political_economy

Andrew Tsang's thesis paper on polical economy is Republic of China's socialist economic system.  This economic system is based on Sun-Yat-Sen's vision and reality of China.  After the Communist took over China in 1949, the political economic system of Sun-Yat-Sen is practiced and operated in Taiwan(known as Formosa).  Sun-Yat-Sen's vision of Taiwan based on three fundamental principles of the people known as Nationalism, Democracy and Livelihood.  The socialist system in Taiwan is based on Livelihood, so it's called "Livelihood Socialist System."  Talking about different kinds of Socialism from the United States to countries in Asia and Europe, we need to know the fundamental background of Socialism.  Socialism is a term with conflicting definitions. Although originally defined by Karl Marx, it has been used by many different groups to mean different things. The different meanings and uses of the term "socialism" over history and in different places have lead to much political misunderstanding and confusion.  Although current definitions of socialism have radically different meanings, they all are historically derived from an original definition by Karl Marx. 
In Marxism, "socialism" refers to the stage of history and class structure immediately following the next revolution, in which power has passed to the rural peasantry and the urban proletariat.  Karl Marx specifically focused on control of the means of production, which he saw as passing from monarchs under feudalism, to bourgeois professionals and an upper-middle-class facilitating capitalists under capitalism, and then to the workers themselves, whose contributions he saw as under-valued.  According to Marx, socialism is the period of transition between the overthrow of bourgeois rule and the development of a classless, communist society. While somewhat vague about specifics, Marx described the function of socialism as completing the process of equalizing society, building and developing industry and farming, and militarily defending the revolution from external attack. As this process was completed, the socialist state would "wither away" in favor of the final stage of history, the classless "Communism of Abundance".  One of the first modifications of Marx's definition occurred in the late nineteenth century, when many political theorists broke with the Marxist notion that revolution was the only way to advance beyond capitalism and that socialism was incompatible with democracy. These social democrats argued that the transition to socialism could occur peacefully through the ballot box. 
Among most mainstream commentators in the North America and western Europe, the term it generally refers to an economic system based on corporate capitalism, but where the state is an active market intervener, responsible for broad economic planning in the long term and for protecting the vulnerable from any exploitative or destructive aspects of the market economy. In this sense it is not as much a successor or challenge to capitalism as a refinement.  Social Democrats regard such a system as desirable and achievable, indeed, many would argue it already exists in some states. Conservatives, however, view this type of socialism as bureaucratic, inefficient, and likely to create lazy, dependent people who gain unfairly.  Among a number of right-wing conservatives, particularly in the United States, this type of "socialism" is regarded as essentially equivalent to the almost universally disliked Soviet style (communist-run) economic system. In the US, and to a degree in Canada, and the UK this has made moderate leftists quite reluctant to use the term socialism even when advocating policies most Europeans would immediately identify as "socialist". 
To an extent all capitalist states incorporate elements of these social democratic policies. The term mixed economy is often used to describe this practical reality. Among those of major countries, the economy of the United States closest approximates a free market, while other economies such as those of Germany or France are closer to a 50/50 split.  Many argue that a truly laissez-faire state, with no labor or environmental laws and no role for the government in long term planning, would quickly collapse. However, the "Libertarian" political movement believes that all government economic intervention is both a priori morally wrong and economically counter-productive. It is probably fair to say that most people in the West desire some kind of balance between unrestrained markets and direct government control over large sectors of the economy.  However the view of economies as occupying a continuum between absolute government control and none, does not have universal support. Some economists, particular those who study post-Communist transitions argue that the economies of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were different from the economies of the United States and Western Europe in kind rather than only in degree. Although, Western European governments intervene heavily in the economy, they do so within the context of a market pricing system. Governments in Western Europe issue regulations, subsidies, tax, and spend, but they do not generally set prices or production quotas on most goods. By contrast, the Soviet-modeled economies did set prices and production, and this created an economy that many economists argue, had fundamentally different characteristics than those in Western Europe.  In the era of so-called globalization most mixed economies are shifting towards more capitalistic arrangements.  Governments such as those of Cuba, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union and its satellites officially regarded themselves as "socialist" in the true Marxist sense, though many other Marxists hotly contested this. In such states economics are co-ordinate centrally through a hierarchical structure. Decision making power rests almost exclusively with central planners in the capital city, whose own objectives are set by elite committees or even individual rulers.  The theoretical justification offered for a totalitarian structure is that the central planners are not ruling in their own interests, but acting as servants of the workers as a whole. They have not clawed their way to the top of the power structure, but have been called upon by the people to perform a duty. However, critics both internal and external to such societies have described the Marxist-Leninist brand of "socialism" as a highly class-structured society in which Party planners and intellectuals rule. 
The official economic system used in the People's Republic of China is "socialism with Chinese characteristics." In Chinese Marxist ideology, socialism remains the stage after capitalism, however the official ideology is that socialism must be reinterpreted to meet Chinese circumstances and can include elements such as a market economy.  In fact, because of the open nature of the Chinese definition of socialism, it has become very different from the definition used by Western social democrats. In contrast to the definition of socialism used by social democratic, the Chinese definition does not require state control over the economy or imply generous social benefits by the state, and some socialist government policies are resemble those of conservatives in the West.  Also because of the loose definition of socialism, economic arguments in the People's Republic of China are almost never evaluated in terms of socialism or anti-socialism.  Other political and economic theorists have used the term "socialism" to describe their as-yet unrealized social visions. In general their definition of socialism could be "the control of production, consumption, allocation, and distribution of goods and services through democratic means". Exactly how this broad description would translate into practical institutions is a subject of contention.  Some socialists argue that the concept of a centrally planned economy is essentially sound, but that it must be subject to well-structured democratic controls and not allowed to descend into dictatorship. This description fits many dissidents within the Soviet bloc of Marxist-Leninist states, such as Czechoslovakian president Alexander Dubcek, who attempted to implement "Socialism with a Human Face" before his country was invaded and occupied by Warsaw Pact troops. It could also be said to apply to many "socialists" in capitalist countries up into the 1990s, when most people who had previously held this position decided that the collapse of Soviet central planning proved that command economics in general were doomed to failure. 
Others have proposed socialist economies based not on markets or command planning, but on novel types of institutions they believe will serve better. "Participatory Economics", a system first described by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, attempts to co-ordinate local and largely self-governed councils representing workers and consumers through a few basic rules about how economic institutions may relate to each other. Council Communists and Social Ecologists, like some Anarchists before them, have argued that the basic organization of production and consumption ought to happen on the very small scale, with economic activity across communities handled on a case-by-case basis.  Still other socialists have argued that, once the means of production and the political system are in the hands of the working class, the free market is a perfectly good economic system. They believe that if individual workplaces are owned and controlled by the workers, economic exchanges between buyer, seller, and nobody else will efficiently and equitably allocate resources without the need for a government bureaucracy. 
Essentially everyone who describes themselves as "socialist" describes themselves as "democratic" as well. However, it should be noted that the definition of "democracy" used is hardly consistent. 
Marxist-Leninists believe that what is important is not periodic elections, but the class interest represented by the political vanguard which is in power. In the Leninist analysis, representative democracy as seen in the West is a sham because the real reins of power are held by the moneyed class, who would simply ignore the results if an unacceptably radical leader was ever elected. Critics allege that whatever the faults of Western-style democracy, the Leninist plan only works if the leaders are incorruptible and infinitely altruistic, an incredibly naive idea. They see Leninist claims of respect for democracy as cynical propaganda and nothing more.  Most other socialists see some form of political democracy as integral to the existence of socialism itself. This may be a representative democracy in the style of European parliaments and congresses, or another type, usually described as closer to direct democracy.  Conservative critics often charge that all socialist governments are anti-democratic, because the increased "size" and power of such governments represents a concentration of power unseen in capitalist societies. In addition, some believe that all economic organization not consistent with the free market is inherently in violation of individual human rights and by extension democratic principles.  Social Democrats are supporters of a moderate form of Socialism. 
Often, the term "Socialism" is used to specifically denote Social Democrats, although in many countries Socialism is a broader concept containing reformist Social Democrats and many kinds of revolutionary Communists and sometimes Anarchists.  Social Democratic parties are among the largest parties in most countries in Europe. Globally, some studies claim, more people share the basic ideals of Social Democrats than of any other political movement.  The Social Democratic current came into being by a break within the Socialist movement in the early 20th century. One reformist group of Socialists rejected the idea of a Socialist revolution, and instead tried to achieve the Socialist ideals through Democratic means. Many related movements, including Pacifism, Anarchism and Syndicalism, arose at this time and had various quite different objections to the "class war" concept espoused by most Marxists.  Historians claim that several key figures were important in this shift: the Russian Prince Peter Kropotkin, César de Paepe of the Belgian International Working Men's Association, and Jean Jaurès who led the French Socialist Party until his assassination on July 31, 1914, one day before the general mobilization of forces that began World War I.  According to historian Barbara Tuchman, a slow shift of European public opinion from 1880-1914, especially in Germany, had aligned Nationalist and Capitalist forces politically in favor of confrontation and war, and generally silenced Pacifism and discredited revolutionary Anarchism. Moderate Syndicate and Socialist views of such leaders as César de Paepe and Jean Léon Jaurès were gradually marginalized by concessions to the Labor Movement, especially in Germany, which from 1900-1914 instituted the shortest working week, longest vacations, and best fringe benefit programs in Europe - all while arming for the conflict that most European powers expected.  The period 1914-1962 in Europe was dominated by World War I, World War II, and the Cold War, culminating in the construction of the Berlin Wall. Although social democrats had been influential in this period, and a moderate breed of Eurocommunism had developed, in general Nationalist, Fundamentalist and Capitalist forces were seen as allies of the United States, and there was some suspicion of Social Democrats as potentially "soft on Communism" and seeking to implement something like Stalinism in Western Europe.  During the 1960s and culminating in the signal year 1968, these concerns were dispelled, and the countries that would later join in the European Union generally followed a path set by (Christian or Secular) Social Democrats, who differed little on core policies.  Today most conservative parties are, by the prewar definition, social democrats in favor of a slightly less generous program.  Since the 1960s, differences between all forms of Social Democrats and Communists have grown. Nowadays, Social Democrats are in favor of a Capitalist market economy, but with a strong and large government. Many Social Democratic parties are also shifting emphasis from the traditional goal of creating a Socialist economy to human rights and environmental issues. In this, they are facing increasing challenge from Greens who view ecology as fundamental to peace, and require reform of money supply and safe trade measures to ensure ecological integrity. However, Greens, Social Democrats, and more extreme Socialist parties, have often cooperated in a so-called Red-Green Alliance.  Most commentators agree that Social Democrats have been largely successful in implementing the program of the original Communist Manifesto of 1848 - with the notable exception of land reform and the abolishment of rents. However, Marx believed that the ideals of Communism/Socialism could only be achieved through the self-liberation of the working class, NOT through legislation enacted by a small government elite.  Most would also agree that late-20th-century Europe, culminating in the 1992 formation of the European Union, demonstrates that developed nations can cooperate under the general policies of Social Democrats to achieve a lasting peace. Whether similar policies can work elsewhere is a matter of much debate, especially in the anti-globalization movement, where advocates on both sides argue about the degree to which regulation has fostered growth and tolerance. Some argue that the protectionist policies followed by Social Democrats to protect fragile national economies during growth or rebuilding, are exactly the policies that developing nations are today prevented from following by the IMF. Beyond that, as in the early 20th century, there is substantial difference of opinion depending on general views of Capitalism.  It is an interesting phenomenon that Social Democrats often succeed in their aims to the point of political irrelevance - then spending some time out of favor with voters who turn to more Conservative parties, e.g. Margaret Thatcher, who then inherit economies with the strong educational and infrastructure foundations favored by Social Democrats.  However, also these Conservative successors are often perceived as going too far for comfort, particularly in foreign policy, trade, and warfare, so Social Democrats may never disappear, even if the entire original program of Socialism would have been accomplished. Through the 20th century, few of the benefits instituted by any Social Democratic government have been successfully repealed by successors: an income tax, universal medical insurance, tuition-free university education, are seemingly permanent features of most European nations. The services may vary in quality but never seem to be withdrawn completely - the gains made by Social Democrats politically are seemingly seen by the public as public goods. In Canada, however, cutbacks by successive Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments in the last two decades have succeeded in reducing the effectiveness of the Social Democratic measures that had been implanted under previous governments (Liberal and Liberal in coalition with New Democrats).  Democratic socialism is a political movement propagating the political ideals of Socialism in a democratic state, or in other words: anti-Authoritarian Communists.  Most democratic socialists typically advocate a mixed economy with generous welfare provision, and re-distribution of wealth. People or groups who describe themselves as democratic socialists, are generally further to the left and more radical than the more moderate social democrats. 
Many people see Scandinavian countries such as Sweden as a model of democratic socialism. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International, which includes the British Labour Party and the French Parti Socialiste.  The DSA was formed in 1983 when a splinter group of the Socialist Party, USA (Michael Harrington's Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee) merged with the Students for a Democratic Society splinter New American Movement.  Among its notable members, include feminist Gloria Steinem, actor Ed Asner, black activist Cornel West, and libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky.  Many Democratic Socialists are also members of the Democratic Party. Until recent years, the main aim of DSA was to convert the Democratic Party into a social democratic organization. However, since the Democratic Party has been dominated by more centrist individuals such as Bill Clinton and Al Gore, many DSA members are trying to move the party away from this goal. Three DSA members are currently in the United States Congress: Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Danny Davis (D-IL), and Major Owens (D-NY). Ron Dellums (D-CA), who retired from the Congress in 1997.  The Three People's Principles was claimed as the basis for the ideologies of the Kuomintang under Chiang Kai-shek, of the Communist Party of China under Mao Zedong, and of the Japanese collaborationist government under Wang Jingwei. 
The Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China largely agreed on the meaning of nationalism but differed sharply on the meaning of democracy and people's welfare, which the former saw in Western social democratic terms and the latter interpreted in Marxist and Communist terms. The Japanese collaborationist governments interpreted nationalism less in terms of anti-imperialism and more in terms of cooperating with Japan to advance pan-Asian interests.  Many streets and businesses in Taiwan are named either "Three People" or are named for one of the three principles.  The ideology is heavily influenced by Sun's experiences in the United States and contains elements of the American progressive movement.