LIMSwiki

Kepemilikan sosial merujuk pada berbagai macam bentuk kepemilikan atas alat produksi dalam sistem ekonomi sosialis; meliputi kepemilikan publik, kepemilikan pekerja, kepemilikan koperasi, kepemilikan warganegara atas ekuitas,^[1] kepemilikan umum dan kepemilikan kolektif.^[2] Secara historis, kepemilikan sosial menyiratkan bahwa pasar kapital dan faktor akan hilang dalam asumsi bahwa pertukaran pasar dalam proses produksi akan menjadi tidak berguna jika barang modal dimiliki oleh entitas tunggal atau jejaring entitas yang mewakili masyarakat.^[3] Akan tetapi, artikulasi model sosialisme pasar yang pasar faktornya digunakan untuk mengalokasikan barang modal antarbadan usaha yang dimiliki secara sosial telah meluaskan definisi istilah ini hingga termasuk entitas otonom di dalam ekonomi pasar. Kepemilikan sosial atas alat produksi adalah karakteristik utama dari sebagian besar bentuk sosialisme.^[4]

Dua bentuk utama kepemilikan sosial adalah kepemilikan publik oleh seluruh masyarakat dan kepemilikan koperasi. Perbedaan antara keduanya terdapat pada distribusi produk surplus. Dalam kepemilikan publik oleh seluruh masyarakat, surplus didistribusikan kepada seluruh anggota masyarakat melalui dividen sosial; sedangkan dalam kepemilikan koperasi, surplus ekonomi badan usaha dikontrol oleh semua anggota-pekerja dari perusahaan tersebut.^[5]

Tujuan kepemilikan sosial adalah untuk menghapuskan perbedaan antara kelas pemilik pribadi yang menerima pendapatan properti pasif dan pekerja yang menerima pendapatan kerja (gaji, upah dan komisi), sehingga produk surplus (atau keuntungan ekonomi dalam kasus sosialisme pasar) dimiliki oleh masyarakat secara keseluruhan atau anggota perusahaan terkait. Kepemilikan sosial memungkinkan peningkatan produktivitas dari otomatisasi kerja untuk secara progresif mengurangi rata-rata hari kerja dibandingkan dengan menciptakan ketidakpastian kerja dan pengangguran. Pengurangan waktu kerja yang diperlukan merupakan hal sentral dalam konsep Marxis atas kemerdekaan manusia dan penanggulangan alienasi, sebuah konsep yang secara luas diterima oleh sosialis Marxis dan non-Marxis.^[6]^[7]

Sementara istilah sosialisasi merujuk proses restrukturisasi kerangka ekonomi, struktur organisasi dan institusi ekonomi dalam basis sosialis.^[8] Pengertian yang komprehensif mengenai sosialisasi dan bentuk Kepemilikan publik|kepemilikan publik atas kepemilikan sosial menyiratkan berakhirnya penggunaan hukum kapitalisme, akumulasi kapital dan penggunaan uang serta penilaian finansial dalam proses produksi; bersamaan dengan restrukturisasi organisasi tingkat tempat kerja.^[9]^[10]

Tujuan//Catatan 99.990.9000.000.90.9.580.590.490

Kepemilikan sosial menganjurkan dengan berbagai cara untuk mengakhiri konsep eksploitasi Marxian, untuk menjamin bahwa distribusi pendapatan mencerminkan kontribusi individu terhadap produk sosial, menghilangkan pengangguran yang timbul dari perubahan teknologi, memastikan distribusi yang lebih egaliter atas surplus ekonomi,^[11] atau menciptakan fondasi untuk ekonomi sosialis non-pasar.

Dalam analisis Karl Marx atas kapitalisme, kepemilikan sosial atas alat produksi muncul atas respon terhadap kontradiksi antara produksi tersosialisasi dan apropriasi pribadi dari nilai lebih dalam kapitalisme. Marx berpendapat bahwa keuntungan produktivitas dari substitusi modal variabel (masukan kerja) dengan modal konstan (masukan modal) akan menyebabkan perpindahan tenaga kerja untuk melampaui permintaan tenaga kerja. Proses ini akan menuju pada gaji stagnan peningkatan pengangguran terhadap kelas pekerja bersamaan dengan peningkatan pendapatan properti bagi kelas kapitalis, yang selanjutnya menuju pada akumulasi berlebihan atas kapital.^[12] Marx berpendapat bahwa dinamika ini akan menuju titik di mana kepemilikan sosial atas alat produksi yang sangat otomatis akan dibutuhkan untuk menyelesaikan kontradiksi ini dan menghasilkan perselisihan sosial. Oleh karena itu, permasalahan Marxis dalam kepemilikan sosial dan sosialisme tidak berdasarkan atas kritik moral terhadap distribusi pendapatan properti (kekayaan) dalam kapitalisme, tapi lebih kepada permasalahan Marxis atas sosialisme berdasarkan pada analisis sistematis dalam perkembangan dan batasan dinamika akumulasi kapital.^[13]

Bagi Marx, kepemilikan sosial akan meletakan dasar bagi transendensi hukum nilai kapitalis dan akumulasi kapital, yang dengan demikian menciptakan fondasi bagi perencanaan sosialis. Tujuan utama kepemilikan sosial atas properti produktif bagi Marx adalah untuk memperluas "ruang kemerdekaan" dengan mengurangi rata-rata jam kerja sehingga individu tersebut dapat secara progresif memiliki porsi lebih besar atas waktunya untuk mengejar minat asli dan kreatifnya. Sehingga tujuan akhir kepemilikan sosial adalah transendensi konsep Marxis atas alienasi.^[14]

^ O'Hara, Phillip (September 2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. hlm. 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. ,
^ Hastings, Mason and Pyper, Adrian, Alistair and Hugh (December 21, 2000). The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Oxford University Press. hlm. 677. ISBN 978-0-19-860024-4. Socialists have always recognized that there are many possible forms of social ownership of which co-operative ownership is one. Nationalization in itself has nothing particularly to do with socialism and has existed under non-socialist and anti-socialist regimes. Kautsky in 1891 pointed out that a ‘co-operative commonwealth’ could not be the result of the ‘general nationalization of all industries’ unless there was a change in ‘the character of the state’.
^ Steele, David Ramsay (September 1999). From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court. hlm. 175–177. 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. (July 20, 2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. hlm. 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, pp. 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. hlm. 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. (May 1, 2014). Information Technology and Socialist Construction: The end of Capital and the Transition to Socialism. Routledge. hlm. 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: http://www.chaloupek.eu/work/NeurathFin.pdf Diarsipkan 2011-09-12 di Wayback Machine.
^ 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. 101-116: "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 process – yet control of firms might well be in the hands of agents that do not represent the state."
^ Woirol, Gregory R. (July 30, 1996). The Technological Unemployment and Structural Unemployment Debates. Praeger. hlm. 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 (March 26, 1996). Karl Marx's Economics: Critical Assessments, Volume 1. Routledge. hlm. 247–248. 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.

Bacaan lebih lanjut

Korsch, Karl (1975). "What Is Socialization? A Program of Practical Socialism". New German Critique No.6: 60-81.
Minns, Richard (1996). "The Social Ownership of Capital". New Left Review 219. 1: 42-61.
O'Neil, John (2002). "Socialist Calculation and Environmental Valuation: Money, Markets and Ecology". Science and Society 66. 1: 137-158.

Pranala luar

"Socialization" oleh Anton Pannekoek

[1] O'Hara, Phillip (September 2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. hlm. 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. ,

[The_Oxford_Companion_to_Christian_Thought-2] Hastings, Mason and Pyper, Adrian, Alistair and Hugh (December 21, 2000). The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Oxford University Press. hlm. 677. ISBN 978-0-19-860024-4. Socialists have always recognized that there are many possible forms of social ownership of which co-operative ownership is one. Nationalization in itself has nothing particularly to do with socialism and has existed under non-socialist and anti-socialist regimes. Kautsky in 1891 pointed out that a ‘co-operative commonwealth’ could not be the result of the ‘general nationalization of all industries’ unless there was a change in ‘the character of the state’.

[3] Steele, David Ramsay (September 1999). From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court. hlm. 175–177. 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.

[4] Busky, Donald F. (July 20, 2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. hlm. 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.

[5] 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, pp. 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."

[6] Peffer, Rodney G. (2014). Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice. Princeton University Press. hlm. 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.

[7] Saros, Daniel E. (May 1, 2014). Information Technology and Socialist Construction: The end of Capital and the Transition to Socialism. Routledge. hlm. 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.

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

[9] Otto Neurath's concepts of socialization and economic calculation and his socialist critics. Retrieved July 5, 2010: http://www.chaloupek.eu/work/NeurathFin.pdf Diarsipkan 2011-09-12 di Wayback Machine.

[What_is_Socialism?_A_program_for_practical_socialism-10] 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-11] Market Socialism, a case for rejuvenation, by Pranab Bardhan and John Roemer. 1992. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 101-116: "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 process – yet control of firms might well be in the hands of agents that do not represent the state."

[12] Woirol, Gregory R. (July 30, 1996). The Technological Unemployment and Structural Unemployment Debates. Praeger. hlm. 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.

[13] 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."

[14] Wood, John Cunningham (March 26, 1996). Karl Marx's Economics: Critical Assessments, Volume 1. Routledge. hlm. 247–248. 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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]