【甚解小组--板凳】【TASK 5】原文抄抄抄之 issue素材

照无眠UID: 2764186

今天看了社会主义理论的相关内容~
社会主义理论的最终目的是建立一个理想社会，但是苏联的失败以及资本主义的成功让人不禁想到理想主义与面向现实的社会主义的区别神马的~
标出来的文字对我还是挺有启发的~

照无眠UID: 2764186

还是socialism~

周九UID: 2769406

两天mark~

照无眠UID: 2764186

依旧socialism，希望能构建出来一个detailed的例子

照无眠UID: 2764186

Utopia is a term for an ideal society. It has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempted to create an ideal society, and fictional societies portrayed in literature. The term is sometimes used pejoratively, in reference to an unrealistic ideal that is impossible to achieve, and has spawned other concepts, most prominently dystopia. The term was taken a fictional island in the Atlantic Ocean, written about by Sir Thomas More as the fictional character Raphael Hythloday (translated from the Greek as "knowing in trifles") as possessing a perfect socio-politico-legal system.

The word comes from Greek: οὐ, "not", and τόπος, "place" as well as εὖ, "good" or "well", and τόπος ["good place"]—the double meaning was probably intended.

照无眠UID: 2764186

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A socialist society is organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance; the extent of which varies in different types of socialism.[4][5] This ranges from the establishment of cooperative management structures to the abolition of all hierarchical structures in favor of free association.

As an economic system, socialism is the direct allocation of capital goods (means of production) to meet economic demands so that production is oriented toward use and accounting is based on some physical magnitude, such as calculation-in-kind, or a direct measure of labour time.[6][7] Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on individual merit/individual contribution.[8]

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Some currents of socialism, often referred to as state socialism, advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism; while social democrats advocate public control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Libertarian socialists and anarchists reject using the state to build socialism, arguing that socialism will, and must, arise spontaneously. They advocate direct worker-ownership of the means of production alternatively through independent syndicates, workplace democracies, or worker cooperatives.

Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society. Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen (1771–1858), tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon (1760–1825), who coined the term socialisme, advocated technocracy and industrial planning.[9] Saint-Simon, Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx advocated the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalise economic activity by eliminating the anarchy of capitalist production that results in instability and cyclical crises of overproduction.[10][11]

Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, such as Marxist-Leninists, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a single-party state that owns the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, East German and Chinese communist governments in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism[citation needed], combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[12]

周九UID: 2769406

3rd mark

照无眠UID: 2764186

3月6日 实用主义

Contemporary ReverberationsIn the twentieth century, the movements of logical positivism and ordinary language philosophy have similarities with pragmatism. Like pragmatism, logical positivism provides a verification criterion of meaning that is supposed to rid us of nonsense metaphysics. However, logical positivism doesn't stress action like pragmatism does. Furthermore, the pragmatists rarely used their maxim of meaning to rule out all metaphysics as nonsense. Usually, pragmatism was put forth to correct metaphysical doctrines or to construct empirically verifiable ones rather than to provide a wholesale rejection.

Ordinary language philosophy is closer to pragmatism than other philosophy of language because of its nominalist character and because it takes the broader functioning of language in an environment as its focus instead of investigating abstract relations between language and world.

Pragmatism has ties to process philosophy. Much of their work developed in dialogue with process philosophers like Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead, who aren't usually considered pragmatists because they differ so much on other points. (Douglas Browning et al. 1998; Rescher, SEP)

Behaviorism and functionalism in psychology and sociology also have ties to pragmatism, which is not surprising considering that James and Dewey were both scholars of psychology and that Mead became a sociologist.

Utilitarianism has some significant parallels to Pragmatism and John Stuart Mill espoused similar values.

[edit] Influence of pragmatism in social sciencesIncreasing attention is being given to pragmatist epistemology in social sciences, which have struggled with divisive debates over the status of social scientific knowledge [15][16]

Enthusiasts suggest that pragmatism offers an approach which is both pluralist and practical.[17]

[edit] Influence of Pragmatism in Public AdministrationThe classical pragmatism of John Dewey, William James and Charles Sanders Peirce has influenced research in the field of Public Administration. Scholars claim classical pragmatism had a profound influence on the origin of the field of Public Administration.[18][19] At the most basic level, public administrators are responsible for making programs "work" in a pluralistic, problems oriented environment. Public administrators are also responsible for the day to day work with citizens. Dewey's participatory democracy can be applied in this environment. Dewey and James notion of theory as a tool, helps administrators craft theories to resolve policy and administrative problems. Further, the birth of American public administration coincides closely with the period of greatest influence of the classical pragmatists.

Which pragmatism (classical pragmatism or neo-pragmatism) makes the most sense in public administration has been the source of debate. The debate began when Patricia Shields introduced Dewey's notion of the Community of Inquiry.[20] Hugh Miller objected to one element of the community of inquiry (problematic situation, scientific attitude, participatory democracy) - Scientific attitude.[21] A debate that included responses from a practitioner,[22] an economist,[23] a planner,[24] other Public Administration Scholars,[25][26] and noted philosophers [27][28] followed. Miller [29] and Shields [30][31] also responded.

In addition, applied scholarship of public administration that assesses charter schools,[32]contracting out or outsourcing,[33]financial management,[34] performance measurement,[35] urban quality of life initiatives,[36] and urban planning[37] explicitly draws on the ideas of classical pragmatism in the development of the conceptual framework and focus of analysis.

[edit] Pragmatism and FeminismSince the mid 1990s, feminist philosophers have re-discovered classical pragmatism as a source of feminist theories. Works by Seigfried,[38] Duran,[39] Keith,[40] and Whipps [41] explore the historic and philosophic links between feminism and pragmatism. The connection between pragmatism and feminism took so long to be rediscovered because pragmatism itself was eclipsed by logical positivism during the middle decades of the 20th century. As a result it was lost from feminine discourse. The very features of pragmatism that led to its decline are the characteristics that feminists now consider its greatest strength. These are “persistent and early criticisms of positivist interpretations of scientific methodology; disclosure of value dimension of factual claims”; viewing aesthetics as informing everyday experience; subordinating logical analysis to political, cultural and social issues; linking the dominant discourses with domination; “realigning theory with praxis; and resisting the turn to epistemology and instead emphasizing concrete experience”.[42] These feminist philosophers point to Jane Addams as a founder of classical pragmatism. In addition, the ideas of Dewey, Mead and James are consistent with many feminist tenets. Jane Addams, John Dewey & George Herbert Mead developed their philosophies as all three became friends, influenced each other and were engaged in the Hull-House experience and women’s rights causes.

[edit] CriticismAlthough many later pragmatists such as W.V.O. Quine were actually analytic philosophers, the most vehement criticisms of classical pragmatism came from within the analytic school. Bertrand Russell was especially known for his vituperative attacks on what he considered little more than epistemological relativism and short-sighted practicalism. Realists in general often could not fathom how pragmatists could seriously call themselves empirical or realist thinkers and thought pragmatist epistemology was only a disguised manifestation of idealism. (Hildebrand 2003)

Louis Menand argues[43] that during the Cold War, the intellectual life of the United States became dominated by ideologies. Since pragmatism seeks "to avoid the violence inherent in abstraction," it was not very popular at the time.

Neopragmatism as represented by Richard Rorty has been criticized as relativistic both by neoclassical pragmatists such as Susan Haack (Haack 1997) and by many analytic philosophers (Dennett 1998). Rorty's early analytical work, however, differs notably from his later work which some, including Rorty himself, consider to be closer to literary criticism than to philosophy - most criticism is aimed at this latter phase of Rorty's thought.