![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I worry about an article that just presents pros and cons. It never postulates the philosophical issues, much less answer them.
Let me give you an example : Suppose you had an article on pedofilia, and you presented pros and cons like : "pros, the adult enjoys himself; cons, health issues for the minor". Right away you can see that by presenting pros and cons, the underlying issue of weather pedofilia is right or wrong is completely sidesteped. In fact, it gives the impression that the validity of pedofilia is to be decided uppon weighing the pros against the cons.
Another example : say I advocated strapping people to boards, and forcefeeding them a balanced diet.
The pros and cons never answer the question : is it OK to strap people to boards? In fact, it seems to imply that if we can eliminate the cons (say, by letting the people move a little), that there would be no argument against doing so!
A Politico-Economic system is based first and foremost on philosophical principles, and not on the pros and cons. On something like Capitalism vs. Socialism, the greater question to be answered is a philosophical one: Do Humans have an unalienable right to private property or not?!
Dullfig 18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let me try one more time, see if anyone bites: The first section in the article should be "do people have a right to private property or not"? That is the BIGEST argument against socialism. Wether this or that or another society achieves more or less equality by abolishing to varying degrees our personal freedom, is besides the point. Take "progressive" taxation, for example: no one who is intelectually honest denies the fact that it is unequal confiscation of personal property (your money) based solely on the fact that you have earned more of it. I don't care one bit if it provides more or less "incentive", or if the economy grows more or less by doing so. IS IT RIGHT TO DO SO?! That should be the main thrust of this article. -- Dullfig 01:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
According to its supporters, a profit system is a monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. In theory, under capitalism the firms that are the most efficient and most successful at meeting consumer demand are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the perceived public interest are penalized with losses.
This does not include the people getting free methods of doing things (such as free home made medicines, TOTALLY free methods of fast transport (fast does not include walking or running, bikes cost money so can't be included, etc etc etc...). Nor does it include companies with enough money to buy their market ( Microsoft being an obvous example after the amount they are spending on advertising). A real bad point of socalism is the people are for the state and not for the people, which brings along Nazism, Stalinism and the likes, which goes totally aganist my beliefs and my point of view. What the world needs is something for the people by the people, (note: first for the people, then by the people so nothing like nazism happens, and you would have freedom...) 220.233.48.200 13:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Any thoughts on where the economic calculation problem fits in here? It is both an issue of prices and of central planning or information-gathering.
It figures importantly the Austrian-school critique of socialism -- by which von Mises predicted the shortages suffered in the Eastern Bloc. I believe it is also used indirectly by some (left-)anarchist critics of centralized socialism. -- FOo 18:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This article needs a References and Further Reading section, which certainly should include Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and von Mises' Socialism.
-- Serge 18:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
No anarchist would argue that "power must be given to leaders, at least temporarily". Anybody who gives power to leaders is not an anarchist. True, anarchist socialism would not be achievable overnight, but as long as leaders are in power the society is not functioning under anarchist socialism, and any central planning that occurred would be the result of those hierarchical structures from capitalism which have not yet disappeared. Anarchists do not believe in the "central planning" of society, which is the blunt of most criticisms of socialism. We advocate rather the most decentralized planning possible, a society where power flows entirely from the bottom up rather than from the top down. Anything less, to the anarchist, is not true socialism.
The absurdity continues...
By substituting competition for cooperation, anarchist organizations do not come to "one or only a few solution (sic)" to problems. Anarchists do not demand uniformity of opinion. In an anarchist society, each community is free to pursue whatever solutions it desires to the various problems presented to it, and thus, the anarchist argues, a much wider diversity of economic systems and general problem-solving options would be possible than under capitalism. Through trial and error those systems which work well would be discovered and adopted elsewhere. Those which work badly would obviously fail and be rejected. Every individual, every commune, every federation would be free to enact their own solutions to their own problems, rather than having these decisions made by people at the top of hierarchical organizations, as in the capitalist corporation or the modern bureaucracy. How in the world would this cause a diminution of the number of available solutions for problems? — Ливай | Ⓣ 02:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I edited out a sentence that was pure nonsense: the claim that capitalism directly encourages and promotes fraud and deception. Many of the socialist criticisms seem to be 'arts student' level criticisms, blaming free markets for any perceived ill - I would tend to doubt that any formal exposition would include such fundamental misconceptions. Should the criticisms therefore remain in the article?
Is it NPOV to add a section refuting each criticism?
The following paragraph has an obvious POV, and should be re-written to conform with higher standardss. Wikipedia is not a place to take positions, and this paragraph obviously takes a deferential tone:
I wonder if "Criticisms of economic socialism" wouldn't be a better title for this article. The economy is only a half of most modern socialist theory. Thoughts? --
Yossarian
04:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Did anyone evr stop to think that this page is OPINION not FACT based.Obviously the people that had criticisms of Socialism are Capitalists!This page was created by opinion.Not by fact.It's exactly like saying that Rap music is bad music.That's because it's only that person's taste!It's not a fact!
The main feature of Socialism is the denial of the existance of Personal Property. Most people would agree that humans have an unalienable right to life. But few realise that the logical consequence is private property. Let's take a related right to clafify this point: the right to free speech. If the right to free speech meant only that you have the right to shout your opinion from a street corner, it would be pretty meaningless. So the right to free speech means you have the right to any and all activities required to make your oppinion known.
The same happens with the right to life: it would be meaningless if you where not allowed to own property, means of production and trade. Without that, how are you supposed to exercise your right to life?
Second, since all humans are born equal, no human can impose his needs on another human (my rights end where yours begin). Any political system that requires one group of humans to sacrifice for the benefit of another set of humans, violates equal rights, and the inalienable right to life of the individual.
I suggest that a new section entitled "rights" be created, which will address critiques like those at the top of this section of the discussion page. Any objections? ~~
Mihnea deleted somebody's sensible observation about the effect of potential competition on mitigating the pricing effects of a monopoly. The existence of a monopoly logical implies that actual competition is absent, but nothing more. I restored the point, making it more explicit. This has brought to my attention the fact that wikipedia has no entry for potential competition, which is odd since its an important and basic concept in economics, covered in all introductory texts.
On the scholarly level, here's one recent discussion of the effects of potential competition in one industry. (yale seminar) -- Christofurio 19:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I just created a quite rudimentary article on the concept of potential competition. Please, economists, fill it out. -- Christofurio 00:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a dispute between Ultramarine and myself that has emerged largely as a result of misunderstanding (as far as I can see). Ultramarine, your edit summary suggested that I reverted your edits, when in fact that was not the case. I merely edited your text, while keeping all your points. The only thing I removed was a criticism of primitive societies in the Historical Examples section. I did this because primitive societies are only admired by a subset of anarchists, who are in turn only a subset of socialists. Further, the anarchists that admire primitive societies - namely anarcho-primitivists - oppose socialism (indeed, they oppose all of the "Left" and traditional politics in general) and do not describe themselves as socialists. Perhaps you should add your criticism to the anarcho-primitivism article (if it isn't already there). Not all non-capitalism is socialism. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Please quit making complete reversions to early edits. The reversions are changing a number of edits made by different people. If you want to have an edit war, at least isolate the changes you are warring about to reduce the collateral damage. – Doug Bell talk• contrib 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is so unclear and unbalanced that it doesn't even hold my interest. It seems more like a "defense" of socialism than an explanation of why opponents object to it.
Tactics like changing the subject in the middle of the paragraph are more suited to propaganda: "Many people don't even consider this to be socialism." (A subtle and effective way of saying that this criticism doesn't apply.)
Also inadequately addressed is the tension between (a) the profit motive as something which may benefit all of society or enrich a powerful few and (b) centralized planning by elected administrators, which may benefit all of society or enrich a powerful few.
A more balanced critique would classify various socialist experiments into types and then list criticisms by type:
I have no particular bone to pick with any of these economies (but I'll admit to some pre-judgment against any dictatorship which treats a professed desire for emigration as de facto treason).
I'm more interested in as objective an analysis as possible of the major variants of socialism which have been tried. -- 192.195.66.45 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is opaque. At the moment, it gives few straight answers, probably since the article, like most, has evolved rather than been written structurally. As 192.195.66.45 pointed out, criticisms are effectively left in the air: they don't attach to those types of socialism to which they belong, and they hang over where they oughtn't. Therefore, each criticism should name the types of socialism to which it is and isn't pertinent, if it can be applied to any one generally. If it is a result of the specific policy of one or more countries, then it should either go in the articles for those countries or, if a policy which is likely to be common to socialist theory, should be included here noting that it is variable based on what policies are enacted. Certain general claims, e.g. anti-planned economy claims (unless covered elsewhere) should be given initially (and exclusions made where socialist theory permits work arounds, e.g. "Except in Left-Anarcho-Polyhedral Socialism and other camps which adopt a policy of zero tolerance on pidgeons").
I'll leave this suggestion for a little while, and if there are no objections I'll try and begin. Help would also be appreciated, especially from people who know the taxonomy.-- Nema Fakei 00:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I worry about an article that just presents pros and cons. It never postulates the philosophical issues, much less answer them.
Let me give you an example : Suppose you had an article on pedofilia, and you presented pros and cons like : "pros, the adult enjoys himself; cons, health issues for the minor". Right away you can see that by presenting pros and cons, the underlying issue of weather pedofilia is right or wrong is completely sidesteped. In fact, it gives the impression that the validity of pedofilia is to be decided uppon weighing the pros against the cons.
Another example : say I advocated strapping people to boards, and forcefeeding them a balanced diet.
The pros and cons never answer the question : is it OK to strap people to boards? In fact, it seems to imply that if we can eliminate the cons (say, by letting the people move a little), that there would be no argument against doing so!
A Politico-Economic system is based first and foremost on philosophical principles, and not on the pros and cons. On something like Capitalism vs. Socialism, the greater question to be answered is a philosophical one: Do Humans have an unalienable right to private property or not?!
Dullfig 18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let me try one more time, see if anyone bites: The first section in the article should be "do people have a right to private property or not"? That is the BIGEST argument against socialism. Wether this or that or another society achieves more or less equality by abolishing to varying degrees our personal freedom, is besides the point. Take "progressive" taxation, for example: no one who is intelectually honest denies the fact that it is unequal confiscation of personal property (your money) based solely on the fact that you have earned more of it. I don't care one bit if it provides more or less "incentive", or if the economy grows more or less by doing so. IS IT RIGHT TO DO SO?! That should be the main thrust of this article. -- Dullfig 01:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
According to its supporters, a profit system is a monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. In theory, under capitalism the firms that are the most efficient and most successful at meeting consumer demand are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the perceived public interest are penalized with losses.
This does not include the people getting free methods of doing things (such as free home made medicines, TOTALLY free methods of fast transport (fast does not include walking or running, bikes cost money so can't be included, etc etc etc...). Nor does it include companies with enough money to buy their market ( Microsoft being an obvous example after the amount they are spending on advertising). A real bad point of socalism is the people are for the state and not for the people, which brings along Nazism, Stalinism and the likes, which goes totally aganist my beliefs and my point of view. What the world needs is something for the people by the people, (note: first for the people, then by the people so nothing like nazism happens, and you would have freedom...) 220.233.48.200 13:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Any thoughts on where the economic calculation problem fits in here? It is both an issue of prices and of central planning or information-gathering.
It figures importantly the Austrian-school critique of socialism -- by which von Mises predicted the shortages suffered in the Eastern Bloc. I believe it is also used indirectly by some (left-)anarchist critics of centralized socialism. -- FOo 18:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This article needs a References and Further Reading section, which certainly should include Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and von Mises' Socialism.
-- Serge 18:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
No anarchist would argue that "power must be given to leaders, at least temporarily". Anybody who gives power to leaders is not an anarchist. True, anarchist socialism would not be achievable overnight, but as long as leaders are in power the society is not functioning under anarchist socialism, and any central planning that occurred would be the result of those hierarchical structures from capitalism which have not yet disappeared. Anarchists do not believe in the "central planning" of society, which is the blunt of most criticisms of socialism. We advocate rather the most decentralized planning possible, a society where power flows entirely from the bottom up rather than from the top down. Anything less, to the anarchist, is not true socialism.
The absurdity continues...
By substituting competition for cooperation, anarchist organizations do not come to "one or only a few solution (sic)" to problems. Anarchists do not demand uniformity of opinion. In an anarchist society, each community is free to pursue whatever solutions it desires to the various problems presented to it, and thus, the anarchist argues, a much wider diversity of economic systems and general problem-solving options would be possible than under capitalism. Through trial and error those systems which work well would be discovered and adopted elsewhere. Those which work badly would obviously fail and be rejected. Every individual, every commune, every federation would be free to enact their own solutions to their own problems, rather than having these decisions made by people at the top of hierarchical organizations, as in the capitalist corporation or the modern bureaucracy. How in the world would this cause a diminution of the number of available solutions for problems? — Ливай | Ⓣ 02:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I edited out a sentence that was pure nonsense: the claim that capitalism directly encourages and promotes fraud and deception. Many of the socialist criticisms seem to be 'arts student' level criticisms, blaming free markets for any perceived ill - I would tend to doubt that any formal exposition would include such fundamental misconceptions. Should the criticisms therefore remain in the article?
Is it NPOV to add a section refuting each criticism?
The following paragraph has an obvious POV, and should be re-written to conform with higher standardss. Wikipedia is not a place to take positions, and this paragraph obviously takes a deferential tone:
I wonder if "Criticisms of economic socialism" wouldn't be a better title for this article. The economy is only a half of most modern socialist theory. Thoughts? --
Yossarian
04:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Did anyone evr stop to think that this page is OPINION not FACT based.Obviously the people that had criticisms of Socialism are Capitalists!This page was created by opinion.Not by fact.It's exactly like saying that Rap music is bad music.That's because it's only that person's taste!It's not a fact!
The main feature of Socialism is the denial of the existance of Personal Property. Most people would agree that humans have an unalienable right to life. But few realise that the logical consequence is private property. Let's take a related right to clafify this point: the right to free speech. If the right to free speech meant only that you have the right to shout your opinion from a street corner, it would be pretty meaningless. So the right to free speech means you have the right to any and all activities required to make your oppinion known.
The same happens with the right to life: it would be meaningless if you where not allowed to own property, means of production and trade. Without that, how are you supposed to exercise your right to life?
Second, since all humans are born equal, no human can impose his needs on another human (my rights end where yours begin). Any political system that requires one group of humans to sacrifice for the benefit of another set of humans, violates equal rights, and the inalienable right to life of the individual.
I suggest that a new section entitled "rights" be created, which will address critiques like those at the top of this section of the discussion page. Any objections? ~~
Mihnea deleted somebody's sensible observation about the effect of potential competition on mitigating the pricing effects of a monopoly. The existence of a monopoly logical implies that actual competition is absent, but nothing more. I restored the point, making it more explicit. This has brought to my attention the fact that wikipedia has no entry for potential competition, which is odd since its an important and basic concept in economics, covered in all introductory texts.
On the scholarly level, here's one recent discussion of the effects of potential competition in one industry. (yale seminar) -- Christofurio 19:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I just created a quite rudimentary article on the concept of potential competition. Please, economists, fill it out. -- Christofurio 00:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a dispute between Ultramarine and myself that has emerged largely as a result of misunderstanding (as far as I can see). Ultramarine, your edit summary suggested that I reverted your edits, when in fact that was not the case. I merely edited your text, while keeping all your points. The only thing I removed was a criticism of primitive societies in the Historical Examples section. I did this because primitive societies are only admired by a subset of anarchists, who are in turn only a subset of socialists. Further, the anarchists that admire primitive societies - namely anarcho-primitivists - oppose socialism (indeed, they oppose all of the "Left" and traditional politics in general) and do not describe themselves as socialists. Perhaps you should add your criticism to the anarcho-primitivism article (if it isn't already there). Not all non-capitalism is socialism. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Please quit making complete reversions to early edits. The reversions are changing a number of edits made by different people. If you want to have an edit war, at least isolate the changes you are warring about to reduce the collateral damage. – Doug Bell talk• contrib 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is so unclear and unbalanced that it doesn't even hold my interest. It seems more like a "defense" of socialism than an explanation of why opponents object to it.
Tactics like changing the subject in the middle of the paragraph are more suited to propaganda: "Many people don't even consider this to be socialism." (A subtle and effective way of saying that this criticism doesn't apply.)
Also inadequately addressed is the tension between (a) the profit motive as something which may benefit all of society or enrich a powerful few and (b) centralized planning by elected administrators, which may benefit all of society or enrich a powerful few.
A more balanced critique would classify various socialist experiments into types and then list criticisms by type:
I have no particular bone to pick with any of these economies (but I'll admit to some pre-judgment against any dictatorship which treats a professed desire for emigration as de facto treason).
I'm more interested in as objective an analysis as possible of the major variants of socialism which have been tried. -- 192.195.66.45 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is opaque. At the moment, it gives few straight answers, probably since the article, like most, has evolved rather than been written structurally. As 192.195.66.45 pointed out, criticisms are effectively left in the air: they don't attach to those types of socialism to which they belong, and they hang over where they oughtn't. Therefore, each criticism should name the types of socialism to which it is and isn't pertinent, if it can be applied to any one generally. If it is a result of the specific policy of one or more countries, then it should either go in the articles for those countries or, if a policy which is likely to be common to socialist theory, should be included here noting that it is variable based on what policies are enacted. Certain general claims, e.g. anti-planned economy claims (unless covered elsewhere) should be given initially (and exclusions made where socialist theory permits work arounds, e.g. "Except in Left-Anarcho-Polyhedral Socialism and other camps which adopt a policy of zero tolerance on pidgeons").
I'll leave this suggestion for a little while, and if there are no objections I'll try and begin. Help would also be appreciated, especially from people who know the taxonomy.-- Nema Fakei 00:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)