This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I feel the list is far too long to be any help to anyone interested in studying some of the main personalities of American socialism. People like Eugene Debs or Daniel De Leon are perfect for a list like this, but Chomsky (a self proclaimed anarchist) and Kshama Sawant (A city councilman)? The list should not include every single individual in American who may have had some ties to socialism. -- xcuref1endx ( talk) 00:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect, Chomsky is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. [1] Martin Luther King Jr. advocated democratic socialism (according to his Wikipedia page) and Malcolm X was a speaker at Socialist events (also according to his Wikipedia page). As for Goldman, Berkman etc. they were socialist Anarchists which is a form of Socialism and Anarchism. If any should be removed they should be individuals like Lawrence O'Donnell or Michael Moore.(Guest, November 12th 2014)
To the user who does not want names of anarchists in this template. I will remind that user that anarchism is a form of socialism since it is an anti-capitalist ideology. If that user wants me to bring references for this it will not be to hard to do and i will bring them tomorrow. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman self identified as anarcho-communists and so they are obviously socialists and they also self identified as socialists. Communism is a form of socialism also. And as far as individualist anarchists, they are socialists also since they critizice the capitalist system. In the case of Benjamin Tucker, he self identified as an "anarchistic socialist" and so he clearly belongs in this template. How individualist anarchism is socialism is also visible in the recent individualist anarchist compilation called Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. As such anarchism is included within socialism both within the english wikipedia article and in most entries on it in political encyclopedias. I will be waiting for any responses from user Helpsome but it seems to me he or she obviously does not have too much knowledge of anarchism if he dares to suggest these things. Any general work on anarchism as a political position will tell him these things and the user who is speaking here is a long time dedicated editor of the main anarchism article in english wikipedia as can be seen in that article´s history and in articles on anarchism in general in english wikipedia. For this reason i think what needs to manifest here from now on are references and sources. As far as Martin Luther King check the article The Uncompromising Anti-Capitalism of Martin Luther King Jr. by Obery M. Hendricks, Jr., Ph.D on the whole issue of MLK adhereing to socialism and criticzing capitalism. The english wikipedia article on Martin Luther King, Jr., a wikipedia good article, does not have any trouble on dealing with the socialism of MLK and so it identifies him as an american socialist and as a christian socialist.-- Eduen ( talk) 01:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
It appears that there is a rough consensus here to have the section removed. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 09:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The section as it stands right now is useless. It seems to have all the disadvantages of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and none of the benefits. It is much too long, unmanageable, and disoriented. Some editors seem to think that anyone who had some ties to socialism and living in America warrants their name being included, I personally do not think that this is helpful to anyone. It seems to be subject to the whim of a few editors (myself included) in regards to who/what should be included. I suggest that we do away with all the names and maybe start it off it off with just a few names that are not controversial and build from there, requiring consensus for the added names to avoid any POV pushing or agenda driven additions. I also believe that maybe we should do a request for comment or seek a third party perspective? - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 23:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
This section seems not to be directly related to socialism, but some issues that socialists may have been concerned with. However, so have many other ideologies. This looks like an attempt to WP:COATRACK. The inclusion of the "I have a dream" speech and the March on Washington seem particularly out of place. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 21:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally, since the title of the article linked is Haymarket affair, I think the link should be changed to reflect this; to do otherwise I think violates WP:NPOV. Hence I'm going to be WP:BOLD and make the change. If there are any objections, I'd be happy to discuss. -- KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 17:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
These programs are not part of the socialist movement because LBJ (who started them) was not a socialist and was an anti-communist and more importantly the democratic party (which LBJ was part of) is not socialist at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.49.63 ( talk) 00:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I would like to second the re-inclusion of "people" in this article. The previous "people" section was both long and not organized in any coherent manner. That said, I think that the differentiation of people into categories i.e. "theorists," "economists," "activists" would help to prevent the visual bloat of having that many names in one place. RnRa76 ( talk) 10:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I know these two call themselves socialists, but they are really social democrats, something that both liberal ( https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/opinion/bernie-sanders-socialism.html), conservative ( https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/thats-not-real-socialism/) and socialist ( https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9767096/bernie-sanders-socialism-jacobin) commentators agree on. Island Pelican ( talk) 19:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Are there any active current organizations that call themselves SDUSA ?
When an organization dies out without a formal dissolution or merger with (or into) another group, there's often no clear indicator; things just stop happening. And it's hard to prove, demonstrate or document a negative.
After December 31, 1972, SDUSA became the new name for the Socialist Party of America-Democratic Socialist Federation (SP-DSF, formed by a merger in March 1972).
But it faded from view in the early years of this millennium. After its URL fell back into the public domain, someone did buy its ICAAN license for a rather fleeting attempt at reunifying the disparate strands of American democratic socialism and social democracy, but I don't think that this effort lasted very long.
The former SDUSA members I know don't treat it as still active; nor did the former Yahoo! Group for American Socialist history.
My strong inclination would be to move SDUSA into the Inactive section, which already includes the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) who split away from SDUSA and later merged into the current, quite active DSA (Democratic Socialists of America).
But I hesitate slightly to do so without either a Reliable Source or an editorial consensus here.
—— Shakescene ( talk) 07:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I would argue that as (at large) we go forward politically and technologically we, as an encyclopedic org, need to keep up with this by including the multitudes of examples of good new media outlets from the left. That not doing this is infact doing a disservice to our readers. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ( Ταλκ) 19:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
The US eagle adds no information about socialism in the United States. It mostly just takes up vertical space. In an earlier version of this template, File:New Harmony, Indiana, por F. Bates.jpg was used. I would suggest using no image. SocDoneLeft ( talk) 23:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I feel the list is far too long to be any help to anyone interested in studying some of the main personalities of American socialism. People like Eugene Debs or Daniel De Leon are perfect for a list like this, but Chomsky (a self proclaimed anarchist) and Kshama Sawant (A city councilman)? The list should not include every single individual in American who may have had some ties to socialism. -- xcuref1endx ( talk) 00:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect, Chomsky is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. [1] Martin Luther King Jr. advocated democratic socialism (according to his Wikipedia page) and Malcolm X was a speaker at Socialist events (also according to his Wikipedia page). As for Goldman, Berkman etc. they were socialist Anarchists which is a form of Socialism and Anarchism. If any should be removed they should be individuals like Lawrence O'Donnell or Michael Moore.(Guest, November 12th 2014)
To the user who does not want names of anarchists in this template. I will remind that user that anarchism is a form of socialism since it is an anti-capitalist ideology. If that user wants me to bring references for this it will not be to hard to do and i will bring them tomorrow. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman self identified as anarcho-communists and so they are obviously socialists and they also self identified as socialists. Communism is a form of socialism also. And as far as individualist anarchists, they are socialists also since they critizice the capitalist system. In the case of Benjamin Tucker, he self identified as an "anarchistic socialist" and so he clearly belongs in this template. How individualist anarchism is socialism is also visible in the recent individualist anarchist compilation called Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. As such anarchism is included within socialism both within the english wikipedia article and in most entries on it in political encyclopedias. I will be waiting for any responses from user Helpsome but it seems to me he or she obviously does not have too much knowledge of anarchism if he dares to suggest these things. Any general work on anarchism as a political position will tell him these things and the user who is speaking here is a long time dedicated editor of the main anarchism article in english wikipedia as can be seen in that article´s history and in articles on anarchism in general in english wikipedia. For this reason i think what needs to manifest here from now on are references and sources. As far as Martin Luther King check the article The Uncompromising Anti-Capitalism of Martin Luther King Jr. by Obery M. Hendricks, Jr., Ph.D on the whole issue of MLK adhereing to socialism and criticzing capitalism. The english wikipedia article on Martin Luther King, Jr., a wikipedia good article, does not have any trouble on dealing with the socialism of MLK and so it identifies him as an american socialist and as a christian socialist.-- Eduen ( talk) 01:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
It appears that there is a rough consensus here to have the section removed. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 09:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The section as it stands right now is useless. It seems to have all the disadvantages of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and none of the benefits. It is much too long, unmanageable, and disoriented. Some editors seem to think that anyone who had some ties to socialism and living in America warrants their name being included, I personally do not think that this is helpful to anyone. It seems to be subject to the whim of a few editors (myself included) in regards to who/what should be included. I suggest that we do away with all the names and maybe start it off it off with just a few names that are not controversial and build from there, requiring consensus for the added names to avoid any POV pushing or agenda driven additions. I also believe that maybe we should do a request for comment or seek a third party perspective? - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 23:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
This section seems not to be directly related to socialism, but some issues that socialists may have been concerned with. However, so have many other ideologies. This looks like an attempt to WP:COATRACK. The inclusion of the "I have a dream" speech and the March on Washington seem particularly out of place. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 21:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally, since the title of the article linked is Haymarket affair, I think the link should be changed to reflect this; to do otherwise I think violates WP:NPOV. Hence I'm going to be WP:BOLD and make the change. If there are any objections, I'd be happy to discuss. -- KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 17:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
These programs are not part of the socialist movement because LBJ (who started them) was not a socialist and was an anti-communist and more importantly the democratic party (which LBJ was part of) is not socialist at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.49.63 ( talk) 00:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I would like to second the re-inclusion of "people" in this article. The previous "people" section was both long and not organized in any coherent manner. That said, I think that the differentiation of people into categories i.e. "theorists," "economists," "activists" would help to prevent the visual bloat of having that many names in one place. RnRa76 ( talk) 10:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I know these two call themselves socialists, but they are really social democrats, something that both liberal ( https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/opinion/bernie-sanders-socialism.html), conservative ( https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/thats-not-real-socialism/) and socialist ( https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9767096/bernie-sanders-socialism-jacobin) commentators agree on. Island Pelican ( talk) 19:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Are there any active current organizations that call themselves SDUSA ?
When an organization dies out without a formal dissolution or merger with (or into) another group, there's often no clear indicator; things just stop happening. And it's hard to prove, demonstrate or document a negative.
After December 31, 1972, SDUSA became the new name for the Socialist Party of America-Democratic Socialist Federation (SP-DSF, formed by a merger in March 1972).
But it faded from view in the early years of this millennium. After its URL fell back into the public domain, someone did buy its ICAAN license for a rather fleeting attempt at reunifying the disparate strands of American democratic socialism and social democracy, but I don't think that this effort lasted very long.
The former SDUSA members I know don't treat it as still active; nor did the former Yahoo! Group for American Socialist history.
My strong inclination would be to move SDUSA into the Inactive section, which already includes the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) who split away from SDUSA and later merged into the current, quite active DSA (Democratic Socialists of America).
But I hesitate slightly to do so without either a Reliable Source or an editorial consensus here.
—— Shakescene ( talk) 07:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I would argue that as (at large) we go forward politically and technologically we, as an encyclopedic org, need to keep up with this by including the multitudes of examples of good new media outlets from the left. That not doing this is infact doing a disservice to our readers. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ( Ταλκ) 19:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
The US eagle adds no information about socialism in the United States. It mostly just takes up vertical space. In an earlier version of this template, File:New Harmony, Indiana, por F. Bates.jpg was used. I would suggest using no image. SocDoneLeft ( talk) 23:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)