James' World 2

Hmmmm … Followers of Christ know the answer!

Click the link below the picture

.

The big bang wasn’t a bang in the traditional sense—but it was nonetheless the start of important things: for one, space; another, time. Thirdly, it began the conditions and processes that eventually resulted in us humans, who can sit here and wonder about space and time. The Big Bang was, effectively, the beginning of the universe. According to the logic of human brains, it seems like there must have been something before the Big Bang, even if “before” is the wrong word because there was no time until after.

The good news for us is that physicists do have ways of thinking about—and even empirically studying—the origins of the origin of the universe. Counterintuitive and impossible as it may seem, cosmologists are even making progress in determining which wild ideas might peel back the veil on that early era, even though it remains inaccessible to telescopes.

For millennia, what happened before and at the beginning of the universe was not a question scientists could even scratch at. Cosmological queries were the dominion of philosophers, says Jenann Ismael—herself a philosopher of physics at Johns Hopkins University. The most fundamental query, of course, is where we come from—a question as popular among philosophers as it is with the rest of us. Other questions, Ismael says, include doozies such as “What are space and time? Does time have a beginning? Does space have boundaries?”

Even after cosmology became a hard science, the field was a bit sketchy, Ismael says. “The science was one-and-a-half facts,” she adds. The sentiment, she says, is usually attributed to physicist James Jeans. But that has changed in the past century or so as the philosophers’ musings have wandered into the realm of theory, experiment, and data. “These old conceptual questions are arising in ways that have new angles, a new spin, and a new framework,” Ismael continues.

It’s unclear whether science as a discipline—and scientists as people—will ever be able to answer some questions definitively. After all, no one can “see” before the Big Bang, and no one will ever be able to—at least not directly. But the current and future universe, researchers are learning, may contain clues about the distant past.

And as scientists push the boundaries of what can be known, they are testing their theories about the before before—the only way to get closer to potential truth. “I’m happy to listen to any framework, but I only start taking it seriously when it produces a clean observational target that a real instrument can go after,” says Brian Keating, a cosmologist at the University of California, San Diego. “If there isn’t a discriminant you can measure, you’re doing metaphysics with equations.”

Here are three ideas that he and other scientists take seriously about the cosmos’s ultimate origins.

The No-Boundary Proposal

Quantum mechanics is the physics of the extremely small, ruled by statistics and uncertainty. It’s also what may have shaped the early universe. To understand the quantum cosmos, scientists calculate the probability of a given output from a certain input.

In cosmology, the “output” is the universe as it looks today. “The question is: What should the input be?” says Jean-Luc Lehners, former head of the Theoretical Cosmology group at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute) in Germany.

Physicists can break up the problem into chunks of outputs and inputs. If they consider the modern universe to be the output, they can try to figure out what input might have produced it. Then they can step backward by taking that input as a new output and determine what conditions earlier in the universe might have produced that state, and so on. They can theoretically (if they have a lot of time on their hands) do that forever, going in steps to reach the before before—and even before that.

That infinite regression, however, didn’t make sense to physicists Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, who worked on the question together in the 1980s. They decided to eliminate the universe’s ultimate input—its “beginning.” Instead, they formed a model of the universe called the no-boundary proposal. They suggested time and space form a closed, rounded surface: a four-dimensional hemisphere of spacetime.

Does that not make sense? Try this: imagine the universe like the globe of Earth. The big bang is the North Pole. There is no “before” it, just as there is no north of north. Before becomes irrelevant as a concept. “It’s almost like a Zen idea,” Lehners says. And it’s one he’s toying with in calculations to see if he can re-create the universe we see today from a round place with no north of north.

“The no-boundary proposal has a decent amount of support, or at least interest, within the physics community,” says Sean Carroll, a professor of natural philosophy at Johns Hopkins University. He notes that some scientists worry about how well-defined the idea is, but he finds it to be a “natural starting point,” given what we know about quantum gravity.

A Bouncing, Cyclic Cosmos

Paul Steinhardt, a physicist at Princeton University, has another idea about what happened before the universe as we know it began. It stands in opposition to an idea that he helped shape: this concept suggests that, after the Big Bang, spacetime expanded very quickly for a very short period of time called inflation. The inflation scenario is meant to explain why the universe looks flat and similar in every place our telescopes can look.

After helping to establish inflation theory, however, Steinhardt started doubt the idea—in part because it has required constant tweaking to keep it consistent with our measurements of the cosmos. “It’s really hard to think of a historical example where that actually led to what turns out to be the right answer,” Steinhardt says. “Almost always, that’s a sign that the Titanic is sinking.”

Time to get in a lifeboat, he thought. So he came up with a cyclic universe: one that balloons significantly in size, as ours seems to be doing now, then shrinks a little and then starts expanding all over again. “When people think about contracting universes, they’re usually thinking about things coming to a crunch,” Steinhardt says—the cosmos collapsing back down into an infinitesimally small point. That’s not what Steinhardt is talking about: he thinks the universe perhaps contracts slowly—to a smaller fraction of its size but not to nothing. That shrinking smooths things out in ways inflation fails to explain, he says, while still producing a cosmos that appears flat and the same in all directions.

Steinhardt adds that what looks like a big bang is actually not: the universe expands, then slowly contracts, and then quickly goes back to expanding. The fast transition between contraction and expansion is not a bang but a “big bounce.”

teinhardt hopes to test this idea not just by examining the past but also by taking data from the present and watching the future carefully. “It makes an obvious prediction, which is that the current phase of accelerated expansion can’t continue forever,” Steinhardt says. “It must end.” This idea, in turn, raises a new question: “Could it already be in the process of ending now?” he asks.

Our measurements about how the universe is expanding come from relatively faraway objects that emitted their light a long time ago. Things could have changed, and we might not know yet because the effects would be hard to measure. “We’d have to look at objects very close by in order to detect it,” Steinhardt says. That’s not cosmologists’ forte, and they would have to develop new techniques and instruments to look nearby for such effects.

Even more intriguingly, Steinhardt says that because “nothing bad happens to space” during the contraction and bounce, information—even objects such as black holes—can pass from before the bounce to after. “There might be things in our observable universe which are from before,” he says. Keep an eye out.

Mirror Universe

Another big idea about the before before is of interest to Latham Boyle, a researcher at the Higgs Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Edinburgh, who was formerly Steinhardt’s graduate student. Like the big bounce concept, Boyle’s favored proposal is pretty simple conceptually—and it similarly eschews inflation. “There’s the universe after the big bang and the universe before the big bang,” he says, “and they’re kind of mirror copies of one another.”

Picture this, Boyle says, like the points of two ice cream cones touching each other, with their contact representing the Big Bang. “Time marches away from the big bang in both directions,” he says. On our side, it goes forward; on the mirror side, it goes backward. What happened before the Big Bang is the reflected opposite of what happened after. And that doesn’t just include time: here, there is matter; there, there is antimatter. Here, left is left; there, left is right.

Boyle has ideas for observations that could support (or nullify) his theory, which is called the CPT-symmetric (charge-parity-time-symmetric) universe. For one, a CPT-symmetric universe wouldn’t have sent gravitational waves shimmering through space from the beginning of the universe, as classical cosmology theories predict. Astronomers have been hunting for such signals. If these waves are eventually detected, that would rule this idea out.

Boyle’s hypothesis also predicts that dark matter could be explained by a particular kind of neutrino. He hopes cosmological instruments will reveal more information about neutrinos soon. The model’s connection to particle physics, among other aspects, makes this idea intriguing, Carroll says.

“What I like here is the economy,” Keating says, “and the fact that it sticks its neck out,” focusing on the kinds of specific, physical predictions experimentalists like him need.

The Test of Time

Each of these scientists is attached to their own idea. But Lehners, interviewed late last year, isn’t confident any of them will stand the test of time—whatever time is. “I think it’s completely preposterous that, in the year 2025, we should understand the beginning of the universe,” he says. “Why not in the year 2,000,025 or whatever?”

nd even if researchers think they are getting close, they could be approaching a false summit: that frustrating place that looks, when you’re hiking, like the top of the mountain but is actually a mere bump blocking your view of the true peak—or your view of what you think is the true peak but is, in fact, just another bump. “In general, I think that it’s extremely plausible that there was something before the big bang,” Carroll says, “but it’s also very plausible that the big bang was truly the beginning. There’s too much we’re just unsure about, and I am a bit skeptical that the state of the art is good enough to allow us to draw any firm experimental or observational conclusions out of any of these models.”

But cosmologists aren’t studying the ultimate origins because they think the mystery will be resolved in their lifetime. Lehner imagines himself as part of an intergenerational project helping humanity trek closer and closer to a truth we may never find.

Studying such a physically and philosophically inaccessible topic is fundamentally different from other types of science—those quests at least exist in our plane of space and time. It almost seems like the question isn’t actually within the realm of science. But science often involves probing things we cannot access, at least at the start, philosopher of physics Ismael says. Scientists predicted atoms before we could see them, and black holes and dark matter still lie beyond our ability to detect directly—yet investigating them is clearly scientific. “I think the benchmark for what counts as science has moved,” she says. And it will continue to—including, perhaps, backward to the before that may not be a before.

.

All About Space/Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

With the Milano Cortina Olympics officially under way, it’s time to spend the next two weeks becoming ridiculously obsessed with a group of elite winter athletes. Oh, but there are so many sports and so many cuties, and your boss says it’s “unprofessional” to have Peacock streaming on your second monitor all day? I’ve got you. Here, all the stars, moments, and cafeteria dispatches you should know about from the Winter Olympics.

Tomàs-Llorenç Guarino Sabaté

There was a point last week when it looked like Guarino Sabaté wasn’t going to be allowed to perform his Minions-inspired short program. However, if enough people get upset about something, suddenly a “copyright-clearance issue” can disappear. Thankfully for all of us, Guarino Sabaté took to the ice in his full Minions regalia and had a blast doing it.

Sturla Holm Lægreid

Men will really air out your business on the world stage instead of going to therapy! After winning a bronze medal, Norwegian biathlete Sturla Holm Lægreid told the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation that he cheated on his girlfriend three months ago and came clean just before the Games. “I told her a week ago. And it’s been the worst week of my life,” Lægreid said. The athlete admitted that she dumped him (good for her) and that he hoped “committing social suicide” by coming clean on TV “might show her how much I love her.” I hope he has a backup plan.

Team USA’s first gold medal at the Games came from downhill skier Breezy Johnson. Unfortunately, it broke almost immediately. Following her podium ceremony, Johnson’s medal became disconnected from its ribbon and broke into three pieces. This may be something for the International Olympic Committee to look into — Alysa Liu’s gold medal also broke almost immediately. Hopefully, they have hot-glue guns in Italy.

The Curling Baby!

Switzerland’s mixed-doubles curling team is a married couple: Briar Schwaller-Hürlimann and Yannick Schwaller. That is already cute, but they brought their 18-month-old, River, to the Olympics as well. To make matters even cuter, the kid clearly has a knack for his parents’ sport. A not-insignificant chunk of NBC’s curling coverage was focused on River, who already handles the broom like a pro.

.

Photo-Illustration: by The Cut; Photos: Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article (plus associated videos and post):

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

The former chief described his conversation with Mr. Trump to the F.B.I. in October 2019, two months after Mr. Epstein was found dead in his jail cell while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges, the memo shows. Mr. Reiter told The Miami Herald, which reported on the document earlier, that the call with Mr. Trump occurred in July 2006.

The account highlights the shifting explanations Mr. Trump has given about what he knew — and didn’t know — about Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. He has denied knowledge of Mr. Epstein abusing underage girls, but also said last year that the financier “stole” young women who worked at his Mar-a-Lago club. The White House has said Mr. Trump barred Mr. Epstein from the club “for being a creep.”

After Ms. Maxwell was arrested, Mr. Trump did not raise any concerns about her behavior. “I just wish her well, frankly,” Mr. Trump said of Ms. Maxwell in 2020. “I’ve met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach.”

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said she could not confirm the call had taken place but that, if it had, it would corroborate Mr. Trump’s statements that he had kicked Mr. Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago.

She said the phone call “may or may not have happened in 2006 — I don’t know the answer to that question.”

“What I’m telling you is that what President Trump has always said is that he kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his Mar-a-Lago club, because Jeffrey Epstein was a creep,” she added. “And that remains true, and this call, if it did happen, corroborates exactly what President Trump has said from the beginning.”

In the F.B.I.’s written account of the interview with Mr. Reiter, Mr. Trump is depicted as someone eager to relay to the police his concerns about Mr. Epstein’s conduct.

But in July 2019, shortly after Mr. Epstein’s arrest, Mr. Trump was asked by reporters if he had “any suspicions” that Mr. Epstein “was molesting young women, underaged women.”

“No, I had no idea. I had no idea,” Mr. Trump said at the time. “I haven’t spoken to him in many, many years. But I had — I didn’t have no idea.”

The White House on Tuesday referred questions about Mr. Reiter’s account to the Justice Department. The Justice Department, in a statement, said it had not corroborated the chief’s recollection of the conversation: “We are not aware of any corroborating evidence that the president contacted law enforcement 20 years ago.”

Mr. Reiter declined to comment.

Speaker Mike Johnson last year described Mr. Trump as an “informant” against Mr. Epstein. Mr. Johnson later clarified his remarks, saying he was not sure he used the right word, but that “President Trump was never a hindrance to the Epstein investigation. He was trying to assist in that.”

Mr. Trump has said that he “didn’t know” why Mr. Epstein was recruiting employees from Mar-a-Lago, but claimed that he threw him out of the club amid a dispute over stealing spa workers.

But other documents in the Epstein files appear to undercut that account, according to Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, who reviewed unredacted portions of the documents this week.

“Epstein’s lawyers synopsized and quoted Trump as saying that Jeffrey Epstein was not a member of his club at Mar-a-Lago, but he was a guest at Mar-a-Lago, and he had never been asked to leave,” Mr. Raskin said.

“It seems to be at odds with some things that President Trump has been saying recently about how he had kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of the club,” he added.

Revelations about Mr. Trump’s connections to Mr. Epstein have been a constant source of headache for the White House as it has tried to distance the president from the notorious sex offender.

Mr. Trump was friendly for at least 15 years with Mr. Epstein, and they were repeatedly spotted together at parties. But Mr. Trump has frequently tried to downplay their relationship.

Mr. Trump has said that the men broke off contact years ago, though there have been several explanations for the falling out.

In 2002, Mr. Trump told New York magazine, “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

But two years after Mr. Trump called Mr. Epstein a “terrific guy,” the two men became rivals over an oceanfront Palm Beach mansion that had fallen into foreclosure.

.

The former police chief’s account highlights the inconsistent statements President Trump has made over the years about his relationship with both Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Credit…Kenny Holston/The New York Times

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

https://www.nytimes.com

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

The latest bout of brutally cold weather that has beset the eastern U.S. for weeks sent wind chills into the negative teens and 20s Fahrenheit (negative mid-20s to negative low 30s Celsius) in the U.S. Northeast over the weekend. Meanwhile, out West, winter has brought record-breaking warmth that is more suited for spring and even summer. “I’m sitting here in a T-shirt in early February, a mile high in Colorado,” says climate scientist Daniel Swain of the California Institute for Water Resources.

This stark disparity is the product of a persistent atmospheric pattern. That pattern is about to break, however, and the weather fortunes of the two halves of the country are set to switch.

To explain what’s happening, let’s review a favorite winter weather bugaboo: the polar vortex. The vortex is like a circular rushing river of wind that corrals the bitterest cold air up in the Arctic. When the vortex weakens, that tight circle becomes wavier, akin to how a slow-moving river tends to meander in bends across the landscape, Swain says.

Where the vortex bends southward, cold air follows. And if it bends southward in one spot, it must bend northward in adjacent areas. In this case, the northward bend is happening over the western U.S., where it has pulled up warmer air.

Those bends tend to be set up in ways that reinforce background conditions related to Earth’s geography, Swain says. In the case of the U.S., the location of the Rockies, as well as the boundary between the Pacific Ocean and the land, means that, on average, a weak ridge (a northward bend in the jet stream) forms over the West and a weak trough (a southward bend) establishes over the East. The present dichotomy “is an amplification of that background pattern—a dramatic one,” Swain says.

The rapid warming of the Arctic may be making such weakening of the polar vortex more common, but researchers aren’t yet sure. “To the extent that it’s doing so, it hasn’t been enough to overcome the fact that that source of bitterly cold air isn’t as bitterly cold as it used to be,” Swain says.

This effect bears on the current situation. For the period of December 2025 to January 2026, no part of the contiguous U.S. had record cold. But 21 percent of the country had the warmest such period since 1940, according to climatologist Brian Brettschneider.

And as winters get warmer overall, these bouts of bitter cold become more disruptive because they are so unusual. People are less acclimated to freezing weather, and businesses may not make contingency plans. “For someone who is 25 or 30 years old, they may have had the coldest week in their life,” Swain says, whereas, for those out West, “it’s been the warmest winter regardless of age.”

Though the consequences of the cold have been widespread and acute—with travel disruptions, power outages, and scores of deaths—the warm western winter will also take a toll. Its consequences, however, will be delayed, with the potential for drought, water shortages, and a higher risk of wildfires in the coming months.

The upcoming weather switch up likely comes down to a subtle atmospheric shift. Understanding the details would take a dedicated study to unpack all the influences, Swain says, but it could be a change in where storms in the tropical Pacific are occurring, which can knock things around in the atmosphere like dominoes. Whatever the cause, temperatures will rise to more seasonable levels in the eastern U.S., and cooler, wetter weather will come to the West. Any rain or snow will be welcome, Swain says, but will be unlikely to erase the current deficit.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Socialism and capitalism are the two main economic systems used in most countries today. The main difference between capitalism and socialism is the extent to which the government controls the economy.

Key Takeaways: Socialism vs. Capitalism

• Socialism is an economic and political system under which the means of production are publicly owned. Production and consumer prices are controlled by the government to best meet the needs of the people.
• Capitalism is an economic system under which the means of production are privately owned. Production and consumer prices are based on a free-market system of “supply and demand.”
• Socialism is most often criticized for its provision of social services programs requiring high taxes that may decelerate economic growth.
• Capitalism is most often criticized for its tendency to allow income inequality and stratification of socio-economic classes.

Socialist governments strive to eliminate economic inequality by tightly controlling businesses and distributing wealth through programs that benefit the poor, such as free education and healthcare. Capitalism, on the other hand, holds that private enterprise utilizes economic resources more efficiently than the government and that society benefits when the distribution of wealth is determined by a freely-operating market. The United States is generally considered to be a capitalist country, while many Scandinavian and Western European countries are considered socialist democracies. In reality, however, most medium- and high-income countries—including the U.S.—employ a mixture of socialist and capitalist programs.

Capitalism Definition

Capitalism is an economic system under which private individuals own and control businesses, property, and capital—the “means of production.” The volume of goods and services produced is based on a system of “supply and demand,” which encourages businesses to manufacture quality products as efficiently and inexpensively as possible.

In the purest form of capitalism—free market or laissez-faire capitalism—individuals are unrestrained in participating in the economy. They decide where to invest their money, as well as what to produce and sell at what prices. True laissez-faire capitalism operates without government controls. In reality, however, most capitalist countries employ some degree of government regulation of business and private investment.

Capitalist systems make little or no effort to prevent income inequality. Theoretically, financial inequality encourages competition and innovation, which drive economic growth. Under capitalism, the government does not employ the general workforce. As a result, unemployment can increase during economic downturns. Under capitalism, individuals contribute to the economy based on the needs of the market and are rewarded by the economy based on their personal wealth.

Socialism Definition 

Socialism describes a variety of economic systems under which the means of production are owned equally by everyone in society. In some socialist economies, the democratically elected government owns and controls major businesses and industries. In other socialist economies, production is controlled by worker cooperatives. In a few others, individual ownership of enterprise and property is allowed, but with high taxes and government control. 

The mantra of socialism is, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This means that each person in society gets a share of the economy’s collective production—goods and wealth—based on how much they need. Workers are paid their share of production after a percentage has been deducted to help pay for social programs that serve “the common good.” 

In contrast to capitalism, the main concern of socialism is the elimination of “rich” and “poor” socio-economic classes by ensuring an equal distribution of wealth among the people. To accomplish this, the socialist government controls the labor market, sometimes to the extent of being the primary employer. This allows the government to ensure full employment even during economic downturns. 

The Socialism vs. Capitalism Debate 

The key arguments in the socialism vs. capitalism debate focus on socio-economic equality and the extent to which the government controls wealth and production.

Ownership and Income Equality 

Capitalists argue that private ownership of property (land, businesses, goods, and wealth) is essential to ensuring the natural right of people to control their own affairs. Capitalists believe that because private-sector enterprise uses resources more efficiently than government, society is better off when the free market decides who profits and who does not. In addition, private ownership of property makes it possible for people to borrow and invest money, thus growing the economy. 

Socialists, on the other hand, believe that property should be owned by everyone. They argue that capitalism’s private ownership allows a relatively few wealthy people to acquire most of the property. The resulting income inequality leaves those less well off at the mercy of the rich. Socialists believe that since income inequality hurts the entire society, the government should reduce it through programs that benefit the poor, such as free education and healthcare and higher taxes on the wealthy. 

Consumer Prices

Under capitalism, consumer prices are determined by free market forces. Socialists argue that this can enable businesses that have become monopolies to exploit their power by charging excessively higher prices than warranted by their production costs. 

In socialist economies, consumer prices are usually controlled by the government. Capitalists say this can lead to shortages and surpluses of essential products. Venezuela is often cited as an example. According to UNHCR, “inflation…as well as shortages of food, medicine and essential services have forced millions to seek refuge…” Hyperinflation and deteriorating health conditions under the socialist economic policies of President Nicolás Maduro have driven an estimated 7.7 million people to leave the country as food became a political weapon. 

Efficiency and Innovation 

The profit incentive of capitalism’s private ownership encourages businesses to be more efficient and innovative, enabling them to manufacture better products at lower costs. While businesses often fail under capitalism, these failures give rise to new, more efficient businesses through a process known as “creative destruction.” 

Socialists say that state ownership prevents business failures, prevents monopolies, and allows the government to control production to best meet the needs of the people. However, say capitalists, state ownership breeds inefficiency and indifference as labor and management have no personal profit incentive.  

Healthcare and Taxation 

Socialists argue that governments have a moral responsibility to provide essential social services. They believe that universally needed services like healthcare, as a natural right, should be provided free to everyone by the government. To this end, hospitals and clinics in socialist countries are often owned and controlled by the government. 

Capitalists contend that state, rather than private control, leads to inefficiency and lengthy delays in providing healthcare services. In addition, the costs of providing healthcare and other social services force socialist governments to impose high progressive taxes while increasing government spending, both of which have a strong effect on the economy. However, in some capitalist countries such as the U.S., healthcare is unbearably expensive for the consumer.

Capitalist and Socialist Countries Today 

Today, there are few if any, medium- and high- countries that are 100% capitalist or socialist. Indeed, the economies of most countries combine elements of socialism and capitalism.

In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark—generally considered socialist—the government provides healthcare, education, and pensions. However, private ownership of property creates a degree of income inequality. An average of 65% of each nation’s wealth is held by only 10% of the people—a characteristic of capitalism.

The economies of Cuba, China, Vietnam, Russia, and North Korea incorporate characteristics of both socialism and communism.

While countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and Ireland have strong socialist parties, and their governments provide many social support programs, most businesses are privately owned, making them essentially capitalist.

Though long considered the prototype of capitalism, the United States employs certain socialist-like social safety net programs such as Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and housing assistance. This is set in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, with one of the nation’s goals being to “promote the general welfare.”

Socialism

Contrary to popular belief, socialism did not evolve from Marxism. Societies that were to varying degrees “socialist” have existed or have been imagined since ancient times. Examples of actual socialist societies that predated or were uninfluenced by German philosopher and economic critic Karl Marx were Christian monastic enclaves during and after the Roman Empire and the 19th-century utopian social experiments proposed by Welsh philanthropist Robert Owen. Premodern or non-Marxist literature that envisioned ideal socialist societies include The Republic by Plato, Utopia by Sir Thomas More, and Social Destiny of Man by Charles Fourier. 

Socialism vs. Communism

Unlike socialism, communism is both an ideology and a form of government. As an ideology, it predicts the establishment of a dictatorship controlled by the working-class proletariat established through violent revolution and the eventual disappearance of social and economic class and state. As a form of government, communism is equivalent in principle to the dictatorship of the proletariat and in practice to a dictatorship of communists. In contrast, socialism is not tied to any specific ideology. It presupposes the existence of the state and is compatible with democracy, and allows for peaceful political change.

Capitalism 

While no single person can be said to have invented capitalism, capitalist-like systems existed as far back as ancient times. The ideology of modern capitalism is usually attributed to Scottish political economist Adam Smith in his classic 1776 economic treatise “The Wealth of Nations”. The origins of capitalism as a functional economic system can be traced to 16th to 18th century England, where the early Industrial Revolution gave rise to mass enterprises, such as the textile industry, iron, and steam power. These industrial advancements led to a system in which accumulated profit was invested to increase productivity—the essence of capitalism.

Despite its modern status as the world’s predominant economic system, capitalism has been criticized for several reasons throughout history. These include the unpredictable and unstable nature of capitalist growth, social harms, such as pollution and abusive treatment of workers, and forms of economic disparity, such as income inequality. Some historians connect profit-driven economic models such as capitalism to the rise of oppressive institutions such as human enslavement, colonialism, and imperialism.

.

Hand flips a dice and changes the word “Socialism” to “Capitalism”, or vice versa. Fokusiert / Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________