Cock <5j-> the Drake, St. Paul's Churchyard; by Mrs. Man By, living in Bishop s-gate, not far from the The Three Naked Boys; & by Mr. Henry Parson, Stationer, at The Three Bibles &* Three Inkhottles, near Temple Bar, on the Strand Side, where is to be had the Skin for Pains in the Limbs. Price 2s., and a Protestant Picture, coloured—both for light to sinners & delight to saints.—1738.

Sorry Darkstar, but now you are just grasping at straws. While this has been one of your more amusing attempts at introducing your bias into Wikipedia, now it just turned sad. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

[10] page 1, it clearly shows 1738, and the word socialist. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

From the typesetting alone it is obvious that that edition is from the 19th century, it is not from the 18th century and certainly not from 1738 (a hint for the layman notice the absence of the long s. The font itself wasn't used until around the middle of the 19th century. As a comparison look at this specimen of a book printed in 1738 and this one printed in 1839). Be aware that popular religious popular books where reprinted in a lot of editions, usually without any indications of their edition and printing year. Secondly I can't see socialist mentioned anywhere on page 1. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

early modern english, and the long s went out of style in 1650. socialist appears on page 69, see above. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you just started getting amusing again. Long s: "The long s fell out of use ... in Britain and the United States, between 1795 and 1810". And I am afraid I must be adamant regarding this, the link you provided does not show an early 18th century book, the typeface is very clear that in this is a 19th century specimen, where, incidentally, socialist would probably have been a well known term. The warning about "uncorrected" editions seems to have been in vain. Although at that time I am having my doubts whether it was not an intentional mistake, since scholists would have long been out of vogue, and socialists would have been all the rage. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Although the book was published in London, it was lettered in Rotterdam, where the long s had gone out of style. scholist did not go out of style because there is no such word. scholiast came into style around 1820 and quickly departed around 1860.

Why do you insist, against all the evidence, thjat there is "no such word" as scholist. I posted a link to a screenprint of the OED definition. A search on Google Books shows many uses of the word, including by Charles Dickens in 1854[11], David Hume in 1822,[12] William Paley in 1819,[13] Andrew Jackson Downing in 1857[14] and more. It is a perfectly good word, and was clearly in common use in the 19th century. The fact that you have not come across it before is irrelevant; maybe it is you who needs to be educated.RolandR (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

my ngram OR proved your google books OR wrong: [15] Darkstar1st (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means, or what yoiur pretty diagram is supposed to prove. Scholist is a word, it appears in the OED, it appears in scores of books, it makes sense in the context of the book you first cited. Pretending that this is an unprecedentedly early use of the word socialist, which would not even make any sense in the context, is simply special pleading. Please stop your obsessive insistence on this bizarre reading of the text, and allow us to improve the article with reliable sources. Incidentally, since there seem to be several versions of the text, all slightly different, with many editors at different times, I would argue that it cannot in any case be regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

it does not appear in the dictionary, your screen shot has a question mark before the def. and the word error after the etymology. here is a link to the dictionary and the result no such word found [16] Darkstar1st (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

the diagram shows the word scholiast in red, next to the word scholist in blue. see the red line peak in 1820, then fall in 1860? notice the absence of the blue line? because the word does not appear in the search. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of lying. I looked up the word "scholist" in the full OED online. It indeed appears, with examples of its use. I have posted a screenprint of the entry online. Do you suggest that I am inventing this? I also cited several examples from Google Books of the use of the word in works by notable authors. Again, do you suggest that I have invented these? I don't understand why this is so important to you, but I suggest that you drop this now, and cease trying to deny easily verifiable facts. RolandR (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, books printed in the Netherlands for the English market still used the long s, it was only books in Dutch that did not apply it. The book is printed in Great Britain some time in the 19th century and the information about the printer is copied verbatim from the original 1738 edition, and is thus not applicable to this particular edition. Anyone with just a passing experience of 18th century books can instantly see that the typeface of your specimen belongs to a later period. Anyway this discussion is moot since your original research has rightly been deemed unacceptable for this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read through this long back and forth, investigating the claims made. It's now getting beyond ridiculous and the editor insisting that the reference is to 'socialist' is either being purposely obtuse or has too narrow a POV. This thread should be left for archive now. Any further debate seems useless and not a proper use for the Talk page. Anyway, that's the way I see it. Dave Dial (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

^ "Why I Write" (1936) (The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 1 – An Age Like This 1945-1950 p.23 (Penguin))

[1] "Why I Write" (1936) (The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 1 – An Age Like This 1945-1950 p.23 (Penguin))

[1]

Archives