Negara sosialis - Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu, ensiklopedia bebas

Negara sosialis merupakan sejenis negara berdaulat yang dikhususkan secara perlembagaannya kepada penubuhan sistem sosialisme. Istilah "negara komunis" sering disamakan dengan negara sosialis khususnya di negara-negara Barat untuk mengertikan negara-negara sosialis berparti satu yang ditadbir oleh parti politik Marxis–Leninis (atau Titois bagi Yugoslavia) biarpun negara-negara berkenaan secara rasminya merupakan negara sosialis yang sedang mendirikan sistem sosialisme. Negara-negara berkenaan tidak sesekali menggelar diri sebagai negara komunis ataupun pernah menubuhkan masyarakat komunis.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Gagasan negara sosialis timbul daripada pengetahuan am tentang sosialisme negara, iaitu perspektif politik yang menyatakan bahawa golongan pekerja harus menggunakan kuasa negara dan dasar-dasar pemerintahan untuk menubuhkan sistem ekonomi sosialis. Konsep negara sosialis rata-rata dianjurkan oleh golongan Leninis and Marxis-Leninis, malah kebanyakan negara sosialis telah ditubuhkan oleh parti-parti politik yang menganut ideologi-ideologi politik tersebut dalam apa jua ragamnya. Konsep negara sosialis dikira sudah tidak diperlukan ataupun bercanggah dengan matlamatnya, dan oleh itu ditolak oleh segelintir pejuang Marxisme klasik dan sosialisme libertarian, dan pemikir-pemikir politik yang memandang negara moden sebagai hasil sampingan daripada kapitalisme yang tiada fungsinya dalam sistem sosialis.^[4]

Negara sosialis dalam erti kata Marxis-Leninis merupakan negara berdaulat di bawah penguasaan sebuah parti barisan hadapan yang mengatur pembangunan ekonomi, politik dan sosial sesebuah negara ke arah merealisasikan sosialisme. Dari segi ekonominya, ini melibatkan pembangunan ekonomi kapitalis negara beserta pengumpulan modal arahan negara dengan matlamat jangka panjang untuk membina kuasa produktif negara sambil memupuk revolusi sosialis sejagat.^[5]^[6]

Negara sosialis tidak harus disamakan dengan negara demokrasi liberal berbilang parti yang ditadbir oleh sebuah parti sosialis di mana negara tidak terikat kepada pembentukan sistem sosialisme mengikut perlembagaannya. Dalam hal-hal demikian, sistem politik dan jentera-jentera kerajaan tidak dibentuk khusus untuk membangunkan sosialisme.

Rujukan

^ Wilczynski, J. (2008). The Economics of Socialism after World War Two: 1945–1990. Aldine Transaction. m/s. 21. ISBN 978-0202362281. Contrary to Western usage, these countries describe themselves as 'Socialist' (not 'Communist'). The second stage (Marx's 'higher phase'), or 'Communism' is to be marked by an age of plenty, distribution according to needs (not work), the absence of money and the market mechanism, the disappearance of the last vestiges of capitalism and the ultimate 'whithering away' of the State.
^ Steele, David Ramsay (September 1999). From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court. m/s. 45. ISBN 978-0875484495. Among Western journalists the term 'Communist' came to refer exclusively to regimes and movements associated with the Communist International and its offspring: regimes which insisted that they were not communist but socialist, and movements which were barely communist in any sense at all.
^ Rosser, Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr. (July 23, 2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. m/s. 14. ISBN 978-0262182348. Ironically, the ideological father of communism, Karl Marx, claimed that communism entailed the withering away of the state. The dictatorship of the proletariat was to be a strictly temporary phenomenon. Well aware of this, the Soviet Communists never claimed to have achieved communism, always labeling their own system socialist rather than communist and viewing their system as in transition to communism.
^ Schumpeter, Joseph (2008). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper Perennial. m/s. 169. ISBN 978-0-06-156161-0. But there are still others (concepts and institutions) which by virtue of their nature cannot stand transplantation and always carry the flavor of a particular institutional framework. It is extremely dangerous, in fact it amounts to a distortion of historical description, to use them beyond the social world or culture whose denizens they are. Now ownership or property – also, so I believe, taxation – are such denizens of the world of commercial society, exactly as knights and fiefs are denizens of the feudal world. But so is the state (a denizen of commercial society).
^ Richard Fleming. "Lenin's Conception of Socialism: Learning from the early experiences of the world's first socialist revolution". Forward, Vol. 9, No. 1, Spring/Summer 1989. Dicapai pada 25 December 2015.
^ Lenin's Collected Works Vol. 27, p. 293, quoted by Aufheben Diarkibkan 2004-03-18 di Wayback Machine.

[The_Economics_of_Socialism_after_World_War_Two:_1945-1990-1] Wilczynski, J. (2008). The Economics of Socialism after World War Two: 1945–1990. Aldine Transaction. m/s. 21. ISBN 978-0202362281. Contrary to Western usage, these countries describe themselves as 'Socialist' (not 'Communist'). The second stage (Marx's 'higher phase'), or 'Communism' is to be marked by an age of plenty, distribution according to needs (not work), the absence of money and the market mechanism, the disappearance of the last vestiges of capitalism and the ultimate 'whithering away' of the State.

[2] Steele, David Ramsay (September 1999). From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court. m/s. 45. ISBN 978-0875484495. Among Western journalists the term 'Communist' came to refer exclusively to regimes and movements associated with the Communist International and its offspring: regimes which insisted that they were not communist but socialist, and movements which were barely communist in any sense at all.

[3] Rosser, Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr. (July 23, 2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. m/s. 14. ISBN 978-0262182348. Ironically, the ideological father of communism, Karl Marx, claimed that communism entailed the withering away of the state. The dictatorship of the proletariat was to be a strictly temporary phenomenon. Well aware of this, the Soviet Communists never claimed to have achieved communism, always labeling their own system socialist rather than communist and viewing their system as in transition to communism.

[4] Schumpeter, Joseph (2008). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper Perennial. m/s. 169. ISBN 978-0-06-156161-0. But there are still others (concepts and institutions) which by virtue of their nature cannot stand transplantation and always carry the flavor of a particular institutional framework. It is extremely dangerous, in fact it amounts to a distortion of historical description, to use them beyond the social world or culture whose denizens they are. Now ownership or property – also, so I believe, taxation – are such denizens of the world of commercial society, exactly as knights and fiefs are denizens of the feudal world. But so is the state (a denizen of commercial society).

[marxists1989-5] Richard Fleming. "Lenin's Conception of Socialism: Learning from the early experiences of the world's first socialist revolution". Forward, Vol. 9, No. 1, Spring/Summer 1989. Dicapai pada 25 December 2015.

[marxists293-6] Lenin's Collected Works Vol. 27, p. 293, quoted by Aufheben Diarkibkan 2004-03-18 di Wayback Machine.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]