From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrianTS (Talk | contribs) at 14:12, April 3, 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

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)

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)

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)


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)


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)


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)

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.[1]

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. [11]

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." [12]

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 . . . [13]

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. [14]
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)