Mediaboss Marketing

In Marxist theory, socialism (also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production) refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Production for use is coordinated through conscious economic planning, while distribution of economic output is based on the principle of To each according to his contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively owning the means of production and the means of their livelihood, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus accrues to the working class and society as a whole.[1]

This view is consistent with, and helped to inform, early conceptions of socialism where the law of value no longer directs economic activity, and thus monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest and wage labor would not operate and apply to socialism.[2]

The Marxian conception of socialism stands in contrast to other early conceptions of socialism, most notably early forms of market socialism based on classical economics such as Mutualism and Ricardian socialism. Unlike the Marxian conception, these conceptions of socialism retained commodity exchange (markets) for labor and the means of production, seeking to perfect the market process.[3] The Marxist idea of socialism was also heavily opposed to Utopian socialism.

Although Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote very little on socialism and neglected to provide any details on how it might be organized,[4] numerous social scientists and neoclassical economists have used Marx's theory as a basis for developing their own models of socialist economic systems. The Marxist view of socialism served as a point of reference during the socialist calculation debate.

Socialism is a post-commodity economic system, meaning that production is carried out to directly produce use-value (to directly satisfy human needs, or economic demands) as opposed to being produced with a view to generating a profit. The stage in which the accumulation of capital was viable and effective is rendered insufficient at the socialist stage of social and economic development, leading to a situation where production is carried out independently of capital accumulation in a supposedly planned fashion. Although Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels understood planning to involve the input and decisions of the individuals involved at localized levels of production and consumption, planning has been interpreted to mean centralized planning by Marxist-Leninists during the 20th century. However, there have been other conceptions of economic planning, including decentralized-planning and participatory planning.

In contrast to capitalism, which relies upon the coercive market forces to compel capitalists to produce use-values as a byproduct of the pursuit of profit, socialist production is to be based on the rational planning of use-values and coordinated investment decisions to attain economic goals.[5] As a result, the cyclical fluctuations that occur in a capitalist market economy will not be present in a socialist economy. The value of a good in socialism is its physical utility rather than its embodied labor, cost of production and exchange value as in a capitalist system.

Socialism would make use of incentive-based systems, and inequality would still exist but to a diminishing extent as all members of society would be worker-owners. This eliminates the severity of previous tendencies towards inequality and conflicts arising ownership of the means of production and property income accruing to a small class of owners.[6] The method of compensation and reward in a socialist society would be based on an authentic meritocracy, along the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution".[7]

The advanced stage of socialism, referred to as "upper-stage communism" in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, is based on the socialist mode of production but is differentiated from lower-stage socialism in a few fundamental ways. While socialism implies public ownership (by a state apparatus) or cooperative ownership (by a worker cooperative enterprise), communism would be based on common ownership of the means of production. Class distinctions based on ownership of capital cease to exist, along with the need for a state. A superabundance of goods and services are made possible by automated production that allow for goods to be distributed based on need rather than merit.[8]

The period in which capitalism becomes increasingly insufficient as an economic system and immediately after the proletarian conquest of the state, an economic system that features elements of both socialism and capitalism will probably exist until both the productive forces of the economy and the cultural and social attitudes develop to a point where they satisfy the requirements for a full socialist society (one that has lost the need for monetary value, wage labor and capital accumulation). Specifically, market relations will still exist but economic units are either nationalized or re-organized into cooperatives. This transitional phase is sometimes described as "state capitalism" or "market socialism". China is officially in the primary stage of socialism.

The fundamental goal of socialism from the view of Marx and Engels was the realization of human freedom and individual autonomy. Specifically, this refers to freedom from the alienation imposed upon individuals in the form of coercive social relationships as well as material scarcity, whereby the individual is compelled to engage in activities merely to survive (to reproduce his or herself). The aim of socialism is to provide an environment whereby individuals are free to express their genuine interests, creative freedom, and desires unhindered by forms of social control that force individuals to work for a class of owners who expropriate and live off the surplus product.[9]

Original post:
Socialism (Marxism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PETITE FILLE SIMULATOR : #39;O - Tea Party Simulator 2014 [FR]
UNE PETITE TASSE DE TH PETITE C*NN* ????!!!!! Achetez vos jeux de -50 -70% ici: http://www.kinguin.fr/7en/1mi Subscribe: http://www.youtube.com/user/RiffleStudio Ma Page Facebook ...

By: RiffleStudio

Read more:
PETITE FILLE SIMULATOR :'O - Tea Party Simulator 2014 [FR] - Video

Coordinates: 422113N 710309W / 42.3536N 71.0524W / 42.3536; -71.0524 (Boston Tea Party)

Source: W.D. Cooper. "Boston Tea Party.", The History of North America. London: E. Newberry, 1789. Engraving. Plate opposite p. 58. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (40)

American Colonies Boston Colony

England

The Boston Tea Party (initially referred to by John Adams as "the Destruction of the Tea in Boston"[2]) was a political protest by the Sons of Liberty in Boston, on December 16, 1773. The demonstrators, some disguised as American Indians, destroyed an entire shipment of tea sent by the East India Company, in defiance of the Tea Act of May 10, 1773. They boarded the ships and threw the chests of tea into Boston Harbor, ruining the tea. The British government responded harshly and the episode escalated into the American Revolution. The Tea Party became an iconic event of American history, and other political protests such as the Tea Party movement after 2010 explicitly refer to it.

The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act because they believed that it violated their rights as Englishmen to "No taxation without representation," that is, be taxed only by their own elected representatives and not by a British parliament in which they were not represented. Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain.

The Boston Tea Party was a key event in the growth of the American Revolution. Parliament responded in 1774 with the Coercive Acts, or Intolerable Acts, which, among other provisions, ended local self-government in Massachusetts and closed Boston's commerce. Colonists up and down the Thirteen Colonies in turn responded to the Coercive Acts with additional acts of protest, and by convening the First Continental Congress, which petitioned the British monarch for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. The crisis escalated, and the American Revolutionary War began near Boston in 1775.

The Boston Tea Party arose from two issues confronting the British Empire in 1765: the financial problems of the British East India Company, and an ongoing dispute about the extent of Parliament's authority, if any, over the British American colonies without seating any elected representation. The North Ministry's attempt to resolve these issues produced a showdown that would eventually result in revolution.[3]

As Europeans developed a taste for tea in the 17th century, rival companies were formed to import the product from China.[4] In England, Parliament gave the East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea in 1698.[5] When tea became popular in the British colonies, Parliament sought to eliminate foreign competition by passing an act in 1721 that required colonists to import their tea only from Great Britain.[6] The East India Company did not export tea to the colonies; by law, the company was required to sell its tea wholesale at auctions in England. British firms bought this tea and exported it to the colonies, where they resold it to merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston.[7]

Until 1767, the East India Company paid an ad valorem tax of about 25% on tea that it imported into Great Britain.[8] Parliament laid additional taxes on tea sold for consumption in Britain. These high taxes, combined with the fact that tea imported into Holland was not taxed by the Dutch government, meant that Britons and British Americans could buy smuggled Dutch tea at much cheaper prices.[9] The biggest market for illicit tea was Englandby the 1760s the East India Company was losing 400,000 per year to smugglers in Great Britain[10]but Dutch tea was also smuggled into British America in significant quantities.[11]

Originally posted here:
Boston Tea Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saying GOP control of the Senate is more important than any single candidate, a national tea party group threw its support Monday behind Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas the man the Tea Party Express had tried to unseat in this summers Republican primary.

The about-face underscored concerns within various factions of the conservative movement that the GOPs efforts to win control of the Senate could hinge on Mr. Roberts re-election, and reopened simmering questions about whether the tea party insurgency has helped or hurt Republicans electoral chances over the last four years.

After turning back a challenge from Milton Wolf, a tea party-backed candidate with no electoral experience, Mr. Roberts is now trying to rebuild trust within the GOP even as he fends off an independent candidate, Greg Orman.

SEE ALSO: Tom Cotton: Mark Pryor simply isnt tough enough to stand up to Obama

I think at the end of the day that tough primary battle against a pretty much nondescript tea party candidate exposed his weakness, and so far there is no real indication that he is bringing all of those people back, said Burdett A. Loomis, political science professor at Kansas University. If they go back, they are going to go back in the most begrudging way.

In order to try to push unity on Kansas Republicans, national establishment and tea party figures have parachuted into the state to do what they can to rescue Mr. Roberts campaign.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the partys 2008 presidential candidate, have stumped with Mr. Roberts, as have tea party favorites Sarah Palin and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, another hero of grass-roots conservatives, plans to campaign with Mr. Roberts later this month.

SEE ALSO: Gwyneth Paltrows neighbors lash out at Obama event: Abuse of power

GOP analysts, though, say the key to the race could be winning the support of Mr. Wolf, who has backed Gov. Sam Brownbacks re-election bid, but has not endorsed Mr. Roberts.

The difficulty he has is Dr. Wolf has still not endorsed him even though a good number of Wolf supporters see the wisdom of endorsing Roberts because power of the Senate could be at stake, said Matt Hickam, a Kansas-based GOP consultant.

See more here:
Pat Roberts gets tea party backing in Kansas

EMMAUS, Pa. -

The head of the Lehigh Valley Tea Party is demanding a public explanation from East Penn School Board about the school district's handling of construction debris containing potentially hazardous asbestos that was buried near an elementary school.

Tea party chairman Ronnie DelBacco accuses the school district of committing an environmental crime and charges that its board is "disinterested in uncovering the truth."

DelBacco sent his open letter to all nine school board members Monday and to news media, including Fox News.

The school board will meet at 7:30 p.m. Monday.

The letter was in regard to "recent illegal dumping and environmental crimes."

DelBacco said taxpayers deserve answers to "a few serious questions before any of your re-election campaigns begin."

Those questions have to do with construction debris illegally dumped on wooded East Penn property near Wescosville Elementary School by unknown parties last year.

After the district learned about it, unidentified administrators ordered the material buried on the site. School officials have said those administrators no longer are employed in the dsitrict.

Although he misspelled his name, in his letter DelBacco asked if former district superintendent Thomas Seidenberger ordered burying the material. Siedenberger, who retired a few months ago, has denied to Channel 69 News that he did that.

See more here:
LV Tea Party demands answers from East Penn