Talk:Socialism

@Vipz This was not boiler plate "anti-communist propaganda" delivered by a nonentity. He is the president of Argentina, a well known economist, and his speech was delivered at the World Economic Forum in Davos. His speech, in its entirety, has gone viral on the internt and has been garnering widespread coverage in the press and media to the degree that it probably rings the notability bell in its own right. Google is your friend. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Virality of Milei's recent speech is temporary, and it certainly won't pass a WP:10YEARTEST. It is in its entirety boiler plate anti-communist rhetoric, everything from making people poorer, through having always failed, to 100 million deaths. There is no original criticism here that an academic body of people could come around and uphold it to support its notability. Nothing dissimilar to hundreds of remarks about the same topics made by Trump. And again, this article and this section is not a catalog of speeches that 'criticize' socialism. –Vipz (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. The last thing this section needs is to be blown up with run-of-the-mill criticisms of socialism from reactionary politicians.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin Polemics and name calling do not lend themselves well to a sober discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The point still stands. Politicians lie like they breathe, and I don't believe it would be constructive to start shoehorning their screeds into this section, be it Milei, Trump or anyone else. Besides, it is redundant. It is already noted in the last paragraph that "Many commentators on the political right point to the mass killings under communist regimes, claiming them as an indictment of socialism". That should be sufficient. Including each individual commentator (like Milei) seems to me to be undue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The speech covers a great deal more than that. Beyond which I would note WP:IDONTLIKEIT (already mentioned below). You seem to have a very strong prejudice here. Criticism of socialism is not ipso-facto a "screed." My point also stands. Polemics and name calling are not conducive to a constructive conversation, especially on a sensitive topic. Unfortunately, I do need to get some sleep. I will pop in later today when I have some time and we can continue the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vipz WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a compelling argument. You are certainly free to disagree with his remarks. But the speech goes into considerable detail and has garnered massive coverage in the press and media. That coupled with who delivered it and where, and IMO it easily passes the customary standards for a mention in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: "I don't like it" isn't what I stated. I pointed out issues with this addition, and you just repeated what you previously stated without addressing any of my concerns. –Vipz (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vipz Your concerns as far as I can tell are that you do not agree with his speech, You believe that his position would not pass muster with an academic body. And you think it is similar to remarks by Donald Trump. (A point on which I strongly disagree, but then I have listened to the entire speech.) You also refer to the speech as part of a catalog of criticism "by just anyone." Not many speeches by the President of the United States get this kind of coverage. It appears that you believe his speech consists of the four sentences quoted. I am guessing you have not heard the speech or ready any of the coverage. FTR I have. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vipz I think we are in different time zones. It is close to 1 in the morning here and unfortunately, I need to get some sleep. I will be happy to have a look at this later in the day when I have a few minutes and continue our discussion. Good night (or day). -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Ok. I've now got three people telling me they don't agree with the edit. While I don't agree, I will wait for the time being and see what kind of legs the speech has. If I choose to take this up again, I will open an RfC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Make that four people. WP:INDISCRIMINATE - socialism has faced many angry far-right politicians' ire in the past and will sadly probably face many more angry far-right politicians' ire in the future. Cataloging every random far-right president's complaints would be deeply WP:UNDUE. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I also don't agree it should be here, but not because Milei is 'angry', 'far-right', 'reactionary' or 'random' nor because his speech was a 'screed', but because it is just not important enough to contain in the article about Socialism. I would say the same thing about including a speech denouncing capitalism by Chavez, Bernie Sanders or whoever in the article about capitalism. People learning about what socialism is simply don't need to know that a politician said something bad about it, even if it was a great speech by an intellectual giant. Any original criticism made should be included amongst the other criticisms. LastDodo (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• This seems like WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE om that basis and also on the basis that Mieli has no relevant expertise for us to bother including his opinion on socialism. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  I forgot I replied here in January lol. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  Well according to his wiki bio Javier Milei was for over 20 years ..a professor of macroeconomics, the economics of growth, microeconomics, and mathematics for economists, has written more than 50 academic papers by 2016, has served as chief economist at Máxima AFJP, a private pension company; a head economist at Estudio Broda, a financial advising company; head economist of Corporación América; and a government consultant at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. He was also a senior economist at HSBC Argentina. He served as chief economist at several national and international government public bodies. It also says he is a member of the Austrian School, a prime focus of which is critiquing socialism.

  So I would not say he has no relevant expertise.

  But none of this changes whether he should be included. Its still irrelevant. LastDodo (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  None of that speaks to expertise with a political system unless his comments were thoroughly restricted to economics. I mean if we're talking WP:DUE - glad to see we functtlionally agree tho. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  According to the first line of this very article: 'Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership'. Please do not claim an economist has no relevant expertise on the subject of socialism. They do. He does. LastDodo (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Socialism was corrupted in meaning in certain areas due to the efforts of Lenin based Communism and the right-wing in the US. This rebranding of socialism as a transitionary state into communism benefitted both groups rhetoric and could be damaging to the understanding of the concept.

Should the mention of the core tenant of socialism being making the means of production public be removed or highlighted as propaganda? The original and European meaning of the term still only refers to creating social programs and limiting the powers of Corporations with regulations and anti-monopoly practices. With no mention of making key functions of society such as Food and Water production, Healthcare, Education and others purely public institutions. Without these Capitalism isn't even capable of functioning as intended so considering it some middle point between Capitalism and Communism is fundamentally wrong on top of being propaganda. Pure Capitalism with no controls on corporations have never even existed, much like the pie in the sky that communism strives to achieve. Every attempt at both, or even under/over regulation has resulted in financial collapse due to the complexity of human nature and hence the economy.

This article mentions the issue from a UnitedStatian viewpoint. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/socialism-a-short-primer/#:~:text=The%20Soviet%20Union%20threatened%20liberty,verdict%20on%20an%20ongoing%20basis. under the title Competing definitions of socialism but calls the original meaning of the term and European understanding as a redefinition instead of the other way around. Lirendium (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, ideally you would have a history book or two published with a reputable academic press describing this redefinition. That would help us decide how to say it as well as whether to say it at all. Think tanks, even relatively reputable ones like Brookings, are usually not considered the best sources in the first place. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I think a more reasonable modern view of socialism can be summarised better with amended version:

'Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social supervision of key aspects of an economy, as opposed to unchecked private ownership.' ~2026-20912-7 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The current first sentence is cited to multiple sources with quotations. You're thinking of social democracy. Yue🌙 (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)