Marxist view of colonialism

Marxism sights colonialism as a form of capitalism, imposing exploitation and social variation. Marx believed
that working within the capitalist world system, the uneven development of colonialism is closely related. A file
corruption and large-scale development and system-dependent economic distortions, psychological and social
chaos, poverty and the great dependence of neo-colonialism. "[16] according to Marxist historians, whether it is
in the Western European countries colony, "stealing more than half of a normal life, the lack of nutrition
citizens." [17] in the colonies and production means. Raw materials and looking for new investment
opportunities is the result of the accumulation of capital, competition between capitalism. Lenin, imperialism,
colonialism, imperialist monopoly capitalism through colonialism and night Sonja S. He explains: "Vladimir
Lenin called a firm principle of self-determination of the people in his "socialist revolution thesis on the right to
self-determination" of the socialist International's plan OLL a key factor, "he quoted Lenin that" the right of
peoples to self-determination, special rights, in the political sense of independence, freedom political separation
of the rights of the oppressed countries. more specifically, the demand for political reasons. democracy
suggests complete freedom to stir for secession and for a survey on secession by the seceding nation-state."
In recent years, scientists have invested less attention to the discussion of colonialism in the Marxist tradition.
This decline reflects the influence of Marxism in academic practice and policy. However, Marxism, moved the
independence movement of all post-colonial theory and anti-colonial rule over the world. Drew attention to the
expansion, helps to explain the concept of European politics after the end of the sustained economic
development of direct political rule, and pointed out that the material basis of Marxism. From the point of view
of Marxism, a form of imperialism is inevitable. Large population exported to overseas resource-rich land, the
country's industrial products and a reliable source of natural resources to create a market. Or, you can be the
weakest countries face the choice between voluntary acceptance of foreign products, is not conducive to work
under the influence of the local industry or political, in order to achieve the same goal. Marx's analysis of the
progressive forces of colonialism brought update feudal society like a transparent rationalization of foreign
domination. However, his British hegemony account reflects the contradictions of capitalism in Europe. In both
cases, the Marx recognized during the transition from feudal society to bourgeois society caused great pain at
the same time stressed that the change is necessary and progressive end. He said, the penetration of the
trade, lead to a social revolution in India. For Marx, the positive and negative consequences of the disease.
Traditional farmers are losing their livelihoods, is a lot of human suffering, but also shows that the traditional
rural communities far from ideal, but the site of class oppression and slavery, suffering and cruelty. The first
phase of the modernization process is completely negative, because of the poor pay heavy taxes to support the
British rule, withstand economic crisis the English cotton production cheaper. Ultimately, however, British
merchants began to realize that the Indians can not afford to buy clothes or imports of British administration, if
they do not effectively trade in goods, providing incentives for production and investment in infrastructure in the
UK. Marx believed that the British ruled greedy and cruel exercise, he feels he is still an agent of progress.
Therefore, Marx discussed the British rule in India three aspects: the account of the advanced nature of foreign
domination, the critique of the human suffering involved, and the last parameter of the British rule should be
temporary, if the evolutionary potential to achieve .
Lenin's perspective, imperialism clear key. He stressed that imperialism is a way to make the European
countries to postpone the inevitable revolutionary crisis exports by countries with weak local economic burden.
Lenin said, the economic logic of the reasons advanced capitalist imperialism in the late nineteenth century.
Declining margins caused by the economic crisis can not be resolved through regional expansion. Group of
capitalism forced to expand in seeking to transcend national boundaries, conquer new markets and resources.
In a certain sense, Marx's analysis, see the expansion and the ongoing process of European colonialism in the
country and throughout Europe within, which is fully compatible. The thought of Marx and Lenin, imperialism
and colonialism led to the same logic, leading to economic development and modernization in the surrounding
areas of Europe. But there is an element of the unique analysis, Lenin. Around the state monopoly capitalism
since the end of the competition in the market take the form of military competition between the countries on
Earth can be masters of their own exclusive economic zone.
The Effects Of Imperialism In Europe History
Essay
Published: 23rd March, 2015 Last Edited: 23rd March, 2015

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional
essay writers.

The effects of imperialism have been subject of debate. However it has been generally agreed that imperialism
had more negative than positive effects for the countries which the European imperialist lorded over. Major
imperialism occurred in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Imperialism refers to a situation
when a country takes control of a smaller nation for political social and economic reasons (Duignan and Gann,
69) Heart of darkness was one of the very first literally text to provide critical view of European imperial
activities. Conrad decision to set the book in the Belgian colony made it easier for the British readers, also
imperialist, to avoid seeing themselves reflected in the book. The book does reinforce the fact that imperialism
was an insult to the subjects as well as hypocritical
Just like much of modernist literature produced in the early years of twentieth century, Conrad's heart of
darkness is much about confusion, alienation and intense doubt as it is on imperialism. However imperialism is
the main theme, and with the help of symbolism brings this out perfectly. Darkness is essentially used to refer
the continent of Africa in general and Congo in particular, and it backwardness at the point in time, while light
(p3), is used to refer to western civilization that they imperialist purported to bring to Africa. By late 1890s most
of African continent metaphorically referred to as "world's dark places" had been put under European control
(Conrad, 6). Women occupy Traditional roles as arbiter of morality and domesticity (69). However they are
hardly present in the story; the concepts of home and civilization merely exist as insincere ideals, meaningless
to men for whom survival is in constant doubt.
Kurtz who goes into Africa with the idea of civilizing and improving the Africans ends up raiding villages and
letting himself be held in awe like a god(). Hence the idealistic benefits western civilization would have had on
Africa were hypocritical. Conrad explores how the transformation takes place and in the process questions the
role Europe played in the exploitation of Africa.
Initially the European claimed that their mission was to civilize the African whose culture they found appalling
as well economic empowerment through engagement in trade. This was not to be, instead. Imperialist engaged
in economic exploitation of African continent and overhauled the political and social structure of the African
people. It is clear that the imperialistic activities were detrimental to Africa. Conrad finds inefficiency and
wastefulness at the Belgian company in Congo contrary to the initial claim of economic development that the
Europeans had claimed they endeavored to bring into the African continent. He found out that they were
interested economic exploitation of Africa by obtaining raw material for their home industries by force if need
be.
The company was the Belgian Rubber Company which king Leopard II of Belgian had formed for enabling
exploitation of rubber in the Congo region. In 1884 the partitioning of African among the imperial power was
completed at Berlin conference in 1884, which Conrad refers sarcastically in the heart of darkness as "the
international Society for the suppression of Savage customs". Leopard declared Congo Free State his property
in 1892, legally allowing Belgians to take whatever amount of rubber they wished without having to engage in
trade with the locals. This resulted to tension between the locals and the Belgians and the fights which ensued
left many Congolese dead, given their inferior weapons.
The European was stretched thin trying to administer and protect massive far-flung empires. For example
Congo was under Belgian empire while East Africa and Anglophone west Africa was under British Empire.
Cracks begun to appear in the imperialist system: riots, war as well as the abandonment of commercial
enterprises in a wholesale fashion as a result of the indigenous people quest for self determination.
The imperialist did not have any intention of developing Africa but furthering their economic interests by
exploiting it. The claim that the imperialist improved infrastructure is misplaced since they were not doing it for
the interest of the African but to ease exploitation of the raw materials. The construction of Kenya Ugandan
railways was meant to ease the transportation of raw materials from the east African region.
Colonization was a major tool of imperialism. Its greatest misdeed was that it stripped African the responsibility
in conducting their our own affairs and convinced them that their civilization was nothing less than savagery as
a result giving them complexes that led to their being branded as irresponsible and lacking self confidence. The
negative effects of colonization and imperialism could not be expressed better that from the African
themselves. They stated that they deplored the economic exploitation by the imperialist as it reduced Africa to
abject poverty, in the midst of plenty. Moreover heir fundamental rights, freedom of speech, freedom of
association, of movement, freedom of worship and freedom to live a full and abundant life were denied them
imperialist overt activities.
Imperialism led to landlessness. People were displaced from high yielding areas and the land was taken under
European plantation and which they used forced labors from the Africans. African was consigned in settler's
settlement where they lived in deplorable conditions as squatters. An African proverbs best portrays the effect
imperialism had on the land issue by stating that when the white man came to Africa, the African had the land
while the white had the bible. Soon after the Africa was left with the bible and the European took over the land
(Duigan, 89).
Colonial masters destroyed the harmonious existence of the African society, by creation of tribes where they
did not exist. They were aware that it was easier to exploit a divided group than a united one. Preferential
treatment of one tribe over the other created tribal tension that at times led conflict. The 1994 civil war in
Rwanda was fought between Tutsis and Hutu tribes that had been created by the French. Tribal animosity is
rampant to this day (Boahen, 750-782). Civil wars in most of the aftrican countries are largely out of ethnic
animosity and whose root causes can be found in Africa's colonial legacy.
On the positive side of imperialism, it is noted that the western government introduced improved health care
and better sanitation method, curbing premature death that resulted from lack of treatment from preventable
diseases like malaria and measles. The colonial government introduced new crops, new tools and farming
methods which increased food production. The changes meant reduced death to smaller colonies and overall
improved states of living.
In conclusion, It is hard to decipher whether the disturbance from outside have been beneficial or detrimental
given Conrad's somewhat implicit portrayal of imperialism in his book. Proponents of imperialism say that the
effects of imperialism were positive, but evidence shows that it led to the effects that were detrimental, than
they were positive. Imperialism changed the world and made it a more difficult world to live in. The portrayal of
African as backward and ignorant amounted to discrimination and racism. Imposition of eastern values was
also tantamount to accepting superiority of European civilization. The effects are still felt to this day.
Work cited
Joseph Conrad. Heart of darkness. Courier Dover Publication, 1990
Peter Duignan and L.H Gann. Colonialism in Africa, 1870-1960. CUP, Archive.
A. Abu Boahen.Africa under colonial domination 1880-1935. University of California Press, 1985.
Socialism
Socialism is a term used to describe a number of social systems that share a singular aim of social
ownership and control of the means of production by the people. This is not as simple as everybody
owns everything, as some goods are for personal consumption, such as clothes. The aim of
socialism is instead to give everybody the right to partake in the decision making process in how
resources are utilised, as opposed to leaving the decision in the hands of the minority. Socialism
aims to achieve a society where everybody has the right to participate in issues that affect them. The
idea would be that production under socialism would be held by the public and used to help human
needs as opposed to generating profit. Following true socialism would lead to the end of money, and
instead goods could be taken freely from the collective community pot. However, it is unlikely this
could ever be truly realised in the current capitalist system we live in.

The political and economic world has always been dependent on each other, not one can survive without the
other and the world cannot function without both. Countries have been competing in finding the best economic
and political combination that brings their countries into the power they need to lead the world. First Europe has
always conquered the world history by strong military power based, the power of the church and lack of
freedoms for the people, as things developed and the two world wars ended, the political world as we know it
ended as well; Europe is no longer in charge of the world, as new ideologies started to show, United States of
America began developing into a world power, Russia adopted the communist approach of the world, and
began collecting countries under their union. Capitalism evolved with Adam Smith and got adopted by the
United States; Faced by the communist USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) led by Russia. During their
cold war and the fight to show which political economic theory is better, capitalism won the first round, USSR
was demolished, Capitalism invaded the world for the past 20 years, and to our surprise after believing for so
long, that we finally reached the perfect political economy theory, Capitalism collapses in 2008 and showed the
world how vulnerable this theory is, at the same time, theres certain economists who have always predicted the
collapse of the financial system and the world economy, promoting the collapse of the political economic
theories, and they are the Austrian economists lead by Fredrick Hayek and Robert Vin Misis. Although there
have been a lot of scenarios for these political economies, a comparison and contrast of Socialism
(communism), and the Free-Market system (Capitalism) will be the main focus of my study to find the best mix
of theories that can provide the world with a stable, consistent and developing economic theory that will leave
the world better off.
Literature Review:
Socialism according to Marxian system who is the founders of this theory is Socialism, a set of relations of
production that will follow capitalism, contains some vestiges of capitalism. One of the chief characteristics of
capitalism is that the means of production, capital, are not owned or controlled by the proletariat. The major
change that occurs in the transition from capitalism to socialism is that the expropriators are expropriatedthe
proletariat now owns the means of production. However, under socialism, a remaining vestige of capitalism is
that economic activity is still basically organized through the use of incentive systems: rewards must still be
given in order to induce people to labor. (Karl Marx, 1991)
On the other hand capitalism that was found by Adam Smith its defined as capitalism is a social system based
on private ownership of the means of production. It is characterized by the pursuit of material self-interest under
freedom and it rests on a foundation of the cultural influence of reason. Based on its foundations and essential
nature, capitalism is further characterized by saving and capital accumulation, exchange and money, financial
self-interest and the profit motive the freedoms of economic competition and economic inequality, the price
system, economic progress, and a harmony of material self-interest of all individuals who participate in it
(George Reisman. 1998)
The economic development stages were said by Marx to consist of two major groups which include the workers
and owners of means of production, he provided a historical description of economic development whereby he
pointed out the major stage, the first stage was slavery, then feudalism, then capitalism and finally communism,
he viewed communism as a form of economic organization that would emerge from the ruins of capitalism,
according to him workers were oppressed and alienated and a revolution would take place that would replace
capitalism with the communist form of society. (Benedetto, 1996)
However, Many theorists and policymakers in predominantly capitalist nations have emphasized capitalism's
ability to promote economic growth, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), capacity utilization or
standard of living; This argument was central, for example, to Adam Smith's advocacy of letting a free market
control production and price, and allocate resources. Many theorists have noted that this increase in global
GDP over time coincides with the emergence of the modern world capitalist system. (Capitalism, Robert E.
Lucas Jr 2008)
As for Labor value was also another principle of Karl Marx economics, labor value refers to the value of a
product that is usually determined by the amount of labor utilized to produce the product. This means that he
assumed that the value of products depended on the amount of labor used in the production of that product, he
stated that the greater the productivity of labor then this means that less labor hours will be spent in producing
the product and therefore the lower will be the value of the product. (Skousen, 2007)
On the other hand, according to the capitalistic point of view of labor, they said: The greatest improvement in
the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is
anywhere directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour.
The effects of the division of labour, in the general business of society, will be more easily understood by
considering in what manner it operates in some particular manufactures..... The division of labour, however, so
far as it can be introduced, occasions, in every art, a proportionable increase of the productive powers of
labour. The separation of different trades and employments from one another seems to have taken place in
consequence of this advantage. This separation, too, is generally called furthest in those countries which enjoy
the highest degree of industry and improvement; what is the work of one man in a rude state of society being
generally that of several in an improved one. In every improved society, the farmer is generally nothing but a
farmer; the manufacturer, nothing but a manufacturer. The labour, too, which is necessary to produce any one
complete manufacture, is almost always divided among a great number of hands.... This great increase of the
quantity of work which, in consequence of the division of labour, the same number of people are capable of
performing, is owing to three different circumstances; first, to the increase of dexterity in every particular
workman; secondly, to the saving of the time which is commonly lost in passing from one species of work to
another; and lastly, to the invention of a great number of machines which facilitate and abridge labour, and
enable one man to do the work of many. (The Wealth of Nations, Adam, 1937)
Regarding wages in the economy Marx pointed out that workers sold labor power to the owner of the
production process, according to him the value of wages that prevailed were determined by the market forces
which include the demand for labor by the capitalist and the supply of labor by workers, these forces
determined the wage rates and given that the means of production were owned by only a few capitalist then
workers were the majority and therefore labor supply was high. Wage rate in the economy however were
sufficient to enable workers to reproduce labor power. (Skousen, 2007)
As for the capitalist, they argued about the wage as The value of labor is determined on a foundation of its
utility and scarcity, by demand and supply _ more specifically, by the competition of buyers for the limited
supply not by any form of cost of production, least of all by any cost of production of labor (Capitalism, George
Reisman. 1998)
Karl Marx distinguished two forms of capital as constant and variable capital, according to him constant capital
referred to non reproductive capital, constant capital refers to the capital value that does not undergo any
changes in its value in the production process example machinery and raw materials, according to him interest
and depreciation costs were transferred to the cost of products and therefore these form of capital does not add
value to the product produced. (Karl Marx, 1991)
The other form of capital according to him was variable capital, variable capital refers to the portion of capital
that represented labor power, labor power produced value to the product that was equal to its value and also
produced a surplus. Labor was the sole source of value of the product and this refers to the portion of capital
that was spent in hiring of the workers. (Karl Marx, 1991)
For the capitalists, There are two dimensions to the scarcity of capital and capital goods. In one respect, capital
goods are simply as scarce as our labor and ability to produce consumers goods. The second dimension of the
scarcity of capital refers to the fact that goods can be produced with varying amounts of capital per unit, that is,
with varying degrees of capital intensiveness. (Capitalism, George Reisman. 1998)
Marx also pointed out the importance of technology in the production process, technology and machinery were
important ingredients in the production process, and technology increased the productivity of labor given that
reducing the time taken by labourers to produce his exchange wage value, therefore capitalists aimed at
reducing the time spent by labor in the production process by introducing machines in the production process.
(Benedetto, 1996)
The economic degree of capitalism and the degree of capital intensiveness in the economic system operate, as
it were, as a kind of long-range radar net for technological progress with commutative long-run consequences
for capital accumulation and the ability to implement technological advances, in that they determine which kinds
of technologies can be picked up and implemented at any given time. (Capitalism, George Reisman. 1998)
Methodology:
Comparing and contrasting the two theories, showing their pros and cons, combining their pros, and coming up
with a model that shows the best fit for a perfect economic theory. This theory will be proved by works of other
scholarly, and by examples of countries that have taken this theory into action and now are leading the world
economies.
Capitalism VS Socialism: comparison
As we have seen capitalism consisted of free market system with small government intervention in the market
according to Adam Smith, labours are fit to work as much as possible to come up with the optimum production,
wages are distributed according to the demand and supply of the labour itself, capital is accumulated and
saved, and technology is crucial for economic growth and development which are based on GDP and living
standards.
On the other hand, socialism is a planned market economy, where the means of production lays in the hands of
the government, labours are suppressed therefore they need to retaliate on the means of production owners
through revolutions that would destroy the capitalism system and replace it with the communist system,
moreover the socialists believed that the wages it was referred to as the value of a product that is usually
determined by the amount of labor used to produce the product, capital was separated into two categories,
constant and variable, where constant capital is the capital from machinery and raw materials that depreciated
therefore cannot be included in the factors of production and the variable capital that is the labour capital, which
is the sole power of valuing the products produced. Last but not least, one of the factors I am studying in this
paper, is technology which according to Marx and Socialists in general, is a main source of economic
development, as it facilitates the production process on the labour and is more productive and efficient, they
also argued that it is the reason for the economic development in the capitalist systems.
Capitalism Socialism
Political and economical power accessible to all Economic and political power in the hand of the government
Capital ownership for all Capital ownership controlled the government
Capital incomes beyond consumption capacity for a wealthy elite Adequate and secure incomes from capital
for a governing elite
Individualistic system Collectivist system
Materialistic ideology and system which ignores the growing income insecurity and inequality Materialistic
ideology and system based on and fostering the absolute dependency of all citizens on the state for their
income security and well-being
Labor-centric, classical laissez-faire economic system Labor-centric Marxist and Keynesian systems
Win-lose, zero-sum, scarcity, orientation Lose-lose, zero-sum, scarcity, forced-levelling orientation
Sacrifices justice for efficiency Sacrifices efficiency for collectivist "justice"
Wage system (jobs for the many, capital ownership for the few) Wage system (jobs for all, capital ownership for
none)
Equality of opportunity to work; inequality of opportunity to own Forced duty to work and forced equality of
results as determined by governing elite
Protects private property rights eliminates rights of private property and putting control over means of
production in hands of the government
"Hands-off" role of the state regarding monopolization of ownership and control Economic power is totally
centralized in or regulated by the state
Prices and wages are unprotected from global competition Prices and wages controlled by government
Capital credit available to all All credit controlled by state
Technology controlled by private sectors Technology controlled by the government
Basically these two systems have more into them than just, technology, economic development, labour, and
capital; they vary in a very important figure which is government intervention along with certain different sectors
summarized in the table below:
In less words, Capitalism is based on a free market, least government intervention in the economic processes,
Labours have to depend on their skills, education and knowledge to be able to get paid and live decently, yet
they are free to do any business, and buy and sell in the market. Competition is very high due to the free
business system, which enhances price inclination, leaving the society better off. Moreover, private ownership
and property is accepted for all the people as in, they are free to own anything they pay for, furthermore,
business is dealt with according to demand and supply, which pushes the prices to increase or decrease (as
the demand increase price increase, as supply increase price decrease). On the other hand a socialist system
is based on government owning all factors of production, government setting a standard price for goods and
services, distributing wealth and wages to all labours, finding jobs and employment for everyone in the society,
concentrating on the well being and the equality among citizens, rather than enhancing competition and rivalry,
all property is owned by the state, and business is based on the States well being and decisions of what goods
shall be sold and at what price and in what quantities.
Advantages and Disadvantages:
The advantages of Capitalism mainly circulates around the distinctive freedom the people have, as they are
allowed to start up a business whenever they can, they can enter and leave the market freely which enhances
competition. This competition increases supply, therefore prices of normal goods will decrease and quality of
goods will increase, leaving the society better off. Also when the market has all these businesses coming in
and out, system corruption do not take place as there arent any specific people controlling everything to their
benefits, therefore corruption will least occur in a capitalistic system. Furthermore, creating great competition
between firms and businesses, will lead each firm to enhance its technologies and innovations, coming up with
new goods and services that will all benefit the consumer on the long run. On the other hand, capitalism leads
to income inequality as the poor will remain poor since they lack the ability to start a business and make
money, as for the rich, they will become richer as they have all the tools that leads to monopoly and the
dismantle of the poorer. Moreover this system will create high unemployment rates, as every individual is self-
dependent to get an education and find a job and make money, if you dont have the ability to work you will end
up helplessly unemployed with no one to help you out. Also one of the disadvantages of capitalism highlighted
by Karl Marx, it states that:
The capitalists will face falling profit levels and the only solution to this problem will be increased exploitation of
labor, exploitation of labor will involve reducing wages in order to attain desired surplus values, there will be a
rise in unemployment and this will be due to technology advancement and population growth, the high
unemployment will increase labor supply enabling capitalist to further exploit labor. (Hollander, 2008)
Monopoly capitalist will lead to increased constant capital and as more and more workers become unemployed
and due to further exploitation of labor through low wage rates there will be a revolution where the capitalist
form of society will be replaced by the communist form of society. (Hollander, 2008)
As for socialisms advantages, first this system promotes equality among the society, where everyone is treated
exactly the same, everyone is employed and everyone gets paid an equal wage at the end of the month,
second, the government provides its people with everything they need, healthcare, education, etc... Thirdly the
government puts all the rules for the economy, the politics, the judicial system and the society, therefore no
monopolistic power to exploit the poor, but the poor doesnt exist. Socialism has faced a lot of criticism, and the
main point is that, although there are no monopolistic powers exploiting the people and everyone is treated
equally, but the government or the state that is controlling everything becomes the exploiting power. As the
state controls all resources, all the wealth the labours make, all the businesses working on its lands, owning
every piece of land and distributing very little to its citizens is what puts socialism up to the question. In
concept, the theory is perfect on the human level, but in action, most states officials exploit the labours,
distribute very little to them, keeping all the wealth for themselves, and having the power in the hands of a small
number of people will lead to dictatorship, as whats happening in Venezuela and Cuba, there the people are
poor but their governments are rich. Socialism promotes corruption as there are no supervisors or controls on
the elites who holds the factors of production.
In short the table provided will show the pros and cons of socialism and capitalism:
Advantages:
Socialism Capitalism
Income Equality for all Competition leads to lower prices and higher quality of goods and services
Employment for all Innovation and technology increases
Government provides healthcare, education, security and income for its people Least forms of corruption
No monopolies takes place as prices are fixed Economic freedom and businesses initiation, creates
opportunities for people to make as much money as they work for
Disadvantages:
Socialism Capitalism
Exploitation of labours Monopoly
Corruption Unemployment
High levels of poverty thus high levels of crime Income Inequality
State owns all the means of production, economy is controlled, no entry of new businesses unless under the
power of the State Big gap between the rich and the poor, where the poor have no hope in maintaining a good
living standards, and the rich exploits the poor as they are the ones who can open and close businesses as
they own the majority of the capital.
THE MIX
As I have just laid out the advantages and disadvantages , the facts on both theories and a brief summary of
what they consist off, its time to come up with the economic theory that have minimal disadvantages, by
combining both systems, Socialism and Capitalism.
First, we must have a free economy, where businesses can compete against each other freely, this will
promote advancements in technology, innovation and quality of goods and services produced, it will also
promote price decrease due to an increase in supply, which will leave the society better off, and the economy
raging in variety and growth.
Second, we must have government intervention in certain aspects of the country, like healthcare, education
and infrastructure, as these three are the basics for any future economic growth. When the society is healthy
and well educated, it will gain more skills and characteristics that allow them to open businesses and firms that
will lead to economic growth and development.
Third, governments and private businesses should work together in order to be able to build up the perfect
employment system, where no one is left behind, this way firms and business will have their labours, and
governments will get rid of unemployment. Having full employment will lead to a better efficient and effective
working society, which will eventually lead to economic growth and development, which will lead the country to
advance and become more powerful.
Fourth, having a Social political system combined with a free market will reduce the gap between the rich and
poor, as the government will be providing those who are not able to work, with decent living standards of basic
health, education and shelter.
Fifth, maintaining free trade is essential for economic development (capitalism), but having trade surpluses is
whats perfect for economic growth, in order to do that, the firms and governments should combine their efforts
in creating manufacturing goods industries that will fill up the domestic market and have a surplus for free
trade. This will boost the economy upwards and will open the market to the world, also importing less
expensive goods and services than if manufactured by the country, i.e. make use of comparative advantage.
Conclusion:
Although the struggle and debate between these two economic theories have been going on for as long as
history can take us, yet history has proved the inconsistency of these theories by first the failure of the Soviet
Union and the poor conditions the Socialist countries nowadays are living in, like Venezuela, Cuba, Sweden,
Greece, Russia, Vietnam, and Syria. On the other hand, the world was cheering for Adam Smith few years ago,
as Capitalism was showing success and stability added to great economic power leading to political power,
until 2008 where the whole economic system crashed, throwing the world into its worst economic recession
since 1929. The few economies that survived this economic downturn inspired the world with the best
economic system; one of few was Singapore, a country with no natural resources whatsoever, and a combined
mixed economy of Socialism and Capitalism. The study of this country itself, has inspired me to dwell into the
main economic theories of Marx and Smith, in order to come up with this system that if practiced correctly and
ethically will lead to economic growth and development; and the president of the biggest capitalist country of
the world, Barak Obama, sure supports me on this, as he has just been passing bills that supports government
intervention in the countrys social welfare, on the other hand Hu Jintao, the president of the biggest socialist
country in the world, cannot agree more that having a free market combined with a socialist approach is the
best thing to do to maintain a countrys power economically and thus political. As Chinas economy boosted
once they opened their markets, and the U.Ss market recovered after government intervention in the market
and bailouts provided to those who went bankrupt.