Talk:Socialism

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation? -Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --Prometheus 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


Contents

Laughable bias

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? Messpm 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

It is self-evident socialists of any kind are critical of The American Dream, including leftists who by nature wish the destruction of the current administration so they can set up their own. Socialists do not like anything about what America means, though they more and more like what America is becoming. JBristol 22:05, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
Also, the source that backs it up mentions America once.


' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. Wikinterpreter

User:AmeriCan keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. GodlessLiberal 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, this article is just ridiculous. I give up. GodlessLiberal 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Incentives

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. AdrianP 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue. LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

"Socialist" Britain

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --Olly 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? RobS 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--Olly 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. RobS 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.
People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to any faith or denomination except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--Olly 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism does not respect equality. RobS 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--Olly 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? RobS 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the Third Way (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpretertalk?
I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the Third Way. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --Trashbat 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --Cgday 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. RobS 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --Cgday 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --Trashbat 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! RobS 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --Cgday 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Here. [1] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [2] RobS 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --Cgday 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. RobS 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --Trashbat 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--Steve 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [3] RobS 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. Trashbat 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--Steve 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829." Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --Trashbat 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." RobS 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--Steve 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. RobS 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --Trashbat 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. RobS 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --Trashbat 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--Jalapeno 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. RobS 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.Foxley 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?
We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the Beatles greatest hits, Lady Madonna is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. RobS 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.

Read the lyrics. [4] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. RobS 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. RobS 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)


What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.

Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I still get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. RobS 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote Lady Madonna in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled Mountain Madonna.[5] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[6]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --Jalapeno 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Sympathy? On what planet? Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? RobS 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Sigh.[7] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --Jalapeno 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
Cough. Sneeze. [8][9] Thank God she's not a Catholic. RobS 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

DAB's version

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)Leopeo 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)


Let's not get carried away here, please

The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. Jros83 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how Hitler was misunderstood, too? RobS 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are not the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but not communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Pardon me for not wading into a leftist ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in democide based upon an avowed atheistic philosophy. RobS 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even attempt to understand the distinction. That makes perfect sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for democidal ideologies. RobS 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

No, we are in the position to write an encyclopedia article about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) Jros83 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) Jros83 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. RobS

00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. Jros83 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? Jros83 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) Jros83 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--Steve 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Very good points Steve! Jros83 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)


Compromise?

RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) Jros83 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. Jros83 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. Jros83 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. Jros83 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)


Inaccurate

The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

  • No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new village idiot PM is Gordon Brown. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Check your offline Yahoo's. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Poor Move

I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. Jros83 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.


There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)

So the human being is an untermensch, state property, and without rights, correct? Rob Smith 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.

True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. Rob Smith 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
In Wikipedia one may find: Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)


3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.

So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. Rob Smith 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.

Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, human right of worship. Further, this an excellent example of leftists seeking to impose their morality on the rest of us, is it not? Rob Smith 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.

Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. Charles Manson wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the nomenklatura. Rob Smith 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.

Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. Rob Smith 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.

Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. Rob Smith 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.

So we are back to the issue of Economic planning; yes, we are working on that. Rob Smith 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?

The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. Rob Smith 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

You do yourself and the reader great injustice. Jstanierm 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Good luck, son. Rob Smith 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. Jstanierm 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. Rob Smith 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

"So the human being is an untermensch, state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. Jstanierm 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. Rob Smith 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. Jstanierm 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with democide, and have clearly articlated a foreign policy to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the public schools, media, entertainment, and law. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. Rob Smith 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.
The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. Jstanierm 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

British socialism

The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. PortlyMort 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? Rob Smith 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the United Kingdom article; I didn't notice it there. PortlyMort 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. Rob Smith 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? PortlyMort 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? Rob Smith 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And it has nothing to do with socialism. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. PortlyMort 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and reactionary, does it not? Rob Smith 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. PortlyMort 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [10] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. Rob Smith 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
Bottom line: Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete fraud. Rob Smith 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)


What I think should be shown is the much higher quality of life in democratic socialist countries in Europe and elsewhere. OECD ranks countries around the world on quality of life. In 2012, democratic socialist countries included #1 Australia, #2 Norway, #4 Sweden, #5 Denmark, #6 Canada, #7 Switzerland, #8 Netherlands (dang libs!), #9 New Zealand, and #10 Luxembourg.

Just Plain Wrong

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)

If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. Karajou 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)
I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.
The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian Communist type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --Ed Poor Talk 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.
If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing capitalism and socialism. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but von Mises says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.
We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --Ed Poor Talk 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway)

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.


LOL this again. Jros83 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Can you be more specific? --Ed Poor Talk 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Also Add Ethiopia

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

Liberal propaganda about Chile

Removed from article:

In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator Augusto Pinochet in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.[11]

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in History of Chile. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a 1973 Chile coup article. --Ed Poor Talk 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
  • Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [12]

There's a book which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:

This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [13]

Even the ultra-Liberal NPR agrees that Allende was botching things up:

  • Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [14]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [15]
Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? BrianTS 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our debate pages. This page is for improving the article. Try Debate:When is revolution justified? or something like that. --Ed Poor Talk 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

So is it the argument that the ends justify the means? Does this mean a dictatorship that strips away freedoms is wonderful if it puts more money in pocket of the people? The argument could be used to support Nazism. "Say what you will about Hitler, but he shore fixed the horrible economy!" --DavidS 15:32, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal

I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. JeffC 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --₮K/Admin/Talk 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! JeffC 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)


Need section on Socialistic Democracy

Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--Nabroon 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

If there is a difference between the two systems, as you indicated, could you add a brief definition here, and then do a more detailed separate article on the subject? Karajou 16:01, 14 May 2009 (EDT)


So close to communism?

I fail to see why this article consistently equates socialism with communism when communism was simply an offshoot of socialist ideals. Is it really necessary to make them sound as though they are the same? They are different ideoligies. Template:Unsined

Keep denying they are the same ideology, when in fact they are not opposing. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would promote what system?--Jpatt 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)
To be fair to the first post I have to admit he is right the Soviet Union was a communist system. Though it was based off socialism. The idea that it ineviatably leads to communism is slightly absurd considering countries like Canada and Portugal have socialist systems in place such as their healthcare and education systems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Era3344 (talk) --14:05, 10 June 2009
You are making a false flag argument, and you know it. The Soviet Union sprang full-born as a Communist nation. All experience has shown, as is the case here in the U.S., and Canada where you purportedly live, once entitlements are foisted on the citizenry, the demand for them never slacks, and deceitful politicians soon realize offering them is key to being re-elected. It is a downward spiral that can lead nowhere other than a Communist or totalitarian state. Because once the pockets of the citizens are emptied, the state must somehow provide more and more, and that can only be sustained for so long, as we saw in the case of the Soviet Union, and more recently in China, which has been forced to allow quasi-capitalism to generate the huge sums of money needed for entitlements. That process with the Soviet Union took over 75 years until it collapsed. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:31, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
As offensive as I find your attack on my nationality I'll let it slide. You are once again leaving the socialist theory out of the equation and instead rushing into full blown communism. Your argument is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. In Canada the theory of collectivisation(not the Soviet model but simply a manner of spreading the wealth one of the many ideas in Socialism) in our NDP party is put forward as their election platform. They have never once won an election. Our Conservative party and Liberal party borrows from those ideals however, and they have each managed to win a fairly even number of elections based on some socialist propositions, which I must add are very usefull to my life. Your assumption that this loose set of ideals unfailingly leads to communism is not only factually wrong but a misrepresentation of the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Era3344 (talk)

Attack on your nationality? Really? Where was that? Godspeed to you! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:09, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Sliding toward Socialism

As we see America increasingly moving toward secular socialism, i was surprised not to see a section addressing such here, or an internal link to the page that does. I would like to add a word and link to a possible recent development on that front, that of the ability to regulate even gardnens. http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/feds-to-license-home-breadmaking-and-garden-sales/ Also, while it is good to distinguish between the form of what is often termed socialism in the Bible (which, while not being a which static form, was an effect and manifestation of liberated, secure souls surrendered to Christ) versus its secular counterpart (which is driven by insecurity), the cause of the latter kind of socialism might be addressed. Finally, under Leninism, the sentence, "Conservatives have been very hostile", which looks lie an interpolation, ought to be qualified. I might be considered a liberal in Red China.Daniel1212 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)Daniel1212 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

  • ...what is often termed socialism in the Bible...
Got my Concordance here, can't find the word "socialism" anywhere in Greek or Hebrew. Are you sure you are not quoting some commie rot from somewhere, rahter than the Bible? TY Rob Smith 16:54, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
Note my words, "what is often termed socialism". As the article manifests, socialism is not strictly defined, nor do we need a precise term in the Bible for concepts it describes, from a Theocracy to the Trinity, and the concept of "equal distribution of goods among the people" and related aspects the article notes, is seen in Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37, though that was critically different from socialism in its classic manifestations. The article (which was not any of my work) also basically notes the reason why what we see in Acts could NOT take place under Communists, nor will it under our present (US) President, or any such. However, while the spirit of the surrender and benevolence seen in the primitive church is to be a constant, that form of it was not, as believers are evidenced to have their own houses, and goods, and to practice capitalism, out of which they voluntarily and sacrificially gave. (1Cor. 11:22; 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 17:5; 21:8; 1Tim. 6:17-19; Acts 18:3)
The key was that they in giving, "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God", (2 Cor 8:5) with their submission to leaders not being that of implicit trust in men, but to brethren who manifested they were bound by the Word of God, and required no more of others than what their sacrificial submission to Christ required, in accordance with sound doctrine by the Spirit of Christ. Lenin, etc. do no fit in such holy ranks, and i come too short myself.Daniel1212 17:48, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
What does "equal distribution of goods" have to do with mass murder? Oh, I see; after the national socialists exterminated people, they allowed the prisoners who burned the corpses to loot thier luggage and belongings. Thanks. Rob Smith 18:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
You got it.Daniel1212 19:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)


Main Image

Im just wondering why this picture is on a page about socialism when the caption reads Leninism. If no one minds I would like to remove it in order to find a better image.

I fixed it. RJJensen 15:17, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Thank you kindly.

Could we perhaps use a different picture? This one seems to have no bearing on the article itself. Perhaps if we used the Red Flag as is common we could have a better base for people to understand the article. If we move the Main image down in the article it would have much more meaning. I'm going to try it out. Tell me what you think. --Matthew2208 22:48, 8 December 2009 (EST)

good move--looks better there. :) RJJensen 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --Matthew2208 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A new image would probably be best. Possibly Karl Marx or Lenin or even a picture of the book the Communist Manifesto.

Weasel words

  • but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

I don't know what "social control" and "community" mean in this context, but it sounds like an assertion that under socialism ordinary members of society would run the economy, rather than (A) big, wealthy, unapproachable self-centered capitalists or (B) big, powerful, unapproachable, corrupt politicians. However, the 2 next examples specify government control, not some small "community". There is a mention (but not an example) of small communities.

Note that the Shakers succeeded, because they had a religious motive, while the leftist experiments failed. This might be significant. Perhaps there are limits on the size of a socialist community, or maybe socialism cannot succeed on a longterm basis without a religious reason for people to want to own all things in common. (My own opinion is that any unit larger than a family will have trouble; a family business is sustainable.) A monastery or convent can be self-supporting, but it requires new members from outside if all are sworn to celibacy.

A lot of these weasel-word stuff seems designed to hide the fact that socialism is unsuccessful.

Note: We need to see if Sweden is an exception, or if (like NZ and USA) socialist ideas are gradually ruining free economies. --Ed Poor Talk 08:12, 5 February 2010 (EST)

Promise and practice

We need to compare the socialist promise of an economy that run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small ruling class with the actual results of putting socialist ideas into practice, in various places.

I don't think socialists will cooperate with this. They do not want to compare their theory to reality, because they would then have to admit their mistakes. Conservatives, at least in the USA, are willing to admit their mistakes, learn from them, and adjust their policies.

Socialists have used tricky words, often with imprecise or shifting definitions, to conceal the contradictions between promise and practice. Let's expose this. --Ed Poor Talk 09:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)

India is not in the list?

Hey people! India is a socialist country. How can you ignore india?

(The preamble of the Indian constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.)

You seem confused - perhaps I have not understood you...

It seems that the article maintains that Socialism is a bad thing - however the current economic conditions whereby the banks and big business (i.e. GM) is maintained by a nationalized system of state ownership. This means that the article maintains socialism is a bad thing only insofar as it does not benefit the 'meek' but only the wealthy and greedy. The previous Conservative Government even set in motion policies to protect inefficient companies such as General Motors on the principle that the markets were best served by the long-term initiatives of the state - wholly outside of the free market capitalist economics, which this site professes to support.

Most of the Conservative right seems to advocate that Wall Street is negative however the whole body of the economic system is based on the speculative risk taking economic practice, which supposedly is wholly different and not dependent on the 'real economy’ that is symbiotic with it. In essence the article contradicts itself - on one hand advocating minimal government involvement and absolute faith in the free market whilst slamming down the 'socialist' economic practice it ultimately has to turn to at some level when this fails. The fallacy exists not in socialist dogma, but in the belief that capitalism works despite clear signs that it does not and repeatedly so in the past.

We can simply look today that despite superpower status, the notable decline in US power next to China - a planned economy with limited market freedom, and this is being felt worldwide. The colossal national debts suggest that capitalism is anything but efficient and very far from a utopian ideal which much of the conservative line paints.

I'm curious to know what your opinions are, or are it possible I have been mislead, or vice versa?--Sycamore 12:26, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

Socialism is a bad thing. When you have a political philosophy that strips away the human dignity; when you have conduct by others who say what you create belongs to the state and not yourself; when you have substandard medical care paid for by heavy taxation; when you have a majority of Americans being forced to pay for those who refuse to fend for themselves, that's socialism. And all that's needed is guns in their hands, and we have either communism or nazism, depending on the dictator that liberals these days seem to love. You have nothing, Sycamore, which can tell any of us that socialism is a good thing. Karajou 13:07, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
Some of the reply makes sense, but I'm still confused as you haven't said much on my comment - if I want to love my neighbor surely it is wrong to tell them to 'fend for themselves' - also if I pay high taxation, is it not better that this money tries to help vulnerable people as opposed to the state paying for those that 'fend for themselves' as we have today. I'm not trying to be difficult or to upset you, but you you seem to have two opinions which don't fit together:)--Sycamore 13:14, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
I see a good debate starting here, but too much of it is S and K talking past each other. I want both of you to reply to each other's points before making any additional points of your own. "Seek first to understand, than to be understood" (see Stephen Covey). --Ed Poor Talk 18:01, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
Perhaps "S & K" could create a debate page and save the rest of us "S's" liberal ranting? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:44, 1 September 2010 (EDT)
Come on, TK look on the bright side. We could throw a little party for the 1,000,000th time a lib has regaled us with the "glorious benefits" of socialism! KyleDD 18:53, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

LOL! Somehow, Kyle, I doubt that many of the 100,000+ distinct users coming to CP daily care..... ;-) --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:04, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

Socialism This article needs some serious work. First off anything to do with the NAZI party needs to be removed as it has nothing to do with Socialism.

Key Points of socialism to consider:

Removal of class systems. Removal of Private ownership, everything is owned by everyone. Removal of Government after a period of stability.

Basically read the communist manifesto as that is what socialism is.

National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism

National Socialism (like the German nazi party) has its roots in fascism, biological racism and antisemitism, not Socialism. It was in fact meant to oppose Socialism and Communism. Please remove every and all references to Hitler, Nazi's and National Socialism and provide actual facts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] [[User talk:{{{1}}}|(talk)]]

Is this the old "national socialism has nothing to do with socialism" debate? Just what does Marlene Dietrich mean in the movie, Judgement at Nuremberg, when she tells Spencer Tracy the story of the Nazi judge who insulted Hitler to his face by saying, "Chancellor, I do not object so much that you are so ill-mannered. I object that you are such a bourgeois"? (beginning at about 5:01 in the youtube clip) Rob Smith 19:22, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Socialism, Communism, Totalitarism, etc.

I just reverted a blanking of this page. Then I started to read it - perhaps we are better of with a blanked page?

"Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the United States is not a socialistic government. " The same was true for Nazi Germany, so applying this logic, Hitler's dictatorship wasn't socialistic: obviously the control of a Kriegswirtschaft wasn't to Misis's taste, but it is not untypical in such a situation....

In fact it is questionable to lead the article with national-socialism as the main example - and a picture of Adolf Hitler. A reader should be informed about the typical aspects at first: and classifying Nazi Germany as socialistic is at best debatable. Yes, it is in the name - but was the German Democratic Republic a democracy?

AugustO 12:53, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

Please remove picture of Hitler

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. This is just simply not true. Please remove the large picture of Hitler, it does not reflect socialism in any way.

\==Yes please remove it== I agree that this picture should be replaced with someone else who is a truly representative icon within the socialist movement. While Hitler may indeed have been a socialist as his party's name suggests, unless i'm mistaken, aside from his party, no socialist considers him to be to be representative of their philosophy. So it would indeed seem at the very least inappropriate to use his picture to be representative of all socialism. From what i've read socialists are a diverse group that even has Christian, Jewish, Islamic sections. This picture, at best, makes us look like we're using Nazi Imagery to demonize a particular philosophy, at worst makes us look childish. I suggest we replace this picture with either a historical or contemporary icon for the good of the project. I would do it myself, but I'm a novice at wikia editing and I think the admins would never tolerate such a change. user:dsherman

Adolf Hitler was the head of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Conservative 20:45, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Gonna need better evidence than that Conglomerate:Conservative. After all, North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which it is neither. East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic, again having neither a democratic nor republican form of government. --DonnyC 21:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Donny got in ahead of me but I'll put it forward anyway...... Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German Democratic Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's Democratic Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "People's Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways. I won't start on the use of the word, "Christian". AlanE 21:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Germaine Ludwig von Mises Institute material was cited which fully supports the contention. There is no higher material for a conservative capitalist! If you doubt me, ask Michelle Bachmann! Michelle Bachmann brings von Mises to the beach! See: I bring von Mises to the beach. I hope that clarifies things. :) Conservative 22:35, 2 March 2013 (EST)
But Cons. What do you think? I don't want you to answer me by quoting someone else - no doubt carefully picked - from your online fount of selective knowledge. I want to know what you believe from your own life's experience. If you have any. (In other words, young fella, you haven't answered the question.)AlanE 23:17, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Socialists always often try to deny one of their biggest failures - Adolf Hitler. Setting aside leftist denialism, however, this tail is firmly pinned on the socialist donkey. Conservative 00:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Why go through the hassle of presenting a valid case when you can make use of unsubstantiated assertions instead? :) --DonnyC 00:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
Answer the question, Cons. Stop staying off subject. I'll copy and paste it back down for you... "Cons; if you believe that the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party was socialist, then you must also believe as August said above - that East Germany's "German Democratic Republic" was democratic; as are North Korea: a People's Democratic Republic and one of the Congos which at least leaves out the "People's" in its monicker. And you must believe that China's "People's Liberation Army" belongs to the people and so on. You can't have it both ways." Why do you say Nazi "socialism" is true but deny the "democratic" others? AlanE 00:55, 3 March 2013 (EST)

They not only said they were socialists, but the von Mises people confirm it with germaine evidence and argumentation.Conservative 02:17, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Cons. Cons! You still don't .... never mind. It's like arguing with a kitten. They never stay on subject either. Look, I want to know whether you have a thought of you own; one that is not part of a website chosen because it agrees with an opinion you have gained from another website that....and so on. You know what I mean? And yes, Cons. I know what "germaine" means. Oh, and by the way - I am not a socialist.AlanE 02:42, 3 March 2013 (EST)

I don't see much difference between communism/fascism in practice. And liberalism generally leads to one of these forms of government: socialism/fascism "lite"/fascism/crony capitalism/bankrupt governments/communism/etc. They all want big government. See: http://conservapedia.com/Similarities_between_Communism,_Nazism_and_liberalism Biblical Christianity leads to freedom and the benefits of freedom.[16] Conservative 03:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Have you finished yet? I keep getting an edit conflict as you fiddle around with your edit.....
Cos! You're still at it. See this site, see that. Cons, I hate Fascism and I hate Communism. There may be the odd liberal that agrees with Communism but I have never met one and I bet I've played with, worked with, sung with, travelled with, met, drunk with, and generally interacted with more liberals than you've had cooked dinners. (And that's not counting the women.) I have, however, met the odd right wing wierdo that still considers Hitler the ant's pants. And believe me - they weren't liberals! AlanE 03:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)
Good night, Cons. AlanE 04:06, 3 March 2013 (EST)
Liberalism is the road to economic ruin and the Eurozone crisis, European aging populations being overrun by ungovernable and rioting Muslim immigrants and Western governments buried in debt is proof of this. The liberal system is rickety and heading for significant trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if some wars were eventually ignited because of it.
The financial reckoning of liberalism will soon come. List of world's biggest debtor nations: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959 You will probably see this within your lifetime.
Hitler came to power as a result of spiritual, moral and financial bankruptcy. Liberalism appears to be heading farther and farther down that road. And the countries external debt to GDP ratios listed on that website is one piece of evidence that liberal governments have been heading in the wrong direction. Conservative 04:49, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Before getting into this debate, I'd just like to announce that DonnyC's incivility on this talk page has managed to incur him yet another block. Due to his past litany of offenses (see his block log) he's suspended for a month, and I would have given him a lifetime ban if it hadn't been for the fact that two of his ardent patrons are endowed with blocking rights and can therefore revert my decisions.

Anyway... the conservative philosopher John Locke (whose writings had tremendous influence on the founding fathers) saw the rights to liberty and property as flowing from a man's right to his life; therefore attacks on one's property and liberty are attacks on life as well. To quote from his Second Treatise of Civil Government:

"it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being [...] And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it [...] This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else." [it should be noted though that the Locke didn't believe that citizens of states have the right to judge and punish thieves by themselves. Only people living in the state of nature have that right. For more about that concept read the first chapter of his Second Treatise.]

So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust. The Nazis were socialists just like the bolsheviks, Idi Amin and Pharaoh Ramses. Nobody who lives under a dictatorship can really be said to have private property. Sure, in some dictatorship there are businessmen and industrialists and entrepenuers, but they do not really own the property the use to make a living, as the government can take it away from them at any given moment.

Furthermore, just like the bolsheviks plundered the private property of their sucjects, so did the Nazis plundered the property of many of their victims. See: [17] [18] - Markman 07:39, 3 March 2013 (EST)

"So the bolshevik unjustified taking of private property was an attack on life just the same as the Holocaust." Apart from being a non sequitur, that is a bizarre trivialization of the Holocaust. You can't compare unjustified taking of private property with the organized killing of six million Jews. Onestone 14:00, 3 March 2013 (EST)
What non sequitur are you talking about? I already explained how attack on property is the same as an attack on life. - Markman 14:04, 3 March 2013 (EST)
You didn't explain anything, you merely quoted John Locke. And I repeat: losing one's property doesn't compare to being killed by the Nazi killing machinery. It amazes me that I should have to point that out. Onestone 14:22, 3 March 2013 (EST)
The quote from Locke explained why attacks on property are attack on life, but if you want me to paraphrase... When one man tries to take from another his liberty, he is essentially committing an attack against the other man's life, as after his liberty is gone he won't be able to defend his right to life. Likewise, the deprivation of one's property is an act of coercion, and therefore also an attack on liberty, making it an attack on life as well. - Markman 16:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

We are a long way from the issue that started this section. I tend to agree in general with Conservative that the distinctions between socialism and fascism are mainly illusory. They have differing appeals and they make out like they are enemies and fundamentally opposed to each other, but I think that at root they result in the same sort of society. Their intellectual underpinnings (if one is to be charitable) is the fundamental distinction. Fascism marketed itself as counter-revolutionary, a throwback to the past, whereas Socialism considered itself to be revolutionary, and as a means to overthrow the past injustices. Still, even if we agree that there are similarities between socialism and fascism, I have not read a coherent argument as to why a photo of Hitler should be so prominent in this article. Perhaps we should go back to discussing that issue rather than the philosophical implications. --DamianJohn 16:57, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Wow seems I've reignited this debate. I never said he wasn't part of some sort of German Socialist party. But I don't believe for an instant the only reason Hitler's picture was up there was cause there needed to be the photo of a Socialist Leader. It's the equivalent to putting up a photo of Ted Haggard to represent Christian Leadership or Eric Rudolph to represent the Pro-Life movement. dsherman

Personal tools