Talk:Criticism of socialism

Criticism of a Communist Slogan or of Income Egalitarianism Is Not Criticism of Socialism

I removed a paragraph (diff) detailing a supposed criticism by John Kenneth Galbraith. My edit was reverted by User:Coolcaesar, so I'd like to discuss.

Since the article is "Criticism of Socialism," inclusion criteria should be well-sourced criticisms of socialism. However, the Galbraith quotation doesn't appear to be a criticism of socialism. I appreciate the suggestion by Coolcaesar to read the linked Google Book, although it was easier to grab my well-worn copy from my bookshelf. Checking the quoted passage, Galbraith is criticizing a supposed claim (by whom isn't clear) that there is a positive correlation between egalitarianism in rewards (I'm assuming this is intended to be read as wages and salaries) and worker motivation. Galbraith states that "[g]enerations of socialists and socially oriented leaders" have learned that such a positive correlation does not exist. Galbraith claims to be criticizing the Marxist slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (which the editor who initially introduced the quotation in our article included). There are several issues with this being a "criticism of socialism," however:

1. It's not clear that Galbraith actually takes this to be a criticism of socialism. He mentions "socialists," but a criticism of socialists adhering to a slogan is not the same thing as a criticism of socialism. This is not a problem with Galbraith himself, but a problem with interpreting what Galbraith is saying as a criticism of socialism—claiming this is a "criticism of socialism" is simply not supported by the source.

2. Galbraith seems to be taking the slogan to mean that there ought to be egalitarianism regarding compensation for work done and that the reason for this egalitarianism is increased worker motivation. However, this is not what the Marxist slogan means. The slogan is neither about compensation for work nor about increasing motivation for work.

3. The slogan is Marx's pithy definition of communism. Socialism is not communism. If some socialists have used the slogan, so much the worse for those socialists, but criticizing a communist slogan, taking that criticism to be a criticism of the people using that slogan (socialists?), and then taking that criticism of those people to be a criticism of a socioeconomic ideology (socialism) requires several unsupportable leaps. Marx's pithy definition of socialism is: From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.

4. Even if we leave behind the meaning of the slogan, leave behind the fact that socialism and communism are not the same thing and so criticism of the latter is not criticism of the former, leave behind the fact that criticizing some socialists is not criticizing socialism, there's the issue of what socialism actually holds. Socialism is a broad range of positions and theories and ideologies; the common link between all is social ownership of the means of production (our Socialism article does a great job with the definition). Socialism has nothing at all to do with egalitarianism in terms of wages or income. If Galbraith is criticizing such egalitarianism, fine, but since socialism is unrelated to such egalitarianism, it's unclear how this criticism could be construed as a criticism of socialism.

5. Socialism also has nothing at all to do with making the claim that egalitarianism in income increases worker motivation. Search the sources for our Socialism article and no only will there be no claim that socialism generally promotes egalitarianism in income, there definitely, absolutely won't be a claim that egalitarianism and worker motivation are positively correlated.

So there's kind of a mess here—source doesn't support the claim that this is a criticism of socialism, communism is not socialism, criticizing unquoted socialists is not criticizing socialism, and the complete mismatch between what Galbraith is criticizing and what socialism actually is. I'm not entirely sure why Coolcaesar believed that removing this quote for all of those reasons was an attempt to censor Wikipedia, but I'll assume that was just an error. The quote should be removed because it either has nothing to do with socialism or it makes Galbraith look foolish (which he isn't) and like he has absolutely no idea what socialism is. Thanksforhelping (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I have once again removed this paragraph as per the above comments, as User:Coolcaesar did not seem interested in discussing their revert. I hope that in the future, this user will join the discussion rather than baselessly accusing another editor of attempting to censor Wikipedia. Thanksforhelping (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been way too busy this year to respond to the foregoing argument, which is riddled with errors. I'll have to take it apart one piece at a time.

The most basic error is the ludicrous notion that "socialism is unrelated to such egalitarianism." G. A. Cohen and Michael Newman (just to name a few) would strongly disagree. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under nominally socialist regimes

I've added a mention of the mass killings under Stalin and Mao, something that the political right are currently pushing as an indictment of the entire idea of socialism. This is currently a very popular anti-socialist talking point in the right-wing media, and I don't think it can be ignored in this article. As ever, I'm reporting the controversy per WP:NPOV, not assigning right or wrong to either side of the argument. -- The Anome (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Calling attention to this section, which is poorly written and contains POV pushing and weasel words e.g. "Many commenters on the political right...". Should be rewritten. "Nominally" should be removed from the section title. 206.172.157.8 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Source

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/10/what-is-left-of-socialism Xx236 (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

socialisation

'socialisation' and 'nationalisation' is mentioned once, without any link or definition. The reference is incorrect (dead link) and the source is a book, so I would expect numbers of pages.Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)