Mediaboss Marketing

In Marxist theory, socialism (also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production) refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Production for use is coordinated through conscious economic planning, while distribution of economic output is based on the principle of To each according to his contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively owning the means of production and the means of their livelihood, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus accrues to the working class and society as a whole.[1]

This view is consistent with, and helped to inform, early conceptions of socialism where the law of value no longer directs economic activity, and thus monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest and wage labor would not operate and apply to socialism.[2]

The Marxian conception of socialism stands in contrast to other early conceptions of socialism, most notably early forms of market socialism based on classical economics such as Mutualism and Ricardian socialism. Unlike the Marxian conception, these conceptions of socialism retained commodity exchange (markets) for labor and the means of production, seeking to perfect the market process.[3] The Marxist idea of socialism was also heavily opposed to Utopian socialism.

Although Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote very little on socialism and neglected to provide any details on how it might be organized,[4] numerous social scientists and neoclassical economists have used Marx's theory as a basis for developing their own models of socialist economic systems. The Marxist view of socialism served as a point of reference during the socialist calculation debate.

Socialism is a post-commodity economic system, meaning that production is carried out to directly produce use-value (to directly satisfy human needs, or economic demands) as opposed to being produced with a view to generating a profit. The stage in which the accumulation of capital was viable and effective is rendered insufficient at the socialist stage of social and economic development, leading to a situation where production is carried out independently of capital accumulation in a supposedly planned fashion. Although Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels understood planning to involve the input and decisions of the individuals involved at localized levels of production and consumption, planning has been interpreted to mean centralized planning by Marxist-Leninists during the 20th century. However, there have been other conceptions of economic planning, including decentralized-planning and participatory planning.

In contrast to capitalism, which relies upon the coercive market forces to compel capitalists to produce use-values as a byproduct of the pursuit of profit, socialist production is to be based on the rational planning of use-values and coordinated investment decisions to attain economic goals.[5] As a result, the cyclical fluctuations that occur in a capitalist market economy will not be present in a socialist economy. The value of a good in socialism is its physical utility rather than its embodied labor, cost of production and exchange value as in a capitalist system.

Socialism would make use of incentive-based systems, and inequality would still exist but to a diminishing extent as all members of society would be worker-owners. This eliminates the severity of previous tendencies towards inequality and conflicts arising ownership of the means of production and property income accruing to a small class of owners.[6] The method of compensation and reward in a socialist society would be based on an authentic meritocracy, along the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution".[7]

The advanced stage of socialism, referred to as "upper-stage communism" in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, is based on the socialist mode of production but is differentiated from lower-stage socialism in a few fundamental ways. While socialism implies public ownership (by a state apparatus) or cooperative ownership (by a worker cooperative enterprise), communism would be based on common ownership of the means of production. Class distinctions based on ownership of capital cease to exist, along with the need for a state. A superabundance of goods and services are made possible by automated production that allow for goods to be distributed based on need rather than merit.[8]

The period in which capitalism becomes increasingly insufficient as an economic system and immediately after the proletarian conquest of the state, an economic system that features elements of both socialism and capitalism will probably exist until both the productive forces of the economy and the cultural and social attitudes develop to a point where they satisfy the requirements for a full socialist society (one that has lost the need for monetary value, wage labor and capital accumulation). Specifically, market relations will still exist but economic units are either nationalized or re-organized into cooperatives. This transitional phase is sometimes described as "state capitalism" or "market socialism". China is officially in the primary stage of socialism.

The fundamental goal of socialism from the view of Marx and Engels was the realization of human freedom and individual autonomy. Specifically, this refers to freedom from the alienation imposed upon individuals in the form of coercive social relationships as well as material scarcity, whereby the individual is compelled to engage in activities merely to survive (to reproduce his or herself). The aim of socialism is to provide an environment whereby individuals are free to express their genuine interests, creative freedom, and desires unhindered by forms of social control that force individuals to work for a class of owners who expropriate and live off the surplus product.[9]

Original post:
Socialism (Marxism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Conservapedia

Socialism has its roots in visions of imaginary ideal societies, from thinkers who drew up elaborated designs and concepts for creating what they considered a more equal society, along collectivist lines or abolished private property; the primarily ideas came from British and French thinkers like Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Louis Blanc, and Robert Owen preceded by Thomas More, Tommaso Campanella, and Jean Meslier. One of Karl Marx's titles was the father of socialism. Currently it is considered a leftist economic system which advocates state ownership or direct control of the major means of production and distribution of goods and services.[4] Socialism is the economic system imposed by Communism, but another one of the most well known political parties of the 20th century that was socialistic was the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi), headed by the fascist, but anti-communist[5]Adolf Hitler. Often socialism is a matter of degree and numerous economies in the world are very socialistic such as European countries (many of which are facing financial difficulties due to over taxation and excessive spending).[6]

The Ludwig von Mises Institute declares:

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

Because many businesses still are privately owned, ipso facto, the United States is not a socialistic government. "That definition is confuted by the earliest theoretical writings on socialism. In France, Henri de Saint-Simon, in the first decades of the 1800s, and his pupil and colleague Auguste Comte, in the 1820s and 30s, along with Robert Owen contemporaneously in England, stated that the essential feature of what Owen called socialism is government regulation of the means of production and distribution." [7] When the government controls the volume of money and its economic applications, it has the economy in a stranglehold. When government controls education so that nothing other than secular socialism may be taught, as Saint-Simon advocated, it controls the future destiny of a nation.

In April of 2010, American political consultant Dick Morris wrote:

If our government is to continue spending 40 percent of our GDP, we will morph into the European model of a socialist democracy. But if we can roll the spending back to 30 percent, while holding taxes level, we will retain our free market system.[9]

Anita Dunn, the political strategist and former White House Communications Director, admitted that one of favorite political philosophers, one that she turns to the most, is Mao Zedong, the communist dictator responsible for the starvation, torture, and killing of 70 million Chinese.[10] Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "Obamunism" to describe Barack Obama's socialistic and "fascism light" economic planning policies (Benito Mussolini defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster Gerald Celente labels Obama's corporate bailouts as being "fascism light" in nature).[11][12] Obamunism can also allude to Obama's ruinous fiscal policies and reckless monetary policies.[13][14][15]

Read the original post:
Socialism - Conservapedia

By Enrique Andres Pretel

LA PAZ (Reuters) - Bolivian President Evo Morales declared a landslide re-election victory on Sunday, hailing it as a triumph for socialist reforms that have cut poverty and vastly expanded the state's role in the booming economy.

Official results were slow coming in but an exit poll and a quick count showed Morales, a former coca grower, trouncing his opponents with about 60 percent of the vote and easily winning a third term in power.

Morales, who became Bolivia's first indigenous leader in 2006, will now be able to extend his "indigenous socialism", under which he has nationalised key industries such as oil and gas to finance welfare programs and build new roads and schools.

"This was a debate on two models: nationalisation or privatisation. Nationalisation won with more than 60 percent (support)," Morales told thousands of cheering supporters from the balcony of the presidential palace.

A prominent member of the bloc of socialist and anti-U.S. leaders in Latin America, Morales dedicated his victory to Cuba's former communist leader Fidel Castro.

"This win is a triumph for anti-imperialists and anti-colonialists," Morales said.

His folksy appeal and prudent spending of funds from a natural gas bonanza to finance welfare programs, roads and schools have earned the 54-year-old wide support in a country long dogged by political instability.

Fireworks exploded over the palace - dubbed the "Burned Palace" in reference to Bolivia's history of coups - as Morales loyalists chanted "Evo, Evo".

A Mori exit poll released by Unitel television showed Morales winning 61 percent of the vote. His closest rival, businessman Samuel Doria Medina, had 24 percent.

Continued here:
Bolivia's Morales declares re-election victory, says it a triumph for socialism

LA PAZ

Official results had not yet been released but an exit poll and a quick count showed Morales, a former coca grower, trouncing his opponents with about 60 percent of the vote and easily winning a third term in power.

Morales, who became Bolivia's first indigenous leader in 2006, will now be able to extend his "indigenous socialism", under which he has nationalized key industries such as oil and gas to finance welfare programs and build new roads and schools.

"This was a debate on two models: nationalization or privatization. Nationalization won with more than 60 percent (support)," Morales told thousands of cheering supporters from the balcony of the presidential palace.

A prominent member of the bloc of socialist and anti-U.S. leaders in Latin America, Morales dedicated his victory to Cuba's former communist leader Fidel Castro.

"This win is a triumph for anti-imperialists and anti-colonialists," Morales said.

His folksy appeal and prudent spending of funds from a natural gas bonanza to finance welfare programs, roads and schools have earned the 54-year-old wide support in a country long dogged by political instability.

Fireworks exploded over the palace - dubbed the "Burned Palace" in reference to Bolivia's history of coups - as Morales loyalists chanted "Evo, Evo".

A Mori exit poll released by Unitel television showed Morales winning 61 percent of the vote. His closest rival, businessman Samuel Doria Medina, had 24 percent.

A quick count released by local TV channel ATB showed Morales with 60.5 percent of the vote.

See the original post here:
Bolivia's Morales declares a triumph for socialism

Christianity and socialism
A Christian #39;s view on why socialism and communism are evil and not the plan of God.

By: cazz792033

See the original post here:
Christianity and socialism - Video