Socijalizam

Iz Vikipedije, slobodne enciklopedije
Idi na: navigaciju, pretragu

Socijalizam čine širok skup političkih i ekonomskih doktrina, od kojih se većina odnosi na političke pokrete čiji je cilj da sprovedu te doktrine u praksu. Ti pokreti zamišljaju i zagovaraju sistem društvene organizacije u kojem su vlasništvo i raspodjela dobiti od proizvodnje podređena društvenoj kontroli. Kao ekonomski sistem, socijalizam se često veže za državno i kolektivno vlasništvo medija za proizvodnju, a time i samih krajnjih proizvoda. Takva kontrola može biti direktna, odnosno preko raznih modela kolektiva radnika, ili može biti i indirektna, odnosno preko uticaja državnih organa vlasti. Moderni socijalistički pokret ima svoje duboke korene u pokretu radničke klase krajem 19. veka. U tom periodu, pojam „socijalizam“ se odnosio na Evropske socijalne kritičare koji su oštro osuđivali privatno vlasništvo. Za Karla Marksa, koji je u stvari definisao i pomogao uspostvljanju modernog socijalističkog pokreta, socijalizam treba da uništi tržišta, kapital i rad sa težnjom za privatnim blagostanjem i komotnostima.

Socijalizam je opseg ekonomskih i društvenih sistema koje karakteriše društveno vlasništvo i demokratska kontrola nad sredstvima za proizvodnju,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}} kao i političke teorije, i pokreti vezani za njih.[8] Društveno vlasništvo se može odnositi na odlike javnog, kolektivnog, ili kooperativnog vlasništva, ili na građansko vlasništvo nad kapitalom.[9] Postoji mnoštvo varijeteta socijalizmai i stoga ne postoji jedna sveobuhvatna definicija.[10] Društveno vlasništvo je zajednički elemenat svih varijeteta.[3][11][12]

Socijalistički ekonomski sistemi se mogu podeliti u netržišne i tržišne oblike.[13] Netržišni socijalizam obuhvata supstituciju faktora tržišta i novca, sa inženjerskim i tehničkim kriterijumima, baziranim na obračunu izvršenom u naturi, čime se formira ekonomski mehanizam koji funkcioniše u skladu sa različitim ekonomskim zakonima od onih u kapitalizmu. Netržišni socijalizam stremi prevazilaženju neefikasnoti i kriza koje su tradicionalno asocirane sa akumulacijom kapitala i sistemom profita.[22] U kontrastu s tim, tržišni socijalizam zadržava upotrebu monetarnih cena, faktora tržišta, i u nekim slučajevima motiv profita, u pogledu rada društvenih preduzeća i raspodele kapitalnih dobara između njih. Profiti koje generišu ove firme direktno kontrolišu radnici svake firme, ili se sakuplja za društvom u celini u vidu društvenih dividendi.[23][24][25] Socijalistička debata o proračunu diskutuje ostvarivost i metode alokacije sredstava socijalističkog sistema.

Socijalistički politički pokret obuhvata političke filozofije koje potiču iz revolucionarnih pokreta iz druge polovine 1700-tih, i razmatra društvene probleme koji su vezani za kapitalizam.[26] Osim debate o tržištima i planiranju, varijeteti socijalizma se razlikuju u njihovim oblicima društvenog vlasništva, načinu organizacije rukovodećih struktura u proizvodnim organizacijama, i ulozi države u realizaciji socijalizma.[27][26] Ključne dihotomije su reformizam naspram revolucionarnog socijalizma, i državni socijalizam naspram libertarijanskog socijalizma. Socijalistička politika je bila centralistička i decentralizovana; internacionalistička i nacionalistička po orjentaciji; organizovana u vidu političkih partija i suprotstavljena partijsko politici; ponekad se preklapala sa sindikatima, a u drugim vremenima bila je nezavisna od sindikata i kritična prema njima; ona je prisutna u industrijalizovanim zemljama, kao i u onima koje su u razvoju.[28] Mada sve tendencije socijalizma smatraju sebe demokratskim, termin „demokratski socijalizam“ se obično koristi za naglašavanje visokih vrednosti njegovih pobornika u smislu demokratskih procesa u ekonomiji i demokratskih političkih sistema,[29] obično da bi se naglasio kontrast sa tendencijama koje oni smatraju nedemokratski pristupima. „Demokratski socijalizam“ je često korišten za ograđivanje od političkog sitema Sovjetskog saveza, za koji kritičari navode da se sprovodi u autoritavnom maniru.[30][31][32]

Do kasnog 19 veka, nakon radova Karla Marksa i njegovog saradnika Fridriha Engelsa, pošto je tehnološki razvoj prevazišao ekonomsku dinamiku kapitalizma,[33] „socijalizam“ je poprimio odlike suprotnosti kapitalizma, i zalaganja za post-kapitalistički sistem zasnovan na izvesnom obliku društvenog vlasništva nad proizvodnim sredstvima.[34][35] Do 1920-ih, socijaldemokratija i komunizam su postali dve dominantne tendencije unutar međunarodnog socijalističkog pokreta.[36] Do tog vremena, socijalizam se pojavio kao „najuticajniji sekularni pokret dvadesetog veka širom sveta. To je politička ideologija (ili pogled na svet), širok i razjedinjen politički pokret“[37] i dok je pojava Sovjetskog Saveza kao prve nominalno socijalističke države na svetu dovela do široko zastupljene asocijacije socijalizma sa sovjetskim ekonomskim modelom, mnogi ekonomisti i intelektualci ističu da u je praksi model funkcionisao u vidu državnog kapitalizma,[38][39][40] ili neplanirane administrativne ili komandne ekonomije.[41][42] Socijalističke partije i ideje ostaju politička sila sa različitim stepenima moći i uticaja na svim kontinentima, koja rukovodi nacionalnim vladama u mnogim zemljama širom sveta. U današnje vreme, neki socijalsti su takođe prihvatili ciljeve drugih društvenih pokreta, kao što je zaštita životne sredine, feminism i liberalizam.[43]

Socijalizam u novom veku[uredi]

Slika Vladimira Ilića Lenjina, rad Isaka Brodskog. Pri kraju Prvog svetskog rata ruski komunisti na čelu sa V. I. Lenjinom Oktobarskom revolucijom dolaze na vlast. Ubrzo formiraju prvu totalitarističku državu koja svoj status velike sile koristi za „izvoz“ svojeg društvenog sistema širom sveta.

Socijalizam je bio politički pokret posve drukčiji od konzervativizma i liberalizma. Socijalisti su smatrali da će pravedno društvo nastupiti tek onda kada se poboljša položaj fabričkih radnika. Smatrali su da se to ne može ostvariti političkom borbom na izborima i u parlamentu. Tvrdili su da će radnicima biti bolje tek kad sami postanu vlasnici fabrika u kojima rade. Pritom su se socijalisti podelili u dve suprotstavljene grupe. Socijalisti utopisti tvrdili su da će vlasnici fabrika, kada shvate kako je položaj radnika očajan, dobrovoljno prepustiti vlasništvo nad fabrikama. Socijalisti marksisti sumnjali su da će vlasnici predati fabrike radnicima dobrovoljno; Karl Marks, osnivač marksističke grane socijalizma, razradio je doktrinu prema kojoj će radnici predvođeni komunistima revolucijom osvojiti vlast u državi, a tek onda promeniti vlasničke odnose.

Prema marksistima, nakon revolucije treba da usledi tzv. diktatura proletarijata, u kojoj tzv. "elita radničke klase" - zapravo članovi Komunističke partije - bez nepotrebnih skrupula treba obračunati s tzv. „klasnim neprijateljima“. U praksi zemalja koje su faktično imale takve dugotrajne komunističke vladavine (kako je do danas na Kubi i u Severnoj Koreji) se klasnim neprijateljima smatraju (i progone) vlasnici preduzeća, bankari, veliki i srednji trgovci, imućniji trgovci, ribari i seljaci; sličan stus imaju i službenici verskih zajednica i intelektualci koji se idejno ne slažu sa marksizmom. U relativno kratkom vremenu nakon preuzimanja vlasti u pojedinoj zemlji, „radnička vlast“ se s „klasnim neprijateljom“ po pravilu obračunava uz korištenje revolucionarnog terora; kasnije se koriste pravne mere - od masovne eksproprijacije imovine do slanja političkih oponenata u zatvor; u najblažim slučajevima sprečavanjem zapošljavanja, sprečavanjem napredovanja u službi (npr. profesor koji nije član komunističke partije ne može postati direktor škole, novinar koji nije član komunističke partije ne može postati urednik, „nepodobni“ radnici ne mogu dobiti zaposlenje na nivou svoje stručne spreme, „nepodobni“ gimnazijalci ne mogu upisati fakultet i sl.), te onemogućavanjem delovanja režimu nesklonih umetnika (te politički „nepodobni“ književnici ne mogu objavljivati knjige, „nepodnobni“ slikari ne mogu održavati izložbe) i naučnika (kojima se onemogućava sticanje akademskih zvanja i objavljivanje znanstvenih radova). Sve socijalističke zemlje bile su (tj. i danas su) ustrojene kao totalitarni režimi. Nemački istraživači razdoblja DDR-a dobro su dokumentovali korištenje metode „Zersetzung“ („kvarenje“), gde su se od 1970—ih godina protiv disidenata umesto primene pravnih mera sistematski koristile razne mere psihološkog zlostavljanja (npr. agenti bi ulazili u stan i menjali raspored slika na zidu, ili bi se namerno prisluškivali telefonski razgovore na način da se prilikom telefoniranja čuju neobični zvukovi), podmetanje pogrešnih lekova, unošenje razdora u odnose s bliskim osobama, učestalih premeštanja i insceniranja raznih problema na radnom mestu; cilj je bio da se određena osoba ili grupa obeshrabri, da se kompromituje njena socijalna uverljivost i da se učini nesposobnom za opoziciju režimu.

Prve dve zemlje sa socijalističkim društvenim uređenjem bile su Sovetski Savez (1918. godine) i Mongolija (1924. godine). Na početku Drugog svetskog rata je Sovjetski Savez putem sporazuma Ribentrop—Molotova u saradnji sa Hitlerom zauzeo nekoliko manjih država na istoku Europe (Litvija, Letonija, Estonija, Moldavija) i gotovo polovinu Poljske, i tiamo je odmah zaveden socijalistički državni poredak. Neposredno nakon Drugog svetskog rata je socijalizam nametnut u nizu evropskih zemalja iz kojih je 1945. godine Crvena armija potisnula nacističke okupatore; potom su u nekoliko narednih decenija u nizu zemalja Trećeg sveta - od Kine i Vijetnama do Mozambika i Etiopije - sprovedene komunističke revolucije (tu se se komunističke partije oslanjale na antikolonijalne težnje stanovništva, da bi „usput“ uvele komunizam) nakon kojih je u znatan deo sveta uveden socijalizam.

Od 1990. godine celi niz zemalja odustaje od socijalizma - te se čak i Sovjetski Savez raspada na više država od kojih jedino Belorusija pokazuje postojanu privrženost socijalizmu. U najmnogoljudnijoj socijalističkoj zemlji Kini, na vlasti je još uvek Komunistička partija, ali uz ekonomiju koja je u sve većoj meri kapitalistički organizovana.

Mnogobrojne političke grupe širom sveta i danas pokazuju odlučnu privrženost idejama socijalizma, te evidentni neuspeh socijalističkih zemalja iz prošlosti (i današnjice) da svoje privredne i političke sisteme ustroje na način da mogu parirati kapitalističkim zemljama smatraju tek posledicom loših i neuspešnih politika - a ne posledicom fundamentalne pogrešnosti ideje da se uspešno može organizovati društvo utemeljeno na ekonomiji bez privatnog vlasništva.

Osude socijalističkih režima[uredi]

Parlamentarna skupštine u Veća Evrope je Rezolucijom VE 1481/2006 od 25. januara 2006. godine osudila zločine socijalističkih režima iz 20. veka, kao totalitarnih. U toj osudi se izričito spominju „masovna kršenja ljudskih prava od strane totalitarnih komunističkih režima ... (koja su kai) dela nasilja uključila individualna i kolektivna pogubljenja, kao i smrt u koncentracionim logorima, izgladnjivanje, deportacije, mučenje, ropstvo, prislini rad i druge oblike masovnog psihičkog terora.

Vidi još[uredi]

Reference[uredi]

  1. Rosser (2003). str. 53.
  2. "What else does a socialist economic system involve? Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system" N. Scott Arnold. The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism : A Critical Study. Oxford University Press. (1998). str. 8.
  3. 3,0 3,1 Busky, Donald F. (2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. str. 2. ISBN 978-0275968861. »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.« 
  4. Badie, Bertrand; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Morlino, Leonardo (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science. SAGE Publications, Inc. str. 2456. ISBN 978-1412959636. »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.« 
  5. Zimbalist, Sherman and Brown, Andrew, Howard J. and Stuart (1988). Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach. Harcourt College Pub. str. 7. ISBN 978-0155124035. »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.« 
  6. Brus, Wlodzimierz (2015). The Economics and Politics of Socialism. Routledge. str. 87. ISBN 978-0415866477. »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.« 
  7. Michie, Jonathan (2001). Readers Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. str. 1516. ISBN 978-1579580919. »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.« 
  8. "2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system" "Socialism" at The Free dictionary
  9. O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. str. 71. ISBN 0-415-24187-1. »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.« 
  10. Lamb & Docherty (2006). str. 1.
  11. Arnold, Scott (1994). The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study. Oxford University Press. str. 7—8. ISBN 978-0195088274. »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.« 
  12. Hastings, Mason and Pyper, Adrian, Alistair and Hugh (2000). The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Oxford University Press. str. 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.« 
  13. Kolb, Robert (2007). Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, First Edition. SAGE Publications, Inc. str. 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.« 
  14. Bockman, Johanna (2011). Markets in the name of Socialism: The Left-Wing origins of Neoliberalism. Stanford University Press. str. 20. ISBN 978-0-8047-7566-3. »socialism would function without capitalist economic categories – such as money, prices, interest, profits and rent – and thus would function according to laws other than those described by current economic science. While some socialists recognised the need for money and prices at least during the transition from capitalism to socialism, socialists more commonly believed that the socialist economy would soon administratively mobilise the economy in physical units without the use of prices or money.« 
  15. Steele, David Ramsay (1999). From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court. str. 175—77. ISBN 978-0875484495. »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.« 
  16. Is Socialism Dead? A Comment on Market Socialism and Basic Income Capitalism, by Arneson, Richard J. 1992. Ethics, vol. 102, no. 3. str. 485–511. April 1992: "Marxian socialism is often identified with the call to organize economic activity on a nonmarket basis."
  17. Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists, by Schweickart, David; Lawler, James; Ticktin, Hillel; Ollman, Bertell. 1998. From "The Difference Between Marxism and Market Socialism" ): "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."
  18. The Economics of Feasible Socialism Revisited, by Nove, Alexander. (1991). str. 13: "Under socialism, by definition, it (private property and factor markets) would be eliminated. There would then be something like ‘scientific management’, ‘the science of socially organized production’, but it would not be economics."
  19. Kotz, David M. „Socialism and Capitalism: Are They Qualitatively Different Socioeconomic Systems?” (PDF). University of Massachusetts. Pristupljeno 19. 2. 2011.  "This understanding of socialism was held not just by revolutionary Marxist socialists but also by evolutionary socialists, Christian socialists, and even anarchists. At that time, there was also wide agreement about the basic institutions of the future socialist system: public ownership instead of private ownership of the means of production, economic planning instead of market forces, production for use instead of for profit."
  20. Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3-4. str. 2: "Socialism has historically been committed to the improvement of people's material standards of living. Indeed, in earlier days many socialists saw the promotion of improving material living standards as the primary basis for socialism's claim to superiority over capitalism, for socialism was to overcome the irrationality and inefficiency seen as endemic to a capitalist system of economic organization."
  21. Prychito, David L. (2002). Markets, Planning, and Democracy: Essays After the Collapse of Communism. Edward Elgar Publishing. str. 12. ISBN 978-1840645194. »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.« 
  22. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]
  23. Social Dividend versus Basic Income Guarantee in Market Socialism, by Marangos, John. 2004. International Journal of Political Economy, vol. 34, no. 3, Fall. (2004). str. 61–63.
  24. O'Hara, Phillip (2000). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. str. 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.« 
  25. Pierson, Christopher (1995). Socialism After Communism: The New Market Socialism. Pennsylvania State Univ Press. str. 96. ISBN 978-0271014784. »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...« 
  26. 26,0 26,1 Greška citata: Loša oznaka <ref>; nema teksta za ref-ove pod imenom Peter Lamb (2006). стр. 1.
  27. Greška citata: Loša oznaka <ref>; nema teksta za ref-ove pod imenom Nove.
  28. "In fact, socialism has been both centralist and local; organized from above and built from below; visionary and pragmatic; revolutionary and reformist; anti-state and statist; internationalist and nationalist; harnessed to political parties and shunning them; an outgrowth of trade unionism and independent of it; a feature of rich industrialized countries and poor peasant-based communities" Michael Newman. Socialism: A very Short introduction. Oxford University Press. str. 2.
  29. Often, this definition is invoked to distinguish democratic socialism from authoritarian socialism as in Malcolm Hamilton Democratic Socialism in Britain and Sweden (St Martin's Press 1989), in Donald F. Busky, Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey Greenwood Publishing, 2000, See. 2005. str. 7.–8., Jim Tomlinson's Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The Attlee Years, 1945–1951, Norman Thomas Democratic Socialism: a new appraisal or Roy Hattersley's Choose Freedom: The Future of Democratic Socialism
  30. Nicholas Guilhot, The democracy makers: human rights and international order. (2005). str. 33. "The opposition between the West and Soviet totalitarianism was often presented as an opposition both moral and epistemological between truth and falsehood. The democratic, social, and economic credentials of the Soviet Union were typically seen as "lies" and as the product of a deliberate and multiform propaganda...In this context, the concept of totalitarianism was itself an asset. As it made possible the conversion of prewar anti-fascism into postwar anti-communism
  31. David Caute, Politics and the novel during the Cold War. (2009). str. 95.–99
  32. George A Reisch, How the Cold War transformed philosophy of science: to the icy slopes of logic, (2005). str. 153–54
  33. Badie, Bertrand; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Morlino, Leonardo (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science. SAGE Publications, Inc. str. 1497. ISBN 978-1412959636. »By continually modernizing the forces of production and promoting the division of labor, capitalism prepared the material conditions necessary for social cooperation and planned management in economic life...The search for private profit imposed fetters on the further development of production. The capitalist relations of production came finally into conflict with its forces of production.« 
  34. Gasper, Phillip (2005). The Communist Manifesto: a road map to history's most important political document. Haymarket Books. str. 24. ISBN 1-931859-25-6. »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.« 
  35. Anthony Giddens. Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics. 1998 edition. Cambridge, England, UK: Polity Press. 1994. (1998). str. 71.
  36. "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." Michael Newman. Socialism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. (2005). str. 5.
  37. George Thomas Kurian (ed). The Encyclopedia of Political Science CQ Press. Washington D.c. 2011. p.. 1554
  38. 'State Capitalism' in the Soviet Union, M.C. Howard and J.E. King
  39. Richard D. Wolff (27 June 2015). Socialism Means Abolishing the Distinction Between Bosses and Employees. Truthout. Retrieved 9 July 2015.
  40. Noam Chomsky (1986). The Soviet Union Versus Socialism. chomsky.info.
  41. Wilhelm, John Howard (1985). „The Soviet Union Has an Administered, Not a Planned, Economy”. Soviet Studies. 37 (1): 118—30. doi:10.1080/09668138508411571. 
  42. Ellman, Michael (2007). „The Rise and Fall of Socialist Planning”. Ur.: Estrin, Saul; Kołodko, Grzegorz W.; Uvalić, Milica. Transition and Beyond: Essays in Honour of Mario Nuti. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. str. 22. ISBN 0-230-54697-8. »In the USSR in the late 1980s the system was normally referred to as the ‘administrative-command’ economy. What was fundamental to this system was not the plan but the role of administrative hierarchies at all levels of decision making; the absence of control over decision making by the population...« 
  43. Garrett Ward Sheldon. Encyclopedia of Political Thought. Fact on File. Inc. (2001). str. 280.

Literatura[uredi]

Spoljašnje veze[uredi]