Download Free Marxism Versus Socialism Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Marxism Versus Socialism and write the review.

Socialism is the watchword and the catchword of our day. The socialist idea dominates the modem spirit. The masses approve of it. It expresses the thoughts and feelings of all; it has set its seal upon our time. When history comes to tell our story it will write above the chapter “The Epoch of Socialism.” As yet, it is true, Socialism has not created a society which can be said to represent its ideal. But for more than a generation the policies of civilized nations have been directed towards nothing less than a gradual realization of Socialism.17 In recent years the movement has grown noticeably in vigour and tenacity. Some nations have sought to achieve Socialism, in its fullest sense, at a single stroke. Before our eyes Russian Bolshevism has already accomplished something which, whatever we believe to be its significance, must by the very magnitude of its design be regarded as one of the most remarkable achievements known to world history. Elsewhere no one has yet achieved so much. But with other peoples only the inner contradictions of Socialism itself and the fact that it cannot be completely realized have frustrated socialist triumph. They also have gone as far as they could under the given circumstances. Opposition in principle to Socialism there is none. Today no influential party would dare openly to advocate Private Property in the Means of Production. The word “Capitalism” expresses, for our age, the sum of all evil. Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas. In seeking to combat Socialism from the standpoint of their special class interest these opponents—the parties which particularly call themselves “bourgeois” or “peasant”—admit indirectly the validity of all the essentials of socialist thought. For if it is only possible to argue against the socialist programme that it endangers the particular interests of one part of humanity, one has really affirmed Socialism. If one complains that the system of economic and social organization which is based on private property in the means of production does not sufficiently consider the interests of the community, that it serves only the purposes of single strata, and that it limits productivity; and if therefore one demands with the supporters of the various “social-political” and “social-reform” movements, state interference in all fields of economic life, then one has fundamentally accepted the principle of the socialist programme. Or again, if one can only argue against socialism that the imperfections of human nature make its realization impossible, or that it is inexpedient under existing economic conditions to proceed at once to socialization, then one merely confesses that one has capitulated to socialist ideas. The nationalist, too, affirms socialism, and objects only to its Internationalism. He wishes to combine Socialism with the ideas of Imperialism and the struggle against foreign nations. He is a national, not an international socialist; but he, also, approves of the essential principles of Socialism.
Why should we pay attention to the great social critics like Marx? Americans, especially now, confront serious questions and evidences that our capitalist system is in trouble. It clearly serves the 1% far, far better than what it is doing to the vast mass of the people. Marx was a social critic for whom capitalism was not the end of human history. It was just the latest phase and badly needed the transition to something better. We offer this essay now because of the power and usefulness today of Marx's criticism of the capitalist economic system. eBook: https: //bit.ly/2K6iI8v
A primer on Democratic Socialism for those who are extremely skeptical of it. America is witnessing the rise of a new generation of socialist activists. More young people support socialism now than at any time since the labor movement of the 1920s. The Democratic Socialists of America, a big-tent leftist organization, has just surpassed 50,000 members nationwide. In the fall of 2018, one of the most influential congressmen in the Democratic Party lost a primary to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old socialist who had never held office before. But what does all this mean? Should we be worried about our country, or should we join the march toward our bright socialist future? In Why You Should Be a Socialist, Nathan J. Robinson will give readers a primer on twenty-first-century socialism: what it is, what it isn’t, and why everyone should want to be a part of this exciting new chapter of American politics. From the heyday of Occupy Wall Street through Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign and beyond, young progressives have been increasingly drawn to socialist ideas. However, the movement’s goals need to be defined more sharply before it can effect real change on a national scale. Likewise, liberals and conservatives will benefit from a deeper understanding of the true nature of this ideology, whether they agree with it or not. Robinson’s charming, accessible, and well-argued book will convince even the most skeptical readers of the merits of socialist thought.
‘Socialism’ is a word that is now habitually taken to refer to a particular social system that prevailed in different parts of the globe during the twentieth century. This system was defined primarily by single-party rule with public (mainly state) ownership of the means of production along with a centrally planned economy. Its material base was generalised commodity production. The spokespersons of this system claim that this socialism was derived from Marx. Paresh Chattopadhyay’s Socialism and Commodity Production argues the falsity of this claim. On the basis of a comprehensive study of Marx's own texts, as well as a detailed engagement with a wide variety of theorists of socialist economics, it shows that Marx's socialism constituted an ‘Association’ of free individuals in which private ownership, the commodity, wage labour and the state have no place.
For its size, this essay is the most powerful, comprehensive, and in-depth critique of Marxism/Socialism and defense of capitalism ever written.Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. My essay explains why its establishment requires armed robbery and murder on a massive scale, acts which communists are willing to commit, but not social democrats, who therefore should stop calling themselves socialists.My essay demolishes the attempt of Marxism/Socialism to portray the free workers of capitalism as only nominally free and in actuality slaves.It demolishes the belief, introduced by Adam Smith and then serving as the starting point for Marx, that profits are a deduction from wages. It shows instead that profits exist prior to wages, by virtue of workers producing and selling products in exchange not for wages but for sales revenues, which are initially all profit. My essay shows that when capitalists appear, and pay wages and buy capital goods for the purpose of earning sales revenues, their expenditures show up as costs of production to be deducted from sales revenues, thereby reducing the proportion of sales revenues that is profit. Thus capitalists, instead of stealing their profits from wage earners, create wages and reduce profit margins, as well as lay the foundation for continuing economic progress and rising real wages through their purchase and employment of capital goods.My essay also shows, among many other things, that when it comes to economic planning, capitalism is as rich compared to socialism as it is in the production of material goods. This is because, under capitalism, all participants in the economic system engage in economic planning, with their separate, individual plans being harmonized, coordinated, and integrated by means of the price system. In sharpest contrast, under socialism economic planning is the monopoly of no more than a relative handful of people, the members of the socialist "central planning board." Thus, as I remarked in my essay, "The alleged economic planning of socialism is in fact not economic planning at all, but the forcible suppression of economic planning--the forcible suppression of the economic planning of everyone in the economic system outside the membership of the central planning board." Absent the economic planning of capitalism, the result is economic chaos, declining production, and starvation. Just as my essay presents the truth about socialism, so too does it present the truth about capitalism. For example, it shows how, under capitalism, a willingness of workers to work for minimum subsistence, rather than die of starvation, is irrelevant to the wages they actually need to accept, which are set at a far higher level by the competition of employers for labor. It shows that the actual self-interest of employers is not to try to pay wages that are as low as they might like, but rather the lowest wages that are simultaneously too high for any other employers who would otherwise obtain the labor that these employers want to employ. The position of employers under capitalism is essentially the same as that of a successful bidder at an auction. His successful bid must be too high for his next nearest competitor.Capitalism not only continually raises real wages, it also operates to reduce the hours of work, abolish child labor, and improve working conditions. It does this by virtue of the fact that once real wages have increased sufficiently, workers can afford to accept the comparatively lower wages that accompany shorter hours, can afford to keep their children home longer, and can afford to accept the comparatively lower take-home wages that enable employers to provide them with improvements in working conditions that do not pay for themselves through increases in efficiency.All this, and much, much more, is contained just in the first part of my essay, which is titled "The Gist of Marxism/Socialism and Its Refutation."
"This bold new study analyzes the historical choices facing us at the outset of the new millennium. The author gives new meaning and urgency to the alternatives posed by Rosa Luxemburg at the beginning of the century. His detailed analysis of the roots and development of US global power shows how its supremacy has come at the cost of exhausting the universalising pretensions of capitalism. The destructive tendencies of capitalism are a greater threat today than every before." -- BACK COVER.
What, and who, are we working for? A thoughtful assessment on our current society from “probably America’s most prominent Marxist economist” (The New York Times). Capitalism as a system has spawned deepening economic crisis alongside its bought-and-paid-for political establishment. Neither serves the needs of our society. Whether it is secure, well-paid, and meaningful jobs or a sustainable relationship with the natural environment that we depend on, our society is not delivering the results people need and deserve. One key cause for this intolerable state of affairs is the lack of genuine democracy in our economy as well as in our politics. The solution requires the institution of genuine economic democracy, starting with workers managing their own workplaces, as the basis for a genuine political democracy. Here Richard D. Wolff lays out a hopeful and concrete vision of how to make that possible, addressing the many people who have concluded economic inequality and politics as usual can no longer be tolerated and are looking for a concrete program of action. “Wolff’s constructive and innovative ideas suggest new and promising foundations for much more authentic democracy and sustainable and equitable development, ideas that can be implemented directly and carried forward. A very valuable contribution in troubled times.” —Noam Chomsky, leading public intellectual and author of Hope and Prospects