Search results

Attempts to find answers to such theoretical questions as the character of Soviet‐type societies and the major tendency of their development. Argues that, as long as the analysis is conducted in convenient and extreme terms of “either capitalism or socialism or communism”: as long as the yardstick for the comparison remains capitalism of laissez‐faire; and as long as the general trend and the particular forms of the world economic development are ignored ‐no satisfactory answer to the nature and fate of such societies can be found. If, however, one looks at Soviet‐type systems as socio‐economic and political structures destined to solve the problem of the industrial revolution and modernization of backward and peasant nations under the conditions of the twentieth century, then the enigma disappears. Soviet‐type societies become what they are in reality: a variety of capitalism that, having fulfilled the “archaic” act of industrialization, is moving into its post‐industrial era.

The purpose of this paper is to trace the relationship between social media and socialism.

The design of this paper is to articulate what is socialism and social media. We trace the relationship between the two based on quotations and citations between these two separate universes of discourse.

Social media leads to socialism; this is the most unsophisticated understanding of economics, and pretty much anyone can take part in this mode of communication. The economically illiterate excoriate capitalism, but they fail, utterly, to distinguish between the crony capitalism, which really does exploit workers and the poor, from laissez-faire capitalism, which is the last best hope for humanity to prosper and even to survive.

There is great originality in this paper because there is no other extant study that attempts to explain social media and socialism in terms of each other.

Posits that since the New Deal era, 1933‐1940, the theory of managerial revolution has sparked tremendous debate concerning the governance of the USA’s large corporations. Argues that an interpretation of The Modern Corporation and Private Property, within the context of other works by Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means, could raise profound insights in terms of a paradigm shift concerning the governance of big corporations in contemporary economy.

Addresses two major problems. Argues first that the Stalinist model of socio‐economic development, with its actual emphasis on production for the sake of production, has been Ricardian in its nature. As a result, its dominant features have been the sellers′ market of shortages. Maintains, second, that the essence of the current transformation of the Stalinist system is its movement from the Ricardian to the modified Marxian model of capitalism. Since the latter′s proclaimed goal is production for the sake of profits, the “reformed” Soviet socio‐economic structure will have to end up as the buyers′ market of plenty.

Presents the first chapter in this work with regard to the search for new ideas and better interpretations in the growth and development of new ideas. Investigates the exchange of views between thinkers of different points of view. Invites co‐operation between various factions to investigate unification of all known sciences (natural and economic) and to include the arts. Mentions all the great thinkers in these areas and unreservedly discusses their contribution in the school of thought. Proffers that modern technology cannot and should not be slowed down and that for the social economy of human solidarity should be aimed for, to begin a new era for humanity.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

There is no shortage of literature concerning the life and times of J. M. Keynes. Distinguished examples over the past couple of decades are Peter Clarke's (1988) account of Keynes's battles with the Treasury in the 1920s and 1930s, a study by Moggridge (1992), and Skidelsky's (1983, 1992, 2000) monumental three-volume biography, reissued in a single, abridged version (2003).

The purpose of this paper is to argue that free market capitalism is neither efficient nor just. This is in spite of the claims made by its proponents who, utilizing Adam Smith's doctrine of invisible hand or the fundamental theorem of welfare economics, assume that it is efficient, just, smooth functioning, and self‐regulating.

The paper utilizes conceptual/theoretical research and arguments that have emerged in the literatures of public economics and welfare economics.

In addition to proving the above, the paper also finds that Adam Smith is actually a moral egalitarian, thus he could not have agreed with Nozick and Friedman regarding the nature of capitalism. To the extent that Smith supported free market capitalism, it was because he thought, in contrast to mercantilist policies, that free markets would lead to equity and justice.

The paper is an original/valuable contribution since it rescues Adam Smith from the extreme proponents of laissez‐faire capitalism who claim him.