An sosyalismo sarong walaistang pilosopiya asin kahiroan na sakop an manlaenlaen na sistemang ekonomiko na midbid sa pagkaigwa nin rogaring sa sosyedad na kontra sa pribadong pagsasadiri.[1][2][3][3] An sosyal na pagsadiri pwedeng magin estado/publiko, komunidad, grupo, kooperatiba, o empleyado.[4][5] Minsan ngani mayo nin sarong pakahulogan na nakakadagdag sa dakol na klase nin sosyalismo, an sosyal na rogaring iyo an sarong komun na elemento. An manlaenlaenaen na klase nin sosyalismo nagkakalaenlaen sa kabtang nin mga merkado asin pagplano para sa kayamanan, sa estruktura nin pagpadalagan sa mga organisasyon, asin hale sa mas hababa o hale sa itaas na mga approaches, na may nagkapirang sosyalista na pinapaboran na partido, estado, o teknokratikong approach.[3] An mga Sosyalista dai nagkakaoroyon kun baga an gobyerno, partikularmente an nag - eeksister na gobyerno, iyo an tamang lunadan para sa pagbabago.[6]

An mga sistema na sosyalista nababanga sa mga pormang bakong merkado asin merkado.[7] An bakong merkado na sosyalismo nagriribay-ribay sa mga paktor nin merkado asin parati an kuwarta gamit an pinagpisan-pisan na mga leyes sa ekonomikong pagplano asin sa inhenyeriya o teknikal criteria base sa calculation performed in-kind, sa siring nagbunga nin ibang mekanismong pang-ekonimiya na nagseserbi segun sa manlaenlaen na mga leyes asin mga dinamiko kisa sa kapitalismo.[8] An sarong bakong merkado na sistema nin mga sosyalista naghihingoang haleon an hinohonang mga kadaihan nin kakayahan, kawàran nin rason , kadaihan nin kasyertohan, asin mga krisis na pinagkatodan nang iasosyar kan mga sosyalista sa kwartang kapital asin sa sistema nin ganansya sa kapitalismo.[9] Sa kabaliktaran, pinapagdadanay kan sosyalismo sa komersyo an paggamit nin kwartang mga presyo, mga paktor na merkado asin sa nagkapirang kaso an motibo sa ganansya, mapadapit sa pagpunsionar kan mga negosyong sadiri kan sosyedad asin an alokasyon nin kapital na produkto sa pag-oltanan ninda. An mga ganansya na bunga kan mga kompanyang ini direktang kontrolado kan mga trabahador kan kada sarong kompanya o itatao sa sosyedad an kabtang sa porma nin sarong sosyal na dibidendo.[10][11][12] An anarkismo asin librtaryanong sosyalismo kontra sa paggamit kan estado bilang sarong paagi tanganing makaestablisar nin sosyalismo, na pinapaboran an desentralisasyon urog sa gabos, baga man maestablisar an bakong merkadong sosyalismo o merkadong sosyalismo.[13][14]

An politikang sosyalista nagin kapwa internasyonalista asin nasyonalista; inorganisar sa paagi kan politikal na mga partido asin kontra sa politikal na partido; kun beses nagsusuknongan an kaburunyogan nin mga kalakal asin kun minsan indipendente asin kritikal sainda, asin presente sa industriyalisado saka nagpoprogresong mga nasyon.[15] An demokrasya sosyal naggikan sa laog kan sosyalistang kahiroan, na sinusuportaran an mga pakikiaram sa ekonomiya asin sosyedad tanganing paoswagon an sosyal na hustisya. [16][17][18] Minsan ngani pinapagdadanay an sosyalismo bilang panghaloyan nang katuyohan, mantang an peryodo pakatapos kan guerra inako an sarong ekonomiya na kompwesto nin mga Keynesianong saralak na ekonomiya sa laog nin predominanteng mauswag na kapitalistang ekonomiyang merkado asin liberal na demokratikong mga rogaring na nagpapahiwas kan pakikiaram kan estado na kabali an income redistribution, regulation, asin an welfare state.[19][20] An ekonomikong demokrasya nag - aalok nin sarong klase nin sosyalismong merkado, na may mas demokratikong kontrol sa mga kompanya, kurhensia, pangangapital asin natural na mapapagkuanan nin kayamanan.[21]

Kabale sa sosyalistang politikal na kahiroan an sarong grupo nin politikal na mga pilosopiya na naggikan sa mga kahiroan na rebolusyonaryo kan kabangaan kan ika - 18 siglo asin huli sa pagmakolog sa sosyal na mga problema na konektado sa kapitalismo. Kan huring kabtang kan ika - 19 siglo, pakatapos kan trabaho ni Karl Marx asin kan saiyang katabang na si Friedrich Engels, an sosyalismo nagkaigwa nin tanda nin pagtumang sa kapitalismo asin pagsamba sa sarong sistema sa post-capitalist na basado sa sarong klase nin sosyal na pagsadiri nin mga bagay.[22][23] Sa kapinonan kan 1920, an komunismo asin demokrasya sosyal nagin nang an duwang nangingibabaw na politikal na tendensiya sa laog kan internasyonal na kahiroan sosyalista, na an sosyalismo mismo an nagin pinakamaimpluwensiyang sekular na kahiroan kan ika - 20 siglo.[24][25] An Sosyalistang mga partido asin ideya nagdadanay na sarong politikal na pwersa na may laen - laen na sokol nin kapangyarihan asin impluwensiya sa gabos na kontinente, na pasiring sa mga gobyerno nasyonal sa dakol na nasyon sa bilog na kinaban. Ngonyan, inarog man kan dakol na sosyalista an mga causa nin ibang sosyal na kahiroan arog baga kan feminismo, environmentalism, asin progressivism.[26]

Minsan ngani an paglataw kan Unyon Sobyet bilang enot na sosyalista sa kinaban nagbunga kan lakop na pakikiasosyar kan sosyalismo sa modelo nin ekonomiya kan Sobyet, nagkapirang iskolar an nag - aasikaso na, an modelo nagpupunsionar bilang porma nin kapitalismong estado. An nagkapirang akademiko, komentarista sa politika, asin iskolar napalaen sa pag - oltanan nin awtoritaryan socialist asin demokratikong socialist na mga estado, na an enot na nagrerepresentar sa pan - Sirangan na Bloc asin an huri nagrerepresentar sa mga nasyon sa Solnopan na Holocaust na kontrolado kan sosyalistang mga partido na arog baga kan Britanya, Pransya, Sweden, asin Solnopan na mga nasyon sa pankagabsan, kaiba an iba pa.[27] Minsan siring, pagkatapos kan Malipot na Guerra, dakol sa mga nasyon na ini an huminale sa sosyalismo bilang konsesiyonista sa gobyerno an suminalida sa sosyal na demokratikong konsekusion sa halangkaw na kapitalistang kinaban.[28]

Toltolan baguhon

  1. Busky (2000): "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."; Sinclair (1918): "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."; Arnold (1994): "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."; Horvat & Michie (2000): "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."
  2. Horvat & Michie (2000): "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."; Rosser & Barkley (2003): "Socialism is an economic system characterised by state or collective ownership of the means of production, land, and capital."; Badie, Berg-Schlosser & Morlino (2011): "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."; Zimbalist, Sherman & Brown (1988): "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."; Brus (2015): "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."; Arnold (1994): "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."
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 Hastings, Adrian; Mason, Alistair; Pyper, Hugh (2000). The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Oxford University Press. p. 677. ISBN 978-0198600244. 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. 
  4. Horvat, Branko (2000). "Social ownership". In Michie, Jonathan. Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences, Volume 1. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 1515–1516. ISBN 9781135932268. Retrieved 15 October 2021. 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. 
  5. O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy. 2. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 978-0415241878. 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. 
  6. Docherty, James C.; Lamb, Peter, eds. (2006). Historical Dictionary of Socialism. Historical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies, and Movements. 73 (2nd ed.). Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0810855601. 
  7. Kolb, Robert (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. 
  8. Bockman (2011): "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."; Steele (1999): "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."; Arneson (1992): "Marxian socialism is often identified with the call to organize economic activity on a nonmarket basis."; Schweickart et al. (1998): "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."
  9. Nove (1991): "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."; Kotz (2006): "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."; Weisskopf (1992): "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."; Prychitko (2002): "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."
  10. Marangos, John (2004). "Social Dividend versus Basic Income Guarantee in Market Socialism". International Journal of Political Economy (Taylor & Francis) 34 (3): 20–40. doi:10.1080/08911916.2004.11042930. 
  11. O'Hara, Phillip (2000). Encyclopedia of Political Economy. 2. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 978-0415241878. 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. 
  12. Pierson, Christopher (1995). Socialism After Communism: The New Market Socialism. Pennsylvania State University Press. p. 96. ISBN 978-0271-014784. 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 ... . 
  13. McNally, David (1993). Against the Market: Political Economy, Market Socialism and the Marxist Critique. Verso Books. ISBN 978-0860916062. 
  14. Kinna, Ruth (2012). "Introduction". In Kinna, Rith; Pinta, Saku; Prichard, Alex. Libertarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1–16. ISBN 978-0230280373. 
  15. Newman (2005), p. 2: "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."
  16. Ely, Richard T. (1883). French and German Socialism in Modern Times. New York: Harper and Brothers. pp. 204–205. Social democrats forms the extreme wing of the socialists ... inclined to lay so much stress on equality of enjoyment, regardless of the value of one's labor, that they might, perhaps, more properly be called communists. ... They have two distinguishing characteristics. The vast majority of them are laborers, and, as a rule, they expect the violent overthrow of existing institutions by revolution to precede the introduction of the socialistic state. I would not, by any means, say that they are all revolutionists, but the most of them undoubtedly are. ... The most general demands of the social democrats are the following: The state should exist exclusively for the laborers; land and capital must become collective property, and production be carried on unitedly. Private competition, in the ordinary sense of the term, is to cease. 
  17. Merkel, Wolfgang; Petring, Alexander; Henkes, Christian; Egle, Christoph (2008). Social Democracy in Power: The Capacity to Reform. Routledge Research in Comparative Politics. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415438209. 
  18. Heywood, Andrew (2012). Political Ideologies: An Introduction (5th ed.). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 128. ISBN 978-0230367258. Social democracy is an ideological stance that supports a broad balance between market capitalism, on the one hand, and state intervention, on the other hand. Being based on a compromise between the market and the state, social democracy lacks a systematic underlying theory and is, arguably, inherently vague. It is nevertheless associated with the following views: (1) capitalism is the only reliable means of generating wealth, but it is a morally defective means of distributing wealth because of its tendency towards poverty and inequality; (2) the defects of the capitalist system can be rectified through economic and social intervention, the state being the custodian of the public interest ... . 
  19. Roemer (1994): "The long term and the short term."; Bermann (1998), p. 57: "Over the long term, however, democratizing Sweden's political system was seen to be important not merely as a means but also as an end in itself. Achieving democracy was crucial not only because it would increase the power of the SAP in the Swedish political system but also because it was the form socialism would take once it arrived. Political, economic, and social equality went hand in hand, according to the SAP, and were all equally important characteristics of the future socialist society."; Busky (2000); Bailey (2009), p. 77: "... Giorgio Napolitano launched a medium-term programme, 'which tended to justify the governmental deflationary policies, and asked for the understanding of the workers, since any economic recovery would be linked with the long-term goal of an advance towards democratic socialism'"; Lamb (2015), p. 415
  20. Badie, Berg-Schlosser & Morlino (2011), p. 2423: "Social democracy refers to a political tendency resting on three fundamental features: (1) democracy (e.g., equal rights to vote and form parties), (2) an economy partly regulated by the state (e.g., through Keynesianism), and (3) a welfare state offering social support to those in need (e.g., equal rights to education, health service, employment and pensions)."
  21. Smith, J. W. (2005). Economic Democracy: The Political Struggle for the 21st century. Radford: Institute for Economic Democracy Press. ISBN 1933567-015. 
  22. Gasper, Phillip (2005). The Communist Manifesto: A Road Map to History's Most Important Political Document. Haymarket Books. p. 24. ISBN 978-1931859257. As the nineteenth century progressed, "socialist" came to signify not only concern with the social question, but opposition to capitalism and support for some form of social ownership. 
  23. Giddens, Anthony (1998). Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics (1998 ed.). Cambridge, England, UK: Polity Press. p. 71. 
  24. Newman (2005): "Chapter 1 looks at the foundations of the doctrine by examining the contribution made by various traditions of socialism in the period between the early 19th century and the aftermath of the First World War. The two forms that emerged as dominant by the early 1920s were social democracy and communism."
  25. Kurian, George Thomas, ed. (2011). The Encyclopedia of Political Science. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. p. 1554. 
  26. Sheldon, Garrett Ward (2001). Encyclopedia of Political Thought. Fact on File. Inc. p. 280. 
  27. Barrett (1978): "If we were to extend the definition of socialism to include Labor Britain or socialist Sweden, there would be no difficulty in refuting the connection between capitalism and democracy."; Heilbroner (1991); Kendall (2011): "Sweden, Great Britain, and France have mixed economies, sometimes referred to as democratic socialism—an economic and political system that combines private ownership of some of the means of production, governmental distribution of some essential goods and services, and free elections. For example, government ownership in Sweden is limited primarily to railroads, mineral resources, a public bank, and liquor and tobacco operations."; Li (2015): "The scholars in camp of democratic socialism believe that China should draw on the Sweden experience, which is suitable not only for the West but also for China. In the post-Mao China, the Chinese intellectuals are confronted with a variety of models. The liberals favor the American model and share the view that the Soviet model has become archaic and should be totally abandoned. Meanwhile, democratic socialism in Sweden provided an alternative model. Its sustained economic development and extensive welfare programs fascinated many. Numerous scholars within the democratic socialist camp argue that China should model itself politically and economically on Sweden, which is viewed as more genuinely socialist than China. There is a growing consensus among them that in the Nordic countries the welfare state has been extraordinarily successful in eliminating poverty."
  28. Sanandaji (2021); Caulcutt (2022); Krause-Jackson (2019); Best et al. (2011), p. xviii