Talk:State socialism

I have a suggested redraft below...

{{unreferenced}}; {{Primarysources}}

State socialism, broadly speaking, is any variety of socialism which relies on ownership of the means of production and control of the work process and product by the [[state]. These states maintain such essential features of capitalist relations as commodity production and the wage system. There are four basic approaches to the idea of state socialism.

• Some socialists see this form of state as the goal of socialism. State socialism is often referred to simply as "socialism" by these socialist. Today, many political parties on the political left advocate a mild version of what may be considered "state socialism", in the form of social democracy. These moderate socialists do not advocate the overthrow of capitalism in a socialist revolution, and they support the continuing existence of the capitalist state and the capitalist economic system, only turned to more social purposes. Democratic Socialists argue for a gradual, peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism. They wish to abolish capitalism, but through evolution rather than revolution.

• Some socialists consider a socialist state to be a necessary transitional stage. Marxism holds that a socialist revolution is the only practical way to implement fundamental progressive change against the capitalist system. Most Marxists, including Fredrick Engels, maintain that after a certain period of time under socialism, the state should "wither away", producing a communist society: the intial state form of such societies are often termed workers' states.

• Others, who describe this form of state as state socialism, because in their opinion it retains the basic features of capitalism and can, therefore, never make a successful transition to communism.

• Libertarian socialists go further, deriding even Marxism as state socialism. They use the term in contrast with their own form of socialism, which involves collective ownership of the means of production without state intervention.

Of course, the state did not, in fact, wither away in the 20th century's "communist" states. Some Marxists defend them and contend that the transitional period simply wasn't finished. Other Marxists denounce those "Communist" states as too centralist, arguing that their leadership was corrupt and that it abandoned Marxism in all but name. In particular, most Trotskyist and left-communist tendencies of Marxism called those countries either deformed workers states or state capitalist states, to contrast them with states where the workers would directly hold power over the work process and work product. These Marxists argue either that the bureaucracy in the USSR had become a capitalist class by the 1930s or that the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1989-1991 period, as well as China is the same period, marked their transition back to market capitalist economies.

The suggested redraft

I think that the suggested redraft above (by DuncanBCS) is a strong improvement over the article as it stands. Any comments? If no discussion here, I will make the change in a week or two. BobFromBrockley 11:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Two "state socialism" articles

There are two separate articles on "state socialism": State socialism and State Socialism. I recommend that the subject of the lower-case article should be about the theory about communist economies and the upper-case article should be about the State Socialism in Bismarck's Germany, with a link at the beginning of each article to the other. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made the changes. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Bismarck

I have reverted Rocketman116's edits because he has added his opinion which I do think is justified by the sources. A. J. P. Taylor is quite clear: "Since he could not shake the Centre, he would win over the Social Democrats—not certainly be appealing to their leaders, whom he was persecuting and sending to prison, but by a constructive social programme, which he hoped would detach the working-class voters from the Social Democratic party. It would be unfair to say that Bismarck took up social welfare solely to weaken the Social Democrats; he had had it in mind for a long time, and believed in it deeply. But as usual he acted on his beliefs at the exact moment when they served a practical need. challenge drove him forward. He first avowed his social programme when Bebel taunted him with his old friendship with Lassalle. He answered by calling himself a Socialist, indeed a more practical Socialist than the Social Democrats; and he provocatively rejoiced in echoing Frederick the Great's wish to be le roi des guex, king of the poor. Richter, the Progressive leader, called Bismarck's proposals 'not Socialistic, but Communistic'. The proposal was merely that part of the cost of Socials Insurance should be borne by the state; and nowadays Bismarck seems the progressive, Richter the unenlightened reactionary".—Bismarck. The Man and the Statesman (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1955), p. 202. I think my edit reflected what the source said: Bismarck introduced state socialism for opportunistic reasons and because he genuinely believed in it.--Britannicus (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bismarck Reply

I read this already and I reverted the sources back, while leaving the quote with a actual citation, though I think I forgot to change one thing back.

Bismark did believe in this, though from page 203 of J. P. Taylor book stated that Bismark wanted to use welfare as a means to hinder any reason to revolt or hinder the already growing pluralism, and make one dependent on pensions.

Stated as quoted in the book you linked:

"Whoever has pensions for his old age is far more easier to handle than one who has no such prospect. Look at the difference between a private servant in the chancellery or at court; the latter will put up with much more, because he has a pension to look forward to".

Of course he could believe in his actions of what he was doing. Though, the next page reflects a different meaning that Frederick had in mind of, le roi des guex. I'm fine with not using the quote so much as self reflecting what was said on the next page and also throughout that chapter. --Rocketman116 (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

References

no mention of the most well known example of state socialism, the Nazi party?

also, no controversy in the lead? see wp:lead Darkstar1st (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

the reliably sourced section on national socialism was blanked without explanation. i will revert the edit in 24 hours, pending explanation here. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are again misrepresenting the sources. There is nothing in your source equating NAZIs with state socialism. The passage you are trying to twist into your own interpretation mentions post WWI efforts before the NAZI party existed. You've now brought these fringe theories into multiple articles and you need to stop. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me copy one of the things I had said below. The Nazis were capitalists, they privatized many industries that were once publicly owned such as banks, thus the term privatization was coined to describe their economic policies. They supported big business and in turn big business supported them and their party by providing them funding. If you look at the statistics and charts you will see that the percentage of industry in private control had increased as well as the economy during this time period, quite exponentially. Proletarian Banner (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

is Bernd Hüppauf a RS?

If so, would anyone have a problem with me including a passage from his book mentioning state socialism? War, violence, and the modern condition. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Bernd is a well none academic/historian/author [1] Darkstar1st (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This was obviously written by an Anarchist. Bolshevism was was NOT State Socialism it was SOCIALISM! It is a dictatorship of the Proletariat. It was Lenin not Stalin who first wrote about Sociaism in one country. Wikipeida is a very dangerous way to educate oneself judging by this subjective article. Bolshevism WAS Marxist-Leninist Socialism itself!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Lenin expertly enhanced and applied Marxism to his time, the imperialist stage of Capitalism. To say that Marxist-Leninist socialism came later is an indication that the author or authors of this article have a distorted understanding of Marxist-Leninism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 19 October 2012

section blanking

an editor has removed the entire rs sourced section "national socialism", without contributing to talk or challenging the source. without objection, i will undo the edit soon. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. You're up to the same things you've been pulling on all the Nazi/Socialism related articles. And you have been attempting to insert the same fringe OR/synthesis here that you have other articles. The same rules apply here as anywhere else on Wikipedia. Also, I have already posted on this Talk page, as you well know. You are inserting a section that is not backed up by the source. The source you site doesn't refer to Nazis in the manner you claim it does. You are misrepresenting sources again. You need to stop. The next step is to take tis to the appropriate board and ask for a Topic ban. Dave Dial (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I have provided the source, page number, and the material i inserted is basically a quote from page 92 national socialism was conceived as a form of state socialism. you have not challenged the source as reliable, rather simply suggest it does not contain the above, which anyone who has read the book would know. have you read the book? your above comment could be perceived as a wp:threat, i recommend you strike the comment and provide an explanation of why you said the source does not support the material. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

As Darkstar1st is well aware from the disambiguation notice, "This article is about a political strategy for implementing socialism." Note too that the statement, "According to Bernd Hüppauf" is misleading because the source is an article not written by Hüppauf. Darkstar1st has been pushing his fringe views on socialism over a number of articles for a long time. TFD (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The Nazis were capitalists, they privatized many industries that were once publicly owned such as banks, thus the term privatization was coined to describe their economic policies. They supported big business and in turn big business supported them and their party by providing them funding. If you look at the statistics and charts you will see that the percentage of industry in private control had increased as well as the economy during this time period, quite exponentially. Proletarian Banner (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Long redirect list at top buried Bismarck's government

German state socialism is an important subject and it was listed last, below related or even arbitrary things like "for a list of all socialist states". Since the redirect is primarily or totally to deal with things of the same name, I moved the German type to number two. It doesn't matter if it wasn't socialism, it has the same name and people come here looking for it. They aren't going to read those four lines and see it at the bottom. ~~ John Dee

Problems

Within this talk section, at the top one individual had said that libertarian socialists deride Marxism as State Socialism, Marxism is merely a philosophical, dialectical materialistic analysis on society. Marxism advocates for the eventual achievement of communism through varying means, thus it neither is nor advocates for state socialism except certain ideologies which build upon Marxism such as Marxism-Leninism for instance. Also that individual had said that some make the claim that state socialism retains some features of capitalism which it does not as capitalism involves private control over the means of production, private property, and production for profit as opposed to need, state socialism features worker and state control over the means of production and production for need as opposed to profit, and it lacks the other features instead featuring state property and control over the means of production predominantly. Also this individual above considers social democracy as a "mild form" of "state socialism" this is far from the truth as social democracy involves the capitalist mode of production, private control over the means of production, private property, excessive amounts of commodity production, etc, thus it is nowhere near socialism or state socialism especially. The individual had also said that "some socialists" consider socialism as merely a transitory stage, but they clearly mean some communists because communists are the ones who advocate for the achievement of a stateless, classless, moneyless society with the means of production held in common, not ordinary socialists, most of whom view socialism as their ultimate end goal. Proletarian Banner (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The article had said "Social Democrats and other Democratic Socialists argue for a gradual, peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism." Social Democrats are not the same thing as Democratic Socialists, Social Democrats are not for a transition from capitalism to socialism at all, they support capitalism and the implementation of free healthcare and education, thus numbing the workers. They support what is basically a welfare state. They are not Democratic Socialists, and certainly not socialists, especially within the modern sense. Proletarian Banner (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"Social Democracy" is a problematic term as the definition changed over years and the movement often lacks concise theoretical grounding in its recent form more resembling social liberalism.

Classical Social Democracy was a movement mainly inspired by Marxism that advocated a transition to socialism through gradual means. This is still the statute of many Social Democratic parties around the world, even if political practice does not reflect it. This delineation between "Social Democracy" as fundamentally reformed capitalist and "Democratic Socialism" as socialism achieved through demographic means is vulgar pop-history. Ozajasz (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)