Suchergebnisse

"This book is.so far as.[the author] is aware, the first systematic effort to deal with silent and almost unobserved invasion of the British local government by the forces of modern socialism."--Pref. note. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Citation: Robertson, Isaac Archie. Individualism vs socialism. Senior thesis, Kansas State Agricultural College, 1896. ; Morse Department of Special Collections ; Introduction: To the American people these terms are comparatively new. Twenty years ago they were not used in this country. Today they represent two great economic systems of Government, and just what is implied by each is not yet clearly defined. It will be the object of this paper to put together some of the thoughts of writers of political economy upon these two opposing terms. It will be impossible to go into detail with the many complex subjects arising under each, hence they must, at best, be treated in a very general form. Of the two terms, Socialism is perhaps the older, for it was not till the new form of government began to be contrasted with the old that either of the terms was at all needed. Socialism is especially new and more especially to Americans. Till recently the American considered the socialist as a mysterious being – one type of desperado, who with his foul means and base followers, was planning to strike at the very foundation stones of civilization.

Apparently transition is a difficult process. The reform programme adopted in Russia and several other former socialist countries was based on a purely economic approach, neglecting socio-cultural and political conditions for successful transition. These conditions are still largely determined by the socialist project that preceded the current transition process. Hence any study of transition has to start exploring the question: Transition from what? What, exactly, is wrong with socialism?

This item is part of the Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements (PRISM) digital collection, a collaborative initiative between Florida Atlantic University and University of Central Florida in the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM).

This item is part of the Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements (PRISM) digital collection, a collaborative initiative between Florida Atlantic University and University of Central Florida in the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM).

This item is part of the Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements (PRISM) digital collection, a collaborative initiative between Florida Atlantic University and University of Central Florida in the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM).

Includes index. ; Bibliography: p. viii. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Freedom Pamphlets, no.14. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Labadie Pamphlet Collection.

Avery Classics (Offsite) copy: Has Seymour B. Durst's bookplate. ; Avery Classics (Offsite) copy: Seymour B. Durst Old York Library Collection, Avery Architectural & Fine Arts Library, Columbia University. ; Reprinted from the Political science quarterly, vol. I, no. 4, and vol. IV, no. 1. ; Thesis (PH. D.) Columbia college, New York. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Appartient à l'ensemble documentaire : RsAlis000 ; Appartient à l'ensemble documentaire : RsAlis013

Robert Owen said in 1816, "Society may be formed so as to exist without crime, without poverty, with health greatly improved, with little, if any misery, and with intelligence and happiness increased a hundredfold; and no obstacle whatsoever intervenes at this moment except ignorance." 200 years later, however, no such system exists. A society in which every need is met, every resource fully available, every talent fully utilized for good, may be considered the ideological pinnacle of human civilization, but the question of how to create such a utopia remains unanswered. Many modern intellectuals favor socialism or its more extreme descendant; communism, in their search for perfect government. Likewise, many Christian young people and scholars have a fascination with the concept of Christian Socialism, synthesizing the ideals of communism with Biblical statements about the ideal Christian life found in the gospels. Some scholars assert that the socialist ideal is the ultimate fulfillment of Jesus' command to love and serve one another – the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth. So such a society should promote the provision for all that a loving God would logically offer to the creation made in His image. Yet the socialist and communist worldviews rest on flawed assumptions regarding the nature of man and thus consistently leave the masses unsatisfied and deprived. 'Christian Socialism,' has experienced a dramatic revival in recent years, resurrecting the 'social gospel' of Walter Rauschenbusch, through the writings of Jim Wallis among others, however the Biblical portrait of mankind is diametrically opposed to the theories upon which Socialism stands. While the surface of this movement may appear consistent with the precepts taught by Christ, deeper examination of its theological, philosophical, and historical inconsistencies quickly reveals a pit of fallacy - a flawed foundation upon which adherents would build an unstable future. Half a decade ago, the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade and other scholars codified many of the objections to Christian Socialism, but this research has since faded into obscurity as they were discounted as reactionary. However given the cultural atmosphere and resurgence of the movement today, these writings deserve significant reexamination.

The formerly communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe (transitional economies in Europe and the Soviet Union – for example, East Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Russia) and transitional economies in Asia – for example, China, Vietnam had centrally planned economies, which did not allow entrepreneurship activities. Despite the political-socioeconomic transformations in transitional economies around 1989, they still had an institutional heritage that affects individuals' values and attitudes, which, in turn, influence intentions, behaviors, and actions, including entrepreneurship. While prior studies on the long-lasting effects of socialist legacy on entrepreneurship have focused on limited geographical regions (e.g., East-West Germany, and East-West Europe), this dissertation focuses on the Vietnamese context, which offers a unique quasi-experimental setting. In 1954, Vietnam was divided into the socialist North and the non-socialist South, and it was then reunified under socialist rule in 1975. Thus, the intensity of differences in socialist treatment in North-South Vietnam (about 21 years) is much shorter than that in East-West Germany (about 40 years) and East-West Europe (about 70 years when considering former Soviet Union countries). To assess the relationship between socialist history and entrepreneurship in this unique setting, we survey more than 3,000 Vietnamese individuals. This thesis finds that individuals from North Vietnam have lower entrepreneurship intentions, are less likely to enroll in entrepreneurship education programs, and display lower likelihood to take over an existing business, compared to those from the South of Vietnam. The long-lasting effect of formerly socialist institutions on entrepreneurship is apparently deeper than previously discovered in the prominent case of East-West Germany and East-West Europe as well. In the second empirical investigation, this dissertation focuses on how succession intentions differ from others (e.g., founding, and employee intentions) regarding career choice motivation, and the effect of three main elements of the theory of planned behavior (e.g., entrepreneurial attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) in transition economy – Vietnam context. The findings of this thesis suggest that an intentional founder is labeled with innovation, an intentional successor is labeled with roles motivation, and an intentional employee is labeled with social mission. Additionally, this thesis reveals that entrepreneurial attitude and perceived behavioral control are positively associated with the founding intention, whereas there is no difference in this effect between succession and employee intentions.

Appartient à l'ensemble documentaire : RsAlis000 ; Appartient à l'ensemble documentaire : RsAlis013

This item is part of the Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements (PRISM) digital collection, a collaborative initiative between Florida Atlantic University and University of Central Florida in the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM).

Citation: Smith, Fredrick John. Socialism in the United States. Senior thesis, Kansas State Agricultural College, 1895. ; Morse Department of Special Collections ; Introduction: It seems almost incredible that in a country where there is freedom with all its attendant advantages and possibilities; where there is such an immense acreage of tillable land; where not only the precious metals, gold and silver, but also the more common ones, lead, iron, copper, and zinc are dug from the earth in such abundance; where the school system approaches the ideal; where religion and politics are matters of opinion; in a word in a country where all those things are present which make for man's happiness and well being, there should be a feeling of unrest among its people. This, nevertheless, is the case in our land today. There has for years past been brewing a conflict in which has been arrayed on the one hand the laborer and the employed on the other the capitalist and the employer. Reasons for this conflict have been given by various schools of thinkers, prominent among them being the class called socialists, who hold that all this difference is attributable to capitalistic productions in competition in other words. Ever since the socialist have made their appearance in the United States there have been vague and erroneous ideas as to what their teachings are. They have been accused of holding every kind of belief, from the most absurd to those so impracticable that they could only have originated in the mind of one demented. By many they have been classed side by side with the anarchist, when the fact of the matter is that these two schools are diametrically opposite. The one would abolish all government, while the other would place all power in the hands of government. This confusion is no doubt due as much to the lack of unity among those professing to be socialists as to a lack of understanding on the part of the people.