![]() | 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 |
Note to User:Vision_Thing. Here is some text from Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer:
Please show some sense of proportion and please stop spamming this and other pages with multiple links to mises.org material.-- Cberlet 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The following text has had to be frequently removed from the main article. The user inserting these changes has had no interest in discusssing this chunk. It appears that the editor has started using a new IP address, too (due to a block). Can I ask all editors to keep an eye out for this.
If the original author wants to come forth and talk, they're welcome to indicate, and I/we can help them understand how to improve the article without disruptive edit warring, as well as pointing out the problems with the text.-- Nema Fakei 10:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Michael40 has seen our messages on the talk page of Socialism, and seems to be willing to discuss things. I reckon a lot of what he has to say is worth including - whether fairly or unfairly, these *are* criticisms levelled against socialism. He's also realised it's a bit POV and has made some modifications. I say let's try to make it a bit more in keeping with WP by editing it on the talk page, then put it back into the article. Here's the current verison.
Right, I'm going to start the ball rolling. My comments are in ((double normal brackets)).
Not finished yet, but it's a start. Michael, see if you can follow my lead.-- Nema Fakei 12:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion:
Objections? -- Vision Thing -- 17:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Iggy, it's already coverd on the Criticism of communism page and the Democide page and doesn't need to be covered here as well, particularly since these crimes pertain to communist rather than socialist states.
At best, a line or two and a link to the CoC page is all that's required here IMO. Gatoclass 09:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. This article is called "Criticisms of socialism", not "Criticisms of some actions in states sometimes called socialist". // Liftarn
The Historical Examples section at the bottom of the page clearly references communist states as an example of one type of state commonly identified as "socialist", emphasizes that criticism of these states is "particularly prevalent" and provides a pointer to the criticism of communism page. So there is no reason to duplicate any of the info at the "criticism of communism" page here. These particular criticisms clearly belong on the CoC page in any case. Gatoclass 05:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I still maintain that since these criticisms pertain specifically to communist states, they are best located at the CoC page.
But in any case, there are clear problems with your proposed edit. To begin with, these figures are extremely contentious. They are taken either from RJ Rummel or from the Black Book of Communism. Rummel in my opinion is a shonk. I have also read that a number of contributors to the BBoC have denounced the editor's overall conclusions. If you look at the CoC page, for example, you'll see the smallest estimates for Soviet and Chinese Communist deaths comes to only 23 million combined, a long way from the lowest "80 million" figure presented here.
Not only that, but these figures are presented completely out of context, in such a way as to smear socialism as a particular nasty form of government.
As an example, the Chinese famine during the period of the Great Leap Forward is one of the main contributors to the above numbers, with estimates of the dead usually in the range of about 30 million. This was undoubtedly a disaster for Chinese Communism. But then if you look at the history of China from the 1850's to the advent of Communism, you will see that tens of millions likewise perished under previous Chinese administrations. Why then, pick only on the failures of the Communists, without reference to the record of the dysfunctional regimes which preceded them?
Then there is the record of the capitalist countries themselves. While it is probably impossible to get an accurate estimate of the number of victims of Western imperialism, I've seen estimates as high as 100 million. But I suspect a thorough study would come up with a number far higher. Even Rummel, who often tries to minimize the "democide" of Western countries to a ridiculous degree, admits to 50 million victims. Others have estimated the victims of American foreign policy alone in the last fifty years to be in excess of 16 million people. So the argument that socialist crimes are "greater than that of any other political movement in history, including fascism and more than all the wars (including both world wars) in the 20th century combined" is far too contentious to deserve inclusion.
To sum up - I object to the numbers, which rely on a couple of the most biased sources and are highly inflated, I object to the claim that this is the greatest death toll attributable to any political movement in history, which given the uncertainty of the figures is a claim that cannot be substantiated, and I object to the commentary about China since it is a pointless digression. This basically leaves nothing of the original edit. Gatoclass 16:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The sources are already extant, on Wiki and elsewhere. For example, a couple of sources on the criticisms of communism page give the total number of victims of Communist China and the USSR as no more than 23 million, total, over the course of 90 years. Now compare that to Rummel's figure of 50 million due to Western imperialism. Alternatively, compare it to the death toll in WWII of 56 million, caused by fascist aggression. There is clearly no ground whatever for claiming that the alleged "victims of socialism" are "greater than that of any other political movement in history". Gatoclass 05:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"You need to use the figure HE used for the thing you are comparing it to". No I don't. Why do I need to do that? The point I'm making about Rummel is that he is a biased source. His figures for crimes of the left are far greater than those from any other source, and likewise, his figures for the crimes of Western countries are often absurdly small. And yet even Rummel concedes a death toll of 50 million for Western imperialism. That's the point I'm making. Others would put the toll due to imperialism much higher. (For example, the death toll due to the European slave trade alone has been estimated as high as 200 million).
The broader point I am making is that many of these figures are notoriously unreliable in any case, as well as heavily subject to the methodology employed. Since many of the numbers are so rubbery, it can't possibly be stated with any confidence that socialism's crimes are "greater than that of any other political movement in history". It's a totally POV statement, dependent entirely on who is doing the counting.
As for your claim that "imperialism [has] nothing to do with capitalism", I think that's a preposterous claim. It's also inconsistent with your overall position. You folks have argued for the inclusion of communist death tolls on this page on the grounds that communist states are examples of "actually existing socialism" regardless of whether or not these states conform to socialist theory. I can easily turn that around and argue (and with considerably more justification) that "actually existing capitalism" has long employed imperialism as a means to wealth accumulation, regardless of whether or not imperialism itself conforms to capitalist theory. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Gatoclass 06:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Gatoclass must not be able to read. that would explain why he cannot see that I have listed relevant sources, and have removed any POV from article. I have not said that those states ARE Socialist, just that they, and much of the rest of the world claims that they are. I have also (unnecessarily, since it's would be neutral enough without them) included pro - Socialist counterarguments. The figures are not inflated at all. Wikipedia endorses the HIGHER figure. So if anything, by even bothering to put in the lower figure, I'm being biased IN FAVOUR of Socialism. Clearly Gatoclass is either biased or thinks he knows more than the internationally acclaimed professional historians who make up valid Wikipedia sources. How arrogant. Who does he think he is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.157.64 ( talk • contribs)
NO actually what is put on wiki editing depends on the TRUTH and how valid the sources are. This is nothing to do with what you or I think, or any of the other users who edit this page. This is about the fact that verified trusted information by sources who are far more knowledgable than anyone here say that these figures I am writing about are valid. So I have reverted you, and will continue to do so until hell freezes over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.157.64 ( talk • contribs)
[To 60.234.157.64] Instead of continually trying to insert your text, please join the discussion on this talk page on how to best formulate and integrate the viewpoint you're trying to convey. In the long run, that'll be much more productive. Thanks!
H
e
nrik
06:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Since Iggy decided to try and integrate the number of victims of communism onto this page in a more NPOV fashion, I decided to suspend my objection to this material appearing here at least for the time being, even though I still believe it is inappropriate to this page and more than adequately covered on the CoC page.
I have therefore made a correction to Iggy's edit and reworked the text somewhat to effect a more balanced picture. Since the alleged number of "victims of socialism" has now been included on this page, I think this is a more than fair compromise. Regards, Gatoclass 07:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The section
is in dispute. I don't think it's relevant to include the views of any random person with a website. He is a professor of economics and not a historian so his views is as relevant as a dentist's. // Liftarn 11:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think ultra's link is OK. He's linking primarily to a history, not to Caplan's site.
I've removed the phrase "Several academic books...describe" because it is long winded and redundant, and just replaced it with "Others condemn" (the link is there for everyone to see after all). Also replaced "human rights violations" which is another longwinded phrase, with "atrocities", which is what anarchists are being accused of. I've also added the phrase "although all sides committed atrocities in this conflict" for balance, and because I see no point in picking on the anarchists when everybody in that war was doing much the same thing. Gatoclass 18:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "Others have condemned atrocities committed by all sides during the Spanish Civil War" is sufficient. If you put it that way, it loses any relevance to the subject at hand, which is the alleged human rights violations committed by other socialist groups. If the line is not going to refer specifically to anarchists, it might as well be deleted altogether, as redundant to the subject at hand.
I'm inclined to agree with you about Caplan though. I guess I just feel his inclusion isn't worth an edit war. I mean, the crimes allegedly committed by the Paris Commune and the shortlived Spanish anarchist collectives are insignificant in comparison to the other crimes mentioned in the preceding paragraph. So does it really matter whether they get a mention or not? Gatoclass 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is rather pointless to single out anarchists in this context. However, some people obviously want to point out that it isn't just "commies" who have committed atrocities on the left - even if that means scraping the barrel by referring to such shortlived phenomena as the Paris Commune and the Spanish anarchist collectives.
I obviously don't agree with the inclusion of these examples because I think they are peripheral, but I personally don't think their inclusion is worth a fight. Their inclusion does have the added benefit though I think of giving an excuse to include links to the Paris Commune and the Spanish Civil War, which are themselves broadly relevant to the subject of socialism.
BTW I reinserted the reference to anarchists, because I don't think the sentence is serving any function without reference to them. I've left out the reference to Caplan though. If you want to delete the sentence altogether I'll leave you to fight it out with Ultramarine. Good luck with that :) Gatoclass 07:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not intentionally filter information. The sources I had previously read about this form from had referred to those govts as "regimes," and I had never actually seen any reference to them as democratically elected before. I thought that perhaps they were communist or fascist, since fighting communism was probably the biggest priority of the CIA. I had thought that the claim that they were democratically elected was POV pushing, and that they were classing "people's democracies" (or in other words commie regimes) as democracies. I realise that I was wrong about that issue and I stand corrected. If you don't believe that my intention was good, look at it this way. I am a college student in New Zealand who has never even been to the USA nor ever wants to go. Why on Earth would I care enough about what people think about the US to bother wasting my time POV pushing about it when it makes absolutely no difference to my life whatsoever? BTW I am not POV pushing about socialism. I don;t have a political bias, nor do I particularly care about politics in the first place. I just think that the atroities committed by these regimes which, MAY (in many people's opinions, and these opinions are just as valid as yours) have been Socialist, and who claimed to be Socialist, and share many of the traits of Socialism (such as abolishing nearly all private ownership of the means of production) should not go unnoticed, since they do involve events of a large magnitude which are definitely worth noting in an encyclopedia. (I only state that they CLAIM to be Socialist, which is true). In hindsight to realising that the CIA did in fact help overthrow those democratically elected govts, I am pleased that you corrected my error, and I hope that the atrocities that they committed are widely publicised as well. As I said before, I don't have any double standards, and my only motive is to make sure that atrocities from history get the attention they deserve, out of a sense of justice.
Re: The critics of socialism often claim that imposing a policy that would lead to the reduction of inequality would also reduce incentives, and therefore productivity and total wealth would be reduced in turn. Empirical evidence shows no statistical correlation between a nation's wealth and the degree of inequality in that nation. The most egalitarian nations in the world include wealthy countries such as Denmark, Japan and Sweden, while the countries with the most economic inequality are the poor African nations of Botswana, Lesotho and Namibia (see list of countries by income equality).
Is this not original research? This declaration of "no statistical correlation" is based on a very superficial list, not to mention that "inequality" itself is not the incentive that capitalists have in mind. It would be one thing to source someone who makes this argument, but I don't see this as in line with Wikipedia rules without a reference. Many poor African nations are run by corrupt and dictatorial governments, so I don't see how this rather weak statistic shows anything except, perhaps, the editor's own philosophical leanings. Aplomado talk 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like OR. Does anybody have source for this? -- Vision Thing -- 14:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
To answer Aplomado's question, it's clearly not original research. It's something the contributor may have assumed was common knowledge, but should have been sourced. I have supplied two sources from Results 1 - 10 of about 226,000 of a Google search on the sentence, "Empirical evidence shows no statistical correlation between a nation's wealth and the degree of inequality in that nation." -- Uncle Ed 14:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
How about this?
It's not original research when we quote some non-Wikipedian's ideas, is it? -- Uncle Ed 17:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Cut from intro (was first paragraph):
This smacks of labeling critics as Capitalism advocates and therefore not objective (since they are merely advocates of a point of view).
This paragraph also suffers from not explaining what any critics were saying about socialism. I like the short paragraph at Socialism#Criticisms_of_socialism better:
We should add to this what is probably the most common criticism, namely the claim that socialism as an economic system creates negative economic growth. -- Uncle Ed 14:50, 26 May 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 |
Note to User:Vision_Thing. Here is some text from Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer:
Please show some sense of proportion and please stop spamming this and other pages with multiple links to mises.org material.-- Cberlet 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The following text has had to be frequently removed from the main article. The user inserting these changes has had no interest in discusssing this chunk. It appears that the editor has started using a new IP address, too (due to a block). Can I ask all editors to keep an eye out for this.
If the original author wants to come forth and talk, they're welcome to indicate, and I/we can help them understand how to improve the article without disruptive edit warring, as well as pointing out the problems with the text.-- Nema Fakei 10:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Michael40 has seen our messages on the talk page of Socialism, and seems to be willing to discuss things. I reckon a lot of what he has to say is worth including - whether fairly or unfairly, these *are* criticisms levelled against socialism. He's also realised it's a bit POV and has made some modifications. I say let's try to make it a bit more in keeping with WP by editing it on the talk page, then put it back into the article. Here's the current verison.
Right, I'm going to start the ball rolling. My comments are in ((double normal brackets)).
Not finished yet, but it's a start. Michael, see if you can follow my lead.-- Nema Fakei 12:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion:
Objections? -- Vision Thing -- 17:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Iggy, it's already coverd on the Criticism of communism page and the Democide page and doesn't need to be covered here as well, particularly since these crimes pertain to communist rather than socialist states.
At best, a line or two and a link to the CoC page is all that's required here IMO. Gatoclass 09:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. This article is called "Criticisms of socialism", not "Criticisms of some actions in states sometimes called socialist". // Liftarn
The Historical Examples section at the bottom of the page clearly references communist states as an example of one type of state commonly identified as "socialist", emphasizes that criticism of these states is "particularly prevalent" and provides a pointer to the criticism of communism page. So there is no reason to duplicate any of the info at the "criticism of communism" page here. These particular criticisms clearly belong on the CoC page in any case. Gatoclass 05:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I still maintain that since these criticisms pertain specifically to communist states, they are best located at the CoC page.
But in any case, there are clear problems with your proposed edit. To begin with, these figures are extremely contentious. They are taken either from RJ Rummel or from the Black Book of Communism. Rummel in my opinion is a shonk. I have also read that a number of contributors to the BBoC have denounced the editor's overall conclusions. If you look at the CoC page, for example, you'll see the smallest estimates for Soviet and Chinese Communist deaths comes to only 23 million combined, a long way from the lowest "80 million" figure presented here.
Not only that, but these figures are presented completely out of context, in such a way as to smear socialism as a particular nasty form of government.
As an example, the Chinese famine during the period of the Great Leap Forward is one of the main contributors to the above numbers, with estimates of the dead usually in the range of about 30 million. This was undoubtedly a disaster for Chinese Communism. But then if you look at the history of China from the 1850's to the advent of Communism, you will see that tens of millions likewise perished under previous Chinese administrations. Why then, pick only on the failures of the Communists, without reference to the record of the dysfunctional regimes which preceded them?
Then there is the record of the capitalist countries themselves. While it is probably impossible to get an accurate estimate of the number of victims of Western imperialism, I've seen estimates as high as 100 million. But I suspect a thorough study would come up with a number far higher. Even Rummel, who often tries to minimize the "democide" of Western countries to a ridiculous degree, admits to 50 million victims. Others have estimated the victims of American foreign policy alone in the last fifty years to be in excess of 16 million people. So the argument that socialist crimes are "greater than that of any other political movement in history, including fascism and more than all the wars (including both world wars) in the 20th century combined" is far too contentious to deserve inclusion.
To sum up - I object to the numbers, which rely on a couple of the most biased sources and are highly inflated, I object to the claim that this is the greatest death toll attributable to any political movement in history, which given the uncertainty of the figures is a claim that cannot be substantiated, and I object to the commentary about China since it is a pointless digression. This basically leaves nothing of the original edit. Gatoclass 16:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The sources are already extant, on Wiki and elsewhere. For example, a couple of sources on the criticisms of communism page give the total number of victims of Communist China and the USSR as no more than 23 million, total, over the course of 90 years. Now compare that to Rummel's figure of 50 million due to Western imperialism. Alternatively, compare it to the death toll in WWII of 56 million, caused by fascist aggression. There is clearly no ground whatever for claiming that the alleged "victims of socialism" are "greater than that of any other political movement in history". Gatoclass 05:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"You need to use the figure HE used for the thing you are comparing it to". No I don't. Why do I need to do that? The point I'm making about Rummel is that he is a biased source. His figures for crimes of the left are far greater than those from any other source, and likewise, his figures for the crimes of Western countries are often absurdly small. And yet even Rummel concedes a death toll of 50 million for Western imperialism. That's the point I'm making. Others would put the toll due to imperialism much higher. (For example, the death toll due to the European slave trade alone has been estimated as high as 200 million).
The broader point I am making is that many of these figures are notoriously unreliable in any case, as well as heavily subject to the methodology employed. Since many of the numbers are so rubbery, it can't possibly be stated with any confidence that socialism's crimes are "greater than that of any other political movement in history". It's a totally POV statement, dependent entirely on who is doing the counting.
As for your claim that "imperialism [has] nothing to do with capitalism", I think that's a preposterous claim. It's also inconsistent with your overall position. You folks have argued for the inclusion of communist death tolls on this page on the grounds that communist states are examples of "actually existing socialism" regardless of whether or not these states conform to socialist theory. I can easily turn that around and argue (and with considerably more justification) that "actually existing capitalism" has long employed imperialism as a means to wealth accumulation, regardless of whether or not imperialism itself conforms to capitalist theory. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Gatoclass 06:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Gatoclass must not be able to read. that would explain why he cannot see that I have listed relevant sources, and have removed any POV from article. I have not said that those states ARE Socialist, just that they, and much of the rest of the world claims that they are. I have also (unnecessarily, since it's would be neutral enough without them) included pro - Socialist counterarguments. The figures are not inflated at all. Wikipedia endorses the HIGHER figure. So if anything, by even bothering to put in the lower figure, I'm being biased IN FAVOUR of Socialism. Clearly Gatoclass is either biased or thinks he knows more than the internationally acclaimed professional historians who make up valid Wikipedia sources. How arrogant. Who does he think he is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.157.64 ( talk • contribs)
NO actually what is put on wiki editing depends on the TRUTH and how valid the sources are. This is nothing to do with what you or I think, or any of the other users who edit this page. This is about the fact that verified trusted information by sources who are far more knowledgable than anyone here say that these figures I am writing about are valid. So I have reverted you, and will continue to do so until hell freezes over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.157.64 ( talk • contribs)
[To 60.234.157.64] Instead of continually trying to insert your text, please join the discussion on this talk page on how to best formulate and integrate the viewpoint you're trying to convey. In the long run, that'll be much more productive. Thanks!
H
e
nrik
06:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Since Iggy decided to try and integrate the number of victims of communism onto this page in a more NPOV fashion, I decided to suspend my objection to this material appearing here at least for the time being, even though I still believe it is inappropriate to this page and more than adequately covered on the CoC page.
I have therefore made a correction to Iggy's edit and reworked the text somewhat to effect a more balanced picture. Since the alleged number of "victims of socialism" has now been included on this page, I think this is a more than fair compromise. Regards, Gatoclass 07:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The section
is in dispute. I don't think it's relevant to include the views of any random person with a website. He is a professor of economics and not a historian so his views is as relevant as a dentist's. // Liftarn 11:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think ultra's link is OK. He's linking primarily to a history, not to Caplan's site.
I've removed the phrase "Several academic books...describe" because it is long winded and redundant, and just replaced it with "Others condemn" (the link is there for everyone to see after all). Also replaced "human rights violations" which is another longwinded phrase, with "atrocities", which is what anarchists are being accused of. I've also added the phrase "although all sides committed atrocities in this conflict" for balance, and because I see no point in picking on the anarchists when everybody in that war was doing much the same thing. Gatoclass 18:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "Others have condemned atrocities committed by all sides during the Spanish Civil War" is sufficient. If you put it that way, it loses any relevance to the subject at hand, which is the alleged human rights violations committed by other socialist groups. If the line is not going to refer specifically to anarchists, it might as well be deleted altogether, as redundant to the subject at hand.
I'm inclined to agree with you about Caplan though. I guess I just feel his inclusion isn't worth an edit war. I mean, the crimes allegedly committed by the Paris Commune and the shortlived Spanish anarchist collectives are insignificant in comparison to the other crimes mentioned in the preceding paragraph. So does it really matter whether they get a mention or not? Gatoclass 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is rather pointless to single out anarchists in this context. However, some people obviously want to point out that it isn't just "commies" who have committed atrocities on the left - even if that means scraping the barrel by referring to such shortlived phenomena as the Paris Commune and the Spanish anarchist collectives.
I obviously don't agree with the inclusion of these examples because I think they are peripheral, but I personally don't think their inclusion is worth a fight. Their inclusion does have the added benefit though I think of giving an excuse to include links to the Paris Commune and the Spanish Civil War, which are themselves broadly relevant to the subject of socialism.
BTW I reinserted the reference to anarchists, because I don't think the sentence is serving any function without reference to them. I've left out the reference to Caplan though. If you want to delete the sentence altogether I'll leave you to fight it out with Ultramarine. Good luck with that :) Gatoclass 07:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not intentionally filter information. The sources I had previously read about this form from had referred to those govts as "regimes," and I had never actually seen any reference to them as democratically elected before. I thought that perhaps they were communist or fascist, since fighting communism was probably the biggest priority of the CIA. I had thought that the claim that they were democratically elected was POV pushing, and that they were classing "people's democracies" (or in other words commie regimes) as democracies. I realise that I was wrong about that issue and I stand corrected. If you don't believe that my intention was good, look at it this way. I am a college student in New Zealand who has never even been to the USA nor ever wants to go. Why on Earth would I care enough about what people think about the US to bother wasting my time POV pushing about it when it makes absolutely no difference to my life whatsoever? BTW I am not POV pushing about socialism. I don;t have a political bias, nor do I particularly care about politics in the first place. I just think that the atroities committed by these regimes which, MAY (in many people's opinions, and these opinions are just as valid as yours) have been Socialist, and who claimed to be Socialist, and share many of the traits of Socialism (such as abolishing nearly all private ownership of the means of production) should not go unnoticed, since they do involve events of a large magnitude which are definitely worth noting in an encyclopedia. (I only state that they CLAIM to be Socialist, which is true). In hindsight to realising that the CIA did in fact help overthrow those democratically elected govts, I am pleased that you corrected my error, and I hope that the atrocities that they committed are widely publicised as well. As I said before, I don't have any double standards, and my only motive is to make sure that atrocities from history get the attention they deserve, out of a sense of justice.
Re: The critics of socialism often claim that imposing a policy that would lead to the reduction of inequality would also reduce incentives, and therefore productivity and total wealth would be reduced in turn. Empirical evidence shows no statistical correlation between a nation's wealth and the degree of inequality in that nation. The most egalitarian nations in the world include wealthy countries such as Denmark, Japan and Sweden, while the countries with the most economic inequality are the poor African nations of Botswana, Lesotho and Namibia (see list of countries by income equality).
Is this not original research? This declaration of "no statistical correlation" is based on a very superficial list, not to mention that "inequality" itself is not the incentive that capitalists have in mind. It would be one thing to source someone who makes this argument, but I don't see this as in line with Wikipedia rules without a reference. Many poor African nations are run by corrupt and dictatorial governments, so I don't see how this rather weak statistic shows anything except, perhaps, the editor's own philosophical leanings. Aplomado talk 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like OR. Does anybody have source for this? -- Vision Thing -- 14:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
To answer Aplomado's question, it's clearly not original research. It's something the contributor may have assumed was common knowledge, but should have been sourced. I have supplied two sources from Results 1 - 10 of about 226,000 of a Google search on the sentence, "Empirical evidence shows no statistical correlation between a nation's wealth and the degree of inequality in that nation." -- Uncle Ed 14:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
How about this?
It's not original research when we quote some non-Wikipedian's ideas, is it? -- Uncle Ed 17:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Cut from intro (was first paragraph):
This smacks of labeling critics as Capitalism advocates and therefore not objective (since they are merely advocates of a point of view).
This paragraph also suffers from not explaining what any critics were saying about socialism. I like the short paragraph at Socialism#Criticisms_of_socialism better:
We should add to this what is probably the most common criticism, namely the claim that socialism as an economic system creates negative economic growth. -- Uncle Ed 14:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)