Socialism: Difference between revisions

From Encyc
← Older editNewer edit →
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:


'''Socialism''' is a range of [[Economic systems|economic]] and [[social system]]s characterised by [[social ownership]] of the [[means of production]] and [[workers' self-management]],{{refn|<ref>{{cite book |title=Upton Sinclair's: A Monthly Magazine: for Social Justice, by Peaceful Means If Possible |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i0w9AQAAMAAJ |date=1 January 1918 |last=Sinclair |first=Upton |authorlink=Upton Sinclair |quote=Socialism, you see, is a bird with two wings. The definition is 'social ownership and democratic control of the instruments and means of production.'}}</ref><ref name="Nove">{{cite web |last=Nove |first=Alec |title=Socialism |website=New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition (2008) |url=http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_S000173 |quote=A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialised or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Rosser |first=Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr. |title=Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy |publisher=MIT Press |date=23 July 2003 |isbn=978-0-262-18234-8 |page=53 |quote=Socialism is an economic system characterised by state or collective ownership of the means of production, land, and capital.}}</ref><ref name="N. Scott Arnold 1998. pg. 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" N. Scott Arnold. ''The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism : A Critical Study''. Oxford University Press. 1998. p. 8</ref><ref name="Busky1">{{cite book |last=Busky |first=Donald F. |title=Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey |publisher=Praeger |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-275-96886-1 |page=2 |quote=Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy. It is this idea that is the common element found in the many forms of socialism.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author1=Bertrand Badie |author2=Dirk Berg-Schlosser |author3=Leonardo Morlino |title=International Encyclopedia of Political Science |publisher=SAGE Publications, Inc |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-4129-5963-6 |page=2456 |quote=Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Zimbalist, Sherman and Brown |first=Andrew, Howard J. and Stuart |title=Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach |publisher=Harcourt College Pub |date=1988 |isbn=978-0-15-512403-5 |page=7 |quote=Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and run by the government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Brus |first=Wlodzimierz |title=The Economics and Politics of Socialism |publisher=Routledge |date=2015 |isbn=978-0-415-86647-7 |page=87 |quote=This alteration in the relationship between economy and politics is evident in the very definition of a socialist economic system. The basic characteristic of such a system is generally reckoned to be the predominance of the social ownership of the means of production.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Michie |first=Jonathan |title=Readers Guide to the Social Sciences |publisher=Routledge |year=2001 |isbn=978-1-57958-091-9 |page=1516 |quote=Just as private ownership defines capitalism, social ownership defines socialism. The essential characteristic of socialism in theory is that it destroys social hierarchies, and therefore leads to a politically and economically egalitarian society. Two closely related consequences follow. First, every individual is entitled to an equal ownership share that earns an aliquot part of the total social dividend…Second, in order to eliminate social hierarchy in the workplace, enterprises are run by those employed, and not by the representatives of private or state capital. Thus, the well-known historical tendency of the divorce between ownership and management is brought to an end. The society—i.e. every individual equally—owns capital and those who work are entitled to manage their own economic affairs.}}</ref>}} as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.<ref name="Socialism at The Free dictionary">"2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system" [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism "Socialism" at The Free dictionary]</ref> Social ownership can be [[State ownership|public]], [[Collective ownership|collective]] or [[cooperative]] ownership, or [[citizen ownership of equity]].<ref>{{cite book |last=O'Hara |first=Phillip |title=Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |date=2003 |isbn=978-0-415-24187-8 |page=71 |quote=In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialised ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity.}}</ref> There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,<ref name="Peter Lamb 2006. p. 1">{{harvnb|Lamb|Docherty|2006|p=1}}</ref> with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.<ref name="Busky1"/><ref>{{cite book |last=Arnold |first=Scott |title=The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=1994 |isbn=978-0-19-508827-4 |pages=7–8 |quote=This term is harder to define, since socialists disagree among themselves about what socialism ‘really is.’ It would seem that everyone (socialists and nonsocialists alike) could at least agree that it is not a system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production…To be a socialist is not just to believe in certain ends, goals, values, or ideals. It also requires a belief in a certain institutional means to achieve those ends; whatever that may mean in positive terms, it certainly presupposes, at a minimum, the belief that these ends and values cannot be achieved in an economic system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production…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.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Hastings, Mason and Pyper |first=Adrian, Alistair and Hugh |title=The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=21 December 2000 |isbn=978-0-19-860024-4 |page=677 |quote=Socialists have always recognized that there are many possible forms of social ownership of which co-operative ownership is one...Nevertheless, socialism has throughout its history been inseparable from some form of common ownership. By its very nature it involves the abolition of private ownership of capital; bringing the means of production, distribution, and exchange into public ownership and control is central to its philosophy. It is difficult to see how it can survive, in theory or practice, without this central idea.}}</ref>
'''Socialism''' is a range of [[Economic systems|economic]] and [[social system]]s characterised by [[social ownership]] of the [[means of production]] and [[workers' self-management]],{{refn|<ref>{{cite book |title=Upton Sinclair's: A Monthly Magazine: for Social Justice, by Peaceful Means If Possible |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i0w9AQAAMAAJ |date=1 January 1918 |last=Sinclair |first=Upton |authorlink=Upton Sinclair |quote=Socialism, you see, is a bird with two wings. The definition is 'social ownership and democratic control of the instruments and means of production.'}}</ref><ref name="Nove">{{cite web |last=Nove |first=Alec |title=Socialism |website=New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition (2008) |url=http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_S000173 |quote=A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialised or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Rosser |first=Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr. |title=Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy |publisher=MIT Press |date=23 July 2003 |isbn=978-0-262-18234-8 |page=53 |quote=Socialism is an economic system characterised by state or collective ownership of the means of production, land, and capital.}}</ref><ref name="N. Scott Arnold 1998. pg. 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" N. Scott Arnold. ''The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism : A Critical Study''. Oxford University Press. 1998. p. 8</ref><ref name="Busky1">{{cite book |last=Busky |first=Donald F. |title=Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey |publisher=Praeger |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-275-96886-1 |page=2 |quote=Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy. It is this idea that is the common element found in the many forms of socialism.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author1=Bertrand Badie |author2=Dirk Berg-Schlosser |author3=Leonardo Morlino |title=International Encyclopedia of Political Science |publisher=SAGE Publications, Inc |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-4129-5963-6 |page=2456 |quote=Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Zimbalist, Sherman and Brown |first=Andrew, Howard J. and Stuart |title=Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach |publisher=Harcourt College Pub |date=1988 |isbn=978-0-15-512403-5 |page=7 |quote=Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and run by the government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Brus |first=Wlodzimierz |title=The Economics and Politics of Socialism |publisher=Routledge |date=2015 |isbn=978-0-415-86647-7 |page=87 |quote=This alteration in the relationship between economy and politics is evident in the very definition of a socialist economic system. The basic characteristic of such a system is generally reckoned to be the predominance of the social ownership of the means of production.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Michie |first=Jonathan |title=Readers Guide to the Social Sciences |publisher=Routledge |year=2001 |isbn=978-1-57958-091-9 |page=1516 |quote=Just as private ownership defines capitalism, social ownership defines socialism. The essential characteristic of socialism in theory is that it destroys social hierarchies, and therefore leads to a politically and economically egalitarian society. Two closely related consequences follow. First, every individual is entitled to an equal ownership share that earns an aliquot part of the total social dividend…Second, in order to eliminate social hierarchy in the workplace, enterprises are run by those employed, and not by the representatives of private or state capital. Thus, the well-known historical tendency of the divorce between ownership and management is brought to an end. The society—i.e. every individual equally—owns capital and those who work are entitled to manage their own economic affairs.}}</ref>}} as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.<ref name="Socialism at The Free dictionary">"2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system" [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism "Socialism" at The Free dictionary]</ref> Social ownership can be [[State ownership|public]], [[Collective ownership|collective]] or [[cooperative]] ownership, or [[citizen ownership of equity]].<ref>{{cite book |last=O'Hara |first=Phillip |title=Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |date=2003 |isbn=978-0-415-24187-8 |page=71 |quote=In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialised ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity.}}</ref> There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,<ref name="Peter Lamb 2006. p. 1">{{harvnb|Lamb|Docherty|2006|p=1}}</ref> with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.<ref name="Busky1"/><ref>{{cite book |last=Arnold |first=Scott |title=The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=1994 |isbn=978-0-19-508827-4 |pages=7–8 |quote=This term is harder to define, since socialists disagree among themselves about what socialism ‘really is.’ It would seem that everyone (socialists and nonsocialists alike) could at least agree that it is not a system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production…To be a socialist is not just to believe in certain ends, goals, values, or ideals. It also requires a belief in a certain institutional means to achieve those ends; whatever that may mean in positive terms, it certainly presupposes, at a minimum, the belief that these ends and values cannot be achieved in an economic system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production…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.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Hastings, Mason and Pyper |first=Adrian, Alistair and Hugh |title=The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=21 December 2000 |isbn=978-0-19-860024-4 |page=677 |quote=Socialists have always recognized that there are many possible forms of social ownership of which co-operative ownership is one...Nevertheless, socialism has throughout its history been inseparable from some form of common ownership. By its very nature it involves the abolition of private ownership of capital; bringing the means of production, distribution, and exchange into public ownership and control is central to its philosophy. It is difficult to see how it can survive, in theory or practice, without this central idea.}}</ref>
<!-- Economics. -->
Socialist systems are divided into non-market and [[Market (economics)|market]] forms.<ref name="Kolb">{{cite book |last=Kolb |first=Robert |title=Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, First Edition |publisher=SAGE Publications, Inc |date=19 October 2007 |isbn=978-1412916523 |page=1345 |quote=There are many forms of socialism, all of which eliminate private ownership of capital and replace it with collective ownership. These many forms, all focused on advancing distributive justice for long-term social welfare, can be divided into two broad types of socialism: nonmarket and market.}}</ref> Non-market socialism involves the substitution of [[factor market]]s and [[money]] with engineering and technical criteria based on [[Calculation in kind|calculation performed in-kind]], thereby producing an economic mechanism that functions according to different [[Law of value|economic laws]] from those of [[capitalism]]. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and [[Economic crisis|crises]] traditionally associated with [[capital accumulation]] and the profit system.{{refn|<ref>{{cite book |last=Bockman |first=Johanna |title=Markets in the name of Socialism: The Left-Wing origins of Neoliberalism |publisher=Stanford University Press |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-8047-7566-3 |page=20 |quote=socialism would function without capitalist economic categories—such as money, prices, interest, profits and rent—and thus would function according to laws other than those described by current economic science. While some socialists recognised the need for money and prices at least during the transition from capitalism to socialism, socialists more commonly believed that the socialist economy would soon administratively mobilise the economy in physical units without the use of prices or money.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Steele |first=David Ramsay |title=From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation |publisher=Open Court |date=1999 |isbn=978-0-87548-449-5 |pages=175–77 |quote=Especially before the 1930s, many socialists and anti-socialists implicitly accepted some form of the following for the incompatibility of state-owned industry and factor markets. A market transaction is an exchange of property titles between two independent transactors. Thus internal market exchanges cease when all of industry is brought into the ownership of a single entity, whether the state or some other organization...the discussion applies equally to any form of social or community ownership, where the owning entity is conceived as a single organization or administration.}}</ref><ref>''Is Socialism Dead? A Comment on Market Socialism and Basic Income Capitalism'', by Arneson, Richard J. 1992. Ethics, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 485–511. April 1992: "Marxian socialism is often identified with the call to organize economic activity on a nonmarket basis."</ref><ref>''Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists'', by Schweickart, David; Lawler, James; Ticktin, Hillel; Ollman, Bertell. 1998. From "The Difference Between Marxism and Market Socialism" (pp. 61–63): "More fundamentally, a socialist society must be one in which the economy is run on the principle of the direct satisfaction of human needs...Exchange-value, prices and so money are goals in themselves in a capitalist society or in any market. There is no necessary connection between the accumulation of capital or sums of money and human welfare. Under conditions of backwardness, the spur of money and the accumulation of wealth has led to a massive growth in industry and technology ... It seems an odd argument to say that a capitalist will only be efficient in producing use-value of a good quality when trying to make more money than the next capitalist. It would seem easier to rely on the planning of use-values in a rational way, which because there is no duplication, would be produced more cheaply and be of a higher quality."</ref><ref>''The Economics of Feasible Socialism Revisited'', by Nove, Alexander. 1991. p. 13: "Under socialism, by definition, it (private property and factor markets) would be eliminated. There would then be something like ‘scientific management’, ‘the science of socially organized production’, but it would not be economics."</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Socialism and Capitalism: Are They Qualitatively Different Socioeconomic Systems? |last=Kotz |first=David M. |accessdate=19 February 2011 |website=University of Massachusetts |url=http://people.umass.edu/dmkotz/Soc_and_Cap_Diff_Syst_06_12.pdf |format=PDF}} "This understanding of socialism was held not just by revolutionary Marxist socialists but also by evolutionary socialists, Christian socialists, and even anarchists. At that time, there was also wide agreement about the basic institutions of the future socialist system: public ownership instead of private ownership of the means of production, economic planning instead of market forces, production for use instead of for profit."</ref><ref name="Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past 1">''Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past'', by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3–4, p. 2: "Socialism has historically been committed to the improvement of people's material standards of living. Indeed, in earlier days many socialists saw the promotion of improving material living standards as the primary basis for socialism's claim to superiority over capitalism, for socialism was to overcome the irrationality and inefficiency seen as endemic to a capitalist system of economic organization."</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Prychito |first=David L. |title=Markets, Planning, and Democracy: Essays After the Collapse of Communism |publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing |date=2002 |isbn=978-1-84064-519-4 |page=12 |quote=Socialism is a system based upon de facto public or social ownership of the means of production, the abolition of a hierarchical division of labor in the enterprise, a consciously organized social division of labor. Under socialism, money, competitive pricing, and profit-loss accounting would be destroyed.}}</ref>}} By contrast, [[market socialism]] retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and in some cases the [[profit motive]], with respect to the operation of socially owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm, or accrue to society at large in the form of a [[social dividend]].<ref name="Social Dividend versus Basic Income Guarantee in Market Socialism, 2004">''Social Dividend versus Basic Income Guarantee in Market Socialism'', by Marangos, John. 2004. International Journal of Political Economy, vol. 34, no. 3, Fall 2004.</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=O'Hara |first=Phillip |title=Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |date=2000 |isbn=978-0-415-24187-8 |page=71 |quote=Market socialism is the general designation for a number of models of economic systems. On the one hand, the market mechanism is utilized to distribute economic output, to organize production and to allocate factor inputs. On the other hand, the economic surplus accrues to society at large rather than to a class of private (capitalist) owners, through some form of collective, public or social ownership of capital.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Pierson |first=Christopher |title=Socialism After Communism: The New Market Socialism |publisher=Pennsylvania State Univ Press |date=1995 |isbn=978-0-271-01478-4 |page=96 |quote=At the heart of the market socialist model is the abolition of the large-scale private ownership of capital and its replacement by some form of ‘social ownership’. Even the most conservative accounts of market socialism insist that this abolition of large-scale holdings of private capital is essential. This requirement is fully consistent with the market socialists’ general claim that the vices of market capitalism lie not with the institutions of the market but with (the consequences of) the private ownership of capital...}}</ref> The [[socialist calculation debate]] concerns the feasibility and methods of resource allocation for a socialist system.
Socialist politics has been both internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organised through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions, and at other times independent and critical of unions; and present in both industrialised and developing nations.<ref>"In fact, socialism has been both centralist and local; organized from above and built from below; visionary and pragmatic; revolutionary and reformist; anti-state and statist; internationalist and nationalist; harnessed to political parties and shunning them; an outgrowth of trade unionism and independent of it; a feature of rich industrialized countries and poor peasant-based communities" Michael Newman. Socialism: A very Short introduction. Oxford University Press. 2005. p. 2.</ref> Originating within the socialist movement, [[social democracy]] has embraced a [[mixed economy]] with a market that includes substantial state intervention in the form of [[income redistribution]], [[regulatory economics|regulation]], and a [[welfare state]]. [[Economic democracy]] proposes a sort of market socialism where there is more decentralised control of companies, currencies, investments, and natural resources.

Revision as of 21:09, 27 April 2019


Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]

Socialist systems are divided into non-market and market forms.[16] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of factor markets and money with engineering and technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind, thereby producing an economic mechanism that functions according to different economic laws from those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and the profit system.[25] By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and in some cases the profit motive, with respect to the operation of socially owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm, or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend.[26][27][28] The socialist calculation debate concerns the feasibility and methods of resource allocation for a socialist system.

Socialist politics has been both internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organised through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions, and at other times independent and critical of unions; and present in both industrialised and developing nations.[29] Originating within the socialist movement, social democracy has embraced a mixed economy with a market that includes substantial state intervention in the form of income redistribution, regulation, and a welfare state. Economic democracy proposes a sort of market socialism where there is more decentralised control of companies, currencies, investments, and natural resources.

  1. ↑ Sinclair, Upton (1 January 1918). Upton Sinclair's: A Monthly Magazine: for Social Justice, by Peaceful Means If Possible. Socialism, you see, is a bird with two wings. The definition is 'social ownership and democratic control of the instruments and means of production.'
  2. ↑ Nove, Alec. "Socialism". New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition (2008). A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialised or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how.
  3. ↑ Rosser, Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr. (23 July 2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-262-18234-8. Socialism is an economic system characterised by state or collective ownership of the means of production, land, and capital.
  4. ↑ "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" N. Scott Arnold. The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism : A Critical Study. Oxford University Press. 1998. p. 8
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Busky, Donald F. (2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-275-96886-1. Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy. It is this idea that is the common element found in the many forms of socialism.
  6. ↑ Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Leonardo Morlino (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science. SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 2456. ISBN 978-1-4129-5963-6. Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
  7. ↑ Zimbalist, Sherman and Brown, Andrew, Howard J. and Stuart (1988). Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach. Harcourt College Pub. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-15-512403-5. Pure socialism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production are owned and run by the government and/or cooperative, nonprofit groups.
  8. ↑ Brus, Wlodzimierz (2015). The Economics and Politics of Socialism. Routledge. p. 87. ISBN 978-0-415-86647-7. This alteration in the relationship between economy and politics is evident in the very definition of a socialist economic system. The basic characteristic of such a system is generally reckoned to be the predominance of the social ownership of the means of production.
  9. ↑ Michie, Jonathan (2001). Readers Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 1516. ISBN 978-1-57958-091-9. Just as private ownership defines capitalism, social ownership defines socialism. The essential characteristic of socialism in theory is that it destroys social hierarchies, and therefore leads to a politically and economically egalitarian society. Two closely related consequences follow. First, every individual is entitled to an equal ownership share that earns an aliquot part of the total social dividend…Second, in order to eliminate social hierarchy in the workplace, enterprises are run by those employed, and not by the representatives of private or state capital. Thus, the well-known historical tendency of the divorce between ownership and management is brought to an end. The society—i.e. every individual equally—owns capital and those who work are entitled to manage their own economic affairs.
  10. ↑ [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
  11. ↑ "2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system" "Socialism" at The Free dictionary
  12. ↑ O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-415-24187-8. In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialised ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity.
  13. ↑ Lamb & Docherty 2006, p. 1
  14. ↑ Arnold, Scott (1994). The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study. Oxford University Press. pp. 7–8. ISBN 978-0-19-508827-4. This term is harder to define, since socialists disagree among themselves about what socialism ‘really is.’ It would seem that everyone (socialists and nonsocialists alike) could at least agree that it is not a system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production…To be a socialist is not just to believe in certain ends, goals, values, or ideals. It also requires a belief in a certain institutional means to achieve those ends; whatever that may mean in positive terms, it certainly presupposes, at a minimum, the belief that these ends and values cannot be achieved in an economic system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production…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.
  15. ↑ Hastings, Mason and Pyper, Adrian, Alistair and Hugh (21 December 2000). The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Oxford University Press. p. 677. ISBN 978-0-19-860024-4. Socialists have always recognized that there are many possible forms of social ownership of which co-operative ownership is one...Nevertheless, socialism has throughout its history been inseparable from some form of common ownership. By its very nature it involves the abolition of private ownership of capital; bringing the means of production, distribution, and exchange into public ownership and control is central to its philosophy. It is difficult to see how it can survive, in theory or practice, without this central idea.
  16. ↑ Kolb, Robert (19 October 2007). Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, First Edition. SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 1345. ISBN 978-1412916523. There are many forms of socialism, all of which eliminate private ownership of capital and replace it with collective ownership. These many forms, all focused on advancing distributive justice for long-term social welfare, can be divided into two broad types of socialism: nonmarket and market.
  17. ↑ Bockman, Johanna (2011). Markets in the name of Socialism: The Left-Wing origins of Neoliberalism. Stanford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-8047-7566-3. socialism would function without capitalist economic categories—such as money, prices, interest, profits and rent—and thus would function according to laws other than those described by current economic science. While some socialists recognised the need for money and prices at least during the transition from capitalism to socialism, socialists more commonly believed that the socialist economy would soon administratively mobilise the economy in physical units without the use of prices or money.
  18. ↑ Steele, David Ramsay (1999). From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court. pp. 175–77. ISBN 978-0-87548-449-5. Especially before the 1930s, many socialists and anti-socialists implicitly accepted some form of the following for the incompatibility of state-owned industry and factor markets. A market transaction is an exchange of property titles between two independent transactors. Thus internal market exchanges cease when all of industry is brought into the ownership of a single entity, whether the state or some other organization...the discussion applies equally to any form of social or community ownership, where the owning entity is conceived as a single organization or administration.
  19. ↑ Is Socialism Dead? A Comment on Market Socialism and Basic Income Capitalism, by Arneson, Richard J. 1992. Ethics, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 485–511. April 1992: "Marxian socialism is often identified with the call to organize economic activity on a nonmarket basis."
  20. ↑ Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists, by Schweickart, David; Lawler, James; Ticktin, Hillel; Ollman, Bertell. 1998. From "The Difference Between Marxism and Market Socialism" (pp. 61–63): "More fundamentally, a socialist society must be one in which the economy is run on the principle of the direct satisfaction of human needs...Exchange-value, prices and so money are goals in themselves in a capitalist society or in any market. There is no necessary connection between the accumulation of capital or sums of money and human welfare. Under conditions of backwardness, the spur of money and the accumulation of wealth has led to a massive growth in industry and technology ... It seems an odd argument to say that a capitalist will only be efficient in producing use-value of a good quality when trying to make more money than the next capitalist. It would seem easier to rely on the planning of use-values in a rational way, which because there is no duplication, would be produced more cheaply and be of a higher quality."
  21. ↑ The Economics of Feasible Socialism Revisited, by Nove, Alexander. 1991. p. 13: "Under socialism, by definition, it (private property and factor markets) would be eliminated. There would then be something like ‘scientific management’, ‘the science of socially organized production’, but it would not be economics."
  22. ↑ Kotz, David M. "Socialism and Capitalism: Are They Qualitatively Different Socioeconomic Systems?" (PDF). University of Massachusetts. Retrieved 19 February 2011. "This understanding of socialism was held not just by revolutionary Marxist socialists but also by evolutionary socialists, Christian socialists, and even anarchists. At that time, there was also wide agreement about the basic institutions of the future socialist system: public ownership instead of private ownership of the means of production, economic planning instead of market forces, production for use instead of for profit."
  23. ↑ Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3–4, p. 2: "Socialism has historically been committed to the improvement of people's material standards of living. Indeed, in earlier days many socialists saw the promotion of improving material living standards as the primary basis for socialism's claim to superiority over capitalism, for socialism was to overcome the irrationality and inefficiency seen as endemic to a capitalist system of economic organization."
  24. ↑ Prychito, David L. (2002). Markets, Planning, and Democracy: Essays After the Collapse of Communism. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-84064-519-4. Socialism is a system based upon de facto public or social ownership of the means of production, the abolition of a hierarchical division of labor in the enterprise, a consciously organized social division of labor. Under socialism, money, competitive pricing, and profit-loss accounting would be destroyed.
  25. ↑ [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]
  26. ↑ Social Dividend versus Basic Income Guarantee in Market Socialism, by Marangos, John. 2004. International Journal of Political Economy, vol. 34, no. 3, Fall 2004.
  27. ↑ O'Hara, Phillip (2000). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-415-24187-8. Market socialism is the general designation for a number of models of economic systems. On the one hand, the market mechanism is utilized to distribute economic output, to organize production and to allocate factor inputs. On the other hand, the economic surplus accrues to society at large rather than to a class of private (capitalist) owners, through some form of collective, public or social ownership of capital.
  28. ↑ Pierson, Christopher (1995). Socialism After Communism: The New Market Socialism. Pennsylvania State Univ Press. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-271-01478-4. At the heart of the market socialist model is the abolition of the large-scale private ownership of capital and its replacement by some form of ‘social ownership’. Even the most conservative accounts of market socialism insist that this abolition of large-scale holdings of private capital is essential. This requirement is fully consistent with the market socialists’ general claim that the vices of market capitalism lie not with the institutions of the market but with (the consequences of) the private ownership of capital...
  29. ↑ "In fact, socialism has been both centralist and local; organized from above and built from below; visionary and pragmatic; revolutionary and reformist; anti-state and statist; internationalist and nationalist; harnessed to political parties and shunning them; an outgrowth of trade unionism and independent of it; a feature of rich industrialized countries and poor peasant-based communities" Michael Newman. Socialism: A very Short introduction. Oxford University Press. 2005. p. 2.
Retrieved from "https://encyc.org/w/index.php?title=Socialism&oldid=48511"