This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Shouldn't there be some discussion of Ferdinand Lassalle on this page? I'm not sure where to fit him in, but he deserves at least some mention. john 06:54, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Moved to History of socialism. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). -- Rbellin| Talk 02:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not at all clear what this means. "Third world socialism is certainly easier to detect than that of the first world by events such as the triumph of the Uruguayan left in 2004 that consolidated the so called South American Leftist Front which includes the democratically elected governments ...."
Are we talking about 3d world and 1st world socialism as different possible interpretations of that election? And is the editor who added this sentence saying that the former interpretation is much more plausible than the latter? Does that make this original research? -- Christofurio
I think it could be interesting to have a section on socialism in smaller western european countries such as Holland.
Terminology problems??
According to Marxist-Leninist terminology (which I don't accept as valid B.T.W.) socialism refers to a state of society, and communism as the next state. The chapter Socialism and Communism (1917-39) is about the Social Democrat versus the Communist movements.
According to Marxist anachronistic terminology (as opposed to the Marxist-Leninist one), social democrats and communists are two mutually cooperating kinds of socialists.
I think the title Socialism and Communism (1917-39)' should be some such as Social Democrats versus Communists (1917-39).
[said rursus: tomas.kindahl@comhem.se]
Basically what the subject says. After looking over the article, looking at the top boxes as well, I think that it should be trimmed overall, and that each history section be made into an article that can link back to this main article. One way of doing that for example may be "origins to pre-1789", "French revolution to 1850s and the development", "Marxism and the movement 1850s to 1910s", "Interwar era", 'WW2 and Cold War", and "1991 to present". MarvelAge91 ( talk) 23:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Shouldn't there be some discussion of Ferdinand Lassalle on this page? I'm not sure where to fit him in, but he deserves at least some mention. john 06:54, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Moved to History of socialism. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). -- Rbellin| Talk 02:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not at all clear what this means. "Third world socialism is certainly easier to detect than that of the first world by events such as the triumph of the Uruguayan left in 2004 that consolidated the so called South American Leftist Front which includes the democratically elected governments ...."
Are we talking about 3d world and 1st world socialism as different possible interpretations of that election? And is the editor who added this sentence saying that the former interpretation is much more plausible than the latter? Does that make this original research? -- Christofurio
I think it could be interesting to have a section on socialism in smaller western european countries such as Holland.
Terminology problems??
According to Marxist-Leninist terminology (which I don't accept as valid B.T.W.) socialism refers to a state of society, and communism as the next state. The chapter Socialism and Communism (1917-39) is about the Social Democrat versus the Communist movements.
According to Marxist anachronistic terminology (as opposed to the Marxist-Leninist one), social democrats and communists are two mutually cooperating kinds of socialists.
I think the title Socialism and Communism (1917-39)' should be some such as Social Democrats versus Communists (1917-39).
[said rursus: tomas.kindahl@comhem.se]
Basically what the subject says. After looking over the article, looking at the top boxes as well, I think that it should be trimmed overall, and that each history section be made into an article that can link back to this main article. One way of doing that for example may be "origins to pre-1789", "French revolution to 1850s and the development", "Marxism and the movement 1850s to 1910s", "Interwar era", 'WW2 and Cold War", and "1991 to present". MarvelAge91 ( talk) 23:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)