Jump to content

Talk:Socialism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk | contribs) at 16:35, 28 January 2022 (→Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jahir333.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove all the (heavily) politicized ballast...

...and to massively reduce the (politically and ideologically) bloated article back down to the actual core definition and the actual facts defining and explaining socialism. Anarchism, communism, social democracy, social capitalism... social welfare... for example each and all have their own main-articles and need (and should) not be included here in this article about socialism other than mentioning the (often highly debatable) influence of socialist ideas and ideologies upon them. Over 75% of this article's content does not provide any relevant information about the actual core topic of socialism. The vast majority of this article's content only discusses other topics more or less closely or loosely related to socialism, topics which are each and all honored with their own main-articles in Wikipedia. The informational value of over 75% of the article's content could easily be provided by just one single sentence stating: "Socialism and socialist ideologies form the basis of.... and influenced related political and economic and cultural concepts such as....." Instead of discussing these varoious concepts and terms related to socialism it would probably be much more helpful to replace these with a chapter on the common uses of the term socialism which is often incorrect and misleading, while at the same time pointing out the differences between the terms socialism, socialist, and social which by their strict definitions are NOT interchangable even though they are often (wrongfully) used interchangeably (not seldomly intentionally conflating them in order to mislead and misrepresent political views).

Socialism, social ownership OR regulated private ownership

I put three sources in the article for my sentence that socialism is social ownership "or private ownership modified by extensive government regulation and direction of the economy." Yet, it was reverted by couple editors, claiming it's not "common." But that's incorrect. I'm going to use this section to accumulate sources to show it's not some isolated fringe definition. I'm amazed Wikipedia has been not aware, or has been shielding. this common definition from readers. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smith, Robert C. (2003). Encyclopedia of African American Politics. United States. Facts On File, Incorporated. p. 325. "Socialism is an IDEOLOGY that advocates government ownership *OR* REGULATION of the means of production and the distribution of goods and services in order to achieve equality. The basic aim of socialism is to replace *OR* MODIFY THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of the economy...with a system in which the government owns *OR* DIRECTS the operations of the economy....Socialism, unlike COMMUNISM, may allow some private ownership and production for profit, but the government plays an extensive role or planning and regulating..."
Temin, Peter (1991). Lessons from the Great Depression. MIT Press. p. 111. "A socialist economy has the following properties: 1(1) public ownership *OR* REGULATION of "the commanding heights" of the economy, particularly of utilities and banking.."
Mason, David S. (2011). A Concise History of Modern Europe. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 210. From the glossary: "socialism: a theory that advocates government ownership *OR* REGULATION of the economy with the principal aims of providing basic human needs and reducing social and economic inequality."
Schneider, G. (n.d.). Economic Principles and Problems: A Pluralist Introduction. (n.p.): Taylor & Francis. "A socialist economic system is one in which the means of production are either owned *OR* REGULATED by society. Note that in most SME's, only 40-60% of the economy is controlled *OR* regulated by the state, whereas a fully socialist system would mean control *OR* regulation of most industries." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google dictionary, Oxford Languages ("not common"? Really?), "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned *OR* REGULATED by the community as a whole." https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=socialism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Britannica: "socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership *OR* CONTROL of property and natural resources....Society as a whole, therefore, should own *OR* AT LEAST CONTROL property for the benefit of all its members." https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism ("not common" sure.)

Editors that reverted, do you still claim it's not common? Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Still getting reverted. Come on people. This is economics 101 and political science 101 stuff. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read social ownership. It's the appropriation of the surplus product, produced by the means of production, to society as a whole. It is not necessarily public ownership. BeŻet (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to use Wikipedia is a source for itself?! Read the sources above. There is a choice between ownership and government regulation. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually think "social ownership" can include government-regulation of privately-owned means of production, then you shouldn't have a problem with making it explicit that the means of production don't have to be publicly owned. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources you present don't negate that social ownership is the core element of different strands of socialism. You've just been erroneously using it as a synonym for public ownership. BeŻet (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the sources I posted do negate that. They say there are two alternatives, ownership OR regulation. Therefore neither ownership nor regulation by themselves is a common element. Rather, the common element is having the characteristic of "ownership or regulation." Why anyone has to point this out to you, is ridiculous. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate if you worked on your condescending tone. Like I said, you seem to be confusing social ownership with public ownership, because the sources you are basing your changes on do not dispute that the core element of socialism is social ownership. BeŻet (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pay attention to the sources. They do dispute that, via the word "or." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/or Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the full quotation you are referring to. BeŻet (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entire list of quotes from sources I posted at the start of this section. No need to quote them again. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of them prove you right, so which one in particular is a good example of what you are trying to prove? For instance: A socialist economic system is one in which the means of production are either owned or regulated by society - fully compatible with the concept of social ownership. BeŻet (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's compatible or not with the concept of social ownership is not the issue. The issue is what the sources say. Do you understand how Wikipedia works? Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources do not support your change, which is what I've been trying to explain to you all this time. Do you understand that if the means of production are still controlled/regulated by society, that still counts as social ownership? BeŻet (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that in your own mind, you might think that regulation is the same as ownership. But you just thinking that or saying it without a source, means nothing on Wikipedia. The sources I listed clearly do not consider that the case, hence the use of the term "or". Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Social ownership#Social ownership of equity BeŻet (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the sources. Wikipedia editors' text is not a source for Wikipedia. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, "social ownership of equity," social ownership of shares of a corporation, isn't the same thing has regulation. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And please stop enforcing your change if editors are pointing out what is wrong with them. BeŻet (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with my change. The use of the word "or" rather than "and" is sourced by all these sources. You're choosing to disregard what the sources are saying. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on sentence discussing the definition of socialism

Should the sentence While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element and regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit be changed to While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element or regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit, that is, the "and" replaced with an "or"? BeŻet (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above sentence is not really what I'm trying to say. The "or" sentence I've been putting in is: "Some definitions say that social ownership is the one common element, while some other definitions allow for regulation of the means of production by government or society, aimed at community benefit, as an alternative to ownership." [insert here the entire list of sources below] Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor opinions

  • Yes - There is no shortage of sources that say "or." Including even as mainstream as Google dictionary (which is from Oxford). Just Google "socialism." If the sources considered regulation to be the same as ownership, or "encapsulated" within ownership by society, they wouldn't be using the term "or." These common mainstream definitions, which are all similar, ought to be revealed to Wikipedia readers. It's against Wikipedia NPOV policy for us editors to take sides, being selective in displaying only a definition we think is the "correct" one.Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Smith, Robert C. (2003). Encyclopedia of African American Politics. United States. Facts On File, Incorporated. p. 325. "Socialism is an IDEOLOGY that advocates government ownership *OR* REGULATION of the means of production and the distribution of goods and services in order to achieve equality. The basic aim of socialism is to replace *OR* MODIFY THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of the economy...with a system in which the government owns *OR* DIRECTS the operations of the economy....Socialism, unlike COMMUNISM, may allow some private ownership and production for profit, but the government plays an extensive role or planning and regulating..."
Temin, Peter (1991). Socialism and Wages in the Recovery from the Great Depression in the United States and Germany. The Journal of Economic History, vol. 50, no. 2, Cambridge University Press, 1990, p 297. "A socialist economy has the following properties: (1) public ownership *OR* REGULATION of "the commanding heights" of the economy, particularly of utilities and banking.."
Mason, David S. (2011). A Concise History of Modern Europe. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 210. From the glossary: "socialism: a theory that advocates government ownership *OR* REGULATION of the economy with the principal aims of providing basic human needs and reducing social and economic inequality."
Schneider, G. (n.d.). Economic Principles and Problems: A Pluralist Introduction. (n.p.): Taylor & Francis. "A socialist economic system is one in which the means of production are either owned *OR* REGULATED by society. Note that in most SME's, only 40-60% of the economy is controlled *OR* regulated by the state, whereas a fully socialist system would mean control *OR* regulation of most industries." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google dictionary, Oxford Languages: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned *OR* REGULATED by the community as a whole." https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=socialism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford English Dictionary (from which the Google definition is from): "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned *OR* REGULATED by the community as a whole.”
Encyclopedia Britannica: "socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership *OR* CONTROL of property and natural resources....Society as a whole, therefore, should own *OR* AT LEAST CONTROL property for the benefit of all its members." https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism
Socialism and Communism. (2014). United States: Britannica Educational Publishing in Association with Rosen Educational Services. "Socialism....Society as a whole, therefore, should own *OR* AT LEAST CONTROL property for the benefit of its members....socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything...should be public property....Other socialists, however have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses."
None of your sources mention social ownership. BeŻet (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse for your case, then. If you think they're not talking about social ownership when they talk of government ownership or community ownership, then those sources don't even provide for social ownership as an option. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. There are already several sources talking about social ownership being a core element of socialism. What I'm saying is that your sources do not dispute that. BeŻet (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The definitions from those sources do dispute that. That's not to say that they're correct. There is no correct definition. There's just different definitions. Writers, including socialists, disagree with each other on what socialism is. It's not our job to pick out a definition that we like or think makes the most sense to us. All I've been doing is trying to show is the differing definitions, with no preference for either, or any. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, per above. LittleJerry (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain your reasoning? This isn't a vote tally. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the statement "per above". LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

See discussion above for more context. BeŻet (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're basically arguing over whether "or" means the same thing as "and." Think about that. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite dishonest of you to be writing things like that. BeŻet (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the sources being cited don't specialize in socialism or political ideologies. A Dictionary and a book on the Great Depression cannot be used as authorities on socialism. LittleJerry (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Socialism and Wages in the Recovery from the Great Depression in the United States and Germany. The Journal of Economic History, vol. 50, no. 2, Cambridge University Press, 1997, certainly can be used as a source. It's by Peter Temin, an economist and economic historian, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Temin Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the Oxford English Dictionary can be used as a source as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dictionaries_as_sources Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that dictionaries can never be used, only that it is probably not good enough when we already have better more authoritative sources, see (current cites 1-8). Also, a glossary for a History book and an Encyclopedia of African American Politics are not authoritive either. Its clear you're google minding sources for the definition you want. LittleJerry (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of those "Better more authoritative sources, see (current cites 1-8)" also happens to use the word "or": "Arnold, N. Scott (1998). The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study. Oxford University Press. p. 8. "What else does a socialist economic system involve? Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system." Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google mining? If you put "socialism" in Google, the very first thing that pops up is the definition '...or regulation.." Then look at entry just right under the Wikipedia one, and the Encyclopedia Britannica one comes up explicitly distinguishing ownership from control: "Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.". You don't have to mine very hard. Mining is too strong a word. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Precious delicate sweet little baby: Please do not make any changes until there is consensus. Please consult WP:RfC and WP:BRD. BeŻet (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's that supposed to mean? I don't see anything in there forbidding editing while you're requesting comments. And BRD is exactly what I'm doing. How long do you plan sitting on this RfC? Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you can stop trying to publicly denigrate me, labeling me "rude", in the edit comments. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BRD isn't what you're doing if you keep edit warring. Please leave the article as it is until this RfC is concluded. — Czello 19:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote a Wikipedia policy that says one is not allowed to edit an article, or do reverts, while an RfC is going on. If there is one, I'd be happy to oblige. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EDITWAR, WP:BRD and WP:RFC. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. (...) When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the associated talk page or seek help at appropriate venues. (...) When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comment. (...) Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change. (...) Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved. Now please oblige. BeŻet (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved". Fail. Look at the top of the page. It says: "This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment (WP:BRD isn't policy or a guideline either). You're really pulling all the stops to try to stop me from putting in what these sources say, aren't you? Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Pulling all the stops" by trying to discuss things with you that several editors found contentious? BeŻet (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't insinuate that I haven't been discussing. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Precious delicate sweet little baby: I think you've missed the point about how WP:BRD works, but at least you've stopped reverting. — Czello 21:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly the entire sentence is awkward regardless of which word we use. Look at it:
  • While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element and regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit.
"Regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit" what? It reads like something was lopped off Is it supposed to be something like:
  • While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, common elements include social ownership and regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit.
Or is it supposed to be something like:
  • While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element, while regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit are also major aspects.
Or is it all intended to be one clause, so it should read:
  • While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, one common element is social ownership and regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit.
The current version is weird because "is the one common element" applies only to "social ownership" and then there's this weird dangling clause mentioning "regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit" without really setting a context. Intuitively I think it is meant to say that that is also a common element, or perhaps that it's all meant to be one clause as in my final example, but that's not actually what it says in either version, and saying that social ownership is "the one" common element contradicts it. What exactly is the sentence supposed to convey? (Note that none of the example options I gave above are thoroughly thought-out so it might be necessary to go over the article and sources if there's a disagreement about what it ought to say - my point is that the current version is just confusing.) I feel like this issue might be leading to the confusion and disagreement above, because the ambiguous wording of the sentence makes it hard to say what the impact of "and" vs. "or" really is. --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That's actually not the sentence I was proposing. Mine is, "Some definitions say that social ownership is the one common element[1][12][13] while some other definitions allow for regulation of the means of production by government or society, aimed at community benefit, as an alternative to ownership. [insert all the source above here]" There are competing definitions, differing ideas about what makes something socialist, and that's what I've been trying to display. Bezet apparently only wants to show only one definition. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current version is a result of some of Precious' changes. In the version before Precious' changes it simply read While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element. BeŻet (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is you're choosing to display what some sources say, as to what's socialism is, and reverting away display of what other sources say socialism is, because they conflict with the former. That goes against Wikipedia NPOV policy. It's against policy to take sides. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we should take a step back and think about what the sentence is / was supposed to convey, then. All of the sources for the "ownership" part either say "ownership and control" or something similar. So at the very least if we go back to the older version it could be tweaked to ownership and control. I also think that the original version doesn't quite reflect the nuance of Scott and Hastings, while Busky is talking about social ownership and control of the economy, which is perhaps very different than what a reader might think on reading the current sentence. Part of the issue is also that "social ownership" is undefined and is probably a term whose meaning isn't immediately going to be obvious to the reader - Hastings in particular takes pains to make clear that it can mean multiple things and can be achieved in multiple different ways. (Also hold up, Hastings is writing in The Oxford companion to Christian thought - is that really the ideal source to cite on the definition of socialism?) I feel like the entire sentence might be better-off rewritten from scratch; the concept of social ownership is certainly something that should be discussed in the lead, but maybe the focus should be on defining it rather than just introducing it. I think part of the reason I don't entirely like Precious' "or" versions is that I believe regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit is meant to be a form of social ownership or control as well, so it is misleading to present it as an alternative definition - ie. if the means of production are heavily regulated, then that is a form of social control, and effectively represents the principle that the economy is socially-owned. But digging into that would require more focus on what the sources say in terms of defining "social ownership and control." --Aquillion (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good starting point. The main issue here is that implying that "regulation of the economy is socialism" would render every economy in the world socialist. This is not what any of the sources say, and needs to be elaborated on. Referecing social ownership in some ways tried to encapsulate that, as it covers many different types of ownership and control. I think it is also important to discuss what is meant by ownership and control to avoid incorrect conclusions. Precious seems to jump to a conclusion that if the economy is "controlled" rather than "owned", this implies a system of private property with interventions, which was one of their earlier suggestions. Meanwhile, if the system private ownership of the means of production is abolished, one may not necessarily talk about ownership at all, but rather control of the means of production by the community as a whole. BeŻet (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the sources are saying that just any type of regulation of the economy is socialism. But even if they were, you not agreeing with the definition, or that it conflicts with other definitions, is insufficient reason to not reveal the definition to readers. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the source in that "earlier suggestions" you're linking to says "government plays an EXTENSIVE role of planning and regulating..." "Extensive," not just some tinkering around with some regulations. I'd be happy to use the term "extensive" to clarify. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
:::You say "if the means of production are heavily regulated, then that is a form of social control, and effectively represents the principle that the economy is socially-owned." I can understand you making that equivalency in your mind that if an enterprise is controlled by society then it's owned by society, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some sources that treat them equal as well, but there are sources that don't. And we can't just ignore them. We we have to present both definitions/conceptions, not choose one or the other. These sources I presented explicitly don't consider control (or regulation) to constitute social ownership.  The Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, says, "Society as a whole, therefore, should own OR AT LEAST CONTROL property for the benefit of all its members." This source clearly considers control be less comprehensive than ownership.  (An example would be business owned by private stockholders, but the business policies socially controlled/regulated to ensure what the business does is beneficial to the public good. This can be situation in some conceptions of market socialism.) Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree – the sentence is poorly written and unclear either way, and as a result I don't think this RfC is going to resolve the problem. I suggest writing a clear sentence based on the sources. Aquillion's suggestions offer a possible starting point. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialism&oldid=1068476974"