Mediaboss Marketing

Socialism refers to a set of related socio-economic systems based on social ownership of the means of production (as opposed to a small class owning them) and a cooperative management of the economy (where every individual has a degree of influence in the workplace), and ideologies that seek to promote social equality maximize opportunities for full human "self-actualization". The exact forms of socialism differ; with some forms advocating for cooperative enterprises within a market economy, while other forms advocate for a more comprehensive transformation with economic planning substituting capital markets and all means of production being held in common.

Socialism is typically opposed to plutocracy and emphasizes in some form or another that people who work and produce the value in society should be rewarded in monetary terms in accordance to their work effort. In the developed world during the Industrial Revolution, deliberate under-paying of workers for their labour combined with dangerous working conditions was commonplace; while this has diminished in the developed world as a result of successes in demanding reforms, multinational corporations have succeeded in expanding to less-developed countries where there are either fewer or no working rights laws or minimum wage laws, allowing them to underpay workers in sub-standard factories to reap huge profits. Socialism has thus always supported the labour movement, including trade unions, but often as part of a "minimal program" within capitalism distinct from its ultimate goal of replacing capitalism with a socialist system.

The question of whether the standard Marxist-inspired definition of socialism involving social ownership of the means of production and economic planning is economically feasible has been ongoing, with social democrats having abandoned this pursuit. Historically, most attempts to establish comprehensive planned economies have either collapsed for being politically unsustainable or resulted in horrifying dictatorships. Classical Marxists maintain that socialist planning is only attainable once technology has advanced to a point where non-market planning becomes technically feasible, and that the historical attempts to introduce socialist planning by Marxist-Leninist states in the 20th century were insufficiently developed for socialism to be feasible. In the 21st century, however, a few countries in South America have taken up the mantle again, partly because nationalization of foreign-owned infrastructure and natural resources began to be perceived as a more expedient way of bringing wealth into those countries than getting more loans from the International Monetary Fund. However, except for Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, in practice these new socialists have not gone much beyond the social democracy prevalent in mid-20th-century Europe. In the West, socialism in a revolutionary sense has become a symbol of rebellion against the capitalist economic order, with radical chic bohemians and hippies who support socialist doctrine as an act of rebelliousness and assertion of self-righteousness but who have no conception of and no plan for the development of a socialist economy.

People who believe in socialism are referred to variously as "socialists" or "communists," the difference being that socialists believe in socialism as an end in itself, while communists only believe in it as a "transitional phase" leading into the development of a "communist society," a classless, moneyless and stateless form of social organization. This was a distinction originally made by Marx and Engels to distinguish their theories from previous utopian socialist theories.[1]

The founders of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, played a major role in formulating the first in-depth and scientifically-based description of socialism combined with detailed description on how to achieve it, in comparison or previous versions that were vague or unrealistic. The Marxist-inspired definition of socialism is social ownership of the means of production. This is the dominant and most common definition of socialism accepted by Marxist socialists, many non-Marxist socialists, and capitalists. The vast majority of present-day socialists believe this would be best done by transferring ownership of the means of production and distribution (e.g., factories and railroads) to the working class. What this most often means in practice, however, is the transfer of the means of production to the state (the state, in turn, is supposed to foster the creation of a classless society and in time aid the 'withering away' of the state as the working classes eventually assume the means of production). The fact that this never happens - as states by their very nature exist to perpetuate their own power - is probably the most glaring and obvious internal contradiction in Marxist-inspired socialist dogmatism.

Disagreements with Marx's and Engels' revolutionary approach to achieving socialism occurred outside and then inside the Marxist movement. The most devastating internal condemnation of the revolutionary approach came from revisionist Marxist Eduard Bernstein, who had been a close friend of Marx and Engels and presumed heir apparent of their views, who came to believe that capitalism could be gradually reformed into socialism through reformist parliamentary means and he rejected class conflict. Bernstein's views formed the basis of the beginning of what is now known as social democracy. Among the social democratic parties, attempts to reconcile their reformist efforts with the prevailing post-war economic order, resulted in many of them redefining "socialism" to no longer mean social ownership of the means of production, but to a vaguer conception of "socialism" as support of social justice and acceptance of Keynesian capitalism.

The rise of popularity of neoliberalism promoted by people like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan resulted in a collapse in support of Keynesianism, leaving many social democrats in the political wilderness in the 1980s to mid-1990s. The British Labour Party had a Marxist-inspired definition of socialism until its new leader Tony Blair scrapped this definition and abandoned Keynesianism in favor of a watered-down definition of "socialism" that recognized "social interdependence of people." In the aftermath of the failures in neoliberal economies, the Third Way is viewed with disgust and contempt among many social democrats; many of them desire a neo-Keynesianism or post-Keynesianism, while more radical wings favor a restoration of a Marxist-inspired socialism based on social ownership of the means of production.

Before Marx and Engels began writing, it referred largely to those ideologies that they referred to as "utopian socialism." Utopian socialists imagined a perfect egalitarian society, but couldn't figure out how to get there.[2]

Socialism can be divided into several branches, some of which are enumerated here.

Revolutionary socialists view social revolution as the primary way to transition from capitalism to socialism. Revolutionary socialists usually wait for 'revolutionary potential' which the current system of oppression is supposed to lead to.

"Utopian socialism" was used by Marx to refer to those who generally believed in a classless and stateless society, but who had not hammered out any specific theories for getting there. He analogized the difference between utopian socialism and his own theory with the difference between scientists and engineers: the scientists identify what can be done, the engineers hammer out how to do it.

Most utopian socialists believed in the term, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need." This saying was coined by Marx, but was a reference to a very similar quote from another revolutionary socialist, Louis Blanqui, which was itself an apparent paraphrase of Acts 3:34-35. Most communists nor most Christians seem terribly eager to admit the connection. This in turn is interesting because Acts 3 only has 26 verses, leaving verses 34 and 35 . . . ...in limbo?

Blanquism is described by Engels as follows:

Marx used the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" to differentiate Marxism from the Blanquist style of socialist dictatorship. This is why he mainly used the term when discussing the Spring of Nations and the 1871 Paris Commune, in both of which Blanquism was fairly influential.

Many Blanquists came to join the First International with Marx after the Commune was crushed; perhaps having an influence on later events. Specifically, Leninists and Trotskyists are put in a bit of a tight spot by the parallels between the above Engels quote and the unfolding of events during the Bolshevik Revolution; since this event had more of the characteristics of a coup than a popular revolution, the Leninists have a hard time explaining why their beliefs are Marxist and not Blanquist.

Stalinists, on the other hand, would just argue that these parallels were all fabrication by the oppressive bourgeois media and then send thugs to beat up anyone who said otherwise.

Marx believed that all socio-political orders, with the exception of the mythical pure communism, were "dictatorships" in which one class dictated to the rest; the "bourgeoisie" (comprising those who owned their means of livelihood, from free-farmers on up to large industrialists) was assigned that role in his characterization of capitalism. For Marx, socialism would not be any less of a dictatorship, but it would be a "dictatorship of the proletariat" where the workers would dictate to everyone else.

The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" was originally coined in order to differentiate between Marx's idea of a grass-roots worker-run state and the more elitist ideas of Blanquism; but the "dictatorship" part is not meaningless, since he said in the Communist Manifesto that this dictatorship would have to resort to "despotic" measures at first (e.g., control the army to conquer other capitalist territories).

But in his defense, he firmly believed that this despotism would be temporary, since in his view the state was created by the existence of class differences, and the proletarian dictatorship's actions would eliminate these, thus eliminating the state.

The idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat was denounced by Mikhail Bakunin, Marx's contemporary. Bakunin believed that the state instituted classes, rather than the other way around, so he asked his famous rhetorical question, "Over whom will the proletariat rule?" He rightly predicted that this state would grow a new ruling class, with the proletariat still ruled.

Marx used the term "socialism" to refer both to this transitory dictatorial phase, and to the "pure communist" classless and stateless society that he believed would follow it. "Classless" and "stateless" were tightly bound together in Marx's theory, and "stateless" meant that there would be no armies or other extrinsic forms of class-oppression in that there would be no armies or class-oppression. Marx did not go into depth in terms of what this would look like, presumably because he didn't know either, that is, it would be decided by the workers after a revolution. Unfortunately for him, either the workers have never gotten around to doing this, or they have done so but have not acted how Marx thought they would act.

Although anarchism and Marxism share many common goals and enemies, they diverge on a number of points. The most notable is that anarchists believe that social classes are created by the State, rather than vice versa, so their aim is to destroy the State and "build from the ashes."

Hence, unlike Marxists, they reject any attempt to participate in electoral politics, instead working entirely outside the system; mostly in a peaceful manner, but sometimes not, which is why one sometimes hears about anarchists bombing something-or-other, or anarchists inciting a riot.

Bakunin believed, as opposed to Marx, in spontaneity of organization, that is, that a revolutionary organization has to come into existence during a time of crisis with little forethought, while Marx believed in forethought and planning in terms of a collective. Anarchists fault Marxist groups for sitting on their rears while anarchists and other groups are out on the front lines; for example, anarchists note that the Bolsheviks were opposed to workers taking strike action at the time of the Russian February Revolution.[3] Bakunin's view is currently reflected by modern Council Communists. He also believed in secret societies that could just mix with workers, and that people had a natural instinct to revolt, and thus it was not worth educating the workers, nor organizing them. He thusly accused Marx of ruining the workers by making theorists out of them."

The differing definitions of the state led to disputes over methodology and the "dictatorship of the proletariat," as noted above. For example, Bakunin said, There are about forty million Germans. Are all forty million going to be members of the government?, to which Marx's response was, Certainly, because the thing starts with the self-government of the commune," apparently supporting a federated bottom-up system of communes as anarchists proposed.

Bakunin also concluded that under Marxism, the state would be no different than that under capitalism, and that Marx simply wanted to make it stronger. This is partly because of there being many contradictory views in Marx's writings, for instance supporting central state ownership and planning from above in the Communist Manifesto, similar to what actually happened in the USSR and the other "socialist" states.

Marx also criticized Bakunin by saying that the latter believed in a universal revolution that included the lumpenproletariat (beggars, etc.) and the peasant farmers as well as the workers, while Marx had ruled both these groups useless for revolution. Marx thus accused Bakunin of superficiality: knowing many political phrases, but not believing in the existence of false consciousness or making any detailed study of economic conditions.

Bakunin responded by predicting that Marxism would lead to a new despotic "Red bureaucracy" that would be far more dictatorial than a capitalist system; to date, this has been an accurate description of every self-described communist state.

Reformist socialist tend to reject the call for revolution and instead choose to work within the current system in order to change it. Most reformist socialists advocate social democracy instead full nationalization of all industry.

Ethical socialist argue that socialism is necessary because it respects human rights, social justice, and civil rights. They may find capitalism to be an oppressive force and therefore believe that socialism is the best alternative. They are more lenient on capitalism because of their belief in individual freedom.

Liberal socialist are not opposed to capitalism and tend to favor a mixed economy. They support government intervention in the market and a strong welfare state. They differ from ethical socialist by stressing economic growth instead of morality. They may support the Third Way over social democracy.

Democratic socialism is perhaps the least clearly defined of the types of socialism; the general view of democratic socialists is "the more democracy, the better," and attempt to create a socialist economy in coexistence with a democratic government. Or, in many cases, they simply seek to combine the two: democratic principles in the process of economic production and management. They advocate democratic workplaces and cooperatives, fully democratic communities, and of course the retention of democratic government.

Libertarian socialism, which describes most forms of anarchism, is when the government is destroyed immediately after the revolution, and there are no hierarchies. Regular Marxists criticize it, as anarchists are largely apolitical, often preferring sabotage and such to organization, and also often don't believe in any form of governance. Marx and Bakunin had a strong rivalry due to conflicting views in the First International, but since then, many Marxists have integrated elements of libertarian socialism into their belief system, such as in De Leonism, which adds elements of anarcho-syndicalism to orthodox Marxism.

Of course, "libertarianism" is now used in the United States to refer to a particularly doctrinaire spin on classical liberalism; but as used in "libertarian socialism" it refers to an older sense of the word, still current in Europe, that just means "anti-authoritarian."

The adoption of this name is probably in criticism of Marxism, which was often referred to by libertarian socialists such as Bakunin as being too "authoritarian."

It is claimed by anti-Soviet socialists that the Soviet Union under Stalin was a departure from socialism, on account of the means of production being in the hands of the government instead of the workers (although this was not a disqualifier for the "socialist" label in other cases, as discussed below). It is occasionally referred to as "state capitalism," "bureaucratic state despotism," or a "degenerated worker's state," by Trotskyites. Anarchists, most of whom were opposed to Lenin's takeover from the outset, would also refer to Lenin's Russia as "state capitalist"; even he himself did.

Recently, the right wing in the US has been trying to redefine the term "socialist", with the desired meaning being, "a person who flouts the Republican party line on more than two issues."[4]U.S. President Barack Obama has become the poster-boy for this sort of "socialism" (despite having no socialistic tendencies), as also discussed below, though he does not stray too far, too often from the Republican Party Line considering he's a New Democrat.

There have been a number of communist internationals. The First International was founded in the 19th century, but dissolved in the midst of the Bakunin-Marx infighting; the Second International followed, but dissolved in the midst of infighting over support of World War I; the Third International (Comintern) was a Soviet-funded body dissolved in World War II. The Fourth International, a Trotskyist organization, still exists.

Some people say that the Democratic Party in the United States are socialists, specifically Barack Obama and the 2008 version of Hillary Clinton.

This is bullshit; the Democrats are centrists, at most center-left. If they moved left enough even to approach socialistic beliefs, even so far as such factions as the right wing of the Socialist Party USA, they would start being ignored by the Biased Conservative Media.

Why are the Democrats not socialist? Well, it's quite simple. Rather than going into every single way in which they're not, let us look at possibly the most important aspect of socialism, common ownership of the means of production, thus the abolition of class. The Democrats do not support this, hence are not socialists. At the very most they would support a welfare state.

The only mainstream American politician approaching socialism on the federal level is Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who self-identifies as a democratic socialist, although he does caucus with the Democrats out of convenience.

Some Democrats, such as Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich, may adhere to social democracy. Social democracy being a "middle-way" between democratic socialism and capitalism (the stuff you see in Scandinavia).

Historically, the Labour Party were social democrats, or 'reformists', and Labour governments have made some lasting changes in terms of universal welfare, especially the founding of the National Health Service.

"New Labour" (Tony Blair etc.) were arguably conservatives in all but name, and indeed much has been said about the similarities between their policies and those of Thatcherism.[5][6] Clause IV of the Labour Party's constitution, which expressed a long-term commitment to redistribution of wealth and common ownership of the means of production, was rewritten in 1994, under Blair's leadership, as a more vague expression of striving for equality, causing some internal conflict and outrage from "Old Labour" socialist members of the party.

A major tenet of socialism is to give power to the workers. Many models of socialism include a decentralized workplace democracy, in which managers are elected by the industry that they work in, and can be removed at any time.

According to some people (whose identities you may only guess at), socialism advocates the redistribution of wealth. This view of socialism is only held by idiots who are too benighted to realize that when left-wingers yowl about the wealth gap until they are blue in the face, they are really just having a friendly chat about the weather. In reality, socialists are actually just interested in redistributing the means of production; Marx advocated abolishing the money system in favor of truck, specifically "labour vouchers," which are given out based on work done and do not circulate. Still others, such as the members of the World Socialist Movement, believe that there should be "free access," with no labour vouchers, money, etc., just like in the markets in Thomas More's Utopia, i.e. a gift economy.

The above understanding of socialism is generally held outside the United States, and within the United States by thinking people; however, within the context of United States airwaves, mediaspace, and blogspace, socialism is any expressed belief insufficiently right-wing for the taste of the most right-wing person exposed to it.

To right-wing groups and politicians, particularly conservatives in the United States who can't distinguish American liberals and European social democracy from socialism, socialism means high levels of income tax, welfare programs to help the unemployed or poor, or to taking from the rich to give to the poor. This is nonsense - socialists don't advocate taking money from the capitalist class to give to the poor, they advocate the elimination of the class system by making every citizen a co-owner of the means of production, thus eliminating the conditions that cause poverty and unemployment.

Even with non-dictatorial forms of socialism, when it comes to redistributing the means of production, "working class" has in practice generally meant the government; indeed, socialists have been found protesting the sale of government-owned companies to their workers, as in the worker buyout of the British National Freight Corporation under the premiership of Margaret Thatcher.[7]

In their defense, these privatizations were simply the sale/distribution of shares of stock to the workers, with nothing preventing the workers from then selling the shares at a higher market price to a conventional capitalist later on (which almost invariably happened). The predominant form of "privatized socialism" would be a cooperative, under which workers own the firm for which they work and cannot sell or transfer their ownership -- it's tied to their job.

It is an axiom of socialism that on Day 1 of access to power by a truly socialist government, the stock exchanges would be burned to the ground, and all the brokers would forfeit their dishonest monetary gains and be sent to the streets to beg.

This raises the question of how useful entrepreneurship would then be financed. The obvious pragmatic answer is that community-run (mutual) banks would store and lend credit for investment in said community. The standard answer is that, if people have investment money to spend, it should be funneled through a state-maintained industrial fund, that would decide where to invest the dosh in the best interests of society as a whole. The opportunities for corruption in such a system are too obvious to be worth detailing. In practice, the sad truth is that predatory entrepreneurship does not thrive under socialism, except as a part of the black market.

Marxism explicitly criticizes religion, with Marx referring to religion as "the opiate of the people" to which a pre-socialist state of existence has given rise. Communists have made heavy persecutions of churches when in power, and in some cases even banned religion altogether. Anarchists are also known for their anti-clerical church-burning activities.

But Marx did not advocate the banning of religion, instead saying that it is simply a way to cope, and to see something bright at the end of the tunnel when one is faced with the injustices of feudal and capitalist society, and says that the criticism of religion is thus the criticism of the conditions that breed it.

There are also currents of religious socialism, as will be mentioned right now.

We'll give you a few hints: he is generally portrayed as a tall, blue eyed white man with long hair, wearing a flowing robe, or nailed to a cross, although he was more likely short, had short hair, brown skin, brown eyes (provided he existed at all) and would have never worn a robe, as it would have been a terrible hazard in his carpentry work. A few quotes:

As recounted in Acts2:44, the early Christian church practiced a form of religious communism with "all things common." Today, there are many Christian socialist movements throughout the world, particularly in South America, which hold that the teachings of Jesus Christ and Marx line up nicely, and see Christ as a great social reformer and the first socialist agitator. However, these people have been criticized for equating the poor, spoken of at length by Jesus, with Marx's proletariat; specifically, Jesus said, "For the poor always ye have with you" (John12:8), while Marxism aims to do away with the proletariat altogether. There are also small Christian groups such as the Hutterites who also practice a form of voluntary religious communism. Monasteries and other similar religious institutions may also do so.

Oddly enough, his message has been largely ignored by his North American followers, who seem to think he was actually ye olde Ronald Reagan or a long-haired John Galt. Cognitive dissonance sure is great, isn't it? Although in their defense, Jesus never said give your money to the poor through government. He talked about private self-decided socialism. Of course, they don't do that either.

Socialism and patriotism/nationalism are typically in opposition and socialists are generally against the concept of nations, seeing them as an unnecessary division. To quote Eugene V. Debs, early leader of the SPUSA (he started as a social democrat, and then turned to socialism along the lines of De Leonism. He ran for President while locked in jail for protesting against the first World War), "I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world." They often view patriotism and nationalism as simply ways to divide the working class, like racism and sexism.

This has, unfortunately, led to some people using socialism as a front to push hatred of whatever ethnic group they can paint as coterminous with whatever class of people are judged to be the "oppressors" this week; the bloodiest example of this was Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. It is also seen in some left-wing anti-American sentiment, as criticized in the Euston Manifesto.

While socialism is revolutionary, in that it seeks to change the mechanisms of society, it does not necessarily require violent revolution. Many socialists support a revolution through the ballot, while others, such as De Leonists, advocate both industrial and political organization (although they may still think that "where the ballot is silenced, the bullet must speak").[8]

Read more:
Socialism - RationalWiki

Socialism

A class of ideologies favoring an economic system in which all or most productive resources are the property of the government, in which the production and distribution of goods and services are administered primarily by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which any remaining private production and distribution (socialists differ on how much of this is tolerable) is heavily regulated by the government rather than by market processes. Both democratic and non-democratic socialists insist that the government they envision as running the economy must in principle be one that truly reflects the will of the masses of the population (or at least their "true" best interests), but of course they differ considerably in their ideas about what sorts of political institutions and practices are required to ensure this will be so. In practice, socialist economic principles may be combined with an extremely wide range of attitudes toward personal freedom, civil liberties, mass political participation, bureaucracy and political competition, ranging from Western European democratic socialism to the more authoritarian socialisms of many third world regimes to the totalitarian excesses of Soviet-style socialism or communism.

Read the original here:
Socialism: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M ...

Ukraine,country located in eastern Europe, the second largest on the continent after Russia. The capital is Kiev (Kyiv), located on the Dnieper River in north-central Ukraine.

A fully independent Ukraine emerged only late in the 20th century, after long periods of successive domination by Poland-Lithuania, Russia, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.). Ukraine had experienced a brief period of independence in 191820, but portions of western Ukraine were ruled by Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia in the period between the two World Wars, and Ukraine thereafter became part of the Soviet Union as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (S.S.R.). When the Soviet Union began to unravel in 199091, the legislature of the Ukrainian S.S.R. declared sovereignty (July 16, 1990) and then outright independence (Aug. 24, 1991), a move that was confirmed by popular approval in a plebiscite (Dec. 1, 1991). With the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. in December 1991, Ukraine gained full independence. The country changed its official name to Ukraine, and it helped to found the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), an association of countries that were formerly republics of the Soviet Union.

UkraineEncyclopdia Britannica, Inc.Ukraine is bordered by Belarus to the north, Russia to the east, the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea to the south, Moldova and Romania to the southwest, and Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland to the west. In the far southeast, Ukraine is separated from Russia by the Kerch Strait, which connects the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea.

Ukraine occupies the southwestern portion of the Russian Plain (East European Plain). The country consists almost entirely of level plains at an average elevation of 574 feet (175 metres) above sea level. Mountainous areas such as the Ukrainian Carpathians and Crimean Mountains occur only on the countrys borders and account for barely 5 percent of its area. The Ukrainian landscape nevertheless has some diversity: its plains are broken by highlandsrunning in a continuous belt from northwest to southeastas well as by lowlands.

The rolling plain of the Dnieper Upland, which lies between the middle reaches of the Dnieper (Dnipro) and Southern Buh (Pivdennyy Buh, or the Boh) rivers in west-central Ukraine, is the largest highland area; it is dissected by many river valleys, ravines, and gorges, some more than 1,000 feet (300 metres) deep. On the west the Dnieper Upland is abutted by the rugged Volyn-Podilsk Upland, which rises to 1,545 feet (471 metres) at its highest point, Mount Kamula. West of the Volyn-Podilsk Upland, in extreme western Ukraine, the parallel ranges of the Carpathian Mountainsone of the most picturesque areas in the countryextend for more than 150 miles (240 km). The mountains range in height from about 2,000 feet (600 metres) to about 6,500 feet (2,000 metres), rising to 6,762 feet (2,061 metres) at Mount Hoverla, the highest point in the country. The northeastern and southeastern portions of Ukraine are occupied by low uplands rarely reaching an elevation of 1,000 feet (300 metres).

Among the countrys lowlands are the Pripet Marshes (Polissya), which lie in the northern part of Ukraine and are crossed by numerous river valleys. In east-central Ukraine is the Dnieper Lowland, which is flat in the west and gently rolling in the east. To the south, another lowland extends along the shores of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov; its level surface, broken only by low rises and shallow depressions, slopes gradually toward the Black Sea. The shores of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov are characterized by narrow, sandy spits of land that jut out into the water; one of these, the Arabat Spit, is about 70 miles (113 km) long but averages less than 5 miles (8 km) in width.

Crimean Peninsulaage fotostock/SuperStockThe southern lowland continues in the Crimean Peninsula as the North Crimean Lowland. The peninsulaa large protrusion into the Black Seais connected to the mainland by the Perekop Isthmus. The Crimean Mountains form the southern coast of the peninsula. Mount Roman-Kosh, at 5,069 feet (1,545 metres), is the mountains highest point.

Dnieper RiverJ. Allan Cash PhotolibraryAlmost all the major rivers in Ukraine flow northwest to southeast through the plains to empty into the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. The Dnieper River, with its hydroelectric dams, huge reservoirs, and many tributaries, dominates the entire central part of Ukraine. Of the total course of the Dnieper, 609 miles (980 km) are in Ukraine, making it by far the longest river in the country, of which it drains more than half. Like the Dnieper, the Southern Buh, with its major tributary, the Inhul, flows into the Black Sea. To the west and southwest, partly draining Ukrainian territory, the Dniester (Dnistro) also flows into the Black Sea; among its numerous tributaries, the largest in Ukraine are the Stryy and the Zbruch. The middle course of the Donets River, a tributary of the Don, flows through southeastern Ukraine and is an important source of water for the Donets Basin (Donbas). The Danube River flows along the southwestern frontier of Ukraine. Marshland, covering almost 3 percent of Ukraine, is found primarily in the northern river valleys and in the lower reaches of the Dnieper, Danube, and other rivers.

The rivers are most important as a water supply, and for this purpose a series of canals has been built, such as the DonetsDonets Basin, the DnieperKryvyy Rih, and the North Crimea. Several of the larger rivers are navigable, including the Dnieper, Danube, Dniester, Pripet, Donets, and Southern Buh (in its lower course). Dams and hydroelectric plants are situated on all the larger rivers.

Ukraine has a few natural lakes, all of them small and most of them scattered over the river floodplains. One of the largest is Lake Svityaz, 11 square miles (28 square km) in area, in the northwest. Small saltwater lakes occur in the Black Sea Lowland and in Crimea. Larger saline lakes occur along the coast. Known as limans, these bodies of water form at the mouths of rivers or ephemeral streams and are blocked off by sandbars from the sea. Some artificial lakes have been formed, the largest of which are reservoirs at hydroelectric damse.g., the reservoir on the Dnieper upstream from Kremenchuk. The Kakhovka, Dnieper, Dniprodzerzhynsk, Kaniv, and Kiev reservoirs make up the rest of the Dnieper cascade. Smaller reservoirs are located on the Dniester and Southern Buh rivers and on tributaries of the Donets River. Small reservoirs for water supply also are found near Kryvyy Rih, Kharkiv, and other industrial cities. Three large artesian basinsthe Volyn-Podilsk, the Dnieper, and the Black Seaare exceptionally important for municipal needs and agriculture as well.

From northwest to southeast the soils of Ukraine may be divided into three major aggregations: a zone of sandy podzolized soils; a central belt consisting of the black, extremely fertile Ukrainian chernozems; and a zone of chestnut and salinized soils.

The podzolized soils occupy about one-fifth of the countrys area, mostly in the north and northwest. These soils were formed by the extension of postglacial forests into regions of grassy steppe; most such soils may be farmed, although they require the addition of nutrients to obtain good harvests.

The chernozems of central Ukraine, among the most fertile soils in the world, occupy about two-thirds of the countrys area. These soils may be divided into three broad groups: in the north a belt of the so-called deep chernozems, about 5 feet (1.5 metres) thick and rich in humus; south and east of the former, a zone of prairie, or ordinary, chernozems, which are equally rich in humus but only about 3 feet (1 metre) thick; and the southernmost belt, which is even thinner and has still less humus. Interspersed in various uplands and along the northern and western perimeters of the deep chernozems are mixtures of gray forest soils and podzolized black-earth soils, which together occupy much of Ukraines remaining area. All these soils are very fertile when sufficient water is available. However, their intensive cultivation, especially on steep slopes, has led to widespread soil erosion and gullying.

The smallest proportion of the soil cover consists of the chestnut soils of the southern and eastern regions. They become increasingly salinized to the south as they approach the Black Sea.

Ukraine lies in a temperate climatic zone influenced by moderately warm, humid air from the Atlantic Ocean. Winters in the west are considerably milder than those in the east. In summer, on the other hand, the east often experiences higher temperatures than the west. Average annual temperatures range from about 4245 F (5.57 C) in the north to about 5255 F (1113 C) in the south. The average temperature in January, the coldest month, is about 26 F (3 C) in the southwest and about 18 F (8 C) in the northeast. The average in July, the hottest month, is about 73 F (23 C) in the southeast and about 64 F (18 C) in the northwest.

Precipitation is uneven, with two to three times as much falling in the warmer seasons as in the cold. Maximum precipitation generally occurs in June and July, while the minimum falls in February. Snow falls mainly in late November and early December; accumulation varies in depth from a few inches in the steppe region (in the south) to several feet in the Carpathians. Western Ukraine, notably the Carpathian Mountains area, receives the highest annual precipitationmore than 47 inches (1,200 mm). The lowlands along the Black Sea and in Crimea, by contrast, receive less than 16 inches (400 mm) annually. The remaining areas of Ukraine receive 16 to 24 inches (400 to 600 mm) of precipitation.

Yalta: Livadiya PalaceJohn Massey StewartIn contrast to the rest of Ukraine, the southern shore of Crimea has a warm, gentle, Mediterranean-type climate. Winters are mild and rainy, with little snow, and the average January temperature is 39 F (4 C). Summers are dry and hot, with an average July temperature of 75 F (24 C).

Though much of Ukraines original plant cover has been cleared for cultivation, three main zones of natural vegetation are still distinguishable. From north to south, they are the Polissya (woodland and marsh), the forest-steppe, and the steppe.

The Polissya zone lies in the northwest and north. More than one-third of its areaabout 44,000 square miles (114,000 square km)is arable land. Nearly one-quarter of it is covered with mixed woodland, including oak, elm, birch, hornbeam, ash, maple, pine, linden, alder, poplar, willow, and beech. About 5 percent is peat bog, a substantial portion is marshland, and the river valleys are floodplains. The Polissya contains the southernmost portions of the Pripet Marshes, and Ukraine has undertaken major efforts to drain these swamplands and reclaim the land for agriculture.

The forest-steppe, which covers an area of about 78,000 square miles (202,000 square km), extends south from the Polissya. About two-thirds of this agricultural region is arable land; forests take up only about one-eighth of the area.

Farther south, near the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Crimean Mountains, the forest-steppe joins the steppe zone, which is about 89,000 square miles (231,000 square km) in area. Many of the flat, treeless plains in this region are under cultivation, although low annual precipitation and hot summers make supplemental irrigation necessary. Remnants of the natural vegetation of the steppe, including its characteristic fescue and feather grasses, are protected in nature reserves.

Other natural regions are found near the borders of the country. Most of the countrys rich forestlands are in the Carpathian region of western Ukraine. The lower mountain slopes are covered with mixed forests and the intermediate slopes with pine forests; these give way to Alpine meadows at higher altitudes. Along the southern coast of the Crimean Peninsula, a narrow strip of land, only about 6 miles (10 km) wide, constitutes a unique natural region where both deciduous and evergreen grasses and shrubs grow.

The animal life of Ukraine is diverse, with about 350 species of birds, more than 100 species of mammals, and more than 200 species of fish. The most common predators are wolves, foxes, wildcats, and martens, while hoofed animals include roe deer, wild pigs, and sometimes elk and mouflons (a species of wild sheep). The wide variety of rodents includes gophers, hamsters, jerboas, and field mice. The major bird species are black and hazel grouse, owls, gulls, and partridges, as well as many migrating birds, such as wild geese, ducks, and storks. Among the fish are pike, carp, bream, perch, sturgeons, and sterlets. Introduced and well-acclimatized wildlife includes muskrats, raccoons, beavers, nutrias, and silver foxes.

Numerous nature and game reserves reflect Ukraines commitment to the conservation of its biological heritage. The countrys first nature reserve, Askaniya-Nova, began as a private wildlife refuge in 1875; today it protects a portion of virgin steppe. Some 40 different mammals, including the onager and Przewalskis horse, have been introduced there as part of a successful program of breeding endangered species; ostriches also have been successfully introduced. The separate sections of the Ukrainian Steppe Reserve also preserve various types of steppe. The Black Sea Nature Reserve shelters many species of waterfowl and is the only Ukrainian breeding ground of the Mediterranean gull (Larus melanocephalus). Also located on the Black Sea, the Danube Water Meadows Reserve protects the Danube Rivers tidewater biota. Other reserves in Ukraine preserve segments of the forest-steppe woodland, the marshes and forests of the Polissya, and the mountains and rocky coast of Crimea.

During the Soviet period, rapid industrialization, intensive farming, and a lack of effective pollution controls combined to seriously degrade the environment in Ukraine. Some of the most polluted areas in the world are now found there.

The coal-burning industries of eastern Ukraine, which emit high levels of sulfur dioxide, hydrocarbons, and dust, have created severe air pollution throughout the region. Air quality is particularly poor in the cities of Dnipropetrovsk, Kryvyy Rih, and Zaporizhzhya. Lightly industrialized cities in the west, such as Uzhhorod and Khmelnytskyy, face air pollution caused by the prevalence of inefficient automobiles burning leaded gasoline.

Major rivers, including the Dnieper, Dniester, Inhul, and Donets, are seriously polluted with chemical fertilizers and pesticides from agricultural runoff and with poorly treated or untreated sewage. Coastal water pollution in the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea has necessitated the closing of beaches and has led to a dramatic reduction in fish catches. The freshwater flow into the Sea of Azov has been largely diverted for irrigation purposes, leading to a sharp increase in salinity.

Chernobyl disasterContunico ZDF Enterprises GmbH, MainzThe 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant created severe environmental problems in northwestern Ukraine (see Chernobyl accident). Vast areas of land are contaminated by dangerous short- and long-lived radioactive isotopes, notably strontium-90, which can replace calcium in foods and become concentrated in bones and teeth. Contaminated agricultural lands near Chernobyl will be unsafe for thousands of years, though some of these areas continue to be occupied and farmed. Several thousand premature deaths from cancer are expected over the long term.

When Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union, a policy of Russian in-migration and Ukrainian out-migration was in effect, and ethnic Ukrainians share of the population in Ukraine declined from 77 percent in 1959 to 73 percent in 1991. But that trend reversed after the country gained independence, and, by the turn of the 21st century, ethnic Ukrainians made up more than three-fourths of the population. Russians continue to be the largest minority, though they now constitute less than one-fifth of the population. The remainder of the population includes Belarusians, Moldovans, Bulgarians, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, Roma (Gypsies), and other groups. The Crimean Tatars, who were forcibly deported to Uzbekistan and other Central Asian republics in 1944, began returning to the Crimea in large numbers in 1989; by the early 21st century they constituted one of the largest non-Russian minority groups.

Historically, Ukraine had large Jewish and Polish populations, particularly in the Right Bank region (west of the Dnieper River). In fact, in the late 19th century slightly more than one-fourth of the worlds Jewish population (estimated at 10 million) lived in ethnic Ukrainian territory. This predominantly Yiddish-speaking population was greatly reduced by emigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and by the devastation of the Holocaust. In the late 1980s and early 90s, large numbers of Ukraines remaining Jews emigrated, mainly to Israel. At the turn of the 21st century, the several hundred thousand Jews left in Ukraine made up less than 1 percent of the Ukrainian population. Most of Ukraines large Polish minority was resettled in Poland after World War II as part of a Soviet plan to have ethnic settlement match territorial boundaries. Fewer than 150,000 ethnic Poles remained in Ukraine at the turn of the 21st century.

The vast majority of people in Ukraine speak Ukrainian, which is written with a form of the Cyrillic alphabet. The languagebelonging with Russian and Belarusian to the East Slavic branch of the Slavic language familyis closely related to Russian but also has distinct similarities to the Polish language. Significant numbers of people in the country speak Polish, Yiddish, Rusyn, Belarusian, Romanian or Moldovan, Bulgarian, Crimean Turkish, or Hungarian. Russian is the most important minority language.

During the rule of imperial Russia and under the Soviet Union, Russian was the common language of government administration and public life in Ukraine. Although Ukrainian had been afforded equal status with Russian in the decade following the revolution of 1917, by the 1930s a concerted attempt at Russification was well under way. In 1989 Ukrainian once again became the countrys official language, and its status as the sole official language was confirmed in the 1996 Ukrainian constitution.

In 2012 a law was passed that granted local authorities the power to confer official status upon minority languages. Although Ukrainian was reaffirmed as the countrys official language, regional administrators could elect to conduct official business in the prevailing language of the area. In the Crimea, which has an autonomous status within Ukraine and where there is a Russian-speaking majority, Russian and Crimean Tatar are the official languages. In addition, primary and secondary schools using Russian as the language of instruction still prevail in the Donets Basin and other areas with large Russian minorities. The Crimean parliament moved to rescind the minority language law in February 2014, after the ouster of pro-Russian Pres. Viktor Yanukovych, but interim Pres. Oleksandr Turchynov declined to sign the bill into law.

KievShostal AssociatesThe predominant religion in Ukraine, practiced by almost half the population, is Eastern Orthodoxy. Most of the adherents belong to the Ukrainian Orthodox ChurchKiev Patriarchate, though the Ukrainian Orthodox ChurchMoscow Patriarchate is important as well. A smaller number of Orthodox Christians belong to the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. In western Ukraine the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church prevails. Minority religions include Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Islam (practiced primarily by the Crimean Tatars), and Judaism. More than two-fifths of Ukrainians are not religious.

Ukraine: population densityEncyclopdia Britannica, Inc.More than two-thirds of the population lives in urban areas. High population densities occur in southeastern and south-central Ukraine, in the highly industrialized regions of the Donets Basin and the Dnieper Bend, as well as in the coastal areas along the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Portions of western Ukraine and the Kiev area are also densely populated. Besides the capital, major cities in Ukraine include Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Odessa, Zaporizhzhya, Lviv, and Kryvyy Rih. Of the rural population, more than half is found in large villages (1,000 to 5,000 inhabitants), and most of these people are employed in a rural economy based on farming. The highest rural population densities are found in the wide belt of forest-steppe extending east-west across central Ukraine, where the extremely fertile soils and balanced climatic conditions are most favourable for agriculture.

Ukraines population increased steadily throughout the Soviet era, peaking at over 50 million as the country transitioned to independence. However, a low birth rate, coupled with an aging population and low rates of migration into the country, contributed to a sharp population decline that extended into the 21st century. Millions of Ukrainiansespecially those from the western part of the countrysought employment abroad, and by 2010, roughly one in seven Ukrainians was residing outside the country for work purposes. These labour migrants most often sought work in Russia and the EU, and they predominantly found employment in the fields of construction and domestic service. Aware of Ukraines net loss of workers to immigration and a fertility rate that was far below replacement level, Ukrainian policy makers recognized the burden that would be placed on the countrys old age pension system. In 2011 the retirement age for men was raised from 60 to 62 and womens retirement age was raised from 55 to 60.

Read this article:
Ukraine | history - geography | Britannica.com

The Democratic Party of Illinois is the affiliate of the Democratic Party in the state of Illinois. It is the oldest still-existing state party in Illinois and, along with the Green and Republican Parties, one of just three recognized parties in the state.

The Democratic Party of Illinois took shape during the late 1830s. Prior to that time, Illinois did not have organized political parties; instead, political competition in the state was more personalist, with prominent factions centered on Governors Ninian Edwards and Shadrach Bond. As the Democratic and Whig Parties began to form at the national level during the late 1820s and 1830s, Illinois politicians began sorting themselves accordingly and, in the summer of 1837, leading Democrats met to lay the groundwork for a Democratic Party organization in the state.

Before 2010, the party had been extremely successful in statewide elections for the past decade. In 1992, Carol Moseley Braun became the first African American woman to be elected to the United States Senate. Her election marked the first time Illinois had elected a woman, and the first time a black person was elected as a Democratic Party candidate to the United States Senate. A second African American Barack Obama Democratic Senator was elected in 2004, and later elected President of the United States in 2008. The party currently holds a majority in both the Illinois Senate and Illinois House of Representatives.

The Democratic Party of Illinois is run by a Democratic State Central Committee of 38 members, two from each of the state's 19 congressional districts. The Central Committee has four officers: a chairman, a vice-chair, a secretary, and a treasurer.

Calvin Sutker of Skokie served as state party chairman until 1986 when he lost his committeeman seat to reform Democrat Jeffrey Paul Smith.[1] Sutker was succeeded by Vince Demuzio, who served from 19861990 and is credited with rebuilding the Illinois Democratic Party.[2] Demuzio was then defeated by the then-chief of staff for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, Gary LaPaille. Madigan himself succeeded LaPaille and is the current Chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois.

The Cook County Democratic Party represents voters in 50 wards in the city of Chicago and 30 suburban townships of Cook County. The organization has dominated Chicago politics (and consequently, Illinois politics) since the 1930s. It relies on a tight organizational structure of ward and township committeemen to elect candidates.

Read the original:
Democratic Party of Illinois - Wikipedia, the free ...

The modern Democratic Party in Chicago emerged in the generation that followed the fire of 1871. Carter H. Harrison I (18791887, 1893) and his son, Carter H. Harrison II (18971905, 19111915), were each elected mayor five times as Democrats, winning 10 of 17 contests between 1879 and 1911. Native white American Protestants, but less moralistic than many of their Republican counterparts, the Harrisons also drew on personal charisma to form alliances with varied immigrant groups. Among the shrewdest of the city's early professional politicians, these pioneers in the development of interethnic coalitions failed nonetheless to create a dominant organization.

Factionalism rooted in personality-based politics remained the hallmark of the Democratic Party well into the twentieth century. Politicians clamored around the Harrison crowd, while reform-minded Democrats surrounded Edward F. Dunne, even as a third groupled by Roger C. Sullivanmade the greatest inroads in organizing the Irish. Solidifying an ethnic base within the Democratic Party allowed Sullivan to mold the nucleus of an organization.

Sullivan died in 1920 and was replaced at the head of the Irish faction by George Brennan. Perhaps equally important to Democratic politics in this era was three-time Republican mayor William Hale (Big Bill) Thompson (19151923, 19271931). Effectively exploiting a rapidly expanding base of African American voters, Thompson appealed to racial identity in addition to German ethnic nationalism in a series of tumultuous electoral efforts. Democrats countered with appeals to ethnic pluralism. By running racially polarizing campaigns in the 1920s, the Brennan Democrats contributed to the evolution of whiteness as a political identity among European immigrants and their children. Anton Cermak, a foreign-born Czech and a West Side Democrat, recruited those deeply opposed to Prohibition and others, such as Jews, similarly stung by nativism. With personal liberty as a slogan, Cermak assumed powerful positions as president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners in 1922 and chairman of the party organization following George Brennan's death in 1928. His ticket balancing produced a broadly based Democratic coalition, including an Irish component.

Elected mayor in 1931, Cermak passed the party chairmanship to Pat Nash, who exemplified a more professional, and less narrowly ethnic, wing of the Irish contingent. Following Cermak's assassination, Nash selected Edward J. Kelly to serve as mayor. Kelly (19331947) expanded the party's base and resources by bringing African Americans into the Democratic fold, tapping the New Deal's federal largesse, and running a wide-open town congenial to organized crime. After World War II, the racial tensions generated by white reactions to a rapidly expanding black community, and the corruption associated with his administration, led the organization to dump Kelly as its standard-bearer.

Daley's 21-year administration (19551976) represented the apotheosis of the machine or Cook County Democratic Organization. He professionalized the city bureaucracy, centralized power by refusing to surrender the party chair, and, by the end of his reign, shifted the organization's base to the white urban fringe from the growing black core. By the 1970s, electoral results indicated the party's shaky grip on a racially polarized electorate even as hostile Republican prosecutors thinned the ranks of scandal-ridden party leaders. Daley's death in 1976 subsequently precipitated a revival of Democratic infighting in which bureaucrats fought ward leaders and ward barons battled among themselves. Jane Byrne's stunning victory over Daley successor Michael Bilandic following the blizzard of '79 marked the beginning of the end.

Washington's administration seemed to confirm the obituary. The new mayor refused to surrender city council control to the party's white leadership. Confronting implacable opposition from large numbers of white Democrats, Washington relied less on party politics than on personal popularity, racial loyalties, liberal public policy, and fiscal responsibility to maintain his coalition. His death in 1987, however, derailed the construction of a local Democratic Party built upon a new coalition of black, Latino, and liberal white voters. By the 1990s, Richard M. Daley had built a new model of city hall power, but it remained unclear at the turn of the century whether the foundation was the party or the mayor's shrewd and effective personal leadership.

Arnold R. Hirsch

Bibliography

Biles, Roger. Richard J. Daley: Politics, Race, and the Governing of Chicago. 1995.

Gottfried, Alex. Boss Cermak of Chicago: A Study of Political Leadership. 1962.

Grimshaw, William J. Bitter Fruit: Black Politics and the Chicago Machine. 1992.

Read more:
Democratic Party - Encyclopedia of Chicago