title: Frederick Startridge Ellis

text:
Frederick Startridge Ellis (1830–1901) was an English bookseller and author.

Life
The sixth son of Joseph Ellis, hotel-keeper, of Richmond, was born there on 7 June 1830. He entered, at the age of sixteen, the business of Edward Lumley of Chancery Lane, and afterwards became assistant to C. J. Stewart, a bookseller of King William Street, Strand, London from whom he acquired his knowledge of books. In 1860 he went into business for himself at 33 King Street, Covent Garden, and in 1871 took into partnership G. M. Green (1841–1872), who had been through the same training.

After the death of Green in 1872, Ellis took on premises at 29 New Bond Street, previously occupied by T. & W. Boone, and carried on business, mainly in old books and manuscripts; his next partner was David White, who retired in 1884. For many years Ellis was official buyer for the British Museum, which brought him into rivalry with the rest of the trade opponents in auction rooms.

In 1885 Ellis retired from business, and his stock of rarities was sold by Sotheby's for about £16,000. He was succeeded in business by his nephew G. I. Ellis.

Ellis died at Sidmouth on 26 February 1901, after a short illness, in his seventy-first year.

Associations
Ellis had a wide circle of literary and artistic friends. He was a publisher, on a small scale, and brought out works of William Morris and Dante Gabriel Rossetti, who became close friends. Among other associates were A. C. Swinburne, Edward Burne-Jones and John Ruskin, whose Stray Letters to a London Bibliopole were addressed to Ellis and republished by him (1892)—Ruskin called him "Papa Ellis". It was in 1864 that Morris was first introduced by Swinburne to Ellis, and Ellis was one of the poet's executors.

Works

Henry Huth entrusted to Ellis the editing of the catalogue of his famous library, which was printed in 1880 (5 vols.); the English books were catalogued by William Carew Hazlitt, those in other languages by Ellis. Another catalogue compiled by Ellis was a Descriptive Catalogue of a collection of drawings and etchings by Charles Meryon, formed by the Rev. J. J. Heywood (1880, privately printed). He also produced Horæ Pembrochianæ: some account of an illuminated MS. of the Hours of the B.V.M., written for William Herbert, first earl of Pembroke, about 1440 (1880), and a biographical notice appended to an account of The Hours of Albert of Brandenburg, by William Henry James Weale (1883).

After his retirement from business, Ellis spent his time writing. For the Shelley Society he wrote An Alphabetical Table of Contents to Shelley's Poetical Works (1888); and he devoted six years to compiling A Lexical Concordance to the Poetical Works of P. B. Shelley (1892). He was a supporter of William Morris's Kelmscott Press, and read the proofs of the folio edition of Chaucer's Works (1896). He edited many other productions for the Press, including George Cavendish's Life of Wolsey (1893); William Caxton's Golden Legend (1892), which also appeared in the "Temple Classics" (1899 and 1900). He also wrote a metrical adaptation of Caxton's Reynard the Fox, (1894, revised 1897), edited and translated Guillaume de Lorris's and Jean de Meun's Romance of the Rose (1900, "Temple Classics"), and H. Pengelly's Memoir, with a preface (1897); and contributed memoirs to Bernard Quaritch's Dictionary of English Book Collectors.

Family
Ellis married in 1860 Caroline Augusta Flora, daughter of William Moates of Epsom, and left two sons and a daughter, who with his wife survived him.

Their daughter Phyllis Marion conducted the "herculean task" of the initial transcription of the Kellmscott edition of Caxton's Golden Legend.

Notes

Attribution

External links

1830 births
1901 deaths
English book editors
English translators
19th-century British translators
19th-century English businesspeople


title: Naval battle off St. John (1691)

text:
The Naval battle off St. John took place on 22 September 1691 between France and England toward the beginning of King William's War in the Bay of Fundy off present-day Saint John, New Brunswick. The English ship sailed with the new British Governor of Acadia Edward Tyng  while the French ship sailed with the French Governor of Acadia Joseph Robineau de Villebon.

Battle

Philips had conquered Port Royal in 1690. He sent Tyng in a ketch under the command of John Nelson to be the new British Governor of Acadia. Tyng was in a ketch of Andrew Belcher’s. On 2 September, the new Governor was attacked by Villebon who was in the French frigate Soleil d’Afrique (32 guns), commanded by Simon-Pierre Denys de Bonaventure. The English quickly capitulated. English captive John Alden was sent to Boston to arrange a prisoner exchange.

Aftermath
Alden was sent to Boston to get 60 French soldiers captured by Phips in the Battle of Port Royal (1690). Alden’s son and Colonel Tyng were held as hostages, and Nelson was sent to Quebec.

While in prison, Nelson sent intelligence to Boston about French plans for attacks against the Massachusetts colonies. For this act, Nelson was punished by being transported across the Atlantic Ocean to the Bastille prison in France. In 1702, after ten years of imprisonment, he was released and returned home to Nelson's Island (Long Island) as a local hero.

Alden returned to Villebon at the Saint John in May 1692, bringing with him only six French soldiers. As a result, Alden’s son and Colonel Tyng were subsequently sent to France.
Tyng died in captivity at La Rochelle.

See also

 Military history of Nova Scotia

References

Bibliography

Hannay, James.  The history of Acadia, from its first discovery to its surrender to England
 John Clarence Webster. Acadia at the End of the Seventeenth Century. Saint John, NB, The New Brunswick Museum, 1979.

Primary Sources
Testimonies of Capt. Simon-Pierre Denys de Bonavanture, Ensign Anthoine Gaigneau, and Mahieu de Goutin, April 1692, Archives departmentales de la Charente-Maritime, Admieraute de La Rochelle, Series B, 5906, piece no. 4;
 Charles de Monseignat, Narrative of the most remarkable occurrences in Canada. 1690, 1691,  New York Collection Documents, IX : 527
Journal of Gov. Villebon, October 13, 1691 to October 25, 1692, Webster. Acadia, 32, 36.
Villebon's Journal, p. 32, 149

Military history of Acadia
Military history of New England
Military history of Canada
Naval battles involving England
Naval battles involving France
Conflicts in 1691
Conflicts in Nova Scotia
King William's War
Maritime history of Canada
1691 in North America
Conflicts in New Brunswick


Trerhyngyll and Maendy Halt railway station was a railway halt in the Vale of Glamorgan.

History
In spite of requests from residents, the Taff Vale Railway had refused to provide a station in the area in 1887 because the company considered such an undertaking to be financially undesirable. However, when a railmotor service was introduced on the line in the 1900s, four new platforms were planned, and one of these was to serve Trerhyngyll and Maendy, together with Prisk and Welsh St Donats. It opened on 1 May 1905, together with the three others. Uniquely among them, it was conveniently located to the villages it served. The original facilities were very basic. It was a single forty-foot platform without a shelter, passengers being confined to a fenced enclosure at the rear, which would be opened by the guard. Despite the fact that passenger numbers were adequate, the Taff Vale Railway rejected a request in 1910 for the spartan facilities to be improved. Trerhyngyll and Maendy was the only one of the four platforms to survive being closed in 1920. By this time, the platform had been lengthened to allow it to accommodate trains of two coaches. When the Taff Vale Railway was absorbed by the Great Western Railway in 1922, the suffix 'Platform' was replaced with 'Halt'. The new owners also added a corrugated iron waiting shelter.

Closure
The station closed when the passenger service ended in 1951.

Notes

References

Railway stations in Great Britain opened in 1905
Disused railway stations in the Vale of Glamorgan
Railway stations in Great Britain closed in 1951
Former Taff Vale Railway stations


title: Soviet-type economic planning

text:
Soviet-type economic planning (STP) is the specific model of centralized planning employed by Marxist–Leninist socialist states modeled on the economy of the Soviet Union (USSR).

The post-perestroika analysis of the system of the Soviet economic planning describes it as the administrative-command system due to the de facto priority of highly centralized management over planning.

Characteristics

Institutions
The major institutions of Soviet-type planning in the USSR included a planning agency (Gosplan), an organization for allocating state supplies among the various organizations and enterprises in the economy (Gossnab) and enterprises which were engaged in the production and delivery of goods and services in the economy. Enterprises comprised production associations and institutes that were linked together by the plans formulated by Gosplan.

In the Eastern bloc countries (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Albania), economic planning was primarily accomplished through the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), an international organization meant to promote the coordination of Soviet economic policy amongst the participating countries. The council was founded in 1949 and worked to maintain the Soviet style of economic planning in the Eastern bloc until the Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991.

There is a small amount of information in state archives regarding the founding of CMEA, but documents from the Romania state archive suggest that the Romanian Communist Party was instrumental in beginning the process which led to the creation of the council. Originally, Romania wanted to create a collaborative economic system which would bolster the country's efforts to industrialize. However, the Czech and Polish representatives wanted to have a system of specialization put into place, wherein production plans would be shared amongst members, and each country would specialize in a different area of production. The USSR encouraged the formation of the council as a response to the United States’ Marshall Plan, in hopes of maintaining their sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. There also existed the hope that the less developed member states would ‘catch-up’ economically with the more industrialized ones.

Material balances

Material balance planning was the major function of Gosplan in the USSR. This method of planning involved the accounting of material supplies in natural units (as opposed to monetary terms) which are used to balance the supply of available inputs with targeted outputs. Material balancing involves taking a survey of available inputs and raw materials in the economy and then using a balance-sheet to balance them with output targets specified by industry to achieve a balance between supply and demand. This balance is used to formulate a plan for the national economy.

Analysis of Soviet-type planning

There are two fundamental ways scholars have carried out an analysis of Soviet-type economic planning. The first involves adapting standard neoclassical economic models and theories to analyze the Soviet economic system. This paradigm stresses the importance of Pareto efficiency standard.

In contrast to this approach, scholars such as Pawel Dembinski argue that neoclassical tools are somewhat inappropriate for evaluating Soviet-type planning because they attempt to quantify and measure phenomena specific to capitalist-based economies. They contend that because standard economic models rely on assumptions not fulfilled in the Soviet system (especially the assumption of economic rationality underlying decision-making), the results obtained from a neoclassical analysis will distort the actual effects of STP. These other scholars proceed along a different course by trying to engage with STP on its own terms, investigating the philosophical, historical and political influences that gave rise to STP whilst evaluating its economic successes and failures (theoretical and actual) with reference to those contexts.

The USSR practiced some form of central planning beginning in 1918 with War Communism until it dissolved in 1991, although the type and extent of planning was of a different nature before imperative centralized planning was introduced in the 1930s. While there were many subtleties to the various forms of economic organization the USSR employed during this 70-year time period, enough features were shared that scholars have broadly examined advantages and disadvantages of Soviet-type economic planning.

Soviet-type planning is not the same as economic planning in general as there are other theoretical models of economic planning and modern mixed economies also practice economic planning to a certain extent, but they are not subject to all of the advantages and disadvantages enumerated here.

Features

The unique features of Soviet-style economy were an ideologically driven attempt to build a total economic plan for the whole society, as well as unquestioned paradigm of superiority of the state socialist system. Attempts to modify or optimize the former based on pragmatic analysis of economic outcomes were hindered by the latter. Dembinski describes the Soviet approach to Marxist economy as "quasi-religious" with economic publications by Marx and Lenin being treated as a "Scripture".

Michael Ellman describes specific features of the Soviet economic planning in economic and mathematical terms, highlighting its primarily computational challenges. The theoretical objective of the Soviet economic planning, as executed by Gosplan, was rational allocation of resources in a way that resulted in output of desired assortment of goods and services. The plan was built and executed in annual cycles: each year, a target output of specific goods were determined and using estimates of available input resources Gosplan would calculate balance sheets planning output for all factories. As the number of commodities reached hundreds of thousands, a number of aggregations and simplifications were made to facilitate the calculations, which, until late 1960s, were performed manually.

Actual performance
At first, the USSR's growth in GDP per capita compared favorably with Western Europe. In 1913, prior to the revolution of 1917, the Russian Empire had a GDP per capita of $1,488 in international dollars which grew 461% to $6,871 by 1990. By comparison, Western Europe grew from a higher base of $3,688 international dollars by a comparable 457% to $16,872 in the same period and reached $17,921 by 1998. Following the fall of the USSR in 1991, its GDP per capita figure fell to $3,893 by 1998.

One 1986 publication compared Physical Quality of Life Index (PQLI) based on infant mortality, life expectancy and literacy rate (World Bank data) and other indicators such as number of patients per physician and argued that countries that predominantly used socialist-style economic planning in their economies achieved slightly better indicators at low and medium levels of income than countries with predominantly market-oriented economies at the same levels of economic development. The gap narrowed down in case of medium and high income countries. In addition, all of the countries in the high income category were ones the study categorized as "capitalist" and none "socialist".

Starting in the 1960s, following the market orientated Kosygin Reforms, the Soviet economy suffered from stagnation and became increasingly dependent on undisclosed loans from capitalist countries that were members of the Paris Club, while continuing to present Marxism as progressive and superior to a market economy. At the moment of its default and the dissolution of USSR, Russia alone owed $22 billion to the club, with other Eastern Bloc countries taking loans on their own account.

Widespread shortage of goods and failures of supply chain were presented as "temporary difficulties" by official propaganda, but numerous scholars in the Eastern bloc argued that these are systemic flaws of the Marxian economy. János Kornai coined the term "economy of shortage" to describe the state of the Soviet economy. Leszek Kołakowski presented the political and economic state of Eastern bloc authoritarianism as a logical consequence of Marxism–Leninism, rather than a "deviation". Nikolay Shmelyov described the state of the Soviet economy in the '80s as having large-scale systemic inefficiencies and unbalanced outputs, with one good being constantly in shortage, while others were constantly in surplus and wasted. These issues were naturally observed by Soviet economists, but any proposals to change the basic operating paradigms of the economic planning in response to observed inefficiencies were blocked by ideological hardliners, who perceived them as an unacceptable deviation from Marxism–Leninism, an economic model which they perceived to be "scientifically" proven to be superior.

The New Economic Policy (1921-1928) was a short period of economic pragmatism in the Soviet economics, introduced by Lenin in response to widely observed shortcomings of the War Communism system following the 1917 revolution. NEP, however, was criticized as reactionary and reversed by Stalin, who returned to total economic planning.

Falsification of statistics and "output juggling" of factories in order to satisfy central plans became a widespread phenomenon, leading to discrepancies between "reality of the plan" and the actual availability of goods as observed on site by consumers. Plan failures, when it was no longer possible to hide them, were blamed on sabotage and "wrecking". Shortages and poor living conditions led to industrial actions and protests, usually violently suppressed by the military and security forces, such as the Novocherkassk massacre.

Performance in the Eastern Bloc

Poland

The destruction caused by World War 2 had resulted in significant damage to the Polish nation. Alongside the millions killed in the Holocaust, Polish industry and infrastructure in 1945 was only 48% of what it had been in 1938. However, reconstruction under the Polish People's Republic saw quick recovery, such that by 1948 industrial output was 153% of what it had been in 1938. This growth continued throughout the Cold War, with industrial output in 1977 being 193% of what it had been in 1971.

Poland during the Cold War also saw advancements in healthcare. Before the Second World War, Poland was one of the countries with the poorest health in Europe. In the 1930's life expectancy in Poland was around 46 years and infant mortality was estimated at the level of 150 deaths per 1000 live births. Following the creation of the Polish People's Republic, the life expectancy in Poland increased to 70 years and infant mortality decreased to 30 deaths per 1000 live births. However, this success was limited by a rise in alcohol and cigarette consumption, which saw a rise in preventable deaths.

Council for Mutual Economic Assistance
During the 1950s, the economic alliance between members of the Eastern bloc and the state monopoly acted as a safety net in the face of Western sanctions being imposed. As a result, the Eastern Bloc countries started to develop autarkic tendencies which would last until the Soviet Union's dissolution. Trade was also able to grow, not just between member states but within them as well, and the agrarian states of the eastern bloc began to industrialize. The Soviet Union also gave Eastern bloc countries subsidies in the form of raw materials at prices lower than those offered in the global market. However, despite these efforts, varying degrees of development still remained between the industrialized countries and the more agrarian ones, which would contribute to the Bloc's economic stagnation in later decades.

The council began to lose its credibility from the 1960s onwards, because disagreements between member countries over the necessity of various reforms led to the slowing of economic growth. In order to encourage economic integration and maintain soviet economic planning, the International Bank for Economic Cooperation was established in Moscow in 1963, and the 'transferable ruble' was introduced. The integration failed to materialize for a number of reasons. Firstly, the new currency was separated from foreign trade as is characteristic of centralized planned economies, and so was not able to perform the various functions of money outside of being a unit of account  Additionally, integration failed due to a general lack of interest, as well as the implementation of 'market liberalization' policies within several member states throughout the decade. Hence, the CMEA switched gears in the second half of the 1960s, and instead a reform was proposed which encouraged countries to pursue their own specialized industrialization projects without the needed participation of all other member states. East Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia agreed to these terms, however Bulgaria and Romania did not, and many political officials throughout the Eastern bloc prevented the 'market liberalization' policies from being implemented at the CMEA level. The inability for member countries to reach a consensus about economic reforms coupled with the desire to create 'dynamics of dissent' within the Council against the USSR contributed to a lack of planning coordination by the CMEA throughout the decade.

In the 1970s, the CMEA adopted a few initiatives in order to continue economic growth and to modernize the economy. Firstly, the Eastern bloc heavily imported technology from the West in order to modernize, increasing the debt of the Eastern Bloc to the West dramatically. In 1971, the CMEA introduced the 'complex program', designed to promote further trade integration. This integration plan heavily relied on countries specializing in the production of certain goods and services, and parallel initiatives were discouraged and to be avoided. For instance, Hungary specialized in the manufacturing of buses for local and long-distance transport, which encouraged other member countries to trade with Hungary in order to acquire them.

However, the economic problems of the Eastern bloc continued to increase as reforms failed to pass and specialization efforts failed to incentivize states to improve their products. This resulted in economic growth which paled in comparison to that of the West. In a study assessing the technical efficiency of two Eastern bloc countries (Hungary, Poland) from the 1970s to the 1980s and comparing it to that of developed and developing countries, it was found that the two European socialist countries were less efficient than both developed and developing countries, and this efficiency gap had only widened in the years of analysis. It was seen that Hungary was more efficient than Poland at this time. The raw material subsidies (Molotov Plan) that the Soviet Union had provided since the 1950s were drastically reduced to the point of insignificance by the end of the 1980s, due to Eastern bloc countries having to buy industrial goods at a higher price than what was offered on the global market. The lack of support from the USSR as well as the lack of political consensus over reforms only hastened the decline of the CMEA.

Advantages
From a neoclassical perspective, there are two theoretical advantages to Soviet-type economic planning: the elimination of inflation, and the elimination of unemployment.

Firstly, complete price stability is achievable because of the state's control over setting prices and the money supply. To maintain a fixed currency value, all the state has to do is balance the total value of goods available during a given planning period with the amount of wages it pays according to the following equation, where  represents the general retail price level,  accounts for the quantity of consumer goods and services,  is total household income (wages paid),  is transfer payments,  is household saving, and  is direct household taxes:

In practice, the USSR suffered from both open and repressed inflation throughout its history, the latter becoming especially pronounced in the second half of the 1980s.

The second advantage is the ability to eliminate unemployment (with the exception of frictional unemployment) and business cycles. Since the state is effectively the sole business proprietor and controls banking, it theoretically avoids classic financial frictions and consumer confidence challenges. Because the state makes labor compulsory and can run enterprises at a loss, full employment is a theoretical possibility even when capital stocks are too low to justify it in a market system. This was an advantage that the USSR arguably realized by 1930, although critics argue that sometimes certain segments of Soviet labor exhibited zero productivity, meaning that although workers were on employment rolls, they essentially sat idle because of capital deficiencies, i.e. there was employed unemployment.

Those scholars who reject the neoclassical viewpoint consider the benefits of STP that the USSR itself adduced. One is the ability to control for externalities directly in the pricing mechanism. Another is the total capture of value obtained in STP which is neglected in market economies. By this, it is meant that while a worker might put in a certain amount of work to produce a good, a market might value that good at less than the cost of labor the worker put in, effectively negating the value of the work done. Because in STP prices are set by the state, STP avoids this pitfall by never pricing an item below its labor value. While these do seem to be valid theoretical advantages to STP (especially under a Marxist–Leninist framework), it has been argued by some that STP as implemented by the USSR failed to achieve these theoretical possibilities.

Under the model of STP, during the 5 Year Plans, the USSR was able to rapidly industrialise and modernise their industry. The growth of GDP per Capita in the USSR in this period exceeded some Western countries. Planning led to high rates of capital accumulation, rapid GDP growth, and rising per capita consumption. Industrial production as a result of the 5 Year Plans was also rapid. During the first 5 Year Plan for example, Cast Iron production reportedly saw a 188%, going from 3,300,000 tonnes to 6,240,000 tonnes a year. In 1928, industrial output of electricity was 5,000,000,000 kW/h, rising to 13,000,000,000 kW/h by 1932, an increase of 270%. Industrial output of cars in the same time frame saw an increase of almost 3000%, rising from 0.8 pieces (in thousands) up to 23.9.

Disadvantages
From a neoclassical perspective, there were many disadvantages to STP. They can be divided into two categories: macroeconomic and microeconomic.

Macroeconomic disadvantages included systemic undersupply, the pursuit of full employment at a steep cost, price fixing's devastating effect on agricultural incentives and the loss of the advantages of money because STP eschews money's classic role. Additionally, planners had to aggregate many types of goods and inputs into a single material balance because it was impossible to create an individual balance for each of the approximately 24 million items produced and consumed in the USSR. This system introduced a strong bias towards underproduction, resulting in a scarcity of consumer goods. Another disadvantage is that while STP does allow for the theoretically possibility of full employment, the USSR often achieved full employment by operating enterprises at a loss or leaving workers idle. There was always a Pareto superior alternative available to the USSR rather than full employment, specifically with the option to close some enterprises and make transfer payments to the unemployed.

The microeconomic disadvantages from a neoclassical perspective include the following:
 Encouragement of black-market activity because of fixed resource allocation.
 Low quality of Soviet goods induced by shielding them from world markets.
 The neglect of consumer need because of the challenge in measuring good quality.
 The tendency of enterprise-level Soviet managers to understate productive capacity in fear of the ratchet effect. This effect resulted from an enterprise overproducing in a given plan cycle. They would have to match their new level of higher production in the next cycle as the plan was adjusted to fit the new data.
 An anti-innovation bias (also from fear of the ratchet effect).
 Storming (shturmovshchina), i.e. the hurry to complete the plan at the end of a planning cycle resulting in poor production quality.
 Scattering of resources, i.e. excessive spread (raspylenie sredstv), where too many projects (especially construction) would have been started simultaneously and it took much longer to complete because of a lack of available inputs on time

Scholars who reject the neoclassical approach produce a shorter list of disadvantages, but because these disadvantages are valid even from the Soviet perspective, they are perhaps even more damning of STP than those listed above. These scholars consider STP's inability to predict things like weather, trade and technological advancement as an insurmountable drawback to the planning procedure. STP's use of coercive techniques such as the ratchet effect and labor camps which are argued to be inherent to STP on the one hand ensured the system's survival and on the other hand resulted in the distorted information that made effective planning challenging if not impossible. Lastly, these scholars argue that the semantic limitations of language made it impossible for STP planners to communicate their desires to enterprises in sufficient detail for planning to fully direct economic outcomes. Enterprises themselves under STP still made a variety of economic decisions autonomously.

After the collapse of the USSR, other scholars have argued that a central deficiency of Soviet economic planning was that it was not premised on final consumer demand and that such a system would be increasingly feasible with advances in information technology.

See also

 Eastern Bloc economies
 Economic planning
 Economy of the Soviet Union
 Five-year plans for the national economy of the Soviet Union
 Material balance planning
 OGAS
 Planned economy
 Project Cybersyn
 Socialist calculation debate
 Socialist economics
 State capitalism
 State socialism
 Administrative-command system

References

Economy of the Soviet Union
Economic planning
Marxism–Leninism
Socialism


title: Bologoye

text:
Bologoye () is the name of several inhabited localities in Russia.

Urban localities
Bologoye, Tver Oblast, a town in Bologovsky District of Tver Oblast

Rural localities
Bologoye, Omsk Oblast, a selo in Rozovsky Rural Okrug of Russko-Polyansky District in Omsk Oblast
Bologoye, Pskov Oblast, a village in Novosokolnichesky District of Pskov Oblast


title: Castac Lake

text:
Castac Lake (Chumash: Kaštiq), also known as Tejon Lake, is a natural saline endorheic, or sink, lake near Lebec, California. The lake is located in the Tehachapi Mountains just south  of the Grapevine section of Interstate 5, and within Tejon Ranch. Normal water elevations are  above sea level.

Geography and geology
The lake lies in a natural sink at the eastern end of the Castac Valley, a rift valley formed along the Garlock Fault. The main inflows are Cuddy Creek and small intermittent streams originating in Bear and Crane Canyons, draining a total of  into the lake. The lake itself was formed about 10,000 years ago, by the natural damming of water behind the alluvial fan of Cuddy Creek, blocking its natural northern outlet to Grapevine Creek. During most years the outlet sits about  higher than the lake surface. During rare flooding events, the lake does overflow into Grapevine Creek, which flows through a canyon into the San Joaquin Valley.

History
Although Castac Lake itself is saline, or salty, the abundance of freshwater springs nearby made it an attractive area for human settlement. The lake area was once the territory of the Castac and Emigdiano groups of Chumash people, who occupied the area between Tejon Pass and the modern Grapevine. Several Native American villages were located in the area, including the Emigdiano village of Sasau on the northern shore of the lake. The Chumash name for the lake was Kash-tük, or "my eyes". The lake was known as A-uva-pya, or "in his eyes", in Kitanemuk, and as Sasa-u, "at the eye", in Yokuts.

The lake was first seen by Spanish explorer Pedro Fages who in 1772 led the first European expedition to cross the Tehachapis via Tejon Pass into the San Joaquin Valley. Fages named the lake Salinas de Cortes and Tejon Pass the Portezuelo de Cortes. The lake's modern name may have originated from a later Spanish expedition circa 1806, in which Father José María de Zalvidea noted a Native American village called "Casteque" or "Kashtiq" near "[a lake of] pure salt water".

In 1843 the lake was incorporated in a land grant which formed  Rancho Castac. In 1854, Fort Tejon was founded in the Grapevine Valley about  northwest of the lake, to command the main route (via Tejon Pass) between the Central Valley and Southern California. The Rancho Castac was eventually acquired by Edward Fitzgerald Beale, who founded Tejon Ranch (at one point the largest private landholding in California).

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries the lakebed was occasionally mined for salt, as it tends to evaporate after extended periods of drought. According to historical records the lake was full through most of the 1940s, and dry in the early 1950s and early 1980s. During the mid-1990s, especially after the El Niño episode in 1997, the lake filled to overflowing.

Since 2001 the lake level has been artificially maintained by Tejon Ranch via pumping of groundwater in the Castac Valley area, though dropping well water levels have caused controversy over this practice. The higher lake levels have also increased the risk of overflow and flooding in Grapevine Valley, most recently in 2005.

Water quality
Due to the local geology, Castac Lake contains naturally elevated levels of arsenic, boron, selenium, and aluminum, which concentrate during drought conditions and are flushed out in occasional floods. The lake meets most water quality objectives, but at times has an excess of coliform.

See also
List of lakes in California

References

Endorheic lakes of California
Lakes of Kern County, California


title: Market socialism

text:
Market socialism is a type of economic system involving social ownership of the means of production within the framework of a market economy. Various models for such a system exist, usually involving cooperative enterprises and sometimes a mix that includes public or private enterprises.  In contrast to the majority of historic socialist economies, which have substituted the market mechanism for some form of economic planning, market socialists wish to retain the use of supply and demand signals to guide the allocation of capital goods and the means of production. Under such a system, depending on whether socially owned firms are state-owned or operated as worker cooperatives, profits may variously be used to directly remunerate employees, accrue to society at large as the source of public finance, or be distributed amongst the population in a social dividend.

Market socialism can be distinguished from the concept of the mixed economy because most models of market socialism propose complete and self-regulating systems, unlike the mixed economy. While social democracy aims to achieve greater economic stability and equality through policy measures such as taxes, subsidies, and social welfare programs, market socialism aims to achieve similar goals through changing patterns of enterprise ownership and management.

Though the term "market socialism" only emerged in the 1920s during the socialist calculation debate, a number of pre-Marx socialists, including the Ricardian socialist economists and mutualist philosophers, conceived of socialism as a natural development of the market principles of classical economics, and proposed the creation of co-operative enterprises to compete in a free-market economy. The aim of such proposals was to eliminate exploitation by allowing individuals to receive the full product of their labor, while removing the market-distorting effects of concentrating ownership and wealth in the hands of a small class of private property owners.

Although sometimes described as "market socialism", the Lange model is a form of market simulated planning where a central planning board allocates investment and capital goods by simulating factor market transactions, while markets allocate labor and consumer goods. The system was devised by socialist economists who believed that a socialist economy could neither function on the basis of calculation in natural units nor through solving a system of simultaneous equations for economic coordination.

Real-world attempts to create market socialist economies have only partially implemented the measures envisioned by its theorists, but the term has sometimes been used to describe the results of various attempts at liberalization in the Eastern Bloc including Hungary's New Economic Mechanism, the economy of Yugoslavia, Perestroika, and the economic reforms of China as well as Lenin's New Economic Policy.

Theoretical history

Classical economics
The key theoretical basis for market socialism is the negation of the underlying expropriation of surplus value present in other modes of production. Socialist theories that favored the market date back to the Ricardian socialists and anarchist economists, who advocated a free market combined with public ownership or mutual ownership of the means of production.

Proponents of early market socialism include the Ricardian socialist economists, the classical liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill and the anarchist philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. These models of socialism entailed perfecting or improving the market mechanism and free price system by removing distortions caused by exploitation, private property and alienated labor.

This form of market socialism has been termed free-market socialism because it does not involve planners.

John Stuart Mill
Mill's early economic philosophy was one of free markets that he moved toward a more socialist bent, adding chapters to his Principles of Political Economy in defence of a socialist outlook, and defending some socialist causes. Within this revised work he also made the radical proposal that the whole wage system be abolished in favour of a co-operative wage system. Nonetheless, some of his views on the idea of flat taxation remained, albeit altered in the third edition of the Principles of Political Economy to reflect a concern for differentiating restrictions on unearned incomes which he favoured; and those on earned incomes, which he did not favour.

Mill's Principles, first published in 1848, was one of the most widely read of all books on economics in the period. As Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations had during an earlier period, Mill's Principles dominated economics teaching. In the case of Oxford University, it was the standard text until 1919, when it was replaced by Alfred Marshall's Principles of Economics.

In later editions of Principles of Political Economy, Mill would argue that "as far as economic theory was concerned, there is nothing in principle in economic theory that precludes an economic order based on socialist policies".

Mill also promoted substituting capitalist businesses with worker cooperatives, writing:
The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.

Mutualism
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon developed a theoretical system called mutualism which attacks the legitimacy of existing property rights, subsidies, corporations, banking and rent. Proudhon envisioned a decentralized market where people would enter the market with equal power, negating wage slavery. Proponents believe that cooperatives, credit unions and other forms of worker ownership would become viable without being subject to the state. Market socialism has also been used to describe some individualist anarchist works which argue that free markets help workers and weaken capitalists.

Individualist anarchism in the United States
For American anarchist historian Eunice Minette Schuster, "[i]t is apparent [...] that Proudhonian Anarchism was to be found in the United States at least as early as 1848 and that it was not conscious of its affinity to the Individualist Anarchism of Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews. [...] William B. Greene presented this Proudhonian Mutualism in its purest and most systematic form". Josiah Warren is widely regarded as the first American anarchist, and the four-page weekly paper he edited during 1833, The Peaceful Revolutionist, was the first anarchist periodical published, an enterprise for which he built his own printing press, cast his own type, and made his own printing plates.

Warren was a follower of Robert Owen and joined Owen's community at New Harmony, Indiana. Josiah Warren termed the phrase "cost the limit of price", with "cost" here referring not to monetary price paid but the labor one exerted to produce an item. Therefore, "[h]e proposed a system to pay people with certificates indicating how many hours of work they did. They could exchange the notes at local time stores for goods that took the same amount of time to produce". He put his theories to the test by establishing an experimental "labor for labor store" called the Cincinnati Time Store where trade was facilitated by notes backed by a promise to perform labor. The store proved successful and operated for three years after which it was closed so that Warren could pursue establishing colonies based on mutualism. These included Utopia and Modern Times. Warren said that Stephen Pearl Andrews' The Science of Society, published in 1852, was the most lucid and complete exposition of Warren's own theories.

Later, Benjamin Tucker fused the economics of Warren and Proudhon and published these ideas in Liberty calling them "Anarchistic-Socialism". Tucker said: "[T]he fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of the necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something that is not labour. [...] And to such a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute you remove privilege [...] every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers. [...] What Anarchistic-Socialism aims to abolish is usury [...] it wants to deprive capital of its reward". American individualist anarchists such as Tucker saw themselves as economic market socialists and political individualists while arguing that their "anarchistic socialism" or "individual anarchism" was "consistent Manchesterism". Left-wing market anarchism is a modern branch of free-market anarchism that is based on a revival of such market socialist theories.

Neoclassical economics

Early 20th century
Beginning in the early 20th century, neoclassical economic theory provided the theoretical basis for more comprehensive models of market socialism. Early neoclassical models of socialism included a role for a central planning board (CPB) in setting prices equal marginal cost to achieve Pareto efficiency. Although these early models did not rely on conventional markets, they were labeled market socialist for their utilization of financial prices and calculation. Alternative outlines for market socialism involve models where socially owned enterprises or producer co-operatives operate within free markets under the criterion of profitability. In recent models proposed by American neoclassical economists, public ownership of the means of production is achieved through public ownership of equity and social control of investment.

The earliest models of neoclassical socialism were developed by Léon Walras, Enrico Barone (1908) and Oskar R. Lange (c. 1936). Lange and Fred M. Taylor (1929) proposed that central planning boards set prices through "trial and error", making adjustments as shortages and surpluses occurred rather than relying on a free price mechanism. If there were shortages, prices would be raised; if there were surpluses, prices would be lowered. Raising the prices would encourage businesses to increase production, driven by their desire to increase their profits, and in doing so eliminate the shortage. Lowering the prices would encourage businesses to curtail production to prevent losses, which would eliminate the surplus. Therefore, it would be a simulation of the market mechanism, which Lange thought would be capable of effectively managing supply and demand.

Although the Lange–Lerner model was often labelled as market socialism, it is better described as market simulation because factor markets did not exist for the allocation of capital goods. The objective of the Lange–Lerner model was explicitly to replace markets with a non-market system of resource allocation.

H. D. Dickinson published two articles proposing a form of market socialism, namely "Price Formation in a Socialist Community" (The Economic Journal 1933) and "The Problems of a Socialist Economy" (The Economic Journal 1934). Dickinson proposed a mathematical solution whereby the problems of a socialist economy could be solved by a central planning agency. The central agency would have the necessary statistics on the economy, as well as the capability of using statistics to direct production. The economy could be represented as a system of equations. Solution values for these equations could be used to price all goods at marginal cost and direct production. Hayek (1935) argued against the proposal to simulate markets with equations. Dickinson (1939) adopted the Lange-Taylor proposal to simulate markets through trial and error.

The Lange–Dickinson version of market socialism kept capital investment out of the market. Lange (1926 p65) insisted that a central planning board would have to set capital accumulation rates arbitrarily. Lange and Dickinson saw potential problems with bureaucratization in market socialism. According to Dickinson, "the attempt to check irresponsibility will tie up managers of socialist enterprises with so much red tape and bureaucratic regulation that they will lose all initiative and independence" (Dickinson 1938, p. 214). In The Economics of Control: Principles of Welfare Economics (1944), Abba Lerner admitted that capital investment would be politicized in market socialism.

Late 20th century and early 21st century

Economists active in the former Yugoslavia, including Czech-born Jaroslav Vaněk and Croat-born Branko Horvat, promoted a model of market socialism dubbed the Illyrian model, where firms were socially owned by their employees and structured around workers' self-management, competing with each other in open and free markets.

American economists in the latter half of the 20th century developed models based such as coupon socialism (by the economist John Roemer) and economic democracy (by the philosopher David Schweickart).

Pranab Bardhan and John Roemer proposed a form of market socialism where there was a stock market that distributed shares of the capital stock equally among citizens. In this stock market, there is no buying or selling of stocks that leads to negative externalities associated with a concentration of capital ownership. The Bardhan and Roemer model satisfied the main requirements of both socialism (workers own all the factors of production, not just labour) and market economies (prices determine efficient allocation of resources). New Zealand economist Steven O'Donnell expanded on the Bardhan and Roemer model and decomposed the capital function in a general equilibrium system to take account of entrepreneurial activity in market socialist economies. O'Donnell (2003) set up a model that could be used as a blueprint for transition economies and the results suggested that although market socialist models were inherently unstable in the long term, they would provide in the short term the economic infrastructure necessary for a successful transition from planned to market economies.

In the early 21st century, the Marxian economist Richard D. Wolff refocused Marxian economics giving it a microfoundational focus. The core idea was that transition from capitalism to socialism required the reorganization of the enterprise from a top-down hierarchical capitalist model to a model where all key enterprise decisions (what, how, and where to produce and what to do with outputs) were made on a one-worker, one vote basis. Wolff called them workers self-directed enterprises (WSDEs). How they would interact with one another and with consumers was left open to democratic social decisions and could entail markets or planning, or likely mixtures of both.

Advocates of market socialism such as Jaroslav Vaněk argue that genuinely free markets are not possible under conditions of private ownership of productive property. Instead, he contends that the class differences and inequalities in income and power that result from private ownership enable the interests of the dominant class to skew the market to their favor, either in the form of monopoly and market power, or by utilizing their wealth and resources to legislate government policies that benefit their specific business interests. Additionally, Vaněk states that workers in a socialist economy based on cooperative and self-managed enterprises have stronger incentives to maximize productivity because they would receive a share of the profits (based on the overall performance of their enterprise) in addition to receiving their fixed wage or salary. The stronger incentives to maximize productivity that he conceives as possible in a socialist economy based on cooperative and self-managed enterprises might be accomplished in a free-market economy if employee-owned companies were the norm as envisioned by various thinkers including Louis O. Kelso and James S. Albus.

Giacomo Corneo, Professor of Public Finance and Social Policy at the Free University of Berlin, espouses an "updated version of market socialism" where large firms would be publicly owned (though by no more than 51% share), which would allow the government to distribute a social dividend, while the rest of the firms would be privately owned and subject to regulations to protect employees, consumers and environment.

Matt Bruenig advocates for a version of market socialism he calls "funds socialism," which involves sovereign wealth funds aquiring shares of private enterprises to socialize ownership and control of firms. Bruenig claims that this form of market socialism is similar to that advocated by Yanis Varoufakis, Rudolf Meidner, and John Roemer.

Anti-equilibrium economics
Another form of market socialism has been promoted by critics of central planning and generally of neoclassical general equilibrium theory. The most notable of these economists were Alec Nove and János Kornai. In particular, Alec Nove proposed what he called feasible socialism, a mixed economy consisting of state-run enterprises, autonomous publicly owned firms, cooperatives and small-scale private enterprise operating in a market economy that included a role for macroeconomic planning.

In practice
A number of market socialist elements have existed in various economies. The economy of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is widely considered to have been a form of market-based socialism, based on socially-owned cooperatives, workers' self-management, and market allocation of capital. Some of the economic reforms introduced during the Prague Spring by Alexander Dubček, the leader of Czechoslovakia, included elements of market socialism.

Likewise, Vietnam's socialist-oriented market economy is self-described as market socialist. It has an extremely high prevalence of cooperatives, especially in agriculture and retail, with the continued state ownership of the commanding heights of the economy. Cooperative businesses in Vietnam are also incentivized and supported by the government, receiving many benefits that private companies do not.

Peter Drucker described the United States system of regulated pension funds providing capital to financial markets as "pension fund socialism". William H. Simon characterized pension fund socialism as "a form of market socialism", concluding that it was promising but perhaps with prospects more limited than those envisioned by its enthusiasts.

The economy of Cuba under the rule of Raúl Castro has been described as attempting market socialist reforms. Similarly, the economy of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi could be described as a form of market socialism as Muammar Gaddafi's Third International Theory shared many similarities with Yugoslav self-management.

Policies similar to the market socialist proposal of a social dividend and basic income scheme have been implemented on the basis of public ownership of natural resources in Alaska (Alaska Permanent Fund) and in Norway (the Government Pension Fund of Norway).

Relation to political ideologies

Marxism–Leninism

The phrase market socialism has occasionally been used in reference to any attempt by a Soviet-type planned economy to introduce market elements into its economic system. In this sense, market socialism was first attempted during the 1920s in the Soviet Union as the New Economic Policy (NEP) before being abandoned. Later, elements of market socialism were introduced in Hungary (nicknamed goulash communism), Czechoslovakia (sloganized as socialism with a human face), Yugoslavia (known as Titoism) in the 1970s and 1980s. The contemporary Economy of Belarus has been described as a market socialist system. The Soviet Union attempted to introduce a market system with its perestroika reforms under Mikhail Gorbachev. During the later stages there was talk within top circles that the Soviet Union should move toward a market-based socialist system.

Historically, these kinds of market socialist systems attempt to retain state ownership of the commanding heights of the economy such as heavy industry, energy and infrastructure while introducing decentralised decision making and giving local managers more freedom to make decisions and respond to market demands. Market socialist systems also allow private ownership and entrepreneurship in the service and other secondary economic sectors. The market is allowed to determine prices for consumer goods and agricultural products, and farmers are allowed to sell all or some of their products on the open market and keep some or all of the profit as an incentive to increase and improve production.

Both the Eastern European and Chinese socialist approaches to market reforms assume that a "market economy" is not necessarily a capitalist market economy, and that a socialist economy is not necessarily a planned economy. This view draws support from Karl Marx's observations that markets existed under historical modes of production such as the Roman slave market economy and feudal markets.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics

The term market socialism has been used to refer to reformed economic systems in Marxist–Leninist states, most notably in reference to the contemporary economy of the People's Republic of China, where a free price system is used for the allocation of capital goods in both the state and private sectors. However, Chinese political and economic proponents of the socialist market economy do not consider it to be a form of market socialism in the neoclassical sense and many Western economists and political scientists question the degree to which this model constitutes a form of market socialism, often preferring to describe it as state capitalism.

Although similar in name, market socialism differs markedly from the socialist market economy and socialist-oriented market economy models practiced in the contemporary People's Republic of China and Socialist Republic of Vietnam, respectively. Officially these economic systems represent market economies that are in the long-term process of transition toward socialism. Key differences between models of market socialism and the Chinese and Vietnamese models include the role of private investment in enterprises, the lack of a social dividend or basic income system to equitably distribute state profits among the population and the existence and role of financial markets in the Chinese model—markets which are absent in the market socialist literature.

The Chinese experience with socialism with Chinese characteristics is frequently referred to as a socialist market economy where the commanding heights are state-owned, but a substantial portion of both the state and private sectors of economy are governed by market practices, including a stock exchange for trading equity and the utilization of indirect macroeconomic market mechanisms (i.e. fiscal, monetary and industrial policies) to influence the economy in the same manner governments affect the economy in capitalist economies. The market is the arbitrator for most economic activity, with economic planning being relegated to macro-economic government indicative planning that does not encompass the microeconomic decision-making that is left to the individual organizations and state-owned enterprises. This model includes a significant amount of privately owned firms that operate as a business for profit, but only for consumer goods and services.

In the Chinese system, directive planning based on mandatory output requirements and quotas were displaced by market mechanisms for most of the economy, including both the state and private sectors, although the government engages in indicative planning for large state enterprises. In comparison with the Soviet-type planned economy, the Chinese socialist market model is based on the corporatization of state institutions, transforming them into joint-stock companies. As of 2008, there were 150 state-owned corporations directly under the central government. These state-owned corporations have been reformed and become increasingly dynamic and a major source of revenue for the state in 2008, leading the economic recovery in 2009 during the wake of the global financial crises.

This economic model is defended from a Marxist–Leninist perspective which states that a planned socialist economy can only emerge after first developing the basis for socialism through the establishment of a market economy and commodity-exchange economy; and that socialism would only emerge after this stage has exhausted its historical necessity and gradually transforms itself into socialism. Proponents of this model argue that the economic system of the former Soviet Union and its satellite states attempted to go from a natural economy to a planned economy by decree, without passing through the necessary market economy phase of development.

Democratic socialism

Some democratic socialists advocate forms of market socialism, some of which are based on self-management. Others advocate for a non-market participatory economy based on decentralized economic planning.

Anarchism

The French philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is the first person to call himself an anarchist and considered among its most influential theorists. Proudhon is considered by many to be the "father of anarchism". Proudhon became a member of the French Parliament after the French Revolution of 1848, whereon he referred to himself as a federalist. Proudhon's best-known assertion is that "Property is theft!", contained in his first major work What Is Property?, published in 1840. The book's publication attracted the attention of the French authorities. It also attracted the scrutiny of Karl Marx, who started a correspondence with Proudhon. The two influenced each other and met in Paris while Marx was exiled there. Their friendship finally ended when Marx responded to Proudhon's The Philosophy of Poverty with the provocatively titled The Poverty of Philosophy. The dispute became one of the sources of the split between the anarchist and Marxist wings of the International Working Men's Association. Mutualism is an anarchist school of thought and market socialist economic theory that advocates a socialist society where each person possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market. Integral to the scheme was the establishment of a mutual-credit bank that would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate, just high enough to cover administration. Mutualism is based on a labor theory of value which holds that when labor or its product is sold it ought to receive in exchange goods or services embodying "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility".

Mutualism originated from the writings of Proudhon. Mutualists oppose the idea of individuals receiving an income through loans, investments and rent as they believe these individuals are not laboring. Although opposed this type of income, Proudhon expressed that he had never intended "to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose". Insofar as they ensure the worker's right to the full product of their labor, mutualists support markets or artificial markets and property in the product of labor. However, mutualists argue for conditional titles to land, whose ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation (which Proudhon called possession), advocating personal property in place of private property. However, some individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker started calling possession as property or private property.

Josiah Warren is widely regarded as the first American anarchist and the four-page weekly paper he edited during 1833, The Peaceful Revolutionist, was the first anarchist periodical published. For American anarchist historian Eunice Minette Schuster, "[i]t is apparent [...] that Proudhonian Anarchism was to be found in the United States at least as early as 1848 and that it was not conscious of its affinity to the Individualist Anarchism of Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews. [...] William B. Greene presented this Proudhonian Mutualism in its purest and most systematic form". Later, the American individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker "was against both the state and capitalism, against both oppression and exploitation. While not against the market and property he was firmly against capitalism as it was, in his eyes, a state-supported monopoly of social capital (tools, machinery, etc.) which allows owners to exploit their employees, i.e., to avoid paying workers the full value of their labour. He thought that the "labouring classes are deprived of their earnings by usury in its three forms, interest, rent and profit". Therefore, "Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will abolish monopolistic rent; it will abolish taxation; it will abolish the exploitation of labour; it will abolish all means whereby any labourer can be deprived of any of his product". This stance puts him squarely in the libertarian socialist tradition and, unsurprisingly, Tucker referred to himself many times as a socialist and considered his philosophy to be "[a]narchistic socialism".

French individualist anarchist Émile Armand shows clearly opposition to capitalism and centralized economies when he said that the individualist anarchist "inwardly he remains refractory – fatally refractory – morally, intellectually, economically (The capitalist economy and the directed economy, the speculators and the fabricators of single systems are equally repugnant to him.)". He argued for a pluralistic economic logic when he said that "Here and there everything happening – here everyone receiving what they need, there each one getting whatever is needed according to their own capacity. Here, gift and barter – one product for another; there, exchange – product for representative value. Here, the producer is the owner of the product, there, the product is put to the possession of the collectivity". The Spanish individualist anarchist Miguel Giménez Igualada thought that "capitalism is an effect of government; the disappearance of government means capitalism falls from its pedestal vertiginously. [...] That which we call capitalism is not something else but a product of the State, within which the only thing that is being pushed forward is profit, good or badly acquired. And so to fight against capitalism is a pointless task, since be it State capitalism or Enterprise capitalism, as long as Government exists, exploiting capital will exist. The fight, but of consciousness, is against the State". His view on class division and technocracy are as follows "Since when no one works for another, the profiteer from wealth disappears, just as government will disappear when no one pays attention to those who learned four things at universities and from that fact they pretend to govern men. Big industrial enterprises will be transformed by men in big associations in which everyone will work and enjoy the product of their work. And from those easy as well as beautiful problems anarchism deals with and he who puts them in practice and lives them are anarchists. [...] The priority which without rest an anarchist must make is that in which no one has to exploit anyone, no man to no man, since that non-exploitation will lead to the limitation of property to individual needs".

Left-wing market anarchism is a market socialist form of individualist anarchism, left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism associated with scholars such as Kevin Carson, Roderick T. Long, Charles W. Johnson, Brad Spangler, Samuel Edward Konkin III, Sheldon Richman, Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Gary Chartier, who stress the value of radically free markets, termed freed markets to distinguish them from the common conception which these libertarians believe to be riddled with capitalist and statist privileges. Referred to as left-wing market anarchists or market-oriented left-libertarians, proponents of this approach strongly affirm the classical liberal ideas of free markets and self-ownership while maintaining that taken to their logical conclusions these ideas support anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical, pro-labor positions in economics; anti-imperialism in foreign policy; and thoroughly liberal or radical views regarding socio-cultural issues.

The genealogy of contemporary left-wing market anarchism, sometimes labelled market-oriented left-libertarianism, overlaps to a significant degree with that of Steiner–Vallentyne left-libertarianism as the roots of that tradition are sketched in the book The Origins of Left-Libertarianism. Carson–Long-style left-libertarianism is rooted in 19th-century mutualism and in the work of figures such as Thomas Hodgskin, French Liberal School thinkers such as Gustave de Molinari and the American individualist anarchists Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner. While with notable exceptions market-oriented libertarians after Tucker tended to ally with the political right, relationships between those libertarians and the New Left thrived in the 1960s, laying the groundwork for modern left-wing market anarchism. Left-wing market anarchism identifies with left-libertarianism which names several related yet distinct approaches to politics, society, culture and political and social theory, which stress both individual freedom and social justice.

Unlike right-libertarians, left-libertarians believe that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights and maintain that natural resources (land, oil, gold and trees) ought to be held in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively. Those left-libertarians who support property do so under different property norms and theories, or under the condition that recompense is offered to the local or global community.

Criticism
Market abolitionists such as David McNally argue in the Marxist tradition that the logic of the market inherently produces inequitable outcomes and leads to unequal exchanges, arguing that Adam Smith's moral intent and moral philosophy espousing equal exchange was undermined by the practice of the free market he championed—the development of the market economy involved coercion, exploitation and violence that Smith's moral philosophy could not countenance. McNally criticizes market socialists for believing in the possibility of fair markets based on equal exchanges to be achieved by purging parasitical elements from the market economy such as private ownership of the means of production, arguing that market socialism is an oxymoron when socialism is defined as an end to wage labour.

See also

 Co-determination
 Worker representation on corporate boards of directors
 Cooperative
 Worker cooperative
 Distributism
 Dirigisme
 Employee stock ownership
 Liberal socialism
 Mutualism
 New Economic Mechanism
 Social market economy
 Social ownership
 Socialist-oriented market economy
 Titoism

References

Further reading
 Alejandro Agafonow (2012). "The Austrian Dehomogenization Debate, or the Possibility of a Hayekian Planner," Review of Political Economy, Vol. 24, No. 02.
 Chartier, Gary; Johnson, Charles W. (2011). Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Brooklyn, NY:Minor Compositions/Autonomedia
 Bertell Ollman ed. (1998). Market Socialism: the Debate Among Socialists, with other contributions by James Lawler, Hillel Ticktin and David Schewikart. Preview.

External links

Comparative economic systems
Economic ideologies
Libertarianism by form
Neoclassical economics
Socialism
Socialist calculation
Left-wing politics


title: Monuments (metal band)

text:
Monuments are a British progressive metal band formed by former Fellsilent guitarist, John Browne, and former Tony Danza Tapdance Extravaganza guitarist, Josh Travis. The band has released four studio albums through Century Media Records: Gnosis (2012), The Amanuensis (2014), Phronesis (2018) and In Stasis (2022).

History
The band was formed by Fellsilent guitarist John Browne and the Tony Danza Tapdance Extravaganza guitarist Josh Travis in 2007. After various lineup changes, the band signed with Century Media Records in 2012, announcing the addition of singer Matt Rose the same day. Their debut album, Gnosis, came out on 28 August 2012.

The band took part in the Euroblast European Tour with Jeff Loomis, Vildhjarta, and Stealing Axion. Another European tour with Born of Osiris and After the Burial followed in early 2013. By March 2013, the band parted ways with vocalist Matt Rose. In July 2013, it was announced that former Periphery and current Ever Forthright and The HAARP Machine vocalist Chris Barretto had joined the band.

In December 2013, the band announced via Facebook that they had completed their second album. The drums were recorded in Monnow Valley Studio, Wales with Romesh Dodangoda (Motörhead, Sylosis, Bring Me the Horizon), while the rest of the instruments were tracked DIY by Browne, and the vocals were done with Eyal Levi. In April 2014, it was formally announced that their new album, The Amanuensis, would be released on 23 June 2014.

The band played on the Red Bull Studios Live Stage at Download on Sunday 15 June 2014. In March and April 2015, they supported Australian band Karnivool on their UK and European headline tour. Drummer Mike Malyan left the band during August 2015 due to injuries on his back and shoulder and was replaced by Anup Sastry, the former Intervals drummer. They played at Hevy music festival later that month.

On 16 June 2016, Anup Sastry announced on his Facebook page that he was amicably leaving the band, although he returned in 2018 to record drums for the new album, Phronesis.

In support of the release of the new album, Monuments performed a 31-date tour of the United Kingdom and mainland Europe over October and November with main support from Vola. In January 2019 Monuments will be performing headline shows in New Zealand, then on the Australian multi-date music festival Progfest.

On 1 July 2019, Monuments announced that Chris Barretto had departed the band due to "personal reasons." They also announced YouTuber Andy Cizek as their fill-in vocalist for the rest of the tour. On 11 October 2019, Monuments announced that Andy Cizek is now their official vocalist. Less than two months later, former drummer Mike Malyan rejoined the band.

On 12 July 2021, Monuments announced that guitarist Olly Steele had left the band to pursue other musical projects. In January 2022, Monuments fourth album In Stasis was announced with a release date of April 15, 2022. In Stasis features Mick Gordon as co-producer, with Spencer Sotelo of Periphery and ex-vocalist Neema Askari as guests. On 31 January 2023, Monuments announced departure of the bassist Adam Swan to pursue his environmental efforts with Soil Ecology Agriculture. His spot was filled in with Dutch bassist Werner Erkelens of Aviations.

Band members

Current members
 John Browne – guitars (2007–present)
 Mike Malyan – drums (2010–2015, 2019–present); samples (2014–2015, 2019–present)
 Andy Cizek – vocals (2019–present)
 Werner Erkelens – bass (2023–present; touring member 2022)

Former members
 Josh Travis – vocals, guitars (2007–2010)
 Neema Askari – vocals (2010–2011)
 Greg Pope – vocals (2010–2011)
 Matt Rose – vocals (2012–2013)
 Anup Sastry – drums (2015–2016, 2018)
 Daniel Lang – drums (2016–2018, 2018–2019)
 Chris Barretto – vocals (2013–2019)
 Olly Steele – guitars (2011–2021)
 Adam Swan – bass (2010–2023)

Touring musicians
 Jake Monson – guitars (2010)
 Paul Ortiz – guitars (2010–2011)
 Kaan Tasan – vocals (2010)
 John Gillen – drums (2014)
 Alex Rüdinger – drums (2014)

Timeline

Discography

Studio albums
Gnosis (2012, Century Media Records)
The Amanuensis (2014, Century Media Records)
Phronesis (2018, Century Media Records)
In Stasis (2022, Century Media Records)

Demos
...And It Will End in Dissonance (2006)
We Are the Foundation (2010)

Singles
"Doxa" (2012)
"Degenerate" (2012)
"I, the Creator" (2014)
"Origin of Escape" (2014)
"The Alchemist" (2014)
"Atlas" (2014)
"A.W.O.L" (2018)
"Leviathan" (2018)
"Mirror Image" (2018)
"Animus" (2020)
"Deadnest" (2021)
"Lavos" (2021)
"Cardinal Red" (2022)
"False Providence" (2022)
"Nefarious" (2023)

References

External links

British progressive metal musical groups
Djent
Century Media Records artists


title: Little Shickshinny Creek

text:
Little Shickshinny Creek is a tributary of Shickshinny Creek in Columbia County and Luzerne County, in Pennsylvania, United States. It is , nearly as long as Shickshinny Creek itself. The creek flows through Briar Creek Township, Columbia County; Salem Township, Luzerne County; and the borough of Shickshinny, in Luzerne County. It is designated as a high-quality coldwater fishery. Pennsylvania State Game Lands #55 and #260 are in the creek's watershed. The watershed has an area of 9.8 square miles, which includes swamps and forests. Waterfalls known as the Little Shickshinny Creek Falls are located on the creek.

Course

Little Shickshinny Creek begins near the northwestern edge of Briar Creek Township, Columbia County, between Knob Mountain and Huntington Mountain. The creek flows east for a few miles, heading down into a valley between the two aforementioned mountains. The valley broadens gradually and the creek eventually exits Briar Creek Township.

Upon exiting Briar Creek Township, Little Shickshinny Creek enters Salem Township, Luzerne County. Here, it turns northeast and its valley narrows slightly. After a few more miles, the creek reaches the borough of Shickshinny, where it reaches its confluence with Shickshinny Creek.

Little Shickshinny Creek's mouth is  upstream of the mouth of Shickshinny Creek.

Watershed and geography
The watershed of Little Shickshinny Creek has an area of 9.8 square miles.

There is a reservoir on Little Shickshinny Creek. There is also a swamp and some minor development.

A ridge is located in the vicinity of Little Shickshinny Creek in Columbia County. It is in the State Game Lands #55. Plants inhabiting this area include oaks, birches, laurel, and other species. The land on the northern side of the creek is level and not well-drained.

Little Shickshinny Creek flows through a gorge in Pennsylvania State Game Lands #260. There are also waterfalls on the creek here, which are termed the "Little Shickshinny Creek Falls" by Jeff Mitchell in his book Hiking the Endless Mountains. The waterfalls are  high. Sandstone outcroppings appear near the falls. Varved laclustrine sediments may appear on the northern side of the creek. Its valley has experienced glaciation in the past.

The mouth of Little Shickshinny Creek has an elevation of  above sea level.

History and etymology
An intake dam was built on Little Shickshinny Creek by the Pennsylvania Game Commission. It was  tall, , and was used to supply water. The dam was removed in 2009, resulting in increased water quality.

The word shickshinny in Little Shickshinny Creek's name means "quick dashing water".

Recreation
Recreation in the watershed of Little Shickshinny Creek includes the Pennsylvania State Game Lands #55 and the Camp Louise Girl Scout Camp. The creek also passes through Pennsylvania State Game Lands #260, which has a trail leading to it.

A swimming hole is located on Little Shickshinny Creek.

Biology
Little Shickshinny Creek is designated as a high-quality coldwater fishery. It is home to wild trout and is not stocked. The creek's upper reaches are in the Pennsylvania State Game Lands Number 55.

Habitats along Little Shickshinny Creek include mainly a Hemlock Palustrine Forest Natural Community, but also a red maple swamp, a highbush blueberry shrub swamp, and a dry oak-heath forest. Tree species in the creek's Hemlock Palustrine Forest Natural Community include mainly eastern hemlock, but also black gum, white pine, and beech. Other plants found here include Jack-in-the-pulpit, rhododendron, sensitive fern, skunk cabbage, hay-scented fern, and mountain laurel. The creek's shrub swamps and red maple swamps are home to gray birch, sedge, royal fern, silky dogwood, and numerous others.

Trees found directly on Little Shickshinny Creek and its tributaries include hemlock, black gum, and yellow birch. Other plants found on the banks of the creek include Canada mayflower, rhododendron, cinnamon fern, royal fern, starflower, dwarf ginseng, skunk cabbage, pink lady’s-slipper, and partridge berry.

Little Shickshinny Creek and the surrounding area has a high level of bird biodiversity, which has been described as "exceptional for the area". There are 33 bird species near the creek, including owls, thrushes, flycatchers, and ten warbler species. The creek's headwaters have a high level of plant biodiversity.

The hemlock wooly adelgid inhabits the vicinity of Little Shickshinny Creek.

See also
Reyburn Creek, next tributary of Shickshinny Creek going upstream
List of rivers of Pennsylvania

References

Rivers of Columbia County, Pennsylvania
Rivers of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Rivers of Pennsylvania
Tributaries of the Susquehanna River