Bagian dari seri |
Sosialisme |
---|
![]() |
Bagian dari seri tentang |
Politik |
---|
![]() |
Portal politik |
Sosialisme (serapan dari bahasa Belanda: socialisme) adalah serangkaian sistem ekonomi dan sosial yang ditandai dengan kepemilikan sosial atas alat-alat produksi dan manajemen mandiri pekerja,[10] serta teori-teori dan gerakan politik yang terkait dengannya.[11] Kepemilikan sosial dapat berupa kepemilikan negara, kolektif, koperasi, atau kepemilikan sosial atas ekuitas.[12] Ada banyak varian sosialisme dan tidak ada definisi tunggal yang merangkum semuanya,[13] dengan kepemilikan sosial menjadi elemen umum yang dimiliki berbagai variannya.[5][14][15] Sosialis merujuk pada orang yang menganut paham sosialisme.
Sistem sosialis dibagi menjadi dua, dalam bentuk nonpasar dan pasar.[16] Sosialisme nonpasar melibatkan penggantian pasar faktor dan uang dengan kriteria teknis berdasarkan perhitungan yang dilakukan dalam bentuk barang, dan dengan demikian menghasilkan mekanisme ekonomi yang berfungsi sesuai dengan hukum ekonomi yang berbeda dari kapitalisme. Sosialisme nonpasar bertujuan untuk menghindari ketidakefisienan dan krisis yang secara tradisional diasosiasikan dengan akumulasi kapital dan sistem profit.[25] Sebaliknya, sosialisme pasar mempertahankan penggunaan harga moneter, pasar faktor; dan dalam beberapa kasus, motif profit, sehubungan dengan operasi perusahaan yang dimiliki secara sosial dan alokasi barang modal di antara mereka. Keuntungan yang dihasilkan oleh perusahaan ini akan dikelola secara langsung oleh tenaga kerja dari masing-masing perusahaan, atau diberikan ke masyarakat luas dalam bentuk dividen sosial.[26][27][28] Perdebatan kalkulasi sosialis memperhatikan kelayakan dan metode alokasi sumber daya bagi sistem sosialis.
Politik sosialis berorientasi baik internasionalis dan nasionalis; diorganisir melalui partai politik dan menentang politik partai; di satu waktu tumpang tindih dengan serikat pekerja, pada waktu lain independen dan kritis terhadap serikat; serta ada di negara terindustrialisasi dan berkembang.[29] Berasal dari gerakan sosialis, demokrasi sosial telah merangkul ekonomi campuran dengan pasar yang mencakup intervensi negara yang substantif dalam bentuk redistribusi pendapatan, regulasi, dan negara kesejahteraan. Demokrasi ekonomi mengusulkan semacam sosialisme pasar di mana terdapat kontrol yang lebih terdesentralisasi atas perusahaan, mata uang, investasi, dan sumber daya alam.
Gerakan politik sosialis mencakup serangkaian filsafat politik yang berasal dari gerakan revolusioner pertengahan hingga akhir abad ke-18, dan karena adanya kepedulian terhadap masalah sosial yang terkait dengan kapitalisme.[13] Pada akhir abad ke-19, setelah karya Karl Marx dan kolaboratornya Friedrich Engels, sosialisme telah menjadi oposisi terhadap kapitalisme dan menganjurkan sistem pascakapitalis yang didasarkan pada suatu bentuk kepemilikan sosial atas alat produksi.[30][31] Pada 1920-an, demokrasi sosial dan komunisme menjadi dua kecenderungan politik dominan di gerakan sosialis internasional.[32] Pada masa tersebut sosialisme muncul sebagai "gerakan sekuler paling berpengaruh pada abad ke-20 di seluruh dunia. Sosialisme adalah ideologi politik (atau pandangan dunia), gerakan politik yang luas dan terpecah-pecah"[33] dan ketika kebangkitan Uni Soviet sebagai negara sosialis nominal pertama di dunia menyebabkan menyebarnya asosisasi sosialisme dengan model ekonomi Soviet, beberapa ekonom dan intelektual berpendapat bahwa dalam praktinya model tersebut berfungsi sebagai bentuk kapitalisme negara,[34][35][36] administrasi tidak terencana atau ekonomi komando.[37][38] Partai dan gagasan sosialis tetap menjadi kekuatan politik dengan berbagai tingkat kekuatan dan pengaruh di semua benua, serta memimpin pemerintahan nasional di banyak negara di dunia. Saat ini, beberapa sosialis juga mengadopsi prinsip dari gerakan sosial lain, seperti lingkungan, feminisme dan progresivisme.[39]
Socialism, you see, is a bird with two wings. The definition is 'social ownership and democratic control of the instruments and means of production.'
A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialised or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how.
Socialism is an economic system characterised by state or collective ownership of the means of production, land, and capital.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In order of increasing decentralisation (at least) three forms of socialized ownership can be distinguished: state-owned firms, employee-owned (or socially) owned firms, and citizen ownership of equity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...