Talk:List of socialists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mao and Stalin 2 Palme 3 Need for definition 4 New structure 5 Helen Keller 6 Maintainance 7 Alex Bustammante 8 caribbeans and others 9 Wickremasinghe 10 Mysterious terrorists 11 LaRouche 12 Andres Nin 13 Intellectual section 14 Avakian, Cardenas and the wide definition 15 Lee Kuan Yew 16 How to define 17 Corrections 18 New layout 19 How is John Lilburne a Socialist? 20 Social Democratic Politicians? 21 I am wondering... 22 Redo 23 Jean-Bertrand Aristide 24 Thoreau 25 List format 26 Dispute 27 Noam Chomsky in List of Socialists 28 Country 29 Oddities 30 Canadian social democrats 31 Browne and Blair 32 New Category for Ireland 33 References? 34 categorization / lists of people

[edit] Mao and Stalin

I've deleted Mao and Stalin. Although it is possible to argue that they were socialists(though I would disagree), on such a short list it gives a *very* bad impression.

Well add to the list then. Secretlondon 10:29, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

and I've re-added them. At least they are on the record claiming to be socialists, unlike Tony Blair. Morwen 10:46, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

also, it is not the purpose of a neutral encyclopedia to omit information that would give 'a bad impression' of anything. ugly facts should be lain bare for all too see. Morwen 13:29, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Removed Blair. There is nothing in Tony Blair suggesting he is a socialist. -- Viajero 14:16, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I believe Mao Zedong´s surname is Mao, therefore, should be written like "Zedong Mao" in English. :p --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 14:34, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hafz Al Asad was far from being socalism not everyone who use nationalisation as a political tool and calls him self a socialist is a socialist

The Baath Party ("Arab Socialist Resurrection Party") goal is to unite Arab countries in a socialist state. Hafez al-Assad was not a socialist himself, but neither was Stalin. They should be listed, though, because their parties subscribed to ideologies based on socialism, whether or not these ideas were put into practice. --Sesel 19:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On that basis, Tony Blair should be on the list, as should Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and John F. Kennedy. In fact so should just about everyone in history since the 1860s except monarchs, Adolf Hitler, Augusto Pinochet and Margaret Thatcher, given how widespread socialism's influence has been. 172.190.176.216 19:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What are you hiding from, "172.190.176.216"? Use common sense. Democrats and British Conservatives are not socialists. "Given how widespread socialism's influence has been"? ROTFL! It seems from your reply that you believe Churchill was an instrument of the International Communist Conspiracy. --Sesel 01:11, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Hitler formed the national socialist party, so even he should fit in your list of socialists. Of course that is nonsense, but honestly, do you really think just about everyone in history since the 1860s should be on the list? The Ungovernable Force 05:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palme

Morwen, what is going on? There is no article called Olaf Palme or OlAf Palme (sic); however, there is one called Olof Palme -- Viajero 15:09, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Need for definition

This is going to be one of those pages where nothing useful is achieved and everybody argues about who comes into the category. UNLESS we agree now a definition of what a socialist is. Frankly this is going to be very difficult, but I'm going to make some suggestions.

1) We exclude people who are avowed communists, trotsyisks etc. You may consider socialism to include communism, but its debatable, and in any case it would be much more useful to make a List of communists and put them there.

2) Anyone who is a member of a party calling itself socialist is included, unless that party is clearly something else (e.g. NAZI party).

Lets reach a consensus here, rather than just argue by adding and removing names. DJ Clayworth 15:19, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

1) Disagree strongly: communists, trotskyists, etc would see themselves as socialists and be seen as socialists by most other people.

2) Agree (doesn't this contradict your first point) - but how can we define this? Warofdreams 16:04, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As a compromise, we could have a List of socialists, and then have two sections within that, one for marxists, and one for marxists, and then perhaps a link to a longer list of Marxists? I feel strongly marxists should not be excluded and that any exclusion would be making a political judgement. Morwen 16:06, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've taken Pol Pot out. Under no definition I can think of, is that bastard a socialist. I'm not sure about Stalin in his later career, but I accept that he could be regarded as a socialist earlier on.

Waiting to be attacked for some percieved bias Alun Ephraim 11:08, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've re-added Pol Pot as he described himself as socialist. I've removed Tony Blair as he doesn't. Secretlondon 11:11, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

Not true as he in fact has described himself a socialist on several occasions... But anyhow, I'll put a warning note of some description by Pol Pot. Alun Ephraim 16:35, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Name one. Morwen 16:36, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Apparently he has recently(though I can't find where, although he used the word in his Party Conference speech. Not sure whether that would count), and has probably done in private for years...

But he definatly in 1983. Certain to have been other times, but 1983 will do.

Alun Ephraim 09:32, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So should this list contain everyone who was once a socialist, whether or not they still are? If so then we should say that at the top.

Seriously, this is a big trouble with lists like this. We are trying to use a very blunt instrument, a 'yes/no' list to define something which is much more subtle. DJ Clayworth 15:19, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So should we ask him to a (hypothetical) list of people who advocate unilateral nuclear disarmanent, too? Morwen 09:34, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is exactly why I suggested we exclude communists. Pol Pot was clearly a communist, so was Stalin, so by this definition they are Socialists. But it's easy to understand why some people are going to be less than happy with any list that puts them in the same category as Olof Palme or Tony Blair.

I'm tempted to try adding Hitler, as by the definition of Socialism it's easy to make the case for him being Socialst too. DJ Clayworth 18:45, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC) DJ Clayworth 18:45, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] New structure

This structure may solve some of the problems discussed above. I have omitted a few that I have never heard of. Adam 08:03, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Keller

What about Helen Keller? See "Lies by Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen for a detailed history about her involvement with socialism and communism.

Voyager640 08:41, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Maintainance

This list is really hard to maintain I think. A term socialist is very vague and I don't think the categories we have now work. Socialists can be anyone who is loosely related to socialism and socialistic politics masures, even though beliving socialism and who is labeled as socialist from others. Socialists are not necessalily politicians. Authors and film makers can be socialist.

Solution? I don't know. I think the list must be covered in wikipedia but really don't know working scheme yet. -- Taku 03:59, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

The list obviously isn't intended to include everyone who in their private lives supports or supported socialist views. It is primarily a list of people who are or were active in socialist politics, and secondarily some people prominent in other field who were known to be socialists (like Einstein). I think separating them by the type of socialism they supported is the most useful way of organising the list. Adam 05:43, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

OK "socialist" is a broad term with fuzzy edges, so there are bound to be borderline cases which are hard to call, but I don't think Henry George belongs in this list. In The Condition of Labor he wrote "We differ from the Socialists in our diagnosis of the evil, and we differ from them in remedies" -- Pm67nz 13:28, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

The Ex-Soviet category doesn't work because it means putting a model democrat like Ruutel in the same category as a nasty dictator like Rakhmanov, which is misleading and pointless. I have altered the Third World Authoritarian category to include Ex-Soviet nasties, who I agree are difficult to categorise. I have moved the genuine democracts to Democratic Socialists. I agree there is a problem with Shevardnadze - I'm not certain that he calls himself a socialist at all these days, but I have given him the benefit of the doubt. Adam 02:10, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Bustammante

I know that Sir Alexander Bustamante was not a socialist, however he would be considered a labour leader, so I put him in the list. He can be removed once there is an article posted about him. TwinsFan48

[edit] caribbeans and others

Twins, thanks for all those Caribbeans I hadn't thought of. What about the Antigua Birds?

I have returned Richard Stafford Cripps to Stafford Cripps. No-one knows his first name was Richard. If we do that, we have to do John Harold Wilson and Edward Gough Whitlam, which strikes me as pointlessly pedantic.

You have listed Ranil Wickremasinghe. I thought the UNP was an anti-socialist party. They have certainly always been in opposition to the LSSP, the SLFP and the CPSL. Do you know different?

Adam 01:28, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Wickremasinghe

According to the State Department and Electionworld.org, the ruling Antigua Labour Party is historically conservative, but Antigua is so small that the country's economics probably tend to be leftist (there are no large companies; the few that exist are mainly controlled by the Bird family).

I'll take Wickremasinghe off the list; I was unsure about his status when I added him. -TwinsFan48

[edit] Mysterious terrorists

Whoever added all these mysterious terrorists:

Domingo Iturbe Abasolo "Txomin," Mikel Albizu "Mikel Antza," Ignacio Gracia Arregui "Iñaki de Rentería," José Astorquiza "Pottoka," Sabri al-Banna "Abu Nidal," Dipankar Bhattacharya, Jorge Briceno "Mono Jojoy," Mofakkar Chowdhury, Pushpan Kamal Dahal "Comrade Prachanda," Hagop Hagopian, Francisco Javier Garcia Gaztelu "Txapote," Abimael Guzmán, Naif Hawatmeh, Alberto Félix López de Lacalle "Mobutu," Julen Madariaga, Subcomandante Marcos, Manuel Marulanda "Tirofijo," Fusako Shigenobu, José María Benito del Valle

might like to start providing some biographies for them. What evidence is there that they are or were socialists? Adam 14:48, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

They belong to groups that are ostensibly socialist that are not recognized as part of official governments. Examples are ETA, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, Shining Path, FARC, etc. --TwinsFan48 15 Dec 2003

I think this is pushing the boundaries of "socialist" a bit. ETA are Basque nationlists and FARC are a gang of drug-runners. However I guess they are no worse than some of the other people in the list. But some biographies would be good. They are not much use just as dead links. Adam 00:11, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I will get bios ready within the next week or so. --TwinsFan48

[edit] LaRouche

I don't know much about Lyndon LaRouche but nothing on his biography page suggests that he could possibly be considered a fascist. If anyone thinks he is a fascist please tell me why. Maybe there should be another catergory along with socialist who became fascists called "socialists who became capitalists" or something like that. Saul Taylor 04:15, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Read Lyndon LaRouche and the new American fascism. I agree he is hard to classify but fascist (or maybe wannabe fascist) seems to come closest. Adam 08:44, 30 Dec 2003 (PST)

For reference (Politics1.com):

Frequent candidate and purported political cult leader Lyndon LaRouche, 81, is back for an eighth Presidential run in 2004. As in the past, expect him to appear on several state primary ballots. LaRouche, a college drop-out and self-described "world's leading economist," weaves a web of conspiracy theories -- cloaked in a swirl of historic truths and mistruths -- usually implicating Queen Elizabeth, British bankers, the Pope and the Jesuits, the Trilateral Commission, drug cartels, environmentalists, Jane Fonda, Ted Kennedy, George Bush, the CIA and FBI, Osama bin Laden, gays, Israel, the Clintons, Margaret Thatcher and many others. He started his career as a Trotskyist political organizer in the Socialist Workers Party in the 1960s, formed the now-defunct and ultra right-wing US Labor Party in the early 1970s after a violent break from the SWP ... before finally shifting his entire neo-fascist network into the Democratic Party by 1979. LaRouche was convicted and imprisoned for five years on felony fraud charges in the late 1980s related to the fundraising activities of his political organization -- although his supporters maintain he was a political prisoner unfairly prosecuted by vindictive federal government agents. LaRouche's old nemesis, the Anti Defamation League (ADL), has published various booklets over the years that identify LaRouche as anti-Semitic. LaRouche strongly denies he is anti-Semitic and notes that numerous Jewish individuals are leaders in his organization. He also strongly denies the "cult" allegations. In 2000, LaRouche captured just 124 votes (11th place) in the New Hampshire Democratic primary -- and blamed his poor showing on a conspiracy led by the New Hampshire Secretary of State. He also competed in numerous other 2000 primaries -- but generally finishing in the 1-4% range in each contest. Although he passed the required 15% needed to win delegates in the late season Arkansas primary (he won 22%), the DNC refused to award LaRouche any delegates because they ruled that he was "not a real Democrat." LaRouche sued the DNC -- but the federal court ruled that the Democratic Party had the legal right to deny awarding any delegates to LaRouche, as he was not an authentic Democratic candidate because of his fringe views. The DNC also notes that LaRouche -- as a convicted felon -- is not a registered Democrat (nor even a registered voter) and is also not eligible under party rules to be the nominee for this reason. For the same reason, party leaders are excluding him from the debates -- even though he qualified for federal matching funds and raised over $5 million as of fall 2003 (which placed him ahead of Clark, Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton in the money hunt). However, of that amount, little remains unspent as the money goes to finance his perpetual political network of offices, staffers and publications. He has already qualified for the 2004 New Hampshire primary ballot and will likely appear on ballots in several other states.

--TwinsFan48

I'm not sure that helps us very much. Obviously the answer to the question "Is LaRouche a fascist?" depends on how we define "fascist." Unfortunately our WP article on fascism is so bad that it is no help here, since it only describes fascist regimes of the past rather than defines fascism as a set of ideas or a movement. LaRouche doesn't wear a black shirt and jackboots or lead mobs through the streets, so he is not a traditional fascist. But that is mainly because he is American and not European, and his ideology reflects a different political culture. The book I cited above argues that he is a specifically American fascist.

My definition of fascism is: an ideology characterised by (a) rejection of democracy and liberal political ideas generally, (b) racism and / or extreme nationalism, (c) exaltation of violence and authoritarian rule, (d) a cult of leadership, usually of a single Leader, and (e) a social philosophy which borrows some ideas from socialism but is corporatist and statist rather than socialist.

My view is that LaRouche qualifies (from what I have read about him) on all these counts except possibly the last. What distinguishes him from European fascists is his lack of success - a fascist Leader with no followers cuts a rather ridiculous figure, so we tend to dismiss LaRouche as a joke while regarding someone like LePen, who draws 15% of the vote in France, with fear and loathing. Adam 04:34, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Andres Nin

Why is Andres Nin listed here as an anarchist? He was a dissident Trot I thought. Adam 01:11, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectual section

One problem with the "intellectual" section is that nearly every anarchist well known enough to make the list could easily fit into that section. The only way a n anarchist can become known (due to the fact they generally don't participate in the normal political system) is by writing or speeches. Thus we have anarchists such as George Orwell and Noam Chomsky down there, and the anarchist section looks rather bare. This may well apply to other schools of socialist thought too (I'm most familiar with anarchism though). I'd like to see that section removed and the people under it put into sections according to their politics. ShaneKing 01:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with calling Orwell an anarchist. He was a member of the Independent Labour Party which was not anarchist by any means. I think you could arue the point but not in an NPOV way. Saul Taylor 02:46, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, an "anarchist sympathiser" perhaps? I know he didn't agree with everything regarding anarchist theory, but I fail to see what better label to give him. Unfortunately, labelling by its nature involves shoehorning people where they best fit, even if the fit is imperfect. There's always going to be POV in deciding which is best fit. There's also always going to be POV in any classification, as it takes a POV to decide what classifications to use in the first place. Pretending otherwise doesn't really help. The only way to make this page NPOV is to only allow people who have explicitly used the label about themselves on it, and likewise for the sub categories. You'd probably have to renamed it "People who have declared themselves socialists" too. However, that presents problems in itself, as some of the terms weren't invented when people they would match were alive. For example, some people claim Jesus was a socialist, yet the term was still centuries away from being coined, so how can you decide in a NPOV way? ShaneKing 02:58, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's quite funny to me but no one in the anarchist and syndicalist section is actually an anarchist or a syndicalist. In fact some of them would have been very hostile to both ideologies. The nearest you get are Industrial Unionists like Mother Jones but no way was she a syndicalist. Orwell too btw was never an anarchist. After 1946, at the latest, he was in the Labour Party and best seen as a democratic socialist therefore.

I haven't heard that Orwell was ever in the Labour Party, I knew he was in the Independent Labour Party but only after it had split from the Labour Party and only before the war. Saul Taylor 11:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a read of one of the many biographies is in order then Saul? But it's a minor qubblke in any case as the current list organisation is both inaccurate for many entries and unwieldy. I'll come up with an alternative when I've more time.

Well I haven't had time to read any of his biographies but I find it strange that I can't find any site saying that he was. You're right thats its a minor point however. Saul Taylor 05:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Avakian, Cardenas and the wide definition

Deleting Avakian from the list of members of orthodox Communist PArties because he is not a member of such a party. He leads the RCP which is a self proclaimed maoist party. The orthodox CP in the USA is the CPUSA to which Avakian is hostile

On Lazaro Cardenas he is not a socialist in that he does not describe himself thgus and his party does not subscribe to a socialist ideology. Like many Latin American parties belonging to the LSI in fact. Note that the what someone described as the Socialist International does not require its affiliates to be socialist.

"The people on this list have been nominated because they claimed to be socialists, or were very widely perceived to be by others."

Whoever is constantly deleting certain entries apparently has not read this article. --Sesel 18:06, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Kuan Yew

Know what you are talking about before deleting. If you knew anything about Lee Kuan Yew's career, you would probably know that he began it as a progressive socialist. He obviously later let go of this ideology, but he did once hold it as Singapore's head of government. I will add his name again unless this can be disproved. --Sesel 23:58, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Someone doesn't like the truth. Lukashenka is widely known throughout the world as a ultra-conservative Stalinist [1]. Jonas Savimbi followed the Maoist doctrine of guerrilla warfare and received communist support [2]. And for Niyazov, one just needs to read his bio on Wikipedia to see that he is a reform communist without the reform and maintains a massive Stalinist personality cult. DISCUSS controversial changes before they are made, or I will seek a block for the user(s) making these changes. --Sesel 04:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How to define

The question of who is or not a socialist is widely disputed. But to argue that the perceptions of others are adequate definition of an individuals status is idiotic and it begs the question as to whose perceptions are definitive.

If we were to abide by the "widely perceived" views of American conservatives then any politician who has so much as voiced a positive view of any of the former 'socialist states', has ventured a positive opinion of the municipalisation of garbage disposal or written a fair review of a book by a socialist becomes a socialist de facto. This list then would be massive indeed and could include most liberals and european conservatives too. That however would be a totally useless list.

Or we could go by the "widely perceived" views of most from the various trotskyist groups. In which case this list would be very much shortened. We would exclude all the Stalinists and individuals whose views are Stalinist derived. We would also exclude authoritarian figures from former 'socialist states' for reasons that should be obvious to intelligent observers.

Neither of these "widely perceived" views would work here. So the criteria I've applied is whether or not a person belongs to a party that is widely perceived as being socialist or advocates socialist policies in the here and now.

With respect to those individuals mentioned Lee Kuan Yew doe not fit this definition nor were his politics ever seen as being progressively socialist other than by conservatives. Jonas Savimbi's alliance with Maoist China does not make him a socialist either and the BBC is not an expert source on Maoist military tactics. Savimbi was a corrupt tribalist whose use of a bit of socialist demagogy as part of a ploy to obtain weaponry from China is meaningless. Finally Niyazov has a personality cult. Well so too did Ayatollah Khomeini and that did not make him a socialist. Politically he is allied with the USA and promotes privatisation, globalisation and is no longer connected to a party that describes itself as socialist.

I'm not arguing for a restrictive definition of who is or is not a socialist. if i were most on this list would be removed as I've noted. But I am arguing for a recognition that if there is no current perception of a person as socialist, if the person has no connections to a socialist movement or party and pursues policies which are widely perceieved - in the first instance by a majority of socialists - as antithetical to socialist policies then that person does not belong on this list.

As i see it this page is unsatisfactory at present. It has a number of categories which make little sense. For example Bolsheviks and Mensheviks exist as categories when in fact members of the RSDLP moved between these factions. Another example is the anarchist section which includes very few anarchists but does include a number of people whom I can't fit anywhere else. Yet another problem area is the Post Soviet Authoritarians which includes figures who make no claim to be socialists in any way and are included simply because pre-1991 they were in the CPSU the problem being almost everybody was in the CPSU.

So what I'm proposing is scrapping the entire list and starting again! More exactly I'm proposing that the list be reorganised by date of birth thus eliminating all categories and thus many disputes. Secondary lists of Anarchists, Trotskyists, Social Democrats and so forth can then be added. As the list is searchable alphabetically this can only eliminate some disputes. However I'm also proposing a new introductory paragraph which I'll post here with supporting explanations ASAP (I have both a life and a political life I'm afraid!) in a few days. I'll wait for some feedback and then, if this suggestion is agreeable, I'll begin the reorganisation.

Jock Haston

• I've split off a List of Trotskyists, but I've not removed them from the main list, as it will hopefully have a much-needed rearrangment. Warofdreams 14:19, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The following is a draft for anew intoruction to this list page. it makes the criteria for inclusion only a little more stringent. basically its intention is to exclude individuals who do not declare themselves to be socialists. Most of these people are either left populists or former Stalinists now free market authoritarians. I intend placing it on the main page and beginning a reorg after opinions have, hopefully been expressed here, early next week. Here tis;-

The following is a list of self identified socialists. Individuals qualify for this list if known by reason of their identification as socialists in whole or major part. Therefore individuals who might be socialists but who are not known as a result of that are not listed unless their socialism is of importance to their work or their espousal of socialism has become a source of interest in the individual. The list is by date of birth and can be searched by name. Other lists of ideological currents within socialism or by party affiliation can be found below. Some of the listed individuals have been or were committed to other ideologies either before or after their identification with a socialist ideology. if such individuals have rejected all forms of socialism and socialist ideology in favour of a competing political ideology they will not be found on this list unless they are only known by reason of their time spent in the socialist movement. Given that the boundaries between different ideological currents within socialist movements and definitions of socialism are fiercely contested few will agree as to the inclusion of all the individuals on this list. Some individuals often regarded as socialists by ideological opponents of socialism have been excluded from the list where there is no substantive reason for considering the individual to have been or to be a socialist other than on the basis of such opponents. In the first instance the criteria for admission to this list is self identification as a socialist. A second lesser criteria being the identification of an individual as a socialist by a socialist movement. Taken together these criteria ensure that those viewed by ideological opponents of socialism as socialists but rejected as such by themselves and by the socialist movement are rejected for inclusion.

Jock Haston

This article isn't meant to be a rambling essay. I reject this proposal because it is inherently non-objective. --Sesel 21:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The draft is actually not that long and is more precise than the existing intro. Of course its subjective. Any intro will be subjective. Socialism is a political conception and therefore subjective. In fact the current intro is subjective too only its criteria makes no sense at all as it can be rediuced to popular perception. Thus if it is popularly perceived that Margaret Thatcher is a socialist then into the list she goes! Total nonsense of course.

I agree with Jock. The list is pretty much useless the way it is at present. AndyL 21:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections

I moved Jay Lovestone and Helen Keller from the list of anarcho-syndicalists (!) to the list of communists (Keller was a CPUSA supporter, Lovestone was, of course, expelled but since there isn't a list of "Lovestonites" I reasoned putting him under Communists was at least better than listing him as an anarcho-syndicalist. AndyL 02:33, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New layout

What is going on? This is a total mess with sloppy code and layout, some names linked and not others, and many names have been deleted by the person designing this new organization. I understand that it's not finished yet, but it should at least be presentable in the interim. --Sesel 03:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Much better now. Thank you. --Sesel 18:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about errors, particularly with regard to code - not one of my strong points I'm afraid, but I think that the list is beginning to be more scientific as more names are transferred to the first section of the list. Also I added in some names as I went along due to their importance. I have deleted names but for the good reason that they do not belong in the list as now defined. That is to say i've deleted non-socialists. Please note that I'm not deleting entries so the information remains available. There are borderline cases which will still cause controversy and I'm tending to leave them to the end. But when transferring names from the 'militant' section of the list I've tried to be fair and have not deleted very borderline cases such as the SLA people. Former members of ruling communist parties who have abandoned any conection to their former ideology have been deleted but those who continue to describe themselves as socialists or social democrats retained. Most controversy will arise with 3rd world figures when I egt to them and I'll do my best to be fair! Please note if this list were compiled by my regard for the idividuals I would include non-socialists such as Lazaro Cardenas but exclude figues like Stalin! Neither in my view were socialists but by the fairest definition I can devise only the latter belongs on this list.

Could someone provide a list of ALL names that have been removed during this "re-construction" project? I've already noticed a few. I sense a strong bias... --Sesel 00:48, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I've not kept a list of those deleted from the list for the obvious reason that such individuals are not socialists. I've explained several times the criteria used to decide on whether or not someone qualifies for the list. To repeat those deleted belong to one or other category. First former members of ruling Stalinist parties - ex-communists if you prefer - who have renounced any identification with socialism. Secondly individuals who have abandoned any connection to a socialist ideology but remain active in non-socialist politics. Third individuals who are members of parties which are not socialist and make no claim to being socialist themselves, that is of parties basically populist or nationalist. Fourth two or three artists who may be socialists but whose political views have no bearing on their art which is in turn the reason for their fame or infamy as the case may be.

A few examples should make it clear why people have been deleted. The first category excludes the likes of former Stalinists in Central Asia who have renounced any allegiance to a sopcialist ideology and have formed close alliances with the USA. If such people are socialists then so to is Margeret thatcher. In the Second category I've deleted figures such as Cohn Bendit who is now a Green. In the Third category members of parties such as Lazaro cardenas despite that facti hold him personally in high regard but he's not a socialist end of story. Fourth Leon trotskys son who is not active politically and whose views do not impact on his art. All these figures can be found and no entries have been deleted.

As to the allegation of bias I can assure you that if I were putting togather a list of people I regard as socialists many more would be deleted. For example all the Stalinists and most of the members of Social Democratic or Labour type parties. Zionists and Baathists too would be excluded if this list were subject to my definition of a socialist ideology. On the other hand if I were constructing a list of individuals I hold in high regard despite their politics a few of those i've deleted would make the list. I'm afraid to say that Sesel wishes to construct a list of socialists that conforms to her/his own definition and that definition is clearly not one that any committed socialist of any type would agree with. Jock Haston

This is for Sesel. I've deleted the rulers of Byelorussia and Turkmenistan for the following reasons. Neither manis a member of a party that claims a socialist ideology. That the Turkmenistan was formerly the Turkmenistan CP actually means nothing in this context. Its renunciation of the name communist was also a renunciation of any kind of socialist ideology. It foillows then that the leader of the party must also have renounced any socialist ideology at the same time given his position in that party. Also all the various socialists I know or whose opinions are known to me, ranging from those whose views i can only access via sparse english language web sites to those I know personally including a Duma Deputy, reject the idea that either man is a socialist of any kind. This is also true as far as I'm able to tell of those who claim to be socialists in both Turkmenistan and Byelorussia. I also note that a command economy is not evidence that the person or persons in charge of it are socialists. Command economies are rejected by many socialists in point of fact and have been advocated by many capitalists in the past. Although they aren't terribly fashionable with anyone right now it is fair to say.

The point above about rejecting individuals for inclusion on this list by virtue of their being allied with the USA should not be interpreted pedantically. Byelorussia is allied to Russia which is now seen by just about everyone, the only exceptions that come to mind are the members of Lutte Ouvriere, as a capitalist economy. Turkmenistan, which has nothing very uch that anyone wants, has allowed various capitalist countries to build oli pipelines on its territory. Such alliances do not indicate the nature of the political economy of either state of course but do indicate that they are not hermetically sealed off and do make alliances with capitalist countries. Whether the capitalist state they ally with is the USA, Iran or turkey is besides the point and of very secondary importance.

Jock Haston

[edit] How is John Lilburne a Socialist?

I can't find any evidence suggesting that John Lilburne (the very first person on the list) was a socialist. I find nothing of him which suggests economic egalitarianism. He was a puritan, after all, who were strong proponents of the "protestant work ethic", chances are better that this man was an economic rightist than leftist. Also, he called for equal rights, liberties and freedoms, hence his "freeborn rights". He made no mention of an egalitarian economy. I will take him off of the list.--68.74.30.30 00:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Social Democratic Politicians?

There are many social democratic politicans which are being called socialists on this list. Although social democracy and democratic socialism may be ideologically similair, they are still not the exact same, and a necessary distinction should be made. In particular, members of the Canadian political party NDP who are in a party with socialists, but are not socialists themselves should not be identified as socialists.

[edit] I am wondering...

Some out there may know me and many more will not. I was wondering if as an elected official of the Socialist Party of Florida I should add my bio. here for others to read?

[edit] Redo

I'll be back tomorrow to finish. —Seselwa 08:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Bertrand Aristide

I've removed him from this list. Let us not confuse Socialist and Demagogue

Aristide did claim to be a socialist, so your edit is nothing more than POV. —Sesel 20:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler also called himself a Socialist. I failed to find him here.

Aristide is not Hitler. Stupid hyberbole will not get anyone's serious attention. —Sesel 02:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoreau

The person who placed Thoreau on a list of socialists in the United States should have his head checked.

[edit] List format

I am slowly revising the list format to make it resemble the "list of communists" page which is neater and easier to read. It is a bit of a pain in the ass, so any help would be appreciated! -MegO'Brien

[edit] Dispute

It is disputed that Greek and Cypriot socialists should be listed under the heading "Greece and Cyprus". This needs separating into two separate lists as they are two soverign countries.

Agree - it is not approptiate --jrleighton 03:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

When I restructured the list, I did so by region in most cases and individual headings for large countries or those that have been ruled by Leninist parties. Greece has produced a number of notable socialists, while Cyprus (to my knowledge) has not, so I don't know if Cyprus should have its own heading. If there was a heading for every sovereign state, there would be 194 entries in the table of contents instead of the original 40. —Sesel 06:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noam Chomsky in List of Socialists

Is it logical to have Noam Chomsky in the List of Socialists when he's an anarchist? I can understand the view that as an anarchist he is a socialist, but a libertarian socialist but I don't see every anarchist on the socialist list. User:Merlov 10:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky claims to be an anarchist but he supports many Marxist ideals and theories. Because of this, he cannot be considered an anarchist any more than Lenin or Stalin can. - Iroquois

Chomsky's classification as an anarchist or not doesn't matter in this discussion--Goldman and Berkman are on the list, so if there's an anarchist you don't see, add them because anarchists belong on this list too. The Ungovernable Force 00:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist does not always equal socialist, in fact the two are diametrically opposed on a few aspects. Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin was vehemently opposed to Marx's ideas of centralised state authority. Additionally, should anarcho-capitalists such as Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe be on the list even though they both disapprove of socialism? Even though there is quite a bit of overlap between Marxism/socialism and Bakuninist/Proudhonist anarchism (both oppose private property, both focus on exploitation of workers by capitalism) the differences between them (the existence of a centralised state authority) should be enough to warrant keeping both lists seperate. - Iroquois

Isn't there a saying that every Anarchist is a socialist but not every socialist is an anarchist? I would venture to say, except for a few exceptions like the ones Iroquois stated, that anarchists should be on the list. - Uhgreen

Bakunin was a socialist, he was not however a Marxist. The International Workingmen's Association was split along two lines--State-socialism led by Marx and anarchist socialism led by Bakunin. Bakunin and the other anarchists were later expelled from the International by Marx, but they were socialists. And there is quite a bit of debate as to whether anarcho-capitalists are really anarchists at all (see anarchism, anarcho-capitalism and anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, especially the talk pages). So even the exceptions might not even be exceptions. Proudhon is debatable. The Ungovernable Force 06:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The answers to these questions are quite clear-cut, which is unusual for politics. All anarchists are socialists. "Anarcho-capitalism" is not anarchism; therefore "anarcho-capitalists" are not anarchists and not socialists. Anarchism, not just a political system, is more broadly a philosophy about the structure of society that is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism. —Sesel 07:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country

I think there needs to be more discussion as to what qualifies someone as from a certain country/region. I bring this up because many socialists/anarchists from the late 19th and early 20th centuries were born in Russia and emigrated from Russia to the US. So are they american or russian. Goldman and Berkman are currently under Russian, but most of their political development and activity was in the states. Is it by birth or something else. Either way, it should be noted on the first page what determines their classification. The Ungovernable Force 00:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Country

I think then that people who have moved to a new country to live, should be placed under the name of that new country. User:Merlov 10:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oddities

Mark Thomas is an anarchist... so, does that mean socialist. Ask him. Morrissey is listed, but I've never heard anything about him being a socialist, there's no mention of it in his wikipedia article. Same goes for Mumia Abu-Jamal.

[edit] Canadian social democrats

I have been going through the names in the Canada section of this list, removing ones in which their supposed socialism is not backed up, or sometimes completely contradicted, by information in their respective articles. It seems clear that people are just adding the names of any social democrat they can think of to the list without making a distinction between social democracy, which is a reformist ideology, and socialism, which is not. Discuss here if you disagree with anything I've done. Serpent-A 19:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Browne and Blair

How in God's name did Browne and Blair get on the list.--Nwe 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Category for Ireland

Irish socialist should be given a category of their own, rather than be affixed to the UK, as should various other small countries currently attached to to larger ones.--Nwe 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References?

I have serious concerns about this series of lists: mainly that the criterion for inclusion is apparently "self-identification as a socialist". This is fine, but given this is such a contentious and politically-charged categorisation to start with, there really needs to be verification for each and every name on all the lists. It seems these lists are skating dangerously close to violating all of the three main Wikipedia content policies: WP:VERIFY (every name and self-identification needs to be referenced), WP:NOR (in the absence of references, this article looks like original research), and WP:NPOV (if not self-identified, is this "socialism" an opinion of the list author?).

I have tagged all the lists as unreferenced. --Canley 12:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

References are not necessary in the lists. Ideally, the person's political views would be discussed (and referenced) in the individual articles. —Sesel 17:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] categorization / lists of people

Is there some reason that this list of lists has no [[:Category:]] categories? I've put back Category:Lists of people by ideology and Category:Socialists in the meantime. --lquilter 22:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)