Talk:Types of socialism

General discussion

The opening paragraph is completely POV. "Authoritarian" and "coercion" are strongly POV terms.

Apart from which - not even a mention of democratic socialism, which has long been the main school of socialism in developed countries, and again an apparent attempt to conflate socialism with communism. I'm adding a totallydisputed sticker to this page - at least until I can find some time to fix the more egregious sections. Gatoclass 09:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you removed POV words from intro and made some modifications to other sections, I'm removing totally disputed tag. -- Vision Thing -- 11:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry VT, I'm going to have to put it back because there are still things I dispute in this article. I just haven't had time to edit them all yet. Gatoclass 12:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You should state what are you disputing. -- Vision Thing -- 12:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not POV. The text dumped here is a scatted, incoherent mess. How can you seriously vouch for the quality of that crap? 172 | Talk 13:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing, I'll offer you a compromise: Wait and let the redirect here stand for the next few days; in turn, I'll write a totally new "types of socialism" article. My main priority is making sure that the old text from the socialism article does not resurrected here or anywhere. I am not dogmatic about how the socialism-related articles should be organized, as there is a huge array of ways in which they can be reasonably arranged. But under no condition do I want the crap from the old socialism article rearing its ugly head anywhere. 172 | Talk 13:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that you are trying to totally erase any trace of the Socialism article. Instead of trying to impose your point of view it would be better if you would try to improve current content by discussing changes. -- Vision Thing -- 14:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I am a professional historian trying to impose serious encyclopedic standards on Wikipedia. My rewrite is considered a dramatic improvement by every other editor but yourself, including Cberlet, one of Wikipedia's top professionally published editors. You have not stated a legitimate dispute against my rewrite so far. Despite my misgivings about your behavior, I am offering you a compromise. I will remove the redirect, but only until the article is brought up to standard. 172 | Talk 17:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Here I have only begun to point out why this text dump cannot be saved. This text has to be rewritten from scratch. There is no saving it. 172 | Talk 18:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm welcoming any constructive suggestions for improving article. Don't blank pages. Keep in mind Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes:

"* Deleting useful content. A piece of content may be written poorly, yet still have a purpose. Consider what a sentence or paragraph tries to say. Clarify it instead of throwing it away."

and don't push your POV. -- Vision Thing -- 23:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The problems with the article are not "common mistakes" and the content is not useful, as I demonstrate here. Yet you do not respond to them. I see now that you are not acting as a legitimate editor interested in collaboration. 172 | Talk 02:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously a POV fork. The whole page should be deleted. Anyone else want to list it for deletion?--Cberlet 02:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I do. But to save time we can just redirect the article. 172 | Talk 02:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm welcoming any constructive suggestions for improving article. If you want to make constuctive changes to it, like Gatoclass did, please do. -- Vision Thing -- 09:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the issue here? The topic is highly politically charged, so there are always going to be POV problems. Is the article broadly misleading? Or is it redundant??--Jack Upland 10:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is complicated. It started when the scattered mess at the socialism article was rewritten. The response to the rewrite was overwhelmingly postive; but for reasons which I still cannot understand, Vision Thing started reverting back to the old version over and over again. When other editors started rolling back Vision Thing's reverts as vandalism, he eventually gave up. But he then created "types of socialism" as a personal fork, dumping the old problem text here, with no attempt to improve the quality. The topic may be politically charged, but the problem is coherence and accuracy, not necessarily POV. Take a look at the structural and factual problems I have noted in this sandbox. (By the way, I'm not even close to done with pointing out all the flaws.) In my three years on Wikipedia, I have consistently noticed this pattern: when articles are poorly structured, they breed poor content. When a bad seed is planted, the plant usually grows up to be pretty unhealthy. The socialism article lacked coherent organization from the start, leaving it with loose standards of relevance. Over time it developed into a hodgepodge of bad edits of all kinds: POV, original research, tangential asides, sweeping generalizations, controversial unsourced claims, fringe claims, and simply bad writing style. Hence all the problems I pointed out in the sandbox. Vision Thing's attempt to resurrect that mess is misguided. It's a waste of time to try to salvage that mess. 172 | Talk 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Issue here is that 172 keeps deleting this article, although it has dispute tag on and although he hasn't made a request for deletion. -- Vision Thing -- 13:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to state a counter-argument in favor of the text dumped here from socialism responding to a large volume of criticism form multiple editors, including my notes here. As far as the page types of socialism itself, both deletion and redirecting the page are possible solutions. The guidelines in Wikipedia:Redirect include sub-topics or closely related topics: "This is a redirect from a title for a topic more detailed than the target page. When the target page becomes too big, this redirect may be replaced with an article carved out of the target page" (the example offered is distributed denial of service redirecting to Denial of service). 172 | Talk 13:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Socialism is not more detailed about types of socialism than this article. -- Vision Thing -- 14:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Superficially the socialism article is around the same size as this article in terms of kilobytes. However, that's neither here nor there. Substantively, the socialism article contains much more relevant factual content than the fork, which is an incoherent mess (given the reasons I have explained repeatedly and you have ignored entirely). 172 | Talk 14:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I said it to you 2 or 3 times already, if you think there is a problem with some sections, change them, don't delete entire article. That what you call "incoherent mess" was on Socialism for months and nobody made any complaints about it. -- Vision Thing -- 14:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) I can tell you didn't even read the notes I left in the sandbox. I noted many structural problems that cannot simply be "changed" without a rewrite. Further, the "types of socialism" title, irrespective of the content, may redirected in cases of sub-topics or closely related topics because the socialism article already offers a good foundation for explaining the diversity within the socialist movement, as I stated earlier. (2) Re: That what you call "incoherent mess" was on Socialism for months and nobody made any complaints about it. That's a dishonest claim. Before my rewrite, the old version had not just one SIX different disputes tagged throughout the article. [1] It boggles my mind that someone would fight so stubbornly to resurrect that mess. 172 | Talk 15:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tottalydisputed tag was added by The Ungovernable Force [2] because of these edits [3][4]. They were removed, but the tag remained by accident. Only section which was really disputed was "Controversial classifications" but they wouldn't be controversial if they weren't disputed. Other sections of "Types of socialism" weren't disputed and you are deleting them. Also, all Wikipedia's articles are "work in progress" type of articles. Have you forgotten that?-- Vision Thing -- 16:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What a disingenuous reply. No, just because there is a "controversial" heading does not give editors an excuse to insert factually inaccurate, slanted, and irrelevant material anywhere in the article. And your cavalier dismissal Also, all Wikipedia's articles are "work in progress" type of articles shows utter disrespect for your fellow editors and the project as a whole. Work-in-progress articles may be incomplete; they may be stubs. But existing content MUST be accurate, verifiable, neutral, coherent, and relevant. If you are unwilling to respect Wikipedia's content guidelines, I suggest that you find something else to do with your time online. 172 | Talk 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And all articles that aren't entirely accurate, verifiable, neutral, coherent, and relevant must be immediately deleted? LOL Then you can delete at least half of Wikipedia.-- Vision Thing -- 17:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You are making your contempt for the project's goals clear. Yes, all inaccurate, unverifiable, biased, incoherent, and irrelevant content must be deleted or rewritten. The poor state of many articles on Wikipedia is no excuse for writing new poor content. That's why I rewrote the article. That's why users who act to keep inaccurate and poorly written material in articles are considered "trolls" and "vandals," and eventually banned. Now, regarding the types of socialism redirect, while there are some pockets of factually correct clear writing, that alone does not rule out redirecting the entry. Overall, it makes more sense to follow the guidelines for redirects to sub-topics or closely related topics, as the socialism article also discusses the different "types of socialism" in sufficent detail, without the gross flaws of the cut-and-paste version posted here. 172 | Talk 19:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that content that is inaccurate, unverifiable, biased, incoherent, and irrelevant must be deleted or rewritten, but that is not a reason for deleting whole article. "Types of socialism" is important subject and it deserves to have its own article. You said that you are planning to rewrite whole article. Go ahead and do it, your "History of socialism" is pretty objective, and you will probably do a good job in rewriting "Types of socialism". However, in meantime, do not blank this article. It already has disputed tag and that's enough. Also, do not remove link from Socialism and I won't be adding it back in template:Socialism. Are you ready to agree on this? -- Vision Thing -- 19:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I sense a positive tone in your post above, and I appreciate that. (I'm particularly suprised about the postive feedback on the "history of socialism" section. I thought you hated it.) I agree that in theory a "types of socialism" entry would be helpful. However, remember when I said when a bad seed is planted on Wikipedia, the plant will grow up to be unhealthy. I started work on Wikipedia back in the days when an entry like socialism would get around 50 edits a year, not around 50 edits a week. I've seen this pattern play out over and over again. Thus, I'm really uncomfortable about the idea of the old content from socialism getting pasted anywhere. Given the postive tone of your reply above, I'll offer you a deal: Let the redirect stand and the links to types of socialism stand for no more than one week. In the meantime, I'll have time to write a new types of socialism entry. In return, if I don't meet the one week deadline, I'll stop redirecting the article. 172 | Talk 19:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that my offer was more then fair. However, as an act of good faith, I agree. I won't revert redirect for the next seven days. -- Vision Thing -- 07:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So the deadline I guess is a week after your above post, 07:53, 04 June? I'll go ahead and start work. 172 | Talk 13:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be at all reasonable to have a seperate article for he bastardization of the term socialism, i.e. Fascism, Nazism, etc. ?

Stigma of communism?

Communism carries a strong social stigma? That's like saying Adolf Hitler and Nazis suffer a stigma because of the Holocaust.

Whose point of view is it that "Communism carries a strong social stigma" anyway? Better to say who opposes it, or at least that the main opposition is American (USA).

Better yet, explain some of the reasons for anti-Communism, such as the estimated 60 million to 210 million civilians murdered by Communist regimes after taking power. (Let alone war deaths for the moment.) --Uncle Ed 01:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right Ed. I noticed that myself. The sentence you quote is one of countless problems in the article. That's why I'm rewriting it, and redirecting this article for one week with the agreement of Vision Thing. 172 | Talk 13:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Stalinist purges and other kind of "holocausts" on USSR and else similar Totalitarian systems self-identified as "communist" (but being very apart from communism most of theoreticals, social movements, worker unions, social struggles, etc.) are a fact, a terrible, sad, unforgetable fact. But before there can be some unfair labellings, I'd like to say a couple things: Please, I beg you, we must avoid any kind of generic accussations at all effects. Those "holocausts" were made by "Stalinists" ("Stalinist purges"), and other anti-democratic, totalitarian systems and branches that unfairly and demagogically claimed themselves as "communist". Stalinism is considered by many socialists and communists of Lenin's, Marx's or Trotsky's thought and tradition, to be opposed to socialism and communism itself. Please just let's not state on empty names, politized labels, and stereotypes, but on contents, on ideologies. There's a lot of information at the beggining clarifying differencies between most of ways of communisms and those totalitarian ones like Stalinism or Maoísm. Please, read well, and get informed about how different many of those currents shared by most of social movements and many historical revolutionary processes (that tend to find a hard opposition in capitalism, counter-revolutionarism, repressions, invasions, civil wars, etc. and thus fail, or corrupt, or decreased in participation and "oligarchized", being that main factors that lead from Bolshevisms or Leninism to its opposite, Stalinism/one-single system/State capitalism/one country socialism/Marxism-Leninism, and the names we like). Please, let's not mix, let's not generally accused. If you're going to charge some responsabilities for holocauts, do it on totalitarianisms, Stalinism or Maoism, or the stalinist, politized marxism-leninism (that was actually anti-leninist and anti-marxist), but just don't state it all from the simplified, generic, confusing, demagogic and unjust label of "communist". Let's stop fighting to approach more the article to each one's ideology, let's be serious, scientific, and objective, and let's admit debate, and contrasts. DeepQuasar 05:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather leave the bad article in place. It has a lot of useful links. Besides, your "agreement" appears to have been made under duress. --Uncle Ed 14:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So it's "60 million to 210 million" "murdered" by communism now? The number seems to go up every time I visit Wiki! Gatoclass 18:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, if there's any doubt: not by "communism", but by "Soviet Union" ruled by bureaucrats and Stalin's totalitarian methods.DeepQuasar 05:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to redirect

I see no consensus to redirect Types of socialism to Socialism and very little discussion. I have dredged up from the history of Types of socialism the following edit summaries by user:172:

• See agreement between Vision Thing and me on talk. We're redirecting this article for 7 days until it is rewritten.
• Ed Poor, "duress" has nothing to do with it. This article will be restored when it is worth restoring. For now misinformation is worse than no information.

I don't think it's up to one person to blank an entire article for a week. And VT wrote in meantime, do not blank this article which is not much of an agreement. --Uncle Ed 17:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, here's another vote for blanking the article for a week :) Gatoclass 17:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's like 2 or 3 : 1 so I "mostly" blanked it. I want to keep the links. --Uncle Ed 18:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's one more pro-blank vote. Really, though, I want to see this article deleted as a POV fork. -- WGee 01:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor, are you serious!? You see little discussion of the redirect!? Did you even read the talk page before you barged in here!? See the long discussion between Vision Thing and me, that ended on 07:53, 29 May 2006 with Vision Thing agreeing to give me a week to rewrite the article while the page is redirected. In the discussion, I established why this article is so bad that it does more harm than good for the content to be posted anywhere in the Wikipedia main namespace. Stop resotring the article. Restoring the article is a big insult to all the work that I've put in to make these aritcles readable and accurate. Please, please, please, be patient while I rewrite the article. In the meantime, I don't want to see that nonsense posted. 172 | Talk 12:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm only reposting the links. What's wrong with that? --Uncle Ed 15:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The list is built around an implicit POV that needs to be clarified before being posted. The problem with listing "types of socialism" is there will probably never be a consensus on how to differentiate the many different socialisms. As far back as the 1848 Communist Manifesto Marx differentiated between a handful of different types of socialism ("reactionary feudal socialism," "reactionary petty-bourgeois socialism," "reactionary German or true socialism," "reactionary conservative or bourgeois socialism," "critical-utopian socialism," and "scientific socialism"). In Chapters on Socialism, Mill also discussed the "different schools of Socialism," coming up with a much different set of distinctions from Marx. [5] Since Marx's time, socialists have always been writing polemics against each other, categorizing supposed schools of socialism that stand in opposition to their own thinking; and in doing so, they have always been coming up with different ways of differentiating between the socialisms. David McNally, for example, rejected established distinctions, and differentiated between "socialism from above" and "socialism from below." Into a more contemporary era, Soviet Communists developed elaborate classification schemes on the different types of socialism on which they based their foreign policy. Critics of socialism also differ on how to differentiate the socialisms. Even today, when academics write histories of socialism, they too come up with differing lists on the different types of socialism. For example, Mukherjee, et, al (2000) In A History of Socialist Thought: From the Precursors to the Present identify six major schools of socialism: Marxism, Anarchism, Guild Socialism, Syndicalism, Fabianism, and Social Democracy. (Personally, I think their categorization is deeply flawed, leaving out the authoritarian nationalisms associated with Third World socialism.) The examples I've just laid out should help people realize that the topic "types of socialism" is far more complicated than some seem to realize. And it's far too complicated for a drive-by text dump from an old problem article. Ed Poor, please restore the redirect. 172 | Talk 16:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather copy and paste much of the comment you just made, instead. That was a brilliant exegesis! --Uncle Ed 16:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but please, please, please let the redirect stand until 07:53, 04 June-- the deadline by which I have to complete the rewrite that Vision Thing and I agreed to. 172 | Talk 23:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please let's give it a rest until June 4th. Really, what's the hurry? Let's see the rewrite.--Cberlet 16:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reason to wait

Cberlet wrote in an edit summary:

Others of us see a reason to wait - please stop obvious disruption [6]

I think it's disruptive of wiki collaboration to reduce a page to a redirect, when other contributors are working on it. A promise from one contributor to create a full rewrite at a future date does not justify page-blanking. The links alone are good enough.

How about a page move to Socialism (disambiguation) instead? --Uncle Ed 16:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

New article

I'm running a bit late with the new aritlce because of an assortment of server problems I've been having this Sunday, the day I allocated myself for the rewrite. I'll have it up late on June 4 EST, not UTC. 172 | Talk 20:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem if you are sure that you will make it. You can add unfinished version too. This is wiki after all and other editors will help. -- Vision Thing -- 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still running a bit late. Well, my end of the baragin is my promise not to revert the article after June 4 until I post my rewrite, and I'll live up to it. 172 | Talk 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

Why did you revert to May 28th? --Uncle Ed 14:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of this article

I propose nominating this article for deletion, as per WP:POVFORK. Would anybody support this move? -- WGee 21:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Though there are obviously intellectual pitfalls in even broaching this topic, I think having some kind of article like this is helpful for the uninitiated reader. People are always going to come across negative - and dishonest - portrayals of socialism so where is the harm is letting them have the issues laid out for them in summary? I think the controversial section which discusses Nazism is particularly helpful in this context.--Jack Upland 10:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Is there any way in which this article is avoiding NPOV? For example, does it hide or over-emphasize anything? --Uncle Ed 14:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Turning into proper list

This article looks very sloppy. Either it should be a list or an descriptive article, not both. I vote for making it a list, and deleting all the big sections on Communism, etc. There's really no need to have full descriptions here, because there are separate articles that already do that.Spylab 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I changed this into a proper list, as per what I wrote above. The previous format looked terrible, was difficult to read, and was redundant because it duplicated information already in other articles.Spylab 17:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

See my comment below. You took out Nazism, although this is disputed. --Uncle Ed 17:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• After that, I took out all of the big sections because they are redundant, so that issue is moot, unless someone wants to put it in the list as a link. I have no idea what section it would go into though.Spylab 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Idea behind this article is to have short overview of different types of socialism, not to have a list. -- Vision Thing -- 18:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, then hopefully nobody will re-add all those links that were at the top of the page. As I said above, it should be an article or list, not both. The previous format was a mess.Spylab 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I agree with both of you. The article was a mess, and we need a overview of each of the multitude of types. Eventually, each "type" section can use {{main}} to link to a spinoff (or "sidebar") article, describing it in greater detail. I'm going to copy Spylab's version to List of socialist ideas, though. --Uncle Ed 18:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a compromise. Describe the category as controversial and then list possible inclusions.--Jack Upland 11:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazism, fascism and socialism

A number of people believe that Nazism is socialism, and a roughly equal number insists that it's not. What's the best way to describe this dispute? --Uncle Ed 17:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Say that it's disputed(?) The Nazis did call themselves National Socialist, but at the same time suppressed ostensibly socialist parties such as the Social Democrats and the Communists. Moreover, they did not carry out a distinct 'socialist' platform as can be distinguished from other governments of the same period (e.g. Churchill, Roosevelt).

Part of the problem is that in (say) the 1960s socialism was wildly popular and now it's unpopular. People who have called themselves 'socialist' include:

• Tony Blair
• Saddam Hussein
• Nelson Mandela
• Albert Einstein
• David Ben Gurion
• Etc

This variation is, I think, a justification for this page - which is continually threatened with deletion. However, the purpose of this page must be to indicate to the uninformed reader how widely and strangely the term has been used, i.e. to educate not to castigate.--Jack Upland 11:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the educate, not castigate part. How about a section on systems which some people say are, others say aren't socialism? --Uncle Ed 13:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I touched up the Nazism and Fascism paragraphs to more clearly differentiate between those ideologies and traditional socialist ideas (without adding point of view). I also fixed up the writing style so it flows better (such as deleting unnecessary words and moving sentences to more appropriate paragraphs).Spylab 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I vehemently disagree that "a number of people believe that Nazism is socialism, and a roughly equal number insists that it's not." The idea that Nazism is socialism is really peculiar to a certain segment of American right, and to no one else. The concept has been spread, I believe, almost exclusively by the Mises Institute and Rush Limbaugh, or affiliated organizations. I assure you, any European, conservative Europeans included, would be flabbergasted at the idea that the Nazis were socialists. Outside of this segment of the US right it is quite uncontroversial that Nazism is a form of fascism and that the Nazis used the word socialism purely out of convenience. Since the 'Nazism is socialism' idea comes from only a few sources that can be easily identified, and is rejected almost universally by everyone else, would it not be better to put it in a "While Nazism is usually regarded as a form of fascism, certain critics of socialism such as X,Y and Z argue that it actually is a form of socialism on the grounds that U, V and W" and then list counter arguments, rather than presenting it as if it was a controversy between two sides of equal size, "A number of people believe that Nazism is socialism, and a roughly equal number insists that it's not." -- because it really isn't so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Did not the late Adolf Hitler himself state that "Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same." in a 1941 speech ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolgiati (talk • contribs) 12:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Above in comments about communism was said that stalinists were not really communists (commies) but only called themselves so. That means, same should be maintained about national socialists (nazis). And, as stalinism is included in the article, as one type of socialism, so should be Nationalsozialism. Or/and in article Socialism. It should encompass 1) movements and entities socialist in reality; 2) movements and entities what called themselves socialist, but were not, or are debatable, like USSR and National Socialist German Workers' Party. Or, if not both 1) and 2), then at least 2). BirgittaMTh (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Fascism

On the removing and reverting of the fascism section: Seems to me this is fine to be there, as it is in the "controversial classifications" section. If there's something wrong in the wording, edit that rather than remove whole thing! BobFromBrockley 12:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just about every ideology ever invented was accused of being "socialist" by some of its opponents at one time or other. The title "controversial classifications" does not give us a free hand to talk about anything that has ever been called "socialism" by at least one person. This is not the article for discussing the use of "socialism" as a label.

Come to think of it, though, perhaps we should have an article to discuss the use of "socialism" as a label... something called socialist (epithet), for example... -- Nikodemos 07:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Nikodemos, I told you in the past! The word has been abused and merged with other concepts for so long it has no meaning, or the meaning too general. Anything that concentrates political power into the hands of the few, regardless of how virtuous or venomously they proclaim to empower the many, is socialism. Plain old classical liberalism achieved the same goals long ago by preventing, as best as possible, the concentration of power for ANY reason (especially planned economics). But of course, no one wants to look to 1800's American farmers and ranchers that owned land and carried firearms as being true proletarians, for that would put a whole new spin on Billy the Kid fighting the Big Rail Road Companies. But, there you have it. Jcchat66 (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jcchat, I don't think you know what socialism is... "Anything that concentrates political power into the hands of the few, regardless of how virtuous or venomously they proclaim to empower the many, is socialism." - Actually, that's essentially the exact OPPOSITE of socialism. Socialism is when the means of production are under ownership of the proletariat. Nothing more, nothing less. If anything, CAPITALISM concentrates political power into the hands of a few bourgousie... And I take it you're not familiar with Anarchism, or in particular Anarchism in Spain - Under Anarchism (unlike say, the Soviet Union, which I consider State Capitalism to begin with), political power is truly spread among the entire population - and nobody really has the power or ability to take advantage of the situation. We achieve this by eliminating the (supposedly temporary/transitory, though historically this has never been the case) Marxist concepts of a Vanguard Party and the "Dictatorship of the proletariat". You should maybe do some research next time. I suggest you start with Mikhail Bakunin, my personal favourite when it comes to Anarchist/Communist thinkers.

135.23.104.168 (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If you say that exact opposite to claim "Anything that concentrates political power into the hands of the few, regardless of how virtuous or venomously they proclaim to empower the many, is socialism." is true, that is, you support counterclaim 'Anything that concentrates political power into the hands of the few, regardless of how virtuous or venomously they proclaim to empower the many, is not socialism', then you agree fully, that USSR and similar states never had anything to do with socialism? Where political power was concentrated into the hands of communist party elité. And thusly, stalinism, and similar, should be excluded from article about socialism? BirgittaMTh (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

External links

I have removed the following links:

• Socialism by Robert Heilbroner
• The Origins of Nazism, excerpt from Omnipotent Government by Ludwig von Mises
• Why Socialism Collapsed in Eastern Europe, by Tom Palmer
• Nixonian Socialism, by Murray N. Rothbard
• Socialism: Still Impossible After All These Years, by Peter J. Boettke and Peter T. Leeson
• Four More Years: The Battle's Half Won, by Milton Friedman (expresses hope that the Bush administration can "reverse socialism")
• Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian by George Reisman
• The Myth of the Scandinavian Model, by Martin De Vlieghere, Paul Vreymans and Willy De Wit

This is not because I don't think they are appropriate for WP pages (although some are a bit cranky), but because they have nothing to do with the article TYPES OF socialism. Rather, they are criticisms of socialism in general. If people think they are important reference sources, they should find the correct article (e.g. socialism or criticisms of socialism) to append them to. BobFromBrockley 12:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -- Nikodemos 00:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Baathism"

I'd like to point out that there is no such thing as an ideology called "Baathism". There is the ideology of Arab socialism, and there are numerous political parties that claim to support it (including, among others, the Baath Party). The controversy is not whether "Baathism" is a type of socialism; the controversy is whether the Baath Party actually upholds Arab socialism. It's the same type of controversy as the question of whether the British Labour Party actually upholds democratic socialism. -- Nikodemos 00:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Britannica's article about socialism, Baath Party is listed as the most important Arab socialist movement. I'll move them out of controversial classifications section. -- Vision Thing -- 20:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but the entry should be called "Arab socialism", not "Baathism", and it should talk about more than just the Baath Party. The Baath Party may be the most prominent Arab socialist movement, but it is still a political party, not an ideology. -- Nikodemos 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I don't remember any discussion about limiting this article to ideologies which are self-described as socialist, and I don't think that we should do that. -- Vision Thing -- 20:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We should, because the words "socialism" and "socialist" are so often used as pejoratives by the right-wing that everything has been called socialist by someone at some point - including, for example, George Bush. [7][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34905] Even libertarians sometimes accuse each other of supporting "socialism".[8] A page trying to list everything that has ever been called socialism by anyone would be a disaster. -- Nikodemos 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources. We are only trying to list movements labeled as socialism in reliable sources (per Wikipedia's policy). -- Vision Thing -- 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Both of the articles on Bush's "socialism" are published by journalists on reliable websites that have been used as sources on other pages (at least lewrockwell.com certainly has). But if that is not enough, I can go to the local library and find books that make a wide variety of claims regarding individuals, organizations and governments they consider to be "socialist". Milton Friedman himself has claimed that the United States "is now 45 percent socialist" [9]. Perhaps we should have a section on the United States as a socialist country?

Surely you see the problem, Vision Thing. -- Nikodemos 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Friedman's claim is in accordance with Mixed economy view, and I don't see anything problematic with it. However, I will agree to limit list of types of socialism to only those movements who called themselves socialists, if you agree to consistently apply and defend that criteria now and in the future. -- Vision Thing -- 21:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that principle. I further propose a criterion to determine what counts as a "controversial" type of socialism: A controversial school of socialism is a school of thought that is considered "socialist" by its adherents but considered non-socialist by all other people who call themselves socialists. In other words, controversial schools are those that are entirely cut off from the rest of the socialist movement. Social democrats and communists may oppose each other, but they often recognize each other as genuine socialists, so they are not controversial. There are two main controversial schools that I can think of right now: Nazism and Socialism with Chinese characteristics (I'm not sure about the latter, but I am under the impression that it is considered non-socialist by all socialists outside the Chinese Communist Party). -- Nikodemos 21:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. I agree that Nazism should be in controversial section (although because of different reason). I'm also not sure where Socialism with Chinese characteristics should be. For now, I wouldn't list it anywhere. -- Vision Thing -- 22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Communism"

Wouldn't it be better if the "Communism" section of this article was renamed something like "Revolutionary socialism" or "Marxian socialism", and re-written to reflect this? I think this for two reasons. First, lots of the movements/ideologies included here are rarely called communist (notably Schachtmanism and Trotskyism). Second, the article is about Types of socialism, and it seems better to talk about revolutionary socialism, libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, religious socialism, etc. If this change were made, then I guess Religious communism would move into the religious socialism section, where it seems to me to fit better. BobFromBrockley 11:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree bastardization of communisms and Totalitarian communisms, like Stalinism or Maoism, should be separated into a new article, or a new section, from actually revolutionary or marxist classless communisms and socialisms. DeepQuasar 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Religious communism definitely should be moved. The distinction here is between communism and Communism. Capital "C" Communism is used for Marxism-Leninism or to put it in another way a political group which expresses political allegiance to the government of the USSR at some point (Lenin, Stalin etc). Religious communism really belongs in a section on "utopian" socialism which isn't really represented here.

I think Trotskyism does belong here as Trotsky was a leader of the Communist Party in the Russian Revolution and never repudiated this. It's a fact that many of his followers have moved closer to social democracy, but on the other hand many of these movements still use the term Communist to describe themselves.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Meaning Of "Socialism" Has 'Changed' Over Time

I notice that whenever certain figures are associated with socialism (namely Benjamin Tucker and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon) User:Vision Thing continues to add in a quote that claims the meaning of socialism has allegedly changed over time and that the two people cannot be considered 'socailists' (or least that they are some kind of 'unorthodox' socialists). Yet this quote is never added when social anarchists are claimed to be socialists, only with individualist anarchists. And the only references given to prove this POV are McElroy, Wendy. The Debates of Liberty. Lexington Books. 2003. pp. 147-149 and Larry Gambone. (1996). Proudhon and Anarchism, Red Lion Press. Now, what exactly makes these two figures the authoratative source on what socialism is and what it is not? And what is the evidence that the meaning of socialism has changed other than their opinion? (Wendy McElroy is an anarcho-capitalist, thus her definition of "socialism" can't be trusted to be exactly non-biased) These sources and that statment have shown up in at least 3 articles, exactly who decided what "socialism" means and who decided that it's meaning has changed over time? Has the meaning of capitalism or other ideologies changed over time? Full Shunyata 12:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that social anarchists are socialist in today's meaning of the word. However, it is disputed that Tucker and Proudhon are socialist in today's meaning of the word. That is the reason why that quote is added. -- Vision Thing -- 13:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Vision Thing (it depresses me that a capitalist would use a Sisters Of Mercy reference, by the way...), what part of "What is property? Property is theft!" don't you understand? Of course Proudhon was a socialist. He hated Capitalism as much as any of us... 135.23.104.168 (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why this conclusion on the meaning of socialism should be seen as any less objective than their conclusion:

http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.com/2007/01/armies-that-overlap-tucker-on-anarchism.html Full Shunyata 12:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. -- Vision Thing -- 13:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And McElroy is ever so much more reliable? Anyway, I'm not going to put it in, and I never had any intention of adding it either. I just posted it as an example of what others should be allowed to post if other opinionaries can be added in as fact. Full Shunyata 13:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Armies that Overlap" is only one part of the primary literature that demonstrates that "socialism" has been consistently contested. The argument that the meaning of socialism has changed over time is correct, to the extent that the debate has changed a little bit, but we have clear primary sources from the 1840s to the present that show considerable continuity. McElroy is a fine scholar, with a clear agenda. She's hardly a sufficiently unbiased voice to present The Current Meaning of Socialism. Libertatia 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Libertarian Labyrinth is Shawn Wilbur's archiving project. He has collected and published older individualist anarchist literature online. Perhaps his introductions are blog posts, but the actual texts are primary sources, and sometimes summary articles as well. Jacob Haller 20:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Texts from "Liberty" can be confirmed on APS Online, or using Zohn Zube's inexpensive microfilm edition (from the Libertarian Microfilm Project.) Most texts on In the Libertarian Labyrinth and From the Libertarian Library exist in a non-public archive in pdf form, which can be requested if you have some concern about the accuracy of the transcriptions. Libertatia 22:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Communism: trying again

The section on communism has become rather convoluted, as it is trying to do too much work, work for which this article is not the right place. This article is about types of socialism and there is a specific article on communism where debates on whether or not it has existed can be rehearsed. It is also contentious as to whether communism is a type of socialism, or something else entirely - e.g. a stage beyond socialism, or a movement in conflict with socialism. I want to try again with the suggestion I made earlier that the sections be re-done here, and the communism section be replaced by a section on revolutionary socialism. That would mean that the article would reflect the most usual way of thinking about types of socialism: reformist, evolutionary or democratic socialism, revolutionary socialism, and libertarian socialism. Any takers? BobFromBrockley 12:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems with this:

• Communism is an important historical movement which shouldn't be subsumed into something else. "Revolutionary socialism" includes various currents of anarchism, early socialism etc.
• The suggested division tends to embed a particularly point of view. Revolutionary socialists are usually self-described democrats. Evolutionary socialists aren't necessarily that democratic: a lot of Fabians supported Hitler. A lot of Marxists express libertarian views. And there is no clear distinction between evolutionary, reformist, and labourite tendencies.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Little red book.jpg

Image:Little red book.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

Following this edit, which removed all sourced arguments claiming that Nazism is not socialism on the grounds of "undue weight", am I correct in assuming that all arguments on the other side can be removed for the same reason? -- Nikodemos (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

On a different note... is it just me or is a large portion of the article not showing up, despite being clearly visible in the code? -- Nikodemos (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not. Before I reduced it, Nazism section was the second largest in the article. It was undue weight to give it so much place and prominence here. What you did is to remove section completely on the pretense that it only presents arguments in favor of the view that National Socialism is a form of socialism, which is not true. -- Vision Thing -- 12:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any arguments being presented for the opposing side. What I do see is that most of the section seems dedicated to lengthy quotes from Adolf Hitler. I believe a rewrite is necessary; we already cover the same issue extensively in the Fascism and ideology article, so this article should summarize the arguments presented there. I propose the following guideline: Whenever the issue of the relationship between Nazism and socialism is relevant to an article, we should provide a link to Fascism and ideology followed by a summary of the arguments presented there. Any new sourced arguments should be added to the relevant section in Fascism and ideology, rather than here or anywhere else. This will avoid the problem of having the same issue covered differently (and incompletely) in different articles.

Alternatively, we could simply copy over the entire relevant section from Fascism and ideology over to this article. But I'm sure you'd agree that this would be giving it undue weight. -- Nikodemos (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to write a summary of the opposing viewpoints on this subject. I am aware of the fact that not all sources were included, and that I radically cut down the direct quotes. Unfortunately, cutting down the quotes was absolutely necessary - the previous version of the section only had one solid paragraph of encyclopedic text (the rest was all quotes). At least two or three paragraphs are needed to adequately present the issue, and if you add lengthy quotes on top of that the section becomes too long and falls under undue weight.

As far as my selection of which sources to include, there is naturally room for disagreement. If you want to include different sources, that's ok - I ask only two things: (1) that the amount of text on one side of the argument should be roughly equal to the amount of text on the other side of the argument, and (2) that the section does not grow much longer than it is now. As a corollary I would also ask you to avoid direct quotes as much as possible, simply because they take a lot of space and the arguments they make can usually be made with less words. -- Nikodemos (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the way the section looks now; I think it might need some smaller edits here and there, but overall it's a good summary of the issue. The rest of the article, however, may need some work. I plan to look for sources explaining the different conceptions of "socialism" held by the different political movements calling themselves socialist. -- Nikodemos (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see that we can accomplish something good together. -- Vision Thing -- 10:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We really should try to collaborate more often. Obviously we have conflicting POVs, but my main concern is to ensure that all sides are presented fairly - and most of all to ensure that the same standards are applied to sources, arguments and quotes from all sides. An article that coherently explains the socialist argument about an issue and then coherently explains the libertarian argument about the same issue is, in my opinion, a very good article. We could collaborate to write articles like that. Economic freedom comes to mind, though I doubt I'll have time for it in the near future. What I don't like is when one side is not presented, or misrepresented, or random facts are thrown in without much explanation for the inexperienced reader. -- Nikodemos (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Related AfD at List of socialist countries

List of socialist countries has been put up for deletion here. You may not be aware that this list exists. Various proposals are being debated including; keep, delete (and merge any useful information into the relevane articles), and rename. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Types of socialism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Types of socialism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "naturismolibertario":

• From Henry David Thoreau: El naturismo libertario en la Península Ibérica (1890-1939) by Jose Maria Rosello
• From Green anarchism: EL NATURISMO LIBERTARIO EN LA PENÍNSULA IBÉRICA (1890-1939) by Jose Maria Rosello

Reference named "faq-social":

• From Anarchism: Iain Mckay, ed. (2008). "Are there different types of social anarchism?". [[An Anarchist FAQ]]. Stirling: AK Press. ISBN 1-902593-90-1. OCLC 182529204. {{cite book}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
• From Social anarchism: Iain Mckay, ed. (2008). "Are there different types of social anarchism?". [[An Anarchist FAQ]]. Stirling: AK Press. ISBN 1902593901. OCLC 182529204. {{cite book}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed "naturismolibertario" (it came from Green anarchism. The other one was fixed by the Bot already. - Salamurai (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

National socialism (Nazism)

Darkstar has asked for an explanation why the section on National Socialism (Nazism) has been deleted. The entire section, as it was written, was an explanation why National Socialism, in spite of its name, was not a form of socialism. Since there seems to be universal agreement that Nazism is not a type of socialism, there doesn't seem to be much point in including it in this article.

On the other hand, Darkstar is correct that the section contained some interesting information, though not relevant to this article. I suggest that Darkstar see how the material could be included in the article on Nazism. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

All income should be dependent on service, instead of property and capital, Johann Karl Rodbertus, early advocate of National Socialism, Chambers's encyclopaedia: a dictionary of universal knowledge, Volume 9, 1901, page 543, W. & R. Chambers, Limited, 1901 maybe you are confusing this political organisation: nazi party, with this ideology: national socialism Darkstar1st (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• As Ravpapa states above, the section explains that Nazism is not a type of socialism. The information may belong in a different article, but not this one.Spylab (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Johann Karl Rodbertus died in 1875, 14 years before Adolph Hitler was born. Hard for me to understand how he propounded a national socialist philosophy in 1901, 26 years after his death. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

He didn't write the book? Rodbertus was mentioned in a book(an encyclopedia) written in 1901 by W. & R. Chambers, Limited, 1901. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My unwanted two cents - Let's not edit war this one. I'm sure we have a civil debate here.

Personally, I've always equated Nazism more with fascism than socialism, but I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert.

Have RS's been gathered supporting either side of this argument? Can someone point to them? NickCT (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Section has sources representing both views. For view that National socialism is a form of socialism see The Rise of the Nazis by Conan Fischer (Manchester University Press (2002), ISBN 0-7190-6067-2, p. 53). For view that it is not see German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler by Henry A. Turner (Oxford University Press, 1985. pp. 60-61, 76). -- Vision Thing -- 19:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The section added says, "the Nazis sometimes described their views as socialist", then explains why academics do not consider it socialism. It is a unique type of WP:COATRACK. "You know what else isn't socialism...", then write about it. TFD (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The section has been re-inserted. Could editors wishing to include Nazism as a s form of socialism please provide a source, for example a book about socialism, that explains it is a type of socialism. TFD (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

tfd, the onus is yours to seek consensus before blanking an entire section which has stood for years. you have made your case, and not reached consensus. plz self-revert. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Rise of the Nazis by Conan Fischer is a book about Nazism that explains it is a type of socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 19:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not such thing. TFD (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"The adjective 'socialist' within the NSDAP's title was meant sincerely, but only in irrevocable tandem with the adjective 'national'. [...] This form of socialism could appeal across class barriers with far greater ease than could Marxist socialism, which posed uncomfortable dilemmas for middle-class citizens." seems pretty clear. -- Vision Thing -- 09:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It is clear indeed. What it is saying is that the term "socialist" was used by the Nazis not to describe their ideological position, but as a catchword to appeal across class barriers. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Fischer says that Nazis used the adjective 'socialist' sincerely, not merely for propaganda purposes. -- Vision Thing -- 20:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You are taking the comments out of context. "Virtually all aspects of National Socialist ideology either drew on precedent or mirrored aspects of contemporary German thinking and concerns. "[10] Significantly the influence of socialism is found 15 pages into and at the end of the chapter The ideological basis of Nazism. Do you think it would take that long to mention socialist influence when writing about the ideology of the Social Democratic Party of Germany? TFD (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing that Fischer doesn't claim that Nazism is a form of socialism? -- Vision Thing -- 19:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Strasser wing of the Nazi party was socialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.127.86.32 (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• This article, Types of socialism, is a spin-off of the Socialism article, which correctly does not mention Nazism. It makes no sense to give Nazism a section in this article, any more than it does to give it a section in Capitalism#Types_of_capitalism. The Nazis had a mixed economy and used economic controls that are common during a time of war, as did most countries at that time. Despite their misleading propaganda in their early days, the Nazi Party was not a socialist party.Spylab (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Should we also remove social democracy because it has a mixed economy system? -- Vision Thing -- 20:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Nor should we add Christian Democracy, conservatism, or liberalism, which also advocate a mixed economy. What we include should be based on what experts would include, e.g., in a book on socialism or political ideology. We must resist the temptation to use Wikipedia articles as a forum to push personal viewpoints. If people want to read that nazism = socialism, then they can go to fringe theory websites. TFD (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Book written by Professor of Modern European History at University of St Andrews and published by Manchester University Press is as reliable source as they come. -- Vision Thing -- 20:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is a rs and it is an insult him to misrepresent it in order to push fringe views. TFD (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Fischer says that Nazis used the adjective 'socialist' sincerely and calls it a "form of socialism". How am I misrepresenting his view? -- Vision Thing -- 20:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Again you are taking it out of context. You are searching for key phrases that express your personal beliefs rather than trying to find what experts think and as a result you are misrepresenting what a scholar has said, which I imagine would shock him. Further conversation with you is a waste of time. TFD (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you don't have any counter-arguments I guess covering your ears and saying la la la is the most effective strategy for you. -- Vision Thing -- 16:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

the source is clear, add more context if you like, but unless you cite a specific policy and how the text does not comply, your objection is denied. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Both of are misinterpreting the book. I suggest you read it, I read it several years ago. The author writes about how the Nazis were sincere in using the term socialism, then says "this form of socialism". That does not mean he thinks it is socialism. You need to find narratives that explain your POV and stop seizing on snippets. You can put together snippets to support anything. TFD (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, you can not put together snippets to support anything. If you think that Fischer doesn't think that Nazism is a form of socialism you need to explain why is he saying that Nazism were sincere in using the term socialism, and why is he referring to it as "this form of socialism". -- Vision Thing -- 19:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes you can put together snippets, truthers, birthers, and other conspiracy theorists do it all the time. If you a valid point of view then you would find a source that explains it. Incidentally he is referring to a specific platform rather than Nazism in general and the "socialism" is protecting the Herrenfolk from immigrants. It's like the socialism of the Tea Party. TFD (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

August Bebel famously described antisemitism "the socialism of fools". So, by some of the logic on display here, we should also include a section on antisemitism... RolandR (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The bank bailouts have also been described as socialism. TFD (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Fascism and Nazism are not types of socialism. There was never any consensus to add them to this article about types of socialism. It is irrelevant that the section remained for a certain period of time.Spylab (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes there was. Here are you in 2008 editing and improving section, and then again in 2011. You can claim that you have changed your opinion, but that there was never any consensus? No... -- Vision Thing -- 22:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

In order to include it you would need to show that there is consensus that it is a type of socialism. But mainstream sources do not support this. TFD (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for something to be a consensus view to be included. According to NPOV it is enough to be a view of significant minority. -- Vision Thing -- 12:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is a significant minority view either. I suppose we could point out that the extreme right in the U.S. call everybody with whom they disagree socialists. TFD (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

TDF, what is so confusing is how you can argue socialism is unable to be defined of that talk page, at the same time arguing Nation Socialism is most certainly not socialist. In the past some of the arguments dealt with means of productions and private property, yet all 4 "socialist" countries listed have the same. The sources provided are vetted, perhaps if you could explain specifically which you feel is no longer RS, we could proceed. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources provided for Nazism say it was not socialist. We could say, "You know what else isn't socialism...." and write about all kinds of horrible things. That is just POV coatracking. TFD (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Zeev Sternhell in "Fascist Ideology" (published in "Fascism - a reader's guide" by University of California Press, 1978) writes: "Essentially socialist in origin, this fascism rejected Marxism, on the one hand, in the name of a modernized, national, and authoritarian socialism, and liberal democracy and bourgeois society on the other, in the first place in the name of social justice, but above all in the name of efficiency and technical and economic progress, which were the two aims that had to be given priority if the community was to survive the crisis that had come upon the world." "Nationalism and socialism work to mutual advantage. Nationalism is to some extent fed from the social concern, and the social concern gains considerable impetus from the enhanced value acquired by all citizens in conditions of community euphoria." "As the successor of national, anti-Marxist socialism, fascism constituted an extremely violent attempt to return to the social body its unity, integrity, and totality." -- Vision Thing -- 11:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Using this quote to support a claim that Nazi Germany was somehow socialist is a serious distortion on Sternhell's views. Sternhell's claim is that the Fascist ideology of the period from 1890 to 1910 drew upon Socialist doctrines in some respects. However, he emphatically rejects that Nazism as practiced by 20th century totalitarian governments was socialist. "nazism cannot, as I see it, be treated as a mere variant of fascism" (from the same article).

Sternhell's analysis could provide some basis for a section entitled "19th century Fascism", which would discuss the attempts by Fascist thinkers of the turn of the century (Bergson, Corradini, and others) to conflate ideas of social Darwinism, anti-parliamentarianism, and social stratification with ideas of state ownership of industry, while rejecting the most basic tenets of socialism - internationalism and class struggle. Such a section would certainly not mention the Nazis, as there is universal agreement that these were not socialists.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa (talk • contribs) 15:35, 29 February 2012‎

1910? "It was the Great Depression of 1929 that led socialists like Mosley, de Man and Deat to take a public stand in favor of protectionism and national exclusivism. The economic crisis turned the socialists' gaze inwards towards the nation and towards the idea of a strong, powerful state, efficient and authoritarian, which would be capable of enuring order and reconciling the divergent interests within the community; which would be 'the master of its money and capable of controlling the economy and finance'; and which would also, in the words of the neo-socialists themselves, be able to 'impose certain rules of conduct to the large capitalists' and 'prepare the ground for the controlled economy that is in the logic of things.' [...] The reform of the relations of power and its structures, as we can see from these concerns, was the cornerstone of the fascist revolution." -- Vision Thing -- 09:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In any case, Zeev Sternhell is presenting his own views on nazism, which do not enjoy academic consensus. He sees fascism as having developed out of the French revolutionaries, while the mainstream view is that it was a reaction to the ideologies developed from revolutionary thinking, viz., liberalism and socialism. TFD (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone cares to read what the section on National Socialism actually says, they will see that it explains that Nazism is not a type of socialism. It does not make sense to include a section about not-socialism in an article about types of socialism.Spylab (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Spylab is absolutely right, As written, the only point this section makes is that Nazism is not socialism. So why is it there? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sternhell is presenting his own views, but he is recognized scholar and not "extreme right". We can discuss what should be in the section that discusses fascism and/or national socialism, but section should be there. -- Vision Thing -- 09:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a possible version

Ideological Fascism of the 1890s

Fascist ideologists of the 1890's in France and Italy were violent opponents of the Socialist movement of the time. They rejected the basic tenets of Marxist socialism of internationalism and class struggle, and instead promoted a platform of extreme nationalism, opposition to democracy, and social Darwinism. At the same time, they adopted the socialist idea of state ownership of industry, and railed against capitalists as a tactic to enlist supporters among the working class. They called their movement "Yellow Socialism" to distinguish it from "Red Socialism" . "Yellow socialism-as opposed to Red socialism-preached national solidarity in lieu of the class struggle ... [It] was violently opposed to Marxism, while at the same time promoting the personality cult of the leader, who was in effect its mini-dictator; it was equally anti-Semitic."

Fascism soon jettisoned this one tenuous link to socialism, and the Nazi party of Germany was antisocialist in every respect, though it continued to use the word socialist to attract working class support.

I have very mixed feelings about including a section like this in the article. As the paragraph points out, the only commonality between socialism and fascism was state ownership of industry, and the rationales for this were complete opposites. Moreover, the two movements were, as they still are, violent political and ideological opponents. The fascist ideology of the 1890's was the basis for far right ideologies of today, and so it would be more appropriate to include this paragraph in an article on the right wing rather than socialism. Perhaps in Right-wing politics?

Actually, the only justification for including this in the article is so that readers will not be confused into thinking that Nazism - despite its name - is a form of socialism. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I would remove 1890s (why that decade when Sternhell for example talks about 1929) and tweak text to this:

Fascist ideologists in France and Italy were violent opponents of the Marxist socialist movement. They rejected its basic tenets of internationalism and class struggle, and instead promoted a platform of extreme nationalism, authoritarian socialism and opposition to democracy . At the same time, they adopted the idea of state ownership of industry, and railed against capitalists as a tactic to enlist supporters among the working class. They called their movement "Yellow Socialism" to distinguish it from "Red Socialism" . "Yellow socialism-as opposed to Red socialism-preached national solidarity in lieu of the class struggle ... [It] was violently opposed to Marxism, while at the same time promoting the personality cult of the leader, who was in effect its mini-dictator; it was equally anti-Semitic."

Henry A. Turner argues that Fascism soon jettisoned this link to socialism, and that the Nazi party of Germany was antisocialist in every respect, though it continued to use the word socialist to attract working class support, while according to Conan Fischer, Nazis were sincere in their use of the adjective socialist, but that they believed it to be inseparable from the adjective national, and meant it as a socialism of the master race, rather than the socialism of the "underprivileged and oppressed seeking justice and equal rights".

-- Vision Thing -- 09:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing different concepts. The "socialism" in "national socialism" did not refer to nationalization of industry. Essentially they were saying that they were the real party of the people, much as right-wing parties claim today. TFD (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't all parties claim that they represent the people? As for nationalization, you are right. Better word would be "control" instead of "ownership". -- Vision Thing -- 14:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I am confusing concepts. I agree that the "socialism" in National Socialism does not refer to nationalization of industry. But everyone agrees (the dubious quote from Fischer notwithstanding) that Nazis were not socialists. But the Yellow Socialists really did propose state ownership.

On the other hand, the more I think about it, the more I feel that the paragraphs I wrote are inappropriate for inclusion in the article. The reason is that the quintessential element in socialist ideology is that industry must serve to eradicate artificial divisions of class; that is the rationale for nationalization. It is this fundamental tenet that the Fascists explicitly rejected. So, while both the Fascists and the Socialists offered similar prescriptions, their diagnoses of the disease were complete opposites. Including Fascists in an article on types of socialism would be like including voodoo dolls in an article on embroidery because they both use needles. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that the quintessential element in socialist ideology is idea that good of the community comes before good of the individual or, to be more precise, that industry's first priority should be interests of the state and its people. In that sense, fascism is a form socialism, but of course that is view on which different opinions are possible. Which is why Wikipedia ask of us to rely on and report opinions of experts. -- Vision Thing -- 14:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"I think that the quintessential element in socialist ideology is [the] idea... ...that industry's first priority should be interests of the state and its people" - That's not true at all - For starters, not all forms of socialism advocate the existence of a state at all. For instance, Anarchist Communism. Socialism is when the means of production are in the control of the proletariat. Nothing more, nothing less. That obviously does not describe Nazi Germany at all (or the state capitalist Soviet Union, for that matter). Therefore, National Socialism =/= actual socialism. 135.23.104.168 (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It says in Nazism and the radical right in Austria, 1918-1934, "...the DNSAP's press was at pains to point out that the term "socialist" had been incorporated into the party's new name in order to differentiate it from the conservatives' invention of a German nationalist movement in Austria. Nonetheless, this gives no grounds for considering the party social democratic. It was, rather, a matter of manoeuvring into a position between the SDAP and liberal conservative parties...." (p. 281)[11] TFD (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think nobody here is claiming that national socialism or fascism were forms of social democracy. While we are at that subject: "National socialism was opposed to both social democracy and communism and constituted a vital part of 'Japanese fascism'. [...] unlike the communists, they saw origin of social contradictions in the conflict, not between capitalists and workers, but between capitalism itself and the interests of the nation on an everyday level" (Dick Stegewerns Nationalism and internationalism in imperial Japan: autonomy, Asian brotherhood, or world citizenship?). -- Vision Thing -- 12:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That kind of statement doesn't seem very helpful. Union workers, U.S. Democrats, and supporters of a progressive income tax is also see contradictions between capitalism itself and the interests of the nation on an everyday level. I doubt such concerns make one an ideological socialist. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Vision Thing, your reference is to the right wing of the Japanese Socialist party, who some writers call "national socialists" because they supported the Japanese government's nationalist policy. While they "constituted a vital part of 'Japanese fascism'", so did the much larger liberal and conservative parties, all of which were incorporated into the fascist party under one-party rule. TFD (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Sternhell on Sternhell

Since Zeev Sternhell has been cited to support the view that Fascism is a form of Socialism, I thought it would be appropriate to ask him. It was a simple matter, since he teaches at the university where I was once a student. Here is his response:

Zeev Sternhell 10:32 PM (8 hours ago)

to me

I have never said anything like that, this is a totally perverse reading of my work. Please look at my definition of Fascism on p.6 of The Birth of Fascist Ideology ( this has not changed since Fascist Ideology in Laqueur's anthology bur has been developed after many years of work: "Fascist ideology represented a synthesis of organic nationalism with the anti-materialist revision of Marxism" . The best thing would be that I fax you the relevant page, bur I'd suggest to the authors to read the whole introduction. That book is easily accessible in libraries and also on Internet.

I'll be also emailing you an article from a special issue on Fascism of Constellation, an excellent American review.

Best wishes,

Zeev Sternhell

In light of Sternhell's comments, I withdraw my suggestion above for a possible version. I suggest, too, that Vision Thing and Darkstar give up on this absurd idea.

If Vision Thing and Darkstar really are interested in writing about Fascist ideology as a precursor of some political movement, I suggest they apply their knowledge to Right-wing politics, where it is really applicable. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for that and here is a link to the page. I think that when approaching this topic we should use literature on socialism to determine what belongs and not Google mine for things we believe belong. TFD (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ravpapa, can you post your exact question to him? -- Vision Thing -- 09:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a copy of my letter to him:

I am involved in a dispute over the content of an article in Wikipedia on types of socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism). Two editors are trying to include fascism as a form of socialism. They are citing your research, and particularly your essay on Fascist Ideology in Lacquer's anthology, as proof that Fascism is a form of socialism.

Do you agree with their reading? We have argued that, while fascist ideologists of the 19th century may have drawn on ideas of socialism, the ideology they developed could not be called socialist by any means.

Your comments in the matter would be greatly appreciated. You can respond by email to me, or address the issue directly on the talk page of the Wikipedia article, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Types_of_socialism

Thank you,

(Ravpapa on Wikipedia)

--Ravpapa (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

1. we were unable to authenticate the email. 2. his opinion on what qualifies as socialist is not relevant, the material a platform of extreme nationalism, authoritarian socialism and opposition to democracy clearly states socialism was part of the fascist platform, WP will decide if that merits inclusion into the socialism category and or portal. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Your pertinacity is remarkable. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, so Sternhell's opinion on what qualifies as socialism was relevant when he was agreeing with your position (or so you thought...) further up this talk page, but now that he's been proven to be on "our side", his opinion is irrelevant? Come on, at least PRETEND like you're acting in good faith, and not just shamelessly pushing your capitalist agenda. We're not trying to get his opinion included in the article, that Vision Thing dude was - all while misinterpreting the authors position, at that. We've simply shown that it's not a valid source towards proving a (non-existant) connection between Socialism and Nazism 135.23.104.168 (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a dispute about RS. I agree with the published, a platform of extreme nationalism, authoritarian socialism and opposition to democracy, i reject an email an editor received as a RS and surprised to find out i am in the minority believing such, a shame. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, you are correct that we are unable to authenticate that e-mail but we should assume good faith and trust Ravpapa. If you think otherwise you can take this to reliable sources noticeboard to seek addition input, but as far I'm concerned Sternhell issue is settled thanks to his initiative. -- Vision Thing -- 13:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

typical wp, we are now have a group with an authoritarian socialist platform, who not socialist. Bravo! Darkstar1st (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's because of Wikipedia's policy of WP:WEIGHT. If you don't like the policy then try to get it changed but please do not argue your case across multiple talk pages. It only wastes other editors' time and prevents the improvement of articles. TFD (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Marxism, communism and reformist socialism

The article totally makes it look as if communism (especially Marxism-Leninism and Maoism) were the exclusive heir to Marx and his ideas in economics and politics. at least over the last hundred years. Of course, that could also be read as a reverse implicature: if someone admits to any kind of inspiration or intellectual debt to Marx for their own thinking, in any field, then they must "really" be Communists. How depressing.

Any decent textbook in the history of political ideas will indicate that most 20th century labour/social democrat parties and thinkers - and many people and movements who have labeled themselves simply socialist (including many labour unions) - have been working largely from ideas, demands and models of analysis that originated with Karl Marx and his early followers. There's no question that most European Social Democrat or Labour parties were deeply influenced by Marx, many parties overseas too - albeit sometimes through the medium of Eduard Bernstein and others - even if that influence has become quite diluted in the age of Tony Blair and that kind of electioneering.

By the way, many high-ranking economists, historians and social scientists have no problems admitting that Marx made valuable, sometimes groundbreaking contributions to the analysis of economics, production methods and history. And those people are not communists. Perry Anderson, Eric Hobsbawm, John Kenneth Galbraith, Jürgen Habermas, Fernand Braudel, Jagdish Bhagwati, Pierre Bourdieu, Gunnar Myrdal, Amartya Sen and lots lots more. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Hobsbawm certainly was a Communist!--Jack Upland (talk) 07:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Nazism

A new editor has created an unsourced section for "National Socialism," by selectively cutting and pasting parts of the Nazism article.[12] The theory that Nazism was socialism is fringe and does not belong in the article. TFD (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself has quotes showing that ranking Nazis thought of themselves as socialists and they named their party the National Socialist Party. There is an element which seeks to deny socialism's dark side. C'mon guys the tent is big enough! 2601:1C2:4A00:75A8:FCDB:51D3:C0E6:9AC (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This issue has been thoroughly discussed and a consensus was reached. You can read the discussion on this talk page, beginning at Types of socialism#National socialism (Nazism). Of course, consensus can change, and you are welcome to challenge the decision. However, the way to do that is by presenting sources supporting your position on the talk page, and not by arbitrarily adding back a section that was deleted by consensus. Please try to bring sources that have not been already discussed, as we have hashed through this enough. In the meanwhile, I deleted the section. Regards, Ravpapa (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No reliable sources support the view that Nazism was a form of socialism. The comments by Nazis themselves are not considered reliable sources, they were liars after all. TFD (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism

I'm a bit shocked that in the earliest versions of this article Democratic Socialism was not even mentioned. Given how many people have since voted for a Democratic Socialist in the United States, the section still seems a bit light, and what's there is a bit redundant.

For now, I suggest one possible change for clarity. The following passage can be misleading, as it attributes such a commitment to all Democratic Socialists. Certainly not all think every "major industry" should be nationalized. I doubt Bernie Sanders thinks so. Hopefully someone more familiar with this genre can fix this. Maybe "monopolistic" or "certain" industries, instead of "major"?

Democratic socialists are also committed to the ideas of the redistribution of wealth and power, as well as social ownership of major industries, concepts widely abandoned by social democrats.Eplater (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Sewer Socialism

Milwaukee's influential 50-year history of Socialist Party mayors merits at least a mention, with a link to the Sewer Socialism article. Milwaukee's Socialists were given this perjorative nickname by east-coast Socialists when the first of these Mayors cleaned up both political corruption and the sanitation system. Milwaukee's leaders wore the label proudly, as they implemented a wide range of successful policies and innovations, many of which were adopted nationally by the major parties. For details, please see that article. Eplater (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Ideologies refuted.

I renamed this to Nazism because it was the only ideology actually discussed. Vipz makes a point that one section subsections are okay, but I lean against here.

Regarding it being a fringe view, I’m inclined to agree for the most part. The only real issue is that there is a large body of work comparing Fascism/Nazism to Bolshevism. Richard Pipes calls both Bolshevism and fascism heresies of socialism. Stanley G. Payne says “Fascism was sometimes perceived not inaccurately as more of a heresy from, rather than a moral challenge to, revolutionary Marxism.” However I can see that fitting more under articles on Bolshevism and Marxism. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I looked into the history of the article to see when this section was added, and I noticed that it was added less than a month ago with this series of edits [13]. This addition was against long-standing consensus, as attempts to add a section on Nazism here were reverted several times before, most recently by @Ravpapa: [14] and @The Four Deuces: [15], as far as I can see. Of course, consensus can change, but it should be discussed, so I think that WP:BRD applies here.

Furthermore, this new section is made up almost entirely of material copied from the Nazism article, especially from the lead and the section on the position of Nazism on the political spectrum. Most of the citations don't actually talk about socialism at all, but rather about related political terms like right-wing, left-wing, and capitalism. The relationship to socialism is implied, not stated directly by these sources, so the text as it stands may be original research. As far as I can see, the only new material added here that wasn't already present at Nazism is the lengthy Hitler quote that begins with "We might have called ourselves the Liberty Party..." That does talk about socialism, but it is WP:PRIMARY, and not just any primary source, but Hitler himself. Hitler's statements are not remotely reliable, and frequently contradict each other. They should not be quoted at length without commentary by scholars, at least not in articles that aren't mainly about Hitler.

So, the Hitler quote that makes up over a quarter of this section definitely had to be removed. But, without the quote we are simply left with text copied from different sections of the Nazism article and combined in a possibly OR way. This, together with the fact that similar sections have been rejected before (the previous attempts linked at the top of my comment also consisted of copying text from the Nazism article), is why I believe the whole section should be removed.

3Kingdoms, I completely agree with you that there is a place for this discussion on Wikipedia, but the location of it should simply be the article on Nazism... where it is already located, since the text here was copied from there. The Hitler quote could perhaps be added somewhere in the article on Adolf Hitler.

I agree with the long-standing consensus on this page that a section on Nazism does not belong here, for two reasons: First, because the idea that Nazism is a subset of socialism is a fringe theory (as opposed to the idea that Nazism has some similarities with socialism, which of course it does - almost any two ideologies will have some similarities - but that is not the same thing as being a type of socialism). Second, because almost every ideology in existence has a similar fringe theory calling it "socialist". For example, modern liberalism in the United States is sometimes called socialist by American conservative commentators. Barack Obama was routinely called socialist during his presidency. And I even found an opinion piece in the Washington Post titled "Trump is the true socialist". [16] Obviously we would not consider adding a section here on Trumpism or American liberalism, even if a handful of sources could be found that call them socialist, because the vast majority of reliable sources do not take this stance. Everything has been called socialism at one time or another, so the list of ideologies refuted to be socialist may as well be the list of political ideologies.

An article on types of socialism should only have sections on ideologies that are widely considered to be socialist by the consensus of reliable sources. Self-given labels and labels given by fringe theories should be covered on the articles on their subjects, not here. For example, the question of whether Obama or Trump were socialists belongs in their articles, if deemed notable enough (and it may already be mentioned somewhere in those articles for all I know). The same goes for Hitler, and anyone else who called himself a socialist or was given this label by others, but who is not considered to be socialist by the consensus of reliable sources. -- Amerul (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Amerul thank you for the thoughtful response! I agree that I think it is best if we remove the section for the reasons you mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Kingdoms (talk • contribs) 15:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a disinction between socialism and things that have been called socialism. To neoclassical liberals, ranging from nineteenth century liberals to Mises and Hayek to U.S. conservatism, socialism means government action in anything other than basic protection of the security of persons. By their definition, almost all countries are socialist. That of course would include such different politicians as Trump and Obama or anyone except hardcore libertarians. While the article could mention that, describing everything that could be considered socialism would overwhelm the article.

The article should stick with things that come under generally accepted definitions of socialism: socialists see capitalism as the cause of modern social problems and want collective action to address them, but differ on the method and extent to do so. TFD (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)