Talk:State Socialism (Germany)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Two "state socialism" articles

There are two separate articles on "state socialism": State socialism and State Socialism. I recommend that the subject of the lower-case article should be about the theory about communist economies and the upper-case article should be about the State Socialism in Bismarck's Germany, with a link at the beginning of each article to the other. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have now made these changes. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a typo. Someone made a "Big God-Damn Mistake" (Starship Troopers, Captain Delander) and forgot to include a comma where one was necessary. No need to thank me. 66.112.225.187 (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

add socialism portal here

unless objection, i will add the socialism portal here Darkstar1st (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was the policy of the German Conservative Party, I have put it under the conservatism portal. Note that most of these laws were passed while the Anti-Socialist Laws were in effect, and "State Socialism" was a derogatory label used by Bismarck's liberal opponents. TFD (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a discussion at the conservatism portal currently is against such a change, please join the conversation there. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far you are the only editor who thinks that this belongs under the socialism portal, while Battlecry and I disagree. I will therefore remove it from the portal and discuss whether it should come under the conservatism portal. TFD (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
unless you have a source explaining why state socialism is not actually socialism, i will add it back. wp is not a vote, without a rs backing your claim, we must rely on the current rs. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you need to provide a source that it is socialism. I looked through several books about socialism but could not find it mentioned. The closest I could find was Socialism: A Very Short Introduction(Oxford, 2005), which says Bismarck introduced the Anti-Socialist Laws.[1] TFD (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
so you do not have a source either way? i do: Bismarck and State Socialism; an exposition of the social and economic legislation of Germany since 1870 Publisher: London : S. Sonnenschein & co.(1891), Author: Dawson, William Harbutt. page 2 paragraph 2, ...State Socialism (notice all caps and Bismark) would use the State for the accomplishment of great economic and social purposes..., page 3 para 2, State Socialist would resist the play of self interest and egoism in the economic domain. Adopting the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number, they place the welfare of the community before that of the individual... Darkstar1st (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of that supports your claim and in fact the author clearly distinuishes between socialism and state socialism on p. 4. And pulling out a nineteenth century source is bizarre. TFD (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
there is a clear distinction between all the two word socialism terms in the portal, i fail to see the relevance? a rs source is not graded by the published date, rather peer-reviewed scholarly. the welfare of the community before that of the individual is as socialist a sentence as ever writ, you will need a source, or this debate is finished. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." TFD (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:syn, does not apply, The great disagreement between Socialism and State Socialism is that the former would entirely subvert the State, while the latter accepts its political form as it is. The re-establishment of a friendly relationship between social classes, the removal or modification of injustice, a nearer approach to the principle of distributive justice, with the introduction of a social legislation which promotes progress and guarantees the moral and material elevation of the lower and middle classes. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with TFD; the socialism sidebar has no place in this article. A more appropriate sidebar would be on conservativism, or if one exists, a sidebar on social welfare systems. The second source cited in the article clearly states that the welfare policies were undertaken by Bismarck to detract support for socialism and stave off the prediction of a socialist revolution. It is absurd to claim that Bismarck intended to introduce socialism because his policies had nothing to do with any of the following: 1) Nationalize or collectivize enterprises, 2) Replace the market economy with some form of economic planning, 3) Dismantle the profit-system and capital accumulation. Battlecry (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need a source explaining State Socialism is not socialism

"the greatest good, for the greatest number, the welfare of the community before that of the individual, distributive justice, material elevation of the lower and middle classes" Are all socialist beliefs, and the term has the word in the name, therefore it belongs in the socialism portal. I will re-add the portal unless someone can come up with a source explaining why it is not a form of socialism as the sources i produced confirmed. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Greatest good for the greatest number" is a free market capitalist belief that was banned in Conservative Germany. (Ludwig von Mises was a notable proponent of the theory.) Socialism is not known for promoting the "material elevation of the... [bourgoisie] middle classes." You appear to be confused. TFD (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the willful confusion appears to be yours, you edited out the lower class part of material elevation, why? the greatest good is considered Unitarian, whose intellectual father, Jeremy Bentham was a social reformer and professor of Robert Owen, one of the founders of modern socialism. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to argue that the Austrian School is socialist and socialism means capitalism go to as blog. TFD (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you will have almost as hard of time finding a source claiming such, as one claiming state socialism is not socialism. you have a few more days to produce either, or i will add the portal. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you need a reliable source saying that it is socialism. Mises btw wrote in the intro to his book Liberalism (p. 7), that his ideology "has always had in view the good of the whole, not that of any special group. It was this that the English utilitarians meant to express...in their famous formula, "the greatest happiness of the greatest number"". That makes Mises a socialist by your definition. Why not just say that everything is socialism? TFD (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i did provide the source above Bismarck and State Socialism, which your only objection was the published date, which is bizarre, as the 2nd source for the redundant state socialism article is older, 1873. have you reviewed the sources proposed? if not perhaps you will now and specifically address such, or provide a source to the contrary. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taking passages out of a book about state socialism to argue that it is a form of socialism, when the book states categorically that it is not, is synthesis. Even if synthesis were allowed, your reasoning is faulty. Dawson, who like Mises was a liberal, tried to justify Bismarck's policies on liberal principles, the same principles Mises used to justify his ideology. Bismarck actually justified his policies on conservative principles. TFD (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
please provide page number and paragraph. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
because my copy of Bismarck and State Socialism does not have the passage you mentioned, when the book states categorically that it is not. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the complete book. Last time we talked about ancient manuscripts you brought up a copy of a book in a Czech castle that used the term "socialist". If your copy of this book disagrees from the Google books version, please let me know. TFD (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yep, that is the same. Which page/paragraph supports your claim? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
State socialism, Merriam-Webster Online: [2]: an economic system with limited socialist characteristics Darkstar1st (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? TFD (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conservatism, Merriam-Webster Online: [3]: the principles and policies of a Conservative party TFD (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There are, however, two economic and philosophical estimates of society with which State Socialism may be brought into broad contrast." (Viz., liberalism and socialism.) "The great disagreement between Socialism and State Socialism is that the former would entirely subvert the State, while the latter accepts its political form as it is. Socialism would abolish the existing order altogether, while State Socialism would use the State for the accomplishment of great economic and social purposes, especially restoring to it the function, which Frederick the Great held to be the principal business of the State, of "holding the balance... between classes and parties" (pp. 2-3) This ideology supports the monarchy, aristocracy and the church, while maintaining harmony with capitalists and workers, and opposes both liberalism and socialism. IOW it is conservatism, hence its supporters called themselves the Conservative Party, while its opponents called themselves the National Liberal Party and the Socialist Workers' Party. See Hayek's "Why I am not a conservative", which explains the difference between these three ideologies. TFD (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that is the exact same passage i referenced, we seem to be interpreting it differently and no where does it say state socialism is not socialism. Subverting the state is not a requirement of socialism, They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[1] Darkstar1st (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are claiming that your source supports your opinion that State Socialism is a form of socialism, and when I point out it says no such thing you say that the source is incorrect in its definition of socialism. You cannot take a definition of State Socialism from one source and Socialism from another and conclude that one is a version of the other. (See WP:SYN.) Even if you could, Nove's definition of socialism requires that "major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated", which was not the case in Imperial Germany. Are you aware btw that the executive was an hereditary monarchy? TFD (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
State Socialism would use the State for the accomplishment of great economic and social purposes, "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] Darkstar1st (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Social ownership through government can only occur if the government is socially controlled, which is not the case where an emperor rules by the will of God. The Emperor was not the public. Notice too that Nove's definition refers to "the major part of means of production". This remained in private hands. TFD (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Nove, Alec. Socialism. New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition (2008): http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_S000173
  2. ^ O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 0-415-24187-1. In order of increasing decentralization (at least) three forms of socialized ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Title

The articles title is unprecise. Socialism, in a modern political definition, runs by definition enterprise and companies, ending private economy. Bismarcks "social law/legislation" kept the private economy running. Private property was not touched by the reforms. The way in wich fees for ensurances where gathered are more similar to a kind of taxation.

In socialism, defined by Karl Marx, and as shown in socialist countries like the soviet union, maos china, vietnam and eastern germany, the governement owns the economies productive resources such as factories and machines, making them public property.

Generating relyable information the scientific precision demands to change the articles title to "social legislation". "Social law" is possible as well.

WikiYeti (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

accomunates?

Is this a word? I did a search for it in the online merriam-webster dictionary and got no hits. Maybe a typo for 'accomodates'? But 'accomodates' doesn't seem to fit the sentance very well-- "Nove's definition of social ownership, a common characteristic that accomunates types of socialism,..." makes it seem more like the word should be something like 'characterizes' or 'defines' or something-- anyway, I don't know what it should be but it isn't right as it is. DlronW (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:State_Socialism_(Germany)"