essay of communism and capitalism

Home — Essay Samples — Economics — Capitalism — Essay On Capitalism And Communism

Essay on Capitalism and Communism

Categories: Capitalism Communism

About this sample

Words: 543 |

Published: Mar 13, 2024

Words: 543 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Role of government, distribution of wealth, impact on society and economy.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

Expert in: Economics Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2287 words

1 pages / 497 words

3 pages / 1581 words

2 pages / 1291 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Capitalism

Socialism and capitalism are two distinct economic and political ideologies that have shaped the world in profound ways. They represent contrasting approaches to the organization of society, the distribution of resources, and [...]

In the documentary film Capitalism: A Love Story directed by Michael Moore, the filmmaker explores the impact of capitalism on American society. Through interviews with individuals affected by corporate greed, financial [...]

The Columbian Exchange, which occurred following the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas in 1492, facilitated the widespread transfer of plants, animals, diseases, and culture between the Eastern and Western [...]

Free enterprise, also known as capitalism, is an economic system characterized by private ownership of resources and the means of production, where individuals and businesses have the freedom to compete and operate with minimal [...]

Capitalism and communism have long been at the center of political and economic debates, with proponents of each system arguing for its superiority. While both systems have their merits, capitalism has proven to be the most [...]

The criticisms of capitalism, particularly regarding its effects on the poor, are not without merit. Capitalism is an economic system characterized by limited government intervention, where decisions are primarily made by [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Communism and Capitalism Through the History Essay

Introduction, revolution of social darwinism.

During the modern history, there existed two main economic systems, namely: communism and capitalism. Their ideologies are intrinsically divergent and often unreceptive to each other. All over the hostilities defame and institutional propaganda has become extensive known creating worry and hatred between communist and capitalist.

Capitalism is defined as the economic system based on free trade where private sectors are allowed to do businesses with another individual or group of private citizens. In this system, the means of product and service production is mainly carried out and owned by the individuals instead of the government while communism also known as fascism is contrary to this where production and distribution of products is carried out by the state as non-profit organization.

The book “The Time Machine” is mainly a social appraisal of H.G. Wells who was a Victorian England predicted into a far future. The largest part of his life he remained a socialist with communist background and he argued in most of his books that capitalism was a major challenge to the post-modern future.

Fast development in technology, social life, education and other capitals had commenced the industrial Revolution in during 17 th and 18 th century. Additionally, he argued that by the late 19 th century of “The Time Traveler” the UK was most powerful with the economy whereas industrialists were enjoying their absolute wealth.

The capitalists during this era overworked men, women and even young children who were forced to work overtime with penny wages in dirty, smoke-filled industries. After observing all this as it took place, Wells decided to incorporate various scientific, natural and social ideologies in his arguments against capitalism and he majored on the citizens who were selective, discriminatory for their personal gain as they continued to exploit the poor and vulnerable members of the society (Wells 47 ).

First of all, Wells characterized capitalism as a revolution of social Darwinism. In this theory “Origin of Species”, the author Charles Darwin argued that nature allowed the reproduction of species that their characters fitted for best survival.

Therefore, social Darwinism was formulated by the British Philosopher Herbert Spencer whom regularly misrepresented this idea of natural fitness to validate 19th century social stratification among wealthy and unfortunate people. Wells contradicted with this philosopher where he argued that it did not imply that surviving species on an environment and the best but simply fit for their precise environment (Wells 83).

It is therefore concluded that evolution does not guide into perfectibility but to the maximum adaptability of a species. Communism was therefore aggravated mainly by the pessimistic impact of the industrial revolution on poor industrial employees. It was aimed at creating a social class of public common ownership where they believed that the society in general was more important than personal rights liberty and individual’s freedom.

On the other hand, as the communist fought hard against the capitalist, there were negative impacts that were associated with it where most dictators erupted as the results of communism for they were overall decision makers. For communism to work out, it relies on human nature where they need to be completely humane and ready to work for gaining of their neighbors (Wells 94).

Capitalism has the major economic system which takes control of the world economy and it has proved to be perfect enough comparing to the other economies such as socialism. It is characterized by its mode of production where prime resources such as capital and land are owned by the individuals.

Trade activities are fully controlled by the interaction between customers and sellers in the market and the owners here is free to make maximum profit from their resources. The main objective of a capitalist state is to secure concurrent high employment and stable prices (Wells 58).

During late 19 th century, wars uprising and economic despair has acted against capitalism. The great depression period has acted as the most challenging moment within the capitalism history where shares in the stock market depreciated at an alarming rate. Capitalism on its sides is referred to as the best economic friend for it freely allows for global competitive market and capitalist contributes a lot to the economy of a nation.

There are two types of capitalism which are commonly known, of which one of them is the proprietary capitalism. During this period of capitalism, there were only some corporations and no one could relate them to the modern society. The other form of capitalism is progressive capitalist economy.

In this type of capitalism, business outputs are present as inputs of the future. Even though capitalism has gone through transitional changes all over the years, capitalistic economy structure has remained to be most influential economy as well as the political structure in the world.

Finally, communism and capitalism has acted towards the economic development but several challenges have affected both economies. The communism has greatly affected it people where personal growth has been affected by national ideology of togetherness dragging back both economic and infrastructure development. On the other hand, capitalism has lead to emergence of life standards where it exists rich and the poor resulting to the exploitation of the vulnerable members of the society.

Wells, H. George. The Time Machine. Penguin Classics, 2007. Print.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 13). Communism and Capitalism Through the History. https://ivypanda.com/essays/communism-and-capitalism-essay/

"Communism and Capitalism Through the History." IvyPanda , 13 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/communism-and-capitalism-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Communism and Capitalism Through the History'. 13 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Communism and Capitalism Through the History." April 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/communism-and-capitalism-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Communism and Capitalism Through the History." April 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/communism-and-capitalism-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Communism and Capitalism Through the History." April 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/communism-and-capitalism-essay/.

Social Darwinism Through the History
Why Did the Ideas of Social Darwinism Appeal to Many Americans in the Late 19th Century?
Social Darwinism and Nazi Genocide Ideology
Social Darwinism in European Imperialism
Scientific Racism: the Eugenics of Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism: Evolutionary Explanations in Sociology
The Darwinism theory in the text The Island of Dr Moreau
Social Darwinism and the Mixing of the Races
Darwinism and Creationism in "Evolution" Documentary
Social Darwinism and the Success or Failures of Individuals in the Society
Issues that Affected the History of Australia and the Aborigines
Contribution of Empiricism and Rationalism to the Emergence of the Scientific Perspective in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries
History of Empires in Past and Modern World
Short-Term and Long-Term Consequences of Removals for the Indigenous Children
The Role of the Cold War in Shaping Transatlantic Relations in the Period 1945 to 1970

Understanding the Cold War: What is the difference between capitalism and communism?

Difference between communism and capitalism

The Cold War, a period of political tension and military rivalry that lasted from the end of World War II until the early 1990s, was more than a geopolitical struggle between the Soviet Union and the United States.

At its core, it was a battle of ideologies, a clash between two fundamentally different visions of how society should be organized, governed, and economically structured.

On one side stood communism, a system that sought to eliminate social classes and promote collective ownership, as championed by the Soviet Union and its allies.

On the other side was capitalism, a system that emphasized individual entrepreneurship and free markets, as embodied by the United States and the Western world.

The basics of communism

Communism, as a political and economic ideology, seeks to create a classless society where the means of production are owned collectively.

Rooted in the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, communism emphasizes equality and the distribution of wealth according to need.

In a communist system, there is no private ownership of capital goods, and the state often plays a central role in planning and controlling the economy.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was the most prominent example of a communist state, and its policies and practices were often seen as the embodiment of this ideology.

The basics of capitalism

In contrast, capitalism is an economic system that emphasizes private ownership and the free market.

Under capitalism, individuals and businesses own the means of production and operate for profit.

The distribution of resources is determined by supply and demand, and prices are set by competition in the marketplace.

Governments may intervene to some extent, but they generally allow the market to function with minimal interference.

The United States, during the Cold War, stood as a symbol of capitalist ideals, promoting free trade, individual entrepreneurship, and economic freedom.

Why were they in conflict?

The ideological divide between communism and capitalism during the Cold War was profound and often irreconcilable.

While communism sought to eradicate social classes and promote collective welfare, capitalism emphasized individual initiative and personal gain.

The communist belief in state control contrasted sharply with the capitalist faith in market forces.

In the political arena, these differences often translated into opposing views on democracy, human rights, and governance.

Communist states tended to favor centralized control and one-party rule, while capitalist countries generally supported multiparty systems and democratic principles.

Economic differences

In the communist economic model, the state plays a central role in planning and controlling the economy.

The means of production, including factories, land, and resources, are owned collectively, and the government often sets production goals, prices, and distribution methods.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union's command economy was the most prominent example of this approach.

Centralized planning aimed to meet the collective needs of the population, but it often led to inefficiencies, shortages, and a lack of innovation.

Contrary to the centralized planning of communism, capitalist economies rely on the free market to determine production, distribution, and pricing.

Private ownership and competition are the driving forces, and governments typically intervene only to regulate or correct market failures.

During the Cold War, the United States and Western Europe championed this model, promoting free trade, open markets, and individual entrepreneurship.

The ideological divide between communism and capitalism had far-reaching effects on global economics during the Cold War.

The world was often split into two economic spheres, with the Soviet-led Eastern Bloc and the U.S.-led Western Bloc engaging in separate trade agreements, financial systems, and development strategies.

This division extended to developing countries, where the superpowers vied for influence by promoting their respective economic models.

The Non-Aligned Movement, comprising countries that did not formally align with either bloc, sought to navigate this complex landscape, often adopting mixed economic approaches.

Differences in government structures

Communist political systems are characterized by a centralized government that often controls all aspects of political life.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union's one-party system became synonymous with communist governance.

The Communist Party held a monopoly on political power, and opposition parties were either suppressed or controlled.

In this system, the state controlled not only the economy but also education, media, and other aspects of daily life.

Decision-making was highly centralized, and citizens had limited political freedoms and civil liberties.

Other communist states, such as China, Cuba, and East Germany, followed similar political structures, with variations in governance and control.

In contrast, capitalist political systems, particularly in the West during the Cold War, were often associated with democratic governance.

In countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Western European nations, multiparty systems allowed for competitive elections and a separation of powers.

Capitalism itself does not prescribe a specific political system, but in the context of the Cold War, it was often paired with democratic principles such as individual rights, freedom of speech, and rule of law.

Governments were typically limited in their control over the economy and private life, and checks and balances were implemented to prevent abuses of power.

The Cold War saw a complex interplay between democracy and authoritarianism within both communist and capitalist blocs.

While the Western capitalist countries generally promoted democratic values, there were instances of support for authoritarian regimes that aligned with their strategic interests.

How the different systems influenced their people

During the Cold War, both the communist and capitalist blocs engaged in extensive propaganda campaigns to promote their ideologies and discredit the other side.

State-controlled media in communist countries often portrayed capitalism as corrupt and exploitative, while Western media emphasized the lack of freedom and human rights under communism.

This battle for hearts and minds extended to film, literature, art, and even sports, where ideological messages were often woven into popular culture.

Education systems were also influenced by the ideological divide. In communist countries, education was often used to instill socialist values and loyalty to the party.

In capitalist countries, education emphasized democratic principles and individual achievement.

Academic exchanges, scholarships, and cultural diplomacy were tools used by both sides to spread their values and gain influence.

The Cold War had a profound impact on arts and literature, inspiring works that reflected the anxieties, hopes, and critiques of the time.

From dystopian novels like George Orwell's "1984" to the socialist realism of Soviet art, creative expression was both shaped by and responded to the ideological struggle.

Artists and writers often faced censorship or were used as cultural ambassadors, reflecting the complex relationship between art and politics.

The contrast between communism and capitalism was also evident in daily life and consumer culture.

The abundance and variety of consumer goods in the West were promoted as symbols of freedom and prosperity, while the austerity and uniformity of life under communism were portrayed as limitations.

This cultural competition extended to music, fashion, technology, and even food, reflecting the pervasive nature of the ideological divide.

The use of diplomacy and spying by both sides

Throughout the Cold War, numerous summits and agreements were held to manage tensions, negotiate arms control, and address other international issues.

Notable examples include the Geneva Summit (1955), the Cuban Missile Crisis negotiations (1962), the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), and the Helsinki Accords (1975).

These diplomatic efforts often played a crucial role in preventing escalation and fostering cooperation, even amidst intense ideological rivalry.

The Cold War was also marked by extensive espionage and intelligence activities by both sides.

The CIA, KGB, MI6, and other intelligence agencies engaged in covert operations, surveillance, disinformation campaigns, and other clandestine activities.

The espionage battle not only influenced diplomatic relations but also contributed to technological advancements, cultural intrigue, and the mystique of the Cold War era.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) emerged as a significant force in international relations during the Cold War.

Comprising countries that did not formally align with either the Eastern or Western blocs, NAM sought to navigate the Cold War's ideological divide and promote peaceful coexistence, economic development, and political independence.

Leaders like India's Jawaharlal Nehru, Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, and Yugoslavia's Josip Broz Tito played key roles in shaping this movement.

The Cold War also influenced the functioning of international organizations like the United Nations.

The ideological divide often played out in the UN's chambers, affecting resolutions, peacekeeping missions, and international cooperation.

Other international organizations, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, were also shaped by the Cold War dynamics, influencing global economic policies and development strategies.

Places where communism and capitalism clashed

Germany: A Nation Divided

The division of Germany into East and West became a symbol of the Cold War's ideological divide. East Germany, under Soviet influence, adopted a communist system, while West Germany embraced capitalism and aligned with the Western bloc. The construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961 physically separated families and communities, reflecting the deep political and ideological rift. The fall of the Wall in 1989 marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War and the reunification of Germany.

Cuba: The Caribbean Cold War Flashpoint

Cuba's transformation into a communist state under Fidel Castro brought the Cold War to the Western Hemisphere. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, as the U.S. and the Soviet Union faced off over Soviet missiles in Cuba. Cuba's alignment with the Soviet Union and its support for revolutionary movements in Latin America made it a central player in Cold War dynamics in the region.

Vietnam: A War of Ideologies

The Vietnam War was a protracted and devastating conflict that pitted the communist North against the capitalist South, with significant involvement from both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The war became a symbol of the ideological struggle, with profound impacts on Vietnamese society, American politics, and international relations. The war's legacy continues to influence contemporary debates about military intervention, human rights, and global governance.

Afghanistan: The Soviet Union's Vietnam

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 marked a significant escalation in the Cold War, leading to a decade-long conflict that became the Soviet Union's "Vietnam." The U.S. supported Afghan resistance fighters, turning the conflict into a proxy war. The war had lasting impacts on Afghanistan, contributing to ongoing instability, and played a role in the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Eastern Europe: The Struggle for Freedom

The countries of Eastern Europe, under Soviet influence, were central to the Cold War struggle. Movements for political reform and independence, such as the Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia and the Solidarity movement in Poland, challenged communist rule and inspired global support for human rights and democracy. The peaceful revolutions of 1989 marked a turning point, leading to the collapse of communist regimes across the region.

What do you need help with?

Download ready-to-use digital learning resources.

Contact via email

Capitalism and Communism: A Comparative Analysis

Throughout history, various systems have been set to govern societies around the world. Capitalism and communism are the two most analyzed and debated systems that affect the economy and society in very different ways. They are concepts that can be analyzed through a multitude of disciplines. This paper attempts to draw a comparative analysis between capitalism and communism through the lens of sociology. It explores the historical context of both the ideologies and also discusses the contemporary relevance of the same, such that one can see the distinction between them.

The radical withdrawal from the 16th century economic system, mercantilism, that dominated Europe for many centuries was brought forward by Adam Smith. Often known as the father of capitalism, he is credited with establishing political economics with his disquisition An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Capitalism which is based on the free market or free enterprise promotes private ownership and individual economic freedom. The institutions of means of production in a nation are usually not owned by the government but rather by independent individuals. Laissez-faire or free competition is the most important characteristic of capitalism that highlights economic freedom for individuals without the interference of the government. This system keeps prices as low as possible for consumers to seek unlimited amounts of products for the least amount of money. Supply and Demand would be another important characteristic of capitalism which discusses how prices are controlled from getting either too high or too low by increasing and decreasing prices that directly affect the supply and demand of a product.

Communism on the other hand was developed by Karl Marx in the 19th century due to his dislike towards capitalism as it increased the gap between the rich and the poor. The system allowed for the more capable people to occupy the top which led to the rest of the population struggling to survive in the bottom. Being the father of communism, his view on capitalism was an “outmoded economic system that exploited workers, which would eventually rise against the rich because the poor were so unfairly treated (2009).” Communism’s main goal was to replace the principles of capitalism as according to Karl Marx, the society was ruined with the unfair treatment of the poor. Their main principle highlights the prohibition of private land ownership in the hopes of eliminating the gap between the rich and poor and promoting equality. According to communism, private ownership encourages greed due to private ownership, so its prominence lies in its main principle of shared property for the direct control of the economy by the people.

Also Read: The Communist Manifesto – Summary

Historical Context

The use of capitalism developed as a popular system in the 16th century but its existence dates back to ancient times. The rise of the textile industry in England was crucial to the popularization of capitalism. From here, expanding capital that supported production for the economy rather than religious institutions made it prominent and differed it from the systems before. Along with capital came economic disparity as the rich seemed more worthy and supportive of the system rather than the poor and this allowed for it to create a gap between people that can be observed to this day. Furthermore, there was a major price inflation that resulted from the supply of metal. This allowed for mercantilism to take over the 16th-8th century which allowed for economic development by setting policies that supported monetary systems and private institutions.

With time, the Industrial Revolution came around in the 18th century which developed technical practices which was reflected in Adam Smith’s An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The advocation of economic development with free trade, self-regulating markets, etc was all part of the policies in the 19th century. Moreover, industrial capitalism was also established around this time which created a wave of industrial workers which inspired philosophers like Karl Marx. World War I was also a major play in the evolution of capitalism. However, around World War II and its effects, there was a decline in international markets and The Great Depression had terminated governments’ noninterference with the economy. While major capitalist countries had regained their confidence in the system, by the 1970s many empathized with socialism due to the massive economic inequality it had created and questioned its stability in the long run.

Communistic ideas can be dated back to Plato’s Republic in which he explains the ideal state that contains an entire community that acts as a large family sharing common ownership in all aspects and avoiding private ownership due to its tendency of increasing selfishness. Similar thought processes encouraged monks to swear to serve and share their possessions with the needy. Sir Thomas More’s Utopia (1516) further discusses monastic orders like the elimination of money and the idea of sharing everything like food, houses, and other assets.

Communism as a system was birthed from the rise of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. Karl Marx disliked the idea of high economic productivity at the rate of the distressed working class, so he developed theories that supported the idea of common ownership that avoided class struggles and private ownership. Engels, who was also horrified by the class-divided society, so he accompanied Marx to detail the struggles and poverty that the working class lived in. His The Condition of the English Working Class explained the poverty and sickness that haunted the proletariats or the working class and that the only way to end this struggle is to replace capitalism with communism. They detailed that in a communist system, industrial products such as factories and railroads would be public property and that it would benefit everyone equally. One of their major works, The Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) encourages a group of radicals, known as the Communist League, and critiques capitalism and its implications and further sketches out a future communist system.

Perception through contemporary culture

Capitalism and Communism are sustainable through multiple contexts and time periods as far as ideology and application of the same in a societal and economic structure go. They are hence thoroughly discussed topics even in terms of contemporary culture. Contemporary culture explores capitalism in a way that exposes the role of excess wealth in the drastic divisions that layer social stratas . Communism, however, discusses and critically analyses Karl Marx’s theories and tries to express opinions on the evils and redundancy of capitalism.

Economic practices, social reforms and representation in media are all democratically enabled due to the presence of social media and modern techniques that encourage open discussions on digital platforms. Digital society as a whole serves as a space to evaluate feudal systems in terms of capitalism and communism and hence interprets and shares data with an overwhelming amount of mixed responses, views, comments and strong opinions. For example, digital societies create vaults that function within extremes. Capitalism historically originates from western thought and with the west’s massive influence on the rest of the world has allowed it to dominate economic policies and institutions.

Due to this, throughout history, there has been a massive backlash towards communism and its ideals. This can be backed up by Noam Chomsky’s five filters of Mass Media . He states in one of his filters, which is known as Anti-Communism, and explains that it is a control mechanism. He details that this filter is quite often used to scare the public of the evils of communism to keep it from threatening the very economy that dominates the world as of now. To Noam Chomsky, communism directly threatens the structure of classes and superiority status, and to avoid affecting this, the media uses this filter as a tactic to keep the economy running. Even though communism can be construed to be a topic of contention to this day, many continue to discuss its detrimental or essentially qualitative impacts. While some see it as a way to bring equality and fairness to society and allow for all citizens to have facilities, others believe that heavy control of the free market by the government could be seen as problematic. Overall, it is safe to say that the multiple and diverse viewpoints on both communism and capitalism, including its relevance in pop culture and issues to do with societal flaws are strongly conveyed and pondered over even now, hence validating and substantiating its perception in contemporary times and its generalizability through various time contexts.

Personal Opinion

While of course both the systems have crucial advantages but also massive implications, it should be noted that it’s not the idea of which system is worse but who is controlling the system. Both the systems are capable of advancing the nation economically and socially but the government’s policies and how they are being utilized dictates the whole narrative. There are current examples of nations like the United States and China who follow both of the systems. Economically, they both are one of the most advanced countries in the world but socially, they continue to have problems to this day. The United States, a major capitalist country and China, a major communist country have struggling people begging the government to implement better policies. The working class struggle and minimum wage problems in America and the detention of Uyghurs in China are contemporary problems that are affecting thousands of people. People continue to debate on social media and through academic papers on which system is better, understanding that both systems have massive implications as the system itself might not be the problem but the people who are controlling the system might be the actual problem.

In conclusion, capitalism, a free market and private ownership supporter dominates the world due to its liberal policies and the freedom it gives to the people to grow with their capabilities and communism, a public ownership system that prioritizes equity for all and allows for everyone to receive facilities equally, without being exploited in any way. Both the systems contain pros and cons but the way the policies are being set and enacted is what depicts the situation of a nation. These systems have been widely debated to this day, trying to figure out which system is better. This is extremely crucial, especially in the current times as violence and societal struggles only continue to increase due to economical failure. No matter which system it is, both of them demonstrated massive implications, especially the social aspects. The importance of reforms needs to be prioritized, no matter which system it is to help better the nation economically and socially.

A&E Television Networks. (2009, November 9). Karl Marx . History.com. https://www.history.com/topics/germany/karl-marx.
Brucan, S. (1998). Communism versus Capitalism: A False Issue. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 21 (2), 201-205. Retrieved July 17, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40241425
Van der Veen, R., & Van Parijs, P. (1986). A Capitalist Road to Communism. Theory and Society, 15 (5), 635-655. Retrieved July 17, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/657301
Foursov, A. (1996). Communism, Capitalism, and the Bells of History. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 19 (2), 103-130. Retrieved July 17, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40241358

Neha is currently pursuing a degree in Sociology paired with International Relations and Media Studies. She aspires for a global career as an academic researcher and advocate of humanitarian action. She is deeply passionate about human rights and social justice, and she profoundly researches socio-economics, politics, and public policy to better understand the society and its institutions. One of her biggest accomplishments would be starting a free school in her backyard for kids with no access to education during the pandemic.

Key Differences

Know the Differences & Comparisons

Difference Between Capitalism and Communism

On the other hand, Karl Marx , a famous Philosopher, and Sociologist, from Germany, initiated the idea of Communism, in his book The Communist Manifesto , as a response to Capitalism. These two political theories are in opposition to each other as in the former promotes private ownership, the latter stands against it. Take a full read of the article given below, to have a clear understanding of the differences between capitalism and communism.

Content: Capitalism Vs Communism

Comparison chart, definition of capitalism.

The term ‘capitalism’ implies an economic system that advocates private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, to earn profit. In this system, the determination of production and price of the goods and services are done by the market, i.e. the demand and supply forces play a significant role here.

The key features of capitalism are individual rights, private property, accumulation of wealth, market economy, free and competitive market, self-interest, minimal government intervention. In a capitalist economy, it is the owners who decide and invest, in the financial and capital market on the production inputs. The competition in the economy decided the price and distribution of merchandise in the economy.

Definition of Communism

A form of socialism, in which the means of production, resources, and property are owned and controlled by the egalitarian society, i.e. by the community equally is called Communism. It is based on the idea of shared ownership. The theory of communism was mainly sparked by the German philosophers cum sociologist Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The central principle behind communism is, the contribution and share of each would be based on his ability and needs.

In this political system, the government owns everything and all the individual works for a common goal. Therefore, class distinction does not exist, as all are considered equal. Communism aims at removing the gap between the wealthy and poor and establishing equality in the economy.

Key Differences Between Capitalism and Communism

The following points are noteworthy so far as the difference between capitalism and communism is concerned:

An economic system in which the trade and industry of the economy are owned and controlled by private individuals to generate profit is called Capitalism. A social system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by the community and the share of each individual relies on his ability and needs, is called communism.
Capitalism is based on the Principle of Individual Rights, whereas Communism is based on the Principle of Community Rights.
Capitalism is in favor of class distinction, i.e. working class and capitalist class, hence the degree of class distinction between rich and poor is very high. On the contrary, communism opposes a division of society according to class, as it promotes a classless society, so, there is no gap between rich and poor.
There is a democratic system of government in capitalism. As against this, a totalitarian government system exists in socialism. Totalitarianism is a form of government in which government owns and controls almost everything.
Under capitalism, the government does not have much involvement. In contrast to communism, there is a high level of government intervention.
In capitalism, every individual has to work for himself to create wealth. As opposed to this, in communism wealth is distributed as per needs and ability.
The production inputs like land, labor, and capital are privately owned by the individuals and enterprises, while the means of production are held by the state, in the case of communism.
In communism, more preference is given to society rather than an individual which is not in the case of capitalism, i.e. freedom of the individual is vital.
In capitalism, fierce competition exists between the firms whereas in communism, as the market is controlled by the state, the competition is quite low.
In communism, the profit earned by the enterprise is distributed among all the people of the economy. On the contrary, the profit of the enterprise, in capitalism, is enjoyed by the owner only.
While capitalism can be found in western countries, socialism is more popular in eastern countries of the world.

Both communism and capitalism are a form of social organization, that is associated with trade and industry in the economy and discusses the ownership of property.

As every coin has two aspects, a good and a bad, so as with the case of communism and capitalism. In capitalism, the distribution of wealth is uneven, due to which the rich get richer while the poor become poorer. On the other hand, in communism, there is an equal distribution of wealth, but it does not allow individuals to have private property. Communism attempts to eliminate capitalism in the economy, as it was introduced, as a response to injustices of capitalism.

You Might Also Like:

Betsy Trotwood says

September 11, 2017 at 6:05 am

This is a very clear explanation.

Umer Azib says

December 8, 2017 at 12:00 am

great explanation it help me for assignment in class thanks for uploading

April 15, 2018 at 2:16 am

Thank you so much, I have been struggling to understand the difference between the two and now i finally do, plus i have a presentation in class and i will definitely use this.

Alexander Braaahmilton says

June 27, 2019 at 5:33 pm

Thank you, keep us updated.

kumara says

July 12, 2019 at 2:08 pm

Diriga khalid says

July 22, 2019 at 11:06 am

Great info thanks a lot.

David Harris says

August 1, 2019 at 12:55 am

The US is a great Capitalist country. We have the greatest system in the world in my opinion.

Loved these explanations. This should be required reading for all US citizens (starting with junior high students). Our US Congress should have to memorize these differences and pass a test before they could run for any national office.

Mercy Omani (Ikediuba) says

October 6, 2019 at 10:33 am

Very Helpful. Thank you so much.

April 22, 2021 at 11:24 pm

I like this website

Wilhelm Weber says

January 21, 2022 at 5:22 pm

thanks it helped me

Deez Nutz says

February 23, 2022 at 3:19 am

Clement Etchie says

April 29, 2022 at 1:03 am

Thanks for helping me am so grateful

June 9, 2022 at 7:18 am

Easy to understand! Thank you!

Haseeb Khattak says

August 17, 2022 at 1:45 am

Tomorrow I have a presentation on these two topics Capitalism Vs Communism, it’s too much helpful. Thank you so much

Syed Zaini says

December 21, 2022 at 10:40 pm

well, I have prepared my presentation from it, for IR class.

Rosemary says

April 16, 2023 at 7:47 am

Thanks for this website, now I understand and know the meaning and also the different between ( Capitalism and Communism). Well explained for your understanding.

May 1, 2023 at 7:39 pm

Great explanation of the differences. Thanks!

May 5, 2023 at 8:30 pm

June 9, 2023 at 10:15 am

Ramathan Balyejjusa says

August 7, 2023 at 12:11 am

Very good explanation

Essay Capitalism vs Communism

Communism Versus Capitalism

Reference work entry
First Online: 01 January 2023
Cite this reference work entry

Thomas F. Phillips 3

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Marx K (1867) (Reprinted 1967) Capital, 3 vols. International Publishers, New York

Google Scholar

Marx K, Engels F (1848) (Reprinted 2002) The communist manifesto. Penguin, New York

Smith A (1776) (Reprinted 1971) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Cannan E (ed) Methuen, London

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada

Thomas F. Phillips

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas F. Phillips .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Ottawa, ON, Canada

Deborah C. Poff

Alex C. Michalos

Section Editor information

John Douglas Bishop

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Phillips, T.F. (2023). Communism Versus Capitalism. In: Poff, D.C., Michalos, A.C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22767-8_232

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22767-8_232

Published : 25 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-22765-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-22767-8

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Curriculum & Instruction
Experiential
Personal Story
Primary Sources
Professional Learning

Capitalism, Socialism, Communism: Distinguishing Important Economic Concepts

Capitalism, socialism, and communism are three key concepts in social studies, with complex definitions and complicated histories. Explaining these concepts in the classroom is muddled even more by how these words are used in modern media. The meaning is often obscured by political alliances and deliberate attempts to mislead.

The words capitalism , socialism , and communism describe different economic systems. A simple and effective way to present these key concepts in the classroom is through the economic continuum illustrated by the chart below. Students are much more likely to grasp the key differences if these concepts are first presented separate from political systems such as autocracy, theocracy, or democracy.

Capitalism, socialism, and communism are also easier to understand and remember when the histories of the words are explored.

Photo: iStock by Getty Images

Economic Terms Defined

Capitalism and socialism first came into use in the 1830s. Capitalism described an economic system in which wealth (or capital , another word for wealth) was owned by individuals for their personal profit. The British policy of government regulation of trade called mercantilism was being abandoned by the 1830s, and the free market (not the government) determined the production and distribution of goods. The word capitalism was a product of the changing economy of Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution.

The word socialism also began to be used in the 1830s, to describe a system different from capitalism. Socialism held that groups of people should own and regulate the economy for the benefit of all the members, not just a few. Early nineteenth-century socialists were often disturbed by the economic and social changes caused by the Industrial Revolution. In the first half of the nineteenth century, socialist ideals inspired utopian communities such as the transcendentalists’ Brook Farm, Robert Owen’s New Harmony, and the Oneida Community. An even older ideal of Christian socialism described in the Bible inspired religious socialist communities such as the Shakers, Rappites, Amana Colonies, and Hutterites. Even the term social studies alludes to how a community or wider society benefits from shared knowledge.

Communism was first a French word, coined in the 1840s, to describe a system of collective ownership in which individuals did not own private property and worked together for the benefit of all community members. This new French word described ideals similar to the English concept of socialism and derived from the word common , meaning something is free or open to everyone.

The word communism was adopted by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in the 1850s to describe their ideology of opposing industrial capitalism. Marxist communism sought the overthrow of governments supporting a capitalist economy. By 1918, communism was the ideology of Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution and was associated with a single authoritarian political party. The combined economic and political ideology of modern communism was implemented in the Soviet Union (1922), the People’s Republic of China (1949), North Korea (1948), North Vietnam (1945), and Cuba (1965).

Modern Day Implications

Today, the historical words capitalism , socialism , and communism do not fully capture the economic systems of nations. New words are also used to describe economic systems: free market system ; mixed economy ; command economy . But these modern words can still lead to confusion because, in reality, modern nations are not purely free market capitalist or purely command/communist. In recent years, communist China and Cuba have loosened economic restrictions and allowed free market activities. On the other hand, the United States regulates many aspects of its economy and owns and manages very “socialist” enterprises such as public schools, public transportation, and public libraries.

In other words, communism, socialism, and capitalism are a continuum, with modern national economics falling somewhere in the middle, or mixed, zone. In American politics, those aligned to the right of the political spectrum are more likely to support free market policies, and those to the left are more likely to support government intervention in the economy. Recent polls by the Pew Research Center demonstrate how the political alliances of Americans influence perceptions of these words.

Ultimately, nations and citizens of nations must decide how much government regulation of the economy is appropriate. Therefore, a clear understanding of the historical developments, meaning, political associations, and synonyms of these three words is essential in social studies.

Active Classroom can aid your classroom with hundreds of activities about Economics

Access a free trial and start engaging students today.

Cynthia W. Resor is a social studies education professor and former middle and high school social studies teacher. Her dream job? Time-travel tour guide. But until she discovers the secret of time travel, she writes about the past in her blog, Primary Source Bazaar . Her three books on teaching social history themes feature essential questions and primary sources: Discovering Quacks, Utopias, and Cemeteries: Modern Lessons from Historical Themes ; Investigating Family, Food, and Housing Themes in Social Studies and Exploring Vacation and Etiquette Themes in Social Studies .

4 thoughts on “ Capitalism, Socialism, Communism: Distinguishing Important Economic Concepts ”

Thank you for this article. I greatly enjoyed reading it. I am going to look for books by Cynthia W Resor. I would like to learn more. I usually read about science and mathematics.

I am trying to recall an old saying that used a cow and her milk to show how each was distributed via 5 various “isms”. ie. a capitalist sells the milk, keeps the milk and the profit; a communist does’t own the cow, mills the cow and earns a wage. Can you help me? I think I first read it in the ‘70’s. I would like to pass it on to my friends and family. Thank you, Steve Chase. shchase@msn. com

Thank you for this very clear and concise explanation. I searched through many sites before landing on yours and finally found the answers I was looking for.

this was a great way to describe the difference between these 3 complicated words that were for me. thank you so much!

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Socialism is a rich tradition of political thought and practice, the history of which contains a vast number of views and theories, often differing in many of their conceptual, empirical, and normative commitments. In his 1924 Dictionary of Socialism , Angelo Rappoport canvassed no fewer than forty definitions of socialism, telling his readers in the book’s preface that “there are many mansions in the House of Socialism” (Rappoport 1924: v, 34–41). To take even a relatively restricted subset of socialist thought, Leszek Kołakowski could fill over 1,300 pages in his magisterial survey of Main Currents of Marxism (Kołakowski 1978 [2008]). Our aim is of necessity more modest. In what follows, we are concerned to present the main features of socialism, both as a critique of capitalism, and as a proposal for its replacement. Our focus is predominantly on literature written within a philosophical idiom, focusing in particular on philosophical writing on socialism produced during the past forty-or-so years. Furthermore, our discussion concentrates on the normative contrast between socialism and capitalism as economic systems. Both socialism and capitalism grant workers legal control of their labor power, but socialism, unlike capitalism, requires that the bulk of the means of production workers use to yield goods and services be under the effective control of workers themselves, rather than in the hands of the members of a different, capitalist class under whose direction they must toil. As we will explain below, this contrast has been articulated further in different ways, and socialists have not only made distinctive claims regarding economic organization but also regarding the processes of transformation fulfilling them and the principles and ideals orienting their justification (including, as we will see, certain understandings of freedom, equality, solidarity, and democracy). [ 1 ]

1. Socialism and Capitalism

2. three dimensions of socialist views, 3.1 socialist principles, 3.2.1 exploitation, 3.2.2 interference and domination, 3.2.3 alienation, 3.2.4 inefficiency, 3.2.5 liberal egalitarianism and inequality in capitalism, 4.1 central and participatory planning, 4.2 market socialism, 4.3 less comprehensive, piecemeal reforms, 5. socialist transformation (dimension diii), other internet resources, related entries.

Socialism is best defined in contrast with capitalism, as socialism has arisen both as a critical challenge to capitalism, and as a proposal for overcoming and replacing it. In the classical, Marxist definition (G.A. Cohen 2000a: ch.3; Fraser 2014: 57–9), capitalism involves certain relations of production . These comprise certain forms of control over the productive forces —the labor power that workers deploy in production and the means of production such as natural resources, tools, and spaces they employ to yield goods and services—and certain social patterns of economic interaction that typically correlate with that control. Capitalism displays the following constitutive features:

(i) The bulk of the means of production is privately owned and controlled . (ii) People legally own their labor power. (Here capitalism differs from slavery and feudalism, under which systems some individuals are entitled to control, whether completely or partially, the labor power of others). (iii) Markets are the main mechanism allocating inputs and outputs of production and determining how societies’ productive surplus is used, including whether and how it is consumed or invested.

An additional feature that is typically present wherever (i)–(iii) hold, is that:

(iv) There is a class division between capitalists and workers, involving specific relations (e.g., whether of bargaining, conflict, or subordination) between those classes, and shaping the labor market, the firm, and the broader political process.

The existence of wage labor is often seen by socialists as a necessary condition for a society to be counted as capitalist (Schweickart 2002 [2011: 23]). Typically, workers (unlike capitalists) must sell their labor power to make a living. They sell it to capitalists, who (unlike the workers) control the means of production. Capitalists typically subordinate workers in the production process, as capitalists have asymmetric decision-making power over what gets produced and how it gets produced. Capitalists also own the output of production and sell it in the market, and they control the predominant bulk of the flow of investment within the economy. The relation between capitalists and workers can involve cooperation, but also relations of conflict (e.g., regarding wages and working conditions). This more-or-less antagonistic power relationship between capitalists and workers plays out in a number of areas, within production itself, and in the broader political process, as in both the economic and political domains decisions are made about who does what, and who gets what.

There are possible economic systems that would present exceptions, in which (iv) does not hold even if (i), (ii) and (iii) all obtain. Examples here are a society of independent commodity producers or a property-owning democracy (in which individuals or groups of workers own firms). There is debate, however, as to how feasible—accessible and stable—these are in a modern economic environment (O’Neill 2012).

Another feature that is also typically seen as arising where (i)–(iii) hold is this:

(v) Production is primarily oriented to capital accumulation (i.e., economic production is primarily oriented to profit rather than to the satisfaction of human needs). (G.A. Cohen 2000a; Roemer 2017).

In contrast to capitalism, socialism can be defined as a type of society in which, at a minimum, (i) is turned into (i*):

(i*) The bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control.

Changes with regard to features (ii), (iii), and (v) are hotly debated amongst socialists. Regarding (ii), socialists retain the view that workers should control their labor power, but many do not affirm the kind of absolute, libertarian property rights in labor power that would, e.g., prevent taxation or other forms of mandatory contribution to cater for the basic needs of others (G.A. Cohen 1995). Regarding (iii), there is a recent burgeoning literature on “market socialism”, which we discuss below, where proposals are advanced to create an economy that is socialist but nevertheless features extensive markets. Finally, regarding (v), although most socialists agree that, due to competitive pressures, capitalists are bound to seek profit maximization, some puzzle over whether when they do this, it is “greed and fear” and not the generation of resources to make others besides themselves better-off that is the dominant, more basic drive and hence the degree to which profit-maximization should be seen as a normatively troubling phenomenon. (See Steiner 2014, in contrast with G.A. Cohen 2009, discussing the case of capitalists amassing capital to give it away through charity.) Furthermore, some socialists argue that the search for profits in a market socialist economy is not inherently suspicious (Schweickart 2002 [2011]). Most socialists, however, tend to find the profit motive problematic.

An important point about this definition of socialism is that socialism is not equivalent to, and is arguably in conflict with, statism. (i*) involves expansion of social power—power based on the capacity to mobilize voluntary cooperation and collective action—as distinct from state power—power based on the control of rule-making and rule enforcing over a territory—as well of economic power—power based on the control of material resources (Wright 2010). If a state controls the economy but is not in turn democratically controlled by the individuals engaged in economic life, what we have is some form of statism, not socialism (see also Arnold n.d. in Other Internet Resources (OIR) ; Dardot & Laval 2014).

When characterizing socialist views, it is useful to distinguish between three dimensions of a conception of a social justice (Gilabert 2017a). We identify these three dimensions as:

(DI) the core ideals and principles animating that conception of justice; (DII) the social institutions and practices implementing the ideals specified at DI; (DIII) the processes of transformation leading agents and their society from where they are currently, to the social outcome specified in DII.

The characterization of capitalism and socialism in the previous section focuses on the social institutions and practices constituting each form of society (i.e., on DII). We step back from this institutional dimension in section 3, below, to consider the central normative commitments of socialism (DI) and to survey their deployment in the socialist critique of capitalism. We then, in section 4 , engage in a more detailed discussion of accounts of the institutional shape of socialism (DII), exploring the various proposed implementations of socialist ideals and principles outlined under DI. We turn to accounts of the transition to socialism (DIII) in section 5 .

3. Socialist Critiques of Capitalism and their Grounds (Dimension DI)

Socialists have condemned capitalism by alleging that it typically features exploitation, domination, alienation, and inefficiency. Before surveying these criticisms, it is important to note that they rely on various ideals and principles at DI. We first mention these grounds briefly, and then elaborate on them as we discuss their engagement in socialists’ critical arguments. We set aside the debate, conducted mostly during the 1980s and largely centered on the interpretation of Marx’s writings, as to whether the condemnation of capitalism and the advocacy for socialism relies (or should rely), on moral grounds (Geras 1985; Lukes 1985; Peffer 1990). Whereas some Marxist socialists take the view that criticism of capitalism can be conducted without making use—either explicitly or implicitly—of arguments with a moral foundation, our focus is on arguments that do rely on such grounds.

Socialists have deployed ideals and principles of equality, democracy, individual freedom, self-realization, and community or solidarity. Regarding equality , they have proposed strong versions of the principle of equality of opportunity according to which everyone should have “broadly equal access to the necessary material and social means to live flourishing lives” (Wright 2010: 12; Roemer 1994a: 11–4; Nielsen 1985). Some, but by no means all, socialists construe equality of opportunity in a luck-egalitarian way, as requiring the neutralization of inequalities of access to advantage that result from people’s circumstances rather than their choices (G.A. Cohen 2009: 17–9). Socialists also embrace the ideal of democracy , requiring that people have “broadly equal access to the necessary means to participate meaningfully in decisions” affecting their lives (Wright 2010: 12; Arnold n.d. [OIR] : sect. 4). Many socialists say that democratic participation should be available not only at the level of governmental institutions, but also in various economic arenas (such as within the firm). Third, socialists are committed to the importance of individual freedom . This commitment includes versions of the standard ideas of negative liberty and non-domination (requiring security from inappropriate interference by others). But it also typically includes a more demanding, positive form of self-determination, as the “real freedom” of being able to develop one’s own projects and bring them to fruition (Elster 1985: 205; Gould 1988: ch. 1; Van Parijs 1995: ch. 1; Castoriadis 1979). An ideal of self-realization through autonomously chosen activities featuring people’s development and exercise of their creative and productive capacities in cooperation with others sometimes informs socialists’ positive views of freedom and equality—as in the view that there should be a requirement of access to the conditions of self-realization at work (Elster 1986: ch. 3). Finally, and relatedly, socialists often affirm an idea of community or solidarity , according to which people should organize their economic life so that they treat the freedom and well-being of others as intrinsically significant. People should recognize positive duties to support other people, or, as Einstein (1949) put it, a “sense of responsibility for [their] fellow men”. Or, as Cohen put it, people should “care about, and, where necessary and possible, care for, one another, and, too, care that they care about one another” (G.A. Cohen 2009: 34–5). Community is sometimes presented as a moral ideal which is not itself a demand of justice but can be used to temper problematic results permitted by some demands of justice (such as the inequalities of outcome permitted by a luck-egalitarian principle of equality of opportunity (G.A. Cohen 2009)). However, community is sometimes presented within socialist views as a demand of justice itself (Gilabert 2012). Some socialists also take solidarity as partly shaping a desirable form of “social freedom” in which people are able not only to advance their own good but also to act with and for others (Honneth 2015 [2017: ch. I]).

Given the diversity of fundamental principles to which socialists commonly appeal, it is perhaps unsurprising that few attempts have been made to link these principles under a unified framework. A suggested strategy has been to articulate some aspects of them as requirements flowing from what we might call the Abilities / Needs Principle, following Marx’s famous dictum, in The Critique of the Gotha Program , that a communist society should be organized so as to realize the goals of producing and distributing “From each according to [their] abilities, to each according to [their] needs”. This principle, presented with brevity and in the absence of much elaboration by Marx (Marx 1875 [1978b: 531]) has been interpreted in different ways. One, descriptive interpretation simply takes it to be a prediction of how people will feel motivated to act in a socialist society. Another, straightforwardly normative interpretation construes the Marxian dictum as stating duties to contribute to, and claims to benefit from, the social product—addressing the allocation of both the burdens and benefits of social cooperation. Its fulfillment would, in an egalitarian and solidaristic fashion, empower people to live flourishing lives (Carens 2003, Gilabert 2015). The normative principle itself has also been interpreted as an articulation of the broader, and more basic, idea of human dignity. Aiming at solidaristic empowerment , this idea could be understood as requiring that we support people in the pursuit of a flourishing life by not blocking, and by enabling, the development and exercise of their valuable capacities, which are at the basis of their moral status as agents with dignity (Gilabert 2017b).

3.2 Socialist Charges against Capitalism

The first typical charge leveled by socialists is that capitalism features the exploitation of wage workers by their capitalist employers. Exploitation has been characterized in two ways. First, in the so-called “technical” Marxist characterization, workers are exploited by capitalists when the value embodied in the goods they can purchase with their wages is inferior to the value embodied in the goods they produce—with the capitalists appropriating the difference. To maximize the profit resulting from the sale of what the workers produce, capitalists have an incentive to keep wages low. This descriptive characterization, which focuses on the flow of surplus labor from workers to capitalists, differs from another common, normative characterization of exploitation, according to which exploitation involves taking unfair, wrongful, or unjust advantage of the productive efforts of others. An obvious question is when, if ever, incidents of exploitation in the technical sense involve exploitation in the normative sense. When is the transfer of surplus labor from workers to capitalists such that it involves wrongful advantage taking of the former by the latter? Socialists have provided at least four answers to this question. (For critical surveys see Arnsperger and Van Parijs 2003: ch. III; Vrousalis 2018; Wolff 1999).

The first answer is offered by the unequal exchange account , according to which A exploits B if and only if in their exchange A gets more than B does. This account effectively collapses the normative sense of exploitation into the technical one. But critics have argued that this account fails to provide sufficient conditions for exploitation in the normative sense. Not every unequal exchange is wrongful: it would not be wrong to transfer resources from workers to people who (perhaps through no choice or fault of their own) are unable to work.

A second proposal is to say that A exploits B if and only if A gets surplus labor from B in a way that is coerced or forced. This labor entitlement account (Holmstrom 1977; Reiman 1987) relies on the view that workers are entitled to the product of their labor, and that capitalists wrongly deprive them of it. In a capitalist economy, workers are compelled to transfer surplus labor to capitalists on pain of severe poverty. This is a result of the coercively enforced system of private property rights in the means of production. Since they do not control means of production to secure their own subsistence, workers have no reasonable alternative to selling their labor power to capitalists and to toil on the terms favored by the latter. Critics of this approach have argued that it, like the previous account, fails to provide sufficient conditions for wrongful exploitation because it would (counterintuitively) have to condemn transfers from workers to destitute people unable to work. Furthermore, it has been argued that the account fails to provide necessary conditions for the occurrence of exploitation. Problematic transfers of surplus labor can occur without coercion. For example, A may have sophisticated means of production, not obtained from others through coercion, and hire B to work on them at a perhaps unfairly low wage, which B voluntarily accepts despite having acceptable, although less advantageous, alternatives (Roemer 1994b: ch. 4).

The third, unfair distribution of productive endowments account suggests that the core problem with capitalist exploitation (and with other forms of exploitation in class-divided social systems) is that it proceeds against a background distribution of initial access to productive assets that is inegalitarian. A is an exploiter, and B is exploited, if and only if A gains from B ’s labor and A would be worse off, and B better off, in an alternative hypothetical economic environment in which the initial distribution of assets was equal (with everything else remaining constant) (Roemer 1994b: 110). This account relies on a luck-egalitarian principle of equality of opportunity. (According to luck-egalitarianism, no one should be made worse-off than others due to circumstances beyond their control.) Critics have argued that, because of that, it fails to provide necessary conditions for wrongful exploitation. If A finds B stuck in a pit, it would be wrong for A to offer B rescue only if B signs a sweatshop contract with A —even if B happened to have fallen into the pit after voluntarily taking the risk to go hiking in an area well known to be dotted with such perilous obstacles (Vrousalis 2013, 2018). Other critics worry that this account neglects the centrality of relations of power or dominance between exploiters and exploited (Veneziani 2013).

A fourth approach directly focuses on the fact that exploitation typically arises when there is a significant power asymmetry between the parties involved. The more powerful instrumentalize and take advantage of the vulnerability of the less powerful to benefit from this asymmetry in positions (Goodin 1987). A specific version of this view, the domination for self-enrichment account (Vrousalis 2013, 2018), says that A exploits B if A benefits from a transaction in which A dominates B . (On this account, domination involves a disrespectful use of A ’s power over B .) Capitalist property rights, with the resulting unequal access to the means of production, put propertyless workers at the mercy of capitalists, who use their superior power over them to extract surplus labor. A worry about this approach is that it does not explain when the more powerful party is taking too much from the less powerful party. For example, take a situation where A and B start with equal assets, but A chooses to work hard while B chooses to spend more time at leisure, so that at a later time A controls the means of production, while B has only their own labor power. We imagine that A offers B employment, and then ask, in light of their ex ante equal position, at what level of wage for B and profit for A would the transaction involve wrongful exploitation? To come to a settled view on this question, it might be necessary to combine reliance on a principle of freedom as non-domination with appeal to additional socialist principles addressing just distribution—such as some version of the principles of equality and solidarity mentioned above in section 4.1 .

Capitalism is often defended by saying that it maximally extends people’s freedom, understood as the absence of interference. Socialism would allegedly depress that freedom by prohibiting or limiting capitalist activities such as setting up a private firm, hiring wage workers, and keeping, investing, or spending profits. Socialists generally acknowledge that a socialist economy would severely constrain some such freedoms. But they point out that capitalist property rights also involve interference. They remind us that “private property by one person presupposes non-ownership on the part of other persons” (Marx 1991: 812) and warn that often, although

liberals and libertarians see the freedom which is intrinsic to capitalism, they overlook the unfreedom which necessarily accompanies capitalist freedom. (G.A. Cohen 2011: 150)

Workers could and would be coercively interfered with if they tried to use means of production possessed by capitalists, to walk away with the products of their labor in capitalist firms, or to access consumption goods they do not have enough money to buy. In fact, every economic system opens some zones of non-interference while closing others. Hence the appropriate question is not whether capitalism or socialism involve interference—they both do—but whether either of them involves more net interference, or more troubling forms of interference, than the other. And the answer to that question is far from obvious. It could very well be that most agents in a socialist society face less (troublesome) interference as they pursue their projects of production and consumption than agents in a capitalist society (G.A. Cohen 2011: chs. 7–8).

Capitalist economic relations are often defended by saying that they are the result of free choices by consenting adults. Wage workers are not slaves or serfs—they have the legal right to refuse to work for capitalists. But socialists reply that the relationship between capitalists and workers actually involves domination. Workers are inappropriately subject to the will of capitalists in the shaping of the terms on which they work (both in the spheres of exchange and production, and within the broader political process). Workers’ consent to their exploitation is given in circumstances of deep vulnerability and asymmetry of power. According to Marx, two conditions help explain workers’ apparently free choice to enter into a nevertheless exploitative contract: (1) in capitalism (unlike in feudalism or slave societies) workers own their labor power, but (2) they do not own means of production. Because of their deprivation (2), workers have no reasonable alternative to using their entitlement (1) to sell their labor power to the capitalists—who do own the means of production (Marx 1867 [1990: 272–3]). Through labor-saving technical innovations spurred by competition, capitalism also constantly produces unemployment, which weakens the bargaining power of individual workers further. Thus, Marx says that although workers voluntarily enter into exploitative contracts, they are “compelled [to do so] by social conditions”.

The silent compulsion of economic relations sets the seal on the domination of the capitalist over the worker…. [The worker’s] dependence on capital … springs from the conditions of production themselves, and is guaranteed in perpetuity by them. (Marx 1867 [1990: 382, 899])

Because of the deep background inequality of power resulting from their structural position within a capitalist economy, workers accept a pattern of economic transaction in which they submit to the direction of capitalists during the activities of production, and surrender to those same capitalists a disproportional share of the fruits of their labor. Although some individual workers might be able to escape their vulnerable condition by saving and starting a firm of their own, most would find this extremely difficult, and they could not all do it simultaneously within capitalism (Elster 1985: 208–16; G.A. Cohen 1988: ch. 13).

Socialists sometimes say that capitalism flouts an ideal of non-domination as freedom from being subject to rules one has systematically less power to shape than others (Gourevitch 2013; Arnold 2017; Gilabert 2017b: 566–7—on which this and the previous paragraph draw). Capitalist relations of production involve domination and the dependence of workers on the discretion of capitalists’ choices at three critical junctures. The first, mentioned above, concerns the labor contract. Due to their lack of control of the means of production, workers must largely submit, on pain of starvation or severe poverty, to the terms capitalists offer them. The second concerns interactions in the workplace. Capitalists and their managers rule the activities of workers by unilaterally deciding what and how the latter produce. Although in the sphere of circulation workers and capitalists might look (misleadingly, given the first point) like equally free contractors striking fair deals, once we enter the “hidden abode” of production it is clear to all sides that what exists is relationships of intense subjection of some to the will of others (Marx 1867 [1990: 279–80]). Workers effectively spend many of their waking hours doing what others dictate them to do. Third, and finally, capitalists have a disproportionate impact on the legal and political process shaping the institutional structure of the society in which they exploit workers, with capitalist interests dominating the political processes which in turn set the contours of property and labor law. Even if workers manage to obtain the legal right to vote and create their own trade unions and parties (which labor movements achieved in some countries after much struggle), capitalists exert disproportionate influence via greater access to mass media, the funding of political parties, the threat of disinvestment and capital flight if governments reduce their profit margin, and the past and prospective recruitment of state officials in lucrative jobs in their firms and lobbying agencies (Wright 2010: 81–4). At the spheres of exchange, production, and in the broader political process, workers and capitalist have asymmetric structural power. Consequently, the former are significantly subject to the will of the latter in the shaping of the terms on which they work (see further Wright 2000 [2015]). This inequality of structural power, some socialists claim, is an affront to workers’ dignity as self-determining, self-mastering agents.

The third point about domination mentioned above is also deployed by socialists to say that capitalism conflicts with democracy (Wright 2010: 81–4; Arnold n.d. [OIR] : sect. 4; Bowles and Gintis 1986; Meiksins Wood 1995). Democracy requires that people have roughly equal power to affect the political process that structures their social life—or at least that inequalities do not reflect morally irrelevant features such as race, gender, and class. Socialists have made three points regarding the conflict between capitalism and democracy. The first concerns political democracy of the kind that is familiar today. Even in the presence of multi-party electoral systems, members of the capitalist class—despite being a minority of the population—have significantly more influence than members of the working class. Governments have a tendency to adapt their agendas to the wishes of capitalists because they depend on their investment decisions to raise the taxes to fund public policies, as well as for the variety of other reasons outlined above. Even if socialist parties win elections, as long as they do not change the fundamentals of the economic system, they must be congenial to the wishes of capitalists. Thus, socialists have argued that deep changes in the economic structure of society are needed to make electoral democracy fulfill its promise. Political power cannot be insulated from economic power. They also, secondly, think that such changes may be directly significant. Indeed, as radical democrats, socialists have argued that reducing inequality of decision-making power within the economic sphere itself is not only instrumentally significant (to reduce inequality within the governmental sphere), but also intrinsically significant to increase people’s self-determination in their daily lives as economic agents. Therefore, most democratic socialists call for a solution to the problem of the conflict between democracy and capitalism by extending democratic principles into the economy (Fleurbaey 2006). Exploring the parallel between the political and economic systems, socialists have argued that democratic principles should apply in the economic arena as they do in the political domain, as economic decisions, like political decisions, have dramatic consequences for the freedom and well-being of people. Returning to the issue of the relations between the two arenas, socialists have also argued that fostering workers’ self-determination in the economy (notably in the workplace) enhances democratic participation at the political level (Coutrot 2018: ch. 9; Arnold 2012; see survey on workplace democracy in Frega et al. 2019). A third strand of argument, finally, has explored the importance of socialist reforms for fulfilling the ideal of a deliberative democracy in which people participate as free and equal reasoners seeking to make decisions that actually cater for the common good of all (J. Cohen 1989).

As mentioned above, socialists have included, in their affirmation of individual freedom, a specific concern with real or effective freedom to lead flourishing lives. This freedom is often linked with a positive ideal of self-realization , which in turn motivates a critique of capitalism as generating alienation. This perspective informs Marx’s views on the strong contrast between productive activity under socialism and under capitalism. In socialism, the “realm of necessity” and the correspondingly necessary, but typically unsavory, labor required to secure basic subsistence would be reduced so that people also access a “realm of freedom” in which a desirable form of work involving creativity, cultivation of talents, and meaningful cooperation with others is available. This realm of freedom would unleash “the development of human energy which is an end in itself” (Marx 1991: 957–9). This work, allowing for and facilitating individuals’ self-realization, would enable the “all-round development of the individual”, and would in fact become a “prime want” (Marx 1875 [1978b: 531]). The socialist society would feature “the development of the rich individuality which is all-sided in its production as in its consumption” (Marx 1857–8 [1973: 325]); it would constitute a “higher form of society in which the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle” (Marx 1867 [1990: 739]). By contrast, capitalism denies the majority of the population access to self-realization at work. Workers typically toil in tasks which are uninteresting and even stunting. They do not control how production unfolds or what is done with the outputs of production. And their relations with others is not one of fellowship, but rather of domination (under their bosses) and of competition (against their fellow workers). When alienated,

labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his essential being; … in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. … It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. (Marx 1844 [1978a: 74])

Recent scholarship has developed these ideas further. Elster has provided the most detailed discussion and development of the Marxian ideal of self-realization. The idea is defined as “the full and free actualization and externalization of the powers and the abilities of the individual” (Elster 1986: 43; 1989: 131). Self-actualization involves a two-step process in which individuals develop their powers (e.g., learn the principles and techniques of civil engineering) and then actualize those powers (e.g., design and participate in the construction of a bridge). Self-externalization, in turn, features a process in which individuals’ powers become visible to others with the potential beneficial outcome of social recognition and the accompanying boost in self-respect and self-esteem. However, Elster says that this Marxian ideal must be reformulated to make it more realistic. No one can develop all their powers fully, and no feasible economy would enable everyone always to get exactly their first-choice jobs and conduct them only in the ways they would most like. Furthermore, self-realization for and with others (and thus also the combination of self-realization with community) may not always work smoothly, as producers entangled in large and complex societies may not feel strongly moved by the needs of distant others, and significant forms of division of labor will likely persist. Still, Elster thinks the socialist ideal of self-realization remains worth pursuing, for example through the generation of opportunities to produce in worker cooperatives. Others have construed the demand for real options to produce in ways that involve self-realization and solidarity as significant for the implementation of the Abilities / Needs Principle (Gilabert 2015: 207–12), and defended a right to opportunities for meaningful work against the charge that it violates a liberal constraint of neutrality about conceptions of the good (Gilabert 2018b: sect. 3.3). (For more discussion on alienation and self-realization, see Jaeggi 2014: ch. 10.)

Further scholarship explores recent changes in the organization of production. Boltanski and Chiapello argue that since the 1980s capitalism has partly absorbed (what they dub) the “artistic critique” against de-skilled and heteronomous work by generating schemes of economic activity in which workers operate in teams and have significant decision-making powers. However, these new forms of work, although common especially in certain knowledge-intensive sectors, are not available to all workers, and they still operate under the ultimate control of capital owners and their profit maximizing strategies. They also operate in tandem with the elimination of the social security policies typical of the (increasingly eroded) welfare state. Thus, the “artistic” strand in the socialist critique of capitalism as hampering people’s authenticity, creativity, and autonomy has not been fully absorbed and should be renewed. It should also be combined with the other, “social critique” strand which challenges inequality, insecurity, and selfishness (Boltanski and Chiapello 2018: Introduction, sect. 2). Other authors find in these new forms of work the seeds of future forms of economic organization—arguing that they provide evidence that workers can plan and control sophisticated processes of production on their own and that capitalists and their managers are largely redundant (Negri 2008).

The critique of alienation has also been recently developed further by Forst (2017) by exploring the relation between alienation and domination. On this account, the central problem with alienation is that it involves the denial of people’s autonomy—their ability and right to shape their social life on terms they could justify to themselves and to each other as free and equal co-legislators. (See also the general analysis of the concept of alienation in Leopold 2018.)

A traditional criticism of capitalism (especially amongst Marxists) is that it is inefficient. Capitalism is prone to cyclic crises in which wealth and human potential is destroyed and squandered. For example, to cut costs and maximize profits, firms choose work-saving technologies and lay off workers. But at the aggregate level, this erodes the demand for their products, which forces firms to cut costs further (by laying off even more workers or halting production). Socialism would, it has been argued, not be so prone to crises, as the rationale for production would not be profit maximization but need satisfaction. Although important, this line of criticism is less widespread amongst contemporary socialists. Historically, capitalism has proved quite resilient, resurrecting itself after crises and expanding its productivity dramatically over time. In might very well be that capitalism is the best feasible regime if the only standard of assessment were productivity.

Still, socialists point out that capitalism involves some significant inefficiencies. Examples are the underproduction of public goods (such as public transportation and education), the underpricing and overconsumption of natural resources (such as fossil fuels and fishing stocks), negative externalities (such as pollution), the costs of monitoring and enforcing market contracts and private property (given that the exploited may not be so keen to work as hard as their profit-maximizing bosses require, and that the marginalized may be moved by desperation to steal), and certain defects of intellectual property rights (such as blocking the diffusion of innovation, and alienating those who engage in creative activities because of their intrinsic appeal and because of the will to serve the public rather than maximize monetary reward) (Wright 2010: 55–65). Really existing capitalist societies have introduced regulations to counter some of these problems, at least to some extent. Examples are taxes and constraints to limit economic activities with negative externalities, and public funding and subsidies to sustain activities with positive externalities which are not sufficiently supported by the market. But, socialists insist, such mechanisms are external to capitalism, as they limit property rights and the scope for profit maximization as the primary orientation in the organization of the economy. The regulations involve the hybridization of the economic system by introducing some non-capitalist, and even socialist elements.

There is also an important issue of whether efficiency should only be understood in terms of maximizing production of material consumption goods. If the metric, or the utility space, that is taken into account when engaging in maximization assessments includes more than these goods, then capitalism can also be criticized as inefficient on account of its tendency to depress the availability of leisure time (as well as to distribute it quite unequally). This carries limitation of people’s access to the various goods that leisure enables—such as the cultivation of friendships, family, and community or political participation. Technological innovations create the opportunity to choose between retaining the previous level of production while using fewer inputs (such as labor time) or maintaining the level of inputs while producing more. John Maynard Keynes famously held that it would be reasonable to tend towards the prior option, and expected societies to take this path as the technological frontier advanced (Keynes 1930/31 [2010]; Pecchi and Piga 2010). Nevertheless, in large part because of the profit maximization motive, capitalism displays an inherent bias in favor of the second, arguably inferior, option. Capitalism thereby narrows the realistic options of its constituent economic agents—both firms and individuals. Firms would lose their competitive edge and risk bankruptcy if they did not pursue profits ahead of the broader interests of their workers (as their products would likely be more expensive). And it is typically hard for workers to find jobs that pay reasonable salaries for fewer hours of work. Socialists concerned with expanding leisure time—and also with environmental risks—find this bias quite alarming (see, e.g., G.A. Cohen 2000a: ch. XI). If a conflict between further increase in the production of material objects for consumption and the expansion of leisure time (and environmental protection) is unavoidable, then it is not clear, all things considered, that the former should be prioritized, especially when an economy has already reached a high level of material productivity.

Capitalism has also been challenged on liberal egalitarian grounds, and in ways that lend themselves to support for socialism. (Rawls 2001; Barry 2005; Piketty 2014; O’Neill 2008a, 2012, 2017; Ronzoni 2018). While many of John Rawls’s readers long took him to be a proponent of an egalitarian form of a capitalist welfare state, or as one might put it “a slightly imaginary Sweden”, in fact Rawls rejected such institutional arrangements as inadequate to the task of realizing principles of political liberty or equality of opportunity, or of keeping material inequalities within sufficiently tight bounds. His own avowed view of the institutions that would be needed to realize liberal egalitarian principles of justice was officially neutral as between a form of “property-owning democracy”, which would combine private property in the means of production with its egalitarian distribution, and hence the abolition of the separate classes of capitalists and workers; and a form of liberal democratic socialism that would see public ownership of the preponderance of the means of production, with devolved control of particular firms (Rawls 2001: 135–40; O’Neill and Williamson 2012). While Rawls’s version of liberal democratic socialism was insufficiently developed in his own writings, he stands as an interesting case of a theorist whose defense of a form of democratic socialism is based on normative foundations that are not themselves distinctively socialist, but concerned with the core liberal democratic values of justice and equality (see also Edmundson 2017; Ypi 2018).

In a similar vein to Rawls, another instance of a theorist who defends at least partially socialist institutional arrangements on liberal egalitarian grounds was the Nobel Prize winning economist James Meade. Giving a central place to decidedly liberal values of freedom, security and independence, Meade argued that the likely levels of socioeconomic inequality under capitalism were such that a capitalist economy would need to be extensively tempered by socialist elements, such as the development of a citizens’ sovereign wealth fund, if the economic system were to be justifiable to those living under it (Meade 1964; O’Neill 2015 [OIR] , 2017; O’Neill and White 2019). Looking back before Meade, J. S. Mill can also be seen as a theorist who traveled along what we might describe as “the liberal road to socialism”, with Mill in his Autobiography describing his own view as the acceptance of a “qualified socialism” (Mill 1873 [2018]), and arguing for a range of measures to create a more egalitarian economy, including making the case for a steady-state rather than a growth-oriented economy, arguing for workers’ collective ownership and self-management of firms in preference to the hierarchical structures characteristic of most firms under capitalism, and endorsing steep taxation of inheritance and unearned income (Mill 2008; see also Ten 1998; O’Neill 2008b, Pateman 1970). More recently, the argument has been advanced that as capitalist economies tend towards higher levels of inequality, and in particular with the rapid velocity at which the incomes and wealth of the very rich in society is increasing, many of those who had seen their normative commitments as requiring only the mild reform of capitalist economies might need to come to see the need to endorse more radical socialist institutional proposals (Ronzoni 2018).

4. Socialist Institutional Designs (Dimension DII)

The foregoing discussion focused on socialist critiques of capitalism. These critiques make the case that capitalism fails to fulfill principles, or to realize values, to which socialists are committed. But what would an alternative economic system look like which would fulfill those principles, or realize those values—or at least honor them to a larger extent? This brings us to dimension DII of socialism. We will consider several proposed models. We will address here critical concerns about both the feasibility and the desirability of these models. Arguments comparing ideal socialist designs with actual capitalist societies are unsatisfactory; we must compare like with like (Nove 1991; Brennan 2014; Corneo 2017). Thus, we should compare ideal forms of socialism with ideal forms of capitalism, and actual versions of capitalism with actual versions of socialism. Most importantly, we should entertain comparisons between the best feasible incarnations of these systems. This requires formulating feasible forms of socialism. Feasibility assessments can play out in two ways: they may regard the (degree of) workability and stability of a proposed socialist system once introduced, or they may regard its (degree of) accessibility from current conditions when it is not yet in place. We address the former concerns in this section, leaving the latter for section 5 when we turn to dimension DIII of socialism and the questions of socialist transition or transformation.

Would socialism do better than capitalism regarding the ideals of equality, democracy, individual freedom, self-realization, and solidarity? This depends on the availability of workable versions of socialism that fulfill these ideals (or do so at least to a greater extent than workable forms of capitalism). A first set of proposals envision an economic system that does away with both private property in the means of production and with markets. The first version of this model is central planning . This can be understood within a top-down, hierarchical model. A central authority gathers information about the technical potential in the economy and about consumers’ needs and formulates a set of production objectives which seek an optimal match between the former and the latter. These objectives are articulated into a plan that is passed down to intermediate agencies and eventually to local firms, which must produce according to the plan handed down. If it works, this proposal would secure the highest feasible levels of equal access to consumption goods for everyone. However, critics have argued that the model faces serious feasibility hurdles (Corneo 2017: ch. 5: Roemer 1994a: ch. 5). It is very hard for a central authority to gather the relevant information from producers and consumers. Second, even if it could gather enough information, the computation of an optimal plan would require enormously complex calculations which may be beyond the capacity of planners (even with access to the most sophisticated technological assistance). Finally, there may be significant incentive deficits. For example, firms might tend to exaggerate the resources they need to produce and mislead about how much they can produce. Without facing strong sticks and carrots (such as the prospects for either bankruptcy and profit offered by a competitive market), firms might well display low levels of innovation. As a result, a planned economy would likely lag behind surrounding capitalist economies, and their members would tend to lose faith in it. High levels of cooperation (and willingness to innovate) could still exist if sufficiently many individuals in this society possessed a strong sense of duty. But critics find this unlikely to materialize, warning that “a system that only works with exceptional individuals only works in exceptional cases” (Corneo 2017: 127).

Actual experiments in centrally planned economies have only partially approximated the best version of it. Thus, in addition to the problems mentioned above (which affect even that best version), they have displayed additional defects. For example, the system introduced in the Soviet Union featured intense concentration of political and economic power in the hands of an elite controlling a single party which, in turn, controlled a non-democratic state apparatus. Despite its successes in industrializing the country (making it capable of mobilizing in a war effort to defeat Nazi Germany), the model failed to generate sufficient technical innovation and intensive growth to deliver differentiated consumer goods of the kind available within advanced capitalist economies. Furthermore, it trampled upon civil and political liberties that many socialists would themselves hold dear.

Responding to such widespread disempowerment, a second model for socialist planning has recommended that planning be done in a different, more democratic way. Thus, the participatory planning (or participatory economy, “Parecon”) model proposes the following institutional features (Albert 2003, 2016 [OIR] ). First, the means of production would be socially owned. Second, production would take place in firms controlled by workers (thus fostering democracy within the workplace). Third, balanced “job complexes” are put in place in which workers can both engage in intellectual and manual labor (thus fostering and generalizing self-realization). Fourth, in a solidaristic fashion, remuneration of workers would track their effort, sacrifice, and special needs (and not their relative power or output—which would likely reflect differences in native abilities for which they are not morally responsible). Finally, and crucially, economic coordination would be based on comprehensive participatory planning. This would involve a complex system of nested worker councils, consumer councils, and an Iteration Facilitation Board. Various rounds of deliberation within, and between, worker and consumer councils, facilitated by this board, would be undertaken until matches between supply and demands schedules are found—with recourse to voting procedures only when no full agreement exists but several promising arrangements arise. This would turn the economy into an arena of deliberative democracy.

This proposal seems to cater for the full palette of socialist values stated in section 4.1 . Importantly, it overcomes the deficits regarding freedom displayed by central planning. Critics have warned, however, that Parecon faces serious feasibility obstacles. In particular, the iterative planning constituting the fifth institutional dimension of the Parecon proposal would require immense information complexity (Wright 2010: 260–5). It is unlikely that participants in the operations of this board, even with the help of sophisticated computers, would manage it sufficiently well to generate a production plan that satisfactorily caters to the diversity of individuals’ needs. A defense of Parecon would retort that beyond initial stages, the process of economic decision-making would not be too cumbersome. Furthermore, it might turn out to involve no more paperwork and time devoted to planning and to assessment behind computer terminals than is found in existing capitalist societies (with their myriad individual and corporate budgeting exercises, and their various accounting and legal epicycles). And, in any case, even if it is more cumbersome and less efficient in terms of productivity, Parecon might still be preferable overall as an economic system, given its superior performance regarding the values of freedom, equality, self-realization, solidarity, and democracy (Arnold n.d. [OIR] : sect. 8.b).

Some of the above-mentioned problems of central planning, regarding inefficiency and concentration of power, have motivated some socialists to explore alternative economic systems in which markets are given a central role. Markets generate problems of their own (especially when they involve monopolies, negative externalities, and asymmetric information). But if regulations are introduced to counter these “market failures”, markets can be the best feasible mechanism for generating matches between demand and supply in large, complex societies (as higher prices signal high demand, with supply rushing to cover it, while lower prices signal low demand, leading supply to concentrate on other products). Market socialism affirms the traditional socialist desideratum of preventing a division of society between a class of capitalists who do not need to work to make a living and a class of laborers having to work for them, but it retains from capitalism the utilization of markets to guide production. There has been a lively debate on this approach, with several specific systems being proposed.

One version is the economic democracy model (Schweickart 2002 [2011], 2015 [OIR] ). It has three basic features. First, production is undertaken in firms managed by workers. Worker self-managed enterprises would gain temporary control of some means of production (which would be leased out by the state). Workers determine what gets produced and how it is produced, and determine compensation schemes. Second, there is a market for goods and services. The profit motive persists and some inequalities within and between firms are possible, but likely much smaller than in capitalism (as there would be no separate capitalist class, and workers will not democratically select income schemes that involve significant inequality within their firms). Finally, investment flows are socially controlled through democratically accountable public investment banks, which determine funding for enterprises on the basis of socially relevant criteria. The revenues for these banks come from a capital assets tax. This system would (through its second feature) mobilize the efficiency of markets while also (through its other features) attending to socialist ideals of self-determination, self-realization, and equal opportunity. To address some potential difficulties, the model has been extended to include further features, such as a commitment of the government as an employer of last resort, the creation of socialist savings and loans associations, the accommodation of an entrepreneurial-capitalist sector for particularly innovative small firms, and some forms of protectionism regarding foreign trade.

Self-management market socialism has been defended as feasible by pointing at the experience of cooperatives (such as the Mondragón Corporation in the Basque Country in Spain, which has (as of 2015) over 70,000 worker-owners participating in a network of cooperative businesses). But it has also been criticized on five counts (Corneo 2017: ch. 6). First, it would generate unfair distributions, as workers doing the same work in different enterprises would end up with unequal income if the enterprises are not equally successful in the market. Second, workers would face high levels of financial risk, as their resources would be concentrated in their firm rather than spread more widely. Third, it could generate inefficient responses to market prices, as self-managed enterprises reduce hiring if prices for their products are high—so that members keep more of the profit—and hire more if the prices are low—to cover for fixed costs of production. Given the previous point, the system could also generate high unemployment. Having the government require firms to hire more would lead to lower productivity. However, the further features in the model discussed above might address this problem by allowing for small private enterprises to be formed, and by having in the background the government play a role as an employer of last resort (although this might also limit overall productivity). Finally, although some of the problems of efficiency could be handled through the banks controlling investment, it is not clear that the enormous power of such banks could be made sufficiently accountable to a democratic process so as to avoid the potential problem of cooptation by elites. (See, however, Malleson 2014 on democratic control of investment.)

Another market socialist model, proposed by Carens (1981, 2003), does not impose worker self-management. The Carensian model mirrors the current capitalist system in most respects while introducing two key innovative features. First, there would be direct governmental provision regarding certain individually differentiated needs (via a public health care system, for example). Second, to access other consumption goods, everyone working full time would get the same post tax income. Pre-tax salaries would vary, signaling levels of demand in the market. People would choose jobs not only on the basis of their self-regarding preferences, but also out of a sense of social duty to use their capacities to support others in society. Thus, honoring the Abilities / Needs Principle , they would apply for jobs (within their competencies) in which the pre-tax income is relatively high. If it worked, this model would recruit the efficiency of markets, but it would not involve the selfish motives and inegalitarian outcomes typically linked to them in capitalism.

One worry about the Carensian model is that it might be unrealistic to expect an economic system to work well when it relies so heavily on a sense of duty to motivate people to make cooperative contributions. This worry could be assuaged by presenting this model as the long-term target of a socialist transformation which would progressively develop a social ethos supporting it (Gilabert 2011, 2017a), by noting empirical findings about the significant traction of non-egoistic motives in economic behavior (Bowles and Gintis 2011) and the feasibility of “moral incentives” (Guevara 1977, Lizárraga 2011), and by exploring strategies to mobilize simultaneously various motivational mechanisms to sustain the proposed scheme. Two other worries are the following (Gilabert 2015). First, the model makes no explicit provision regarding real opportunities for work in self-managed firms. To cater more fully for ideals of self-determination and self-realization, a requirement could be added that the government promote such opportunities for those willing to take them. Second, the model is not sufficiently sensitive to different individual preferences regarding leisure and consumption (requiring simply that everyone work full time and wind up with the same consumption and leisure bundles). More flexible schedules could be introduced so that people who want to consume more could work longer hours and have higher salaries, while people who want to enjoy more free time could work fewer hours and have lower salaries. Considerations of reciprocity and equality could still be honored by equalizing the incomes of those working the same number of hours.

Many forms of market socialism allow for some hierarchy at the point of production. These managerial forms are usually defended on grounds of greater efficiency. But they face the question of how to incentivize managers to behave in ways that foster innovation and productivity. One way to do this is to set up a stock market that would help to measure the performance of the firms they manage and to push them to make optimal decisions. An example of this approach (there are others—Corneo 2017: ch. 8) is coupon market socialism . In Roemer’s (1994a) version, this economic system operates with two kinds of money: dollars (euros, pesos, etc.) and coupons. Dollars are used to purchase commodities for consumption and production, and coupons are used in a stock market to purchase shares in corporations. The two kinds of money are not convertible (with an exception to be outlined below). Each person, when reaching adulthood, is provided with an equal set of coupons. They can use them in a state-regulated stock market (directly or through mutual investment funds) to purchase shares in corporations at market price. They receive the dividends from their investments in dollars, but they cannot cash the coupons themselves. When they die, people’s coupons and shares go back to the state for distribution to new generations—no inherited wealth is allowed—and coupons cannot be transferred as gifts. Thus, there is no separate class of capital owners in this economy. But there will be income inequality resulting from people’s different fortunes with their investments (dividends) as well as from the income they gain in the jobs they take through the labor market (in managerial and non-managerial positions). Coupons can however be converted into dollars by corporations; they can cash their shares to pay for capital investments. The exchange is regulated by a public central bank. Further, public banks or public investment funds, operating with relative independence from the government, would steer enterprises receiving coupons so that they maximize profit in the competitive markets for the goods and services they produce (so that they maximize the returns on the coupons invested). Part of that profit is also taxed for direct welfare provisions by the state.

This model caters for ideals of equality of opportunity (given equal distribution of coupons) and democracy (given the elimination of capitalist dynasties that have the ability to transform massive economic power into political influence). It also gives people freedom to choose how to use their resources and includes solidaristic schemes of public provision to meet needs regarding education and health care. Via the competitive markets in consumption goods and shares, it also promises high levels of innovation and productivity. (In some versions of the model this is enhanced by allowing limited forms of private ownership of firms to facilitate the input of highly innovative entrepreneurial individuals—Corneo 2017: 192–7). The model departs from traditional forms of socialism by not exactly instituting social property in means of production (but rather the equal dispersal of coupons across individuals in each generation). But defenders of this model say that socialists should not fetishize any property scheme; they should instead see such schemes instrumentally in terms of how well they fare in the implementation of core normative principles (such as equality of opportunity) (Roemer 1994a: 23–4, 124–5). Critics have worries, however, that the model does not go far enough in honoring socialist principles. For example, they have argued that a managerial (by contrast to a self-management) form of market socialism is deficient in terms of self-determination and self-realization at the workplace (Satz 1996), and that the levels of inequalities in income, and the competitive attitudes in the market that it would generate, violate ideals of community (G.A. Cohen 2009). In response, a defender of coupon market socialism can emphasize that the model is meant to be applied in the short-term, and that further institutional and cultural arrangements more fully in line with socialist principles can be introduced later on, as they become more feasible (Roemer 1994a: 25–7, 118). A worry, however, is that the model may entrench institutional and cultural configurations which may diminish rather than enhance the prospects for deeper changes in the future (Brighouse 1996; Gilabert 2011).

The models discussed above envision comprehensive “system change” in which the class division between capitalists and wage laborers disappears. Socialists have also explored piecemeal reforms that stop short of that structural change. An important historical example is the combination of a market economy and the welfare state . In this model, although property in the means of production remains private, and markets allocate most inputs and outputs of production, a robust governmental framework is put in place to limit the power of capitalists over workers and to improve the life-prospects of the latter. Thus, social insurance addresses the risks associated with illness, unemployment, disability, and old age. Tax-funded, state provision of many of those goods that markets typically fail to deliver for all is introduced (such as high-quality education, public transportation, and health care). And collective bargaining gives unions and other instruments of workers’ power some sway on the determination of their working conditions, as well as providing an important foundation for the political agency of the working class (O’Neill and White 2018).

This welfare state model was developed with great success during the three decades after World War II, especially in Northern Europe, but also, in weaker but significant forms, in other countries (including some in the Global South). However, since the 1980s, this model has been in significant retreat, or even in crisis. Wealth and income inequality have been increasing dramatically during this time (Piketty 2014; O’Neill 2017). The financial sector has become extremely powerful and able largely to escape governmental regulation as globalization allows capital to flow across borders. A “race to the bottom” features states competing with each other to attract investment by lowering tax rates and other regulations, thus undermining states’ ability to implement welfare policies (see, e.g., Dietsch 2015, 2018). Some socialists have seen this crisis as a reason to abandon the welfare state and pursue more comprehensive changes of the kind discussed above. Others, however, have argued that the model should be defended given that it has been proven to work quite well while the alternatives have uncertain prospects.

One example of the approach of extending or retrenching the mixed economy and welfare state proposes a combination of two moves (Corneo 2017: ch. 10, Epilogue, Appendix). The first move is to revamp the welfare state by introducing mechanisms of greater accountability of politicians to citizens (such as regulation of the dealings of politicians with private companies, and more instances of direct democracy in order to empower citizens), an improvement of the quality of public services delivered by the welfare state (introducing exacting audits and evaluations and fostering the training and recruitment of excellent civil servants), and international coordination of tax policies to prevent tax competition and tax evasion. The second move in this proposal is to run controlled experiments of market socialism to present it as a credible threat to the powerful actors seeking to undermine the welfare state. This threat would help stabilize the welfare state as the menace of communist revolution did after 1945. Specifically, welfare states could create new institutions that would be relatively independent from governments and be run by highly competent and democratically accountable civil servants. “Sovereign Wealth Funds” would invest public money in well-functioning enterprises, to yield an equal “social dividend” for citizens (on Sovereign Wealth Funds, see also Cummine 2016, O’Neill and White 2019). The second institution, a “Federal Shareholder”, would go further by using some of these funds to buy 51% of the shares of selected enterprises and take the lead within their boards of directors or supervisory boards. The objective would be to show that these enterprises (which would include significant participation of workers in their management, and ethical guidelines regarding environmental impacts and other concerns) maximize profits and thus offer a desirable and feasible alternative to the standard capitalist enterprise. Effectively, this strategy would run controlled experiments of shareholder market socialism. The working population would learn about the feasibility of market socialism, and capitalist opponents of welfare entitlements would be disciplined by fear of the generalization of such experiments to settle again for the welfare state.

Another strategy is to introduce various experiments seeking to expand the impact of social power (as different from state and economic power) within society (as defined in sect. 1). (See survey in Wright 2010: chs. 6–7). A set of mechanisms would target the deepening of democracy. Forms of direct democracy could foster citizens’ deliberative engagement in decision-making, as exemplified by the introduction of municipal participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil (which features citizens’ assemblies identifying priorities for public policy). The quality of representative democracy can be enhanced (and its subservience to the power of capitalists decreased) by introducing egalitarian funding of electoral campaigns (e.g., by giving citizens a sum of money to allocate to the parties they favor, while forcing parties to choose between getting funding from that source and any other source—such as corporations), and by creating random citizen assemblies to generate policy options which can then be subject to society-wide referenda (as in the attempt to change the electoral system in British Columbia in Canada). Finally, forms of associational democracy can be introduced that feature deliberation or bargaining between government, labor, business, and civil society groups when devising national economic policies or when introducing regional or local (e.g., environmental) regulations. A second set of mechanisms would foster social empowerment more directly in the economy. Examples are the promotion of the social economy sector featuring economic activity involving self-management and production oriented to use value (as displayed, e.g., by Wikipedia and child care units in Quebec), an unconditional basic income strengthening people’s ability to engage in economic activities they find intrinsically valuable, and the expansion of the cooperative sector. None of these mechanisms on its own would make a society socialist rather than capitalist. But if we see societies as complex “ecologies” rather than as homogeneous “organisms”, we can notice that they are hybrids including diverse institutional logics. An increase in the incidence of social empowerment may significantly extend the socialist aspects of a society, and even eventually make them dominant (a point to which we return in the next section).

A final point worth mentioning as we close our discussion of dimension DII of socialism concerns the growing interest in addressing not only the economic arena, but also the political and personal-private ones. Some scholars argue that classical socialists neglected the increasing “functional differentiation” of modern society into these three “spheres”, concentrating in an unduly narrow way on the economic one (Honneth 2015 [2017]). Thus, recent socialist work has increasingly explored how to extend socialist principles to the organization of relatively autonomous governmental institutions and practices and to the shaping of intimate relationships among family members, friends, and lovers, as well as to the relations between these diverse social arenas (see also Fraser 2009, 2014; Albert 2017). There is, of course, also a long-standing tradition of feminist socialism that has pushed for a wide scope in the application of socialist ideals and a broader understanding of labor that covers productive and reproductive activities beyond the formal workplace (see, e.g., Arruzza 2013, 2016; Dalla Costa and James 1972; Federici 2012; Ehrenreich 1976 [2018]; Gould 1973–4; Rowbotham et al 1979; Rowbotham 1998).

We turn now to the last dimension of socialism (DIII), which concerns the transformation of capitalist societies into socialist ones. The discussion on this dimension is difficult in at least two respects which call for philosophical exploration (Gilabert 2017a: 113–23, 2015: 216–20). The first issue concerns feasibility. The question is whether socialist systems are accessible from where we are now—whether there is a path from here to there. But what does feasibility mean here? It cannot just mean logical or physical possibility, as these would rule out very few social systems. The relevant feasibility parameters seem instead to involve matters of technical development, economic organization, political mobilization, and moral culture. (For some discussion on these parameters see Wright 2010: ch. 8; Chibber 2017.) But such parameters are comparatively “soft”, in that they indicate probability prospects rather than pose strict limits of possibility, and can be significantly changed over time. When something is not feasible to do right now, we could have dynamic duties to make it feasible to do later by developing our relevant capacities in the meantime. The feasibility judgments must then be scalar rather than binary and allow for diachronic variation. These features make them somewhat murky, and not straightforwardly amenable to the hard-edged use of impossibility claims to debunk normative requirements (via contraposition on the principle that ought implies can).

A second difficulty concerns the articulation of all things considered appropriate strategies that combine feasibility considerations with the normative desiderata provided by socialist principles. The question here is: what is the most reasonable path of transformation to pursue for socialists given their understanding of the principles animating their political project, viewed against the background of what seems more or less feasible to achieve at different moments, and within different historical contexts? Complex judgments have to be formed about the precise social systems at which it would be right to aim at different stages of the sequence of transformation, and about the specific modes of political action to deploy in such processes. These judgments would combine feasibility and desirability to assess short-term and long-term goals, their intrinsic costs and benefits, and the promise of the former to enhance the achievement of the latter. The difficulty of forming such judgments is compounded by the uncertainty about the prospects of large societal changes (but also about the long-term consequences of settling for the status quo).

Marx (1875 [1978b]) himself seemed to address some of these issues in his short text “The Critique of the Gotha Program” of 1875. Marx here envisioned the process of socialist transformation as including two phases. The final phase would fully implement the Abilities / Needs Principle . But he did not take that scenario to be immediately accessible. An intermediate step should be pursued, in which the economy would be ruled by a Contribution Principle requiring that (after some provisions are put aside to fulfill basic needs regarding health care, education, and support for those unable to work) people gain access to consumption goods in proportion to how much they contribute. This lower phase of socialist transformation would be reasonable because it would enhance the prospects of transitioning away from capitalism and of generating the conditions for the full realization of socialism. The implementation of the Contribution Principle would fulfill the promise systematically broken by capitalism that people would benefit according to their labor input (as in capitalism capitalists get much more, and workers much less, than they give). It would also incentivize people to increase production to the level necessary for the introduction of socialism proper. Once such level of development is in place, the social ethos could move away from the mantra of the “exchange of equivalents” and instead adopt a different outlook in which people produce according to their diverse abilities, and consume according to their diverse needs. This sequential picture of transformation features diachronic judgments about changes in feasibility parameters (such as the expansion of technical capacity and a change in patterns of motivation). Marx also envisioned political dimensions of this process, including a “dictatorship of the proletariat” (which would not, as some popular interpretations hold, involve violation of civil and political rights, but a change in the political constitution and majoritarian policies that secure the elimination of capitalist property rights (Elster 1985: 447–9)). In time, the state (understood as an apparatus of class rule rather than, more generally, as an administrative device) would “wither away”.

History has not moved smoothly in the direction many socialists predicted. It has not been obvious that the following steps in the expected pattern materialized or are likely to do so: capitalism generating a large, destitute, and homogeneous working class; this class responding to some of the cyclical crises capitalism is prone to by creating a coherent and powerful political movement; this movement gaining control of government and resolutely and successfully implementing a socialist economic system (G.A. Cohen 2000b: ch.6; Laclau and Mouffe 1985). Given the fact that this process did not materialize, and seems unlikely to do so, it turns out that it would be both self-defeating and irresponsible to fail to address difficult questions about the relative feasibility and moral desirability of different strategies of potential socialist transformation. For example, if the process of transformation involves two or more stages (be they the two mentioned above, or some sequence going, say, from the welfare state to shareholder or coupon market socialism and then to the Carensian model), it might be asked who is to evaluate and decide upon what is to be done at each stage of the process, on what grounds can it be expected that earlier stages will enhance the likelihood of the success of later stages rather than undermine them (e.g., by enshrining institutions or values that will make it hard to move further along the path), what transitional costs can be accepted in earlier stages, and whether the costs expected are outweighed by the desirability and the increased probability of attaining the later stages. Such questions do not want for difficulty.

Addressing questions such as these dilemmas of transitional strategy, socialists have envisaged different approaches to social and political transformation. Four significant examples (extensively discussed in Wright 2010: Part III, 2015b, 2016—which we follow here) are articulated by considering two dimensions of analysis regarding (a) the primary goal of the strategy (either (i) transcending the structures of capitalism, or (ii) neutralizing the worst harms of it) and (b) the primary target of the strategy (either (i) the state and other institutions at the macro-level of the system, or (ii) the economic activities of individuals, organizations, and communities).

The first strategy, smashing capitalism , picks out the combination of possibilities (a.i) and (b.i). A political organization (e.g., a revolutionary party) takes advantage of some of the crises generated by capitalism to seize state power, proceeding to use that power to counter opposition to the revolution and to build a socialist society. This is the strategy favored by revolutionary socialists and many Marxists, and pursued in the twentieth century in countries such as Russia and China. If we look at the historical evidence, we see that although this strategy succeeded in some cases in transitioning out of previously existing capitalist or proto-capitalist economic systems, it failed in terms of building socialism. It led instead to a form of authoritarian statism. There is debate about the causes of these failures. Some factors may have been the economically backward and politically hostile circumstances in which the strategy was implemented, the leaders’ deficits (in terms of their tactics or motives), and the hierarchical frameworks used to suppress opposition after the revolution which remained in place for the long-term to subvert revolutionaries’ aims. Large system changes normally have to face a “transitional trough” after their onset, in which the material interests of many people are temporarily set back (Przeworski 1985). A political dilemma arises, in that, if liberal democratic politics is retained (with a free press, liberty of association, and multiparty elections) the revolutionaries may be unseated due to citizens’ political response to the “valley of transition”, while if liberal democratic politics are supplanted, then authoritarian statism may be the consequence, eradicating the possibility of a socialist outcome to which it would be worthwhile to seek to transition.

A second strategy, picking out the combination of possibilities (a.ii) and (b.i), has been taming capitalism . It mobilizes the population (sometimes in sharp political struggles) to elect governments and implement policies that respond to the worst harms generated by capitalism, with the aim of neutralizing them. New policies include social insurance responding to risks faced by the population (e.g., illness and unemployment), tax funded, state provision of public goods which markets tend to fail to provide (e.g., education, public transportation, research and development, etc.), and regulation of negative externalities produced in markets (e.g., regarding pollution, product and workplace hazards, predatory market behavior, etc.). The strategy, implemented by social-democratic parties, worked quite well during the three decades of the “Golden Age” or Trente Glorieuses following World War II. However, progress was halted and partly rolled back since the retreat of social democracy and the introduction of neoliberalism in the 1980s. Possible explanatory factors are the financialization of capitalism, and the effects of globalization, as discussed above in section 4.3 . There is a debate as to whether capitalism is really tamable—it may be that the Golden Age was only a historical anomaly, borne out of a very particular set of political and economic circumstances.

The third strategy, escaping capitalism , picks out the combination of possibilities (a.ii) and (b.ii). Capitalism might be too strong to destroy. But people could avoid its worst harms by insulating themselves from its dynamics. They could focus on family and friendships, become self-subsistence farmers, create intentional communities, and explore modes of life involving “voluntary simplicity”. However, this strategy seems available mostly to relatively well-off people who can fund their escape with wealth they have amassed or received from capitalist activities. The working poor may not be so lucky.

The final strategy, eroding capitalism , picks out the combination of (a.i) and (b.ii). Economic systems are here seen as hybrids. People can introduce new, socialist forms of collective activity (such as worker cooperatives) and progressively expand them, eventually turning them from marginal to dominant. Recently this kind of strategy of the erosion of capitalism through institutional transformation rather than piecemeal changes within existing economic structures, has been referred to as “the institutional turn” in leftist political economy (see Guinan and O’Neill 2018). Wright (2015b, 2016) suggests the analogy of a lake ecosystem, with the introduction of a new species of fish that at first thrives in one location, and then spreads out, eventually becoming a dominant species. Historically, the transformation from feudalism to capitalism in some parts of Europe has come about in this way, with pockets of commercial, financial, and manufacturing activity taking place in cities and expanding over time. Some anarchists seem to hold a version of this strategy today. It offers hope for change even when the state seems uncongenial, and likely to remain so. But critics find it far-fetched, as it seems unlikely to go sufficiently far given the enormous economic and political power of large capitalist corporations and the tendency of the state to repress serious threats to its rules. To go further, the power of the state has to be at least partially recruited. The fourth strategy then, according to Wright, is only plausible when combined with the second.

As discussed by Wright, this combined strategy would have two elements (we could see Corneo’s proposal discussed in section 4.3 as another version of this approach). First, it would address some important, problematic junctures to expand state action in ways that even capitalists would have to accept. And second, the solutions to the crises introduced by state action would be selected in such a way that they would enhance long-term prospects for socialist change. One critical juncture is global warming, and the social and political problems of the Anthropocene era (Löwy 2005; Purdy 2015; Wark 2016). Responding to its effects would require massive generation of state-provided public goods, which could remove neoliberal compunctions about state activism. A second critical juncture concerns the large levels of long-term unemployment, precariousness, and marginalization generated by new trends in automation and information technology. This involves threats to social peace, and insufficient demand for the products corporations need to sell on the consumption market. Such threats could be averted by introducing an unconditional basic income policy (Van Parijs and Vanderborght 2017), or by the significant expansion of public services, or by some other mechanism that secures for everybody a minimally dignified economic condition independent of their position within the labor market. Now, these state policies could foster the growth of social power and the prospects for socialist change in the future. Workers would have more power in the labor market when they came to be less reliant upon it. They could also be more successful in forming cooperatives. The social economy sector could flourish under such conditions. People could also devote more time to political activism. Together, these trends from below, combined with state activism from above, could expand knowledge about the workability of egalitarian, democratic, and solidaristic forms of economic activity, and strengthen the motivation to extend their scope. Although some critics find this strategy naïve (Riley 2016), proponents think that something like it must be tried if the aim is democratic socialism rather than authoritarian statism. (For specific worries about the political feasibility of a robust universal basic income policy as a precursor to rather than as a result of socialism, see Gourevitch and Stanczyk 2018).

Other significant issues regarding dimension DIII of socialism are the identification of appropriate political agents of change and their prospects of success in the context of contemporary globalization. On the first point, socialists increasingly explore the significance not only of workers’ movements, but also their intersection with the efforts of activists focused on overcoming gender- and race-based oppression (Davis 1981; Albert 2017). Some argue that the primary addressee of socialist politics should not be any specific class or movement, but the more inclusive, and politically equal group of citizens of a democratic community. For example, Honneth (2015 [2017: ch. IV]), following in part John Dewey and Juergen Habermas, argues that the primary addressee and agent of change for socialism should be the citizens assembled in the democratic public sphere. Although normatively appealing, this proposal may face serious feasibility difficulties, as existing democratic arenas are intensely contaminated and disabled by the inequalities socialists criticize and seek to overcome. The second issue is also relevant here. There is a traditional question whether socialism is to be pursued in one country or internationally. The tendency to embrace an internationalist horizon of political change is characteristic among socialists as they typically see their ideals of freedom, equality, and solidarity as having global scope, while they also note that, as a matter of feasibility, the increasing porousness of borders for capitalist economic activity make it the case that socialist politics may not go very far in any country without reshaping the broader international context. A difficulty here is that despite the existence of international social movements (including workers’ movements, international NGOs, human rights institutions and associations, and other actors), institutional agency beyond borders that can seriously contest capitalist frameworks is not currently very strong. In addressing these difficulties, action and research on socialist justice must interact with ongoing work in the related areas of gender, race, democracy, human rights, and global justice. [ 2 ]

Akyeampong, Emmanuel, 2018, “African Socialism; or, the Search for an Indigenous Model of Economic Development?”, Economic History of Developing Regions , 33(1): 69–87. doi:10.1080/20780389.2018.1434411
Albert, Michael, 2003, Parecon: Life After Capitalism , London: Verso.
–––, 2017, Practical Utopia: Strategies for a Desirable Society , Oakland: PM Press.
ANC (African National Congress), 1955, The Freedom Charter: Adopted at the Congress of the People at Kliptown, Johnannesburg, on June 25 and 26, 1955 . [ ANC 1955 available online , from Wits Historical Papers, University of Witwatersrand.]
Aricó, José, 2017, José Aricó: dilemas del marxismo en América Latina, antología esencial , Martín Cortés (ed.), Buenos Aires: CLACSO. [ Aricó 2017 available online ]
Arneson, Richard, 2016, “Exploitation, Domination, Competitive Markets, and Unfair Division: Exploitation, Domination, Competitive Markets, Unfair Division”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 54(S1-Exploitation): 9–30. doi:10.1111/sjp.12182
Arnold, Samuel, 2012, “The Difference Principle at Work”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 20(1): 94–118. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00393.x
–––, 2017, “Capitalism, Class Conflict, and Domination”, Socialism and Democracy , 31(1): 106–124. doi:10.1080/08854300.2016.1215810
Arnsperger, Christian and Philippe Van Parijs, 2003, Éthique économique et sociale , Paris: La Découverte.
Arruzza, Cinzia, 2013, Dangerous Liaisons: The Marriages and Divorces of Marxism and Feminism , (IIRE Notebook for Study and Research 55), Pontypool, Wales: Merlin Press.
–––, 2016, “Functionalist, Determinist, Reductionist: Social Reproduction Feminism and Its Critics”, Science & Society , 80(1): 9–30. doi:10.1521/siso.2016.80.1.9
Barry, Brian, 2005, Why Social Justice Matters , Cambridge: Polity.
Blackburn, Robin, 2011, “Reclaiming Human Rights: Review of The Last Utopia by Samuel Moyn”, New Left Review , 69(May/June): 126–138. [ Blackburn 2011 available online ]
Boltanski, Luc and Eve Chiapello, 2018, The New Spirit of Capitalism , London: Verso.
Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis, 1986, Democracy and Capitalism: Property, Community and the Contradictions of Modern Social Thought , New York: Routledge.
–––, 2011, A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi:10.23943/princeton/9780691151250.001.0001
Brennan, Jason, 2014, Why Not Capitalism? New York: Routledge.
Brighouse, Harry, 1996, “Transitional and Utopian Market Socialism”, in Wright 1996: 187–208.
Carens, Joseph H., 1981, Equality, Incentives, and the Market: An Essay in Utopian Politico-Economic Theory , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 2003, “An Interpretation and Defense of the Socialist Principle of Distribution”, Social Philosophy and Policy , 20(1): 145–177. doi:10.1017/S0265052503201072
Castoriadis, Cornelius, 1979, Le Contenu du Socialisme , Paris: Éditions 10/18.
Chakrabarty, Bidyut, 2014, Communism in India: Events, Processes and Ideologies , New Delhi: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199974894.001.0001
–––, 2018, Left Radicalism in India , New York: Routledge
Chibber, Vivek, 2017, “Rescuing Class from the Cultural Turn”, Catalyst , 1(1).
Cohen, G. A., 1988, History, Labour, and Freedom , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1995, Self-ownership, Freedom, and Equality , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 2000a, Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defense , expanded edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
–––, 2000b, If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 2008, Rescuing Justice and Equality , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 2009, Why Not Socialism? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
–––, 2011, On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice and Other Essays in Political Philosophy , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cohen, Joshua, 1989, “The Economic Basis of Deliberative Democracy”, Social Philosophy and Policy , 6(2): 25–50. doi:10.1017/S0265052500000625
Cohen, Joshua and Joel Rogers, 1995, Associations and Democracy: The Real Utopias Project, Volume 1 , London: Verso.
Cole, G. D. H., 1929, The Next Ten Years in British Social and Economic Policy , London: Routledge.
Collins, Hugh, Gillian Lester, and Virginia Mantouvalou (eds.), 2018, Philosophical Foundations of Labour Law , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198825272.001.0001
Corneo, Giacomo, 2017, Is Capitalism Obsolete? A Journey through Alternative Economic Systems , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Coutrot, Thomas, 2018, Libérer le travail , Paris: Seuil.
Cummine, Angela, 2016, Citizens’ Wealth , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dalla Costa, Mariarosa and Selma James, 1972, The Power of Women & the Subversion of Community , Bristol: Falling Wall Press Ltd. ( Dalla Costa and James 1972 available online )
Dardot, Pierre and Christian Laval, 2014, Commun. Essai sur la révolution au XXIe siècle , Paris: La Découverte.
Davis, Angela, 1981, Women, Race and Class , New York: Random House.
Dietsch, Peter, 2015, Catching Capital: The Ethics of Tax Competition , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190251512.001.0001
–––, 2018, “The State and Tax Competition: A Normative Perspective”, in Taxation: Philosophical Perspectives , Martin O’Neill and Shepley Orr (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, chapter 12.
Dussel, Enrique, 1998, Etica de la liberación , Madrid: Trotta.
Edmundson, William A., 2017, John Rawls: Reticent Socialist , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ehrenreich, Barbara, 1976 [2018], “What is Socialist Feminism?” WIN Magazine . Reprinted with a new introduction in Jacobin , 07.30.2018. [ Ehrenreich 1976 [2018] available online ]
Einstein, Albert, 1949, “Why Socialism?”, Monthly Review , 1. Reprinted in 2009, Monthly Review , 61(1): 55–61. doi:10.14452/MR-061-01-2009-05_7
Elster, Jon, 1985, Making Sense of Marx , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 1986, An Introduction to Karl Marx , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
–––, 1989, “Self-Realization in Work and Politics: The Marxist Conception of the Good Life”, in Elster and Moene 1989: 127–158.
Elster, Jon and Karl Ove Moene (eds.), 1989, Alternatives to Capitalism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fanon, Frantz, 1952, Peau noire, masques blancs , Paris: Seuil.
–––, 1961, Les damnés de la terre , Paris: Maspero.
Federici, Silvia, 2012, Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction and Feminist Struggle , Oakland, CA: MP Press.
Fleurbaey, Marc, 2006, Capitalisme ou démocratie? L'alternative du XXIe siècle , Paris: Grasset & Fasquelle.
Forst, Rainer, 2017, “Noumenal Alienation: Rousseau, Kant and Marx on the Dialectics of Self-Determination”, Kantian Review , 22(4): 523–551. doi:10.1017/S1369415417000267
Frega, Roberto, Lisa Herzog, and Christian Neuhäuser, 2019, “Workplace Democracy—The Recent Debate”, Philosophy Compass , 14(4): e12574. doi:10.1111/phc3.12574
Fraser, Nancy, 2009, “Feminism, Capitalism and the Cunning of History”, New Left Review , 56(Mar/Apr): 97–117. [ Fraser 2009 available online ]
–––, 2014, “Behind Marx’s Hidden Abode: For an Expanded Conception of Capitalism”, New Left Review , 86(Mar/Apr): 55–72. [ Fraser 2014 available online ]
Fraser, Nancy and Rahel Jaeggi, 2018, Capitalism , Cambridge: Polity.
Gargarella, Roberto, 2010, The Legal Foundations of Inequality: Constitutionalism in the Americas, 1776–1860 , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511750618
Geras, Norman, 1985, “The Controversy about Marx and Justice”, New Left Review , 1/150(Mar/Apr): 47–85. [ Geras 1985 available online ]
Getachew, Adom, 2019, Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi:10.23943/princeton/9780691179155.001.0001
Gilabert, Pablo, 2011, “Debate: Feasibility and Socialism”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 19(1): 52–63. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00383.x
–––, 2012, “Cohen on Socialism, Equality and Community”, Socialist Studies/Études Socialistes , 8: 101–121. doi:10.18740/S4W019
–––, 2015, “The Socialist Principle ‘From Each According To Their Abilities, To Each According To Their Needs’”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 46(2): 197–225. doi:10.1111/josp.12096
–––, 2017a, “Justice and Feasibility: A Dynamic Approach”, in Political Utopias: Contemporary Debates , Michael Weber and Kevin Vallier (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 95–126. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190280598.003.0006
–––, 2017b, “Kantian Dignity and Marxian Socialism”, Kantian Review , 22(4): 553–577. doi:10.1017/S1369415417000279
–––, 2018a, Human Dignity and Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198827221.001.0001
–––, 2018b, “Dignity at Work”, in Collins, Lester, and Mantouvalou 2018: 68–86.
Goodin, Robert, 1987, “Exploiting a Person and Exploiting a Situation”, in Modern Theories of Exploitation , Andrew Reeve (ed.), London: SAGE, 166–200.
Gould, Carol C., 1973–4, “The Woman Question: Philosophy of Liberation and the Liberation of Philosophy”, Philosophical Forum , 5: 5–44.
–––, 1981, “Socialism and Democracy”, Praxis International , 1: 49–63.
–––, 1988, Rethinking Democracy: Freedom and Social Cooperation in Politics, Economy, and Society , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gourevitch, Alex, 2013, “Labor Republicanism and the Transformation of Work”, Political Theory , 41(4): 591–617. doi:10.1177/0090591713485370
Gourevitch, Alex and Lucas Stanczyk, 2018, “The Basic Income Illusion”, Catalyst , 1(4).
Guevara, Ernesto, 1977, El Socialismo y El Hombre Nuevo , Mexico DF: Siglo XXI.
Guinan, Joe and Martin O'Neill, 2018, “The Institutional Turn: Labour’s New Political Economy”, Renewal: A Journal of Social Democracy , 26(2): 5–16. [ Guinan and O'Neill 2018 available online ]
Harnecker, Marta, 2015, A World to Build. New Paths towards Twenty-First Century Socialism , New York: Monthly Review Press.
Holmstrom, Nancy, 1977, “Exploitation”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 7(2): 353–369. doi:10.1080/00455091.1977.10717024
Honneth, Axel, 2015 [2017], Die Idee des Sozialismus. Versuch einer Aktualisierung , Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag. Translated as The Idea of Socialism: Towards a Renewal , Joseph Ganahl (trans.), Cambridge: Polity.
Jaeggi, Rahel, 2014, Alienation , New York: Columbia University Press.
James, C. L. R., 1984, At the Rendezvous of Victory: Selected Writings , London: Allison and Busby.
–––, 2001, The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution , new edition. London: Penguin Books [original publication 1938]
Keat, Russell and John O’Neill, 2011, “Socialism”, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy , London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-S058-2
Keynes, John Maynard, 1930/1931 [2010], “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren”, The Nation and Athenaeum) and reprinted in his, 1931, Essays in Persuasion . Reprinted 2010, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2010, 321–332. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-59072-8_25
Kołakowski, Leszek, 1974 [2008], Main Currents of Marxism , London: W. W. Norton & Company.
Laclau, Ernesto, and Mouffe, Chantal, 1985, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy , London: Verso.
Lal, Priya, 2015, African Socialism in Postcolonial Tanzania: Between the Village and the World , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316221679
Le Bot, Yvon, 1997, Subcomandante Marcos. El sueño Zapatista. Entrevistas con el Subcomandante Marcos, el mayor Moisés y el comandante Tacho, del Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional , Barcelona: Plaza & Janés.
Leopold, David, 2018, “Alienation”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/alienation/ >
Lewis, Su Lin, 2019, “Asian Socialists and the Forgotten Architects of Post-Colonial Freedom, 1952–56”, Journal of World History , 30 (1&2): 55–88.
Lizárraga, Fernando, 2011, El marxismo y la justicia social. La idea de igualdad en Ernesto Che Guevara , Chile: Escaparate Ediciones.
Lohia, Ram Manohar, 1963, Marx, Gandhi and Socialism , Hyderabad: Navahind.
Löwy, Michel, 2005, Ecosocialism. A Radical Alternative to Capitalist Catastrophe , Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
Lukes, Steven, 1985, Marxism and Morality , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malleson, Tom, 2014, After Occupy: Economic Democracy for the 21st Century , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199330102.001.0001
Manley, Michael, 1990, The Politics of Change: a Jamaican Testament , Washington DC: Howard University Press [first published 1974]
–––, 1991, The Poverty of Nations: Reflections on Underdevelopment and the World Economy , London: Pluto Press.
Mariátegui, José Carlos, 1928, Siete Ensayos de Interpretación de la Realidad Peruana , Caracas, Venezuela.
–––, 2010, La tarea americana , Buenos Aires: Prometeo.
Marx, Karl, 1857–8 [1973], Grundrisse , London: Penguin. Original composition 1857–8.
–––, 1844 [1978a], “Economic and Philosophic Manuscript of 1844”, in in The Marx-Engels Reader , R. Tucker (ed.), second edition, New York: Norton, 66–125. Original composition 1844.
–––, 1875 [1978b], “Critique of the Gotha Program”, in The Marx-Engels Reader , R. Tucker (ed.), second edition, New York: Norton, 525–541. Original composition 1875.
–––, 1867 [1990], Capital 1 , London: Penguin. Original publication 1867.
–––, 1991, Capital 3 , London: Penguin. Original composition: incomplete manuscript later edited and released by Friedrich Engels.
Meade, James, 1948, Planning and the Price Mechanism , London: Routledge.
–––, 1964, Efficiency, Equality and the Ownership of Property , London: Routledge.
–––, 1967, An Intelligent Radical’s Guide to Economic Policy , London: Routledge.
Meiksins Wood, Ellen, 1995, Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted by Verso in 2016.
Mill, John Stuart, 2008, Principles of Political Economy and Chapters on Socialism , Jonathan Riley (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Principles of Political Economy originally published 1848; Chapters on Socialism originally published 1879]
–––, 1873 [2018], Autobiography , Oxford: Oxford University Press. [originally published 1873]
Morsink, Johannes, 1999, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Origins, Drafting and Intent , Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Narayan, Jayaprakash, 1980, A Revolutionary's Quest: Selected Writings of Jayaprakash Narayan , Bimal Prasad (ed.), New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Negri, Antonio, 2008, Goodbye Mr. Socialism , New York: Sever Stories Press.
Nell, Edward and Onora O’Neill, 1992 [2003], “Justice Under Socialism”, in Transformational Growth and Effective Demand , by Edward J. Nell, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 663–674. Reprinted in Justice , fourth edition, J. Sterba (ed.), Toronto: Thomson-Wadsworth, 2003, 77–85. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-21779-3_28
Nielsen, Kai, 1985, Equality and Liberty , Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
Nkrumah, Kwame, 1961, I Speak of Freedom: a Statement of African Ideology , New York: Frederick A. Praeger.
–––, 1963, Africa Must Unite , New York: International.
–––, 1965, Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism , New York: Internationalism.
Nove, Alec, 1991, The Economics of Feasible Socialism Revisited , London: Harper Collins.
–––, 2008, “Socialism”, in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics , Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. blume (eds.), London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_1718-2
Nyerere, Julius, 1967, Freedom and Unity: A Selection from Writings and Speeches 1952–1965 , Dar es Salaam: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1968a, Freedom and Socialism: A Selection from Writings and Speeches 1965–1967 , Dar es Salaam: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1968b, Ujamaa: Essays on Socialism , London: Oxford University Press.
O’Neill, Martin, 2008a, “What Should Egalitarians Believe?”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 36(2): 119–156. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2008.00130.x
–––, 2008b, “Three Rawlsian Routes towards Economic Democracy”, Revue de Philosophie Économique , 9(1): 29–55
–––, 2012, “Free (and Fair) Markets without Capitalism. Political Values, Principles of Justice, and Property-Owning Democracy”, in O’Neill and Williamson 2012: 75–100.
–––, 2017, “Survey Article: Philosophy and Public Policy after Piketty”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 25(3): 343–375. doi:10.1111/jopp.12129
O’Neill, Martin and Stuart White, 2018, “Trade Unions and Political Equality”, Collins, Lester, and Mantouvalou 2018: 252–268.
–––, 2019, “James Meade, Public Ownership, and the Idea of a Citizens’ Trust”, International Journal of Public Policy , 15(1/2): 23–37. doi:10.1504/IJPP.2019.099052
O’Neill, Martin and Thad Williamson (eds.), 2012, Property-Owning Democracy: Rawls and Beyond , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444355192
Pateman, Carole, 1970, Participation and Democratic Theory , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511720444
Pecchi, Lorenzo and Gustavo Piga (eds), 2010, Revisiting Keynes , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Peffer, Rodney, 1990, Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Piketty, Thomas, 2014, Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Przeworski, Adam, 1985, Capitalism and Social Democracy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Purdy, Jedediah, 2015, After Nature: A Politics for the Anthropocene , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rappoport, Angelo, 1924, Dictionary of Socialism , London: T. Fischer Unwin.
Rawls, John, 2001, Justice as Fairness. A Restatement , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Reiman, Jeffrey, 1987, “Exploitation, Force, and the Moral Assessment of Capitalism: Thoughts on Roemer and Cohen”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 16(1): 3–41.
Riley, Dylan, 2016, “An Anticapitalism That Can Win”, Jacobin , 1.7.16. ( Riley 2016 available online )
Roemer, John E. (ed.), 1986, Analytical Marxism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 1994a, A Future for Socialism , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 1994b, Egalitarian Perspectives: Essays in Philosophical Economics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511528293
–––, 2017, “Socialism Revised”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 45(3): 261–315. doi:10.1111/papa.12089
Ronzoni, Miriam, 2018, “How Social Democrats May Become Reluctant Radicals: Thomas Piketty’s Capital and Wolfgang Streeck’s Buying Time ”, European Journal of Political Theory , 17(1): 118–127. doi:10.1177/1474885115601602
Rowbotham, Sheila, 1998, “Dear Dr. Marx: A Letter from a Socialist Feminist”, in The Communist Manifesto Now. Socialist Register 1998 , Leo Panitch (ed.), London: Merlin Press, 1-17.
Rowbotham, Sheila, Lynne Segal, and Hilary Wainwright (eds), 1979, Beyond the Fragments: Feminism and the Making of Socialism , London: Merlin Press.
Sassoon, Donald, 1996 [2013], One Hundred Years of Socialism: The West European Left in the Twentieth Century , London: I. B Tauris. New edition 2013.
Satz, Debra, 1996, “Status Inequalities and Models of Market Socialism”, in Wright 1996: 71–89.
Schweickart, David, 2002 [2011], After Capitalism , Lantham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Second edition 2011.
Steiner, Hillel, 2014, “Greed and Fear”, Politics, Philosophy & Economics , 13(2): 140–150. doi:10.1177/1470594X14528649
Svampa, Maristella, 2016, Debates Latinoamericanos. Indianismo, desarrollo, dependencia y populismo , Buenos Aires: Edhasa.
Sypnowich, Christine, 2017, Equality Renewed. Justice, Flourishing and the Egalitarian Ideal , New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315458335
Ten, C. L., 1998, “Democracy, Socialism, and the Working Classes”, in The Cambridge Companion to Mill , John Skorupski (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 372–395. doi:10.1017/CCOL0521419875.011
White, Stuart, 2015, “Basic Capital in the Egalitarian Toolkit?”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 32(4): 417–431. doi:10.1111/japp.12129
Van Parijs, Philippe, 1993, Marxism Recycled , (Studies in Marxism and Social Theory), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 1995, Real Freedom for All: What (If Anything) Can Justify Capitalism? Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198293577.001.0001
Van Parijs, Philippe and Yannick Vanderborght, 2017, Basic Income. A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Veneziani, Roberto, 2013, “Exploitation, Inequality and Power”, Journal of Theoretical Politics , 25(4): 526–545. doi:10.1177/0951629813477275
Vrousalis, Nicholas, 2013, “Exploitation, Vulnerability, and Social Domination”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 41(2): 131–157. doi:10.1111/papa.12013
–––, 2018, “Exploitation: A Primer”, Philosophy Compass , 13(2): e12486. doi:10.1111/phc3.12486
Wark, McKenzie, 2016, Molecular Red: Theory for the Anthropocene , London: Verso.
Williams, Eric, 1944 [1994], Capitalism and Slavery , Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Wolff, Jonathan, 1999, “Marx and Exploitation”, The Journal of Ethics , 3(2): 105–120. doi:10.1023/A:1009811416665
Wright, Erik Olin (ed.), 1996 Equal Shares. Making Market Socialism Work , London: Verso.
–––, 2000 [2015], “Working-Class Power, Capitalist-Class Interests, and Class Compromise”, American Journal of Sociology , 105(4): 957–1002. Reprinted in his Understanding Class , London: Verso, 2015, 85–230. doi:10.1086/210397
–––, 2010, Envisioning Real Utopias , London: Verso.
–––, 2015a, “Eroding Capitalism: A Comment on Stuart White’s ‘Basic Capital in the Egalitarian Toolkit’: Eroding Capitalism”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 32(4): 432–439. doi:10.1111/japp.12128
–––, 2015b, “How to Be an Anticapitalist Today”, Jacobin 12.2.15. ( Wright 2015b available online )
–––, 2016, “How to Think About (And Win) Socialism”, Jacobin , 4.27.16. ( Wright 2016 available online )
Ypi, Lea, 2018, “The Politics of Reticent Socialism”, Catalyst , 2(3): 156–175.
Žižek, Slavoj, 2005, “Against Human Rights”, New Left Review , 34(July/Aug): 115–131. [ Žižek 2005 available online ]

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Albert, Michael, 2016, “What’s Next? Parecon, or Participatory Economics”. [ Albert 2016 available online ]
Arnold, Samuel, n.d., “Socialism”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Accessed 20 June 2019. [ Arnold n.d. available online ]
O’Neill, Martin, 2015, “James Meade and Predistribution: 50 Years Before his Time”, Policy Network: Classics of Social Democratic Thought , 28 May 2015. ( O’Neill 2015 available online )
Schweickart, David, 2015, “Economic Democracy: An Ethically Desirable Socialism That Is Economically Viable”, The Next System Project , October. URL = < https://thenextsystem.org/economic-democracy >
Marxists Internet Archive , (primary texts from various Marxist thinkers)
Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe (German), includes much of Marx’s and Engels’s correspondence
New Left Review
Marx bibliography , maintained by Andrew Chitty (University of Sussex)

Acknowledgments

For helpful discussion, comments and suggestions we thank a referee, Samuel Arnold, Christopher Brooke, Lee Churchman, Michaela Collord, Chiara Cordelli, Katrina Forrester, Roberto Gargarella, Carol Gould, Alex Gourevitch, Alex Guerrero, Daniel Hill, Brendan Hogan, Juan Iosa, Bruno Leipold, Su Lin Lewis, Fernando Lizárraga, Romina Rekers, Indrajit Roy, Sagar Sanyal, Claire Smith, Lucas Stanczyk, Roberto Veneziani, Nicholas Vrousalis, Stuart White, Jonathan Wolff, and Lea Ypi.

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Marxism?

Understanding marxism, marxian economics.

Class Conflict
Communism/Socialism/Capitalism

Critiques of Marxism

Marxism FAQs

The Bottom Line

Marxism: what it is and comparison to communism, socialism, and capitalism.

What you need to know about these social, political, and economic theories

Ivestopedia / Zoe Hansen

Marxism is a social, political, and economic philosophy named after the 19th-century German philosopher and economist Karl Marx . His work examines the historical effects of capitalism on labor, productivity, and economic development, and argues that a worker revolution is needed to replace capitalism with a communist system.

Marxism posits that the struggle between social classes—specifically between the bourgeoisie, or capitalists, and the proletariat, or workers—defines economic relations in a capitalist economy and will lead inevitably to a communist revolution.

Key Takeaways

Marxism is an economic and political theory that examines the flaws inherent in capitalism; it's primarily based on the work of German philosopher and economist Karl Marx.
Marxist theories were influential in the development of socialism, which requires shared ownership by workers of the means of production.
Communism outright rejects the concept of private ownership, mandating that "the people," in fact the government, collectively own and control the production and distribution of all goods and services.

Marxism is both a social and political theory, and encompasses Marxist class conflict theory and Marxian economics . Marxism was first publicly formulated in 1848 in the pamphlet The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels , which lays out the theory of class struggle and revolution.

Marxian economics focuses on criticism of capitalism, detailed by Marx in his book Das Kapital , published in 1867.

Generally, Marxism argues that capitalism as a form of economic and social reproduction is inherently flawed and will ultimately fail.

Capitalism is defined as a mode of production in which business owners (the capitalists) own all of the means of production (the factory, the tools and machinery, the raw materials, the final product, and the profits earned from their sale). Workers (labor) are hired for wages and have no ownership stake and no share in the profits.

Moreover, the wages paid to workers are lower than the economic value that their work creates for the capitalist. This is the source of capitalists' profits and it is at the root of the inherent class struggle between labor and capital.

Another theory developed by Marx is historical materialism. This theory proposes that society at any given point in time is ordered by the type of organization and technology used in the processes of production. In the modern era of industrial capitalism, capitalists organize labor in factories or offices where they work for wages using modern tools and machines.

Like other classical economists , Karl Marx believed in a labor theory of value (LTV) to explain relative differences in market prices. This theory stated that the value of a product can be measured objectively by the average number of hours of labor required to produce it. In other words, if a table takes twice as long to make as a chair, then the table should be considered twice as valuable. What Marx added to this theory was the conclusion that this labor value represented the exploitation of workers.

Marx claimed that there are two major flaws in capitalism that lead to the exploitation of workers by employers: the chaotic nature of free market competition and the extraction of surplus labor.

Marx predicted that capitalism would eventually destroy itself as more people become relegated to working-class status, inequality rises, and competition drives corporate profits to zero. This would lead, he surmised, to a revolution after which production would be turned over to the working class as a whole.

Class Conflict and the Demise of Capitalism

Marx’s class theory portrays capitalism as one step in a historical progression of economic systems that follow one another in a natural sequence. They are driven, he posited, by vast impersonal forces of history that play out through the behavior and conflict among social classes. According to Marx, every society is divided into social classes, whose members have more in common with one another than with members of other social classes.

The following are some key elements of Marx’s theories of how class conflict would play out in a capitalist system:

Capitalist society is made up of two classes: the bourgeoisie , or business owners, who control the means of production , and the proletariat , or workers, whose labor transforms raw commodities into goods that have market value.
Ordinary laborers, who do not own the means of production, such as factories, buildings, and materials, have little power in the capitalist economic system. Workers are also readily replaceable in periods of high unemployment, further devaluing their perceived worth.
To maximize profits, business owners have to get the most possible work out of their laborers while paying them the lowest possible wages. This creates an imbalance between owners and laborers, whose work is exploited by the owners for their own gain.
Since workers have little personal stake in the process of production, Marx believed they would become alienated from their work, and even from their own humanity, and turn resentful toward business owners.
The bourgeoisie are able to leverage social institutions, including government, media, academia, organized religion, and the banking and financial systems, as tools and weapons against the proletariat with the goal of maintaining their positions of power and privilege.
Ultimately, the inherent inequalities and exploitative economic relations between these two classes will lead to a revolution in which the working class rebels against the bourgeoisie, takes control of the means of production, and abolishes capitalism.

Thus, Marx thought that the capitalist system contained the seeds of its own destruction. The alienation and exploitation of the proletariat that are fundamental to capitalist relations would inevitably drive the working class to rebel against the bourgeoisie and seize control of the means of production.

This revolution would be led by enlightened leaders, known as “the vanguard of the proletariat,” who understood the class structure of society and would unite the working class by raising awareness and class consciousness.

After the revolution, Marx predicted, private ownership of the means of production would be replaced by collective ownership, first under socialism and then under communism .

In the final stage of human development, social classes and class struggle would no longer exist.

Karl Marx believed that the proletariat would overthrow capitalism in a violent revolution.

Communism vs. Socialism vs. Capitalism

Marx and Engels' ideas laid the groundwork for the theory and practice of communism, which advocates for a classless system in which all property and wealth are communally (rather than privately) owned.

China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam are the only nations that have communist systems today. Notably, most of these nations have relaxed some of their most rigid policies in the name of economic progress and global trade.

The Soviet Union was an experiment in communism that was created in 1921 and collapsed in 1991, leaving behind 15 former Soviet Socialist Republics to rebuild their economies from scratch. None chose communism as a model.

Notably, Marx and Engels didn't consistently differentiate between socialism and communism. Today, there is often confusion about the ways they are distinct.

Socialism predates communism by several decades. Its early adherents called for a more egalitarian distribution of wealth, solidarity among workers, better working conditions, and common ownership of land and manufacturing equipment.

Socialism is based on the concept of public ownership and regulation of the means of production, but individuals may still own property. Rather than rising out of a class revolution, socialist reform has taken place within existing social and political structures, whether they are democratic, technocratic, oligarchic, or totalitarian.

Both communism and socialism oppose capitalism, an economic system characterized by private ownership and a system of laws that protect the right to own or transfer private property.

In a capitalist economy, private individuals or the companies they create own the means of production and the right to profit from them.

Communism and socialism aim to right the wrongs of capitalism’s free-market system. These include worker exploitation, inequities between classes, and outright poverty.

Marx inspired multitudes of followers, but many of his predictions have not come to pass. Marx believed that increasing competition would not produce better goods for consumers but would lead to bankruptcies and the rise of monopolies, with control of production in fewer and fewer hands.

Bankrupt former capitalists, he thought, would join the proletariat, eventually creating an army of the unemployed. In addition, the market economy , which by its nature is unplanned, would experience crippling supply-and-demand problems and cause severe economic depressions.

Capitalism has not collapsed, but it has changed since Marx's time. Governments in many capitalist countries, including the U.S., have the power to crack down on monopolies and monopolistic business practices. Governments set minimum wages and regulatory agencies set standards for worker protection.

Economic inequality has increased in many capitalist societies. There have been recessions periodically as well as one Great Depression, but they are not thought to be an inherent feature of free markets.

Indeed, a society entirely without competition, money, or private property has not materialized in the modern world, and recent history suggests it is unlikely to emerge in the future.

What Kind of Philosophy Is Marxism?

Marxism is a philosophy developed by Karl Marx in the second half of the 19th century that unifies social, political, and economic theory. It is mainly concerned with the consequences of a society divided between an ownership class and a working class and proposes a new system of shared ownership of the means of production as a solution to the inevitable inequality that capitalism fosters.

What Did Marx Predict for the Future?

Marx thought that the capitalistic system would inevitably self-destruct. Competition would grow so fierce that most businesses would fold and be absorbed into unwieldy monopolies. Workers would reject a system that exploited them. The oppressed workers would ultimately overthrow the owners to take control of the means of production, ushering in a classless society of shared ownership.

Was Karl Marx Right?

Not so far. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the most successful of the few remaining communist countries, notably China and Vietnam, have reformed some of their most rigid practices. None has been able to entirely eliminate personal property, money, and class systems in the way that Karl Marx envisioned.

Capitalism, in its various forms, remains the dominant economic system. But it has changed, too, since Marx's time, with some of the worst excesses addressed. Worker safety standards, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and anti-poverty programs are all examples.

Is Marxism the Same Thing As Communism?

Marxism is a philosophy, while communism is a system of government based on Marxist principles. Marx envisioned a society in which workers owned the means of production. In real-world communism, governments own the means of production.

Marxism is the social and economic theory developed by Karl Marx in the 19th century. Marxian economics describes the capitalist system of production as inherently unfair to the workers, who represent most of the population.

Marx's social theories connected these flaws of capitalism with a growing class conflict between labor and business owners, ultimately leading to a revolution that would empower the working class and create communal ownership of the means of production.

His theories have been tested in the real world. The communist experiment in the Soviet Union ended in 1991. It continues to be tested in China, which is creating a hybrid social and economic system that Marx might not recognize.

Correction—Dec. 21, 2023 : This article has been corrected to more accurately define Marxism.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. " Karl Marx "

American Journal of Public Health. " Friedrich Engels: Businessman and Revolutionary ."

Marxists.org. " Karl Marx: Capital A Critique of Political Economy Volume I, Book One: The Process of Production of Capital ."

Marxists Internet Archive. " Works of Karl Marx 1843, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right ."

ThoughtCo. " A List of Current Communist Countries in the World ."

History. " How Are Socialism and Communism Different? "

The Library of Economics and Liberty. " Marxism ."

Terms of Service
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Your Privacy Choices

Socialism vs. Capitalism: What Is the Difference?

Fokusiert / Getty Images

U.S. Economy
Supply & Demand
Archaeology
B.S., Texas A&M University

Socialism and capitalism are the two main economic systems used in developed 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 developed 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 contribution.” This means that each person in society gets a share of the economy’s collective production—goods and wealth—based on how much they have contributed to generating it. 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 Human Rights Watch, “most Venezuelans go to bed hungry.” Hyperinflation and deteriorating health conditions under the socialist economic policies of President Nicolás Maduro have driven an estimated 3 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 chilling effect on the economy.

Capitalist and Socialist Countries Today

Today, there are few if any developed 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 Great Britain, France, and Ireland have strong socialist parties, and their governments provide many social support programs, most businesses are privately owned, making them essentially capitalist.

The United States, long considered the prototype of capitalism, isn’t even ranked in the top 10 most capitalist countries, according to the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation. The U.S. drops in the Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom due to its level of government regulation of business and private investment.

Indeed, the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution sets one the nation’s goals to be “promote the general welfare.” In order to accomplish this, the United States employs certain socialist-like social safety net programs , such as Social Security, Medicare, food stamps , and housing assistance.

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 .

Sources and Further Reference

“Back to Basics: What is Capitalism?” International Monetary Fund , June 2015, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2015/06/basics.htm.
Fulcher, James. “Capitalism A Very Short Introduction.” Oxford, 2004, ISBN 978-0-19-280218-7.
de Soto, Hernando. The Mystery of Capital.” International Monetary Fund , March, 2001, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2001/03/desoto.htm.
Busky, Donald F. “Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey.” Praeger, 2000, ISBN 978-0-275-96886-1.
Nove, Alec. “The Economics of Feasible Socialism Revisited.” Routledge, 1992, ISBN-10: 0044460155.
Newport, Frank. “The Meaning of ‘Socialism’ to Americans Today.” Gallup , October 2018), https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/243362/meaning-socialism-americans-today.aspx.
The Differences Between Communism and Socialism
A Mixed Economy: The Role of the Market
What Is Socialism? Definition and Examples
The Main Points of "The Communist Manifesto"
The Three Historic Phases of Capitalism and How They Differ
What Is Capitalism?
What Is Communism? Definition and Examples
5 Things That Make Capitalism "Global"
The Critical View on Global Capitalism
A List of Current Communist Countries in the World
America's Capitalist Economy
All About Marxist Sociology
The Globalization of Capitalism
What Is Neoliberalism? Definition and Examples
SBA Offers Online 8(a) Program Application

IMAGES

Communism vs Capitalism Essay Example
Compare and Contrast Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism
Capitalism vs. Communism Comparative Essay
Difference Between Capitalism and Communism
Communism to Capitalism in Hungary and the Czech Republic Essay Example
🐈 Comunism vs capitalism. Difference Between Capitalism and Communism

VIDEO

Communism and Capitalism. #peace #humanity
Communism and Capitalism #geography #usa #peace
Awondrr W streams Disco Elysium
Noam Chomsky on Capitalism
Communism: A Brief Timeline #communism #history #evolution #ideology #karlmarx
Communism vs Capitalism #country #comparison #Edit #history

COMMENTS

Essay on Capitalism and Communism
Capitalism and communism are two of the most prominent economic and political systems in the world. Both systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, and they have been the center of many debates and discussions. This essay will explore the key differences between capitalism and communism, and evaluate their impact on society and the economy.
Communism and Capitalism Through the History Essay
Capitalism is defined as the economic system based on free trade where private sectors are allowed to do businesses with another individual or group of private citizens. In this system, the means of product and service production is mainly carried out and owned by the individuals instead of the government while communism also known as fascism ...
Understanding the Cold War: What is the difference between capitalism
State-controlled media in communist countries often portrayed capitalism as corrupt and exploitative, while Western media emphasized the lack of freedom and human rights under communism. This battle for hearts and minds extended to film, literature, art, and even sports, where ideological messages were often woven into popular culture.
Capitalism and Communism: A Comparative Analysis
Capitalism and Communism: A Comparative Analysis. August 5, 2021 by Neha Ankam. Throughout history, various systems have been set to govern societies around the world. Capitalism and communism are the two most analyzed and debated systems that affect the economy and society in very different ways. They are concepts that can be analyzed through ...
Difference Between Capitalism and Communism (with Comparison Chart
In capitalism, fierce competition exists between the firms whereas in communism, as the market is controlled by the state, the competition is quite low. In communism, the profit earned by the enterprise is distributed among all the people of the economy. On the contrary, the profit of the enterprise, in capitalism, is enjoyed by the owner only.
Essay Capitalism vs Communism (pdf)
This essay aims to compare and contrast capitalism and communism, exploring their fundamental principles, advantages, disadvantages, and their impact on society. Capitalism: Capitalism is an economic system based on the principles of private ownership, free markets, and profit maximization. In a capitalist system, individuals and businesses ...
Capitalism Vs Communism Essay
Capitalism And Communism Essay Capitalism, socialism and communism are the main types of economic systems. These systems have a major impact on the political system and many other aspects of people's lives. All these three different impacted you more than you think.
Capitalism vs. Communism: An Objective Analysis of Economic ...
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and operates on the principles of a free market. Communism, on the other hand, is founded on collective ownership of property, with the aim to eliminate class distinctions through government intervention. How did capitalism and communism contribute to the ...
Communism Versus Capitalism
IX, p. 190). Communism emerged out of early capitalism where the social conflict shifted from landlords and capitalists to the class struggle between capitalists (employers of labor) and labor (the working class). As recognized by Adam Smith ( 1776) and Karl Marx ( 1867 ), labor adds value in capitalist production - capitalists need labor to ...
Communism
Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists' adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx. (Read Leon Trotsky's 1926 Britannica essay on Lenin.) Like most writers of the 19th century, Marx tended to use the terms communism and socialism ...
Capitalism, Socialism, Communism: Distinguishing ...
Economic Systems: Communism: Socialism: Capitalism: Government owns/regulates all aspects of the economy. Government owns/regulates some. parts of the economy for the benefit of the whole nation; and. Individuals and private businesses also their own make their own economic decisions, keeping the profits and accepting the losses. Individuals and private businesses own everything and make ...
Communism Vs. Capitalism: Essay
Cite This Essay. Download. With loud machines that produce millions of products to profit the rich, capitalism continues to be glorified. Capitalism is constantly portrayed as the ideal economic system, one that promotes freedom and hope. Communism, on the other hand, carries a terrorizing and despairing image.
Capitalism vs Communism Essay
Capitalism vs Communism Essay. Communism and capitalism, the totally opposite systems, always fight, although the capitalism is a bit older than the communism.The most important ones of these fights date back to the Cold War.This war was between the countries of Warsaw Pact and the ones of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).Actually, the ...
Capitalism vs Communism
The primary difference between capitalism and communism emerges from the ownership of factors of production. In capitalism, it is owned by individuals, whereas in a communist nation, the ownership lies in the hands of the government. Capitalism exhibits private ownership, profit motive, minimal government intervention, competitive market ...
Capitalism And Communism Essay
Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. A major function on how capitalism works is the factors of production. The factors of production are land, labor, and capital. Land is a factor of production because land has a.
Communism, Capitalism, and Socialism Essay
Communism, and capitalism have been compared on many levels, such as why they will or will not work, and which one works better. Throughout this essay I will concentrate on the differences, and similarities of how each operates, along with the benefits, and problems that each of them produces.
Communism Vs Capitalism: Main Differences
Communism is a socio-economic structure that supports equality in the society, while capitalism is the type of socio-economic structure whereby economic activities and ownership are majorly owned and controlled privately. The purpose of communism is social satisfaction, while that of capitalism is profit-making.
Socialism
Socialism. Socialism is a rich tradition of political thought and practice, the history of which contains a vast number of views and theories, often differing in many of their conceptual, empirical, and normative commitments. In his 1924 Dictionary of Socialism, Angelo Rappoport canvassed no fewer than forty definitions of socialism, telling ...
Marxism: What It Is and Comparison to Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism
Marxism is a social, political and economic philosophy that examines the effect of capitalism on labor, productivity and economic development. Marxism posits that the struggle between social ...
Communism and Capitalism: A Comparison of Their Strengths and ...
Communism and capitalism have been two of the most debated ideologies of the 20th century. While both systems have had their successes and failures, it is important to understand that they differ ...
Socialism vs. Capitalism: Differences, Similarities, Pros, Cons
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.
Compare and Contrast Essay on Economic Systems: Capitalism, Communism
Materialism, Loneliness and the Problem with Capitalism Ghost Genre as a Tool to Symbolize Capitalism Critique in The Signalman of Dickens Evils of Capitalism in the "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair Essay on Communism in China Pros and Cons of Communism Democracy VS Communism Essay Critical Essay on Revisionist Socialism Liberalism vs ...
Interview: Puncturing Misconceptions About Vaccine Hesitancy
Our interview was conducted over Zoom and by email, and has been edited for length and clarity. Undark:Although vaccine hesitancy has a long history, it seemed tospark increased discussionbeginning in 2020, when the first vaccines for Covid-19 were developed. In your recent essay, you call for caution in the way we talk about vaccine hesitancy.

Essay on Capitalism and Communism

Table of contents

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Capitalism

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Communism and Capitalism Through the History Essay

Understanding the Cold War: What is the difference between capitalism and communism?

The basics of communism

The basics of capitalism

Why were they in conflict?

Economic differences

Differences in government structures

How the different systems influenced their people

The use of diplomacy and spying by both sides

Places where communism and capitalism clashed

What do you need help with?

Capitalism and Communism: A Comparative Analysis

Difference Between Capitalism and Communism

Content: Capitalism Vs Communism

Definition of Communism

Key Differences Between Capitalism and Communism

You Might Also Like:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Essay Capitalism vs Communism

Communism Versus Capitalism

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Download citation

Share this entry

Capitalism, Socialism, Communism: Distinguishing Important Economic Concepts

Economic Terms Defined

Modern Day Implications

Active Classroom can aid your classroom with hundreds of activities about Economics

4 thoughts on “ Capitalism, Socialism, Communism: Distinguishing Important Economic Concepts ”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Bibliography

1. Socialism and Capitalism

3. Socialist Critiques of Capitalism and their Grounds (Dimension DI)

3.2 Socialist Charges against Capitalism

4. Socialist Institutional Designs (Dimension DII)

Acknowledgments

Support SEP

What Is Marxism?

Critiques of Marxism

The Bottom Line

Key Takeaways

Class Conflict and the Demise of Capitalism

Communism vs. Socialism vs. Capitalism

What Kind of Philosophy Is Marxism?

What Did Marx Predict for the Future?

Was Karl Marx Right?

Is Marxism the Same Thing As Communism?

Socialism vs. Capitalism: What Is the Difference?

Key Takeaways: Socialism vs. Capitalism

Capitalism Definition

Socialism Definition

The Socialism vs. Capitalism Debate

Ownership and Income Equality

Consumer Prices

Efficiency and Innovation

Healthcare and Taxation

Capitalist and Socialist Countries Today

Socialism vs. Communism

Capitalism

Sources and Further Reference

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS