ټولنيز مالکيت

ټولنيز مالکيت په ټوله کې ټولنې ته د توليد د وسايلو په واسطه د توليد شوي زياتي توليد ځانګړي کولو ته وايي. دا د يو سوسياليست اقتصادي نظام مشخصه ځانګړتيا ده. دا د ټولنې د مالکيت، دولتي مالکيت، عمومي مالکيت، د کارګر يا مامور مالکيت، اشتراکي مالکيت او د اتباعو د برابرۍ مالکيت بڼه هم غوره کولی شي. په دوديز ډول ټولنيز مالکيت په دې معنا دی، چې د پانګې او عامل بازارونو شتون به د دې انګېرنې له مخې پای ته رسېږي، چې د توليد بهير کې د بازار تبادلې به په هغه حالت کې خورا زياتې شوې وې، چې يوه اداره يا د ادارو هغه شبکه د توکو څښتنه شي يا يې سره يو ځای يا متحد کړي، چې د ټولنې استازولي کوي، مګر د بازار سوسياليزم د موډلونو څرګندول، چې عامل بازارونه په کې په ټولنيز ډول د اړوند تشبثونو تر منځ د پانګې توکو د ځانګړي کولو لپاره کارول کېږي، د ټولنيز مالکيت پېژندنه د بازار اقتصاد کې د خپلواکو ادارو د رانغاړلو تر بريده پراخه کړې ده. د توليد د وسايلو ټولنيز مالکيت د سوسياليزم د ټولو بېلابېلو ډولونو مشخصه ځانګړتيا ده. ^[۱]^[۲]^[۳]^[۴]^[۵]

د ټولنيز مالکيت دوه لوی ډولونه د ټولنې په کچه عامه مالکيت او اشتراکي مالکيت دي. د دې دواړو ډولونو تر منځ توپير د زياتي توليد په وېش کې دی. د ټولنې په کچه د عامه مالکيت له مخې زياتي توليد د ټولنيزې ونډې له لارې د ټولنې ټولو غړو ته وېشل کېږي، په داسې حال کې چې د ګډ يا اشتراکي مالکيت له مخې د يو تشبث اقتصادي زياتوالی د ياد ځانګړي تشبث د ټولو کارګرو غړو له لورې اداره کېږي. ^[۶]

د ټولنيز مالکيت نښه د غير فعال شتمنۍ د عايد تر لاسه کونکو خصوصي مالکانو د پوړ او هغو کارکونکو تر منځ د توپير له منځه وړل دي، چې د کار عايد (مزدورۍ، معاشونه او حق الزحمې) تر لاسه کونکي دي، چې زياتي توليد (يا د بازار سوسياليزم حالت کې اقتصادي ګټې) يا په ټوله کې ټولنې پورې او يا د يو ټاکلي تشبث په غړو پورې اړه لري. ټولنيز مالکيت ښايي د کار له خپل کاري يا اتومات کولو څخه د ګټورتوب لاسته راوړنو ته د دې وړتيا ورکړي، چې د دندې د ناخونديتوب او بېکارۍ د رامنځته کولو پر ځای په پرله پسې ډول د کاري ورځې منځنۍ اندازه کمه کړي. د اړين کاري وخت کمول د مارکسيسټ د انساني ازادۍ او ګوښه والي باندې د بريالي کېدلو د مفهوم مرکزي برخه ده، چې ياد مفهوم د مارکسيست او نا مارکسيست ټولنو له لورې په ورته پراخه کچه او ورته ډول شريک شوی دی. ^[۷]^[۸]

ټولنيز کول د يو بهير په توګه د سوسياليست اصل پر بنسټ د اقتصادي چارچوکاټ، اداري جوړښت او د يو اقتصاد د بنسټونو بيارغونې ته وايي. د ټولنيز کولو او د ټولنيز مالکيت د عامه مالکيت د ډول پراخه مفکوره د پانګوالۍ د قوانينو، د پانګې د راټولونې او د توليد بهير کې د پيسو او مالي ارښت موندنې د کارونې د عمل د پای ته په معنا سره ده، سره له دې چې د کاري ځای په کچه اداره بيارغوي. ^[۹]^[۱۰]^[۱۱]

موخې

ټولنيز مالکيت د استثمار د مارکسي مفهوم د پای ته رسولو په موخه په بېلابېل ډول پالل کېږي، چې دا ډاډمن کړي چې په ټولنيز توليد کې د عايد وېش انفرادي ونډې منعکس کوي، له ټيکنالوژيکي بدلون څخه راپورته کېدونکې بېکاري له منځه يوسي، د اقتصاد د ډېرښت يو څه زيات برابري غوښتونکی وېش ډاډمن کړي يا له بازار څخه پرته (غير بازار) سوسياليست اقتصاد لپاره بنسټونه رامنځته کړي. ^[۱۲]

د کارل مارکس د پانګوالۍ په شننه کې د توليد د وسايلو ټولنيز مالکيت د ټولنيز توليد او پانګوالۍ کې د زياتي ارزښت د خصوصي اختصاص يا ځانګړي کولو تر منځ د مخالفتونو په ځواب کې راڅرګندېږي. مارکس استدلال وکړ، چې د ثابتې پانګې (د پانګې دننيو) لپاره د بدلېدونکې پانګې (د کار دننيو) له ونج څخه د ګټورتوب راپورته کېدونکې لاسته راوړنې، ښايي د کار غوښتنې ته د ودې ورکولو پّ موخه د کار د بې ځايه کېدنې لامل شي. دا بهير به د پانګوال پوړ لپاره د شتمنۍ د پورته کېدونکي عايد تر څنګ، کارګر پوړ لپاره د ثباتو مزدونو او زياتېدونکې بېکارۍ لامل شي او له دې ورهاخوا د پانګې د زياتې راټولونې لامل کېږي. مارکس استدلال وکړ، چې دا محرکه قوه به هغه کچې ته ورسېږي، چې د توليد د لوړو خپل چارو وسايلو ټولنيز مالکيت به په کې د دې مخالفت او په پای کې د ټولنيزې شخړې د حل لپاره اړين وي. په دې ډول ټولنيز مالکيت او سوسياليزم لپاره مارکس پلوی دليل په پانګوالۍ کې د شتمنۍ عايد (شتمنۍ) د وېش د کومې اخلاقي نيوکې پر بنسټ نه دی، مګر سوسياليزم لپاره مارکسيست دليل د پانګې راټولونې د محرکې قوې د ودې او محدوديتونو د يوې منظمې شننې پر بنسټ دی. ^[۱۳]^[۱۴]

د مارکس لپاره ټولنيز مالکيت ښايي د ارزښت د پانګوال قانون او د پانګې د راټولونې د خورا ډېرښت لپاره بنسټونه کېږدي، چې په دې ډول د سوسياليست پلان جوړولو بنسټ رامنځته کوي. مارکس لپاره د ګټورتوب شتنمۍ د ټولنيز مالکيت وروستۍ نښه دا وه، چې د منځنۍ کچې کاري ساعتونو د لنډولو په واسطه «د ازادۍ سيمه» پراخه کړي، چې وګړي د خپلو اصلي او تخليقي ګټو د څارلو په موخه په وده وال ډول د خپل وخت لويه برخه ولري. د همدې له امله د ټولنيز مالکيت وروستۍ نښه د ګوښه کولو د مارکسيست مفکورې بې کچې پراختيا ده. ^[۱۵]

اقتصادپوه ډيويډ مکمولين د ټولنيز مالکيت پينځه سترې ګټې په ګوته کوي، چې نوموړي په کې دا مفهوم (ټولنيز مالکيت) د ګټورې شتمنۍ د ټولنې په کچه مالکيت په توګه راپېژني. لومړی: کارکونکي به د دې له امله زيات ګټور وي او ستره انګېزه به ولري، چې له زيات شوي ګټورتوب څخه به په مستقيم ډول ګټه تر لاسه کړي؛ دويم: د مالکيت دا ونډه به د وګړو او ادارو په برخه کې د لا زياتې حساب ورکونې وړتيا رامنځته کړي؛ درېيم: ټولنيز مالکيت به بېکاري له مينځه يوسي؛ څلورم: ټولنيز مالکيت به اقتصاد کې د معلوماتو غوره بهير په کار راولي او پينځم دا چې ټولنيز مالکيت د «دوران کولو او راکړې ورکړې» اړوند بې ګټې فعاليتونه او هغه بې ګټې حکومتي فعاليتونه له مينځه يوسي، چې له بېکارۍ سره د دې ډول چلند او تعامل د مخنيوي په نيت دي. ^[۱۶]

د غير مارکسيست بازار سوسياليت ليد له مخې د ټولنيز مالکيت تر ټولو روښانه ګټه د شتمنۍ عايد د وېش برابرول او په شتمنۍ کې د هغو پراخه توپيرونو له مينځه وړل ده، چې د پانګوالۍ له مخې له خصوصي مالکيت څخه راپورته کېږي. د شتمنۍ عايد (ګټه، سود او کرايه) د کار له عايد (مزدورۍ او معاشونو) څخه توپير لري، چې په سوسياليست نظام کې ښايي د د يو شخص د کار د اړخيز يا ضمني توليد پر بنسټ نابرابر اوسېدلو ته دوام ورکړي؛ ټولنيز مالکيت ښايي يوازې د غيرفعالې شتمنۍ عايد برابر کړي. ^[۱۷]

د پام وړ مارکسيست او غير مارکسيست نظريه ورکونکو (انديالانو) په ورته ډول استدلال کړی دی، چې د توليد د وسايلو د ټولنيز مالکيت لپاره تر ټولو مهم بحث د ګټورتوب لاسته راونو ته د دې وړتيا ورکول دي، چې وګړو لپاره ټولنه کې کاري بار (بوج) کم کړي، چې په زياتېدونکي خپل کاري يا اتومات کولو سره په وده وال ډول د کاري ساعتونو د لا لنډولو او له همدې امله وګړو لپاره د پراخه کچې بېکاره وخت لامل کېږي، چې په تخليقي څارنو او وخت تېرۍ کې بوخت شي. ^[۱۸]^[۱۹]^[۲۰]

سرچينې

↑ Brus, Wlodzimierz (October 25, 2013). The Economics and Politics of Socialism. Routledge. p. 88. ISBN 978-0415866477. Ownership means that the object owned is disposed of by the owner in his own interests (broadly conceived). For ownership to be social, therefore, it must satisfy two criteria: the disposition of the object owned must be in the interest of society and the owned object must be disposed of by society.
↑ Horvat, Branko (2000). "Social ownership". In Michie, Jonathan (ed.). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences, Volume 1. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 1515–1516. ISBN 9781135932268. نه اخيستل شوی 15 October 2021. 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.
↑ O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 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.,
↑ Steele, David Ramsay (1999). From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court. pp. 175–77. ISBN 978-0-87548-449-5. 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.
↑ Busky, Donald F. (2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-275-96886-1. 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. Yet having stated this as the common definition of socialism, one must necessarily admit that there are a wide variety of views among socialists of various stripes as to just what constitutes social ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
↑ 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, p. 10: "Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers."
↑ Peffer, Rodney G. (2014). Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice. Princeton University Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-691-60888-4. Marx believed the reduction of necessary labor time to be, evaluatively speaking, an absolute necessity. He claims that real wealth is the developed productive force of all individuals. It is no longer the labor time but the disposable time that is the measure of wealth.
↑ Saros, Daniel E. (2014). Information Technology and Socialist Construction: The end of Capital and the Transition to Socialism. Routledge. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-415-74292-4. Another characteristic that Marx and Engels emphasized as a central feature of a future socialist society was a shorter workday. According to Tucker, Marx had a ‘vision of man in a future condition of freedom-creative leisure’ that he described in volume 3 of Capital.
↑ "the act or process of making socialistic: the socialization of industry." "Socialization" at Dictionary.com
↑ Otto Neurath's concepts of socialization and economic calculation and his socialist critics. Retrieved July 5, 2010: "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-09-12. نه اخيستل شوی 2010-07-05.{{cite web}}: نگهداری یادکرد:عنوان آرشیو به جای عنوان (link)
↑ What is socialization? A program for practical socialism, by Korsch, Karl. 1975. Duke University Press. New German Critique, No. 6, pp. 60-81: "The socialization demanded by socialism signifies a new regulation of production with the goal of replacing the private capitalist economy with a socialist communal economy."
↑ Market Socialism, a case for rejuvenation, by Pranab Bardhan and John Roemer. 1992. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 101–16: "Public ownership in the narrow sense of state control of firms is not necessary to achieve one of socialism's goals, a relatively egalitarian distribution of the economy's surplus. We take public ownership, in a wider sense, to mean that the distribution of the profits of firms is decided by the political democratic processکينډۍ:Spndyet control of firms might well be in the hands of agents that do not represent the state."
↑ Woirol, Gregory R. (1996). The Technological Unemployment and Structural Unemployment Debates. Praeger. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-313-29892-9. The changing-organic-composition-of-capital argument was based on Marx's claim that technological change constantly increased the ratio of fixed to circulating capital. Since labor demand depended solely on the amount of circulating capital, the demand for labor decreased relative to a rise in total capital. The result was a tendency to increase the level of unemployment.
↑ The Social Dividend Under Market Socialism, by Yunker, James. 1977. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 93–133: "It was not the moral unworthiness of the exploitive surplus value mechanism which Marx proposed as the instrumentality of the collapse of capitalism. It was rather the consequences of that mechanism in providing capitalists with so much ill-gotten income that it would ultimately effectively ‘choke’ the system."
↑ Wood, John Cunningham (1996). Karl Marx's Economics: Critical Assessments, Volume 1. Routledge. pp. 247–48. ISBN 978-0-415-08714-8. It is certainly true that, according to Marx, social ownership does facilitate central planning ... But the substitution of commodity production [central planning] for market exchange is not an ‘end’ in Marx’s analysis. The fundamental ‘end’ of Marxist socialism is the supersession of alienation, the ‘emancipation’ of mankind, and the creation of opportunities for the full development of man’s productive and human potentialities. Clearly, Marx perceived both social ownership and supersession of commodity production as a means to this end.
↑ McMullen, David (2007). Bright Future: Abundance and Progress in the 21st Century. BookSurge Publishing. p. 181. ISBN 978-0-646-46832-7. The five categories are: (1) the greater productivity of more motivated workers, (2) the greater accountability of individuals and organizations, (3) the elimination of unemployment, (4) the better flow of information and (5) the elimination of various resource wasting activities associated with wheeling and dealing, and with the activities of government.
↑ The Social Dividend Under Market Socialism, by Yunker, James. 1977. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 93–133: "The ‘first order effect’ of socialization will be an equalization of the property return, and it is to this that we must turn for the clearest and most certain benefit...The clearest, most immediate, and most obvious social improvement from socialism would be the abrogation of the pathologically unequal distribution of property return under capitalism."
↑ Lamont, Corliss (1939). You might like socialism; a way of life for modern man. Modern Age Books, Inc. pp. 239–40. ISBN 978-1-330-53101-3. Under socialism, with its economic security and progressively shorter hours of work, the leisure class is everyone. This new leisure class is not just a passive recipient and consumer of culture; it actively participates and creates, putting into effect the principle enunciated by the late American painter, Robert Hallowell, that ‘Each bears a gift for all
↑ To The Rural Poor, by Lenin, Vladimir Ilich. Collected Works, 6, Marxists, p. 366: "Machines and other improvements must serve to ease the work of all and not to enable a few to grow rich at the expense of millions and tens of millions of people. This new and better society is called socialist society."
↑ Bertrand Russell (1932). "In Praise of Idleness". Zpub. Archived from the original on 22 August 2019. نه اخيستل شوی 16 November 2015. I do not regard Socialism as a gospel of proletarian revenge, nor even, primarily, as a means of securing economic justice. I regard it primarily as an adjustment to machine production demanded by considerations of common sense, and calculated to increase happiness, not only of proletarians, but of all except a tiny minority of the human race. {{cite web}}: External link in |خونديځ تړی= (help); Unknown parameter |تاريخ الأرشيف= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |خونديځ-تړی= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |مسار الأرشيف= ignored (help)

[1] Brus, Wlodzimierz (October 25, 2013). The Economics and Politics of Socialism. Routledge. p. 88. ISBN 978-0415866477. Ownership means that the object owned is disposed of by the owner in his own interests (broadly conceived). For ownership to be social, therefore, it must satisfy two criteria: the disposition of the object owned must be in the interest of society and the owned object must be disposed of by society.

[Horvat_Page_1516-2] Horvat, Branko (2000). "Social ownership". In Michie, Jonathan (ed.). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences, Volume 1. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 1515–1516. ISBN 9781135932268. نه اخيستل شوی 15 October 2021. 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.

[3] O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 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.,

[4] Steele, David Ramsay (1999). From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court. pp. 175–77. ISBN 978-0-87548-449-5. 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.

[5] Busky, Donald F. (2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-275-96886-1. 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. Yet having stated this as the common definition of socialism, one must necessarily admit that there are a wide variety of views among socialists of various stripes as to just what constitutes social ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

[6] 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, p. 10: "Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers."

[7] Peffer, Rodney G. (2014). Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice. Princeton University Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-691-60888-4. Marx believed the reduction of necessary labor time to be, evaluatively speaking, an absolute necessity. He claims that real wealth is the developed productive force of all individuals. It is no longer the labor time but the disposable time that is the measure of wealth.

[8] Saros, Daniel E. (2014). Information Technology and Socialist Construction: The end of Capital and the Transition to Socialism. Routledge. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-415-74292-4. Another characteristic that Marx and Engels emphasized as a central feature of a future socialist society was a shorter workday. According to Tucker, Marx had a ‘vision of man in a future condition of freedom-creative leisure’ that he described in volume 3 of Capital.

[9] "the act or process of making socialistic: the socialization of industry." "Socialization" at Dictionary.com

[10] Otto Neurath's concepts of socialization and economic calculation and his socialist critics. Retrieved July 5, 2010: "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-09-12. نه اخيستل شوی 2010-07-05.{{cite web}}: نگهداری یادکرد:عنوان آرشیو به جای عنوان (link)

[What_is_Socialism?_A_program_for_practical_socialism-11] What is socialization? A program for practical socialism, by Korsch, Karl. 1975. Duke University Press. New German Critique, No. 6, pp. 60-81: "The socialization demanded by socialism signifies a new regulation of production with the goal of replacing the private capitalist economy with a socialist communal economy."

[Market_Socialism,_a_case_for_rejuvenation-12] Market Socialism, a case for rejuvenation, by Pranab Bardhan and John Roemer. 1992. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 101–16: "Public ownership in the narrow sense of state control of firms is not necessary to achieve one of socialism's goals, a relatively egalitarian distribution of the economy's surplus. We take public ownership, in a wider sense, to mean that the distribution of the profits of firms is decided by the political democratic processکينډۍ:Spndyet control of firms might well be in the hands of agents that do not represent the state."

[13] Woirol, Gregory R. (1996). The Technological Unemployment and Structural Unemployment Debates. Praeger. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-313-29892-9. The changing-organic-composition-of-capital argument was based on Marx's claim that technological change constantly increased the ratio of fixed to circulating capital. Since labor demand depended solely on the amount of circulating capital, the demand for labor decreased relative to a rise in total capital. The result was a tendency to increase the level of unemployment.

[14] The Social Dividend Under Market Socialism, by Yunker, James. 1977. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 93–133: "It was not the moral unworthiness of the exploitive surplus value mechanism which Marx proposed as the instrumentality of the collapse of capitalism. It was rather the consequences of that mechanism in providing capitalists with so much ill-gotten income that it would ultimately effectively ‘choke’ the system."

[15] Wood, John Cunningham (1996). Karl Marx's Economics: Critical Assessments, Volume 1. Routledge. pp. 247–48. ISBN 978-0-415-08714-8. It is certainly true that, according to Marx, social ownership does facilitate central planning ... But the substitution of commodity production [central planning] for market exchange is not an ‘end’ in Marx’s analysis. The fundamental ‘end’ of Marxist socialism is the supersession of alienation, the ‘emancipation’ of mankind, and the creation of opportunities for the full development of man’s productive and human potentialities. Clearly, Marx perceived both social ownership and supersession of commodity production as a means to this end.

[16] McMullen, David (2007). Bright Future: Abundance and Progress in the 21st Century. BookSurge Publishing. p. 181. ISBN 978-0-646-46832-7. The five categories are: (1) the greater productivity of more motivated workers, (2) the greater accountability of individuals and organizations, (3) the elimination of unemployment, (4) the better flow of information and (5) the elimination of various resource wasting activities associated with wheeling and dealing, and with the activities of government.

[17] The Social Dividend Under Market Socialism, by Yunker, James. 1977. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 93–133: "The ‘first order effect’ of socialization will be an equalization of the property return, and it is to this that we must turn for the clearest and most certain benefit...The clearest, most immediate, and most obvious social improvement from socialism would be the abrogation of the pathologically unequal distribution of property return under capitalism."

[18] Lamont, Corliss (1939). You might like socialism; a way of life for modern man. Modern Age Books, Inc. pp. 239–40. ISBN 978-1-330-53101-3. Under socialism, with its economic security and progressively shorter hours of work, the leisure class is everyone. This new leisure class is not just a passive recipient and consumer of culture; it actively participates and creates, putting into effect the principle enunciated by the late American painter, Robert Hallowell, that ‘Each bears a gift for all

[19] To The Rural Poor, by Lenin, Vladimir Ilich. Collected Works, 6, Marxists, p. 366: "Machines and other improvements must serve to ease the work of all and not to enable a few to grow rich at the expense of millions and tens of millions of people. This new and better society is called socialist society."

[20] Bertrand Russell (1932). "In Praise of Idleness". Zpub. Archived from the original on 22 August 2019. نه اخيستل شوی 16 November 2015. I do not regard Socialism as a gospel of proletarian revenge, nor even, primarily, as a means of securing economic justice. I regard it primarily as an adjustment to machine production demanded by considerations of common sense, and calculated to increase happiness, not only of proletarians, but of all except a tiny minority of the human race. {{cite web}}: External link in |خونديځ تړی= (help); Unknown parameter |تاريخ الأرشيف= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |خونديځ-تړی= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |مسار الأرشيف= ignored (help)

[۱]

[۲]

[۳]

[۴]

[۵]

[۶]

[۷]

[۸]

[۹]

[۱۰]

[۱۱]

[۱۲]

[۱۳]

[۱۴]

[۱۵]

[۱۶]

[۱۷]

[۱۸]

[۱۹]

[۲۰]