socialism: a broader explanation - articlesfactory.com - bone china dinner set with price in pakistan

The introduction the word "socialism" and the word "communism" have begun to allow the meaning of a large number of societies and governments.
To some extent, socialism refers to the control of the government (or the public) over the economy and commerce.
I met with the Socialist members of all countries who made this loose definition more specific.
Some even assume that the end of the government will be replaced by democracy, while others design "free society" to abolish money and make everything free, and others still believe in a participatory economy, though, don't work if you don't want to (and still enjoy the benefits of work, like salary, at the same time ).
However, many of these socialists understand how broad the word "socialism" is and describe more thoroughly their thoughts on the utopian social mechanisms.
Before discussing the question of rights or the interests of the industrial society, I must describe how I view the way a good socialist society and economy operate.
I think the public should have the right to have some capital.
In fact, the government owns and operates some of the transportation industry (roads) and is also the biggest competitor in the education industry.
Other industries such as health, postal services, electricity, water and other utilities are also managed, owned or operated by the government.
However, I think that other industries of Taro Aso should be publicly owned, such as factories that produce electronics or other goods, very small retail chains that help distribute goods, and--
The most important thing is-
A farm that produces food for the hungry.
With the public in these industries, we can set prices, have fair working hours, have fair working conditions and have decent quality of goods.
By private enterprises with capital and business, these desired economic conditions rarely occur (as I will prove with evidence in the next section ).
In addition to the public ownership of industry, I do not think private ownership should be prohibited (private ownership of capital and means of production is prohibited within communism ).
To help promote ethical business procedures in the private sector, some socialists advocate business regulations: Minimum wage law, overtime and minimum working hours law, child labor law, low safe working conditions, etc, it allows private enterprises to act as they wish within certain guidelines of principle.
While I do believe in regulation of the private sector (with laws such as minimum wage and safe working conditions), I also believe that, some industries should be public owned (I will go into the details of regulation and ownership later ).
Although regulation does provide an artificial standard for enterprises, the best standard is provided by companies owned by the public with the specific purpose of serving the public-
The public sector will serve workers by providing fair wages, good working hours and safe working conditions for honest work;
The public sector will provide high quality goods at low and affordable prices, serving the community and consumers.
The regulation and public ownership of certain capital in most industries is my idea of socialism, allowing public enterprises to provide services that exceed the requirements of commercial regulation, thus providing natural competition for private enterprises.
On the question of how to pass the law and make a decision, and while I tend to direct democracy (Anarchy), this is not a question that I can fully answer here.
Is it possible for the workers to be socialist? Is it needed?
Is it desirable?
These questions can only be answered with cruel facts.
Here is a list of facts about the rich, the poor and all the people involved. . .
A theory of rights, if a Thinker wants to think about some social or moral dilemma and wants to find some solution (or at least make it easier to understand ), then the thinker is to solve this dilemma by some principles.
If the investigator wants to find out whether some hypothetical facts are true or not, he will use the rules to help him discover the truth, such as proof, evidence, reason, observation logic, and so on.
Similarly, dealing with social or moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia, animal rights or--in our case --
In order to solve these problems, we need to guide our principles.
My purpose here is not to formulate any new principles of justice, but to criticize the old recognition of the rights of the people.
The rights of the people under capitalism have long been advocated by the philosopher John Locke.
In terms of human rights, he said that we are entitled to life, freedom and property. To quote Locke. . .
However, property rights, or at least private property rights, are the rights upheld by the capitalist class.
As everyone is entitled to these rights, business owners are entitled to provide hunger wages and harsh working conditions because they own factories.
Needless to say, all the business owners and all the capitalists are doing the same thing and the workers have no chance of promotion.
Thus, the capitalist class has the right to keep workers in poverty for ever.
The problem with arrise, however, is that what evidence does Locke's rights base on?
Before the rise of free enterprises and the recognition of rights, the feudal system was generally implemented within Europe.
In many ways, it is easy to compare feudal to capitalism: those who produce goods and services for the economy are paid the least, those who do not work (except for exploiting jobs that do not produce anything is that the richest workers are bound in a hopeless situation where they have no chance to change their plight, there is no chance to move forward.
But most importantly, there is the same reason for both the feudal lord and capitalism: No.
Although capitalism is justified by an intellectual philosopher, I do not think Locke's intention is to justify a system that keeps workers in slavery for ever.
On the contrary, I think he designed his system to liberate the serfs from the feudal system.
Unfortunately, he was unable to predict the inevitable production of the industrial society and the entertainment of lords and vassal to the capitalist class.
Feudal serfs are nothing more than capitalist workers: slaves who have no free opportunity except revolution.
It is not fair to be feudal and capitalist, because both of them give all their wealth to Africa.
Understand the crumbs of the working class and the working class.
However, as the feudal people believe, they are reasonable, whether fair or not.
They feel that they have the right to do what they do, because Locke's ideology supports the property rights of capitalists and therefore the right to exploit.
However, the question remains: how is Locke's philosophy (or property philosophy) reasonable?
There is no reason for the capitalist system, because the feudal system is unreasonable.
The only reason for any form of slavery is greed and self-interest.
The capitalist philosopher Ayn Rand called selfishness a virtue!
She may have defended capitalism, but she has also defended the feudal, or the cruel and ruthless slavery of any kind, no matter how ruthless the practice is, torture the minds and bodies of the producers of our world.
Selfishness is not a legitimate reason for people or workers.
This is a justification for tyrants, supervisors, slaves, vassal, Jehovah, Kings, or any kind of person who will seize every opportunity to steal from the staff.
There may be no absolute reason for socialism, or I don't know yet.
However, it can be easily inferred that workers should have rights because they produce products that are used by society ---
As far as rights are concerned, I mean more than just property rights, property rights can be manipulated into something as disgusting as the right to exploit.
When I say workers should be given the right, I mean they should be entitled to a fair and decent living wage and be fairly compensated for the work they do.
Fair pay and fair working conditions.
That's why I believe in socialism.
Why can't communism?
It is often asked to any socialist: "Why not communism?
But before people can answer such a question in good faith, we must define communism.
There are some socialists and communists who believe that socialism and communism are the same, which sometimes leads to confusion among individual groups who want to get social benefitsEconomic change.
[* 1] There are others who believe that socialism and communism are the same empty terms that imply the public (or the state)
Operation) economy, when using terms such as socialism or communism, it is necessary to specify what they mean.
However, thinkers like Marx and Engels claim that there is a huge marginal difference between socialism and communism.
In Marx's words, communism is defined. . .
In addition to the idea of pure public ownership of capital and means of production, there is the idea of paying equal pay for all.
Quote from anarchy
Alexander Berkman, Communist Party member. .
The Communist ideas discussed in this article should be defined as public ownership (or state ownership) of capital and means of production, and equal remuneration for each worker.
This is the opposite of Socialism, which means that only some industries are owned by the public and some regulations.
Both socialism and communism oppose capitalism,
Capitalism can be defined as an economic system that has no restrictions on the economy ---
If employers can provide the low wages they want, business owners can provide the food they want and there are no restrictions on any of these transactions.
So the question we are facing is: should we choose an economy with equal pay rather than an economy without equal pay?
I don't agree with communism and equality for all, because the tool flaw in Communist reasoning is that people are all the same: something useful to one person will certainly be useful to another person.
We are all individuals with our own interests, our own desires, and our own aspirations.
There may be only one person, he only needs the basic necessities, and his body and his mind can be happy.
If that is the case, then I believe he has the right to work only for the money he needs (under fair economic conditions) and he may only work an hour a day.
If others need something more than others, then they can work harder than others to meet their needs.
If someone has an expensive hobby, an entertaining drug habit, an expensive fashion taste, or something else that is needed more than ordinary people, then let them have the wealth they want for themselves
In this way, those who work the most are the richest people, not our current capitalist situation, in which the richest people do not work.
In addition to changes in workers' needs, the ability of workers to produce for our economy is also changing.
Some workers may be educated and more suitable for some occupations than others, so they should get a higher salary because they produce more products.
Educated workers not only produce more products, but also spend most of their time studying, so it is more worthwhile to do so.
Other workers may be stronger, smarter, more numb, or there are other people who have some attributes that will allow them to produce more products and therefore should be paid a higher salary.
Of course, there are other reasons for equal pay.
Alexander Berkman is a person who provides equal pay for all.
Quote his argument. . .
Berkman will choose a qualified worker to compare with a white worker rather than a black worker, or a male worker rather than a female worker.
Is his comparison reasonable? Hardly.
Today, it is recognized that racism and gender discrimination are flawed because they judge someone based on the qualities that do not properly reflect their skills and abilities.
This can happen if someone hires white men instead of black women, even if black women are more skilled.
However, Berkman says here that it doesn't matter who gets the job.
I believe the problem with his idea is that people believe that work is for workers and not consumers.
While this is correct to some extent (because work is a fulfilling and meaningful experience), the purpose of production is to eventually consume the fruits of labor.
We work not for work, but for better products and services.
If we place inferior workers in jobs where they don't handle well, the company will produce fewer products and the quality may be lower.
If production is suppressed, it may even lead to a decline in wages or a deterioration in working conditions.
Now, while this does answer the question of why we prefer skilled workers to non-technical workers, it does not answer why we should pay more wages for skilled workers than for non-technical workers.
Due to the greater contribution of skilled workers to production, they are the reason for the production of higher quality products.
Because they have more wealth than everyone else, it is fair for their personality to be recognized and to receive a higher salary.
With more educated or stronger workers, or with features that enable him to do his job more efficiently, this worker should be favored more than inefficient, unskilled workers, not trained or educated
In addition, the worker who is able to do more things produces more things for his society, so his efforts deserve more.
It may be said that a weak worker was born for a week and therefore should not be discriminated against because of his genes.
This may reinforce the analogy of choosing a stronger worker rather than a weaker one, as if choosing a white man rather than a black man ---
It reinforces this analogy by showing how a person is rewarded or punished for his birth (which seems to be beyond everyone's control ).
I cannot deny that there are some lovely qualities at birth, but there are still many qualities available to anyone who has difficulty.
As for those who are unfortunately born with negative attributes, I don't think giving them equal pay like those who are more qualified will solve the problem.
Although being born with a disability is a bad situation, I can only be sad but not completely equal.
There are not many things that people who can't work like another person produce, so they shouldn't be paid that much.
The main difference between socialism and communism is that communism means full control of industry by the public or government, while socialism only controls some businesses and makes regulations.
In addition, there is also the question of wages, which has been answered by communism: all workers should be paid equal wages.
In this regard, socialism is very different from communism.
As far as the socialist system I advocate is concerned, there is no equal remuneration and there is no valid reason.
The worker is--
For one reason or another-
They are better suited, more educated, more skilled, more trained, or to some extent better than other workers, and then contribute more to production.
This means that the society will get more quality goods at a lower price.
Giving more workers to society should be given a higher position where he can make more contributions and, of course, he should be paid higher.
Note to the first paragraph: * 1 I used to meet a girl when she was homeless and she said she was a communist and then said she was just a Communist and didn't seem to have a real label to describe herself.
In industrial society, there are some philosophers who believe in other radical forms that change the way we produce and consume products.
In all the systems I have considered in this article, there is always an industrial society.
Socialism, Communism and capitalism are just different ways of managing the industrial society.
Communism is a complete public control over the economy, socialism is part, capitalism is not.
But there are radical philosophers who believe in the disintegration of industrial society.
I must define the industrial society before proceeding.
The industrial society can be defined as people working together so that we can produce more products than when working alone.
By using auxiliary tools such as factories, assembly lines, mass production, robots and other tools, we can produce 100 units in one hour and need 1 person per day to produce 1 unit.
Through cooperation, we can build these factories and other tools to help us produce products that are used by society.
There are a large number of individuals who do not believe in Industrial Society (although they are often difficult to find ).
These people are known originalists.
The reasons for their lack of faith in the industrial society may vary from individual to individual, but I suspect that it is mainly that all industrial societies fail to produce fair wages for work in decent working conditions.
The economy from American capitalism to Soviet communism has disappointed workers and consumers.
Life without an industrial society does not necessarily go back to the old workshop before the rise of the Industrial Revolution.
Some believe to go back to the roots of hunting and collection.
However, the question remains: what are the benefits of the industrial society and are they more than positive aspects of the original life?
Because I am a socialist and I believe in collective work, it is clear that I believe in industrial society.
While no industrial society is able to serve the interests of workers and consumers well, I have proven that there is a possibility that products will be of improved quality, lower prices, increased working conditions and increased work wages, and reduced working hours.
Such a lucrative company has created so much great wealth that society will flourish with freedom and creativity if fair prices and wages are offered.
If capital is owned by the public, we will live in a better society without the chain of slavery.
While primitive societies may be more liberal than we are now, there are certain things that are vital in our industrial societies, if we have socialism, we can get such a demand under the free sky.
In the industrial society, we can make products that are ten times faster, cheaper and more durable.
In addition to this wonderful advantage, there is no health care in the primitive society.
We will not be able to cure the disease, we will not be able to live.
If we do not live in an industrial society, save the surgery, or otherwise increase our longevity and health.
Quote Carl Sagan. . . .
The importance of public ownership of capital is based on the idea of competition.
If all capital is privately owned, then the competition will be sad and will not provide a fair price for the product at all, nor will it provide a fair compensation for the work.
If we are public capital, it will serve us.
Private ownership of a business can find some way in terms of regulation.
What if a private enterprise suddenly decides to exercise the right to private property, refuse to sell or hire Africans, Caucasian or Asians, or refuse to provide services to women or men? For pregnant women, for anti-cultural gangsters, for members of certain political parties, or for those who want to hurt in some industries?
What happens?
Maybe some rules can be passed, but once passed, how many people will starve to death?
I don't want to give my life to anyone who cares more about profits than people.
The public should have ownership of capital.
Only in this way will the public have the opportunity to participate in the fair and honest employment and procurement business.
This sentence is considered to be the biggest argument for capitalism.
But is this true? --
The March 16 edition of The New York Times published a report about Nike shoe contractors destroying trade unions in Indonesia.
A worker was "locked in a room in the factory and interrogated by the military for seven days, and the military asked for more information about his labor activities. \" --
The owner of the factory, looking at the capitalist dog and the represser of various humanitarian emotions;
The expression of human limits in cruelty, the epitome of capitalism, the New World slavery, the workers' slavery, the totalitarian fascist of human slavery, and the cruel and ruthless inhumanity in various forms.
These are capitalists: brutal, unfriendly, and rash.
But the philosopher Adam Smith claims that it is their willpower, their strength, and their greed that help everyone.
If these merchants decide to give in, to provide fair working conditions, to cut profits, to pay fair wages, to stop the killing and assassination of union workers ---
If any capitalist starts to be fair and just in all his transactions, then the worker (claiming Smith) will be at a disadvantage!
Smith wants us to believe that by getting more wages, merchants will not "take care of their own interests" and the worker's condition will deteriorate!
Add more whips, sprinkle more blood, grind the meat until there is nothing but bones and tears, the workers will benefit!
The crazy and ridiculous theory that this absurd person can understand is immeasurable.
The owners of these factories did exactly what Adam Smith suggested: only for their own benefit.
Similarly, the workers in the factory did not live up to capitalism: they worked because they would starve to death if they did not work and they had no choice.
However, if by doing so, the capitalist philosophers expect all of us to benefit (and be satisfied with the way things are done), then they fail in the most tragic way.
Philosophy failed.
This is not a very shocking thing.
Philosophers are notorious for failing to comply with the rights of all the oppressed from René Descartes to Adam Smith.
Philosophy believes that self
Interest will bring the best results.
Global Slavery and humiliation is not an ideal situation for any staff member.
Philosophy failed.
There is no need to argue about this.
The facts after the facts and the evidence after the evidence confirm this.
But how can philosophy fail, is there any ideology that can put it in the position of properly analyzing evidence and truth?
Ideology is called socialism, and this is my appeal to all the staff, to all the oppressed people, to all the victims of injustice and cruelty, for all those who have gone through a long and endless night of uncertainty and tyranny, pay tribute to those who desire truth, justice and fairness throughout the world.
Before the public controls the means of production, in order to increase the price, the quantity of food produced will decrease and we will starve.
If we don't produce enough clothes, we will freeze.
We will be homeless and the price of housing will be too high.
In order to deprive us of everything we produce, the capitalist class will price the products too high and the wages too low, and we will always be in the holy rain of slavery.
But we are workers, machines that produce this society! Strike! Boycott! Unionize! Inform!
Do what you can to close the factory that makes the product at the cost of freedom, truth and justice!
The evidence completely destroyed the idea of capitalism in the field of logical thought.
The theory that can replace capitalism is socialism: if bosses and investors do everything for their own benefit, we will live in an unfair and unjust environment, the society we are now forced.
In this crazy rat survival contest, we live a life of pain, work and consumption and can only find that capitalists are a liar, nothing but the pioneers of cruelty and tyranny, and corruption
Innovation and technological progress have put forward very serious attacks on socialist and communist ideas, under which innovation and new ideas will cease.
This is a charge that cannot be ignored.
The reason innovation can be suppressed is that pay is completely equal and investors cannot take advantage of new inventions.
If a worker finds a new way to increase production, but everyone has already been paid the same, he will not be paid more for finding a better way, like eual pay, all people get the same rewards, innovative and non-innovativeinnovative.
Moreover, if all capital is owned by the government or the public, there is no way for someone to open their own factories and sell their own products.
Moreover, not only did innovators stop developing in social mechanisms, but workers did not have time
Saving equipment to help them produce cheaper products, consumers will not get lower prices because of the higher quality of the products.
Or, if the new invention is a vaccine, a medical method, or some new invention, then society will lose our lives without this equipment.
In a socialist society, however, I will not be hindered by innovation and technological progress.
Not only will new technologies be promoted, but also new ways of doing business that are more successful than others.
Since the public will have only part of all capital, it will allow private citizens with new and innovative ideas to take advantage of them.
In addition, there is the R & D sector of the private industry today.
Even if everyone gets the same pay, scientists who research and develop will receive money to create new things.
In the socialist economy, there will be R & D departments that invent new things to help the world progress. if a worker finds a new way to do things, R & D should bring considerable monetary rewards.
In addition, in a communist country with equal pay, life will be far more than life in an innovative capitalist country.
At least one communist country will provide food, water, clothes and other necessities without much work.
In a capitalist country, we work 12 hours a day to produce expensive cars, so at the end of the day, we can sleep in a ditch for just a few cents.
When millions of people are homeless and hungry, how can any country boast about technological achievements in such ignorance?
In a free society, Marx's struggle to observe those who have no property in history is noteworthy.
The proletariat is a slave to the Romans, because Africans are slaves to Americans, so today's workers also live under the egg yolk of the cruel torture of Labor.
We are not driven by a strong aversion to work.
On the contrary, we are driven by the conditions we have been living in: low wages, ruthless supervisors and long hours of work.
With the vicious development of business, society and economy have become something that benefits the rich and powerful.
The capitalist class has not provided us with the fruits of labor, and has become the most cruel and vicious class.
There is no doubt why we have protests, riots or anti-violence, nothing but endless anxiety about the world
Direct action of capitalism
We will continue to reject and resist the tremendous atrocities of the growing injustice of capitalism and the destruction of so many systems that drive our will. www. punkerslut.