| Revision as of 07:36, 18 September 2012 editDarkstar1st (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,196 edits →National Socialism should be included here← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:33, 21 January 2025 edit undoSimonm223 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,164 edits →Javier Milei's Speech: ReplyTag: Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=no}} |
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
|
{{Round In Circles|search=yes}} |
|
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{WikiProject Economics|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|social=yes|modern=yes|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{WikiProject Political culture|class=B|importance=top|socialism=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|blp=other|vital=yes|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Top|American=yes|American-importance=low|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=High}} |
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Socsci|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject History|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|social-and-political=yes|continental=yes|modern=yes|contemporary=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High|Social movements=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |1= |
|
{{notice|{{find}}}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{autoarchivingnotice|bot=MiszaBot|age=90|small=no|dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
|
{{Press|subject=article|author= Maxim Lott|title=Inside Misplaced Pages's leftist bias: socialism pages whitewashed, communist atrocities buried|org=]|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed|quote=The two main pages for "Socialism" and "]" span a massive 28,000 words, and yet they contain no discussion of the genocides committed by socialist and communist regimes, in which tens of millions of people were murdered and starved. "The omission of large-scale mass murder, slave labor, and man-made famines is negligent and deeply misleading," economics professor ], who has studied the history of communism, told Fox News.|date=February 18, 2021|accessdate=February 18, 2021}} |
|
|
{{Split article|from=Socialism|to=Socialism (economic system)|diff=696864242|date=14:01, December 26, 2015}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 16 |
|
|counter = 31 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Socialism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Socialism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Marx) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Marx","appear":{"revid":1088337451,"parentid":1088153456,"timestamp":"2022-05-17T12:56:01Z","replaced_anchors":{"Marx critique of the quasi-religious and ahistorical methodology of economists":"Marx's critique of the quasi-religious and ahistorical methodology of economists"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1133141167,"parentid":1133141012,"timestamp":"2023-01-12T12:01:26Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
== Socialism Versus Communism and the Political Science Lie == |
|
|
|
|
|
The entire article on socialism emphasizes state and public ownership for the means of production and industry, however that is formal communism! |
|
|
|
|
|
Socialism is the actions of government to assure affluence of its citizens. |
|
|
|
|
|
A primary method of socialism to achieve its goals is through elements of a state directed economy, but it assures private ownership! |
|
|
|
|
|
The article is a political science farce! and an intellectual lie! that communism and socialism are synonymous! |
|
|
|
|
|
The Americam School of economics and Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures are nowhere to be found on the page and they cannot be included in such pathetic tripe, even though they are the proper examples of socialism! |
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages should be ashamed of itself for pandering to this intellectualy devoid, garbage pile of moronic laden, disinformation!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 13:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Mainstream writers to not consider Hamilton's views to be socialist. ] (]) 13:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hamilton's views are also seen as contrary to classical economics. There are many comments above directing socialism towards private ownership and away from communism. It leads one to wonder whether contemporary qualifiers are a cooperation of ignorance between extremes: economic libertarians who want to create a villain; and, economic authoritarians willing to accept the role of villain. Either way, the representation is a degenerate direction for political reasoning! ] (]) 14:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Too much confusion here. When in doubt, go back to what Marx said. First capitalism, then socialism, then communism (or some sort of self-governing utopia not well defined.) This never implied that capitalism was not part of the other three, and in fact is. Capitalism is micro-socialism, but where the means of production are controlled by an elite few, a private aristocracy. Socialism if state-owned, a public aristocracy, then ideally might be controlled by more democratic means. Communism is by Marx total self-government in small community, or community controlled production more like Native Americans or feudal times under Christianity. (Socialism, after all has two origins, from the social teachings of Christ, and the teachings of Plato and the later Roman Empire.) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Now, dispense with the prejudices. There is no valid reason why a private aristocracy is better than a public one, that has never been proven. Both have their merits, and both have their faults. The real question is economics, which in itself is subject to sociology, psychology, political science, and most of all, human nature. Can the economy be centrally controlled, or not? Until this can be answered, none of the isms matter. And history, and evolution, and natural selection in human nature (not the same as animal natural selection, mind you, but intellectual natural selection) all answer this decisively once the scientific data (history) is evaluated. The answer is, the economy can no more be centrally controlled with any degree of efficiency than biology. People's everyday personal decisions cannot be controlled, which is all economics is, the matter of choice. Thus, communism (or community-controlled economics) is valid, since villages and small communities are best suited to manage their own affairs. The bad news is, Christians and Colonial Americans beat Marx to it by centuries, and Marx failed to grasp that without the morality to keep this system cohesive, it will fall apart like all the rest. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hope that illuminated some issues here. ] (]) 19:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Vandalism == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not quite sure, could you look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Socialism&diff=500675309&oldid=500397921 . Thanks in advance! ] (]) 09:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Doesn't look like vandalism to me. The editor replaced details of the first 2012 election with details of the second. Quite legitimate and acceptable. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 09:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Primary (and dubious) source citing general statement == |
|
|
|
|
|
An IP these sources without any edit summary and they were correctly reverted. However on further review the statement in question is a very broad generalisation on socialists in general. |
|
|
|
|
|
I am not going to make an assesment whether the claim is true, but speaking from a Misplaced Pages point of view such a general statement should be sourced with reliable secondary sources that apply to the view stated, and the claim should be accurately worded to represent the sources. However the only sources backing up that particular claim, a claim involving ''all socialists'', are two primary sources, one of them of a proto-socialist writing in 1803, long before there was even such a thing as socialism. |
|
|
|
|
|
That one certainly is not a good source for such a statement. The second one is Marx, and while Marx must be considered a good primary source, there are socialists not adhering to all his writings, and it is generally better to have secondary sources for such generalising claims. So I am going to delete the citations for this statement and replace them with a citation needed. Someone recently placed an issues template on this article, and I can see how that was very warranted indeed, this is most likely just one issue out of many in this article. --] (]) 22:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== National Socialism should be included here == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Large swaths of the 20th century section are about Communism, not Socialism == |
|
NOT SURE WHY THIS IS TAKEN OFF THE TALK PAGE OTHER THEN CENSORSHIP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They're related enough to be worth ''mentioning'', but devoting multiple entire paragraphs to Communism, with no sources that mention socialism at all, is ]. It also seems as though much of this was copy-pasted from ] (where it belongs!) --] (]) 23:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative). Like many others with a political axe to grind by labeling the Nazi Party as right wing, I will not go to their material but to the very source, NAZI GERMANY and the quotes the NAZIS made in their own words. |
|
|
1. From Hitler’s bio Mein Kampf |
|
|
|
|
|
from Volume 2: Chapter VII: |
|
|
|
|
|
In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. |
|
|
|
|
|
(Trashing Capitalism) |
|
|
2. Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930: |
|
|
|
|
|
I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism. |
|
|
|
|
|
(Comparing his theories to Marxism) |
|
|
|
|
|
3. Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian, said: |
|
|
We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation |
|
|
of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system. |
|
|
|
|
|
(NAZI SAYING CAPITALIST ARE ENEMIES) |
|
|
|
|
|
4. Nazi Policy that resembles socialism Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state would exert direct influence and control over all business employing more than twenty persons. |
|
|
|
|
|
(STATE CONTROL OVER BUSINESS) |
|
|
|
|
|
5. Some Left wing material of the time. Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies: |
|
|
|
|
|
"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism." |
|
|
|
|
|
(TIME MAG PATTING HILTER ON THE BACK FOR TRICKING CAPITALISTS) |
|
|
|
|
|
6. Hitler from 1933 speech on putting people as a whole over the Individual |
|
|
|
|
|
"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." (Adolph Hitler, 1933) |
|
|
|
|
|
sounds a lot like this (although alot less windy) |
|
|
|
|
|
We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993) |
|
|
|
|
|
IN CLOSING |
|
|
|
|
|
There are countless more statements and policies and stories written that support Hitler was anti capatilism and was a socialist. I do not contend that National Socialism (NAZI PARTY) is a pure from of socialism but according to the original players in Nazi Germany they not only indentified themselves as Socialist but put it in action. |
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest National Socialism does indeed belong on this page. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
] (]) 03:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:this conversation comes up every few months, perhaps we should form some consensus to include both sides of the debate in the article. ] (]) 06:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Yep, this copy-pasting across the two articles took place in June and July 2023. –] (]) 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
::It comes up every few months 'cause that is what trolls do. Its been resolved unless someone brings new evidence. The Hillary Clinton comment is a bit of a give away if you didn't spot it. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Clear usage of slanted argumentation in supposed factual description == |
|
::While we can agree that Hitler's National Socialism is not part of the socialism that this article is discussing, National Socialism was a real political movement with the word ''Socialism'' in its name. This article should at least have content saying what I've just said. Once it's in the article, questions like the OP's will either cease, or can be simply referred to the article. ] (]) 07:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the section on planned economy it is written "State socialism is unfeasible in this view because information cannot be aggregated by a central body and effectively used to formulate a plan for an entire economy, because doing so would result in distorted or absent price signals" This is a clearly a subjective opinion of the writer which if anything should be in criticisms of socialism. Nowhere is it mentioned either that 21th century computing, AI and statistics can be used to potentially predict with a high degree of probability the consumption of a population and required production. ] (]) 17:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::Well, all economies are to some extent mixed. If someone really wanted they could make it seem as though the Soviet Union was capitalist because of the NEP, or other similar policies. The Soviet Union was obviously not capitalist, though some would argue that it was also not fully communist either. Point being, one can pull random facts and quotes to form whatever kind of truth one desires. What I would like to see is a something from a substantial scholarly thesis supporting that National Socialism is indeed socialism, rather than blurbs taken out of context from stuff said by Hitler and some other nazi. I am doubtful that such a source exists. I also think the Clinton quote is not really relevant at all, and detracts from the argument by making it appear as a biased attack of some form........... back on topic. My understanding is that personal theories are not to be shared in Misplaced Pages articles, and that[REDACTED] is more of a medium to present accepted definitions and versions of theories/histories/odds and ends/etc. If a person wants to share their version of history or a new theory on a definition, the usual forum is a blog or writing up a formal thesis and presenting it for review by peers and for publication (and then once accepted may be added to wikipedia), i reckon. But, if what I reckon is incorrect, well then, theorize away, I guess.] (]) 08:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Ah, found something you may enjoy, an entire Misplaced Pages article on this very debate: ].] (]) 08:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Also Socialism is more of an economical theory than a political ideology. The modern invention of categorising socialism under the political umbrella terms such as "left-wing" ideologies is a modern invention produced by mostly non academic slanted sources and as a product of modern right-leaning propaganda. The definition of Socialism is simply: 'workers controlling the means of production' which is a purely economical definition and not a political ideological one. whilst socialism obviously branches off and can have progressive social elements social similar to left-leaning ideologies, it is important to make the distinction as the economical mode of function should be the focus point of socialism. ] (]) 18:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
Just because someone has never read Nazi materials doesn't mean they do not exist. Calling me a lair is uncalled for. These materials have been around for decades. Mein Kampf Hilter blue print for Nazi Germany can be located most public libraries. ] (]) 00:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:your right. ] (]) 19:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, it does seem to be very subjective. It would more correct to add that this is the opinion of a writer or a group of scholars or we can potentially remove it altogether if it's not significant enough. ] (]) 01:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Difference between Socialism and Communism == |
|
:::::But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only looking at names. Obviously the thing the Nazis called ''National Socialism'' is not what this article is about, but to avoid confusion, and to avoid suggestions that we're censoring anything, we should mention ''National Socialism'' in this article, and point readers in the right direction to find information about it. ] (]) 10:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::If you cand find something in a reliable source that makes that point maybe. Otherwise I think it's a note in the header for future IPs who are trolling around the US election. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Yes, that's all that's needed, but it should be mentioned. Otherwise it really does look like censorship. And I don't see what this has to do with the US election. That reads like US-centrism at its worst. ] (]) 21:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reading the communist manifesto, their IS a distinction, and the terms weren't use interchangeably as the the page suggests. |
|
:This IP has a history of trolling and I removed the comments, since they are not a discussion about improving the article. I suggest we close this discussion. ] (]) 14:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''disagree''', see . Deleting discussion is often counter-productive and feeds into the cabal myth. perhaps you could address the most worthwhile of the several points instead? ] (]) 17:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We are not required to help out trolls Darkstar. No point is made of any worth that has not already been done to death in prior discussions. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: |
|
:::The IP has presented reasons why he believes something. However as you are well aware, we do not add editors' opinions to articles, we add those of experts. If you and the IP want to argue about politics, then go to a political website where people do that. ] (]) 17:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::snowed, thanks for your opinion, however plz afg. name calling is not helpful, in the future i would ask you to be more respectful, thx! , TDF, plz read the link i gave you about helping, your insight may benefit this editor most of all. ] (]) 19:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Far too much time is wasted on editors who are just here to impose some political opinion and who can't be bothered to read up on[REDACTED] process. I am all in favour of helping out the innocent, but that is not the case here. As I pointed out to you before the Hilary Clinton reference is a dead give away. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The editor's motivation is irrelevant. If that bothers you, you'd better get on over to the Romney and Obama articles and delete every second post. Let's just add a pointer to ] at the top of the article, and the problem will go away. ] (]) 21:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
Ill edit later and take out my personal views and stick to the factual quotes which support why National Socialism belongs on this page. And including National Socialism will improve this page. Not sure what TROLLING IS, seems to me anytime someone disagrees they throw these words out to justify their actions of censorship. ] (]) 18:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*<small>I have responded on your talk page. ] (]) 18:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)</small>M |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Thus, Socialism was, in 1847, a middle-class movement, Communism a working class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; Communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it." |
|
My use of Hilary Clintons comments which is socialist in nature was to show common elements to Hilters quote. If you take the quotes and ingore my asides I believe they are a justafication that National Socialism belongs on this page. I agree a Pointer to National Socialism at the top of article would be enough to improve this page. I don't understand why using actual quotes and actions from the people involved does not trump popular opinion and media articles written decades later. ] (]) 00:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, i realise Clinton's comment out of context appears socialist, as do some of Hitler's. But historically the two are completely unrelated and have nothing to do with each other, and it doesn't prove anything, And Clinton is not recognised as a socialist, so if anything it detracts from your point. |
|
|
:::Also, I would like to state that I am '''opposed to referencing National Socialism on the Socialism article''', unless at least one scholarly source stating that National Socialism is indeed socialism (or at least a variant) is provided, and not just a random string of quotes chosen arbitrarily from Hitler's verbal diarrhea. It would be absurd to list every aspect from history loosely associated with socialism here. If you add National Socialism, might as well add public education system, Roosevelt, Clinton, Obama, Harper, maybe even Bush, mixed economy, etc etc etc. Also, I would like to note that I don't think a subject should be included on a page just because there is a common misconception. If someone wants to know about national socialism, they can search national socialism. It would only contribute further to misunderstandings.] (]) 05:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::a great point, except, national socialism redirects here, something i have fixed only to have reverted. ] (]) 05:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 8 preface |
|
I never said Clinton is a socialist, I referred to her comment as socialist in nature, which I think we all could agree on. My point was not to TROLL as you say but to include a form of socialism here. Many other from of socialism are included here. I included quotes of the time and policies from Nazi Germany that tend towards Socialism. Just because something was written before the internet does not make it invalid. Also I think a socialism in America section would be great. And as AnieHall suggested Public Ed, Roosevelt, and Obama should be included in the US socialist section. Maybe even Bush and Clinton but seems a stretch absent research. Unions and Labor Dept. could also be thrown in. Seeing how the Socialism page mention a half a dozen other forms of Socialism I think a couple of more wouldn't be to much.] (]) 01:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC) a.k.a. THE TROLL |
|
|
|
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf |
|
|
Frederick Engels January 30, 1888, London 16:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023 == |
|
:You "referred to her comment as a socialist". What? ] (]) 02:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Socialism|answered=yes}} |
|
I beg your pardon Hilo. I changed it to fit the fine standards of wikis talk page. Not sure your comment was made in good faith but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. ] (]) 02:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Request to add |
|
:You'd better :-) Please remember that we are not all from the same cultural background, and all we have to go on here is the words as actually written. Guessing meanings from imprecise wording is dangerous territory. ] (]) 02:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ] |
|
:IP, Socialism in the United States is already mentioned under ]. If you want to explore your idiosyncratic beliefs, then please go to a blog, and stop trolling this discussion page. ] (]) 02:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
::tdf, perhaps you are the troll here? you have only accused the messenger while refusing to address his message. go away plz. ] (]) 02:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
:::As Snowded explained above, "Its been resolved unless someone brings new evidence." The IP then asked, "Also I think a socialism in America section would be great." To which I replied it is already in the article. Neither the IP nor yourself have brought any sources, yet continue to argue your views which is trolling and stops editors from spending their time productively. ] (]) 03:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
::::neither you or snowed have the authority to resolve anything . the ip did source, perhaps you should reread his post. ] (]) 03:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
:::::Agreed, we just, like all other editors follow the rules. One of those is the use of reliable third party sources. The ip has simply trawled for quotes using the word 'socialism' and has not bothered to look at the previous discussions on this issue. Perhaps you would point to any third party reference? If you can't then please stop wasting people's time ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] ] (]) 11:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 13:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Too many links == |
|
:::::The IP has presented a number of primary sources from non-experts, none of which are reliable sources for the article. His description of ]'s '']'' in 1938 as "Left-wing material" shows an egregious lack of understanding of the sources presented. ] (]) 04:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::plz afg, "wasting time" maybe be interpreted as wp:battleground. go sit down while the adults speak. ] (]) 04:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You are becoming increasingly offensive in your comments and have made no contribution whatsoever in this discussion thread about how to improve the article. This is not the forum for you and the IP to exchange opinions on your political views. ] (]) 04:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] and ] ] (]) 20:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
YOU SAID "The IP has presented a number of primary sources from non-experts, none of which are reliable sources for the article." NON-EXPERTS ???? The words come from the Nazi leaders themselves. It seems a bit jadded to me that editors disregard THE SOURCE in favor of media written decades later. I quote Mein Kampf by Hilter himself. I give you History itself and you demand a story written by a journalist with his own political motivations. I have never stated my political views once on this page TFD. Your are the one not acting in good faith something you have a history of doing. I request National Socialism be included on this page as many types of socialism are listed here. National Socialism is unlike many forms of socialism but there is enough proof to show a resemblance, whether its for the good of the people or for the good of the government at the end of the day its the same thing. ] (]) 20:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:'']'' is not a reliable source and its views are considered ]. It has very few adherents today outside the far right. If you want to discuss the merits Hitler's views, then this is not the proper forum. ] (]) 20:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
Again TFD I never discussed the merits of Hilters views at all. I quoted him. I agree it doesn't not have adherents today. My goal was not to jusitify or to praise Hitlers views but to show his views where socialist in nature and to include National Socialism on the Socialism page. I do believe our conflicting views of the far right and far left is a regional problem. What is considered far right or far left in America differs from at least Europes views. Not sure how your home countries views the subject. One thing I do agree is National Socialism is to the right of many of the other forms of Socialism. So your right NS is right wing, of the socialist ideals but to the left of say Capitalism. You once again have shown your true colors and I would suggest your baised towards the subject clouds your judgement. You have gave zero reason to why NS shouldn't be included here and instead attack me with every turn. Trolling, I think I understand what it truely means now. ] (]) 22:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:This has been discussed before, and the overwhelming consensus, and ], describe Nazism as far right fascists. The systems they implemented had nothing to do with Socialism at all. They rewarded businesses with slave labor, before they murdered those workers. To try and cherry pick certain aspects of Hitler's words and other vague descriptions, and then usurp the overwhelming sources, is an insult to history and intelligent people everywhere. ] (]) 23:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Javier Milei's Speech == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
@] This was not boiler plate "anti-communist propaganda" delivered by a nonentity. He is the president of Argentina, a well known economist, and his speech was delivered at the World Economic Forum in Davos. His speech, in its entirety, has gone viral on the internt and has been garnering widespread coverage in the press and media to the degree that it probably rings the notability bell in its own right. . -] (]) 04:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
Your not speaking of national Socialism at all but the nazi policy of Lebensraum. Not everything Nazis did fell into the releam of socialism. Just all from socialism have a mixed ideals. I believe AneHall pointed this out correctly earlier. My intentions was never to argue for or against any form of Socialism but to correctly classify all types of Socialism even in its bastardized forms but the Trolls have won and refuse to even read what I wrote in favor of attacking me personally. Anyone interested on how the perception of NS has changed over time read BOOKS, no not them, on the subject written before the 60s movement and you will be surpised. ] (]) 00:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Virality of Milei's recent speech is temporary, and it certainly won't pass a ]. It is in its entirety boiler plate anti-communist rhetoric, everything from making people poorer, through having always failed, to 100 million deaths. There is no original criticism here that an academic body of people could come around and uphold it to support its notability. Nothing dissimilar to hundreds of remarks about the same topics made by Trump. And again, this article and this section is ''not'' a catalog of speeches that 'criticize' socialism. –] (]) 05:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
From Merriam Webster Dictionary |
|
|
|
::Completely agree. The last thing this section needs is to be blown up with run-of-the-mill criticisms of socialism from reactionary politicians.--] (]) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@] Polemics and name calling do not lend themselves well to a sober discussion. -] (]) 05:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The point still stands. Politicians lie like they breathe, and I don't believe it would be constructive to start shoehorning their screeds into this section, be it Milei, Trump or anyone else. Besides, it is redundant. It is already noted in the last paragraph that "Many commentators on the political right point to the mass killings under communist regimes, claiming them as an indictment of socialism". That should be sufficient. Including each individual commentator (like Milei) seems to me to be undue.--] (]) 05:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The speech covers a great deal more than that. Beyond which I would note ] (already mentioned below). You seem to have a very strong prejudice here. Criticism of socialism is not ipso-facto a "screed." My point also stands. Polemics and name calling are not conducive to a constructive conversation, especially on a sensitive topic. Unfortunately, I do need to get some sleep. I will pop in later today when I have some time and we can continue the discussion. -] (]) 06:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] ] is not a compelling argument. You are certainly free to disagree with his remarks. But the speech goes into considerable detail and has garnered massive coverage in the press and media. That coupled with who delivered it and where, and IMO it easily passes the customary standards for a mention in the article. -] (]) 05:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@]: "I don't like it" isn't what I stated. I pointed out issues with this addition, and you just repeated what you previously stated without addressing any of my concerns. –] (]) 05:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] Your concerns as far as I can tell are that you do not agree with his speech, You believe that his position would not pass muster with an academic body. And you think it is similar to remarks by Donald Trump. (A point on which I strongly disagree, but then I have listened to the entire speech.) You also refer to the speech as part of a catalog of criticism "by just anyone." Not many speeches by the President of the United States get this kind of coverage. It appears that you believe his speech consists of the four sentences quoted. I am guessing you have not heard the speech or ready any of the coverage. FTR I have. -] (]) 05:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::@] I think we are in different time zones. It is close to 1 in the morning here and unfortunately, I need to get some sleep. I will be happy to have a look at this later in the day when I have a few minutes and continue our discussion. Good night (or day). -] (]) 05:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*Ok. I've now got three people telling me they don't agree with the edit. While I don't agree, I will wait for the time being and see what kind of legs the speech has. If I choose to take this up again, I will open an RfC. -] (]) 23:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Make that four people. ] - socialism has faced many angry far-right politicians' ire in the past and will sadly probably face many more angry far-right politicians' ire in the future. Cataloging every random far-right president's complaints would be deeply ]. ] (]) 12:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Private Property Viewpoint == |
|
Socialism |
|
|
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The description regarding private property is not supported by the Iinked reference 311. |
|
German Labour Law of January 20, 1934, the state would exert direct influence and control over all business employing more than twenty persons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socialists view ] relations as limiting the potential of ] in the economy. According to socialists, private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralised, socialised institutions based on private appropriation of revenue''—''but based on cooperative work and internal planning in allocation of inputs—until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant. ] (]) 08:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
Unless Merriam Webster is no longer a creditable source then this solves the debate as Nazis had governmental ownership and administration over all business employing more the 20 people. A socialist idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Adding More Historical Figures == |
|
] (]) 02:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the Socialism sidebar, there is a tab labeled "People" which includes a number of historical figures. While this covers a fair number of historical figures, I believe that it should cover more. |
|
:Go and read up on the policies on ] and ]. You quotations and conclusions fail on those policies. If you can find a reliable third party source then come back here with it. Otherwise please stop wasting the time of other editors. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, why should it do this? Socialism is, per the first Merriam-Webster ], "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." By this definition, a wide number of people would fall under this label. However, a not-insignificant number of these people are not included in this list. |
|
:IP, it is not a matter of "our conflicting views", but of representing views published in mainstream sources. If you think that the policy is wrong, then I suggest you get it changed. ] (]) 14:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second, why the Socialism sidebar? Socialism is, per its modern definition, a wide-reaching term that can mean a plethora of things. The most authoritarian Leninist to the most libertarian Anarchist could both (accurately) be called Socialist. So, all those who fell or have fallen into one of the the differing camps of Socialist theory deserve to be grouped under the Socialist label. And, as of yet, several people have not been added. |
|
So Merriam Webster Dictionary is not a reliable source? Actual policy from NAZI GERMANY not a reliable??? This is not my orginial research. Throw out all the quotes if you want fine but a dictionary published for over a 100 years backs up NS as at least in theory a Socialsit from of government. I would suggest you respond to the FACTS I just presented. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore, to rectify this, we should start by adding the following people. I have provided the Misplaced Pages pages of the people who I am referring to for easy reference. Feel free to ask or criticize me about my inclusion of any of these people. I can elaborate wherever necessary. |
|
1. The definition of socialism from a mainstream Dictionary and |
|
|
2. Actual Nazi policy that is socialist in nature. The labour law regarding this can be found by reading |
|
|
Reichsgesetzblatt 1938 vol 1 of 2 it contains every law that was passed in 1938 in Nazi Germany |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ] |
|
On the strenght of these actual concrete sources I suggest NS be added to the page and stop wasting editiors time defending your personal feelings on Socialism. I believe we need another editiors unbaised opinion on this matter. TFD from your numerous edits you have shown your baised towards socialism.] (]) 16:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is not a comprehensive list, but instead just the people I could think of right now. Let me know if I added someone on this list that is already mentioned. ] (]) 06:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
:You are not listening, or you choose not to listen. Your dictionary does not say that the Nazi's were socialist. It defines socialism, and then you are imputing from other documents that this should apply to the Nazis. That is what[REDACTED] calls original research and its not considered a reliable sources. Now learn policy and argue from sources or stop. Continued arguments such as that above are very clearly trolling and I'll go back to deleting them ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== {{slink|Socialism|Culture}} == |
|
Snowed I think I do understand what you are saying. I showed a def. of socialism and a socialist nazi policy so connecting the two is considered original research? Not sure I agree with that but I understand your point. I have a problem with the many of the resources used in the socialist page for they are not mainstream and tend to lean towards socialism favorabiliy. One can easily find many sources linking socialism to National Socialism but there intergerty will be called into question. What is a reilable source, BBC, MSN, ABC, FOX NEWS??? Don't they all have an agenda? Doesn't a man writing a book about the positive elements of socialism have a bias but it is allowed over and over (see the socialism page). As you have noticed I did not make one change to the Article itself but presented what I considered a good reason to change it on the TALK PAGE. I never discussed the joys of any from of government and only wished to improve the page. I believe I presented valid facts of why to include NS here. Thats not TROLLING, you can read the[REDACTED] page on trolling. There is an unwillingness to discuss anything on this page that doesn't fall with in the few editiors views of this page. I THANK YOU SNOWED for I now understand[REDACTED] a whole lot better. Apologies the IP. ] (]) 17:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:See ]: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a ''synthesis'' of published material to advance a new position, which is '''original research'''. ] (]) 17:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Also ], the talk page of an article is to discuss improvements to the article within the rules. If you want to have a general discussion about forms of politics then go to a forum. Misplaced Pages is not the place for it. If you want to know about what is or is not a reliable source then read ]. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::So, it seems safe to say that discussion is concluded until a reliable source is discovered that defines National Socialism as Socialism and not as extreme right-wing fascism, and whose author has not been ridiculed out of his/her academic career as a result of hypothetical publication. Wonderful. ] (]) 20:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::no, we are still having a discussion. ] (]) 21:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@]: these hatnote links seem to be {{tl|See also}} content rather than {{tl|Main}} articles for the section. There should also be less of them. –] (]) 01:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::NO we are not, neither you or the IP have advanced any third party source. The rest of us are trying to educate ypu on policy. Until you engage with that there is no discussion, only education that is plainly failing. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose inclusion''' - ideologies should be classified by their actual real-world attributes as reflected in reliable ] sources, not the primary source unreliable claims of their proponents. —] 21:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] Can you specify which links in your view should be in the {{tl|See also}} section ? (Just to avoid any potential disputes) ] (]) 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::You seem to be confused, I am not talking about the <nowiki>== See also ==</nowiki> section, but the ''See also:'' hatnote. Please check out the hatnote templates I linked. I am not personally sure which links should stay, which is why I started this talk page post. What I am sure about is that it should '{{tq|point to a small number of other related titles}}' and that the wrong hatnote is being used, because main articles should be closely related to the topic, and there are usually very few of them. –] (]) 12:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@] No problem. The original sentence was not clear but the changes have been made now. ] (]) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Cultural socialism"? == |
|
I agree this is not a forum please stop treating as such, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charity seems to be an individual act. But can socialism be thought of as a kind of ingrained philosophy where the government or church-in-charge uses funds to aide those in need? (Food, medical care, fire wood in the past, etc.) And they do it for ethical reasons because they are fellow Humans. So far as I know, this has been happening since at least the Middle Ages in Europe and immigrated into North America with the planter groups in the 1600s. Am I missing the boat and don't understand my own words or is this article slanted in economic and political directions? |
|
From[REDACTED] itself(if[REDACTED] can be used a reliable source) "Fascists have commonly opposed having a firm association with any section of the left-right spectrum" There for NS, a form of Facism, is not right wing extreme or extreme left wing but that does not it means it does not include elements of socialism. The only point I tried to make. |
|
|
|
Thank you for your time, ] (]) 20:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The definition of socialism is outdated and irrelevant and needs to be replaced with something that actually exists. == |
|
I suggest again a third party should decide this and not me or those who classify themselves a Socialist who hate nazis on their own[REDACTED] page. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS RESOLVED by someone else. Please avoid being a troll or a Mastadon, I believe that is someone who defends a page to the end. I wait a unbaised third editor to take this over.] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 23:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
{{hat|]}} |
|
:It is very unlikely that you will ever find any editor without a predisposition towards nazism, or towards socialism for that matter. Editors' opinions aren't supposed to matter. We are supposed to follow the ] policy which means that if we propose to say that there is an association between the two, there must be a verifiable reliable secondary source saying so that we can cite. There are no such sources being offered by those who propose making the association. —] 23:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Socialism does not actually exist according to the old definition that we continue to perpetuate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets work together to redefine socialism according to how it actually presents in the world. |
|
::are you joking, darkstar? you added no further source, so i'm guessing your previous comment was an attempt at humour. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been writing about this on Linkedin and can share my thoughts here if that's more appropriate than sending links. ] (]) 02:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::'''Still opposed to inclusion, restating opposition and pointing out that discussion is going nowhere it hasn’t already gone''', and restating some points that seem to not be reaching intended destination: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] can you please elaborate on your issues with the current definition? –] (]) 05:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Some quotes from primary sources have been gathered, which has you (darkstar too? And ip) convinced that NS is some form of socialism, but others (such as myself) do not agree. I disagree, because the quotes are out of context. you cannot take a few things a person (Hitler and other nazi) says (well, you can, but you can't expect people to follow your line of thought) and make your case in a Misplaced Pages article (unless no one is paying attention to the article, then maybe you can for a time, until someone notices). Even if I did agree, it should still not appear here. Why? = Original thesis work that has not yet been peer reviewed does not appear here (or at least it should not). If you were in school, or had/have finished school, you could/can put together a thesis based on the material gathered, then you could submit it for review, and your teacher would give you a grade based on the merit of your work and your understanding of the material (and if it were a good grade, perhaps you could consider writing a master's/phd thesis on it, and if that went over well, maybe it could be published), or if you were done with schooling already (or were very well self schooled), you could submit it to peers for review, at which point they would say "why didn't someone discover this sooner, please publish this brilliant new thesis immediately so we can begin to rewrite textbooks", or they might say "this is rubbish, etc.". At this point in time, what is being discussed has not been put into an accepted and published form (that we here are aware of). I think this point that I have just attempted to make has been made several times, but in a more eloquent fashion. But since we are still discussing, i have repeated it in a new way (I pity any new comers to thread of discussion; much repetition to suffer through and non-conciseness (myself=main culprit of non-conciseness=sorry about that)). I do not think it is our bias that is making us oppose the motion to include National Socialism here, but it is that an expert (someone who has dedicated significant portion of life to this subject matter) has not proposed such a thesis as the above that has been well reviewed by other experts in similar area of knowledge. This is why myself and a number of other keep being all "no, end of discussion please, back to other more interesting and/or useful things and end of imagination road trip to alternate-not at this point in time accepted view of history-world". If a third party unbiased saint of some form appears, please do get another opinion and end this discussion. So, until said editor arrives or new adequate source appears, end of discussion? Also, in an attempt (perhaps feeble) to prove the nay-sayers non-bias (me+a couple): if you check the Britannica encyclopedia (available online, mostly for free) no mention of national socialism within article (I checked, to see if perhaps I’m out of touch), there is mention of communists/socialists/libs/cons banding together in opposition to fascism = only reference to Nazi Germany whatsoever. Britannica may not be perfect, but it is an encyclopedia, which is what[REDACTED] is creating/trying to maintain, so I use it (Britannica) as an example of what is included in an encyclopedia (not new and personal research/thesis. preferably only boring old accepted peer reviewed third party etcetera etcetera and so on and so forth). ] (]) 04:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::It doesn't matter because it's evident that this new account is just trying to promote their personal opinions and ideas. Reliable sources, reliable sources{{snd}}and all they offer is ''their Linkedin''. I cannot take this "proposal" seriously. <big>]]</big> 05:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::no, i am serious and have a possible solution, one you identified earlier and may support, ''If someone wants to know about national socialism, they can search national socialism''. I have suggested in the past we kill the redirect and allow ], which predates Hitler, it's own article. If ], ], ], ] and ], all have their own articles, why not National Socialism? The ideology is specifically about uniting the workers of one country instead of globally, like the more well known ]. Now for humor, how many socialist does it take to screw in a light bulb? None, they ran out. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/cuban-economy-worsens-cit_n_256588.html ] (]) 08:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::that's a very closed minded position to take Yue. |
|
:::::Ah, that one again. Well find a source that supports you. Its really very simple, if you are confident of your position it should be easy --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::: I'll respond properly soon. ] (]) 10:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::re:darkstar: What? ] (], same thing) does have its own[REDACTED] article??? If information is missing from the national socialism page, perhaps suggesting it be added there would make the most sense. Why debate a ] page (which exists) on the socialism page? If there needs to be a more specific article on a a topic within the realm of national socialism, the proper forum would be the national socialism talk page, would it not? Or, if for whatever reason the existing page isn't the right place for this information you write of, and if you have adequate sources, work it out and submit it for review to the 'create an article page'? ] (]) 04:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::1. there's no such thing as a socialist country. Not one. |
|
:::::::Anie, the debate belongs here and national '''socialism''' should be at least ''mentioned'', no matter the context. do you consider ] and the ] to be the same thing, if so, why separate articles? nazi was a party that included nation socialism in it's name, just like the democrat party uses democracy in its name. ] (]) 05:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::2. Socialism is not mutually exclusive from Capitalism. |
|
::::::::It is actually called the "Democratic Party", not the "democrat party", but people like you insist that the name of the party has nothing to do with its policies. ] wanted to call it the "Democrat Socialist Party", but the grown-ups over-ruled them. ] (]) 06:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::: -There's not one democratic socialist country that doesn't also have a strong foundation of Capitalism. That doesn't exist. |
|
|
::::-EVERY COUNTRY is on the SPECTRUM between these two systems -shifting a bit to the left or right depending on the party in power. |
|
|
::::3. There's no country that is purely capitalist without any elements of socialism. that also doesn't exist. |
|
|
::::4. Socialism exists the same way that capitalism does -in moderation and in balance depending on the government in power. Some countries have more socialism at some times, and more capitalism at other times depending on the political party in power, but at no time does the pendulum ever swing fully into end. Both are always held in balance. |
|
|
::::5. many of the most prosperous countries in the world with the happiest citizens are also the most socialistic. |
|
|
::::6. Even the most socialistic countries in the world don't identify as Socialist. Why not? Because they don't conform to the definition of socialism (NO ONE DOES!!). This alone should tell you that the definition of socialism needs to be updated to something that actually exists. ] (]) 02:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::With the preceding in mind (sorry I wasn't logged in), if I were to write the first paragraph of the definition, it might go something like: |
|
|
:::::Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing a spectrum of economic and social systems characterized by varying degrees of social ownership and government investment in the public realm. |
|
|
::::: In practice, most modern implementations of socialist principles exist alongside capitalist elements in mixed economies. No pure socialist or purely capitalist systems exist in the real world; instead, countries operate on a spectrum between these ideologies, with the balance shifting based on governing parties and policies. |
|
|
:::::Socialist principles are often integrated into democratic systems, particularly in some of the world's most prosperous nations with high citizen satisfaction. These countries, while incorporating socialist elements, typically do not identify as purely socialist states. The implementation of socialist ideas varies widely, influenced by factors such as the role of markets, degree of economic planning, and organizational structures in both public and private sectors. |
|
|
:::::As a political philosophy, socialism remains an influential force on the left side of the political spectrum in many countries. However, its practical application in governance often involves a nuanced balance with and against capitalist principles, rather than a wholesale replacement of private ownership as seen in Communism. |
|
|
:::::Examples of socialistic investments in the public realm include: |
|
|
:::::-Free education for K-12 |
|
|
:::::-Free Libraries |
|
|
:::::-Free healthcare |
|
|
:::::-Public Transit |
|
|
:::::-Fire fighting |
|
|
:::::-Public parks |
|
|
:::::-Police |
|
|
:::::-Homeless shelters |
|
|
:::::-Low income housing |
|
|
:::::-Foodbanks |
|
|
:::::-Community Centres |
|
|
:::::-Highways and bridges (not including toll ones owned by private for profit companies) ] (]) 03:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::since no countries exist that can be described as socialist, I propose that we either need to change the definition to something that actually exists, or create a new definition for what exists. Modifying the definition to match reality makes much more sense to me. ] (]) 03:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::"create a new definition for what exists" Misplaced Pages does not create definitions, it simply quotes those found in reliable sources. ] (]) 06:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I understand. Thank you. ] (]) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Can we clarify == |
|
:Some time ago, Darkstar1st found on Google books a copy of an 18th book re-published in the 19th century that misspelled an obscure synonym for scholastic as "socialist". He then claimed that he lived in a castle in whose library there was an original copy of the book and that it actually said "socialist". He dragged numerous editors into the discussion but was unable to provide any evidence of his claim, which was obviously bogus. ] (]) 05:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Australian labour party being only a week old? Can we get some clarification seems like there might be a gap/typo? ] (]) 05:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
::Is that where it came from? I must admit I have wondered as it gets raised form time ti time. Nice to have it cleared up----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:What? I can see "The Australian Labor Party was the first elected socialist party when it formed government in the Colony of Queensland for a week in 1899". NO problems there, are there? ] (]) 06:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:::tdf, you made up the castle part, the word i used was "building", and it looks like any other in Pest, riddled with bullet holes from national socialist, then socialist. The debate centered around the use of the ], which was exploited to incorrectly deny the existence of the term pre-1830's, when that failed, the argument shifted to "it's use in modern context", a similarly weak argument to deny my source. ] (]) 06:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:It certainly wasn't clear what was being stated. Please review my wording changes. –] (]) 07:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
::::And does any other source back up your argument as to its use? If not then your continued advocacy is disruptive ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I saw nothing wrong with what was there before, so I don't see any improvement. ] (]) 07:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:::::Just to remind other editors, I uploaded a screenshot of the text referred to here. This shows clearly that the word used is not "socialist", but "scholist" -- a word which, despite Darkstar's denials, appears in the OED as " Obs.? One who has nothing but school training, a mere theorist". <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 07:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::no such word as "scholist", you meant SCHOLIAST, it the "L" you think is in the screenshot is actually a ]. ] (]) 07:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
Under the section on planned economy it is written "State socialism is unfeasible in this view because information cannot be aggregated by a central body and effectively used to formulate a plan for an entire economy, because doing so would result in distorted or absent price signals" This is a clearly a subjective opinion of the writer which if anything should be in criticisms of socialism. Nowhere is it mentioned either that 21th century computing, AI and statistics can be used to potentially predict with a high degree of probability the consumption of a population and required production. Midflyer (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Reading the communist manifesto, their IS a distinction, and the terms weren't use interchangeably as the the page suggests.
"Thus, Socialism was, in 1847, a middle-class movement, Communism a working class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; Communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it."
The description regarding private property is not supported by the Iinked reference 311.
In the Socialism sidebar, there is a tab labeled "People" which includes a number of historical figures. While this covers a fair number of historical figures, I believe that it should cover more.
Second, why the Socialism sidebar? Socialism is, per its modern definition, a wide-reaching term that can mean a plethora of things. The most authoritarian Leninist to the most libertarian Anarchist could both (accurately) be called Socialist. So, all those who fell or have fallen into one of the the differing camps of Socialist theory deserve to be grouped under the Socialist label. And, as of yet, several people have not been added.
Therefore, to rectify this, we should start by adding the following people. I have provided the Misplaced Pages pages of the people who I am referring to for easy reference. Feel free to ask or criticize me about my inclusion of any of these people. I can elaborate wherever necessary.
This is not a comprehensive list, but instead just the people I could think of right now. Let me know if I added someone on this list that is already mentioned. Mr. Anarchyle (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Charity seems to be an individual act. But can socialism be thought of as a kind of ingrained philosophy where the government or church-in-charge uses funds to aide those in need? (Food, medical care, fire wood in the past, etc.) And they do it for ethical reasons because they are fellow Humans. So far as I know, this has been happening since at least the Middle Ages in Europe and immigrated into North America with the planter groups in the 1600s. Am I missing the boat and don't understand my own words or is this article slanted in economic and political directions?
Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Sociologielogo.png){kind=link}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)