Capitalism - Science topic

Hi John,

Spellings of Latin nomina in ICZN (1999, 4th Edition), as opposite to common names, are regulated internationally and must be considered as the Law for all zoologists. Spellings of common names are regulated only by some institutions in few countries. So, they are NOT a law for all the World.

I agree with you that this situation has become 'a can of worms' due to that strange decision of AFS officials to Capitalize all common names of fishes.

AFS argued that 'capitalization helps to eliminate the ambiguity that accompanies names like blue catfish, lake trout, black brotula, and deepsea sole' (Page L et al. 2013. New Seventh Edition of Common and Scientific names of Fishes. Changes include capitalization of common names // Fisheries. Vol. 38. No 4, P. 189).

It looks like AFS officials consider authors & readers are halfwits, who cannot even understand from the text whether the word is the part of the common name or not. It also looks like one of attempts to eradicate homonyms in the language, which is ridiculous.

On the other hand, each common name is actually one more diagnostic character to distinguish between close similar species. At the same time, by using Capitalizations everywhere, we loss valuable information about a named species, which really required Capitalization - for example, was it named in honor of some geographical place, local proper name, great event or noble man.

Thus, my recommendation is - to publish with whose publishers & journals, who don't consider authors & readers are complete jerks :0)

Sincerely yours,

Boris

Yadav, thank you for taking the time to comment.

If you take the time to read the article you may see your comments fall out of place with respect to the nature of perfect red market theory/circular red markets and implications.

But I appreciate your try.

Taoreed, thank you for commenting.

Did you make time to read the article? Your comment is not directly related to the article.

You are right in what you indicate , and as Thomas Kuhn in his structure of scientific revolutions said you need to think outside be box or you need some one from outside the box to see what can be done that you can not be seen within the environment you are living in...That is why this paper is written FROM OUTSIDE THE BOX, so that the socially unfriendly capitalism box can be corrected to be socially friendly and how that could be done.

Respectfully yours;

Muhammad, thank you for taking the time to write.

I am focused right now just on sharing new ways of looking at the same development or methodological issues from the true sustainability angle. If you see some ideas you find interesting feel free to come up with either different way to expand them or to apply them.

Respectfully yours;

Moisés Romanazzi Torres No problem sir

Thank you for taking the time to write Kaddijatou.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

In my coming paper on Rethinking Democracy, the solution to this question using QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE THINKING is:

(i)(ELD.NLD) = T.M(Ee)i = THE STRUCTURE OF THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY

Thank you for taking the time to write. Hope you find some good food for thoughts in that article. Today I am writing about RETHINKING DEMOCRACY to understand the post 2016 Brexit and USEXIT structure of the liberal democracy landscape.....

Sharing here one of five already out there:

Thank you Giannoula for writing.

Lucio

"Far left countries are more likely to have heavily related social and fiscal issues. Far right countries are more likely to have heavily related social and fiscal issues." ????

Carolina, gracias por escribir

Es una buena idea leer los artículos antes de comentar para poder compartir las ideas de manera efectiva.

Su comentario es coherente con las recomendaciones dadas después de compartir las ideas en el artículo utilizando el marco P-A-ETK-IRL, puede encontrarlas al final del artículo REPENSANDO LA DEMOCRACIA 102 compartido anteriormente pero que usted no menciona.

Para comprender completamente qué ha cambiado en la estructura del panorama de la democracia liberal desde 2016, debemos pensar en tres conceptos: polarización/caos, polarización/caos dirigida y polarización/caos dirigida efectiva. La ultima forma cambia el panorama ya que esta es mas que solo polarización or emoción.

Aquí comparto las cuatro publicaciones, que están vinculadas por la misma teoría y pensamiento, una apoya a las otras. Y otras publicaciones estan por salir.

Thank you for writing Hamid, I wrote that article because despite all being written about what is and what is not sustainability RESEARCHERS AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS keep using sustainable development as sustainability or sustainability as sustainable development and worse, the UN defining sustainability as sustainable development and they should know better.

I expanded the theory of sustainability to include the theory of SUSTAINABILITY MARKETS to force food for thoughts:

Sharing here in good faith

2009

Beyond traditional sustainable development: Stating specific and general sustainability theory and sustainability indices using ideal present-absent qualitative comparative conditions

2003

Linking Sustainable Development Indicators by Means of Present/Absent Sustainability Theory and Indices: The Case of Agenda 21

2016

Beyond Green Market Thinking: What would be the Structure of the Perfect Sustainability Market?

2019

From Traditional Markets to Sustainability Markets: A Look at Markets Under Perfect Sustainability Market Competition

Shadrack, good day. If you read the article that aspect you describe is call the maximization driver, which is not consistent with true sustainability as true sustainability is about optimizing, not about maximizing....

Have a nice day!

Lucio

Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:

Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:

Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:

Exism movements once in power Lucio Muñoz can become permanent dictatorship threats within liberal democracies under majority rule and independent rule of law systems because of a variety of factors. One reason could be the tendency of these movements to consolidate power and marginalize dissenting voices, leading to an erosion of the democratic values that must be upheld for a functioning democracy. Additionally, such movements might manipulate the rules of the democratic system to suit their ambitions, including altering election processes, limiting press freedom, and suppressing opposition. Such actions can create an ongoing cycle of power retention, making these movements a permanent dictatorship threat. Finally, these movements often appeal to populist sentiments, which can generate a significant support base and maintain their hold on power long-term, even in countries that uphold the rule of law and majority rule.

Dear Leslie F. Noè:

Thank you for your informed comments.

Ed Tehovnik

You may find the following article interesting:

Yes, economics is a social science. It uses the scientific method in studying the economic behavior of individuals, institutions, and governments. Economics has theories, tools, and modern research methods that make it an integrated science.

Yes, the high cost of US healthcare is influenced by liberal capitalism and the high tuition fees of medical schools that admit students after completing a bachelor's degree, rather than directly from high school.

Yes, profiteering-from-disease has become the leading medical model in crony capitalism; that is bad news for the serious medical professional.

Maimonides / Musa bin Meymun would have no chance !

En préparatoire au COLLOQUE INTERNATIONAL SUR LA TRANSFORMATION STRUCTURELLE DES ÉCONOMIES ET LA FINANCE DE MARCHE qui se tiendra à Yaoundé Cameroun en avril 2025.

Nous proposons comme thématique centrale: "Capitalisme utilitaire et les marchés financiers face à la transformation structurelle des économies et la montée du patriotisme économique" le modèle capitaliste fait face à une approche dominante de protectionnisme. Ce qui oppose le capitalisme (libéralisme) à la transformation structurelles des économies et la politique d'import substitution.

Sure, if Jesus had come as a billomaire, salvation would have been for the rich and not for all. Alexander Ohnemus

It is a systemic problem of adapting human higher education towards the Information Age, e.g. reinventing university, college and research institutions. You Alexander Ohnemus are right to observe that debt, unemployment and stagnation come in one delivery, in economic and scientific terms.

Dear Trung thank you for commenting. Linear economy based capitalism/traditional market thinking had a social sustainability gap and an environmental sustainability gap, but since in 1848 when Karl Marx came out with the red marxism idea the environmental issue was not a critical issue so he used the social sustainability gap as a point of entry to flip capitalism thinking from economic freedom without equality to social equality without freedom.

In 1987 when the WCED advised us to go sustainable development thinking to leave fully socially and environmentally unfriendly economies behind.....we are now back to instead of linear traditional economies circular economies, with social and environmental sustainability gaps still embedded in them as going from linear to circular does not fixed the embedded sociall and environmental unfriendliness as social issues and environmental issues ARE EXTERNAL FACTORS to traditional economic thinking, be it linear or circular.

The existence of social and environmental sustainability gaps means that the circular economy will face red marxism treats or green marxism threat or yellow marxism threats each using the specific sustainability gap they need as point of entry and flip.

So if going circular is part of pretending to be socially and environmentally friendly and the social and environmental sustainability gap get worse and worse as the circular market expands as expected, then the threats will become if not really, real pressure point for paradigm shift to higher level models like green market, red markets, or sustainability markets.

Time will tell.

Thank you for commenting

Lucio

No. I see no reason why they should ban them. For some people also, this is the only feasible place to work. But I can see the argument to restrict the time a table is occupied, or to dedicate some tables for laptop use.

If someone will moderate then we could have a more formal debate about political persuasions.

Harry thank you for commenting. If you know that capitalism puts the economy first and only, you can state is market structure, both in terms of supply and demand or in terms of market equality and freedom. If you know that red socialism puts society first and only, then you can indicate its market structure, if you know that green marxism puts the environment first and only, you can express its market structure, if you know that yellow marxism puts society and environment first and only, then you can state its market strucrure....If you know that ecomarxism aimes at protection society and environment, you can state its market structure.....

This question is about only ECO-SOCIALISM and GREEN MARXISM, and the question is a very specific one and the answers are simple and short ones: Is Eco-socialism Green Marxism? Do they have the same model structure?

From the Beatles, Revolution:

Take two Okay

You say you want a revolution Well, you know We all want to change the world You tell me that it's evolution Well, you know We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction Don't you know that you can count me out (in)

Don't you know it's gonna be All right? Don't you know it's gonna be (all right) Don't you know it's gonna be (all right)

You say you got a real solution Well, you know We'd all love to see the plan You ask me for a contribution Well, you know We're all doing what we can

But if you want money for people with minds that hate All I can tell you is brother you have to wait

Don't you know it's gonna be (all right) Don't you know it's gonna be (all right) Don't you know it's gonna be (all right)

You say you'll change the constitution Well, you know We'd all love to change your head You tell me it's the institution Well, you know You better free your mind instead

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know it's gonna be (all right) Don't you know it's gonna be (all right) Don't you know it's gonna be (all right)

All, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all, all right All right, all right, all right, all right, all right

Schumpeter was thinking in economic cycles, based on the works of Kondratieff; Christensen focuses on a more limited temporal moment of such economic processes. In this sense, Tieu-Tieu Le Phung , Schumpeter is more macro-economics (and political economy), while Christensen is more micro-economics (and management).

Maxim, good day, Could you please read the context provided under the question to be able to guide you into the nature of this question? You need to know what is a green market and what is a dwarf green market as they are not the same, and you need to be familiar with the current 2023 green marxism threat to dwarf green capitalism.

About green markets and dwarf green markets

Capitalism is an existential threat to critical culture. The ideology infects our education system, inhibiting the free development of human potential. Once students pick a major, testing and grades are used to rank and sort. Similar systems are used to pit them against each other for access to law, business, and medical school. They determine who receives scholarships that lessen one’s debt burden, or plum entry jobs with Google. And now, generative AI beckons in the form of programs like ChatGPT. After all, why do the intellectual lifting yourself when all that matters is the boring terminus, a “useful” degree?

Amid this capitalistic system of education, the question becomes: Can teachers demonstrate forms of opposition? Can anti-capitalism actually be taught?

Every other economic system in human history was born, evolved, and ceased to exist at some point. The most reasonable expectation is that capitalism will also cease to exist one day.Now that so many people have realised that the capitalist system is riddled with problems, they want a clear explanation about the functioning of the system. They are dissatisfied and impatient with how school courses, politicians’ statements, and mainstream media treat the subject. Basic economics literacy is notoriously low in the United States even as its citizens show great interest in the financial aspects of their lives. So this short article aims to present the system’s essentials.

Green capitalism refers to an economic approach that seeks to reconcile economic growth and profit-making with environmental sustainability. It proposes that businesses and industries can adopt environmentally friendly practices, technologies, and products while still generating profits. The underlying idea is that market forces and private enterprise, when directed towards environmentally friendly solutions, can lead to positive environmental outcomes.

On the other hand, "dwarf green capitalism" is not a widely recognized term or concept in mainstream discourse as per my knowledge. It's possible that it could refer to a niche or emerging theory or be used in a specific context that is not widely known.

Dear Ange, good day, Thank you for writing and see you are familiar with related material by me. My goal this year is to expand those ideas in terms of equality and freedom.

I have written and share several articles on how to give structure to all possible dominant component based development models, and link those structures to paradigm shift and paradigm shift theory from the point of view of dominant component equality and freedom.... For example, red socialism as you know it is a social equality without freedom model so you can represent it by a social dictatorship structure. Democratic capitalism is an economic freedom without equality model so you can represent it as a liberal economy model. Non-democratic capitalism is an economy without freedom and equality so you can represent it as an economic dictatorship.

Once you know how to write or express those structures in terms of dominant component equality and freedom, then you can provide analytical support to all the things you listed in your comment as well as be able to answer the current question using this freedom and equality thinking.

One of my goals this year is to expand these ideas and apply them for example to state the paradigm evolution path of red socialism had it had been able to win the cold war by going economy friendly and what would have come next and what is at the end or to state the paradigm evolution path of non-democratic capitalism if it were to outsmart democratic capitalism and what would come next and what is at the end or what is the paradigm evolution path of democratic capitalism if it loses to non-democratic capitalism and what comes next and what is at the end.

Attached I shared the figure 3 of a paper I am working on to present the theory on where to base and complete those goals of the year mentioned above, notice that democratic capitalism(DC), red socialism(RS), and non-democratic capitalism(NDC) are not yet represented there in terms of equality and freedom yet:

How the models needed to answer the relevant question here can be stated in terms of equality and freedom and how paradigm evolution in this case is expected to work can be found at:

Dear Dr. Taher;

The future of artificial intelligence is still being researched, but it already involves architecture and those who practice it. Our goal is to investigate how the development of artificial intelligence will impact the field of architecture and the future employment of architects. It sparks a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of how Intelligence can advance the field of architecture. Architects' and designers' roles will actually change as a result of AI. Artificial intelligence will have the power to develop speedy mass creation in the future, and designers will simply need to set the restrictions and filter the AI scheme according to aesthetics, client, or market requirement. Artificial intelligence has the capacity to quickly produce a broad spectrum of designs in addition to fully taking into account the quantitative processing of many subjective and objective variables.

En las zonas rurales de sur de Tucumán, el oeste de Ccatamarca y el sur de la Rioja, se desenvolvió un modo de producción denominado "comunitarismo rural" que se basó en el uso compartido de tierras, aguadas y bosques por parte delideres rurales que acuerdan un eticidad común en el manejo de manadas y "bañados"....

Hello Richard Flamio Jr.

It sounds funny but I usually do the second type of the examples you used (Hifiasm, Augustus) even though that is not the way they were originally described. In addition, I would use the name of the company and origin in parentheses after the name of the software (rather than names of the people). That seems to be the convention in most journals.

I would like to remind you that as much as what is written, the results on the field are at least as important as what is written. Applications produce results that are at least as important as what is written. After all, if there is an expectation of the perfection of the field on the subject, the results in the field are open to discussion.

Dear Lucio, I too am a scientist, and I understand your position. How does equality, beyond that of opportunity, work in any economy? What perpetuates an economy without innovation? Hopefully, your list of publications can provide some insight.

Good luck.

"marxism targets only flawed forms of capitalism" This statement makes no sense to me at all. Marxism provides a critique of capitalism in ALL its forms; there are no "unflawed" forms of capitalism in Marx's analysis. Furthermore, I don't read those talking about taking Nature more into account than Marx did - what I assume you mean by "green Marxism" - as juxtaposing that (as you are doing) to some preoccupation with " saving society". Even in Marx's own analysis society and nature are analyzed as interwoven and part of his critique of capitalism was a critique of how capitalism ruptures the natural metabolism of human/nature inter-relations. So your "yellow Marxism", defined as "saving society and nature at the same time from capitalism" has been there from the get-go, in both Marx and Engels' writings. The neglect/exploitation of Nature by what you are calling "red" Marxists, which I take to mean Soviet-style Marxists, flowed from their abandonment of Marxism as anything other than a convenient ideology serving to hide their pursuit of the same goals as Western capitalism, i.e., maximum exploitation of workers AND nature via increased management by the state, which resulted in a new form of "state capitalism". Lenin, after all, was frank about following the German model of state capitalism, with the Soviet Union differing only in the ASSERTION (but not the reality) that the state would be controlled by workers instead of capitalists. Result: the same kind of exploitation of both humans and nature as the rest of capitalism.

I think it is more about taste than anything else, if I had the choice, I would to capitalize headings as it is more attractive to highlight the content on the one hand, and on the other hand the differentiation in writing the letters gives the impression that there is something important to read.

But at the end of the day, we remain subject to the journal's guidelines when publishing either we prefer capitalization or not.

You are an original thinker and researcher; I have taken your works on sustainability into account. Astronomy replaced astrology, chemistry replaced alchemy; the same process is currently in the making, with respect to social science: what is now understood as economics (mainly a mathematized derivate of private wealth accumulation and subsequent management practices) will be replaced by a more scientific model of human economic action, cleaned up from ideological wishlists. I do regard the profound study of other authors as a precondition of learning, dear Lucio Muñoz Most of my articles and books, i.e. my own work and views, are on my RG account (e.g.

).

Dear Lucio,

Interesting question. To answer your question: Does green market paradigm shift avoidance opens the door for green socialism ideas to flourish? - I say so.

Kind regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Dear Lucio,

Yes, but unfortunately only in theory at the moment. In order for the socio-economic system built on the model of full green, pro-environmental, pro-climate socialism based on a sustainable, green circular economy to be successful in comparison with (as you call it) dwarf green capitalism, it is necessary to significantly increase the pro-environmental awareness of citizens and significantly increase the scale of creation and implementation of new eco-innovations and green technologies on an industrial scale, thanks to which it will be possible to significantly accelerate the efficient implementation of the process of pro-environmental transformation of the classic growth, brown, linear excess economy into a sustainable, green, zero-emission zero-growth economy and a circular economy, and to build a system of economically profitable, pro-environmental and pro-climate economic ventures.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

You may want to check the following paper out:

Financial market development and bank capitalization ratio: evidence from developing countries

OF Etudaiye-Muhtar, R Ahmad, TA Olaniyi… - …, 2017 - journals.sagepub.com

Dear Lucio,

I too believe that what you have described as the nature of human population dynamics is dependent on the nature of the dynamics of the traditional market structure that serves them. Well, in the short term (months and quarters) it is citizens who adjust their functioning to seasonal changes in the level of production, income, purchases made etc. In the medium term (several to sometimes a dozen years), changes in the rate of economic growth that take place as part of business cycles translate into changes in citizens' income and consumption levels, and this then influences citizens' decisions to start a family and have children. On the other hand, in the longer term (from several years to several decades), the long-term economic processes, the changing sectoral and industry structure of the economy, the significantly changing level of economic development, production, income, etc., translate into significant changes in the living standards of citizens and the prevailing purchasing, housing and living standards. Subsequently, these significant changes in the economic processes taking place, in economic development, including the public products and services offered by the state (education, health care, public utilities, social assistance) and consequently also in the living standards of citizens largely determine the fertility rate, housing standards, the product and service structure of purchases made, the length of the average life expectancy of citizens, possibly also the process of population ageing and other changes in the social structure. Consequently, there are correlations between economic development and structural changes realised in the medium and long term in markets and economic sectors and changes in citizens' living standards, changes in consumption standards, living conditions, economic decisions made, fertility levels, citizens' life expectancy, social processes, etc.

Regards,

Dariusz

Lucio Muñoz : Thanks for your kind response to my comment. I must tell you that I am a decades-long, severe and antagonistic critic of modern official theoretical physics and cosmology; both in and out of RG. One of my forums in RG on Einstein’s theories of relativity was closed down by an exceptional ruling of the RG management after it ran for a year and a half and attracted many physicists from around the world. I can see that someone totally unknown to me, made a collage of my comments in that forum and posted it online at the following link:

But I understand that your question in this forum is not directed to persons like me (which is rather an exception), but of course, is very relevant in the face of the present crisis of credibility of modern scientific theories and the existing paradigm. I definitely welcome your efforts in this forum.

I must also say that I do not doubt the intellectual honesty of Kuhn; but in my opinion it was a naïve exercise; because it did not consider the harsh realities of society of conflicting interest groups as I discussed in my comment above. But Karl Popper in my opinion, was definitely an opportunist and trickster – a turncoat “Marxists”, used and promoted by British imperial authority on the one hand to bestow “scientific” benediction on the esoteric theories of relativity by Albert Einstein, making those Kosher (because such theories cannot be falsified and by default are established as objective truth!). On the other hand, used as a “determinist” in the polemic on quantum uncertainty and in the ideological conflict and geopolitical rivalry of the time.

Best regards.

I think the crisis of overproduction is being met by increasing the rapidity of transactions (multiplying the transactions) by a small percentage of the global market under the impact of internet connections and increased commodification of delivery and home services, basically, rather than expansion of the number of buyers in the market. If you consider the African continent (home to about 25% of the world's population) and much of Latin America, and India, most of the world's people are not in the capitalist labor force. Most are in the so-called informal sector - organized by domination/oppression, not wage labor.

I would agree with Marx, the cost of labor is determined by the cost of reproduction of the worker - by cost of subsistence - so not a direct relationship between value realization and wages. Lots of value does not mean wages will go up unless a certain type of worker must be reproduced and temporarily if a shortage exists. Today, only a relatively small number of fully developed capacity workers are needed, and their lifestyle costs a lot, so their cost of reproduction wage is way above subsistence. However, a large portion of the existing workforce is struggling to maintain subsistence level, so much so that a guaranteed income in the U.S. capitalist core, is conceived to prevent political crisis as wages generalize across the global system stagnant in the face of inflating prices.

With respect to "How labor and overproduction is related to the value crisis?", since the secular trend to replacement of workers by technology creates the change in the "organic composition of capital," whereby more materials are passed through (higher capitalization) with less added labor (variable capital), huge amounts of good with tiny amounts of value added must be sold to realize the same amount or comparable amount of surplus value as when more labor was utilized. Conditions of surplus labor and labor paid at the global average endanger realization of value as they cannot pay even low market prices.

It seems to me that as the amount of surplus labor in the form of the informal sector grows globally, the key for America and Europe is to keep the starving masses away from them (don't report on them in the media) and to take over feeding their own surplus populations, using taxes to provide income which they can then spend. But sometimes the middle-class high paid workers revolt against paying taxes to feed the poor. Militarism helps because the middle-class understands that armed domination is necessary and are willing to feed the people as armed forces.

In other words, since the workforce is global, only a few leading functions require core sector workers, and the rest of the workforce wages across the system, are declining in relative terms. Perhaps the system will reach crisis change when the surplus level reaches enough people with some skill who will refuse the labor for wages and demand their right to capital (to "own" it, i.e., control it according to their needs not profitability) in the form of land, natural resources, market places like Amazon, as well as productive capacity, and share it for self-reproduction, in an arrangement absent the pressure of market competition or forced centralization of capital.

Dear Lucio

What I tried to say is that, in my view it is characteristic to the sustainability-related discussion in economics to disregard the factor time when talking about pricing and equillibrium.

Regards

Michael

Steven, nobody is accusing anybody here. When you say that an entity has more power than another in the market and that is why there is no equality and freedom, by definition you are not talking about Adam Smith's perfect market...

If you look carefully at the pareto efficient and optimal point/conditions of the perfect traditional market, you can not be there without freedom and equality, but if you assume equality away you can be there only with freedom.

Let's leave it here. I am here to exchange ideas, not to impose ideas.

Respectfully yours;

The analysis of the inferior efficiency of wholly socialist centrally planned economies vis-à-vis social market economies is a multifaceted and complex problem. Answering the above question, I conclude that the aforementioned lower efficiency occurred in completely socialist centrally planned economies, because central planning with economic entities that function as state and not private and operate in the absence of real market structures and competition is not motivated to improve economic and financial efficiency., is not effectively activated to innovative solutions, in which the consumption of inputs should be optimized and limited while increasing the efficiency and achieved economic effects, satisfying the needs of citizens, gaining a significant position in competitive markets (because these attributes typical of market structures in the systems of socialist economies centrally planned for reasons, ideological assumptions do not exist).

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

What an incredible and fruitful this discussion turn out to be. Much thanks and regards towards Stefan Lindstrom , Rubén Corvalán , Adam Sulich , Sachin Suknunan . And thank you Firuz Alimov for your different insights. I've not thought that way. Your POV was different which i appreciate. Also, thank you Stefan Lindstrom for TEDX video recommendation, i enjoyed it.

Thanks; I agree with you, we need to leave here.

Have a nice evening.

Mohamed

Dear Lucio,

Dear Dariusz,

If You do not analyze in this respect the communist China politically and its capitalism economically nowadays, and Yugoslavian system before 1990-s, which can be characterized as "self-governance socialism" politically and "market socialism" economically, You will lack the main points in Your raised problem. Additionally You need to analyze carefully "the Swedish model" of the seventies in 20-th century with its "functional democratic socialism" politically, Meidner "wage-earners funds" economically and elements which implemented economic efficiency and social justice at the same time (as Saltsjobaden agreement of social dialogue from 1938), etc. Other countries are much less important to analyze in this respect.

The People's Republic of China is the only country that has been able to build capitalism under the banner of communism.

Left-wing economists are convinced that such a model gives the maximum advantage precisely because of centralization. But if you talk to the Chinese themselves, they will say that they did what they do in the entire developed world: they decentralized the economic sphere of life to such an extent until it led to success. The Chinese were carrying out structural reforms. But they did it carefully and wrote about it only after each measure carried out proved its success. Why are China's reforms successful? This is a matter of decentralization. Today, the economy in China is much more decentralized than, for example, in the entire post-Soviet space or in South America.

Dear Lucio, you are welcome

Outwardly, these two systems may be similar, but they have a different structure of existence. Capitalism must breathe freely. And this is possible only in a democratic society. But democratic capitalism is also not perfect. In any case, internally these two systems are very different, and for example Bolivian capitalism does not look like Chinese capitalism.

Characteristic postmodern society information capitalist economy that is, the so-called speculative economy which is imbued with neoliberal ideology whereby most states democratic arranged except the USA where liberal is present politically arranging. A society in which we live it is also post-industrial in which agriculture and industry are losing the role they once had. In fact, not correct to say that these two sectors go out, but the service sector has already gained importance in which it opens a vast number of jobs, while in the previous two we have a considerable reduction of the same. Economic globalization enabled the transfer of production units from developed countries to underdeveloped countries where employees do the same job as their colleagues for 8 to 10 times fewer wages. Globalization processes have affected all world societies, not only society Western Europe and the US but also the rest of the world.

Dear Lucio,

Yes, in its pure form, 100%. in terms of both models, neither of them ever existed and never really exists. There was and there is no real economy that would be 100 percent. socialist (according to the theory of Karol Marx) and there is no real economy that would be 100 percent market economy (according to Adam Smith's theory). while the currently existing economies mostly represent different formulas of the model of the social market economy as a mixed economy, i.e. containing specific private and public sectors related to each other in various configurations, market issues with central planning, market structures and public institutions, commercial economic entities and shaped and the socio-economic policy implemented by the government, including social policy, the market financial system present in modern economies (mainly the sector of commercial banks and investment funds) and the public financial system (public institutions, financial transfers, state budget and budgets of local government units), and private products offered on competitive markets and purchased by individual citizens, and public goods offered by the state to society and financed from the sources of the state finance system. In individual countries, the division of the economy into commercial and public sectors occurs similarly in the social market economy model, while in particular, there may be many differences.

Greetings, Have a nice day, Stay healthy!

Dariusz Prokopowicz

It helps your research reading Bruce R. Scott, The Concept of Capitalism (Heidelberg-London-New York: Springer, 2009) that explains capitalism as a "system of governance" rebuilding the concept from the classic Fernand Braudel "Civilization and Capitalism" (the original French has a very different title). More recently Scott published "Capitalism. Its Origins and Evolution as a System

of Governance" (Heidelberg-London-New York: Springer, 2011). These are the arguments and problematic stressed by Scott after, he told us, a visit to China:

" After the trip and the readings, one book stood out for its influence on my thinking: Fernand Braudel’s three-volume History of Civilization and Capitalism, 15th Century to the 18th Century. In the third volume, Braudel noted something that was completely new to me, to wit that average incomes circa 1500 were relatively equal across the most settled areas of the world at the time, which I took to mean Japan, China, India, present-day Turkey and Iraq, and Europe. The spread between the high- and low-income areas was estimated to be about two-to-one. Yet by the time I was doing my reading in Braudel, that spread had broadened to approximately thirty-to-one because of growth in the high incomes. This increased spread in relative incomes and therefore economic performance raised some immediate questions; for instance, what was it that had led to the rise of Europe, in relative terms, from circa 1500 onward? In hindsight it seems supremely ironic that Braudel was never able to ask if what he was searching for might have been hidden right in front of him, in the title of his book, i.e., in the European creation and adoption of an early concept of capitalism as a system of governance for many, but by no means all of their respective economies. Braudel was never able to define capitalism, as he readily admitted in his second volume, and, perhaps as a consequence, he never considered the possibility that the key to the relative rise of European incomes might have lain in the creation of that capitalist model of governance. Indeed, Braudel did not go looking for a model of governance; instead, he seems to have been looking for some natural force or forces that would explain the relative progress of Europe" (etc., p. XIII).

RE: "Most of the questions have no answer either because the links of researchgate did not lead them to the forums of relevance or they were just ignored "

Did you try using the "share" feature (bottom right corner) of your questions to direct them to colleagues in your network?

It's really a truthful story in the research work now days which you have highlighted in a great way. I agree with your question. My advice is just to you professor that work hard and continue your efforts inshallah in future Allah will help you......

My best wishes for your upcoming work.....

Exactly. However, more planning is needed from now own. Thank you so much for your enlightening and innovative thoughts

Official plans address reduction of gender inequality and establishing research priorities in academia. The former is difficult to achieve due to conservative cultures. Establishing research priorities produces certain mainstreams.

The general line is bringing academia, state and business into dialog and strengthening their collaboration.

"Every place on our planet affords its own unique experience ", Baatarzorig Batjargal

https://onartandaesthetics.com/2019/12/21/every-place-on-our-planet-affords-its-own-unique-cognitive-experience-baatarzorig-batjargal/

Examples where EX-ACT has been used as ex-post evaluation include e.g Niger (Projet d'Action Communautaire pour la Résilience Climatique), Morocco (Plan Maroc Vert), Madagascar (all IFAD projects), India (Sodic Soil III project), Brazil (Santa Catarina Rural Competitiveness Project, Rio de Janeiro Sustainable Rural Development Project) and Nepal (IFAD, Leasehold Forestry livestock project).

Stephen, good day....Both Brexconomics and Trumpconomics are extreme forms of economic thinking inconsistent with normal economic thinking as they are based on choas....they are the type thinking, and the only type of thinking that can support the agenda of an extreme democratic outcome under an extreme liberal democracy model as it is the case with BREXIT and USEXIT.

Thank you for your comment

The most frightening thing for new employees is when they are entering their jobs poditiond and not get properly trained or undertained according to their skills and diplomas, using two categories of employees with the same skills, the ones highly trained and the others undertrained and compkementary work force.This happrns to us in Greece at public sector especially.

Also in combination with the undermining of the public education vs private colleges, where the last having open access with the big companies and multi organisations, leads to two unequal categories of active employees

Dear Paul. my apologies if I sound too rough, I am here just to share ideas, not to impose ideas.

Just as red socialist countries missed the opportuniy to transition from economy unfriendly red socialism to economy friendly red socialism to close the social sustainability gap step by step as Karl Marx wanted pure capitalist countries have not find the way to shift properly either to socially friendly capitalism or green capitalism.....in both cases the shift came and they did not see it coming just as Thomas Kuhn said it happens....those inside the box do not see it, those outside the box will see it,,,in borh cases we are now trying to fix what they left us....

But China under this red market knowledge gap made some key moves way before the 1991 fall of red socialism that allow it to maintain political control of a dwarf red socialism model left as they slowly allowed capitalism in....

You may find the following article interesting as you are familiar with things on the ground in China....

Nationalization as Privatization in Reverse: Understanding the Nature of the Commons to Identify a Possible Point of Optimal Nationalization.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281244564_Nationalization_as_Privatization_in_Reverse_Understanding_the_Nature_of_the_Commons_to_Identify_a_Possible_Point_of_Optimal_Nationalization

Feel free to comment any time

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Sharing food for thoughts:

An Overview of the 1848 Karl Marx's Capitalism Fix Dilemmas: How a Step by Step Road Towards Economy Friendly Red Socialism May Have Looked Had Marx Stated it?

Rej Kasi feel free to check my bachlor thesis on RG. I made a relatively comprehensive analysis of the economic conceptions rooted in the process of codifying European treaties. Even if the work is in French and applies mainly to Western and Southern Europe, the fundamentals are present. For information purposes, the work corresponds quite amply to the traditional requirements of a Bachelor thesis so it can serve as a structuring framework. To go even further in different forms of capitalism and work in European political economy, I recommend the work of Bruno Amable (2017) and Stafano Palombarini.

Good day Usama, thank you for taking the time to comment.

Markets shift from perfect market to perfect market when corrected so the 2012 Rio plus 20 marked a shift from perfect traditional market thinking to perfect green market thinking to move towards green economies and green growth after correcting it to reflect the environmental costs of doing business....These are free markets so no government intervention is needed if they are set up well and therefore they are working out well. So the UNCSD at rio plus 20 was not calling for goverment intervention, it was calling for governments to shift their structures from traditional economies to green economies, both free market economies.

If there is permanent government intervention, there are no free markets....so permanent government intervention to achieve environmental goals means NO FREE GREEN MARKETS, but what I call "dwarf green markets".

If government intervention is necessary, especially permanently means the markets are not properly set up....

I appreciate your comment