Category: Capitalism

Introduction

Inthe contemporary times, two dominant ways of life reign humanity. These two ways of life have gradually degenerated into two ideologies, viz. the Western capitalism and the Eastern socialism. Most of the Western countries embrace capitalism, which reflects liberalism, competition, and unrestrained freedom (Pejovich 71).

The states promote a competitive economic environment where individuals strive to enrich themselves. On the other hand, most of the Eastern countries embrace socialism, which challenges peoples freedom. The countries advocate for an environment where the government has full control over economic resources. In both cases, humankind is ignored as a personality, and the society is disregarded.

These two systems of political and social ideologies manifest themselves in the community. Capitalism dominates the western countries with its headquarters being the United States, while socialism dominates most of the former Soviet States and the majority of states in the Far East (Pejovich 72-75). This paper aims at comparing and contrasting the two political ideologies.

History of Capitalism and socialism

In 1700s, it was cheap and easy to produce many goods at one place due to the notion of the economies of scale. Moreover, significant changes in agriculture like enclosure of lands that were once owned communally and crop rotation made it possible for landowners to accumulate stupendous wealth.

Property owners later invested in novel industries. This initial accumulation of wealth at the expense of the society marked the onset of capitalism. It displaced numerous people from their lands thus creating poverty (Pejovich 77-84). In Europe, the European capitalists perpetuated capitalism through their search for silver and gold, which they used as a form of wealth storage.

Some of the elites resisted the move to capitalism, but state laws, which promoted capitalism and harshly punished those opposed to it, suppressed any resistance. Stealing a handkerchief belonging to a gentleman amounted to execution upon conviction. This epoch marked the beginning of capitalist imperialism.

On the other hand, industrial revolution led to the emergence of socialism. As capitalists continued accumulating wealth through industrialization, some elites realized that the capitalists violated a number of workers rights. Consequently, they came up with ways through which they could help workers to overcome oppression from capitalists.

Individuals fighting for socialism called for the state to own and control the economy rather than allowing few individuals to have control of the crucial economic resources (Pejovich 86-93). Proponents of socialism blamed capitalism for the prevailing poverty, and thus advocated for policies like egalitarian allocation of wealth and conversion of populations into numerous communities to do away with private property.

Capitalism and socialism view of freedom

The triadic model views freedom as comprising of three variables, viz. a constraint variable, agent variable, and outcome variable. Max Weber posits that capitalism entails accrual of wealth by a few individuals (Galbraith 67). Consequently, capitalists view freedom in the sense of being in a position to accumulate wealth without external interference.

Capitalists or individuals supporting capitalistic ideologies act as agents, while the society or individuals opposed to capitalism stand out as constraints. Capitalism views the accumulated wealth as the outcome variable. The three elements play a significant role in ensuring the success of capitalism. Whenever capitalists accumulate wealth, they consider themselves free.

Proponents of capitalism derive the meaning of life from its ideologies. For them, life would be meaningless without wealth and property. Besides, they use it as a criterion for evaluating what is good and bad (Galbraith 73). Capitalists find communal property ownership as one of the ways that promote indolence in society. Hence, they term it awful.

They view capitalism as the ultimate way of encouraging creativity and innovativeness in the society as people compete to accumulate wealth. The fact that capitalism promotes competitiveness makes its proponents view it as the ultimate way of promoting freedom in a liberal society. Capitalism offers an identity to its proponents. Capitalists feel associated to a particular group, which acts as their identity.

People feel happy and free when associated with a particular group. The same applies to capitalists. Freedom comes when an individual can come up with a set of activities to undertake in life. Proponents of capitalism have the ultimate goal of accumulating as much wealth as they can; hence, capitalism helps them in developing a program to follow in order to achieve their dreams.

Conversely, socialism believes in centralized control of the national economy and abolition of private property (Galbraith 79). For socialists, they perceive freedom in the sense of owning property communally, thus being in a position to acquire or use any asset whenever there is a need. Socialism perceives economy as the agent of freedom while the major constraint lies in establishing ways through which the public can own the national economy.

The achievement or outcome variable in socialism is the ability to abolish private ownership of property and accumulate wealth on a communal basis. Hence, socialism views freedom as the ability to do away with individual property ownership and embrace communal property ownership.

Capitalism was associated with oppression of the poor by the rich individuals. Hence, most of the poor people found life to be a worthless venture for they had nothing to enjoy in life (Galbraith 84). In a bid to overcome this feeling, people had to look for a way that would set them free and give them a new meaning to life. Socialism turned out to be the most appropriate way since it promoted communal property ownership, thus implying that all people had equal rights to all properties.

Furthermore, socialism offered the society a platform for assessing the right and wrong social practices. For instance, socialists perceived capitalism as an unethical practice since it promoted unhealthy competition thus leading to disunity in the society. Individuals supporting socialism viewed it as the ultimate source of their identity.

They venerated the culture of communal property ownership and wished to associate with it. An ideology helps in giving its supporters a series of actions to undertake and this element applies in socialism. It helps its proponents in coming up with a set of projects that can promote social ties amongst themselves.

Impact of capitalism and socialism on global political climate

Currently, capitalism is gradually becoming one of the resurgent powers. According to Dumenil and Levy (78-83), the world is encountering the emergence of a new class of capitalists.

Currently, economies of most nations are drifting towards a novel and deep-rooted class of inequality. Capitalism has not only affected the global political economy, but also the global political consciousness. Currently, countries are tolerant to inequality than ever before. In addition, the workplace culture has become parallel to neo-feudalism (Harvey 80).

On the other hand, socialism has had a significant effect on global politics. After nations realized that it was hard to achieve environmental conservation goals in a capitalistic regime, they embarked on political ideology dubbed eco-socialism. The ideology seeks to bring together all stakeholders to work as a group towards embracing environmental conservation policies.

According to Ma (341-342), states can achieve environmental conservation goals by changing from capitalists to welfarist states. Currently, most of the Asian countries are establishing self-governing systems of alliances to create ecological democracies beyond what is established by their states. For instance, India has come up with an eco-socialist movement that works under the guidelines of social justice.

Conclusion

Currently, different nations embrace one of the two distinct and opposing ways of life. While the majority of Western countries embrace capitalism, some of the Eastern countries continue exercising socialism. Capitalism emerged because of peoples undying desire become affluent.

On the other hand, socialism emerged during the epoch of the industrial revolution as a means to counter the oppression perpetrated by the rich on the disadvantaged. The two political ideologies have different perceptions about freedom. Capitalism views freedom in terms of wealth accumulation. They believe that wealth accumulation allows an individual to assume a particular identity. On the other hand, socialists perceive freedom in terms of having control over national economic wealth.

Socialists believe that people can only be free if they have the liberty to use national economic resources without restrictions. Currently, capitalism is gradually eroding the global political consciousness leading to the emergence of a class of inequality. On the other hand, socialism is leading to the establishment of eco-socialism as a policy for attaining environmental conservation.

Works Cited

Dumenil, Gerard, and Dominique Levy. Capital Resurgent: Roots of the Neoliberal Revolution. New York: Harvard University Press, 2004. Print.

Galbraith, James. Created Unequal: The Crisis in American Pay. New York: The Free Press, 1998. Print.

Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

Ma, Zhijuan. Eco-socialism as politics: rebuilding the basis of our modern civilization. Environmental Politics 21.2 (2012): 341-342. Print.

Pejovich, Svetozar. Capitalism and Socialism. International Studies in Economics and Econometrics 33.2 (1998): 71-93. Print.

We live in a mixed social system nowadays. Although there are not pure capitalist societies or such forms of nationalism as fascism some manifestations of these two ideologies have been survived nowadays. Generally speaking, nationalism is considered to be the ideology while capitalism is a social system but in our research we compare these two notions considering them as social systems. It seems that capitalism does not have any common with nationalisms but making our research we try to draw a parallel between them and provide their differences. Firstly, we are going to cast light upon each of these social systems separately and further on we are going to compare and contrast these notions.

Capitalism is a social system where all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights especially property rights is the basis of this system. The term capitalism was created by socialists in mid-nineteenth century and it was used incorrectly to denote economic individualism. Economic individualism presupposes the pursuit of personal interests and the rights for the personal property. As a result the main aim of the government is to protect individual rights and it may use the force against those who violate these rights. Individuals may decide how to use their money, where to invest and what to sell. There are no restrictions to their level of life and the level of their profits. There are no limits on the quantity of customers, employees and investors and the area of their work whether they work in local, regional or even international markets. The boundaries for business are open and the possibility to make money is available for everyone.

The notion of capitalism is often referred to the Puritan doctrine. The Puritans were the members of the religious sect in England in seventeen century who was oriented in their life with John Calvins doctrine. They invested their energy in hard working and modest living. The same values were observed among Jews and Japanese. England was the bright example of capitalism with its textile factories where the majority of employees were women and children. The exploitation of human forces for low wages, long working hours and bad working conditions were the preconditions of the development of individualism which factually denoted capitalism. This theory of individualism was developed by socialists. The main aims pursued by socialists were to provide individuals rights and do not restrain their economic activity that helped them to find happiness. Human possibilities should not be limited according to socialists. They pursued such ideals as brotherhood, social solidarity and community.

Capitalism became less popular with the propaganda of Karl Marxs utopian socialism with economic equality, the end of specialization and extermination of poverty. England, America and Western Europe stopped to defend capitalism as far as they did not really understand the sense of this social structure and they considered perfect or pure competition to be the way to the social prosperity. Perfect competition presupposes the equality among firms that should product homogeneous products and the awareness of the consumers of all these products and their prices. As a result, there is no competition and no way to the further development.

There are rival companies fighting for sales and profits in capitalist society. This competition is like the incitement to look for new products and improve the old ones. As a result, capitalist society is the basis for development. With the development of capitalism, such notions as advertising, brand names and consumer protection came into use as far as rival companies did all their best to win at the market and get more profits. Companies who have a success at using these new techniques of manipulating and attracting new customers dominate at the market. The American companies of the nineteenth century were very aggressive and active at the competitions at the world market and they were known as great innovators.

According to Marxist philosopher, Herbert Marcuse, the main disadvantage of capitalism is prosperity that seduces workers with the items of comfort and makes them forget their primarily aim of overthrowing the capitalism. The dissatisfaction of workers is damped with the items of luxury. There is no wonder that capitalism is connected to mindless materialism. Material things, money and profits are the main values of the capitalist society. People begin to buy those things which are unnecessary for them. According to John Kenneth Galbraith the things that need to be advertised in order to be sold do not factually satisfy authentic human needs. Fighting with poverty capitalism intensifies it. People who do not have particular things of comfort are considered to be poor only because the society has decided it. The differences between authentic human needs and unnecessary things are vague. A capitalist society provides people a variety of new technologies, gadgets, appliances that cause envy among people who do not have them. As a result, people are not happy only because they do not have particular things. Human happiness is evaluated in the quantity of money in the capitalist society.

One of the main consequences of capitalism is globalization. Globalization is destructive for local economies and foreign cultures. People are oriented at their private property in the capitalist society and they leave all their property to their children. As a result, the public sector is impoverished while the major capital is in the hands of particular people who have the power in the society. More than that, it causes inadequate tax revenues. These taxes on wealth are justified as far as the majority of wealth is taken from the social capital. The existence of great corporations hampers the development of other companies. The whole market is in the hands of these great corporations. Factually the primarily aim of capitalism presupposing the freedom of economic activities has not been achieved as far as human activities are controlled and restrained by the government authority. Rich people have to pay to the government for their wealth and poor people do not have a lot of possibilities to make money. Rich people become richer and poor people become poorer and it is the result of the capitalism.

Nowadays, the USA which was considered to be the place of the prosperity of capitalism has the mixed economy with some restrictions on human economic activities by the government. The formerly communist countries of Eastern Europe realize the difficulties to develop communism with its primary aim of economic freedom. There are benefits from the one hand that provide freedom to the human actions at the market and burdens on regulations of these actions from the other hand. Nevertheless, the process of competition at the world market has survived nowadays. It is considered that we live in mixed society with some remainders of capitalism.

Nationalism is another ideology based on the superiority of the nation above others. There are two perspectives to the definition of nationalism. The first one is called primordia list perspective that considers nationalism as the human need to unite with each other in certain groups which appeared during their evolution and the second perspective that is known as the modernist one describes nationalism as an integral phenomenon of the modern society to live in groups and unite with each other. Nation is the basic notion of the nationalism. There are different definitions of this notion that identify the essence of this ideology. Generally speaking, nation is the group of people living on the same territory, having the same roots and traditions, worshiping to one God and obeying one government or one ruler.

Before the development of nationalism in Europe there was loyalty to the particular ruler or city rather than to the whole nation. The term nationalism belonged to Johann Gottfried Herder. He coined this word in the late 1770s. The real roots of this ideology are quite difficult to determine. This notion is closely connected with the American Revolution and the French Revolution of 18^th century and had its culmination in national revolutions captured Europe. Nationalism has become one of the most influential ideologies since that time and the peak of its popularity was in World war l and world War ll. Fascism is the extreme manifestation of nationalism propagandizing absolute faithfulness to one state where the interests of the nation is above all.

There are different types and forms of nationalism nowadays. They are civic nationalism, ethnocentrism, national purity, left-wing nationalism, territorial nationalism, pan-nationalism, proto-nationalism, ultra-nationalism and anti-colonial nationalism. Civic nationalism is known as the association of people obeying one and the same government and having the same politic interests. Factually, civic nationalists do not obligatory have the common ethnic ancestry. The political interests unite them into the nation. One of the representatives of civic nationalism, Ernest Renan defines the nation as a daily referendum based on common wills and interests. Equality, freedom, individual rights, tolerance are the main values of civic nationalism.

Ethnocentrism or ethnic nationalism is one of the extreme manifestations of nationalism when one nation feels the supremacy above the others. People are considered to be the nation only having the common ethnic ancestry. They consider their nation to be the dominant in the world and treat other nations with some humiliation. National purity is the form of nationalism that propagandizes ethnic, linguistic, historic, cultural and religious purity of the nation. There are some minorities which consider themselves to be the part of the nation but factually they are not and national purists seek to clean the nation. Left-wing nationalism which is also called socialist nationalism is any political movements that unite the basic principles of nationalism and left-wing politics. The examples of left-wing nationalisms are anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninism, Fidel Castros 26^th of July movement, Waless Plaid Cymru, Irelands Sinn Fein and others. Territorial nationalism refers to the people living on the same territory and united with common values and traditions of population. The notion of citizenship is considered to be an ideal for the territorial nationalism. Pan-nationalism is connected rather with the particular groups of the nation. Proto-nationalism is considered to be a nation-less nationalism. Proto-nationalists unifications are based on their common values and beliefs not taking into account their ethnic identity.

Ultra nationalism is the most extreme form of nationalism. It is known for the reduction or prohibition of immigration, oppression of people belonging to other ethnic identities, the domination of the particular ethnic group, demagoguery of leadership and aggressive attitude to non-native populations. It is the main cause of conflicts and even war between people belonging to different ethnic groups. The extremist forms of ultra-nationalism are war, secession or genocide. Fascism is considered to be Palin genetic ultra-nationalism. The main characteristics of Palin genetic nationalism are totalitarianism, class collaboration, expansionism or irredentism. All these forms of nationalism may be observed nowadays in different levels of its manifestation.

Comparing nationalism with capitalism, we may conclude that the main value of capitalism is property and economic freedom while the ideal for nationalism is nation. Money and material things are the main aims in the capitalist society while nationalists consider spiritual values such as their nation, traditions and religion to be above all. The ideal for capitalism is the society with absolute freedom of economic activities without any restrictions from the government and the ideal for nationalism is a pure nation living on the same territory and preserving their traditions, culture and religion. The extreme form of capitalism is the society with the capital divided among people and the extreme form of nationalism is the dominant nation that rules the whole world as for example the ideology of fascism. Factually, both these systems have a lot of disadvantages. As for capitalism, it is unreal to realize this system as it was primarily imagined as far as the absolute freedom of economic activities destroys the whole social system. Nationalism is not preferable in our multicultural society as far as it may cause conflicts and even war.

Counter-project, successor-System, Revolution

Schweickart inquires whether capitalism is spotted with contradictions or it is a successful system (3). According to the author, moral and pragmatic failures of capitalism are vividly evident in the modern world. Some of the setbacks of this system include extreme inequalities, poverty, pollution, unemployment, crises, and incessant conflicts or wars. The author expounds on a theory that can be used to define and understand the successor system.

For the theory to work, it should provide solid arguments that are both practical and functional. The theory should also reflect the past efforts and note mistakes that need to be corrected. Party platforms and setbacks of current reforms should equally be illuminated by the theory.

It might be misleading to use old revolution models bearing in mind that they hardly win the struggle against insurrection. In addition, it is crucial to spell out structural alternatives. Past failures and new conditions have informed the modern workers. As it stands now, the battle for reform is rife. Hence, flexibility and diversity will be required by the new emerging theories. Schweickart is also emphatic that the international context will continue to experience radical transitions (10). The transitions have been referred to by the author as the global project that affects the wellbeing of species.

There are a number of challenging lessons that have been learned since the era of Karl Marx. In order to comprehend these lessons, it is necessary to compare and contrast socialism both in the 20^th and 21^st centuries. First, the strategic path being followed by nations is primarily to win democratic conflicts. Second, an ecosystem is made up of subsets within an economy. Third, people are sovereign beings while human rights should be considered to be natural. Fourth, transitions require markets, and finally, women play central roles in politics, civil society, and economic development. Besides, economies of scarcity require material incentives.

Justifying capitalism

Capitalism seems to be justifying itself. It appears that history has not faded away in the realities posed by capitalism. Schweickart asserts that capitalism surrounds humanity in every aspect (26). For example, buyers in the USSR still line up for scarce products, the eastern European socialism collapsed while in California, gated communities are thriving. Capitalism has been fueled by globalization and information technology. In other words, TINA has gone international. A case in point is the rapid expansion of markets necessitated by the internet, globalized production, and robotic assembly.

Perhaps, it is necessary to take a glimpse preview of capitalism in order to understand the reality on the ground. The author defines capitalism from various dimensions:

• Corporations and individuals privately own most production means.
• Firms realize profits through competitive marketing of goods and services.
• Some people work for others as laborers and in turn, earn salaries or wages.

From the above definitions, Schweickart describes a capitalist from various perspectives (42). For example, various political systems can govern capitalism bearing in mind that it is simply an economic system. A society cannot be described as a capitalist merely because it utilizes markets to distribute products. Hence, a capitalist has adequate income and as such, he/she does not necessarily need to work.

However, the author notes that we still need capitalists in any economic system. Although managers may sometimes be capitalists, it is not mandatory for them to be so. Workers who are experts in their own fields can equally be capitalists. Entrepreneurs are sometimes capitalists. The same case applies to innovators and inventors. However, they can still avoid being capitalists. Finally, savings are not required for an economy to grow. In some instances, excess savings can be harmful.

Economic Democracy: What it is

This chapter explores the concept of economic democracy from an in-depth point of view. Schweickart relates the Successor System to economic democracy (45). The author posits that when market socialism has a community and worker-controlled variant, it amounts to economic democracy. Hence, it also refers to a mixed economy that is transitional in nature. A democratic economy is largely controlled by the progressive majority while the government still steers the economy. The new socialist order in economic democracy usually marks the first phase while the basic model has three distinct parts:

• Marketing of products as is the case with capitalism.
• Workplace democracy.
• Investment and its democratic control

Economic democracy has three basic institutions

• Well-regulated markets that deal with selling and buying of goods and services.
• Investment and its social control
• Worker Self-Management

Hence, it is crucial to embrace and begin with democracy at the place of work. In regards to the allocation of funds, they are distributed downwards based on factors such as natural disasters, past poverty levels, and demographics.

The author also explores how investment funds are controlled by the public (Schweickart 77). For example, markets are combined with macro planning, the congress may act accordingly, and legislatures are also instrumental in controlling investment funds. On a final note, the author points some case studies of economic democracy such as Mondragon and worker-owned factories.

Works Cited

Schweickart, David. After Capitalism. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002. Print.

Introduction

The state in capitalist society is a book written by Ralph Miliband. This book is the authors masterpiece. The intention of the author in this work is to expose the capitalist state, showing that it is not a neutral set of institutions, reflecting some general interest by way of democratic practices, but that instead it is the state of the dominant interest in a divided society (Mead, 2008, Para (Para 1).

Miliband wrote this book in a plain manner, enabling the reader to understand the book, describing the complicated social relationships in such a way that social science students and other interested people can understand his work (Barker, 1978). There is an evaluation of the capitalist state in a broad perspective in the book: giving out examples from all the Western type World.

This gives room for a notion of all-inclusiveness on the authors side (Anonymous: Reclaim the state debate, 2010). The state in the capitalist society was written in the course of the mid 60s and was initially published in 1969. According to Mead (2008), after the book being written, it became a standard text in political science, sociology and the study of social policy for the next decade (Para 2). The arguments presented in this book today remain to be sharp and perceptive.

According to Anonymous (The state of the capitalist society  40 years on, 2009), this book has played a major role in the renewal of both state theory and Marxist political thought (Para 1). The state in capitalist society is a piece of work that has remained to be important and has played a major role in the development of the social as well as the political theory beginning from the mid twentieth century.

The Sate in Capitalist Society Review

In the book, The state in capitalist society, Ralph Miliband offers a Marxist critical assessment of the liberal theories concerning modern capitalist state, and mostly, the assessment of pluralism. In this assessment, the author attains success. This author portrays pluralism as an ideological construct playing a role to make justifiable, a state system which upholds an intrinsically separated society, and in this manner bringing forth relations of domination and subordination (Mead, 2008).

However, what this author does not carry out is to sufficiently connect with the nature of the state itself, instead, he illustrates what the state is not (Mead, 2008 Para 4). There is no point at which the author offers a comprehensive evaluation of the state from a Marxist point of view.

It is even clear that there is no Marxist politics in the entire book. But this weakness or limitation does not make the book lose its importance because the purpose of the book was just to offer a critical analysis of liberal conceptions. This book remains to be a very important book, and especially when it is considered that it provides readers with a clearly posed critique of bourgeois ideology on the state; and it provides a series of historical examples of mid-20^th century state activity in capitalist societies (Mead, 2008, Para 5).

This book presents an unrelenting and solid challenge to the present political compromise by carrying out the presentation of the drastic option of taking on socialism as the main issue encountered by civilization and the critical circumstance of carrying out substantial advancement (Smith and Harvey, 2008).

Giving an illustration that control of capitalism was quite all-inclusive to a level that there was no possibility of attaining half-done reforms, the author of this book makes an effort to give an explanation of the way the society has been able to avoid socialism, and he does this by carrying out an exploration of the way its claims have not achieved success to convince a number of intellectuals and the prospective supporters of a substitute order.

Carrying out an evaluation of the power of economic leaders and the leading class, Panitch (2009) points out that this book also probes the states claims to legitimacy, defines the purpose and the role of the governments, and analyses the concepts of reform and repression (Para 1).

More so, Panitch (2009) observes that depicting how the state reemerged from behind the mystification of the political system and its behavior to become the central theme of the political studies, this book combines a potential appeal with thorough, detailed scholarship (Para 1).

The state servants and the notion of imperfect competition are as well discussed in the book. Miliband has made a great contribution to The state in capitalist society as a writer (Anonymous: New Left Review, 2007.). Before he died, this author was among the prominent thinkers on the Left not only in Britain but across in the whole world (Panitch, 2009 Para 2)

According Anonymous (Reclaim the state debate, 2010), most of the people who had engaged in the Labor Movement in the course of the 1960s and had been able to identify the weakness of this party, experienced a feeling to fight against reformism and the author of this book, Miliband, was among these people.

Basing on this book, the author presented arguments that the limits of social democracy were not contingent but were rooted in capitalist social relations themselves (Para 20). Of course this author did not accept the notion that socialism could be brought about by electoral means alone and thought that any political changes needed to be supported by extra-parliamentary working class struggle (Anonymous:. Reclaim the state debate, 2010 Para 20).

This book, as pointed out by Anonymous (Reclaim the state debate, 2010) was basically aimed at bourgeois liberal ideas which considered the society as consisting of free individuals defined as such in the sphere of circulation and which saw the state as a democratic arena equally accessible to all individuals and pressure groups (Anonymous: Reclaim the state debate, 2010, Para 21).

Through this book, Ralph Miliband looked for a way to convince people that there was a possibility to talk of classes, and justify the definition of the state by Marx as a committee managing the bourgeois affairs (Anonymous: Reclaim the state debate, 2010).

According to Kirkpatrick, Katsiaficas and Emery (1987), in this book, Miliband presents an argument in a most convincing way that,

The state is in capitalist society represents the class interests of the monopolized corporate structure and that most of the paraphernalia of politics with which sociologists and political scientists choose to deal in the fifties and sixties such as political parties, elections, and education about government and politics, are simply mechanisms to legitimate capitalist state (Kirkpatrick, Katsiaficas and Emery, 1987, Page 309).

Kirkpatrick, Katsiaficas and Emery (1987) further point out that the state is an institution and tool that exercise power in favor of the corporations, basically for the reason that it is subjugated by these corporations, and there exist immense links among individual corporate personages and specific officials of government (Kirkpatrick, Katsiaficas and Emery, 1987 Page 309).

There exists a similarity between the analysis carried out by Ralph Miliband in his book and that of the New Left, basically for the reason that Milibands analysis relies on the work of Antonio Gramsci (Italian communist) and Gramscis analysis of the concept of hegemony (Kirkpatrick, Katsiaficas and Emery, 1987 Page 309). According to Miliband (1969), hegemony is defined as;

An order in which a certain way of life and thought is dominant, in which one concept of reality is diffused throughout society and all its institutional and private manifestation, informing with its spirit all tastes, morality, customs, religious and political principles and all social relations, particularly in their intellectual and moral connotations.

In a general sense, hegemony refers to the spontaneous loyalty that any dominant social groups obtain from the masses by virtue of its supposedly superior function in the world of production. It is the totality of a world view, the enormous complex of prejudices, assumptions, half-thought-out notions and profound ideas (Miliband, 1969: Page 180).

Conclusion

Ralph Milibands book, The state in capitalist society is a piece of work that has remained to be an important work and has played a major role in the development of the social as well as the political theory beginning from the mid twentieth century. In this book, Miliband presents arguments which, to this day, remain to be sharp and insightful.

He has presented his ideas in a plain manner so that any one who reads his work can have to understand his ideas with ease. He offers a Marxist critical evaluation of the liberal theories pertaining to modern capitalist state, and mostly, the evaluation of pluralism. In this evaluation, Miliband attains great success.

He depicts pluralism as an ideological construct playing a role to make justifiable, a state system which upholds an intrinsically separated society, and in this manner bringing forth relations of domination and subordination. An insistent and firm challenge to the present political compromise is presented in the book by carrying out the presentation of the strong option of taking on socialism as the main concern encountered by civilization and the critical circumstance of carrying out considerable advancement.

However, the weakness that can be seen in the book is that the author does not offer an all-inclusive examination of the state from a Marxist point of view. In the whole book, it can be seen that there is no comprehensive examination of the Marxist politics. But on the other hand, such a weakness does not render the book to be of less importance because the purpose of the book was merely to give out a critical analysis of liberal conceptions.

This book maintains its great importance, especially when it is put in to consideration that it offers to readers a noticeably created analysis of bourgeois philosophy on the state; and it provides a chain of past cases of mid-20^th century state activity in capitalist societies

List of References

Anonymous, (2010). Reclaim the state debate. Web.

Anonymous, (2009). The state of the capitalist society  40 years on. Web.

Anonymous, (2007). New left review. California: University of California Press.

Barker, C., (1978). The state as capital. Web.

Kirkpatrick, G. R., Katsiaficas G. N., and Emery, M. L. (1987). Introduction to critical sociology: New York: Ardent Media.

Mead, S. P., (2008). A brilliant critique of liberal theories on the state. Web.

Miliband, R. (1969). The state in capitalist society. London: Widenfeld and Nicolson.

Panitch, L., (2009). The state in capitalist society book description. Web.

Smith, N. and Harvey D. (2008). Uneven employment: nature capital, and production of space. Georgia: University of Georgia Press.

The development of capitalism has often been discussed by historians who focus on the factors that could lead to the decline of the feudal society and emergence of the new socio-economic system. Much attention should be paid to the so-called Brenner debate because this discussion can throw light on various models that can explain the transformation of European societies.

This debate revolves around the claims made by Robert Brenner who emphasizes the idea that new class and property relations resulted in the development of capitalism. In turn, this debate is critically evaluated by other historians. On the whole, it is possible to argue that a single approach cannot account for the dramatic transformation that different countries underwent.

Much attention should be paid to the arguments advanced by Guy Bois who combines the elements of the demographic and class models. On the whole, it is vital to focus on such factors as the property relations between various economic agents, demographic trends, as well as the increase in the productivity. These are the main issues that should be examined in great detail.

It is possible to examine the arguments put forward by Robert Brenner who argues that the transformation of European societies can be explained primarily by the changing class structures. In his opinion, much attention should be paid to the property relations. The capitalist system of production could emerge provided that economic agents such as peasants could secure their property rights.

This privilege can be viewed as a good incentive for increasing the volume of production. One should keep in mind that Robert Brenner rejects the demographic model according to which social and economic breakthrough were driven by population fluctuations. It is vital to remember that demographic patterns could significantly affect wages and the demand for products.

However, this model does not explain the differences in the socio-economic development of various countries. These are the main points that Robert Brenner makes. Overall, his work stimulated additional research on this topic. The validity of these claims should be discussed more closely.

Some of Brenners arguments are supported by other historians. For instance, it is possible to mention to mention Guy Bois who also examines the limitations of the demographic model. In his opinion, this approach to the socio-economic development is too deterministic, and it cannot reflect the decisions of separate people. Moreover, this framework lays too much stress on such a factor as the struggle for resources.

Nevertheless, Guy Bois mentions that Brenner underestimates the importance of such a factor as productivity. In particular, he notes that the increase in productivity led to the surplus of goods. More importantly, this factor contributed to the intensification of trade between and within communities. In this case, one should not speak only about the adoption of new technologies.

One should also pay much attention to the way in which labor was organized. To a great extent, this view of the formation of capitalism is supported by Rodney Hilton who focuses on the pre-requisites for the development of the new socio-economic system. In his view, the differences in the productivity led to the accumulation of capital and the development of new institutions. This is why this notion should not be overlooked.

It should be mentioned that other historians such as Postan and Hatcher argue that Robert Brenner lays too much stress on political power of different economic agents. Nevertheless, one should not overlook the influence of such factors as inheritance customs or attitudes to innovation, or military confrontations.

The main argument is that the economic stagnation of the feudal societies can be attributed to a diverse set of factors. Moreover, one should not suppose that the influence of demographic trends can be easily measured with the help of exiting research methods that require the study of quantitative data. The main problem is that these data are not always available to scholars.

Additionally, historians such as Emmanuel Ladurie argue that the bargaining power of peasants can be explained by the population trends. In particular, the surplus of labor could strengthen the position of landlords. In the long-term, these trends could result in the formation of serfdom. This is why the validity of the demographic model cannot be fully rejected.

Demographic trends are vital for showing how the bargaining power of different economic agents could change. For instance, the decline of the population could increase the wages of servants, as a result; these people could have more opportunities for accumulating capital. Similarly, the increasing population could contribute to increasing demand for various goods. Thus, the demographic model should not be disregarded.

Overall, the socio-economic advance to capitalism cannot be attributed to only one factor such as new property relations or the changing demographic patterns. The development of the new political and economic system is not a deterministic process that can be easily predicted.

More likely, researchers should pay attention to such factors as class relations, new forms of property, demographic trends, and the changes in the productivity. Robert Brenners views on the formation of capitalism are important because they can show how the bargaining power of producers could increase with time passing. These are the main details that can be singled out.

Bibliography

Bois, Guy. Against the Neo-Malthusian Orthodoxy. In The Brenner Debate, edited by Trevor Aston and Charles Philpin, 107-119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Brenner, Robert. Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe. In The Brenner Debate, edited by Trevor Aston and Charles Philpin, 10-64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Hilton, Rodney. A Crisis of Feudalism. In The Brenner Debate, edited by Trevor Aston and Charles Philpin, 119-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Ladurie, Emmanuel. A Reply to Robert Brenner. In The Brenner Debate, edited by Trevor Aston and Charles Philpin, 101-107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Postan, Michael and John Hatcher. Population and Class Relations in Feudal Society. In The Brenner Debate, edited by Trevor Aston and Charles Philpin, 64-79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Introduction

What is happening in the United States and Europe today is as a result of capitalism. Such aspects as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization best explain the imperialism in the modern world. The following essay examines the analysis by Ilyich Lenin on imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism.

Lenin, in his most famous work on capitalism, held the view that imperialism dates back in the early twentieth century. In its economic essence, Lenin defined imperialism as the monopoly stage of capitalism. This definition provided him with an opportunity of situating imperialism historically i.e. it allowed him to determine the place of imperialism in history.

He held the view that monopoly developed as a result of free competition (Lenin 12). He was also of the opinion that free competition enhanced the transition of the capitalist system to a higher socio-economic order. According to him, imperialism acted as a tool for competing between empires by making war as part and parcel of the crucial process of capital accumulation (Lenin 119).

Discussion

The following are the five main features of imperialism according to Lenin; Lenin argues that both the capital and production has led to the creation of monopolies which bring conditions which restrict entry of new industries. These monopolies determine the manner in which economies are run.

Lenin argues that over the years, industries have enormously developed and production has been concentrated on only a few industries. He gives examples of Europe and the United States of America as regions where production and capital have been vested on only a few enterprises.In Germany, Lenin notes that more attention is directed towards production and not labor.

For instance, only a few industries are the largest consumer of electric and steam power. However, these industries employ only a few workers (Lenin 15). In the United States, industries are classified in accordance with their output. He noted that a large percentage of the total production in the United States is carried on by only a few enterprises.

Thus, concentration paved way for the development of monopolies because the giant companies have the potential of controlling the prices of goods and services. According to Lenin, monopolies play a crucial role in todays capitalist economy as they are associated with a high rate of economic growth.

He was insistent on monopoly as the most important feature of imperialism. According to him, monopoly is inherent as it enhances the efficient utilization of natural resources. He thus emphasizes that people should embrace it because it is an important phenomena.

However, he cautions people against the effects of monopolies. He argues that monopolies prevent competition in the industry by using such techniques as spreading false rumors concerning the industry and publishing anonymous warnings in the print media. Monopoly, according to him, has the effect of causing economic crisis. Lenin also argues that monopoly has the effect of dividing the world by creating imperial powers (Pauly 149).

Lenin, in his analysis on imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, stated that the integration of bank capital with the industrial capital facilitates the creation of financial oligarchy. Lenin assumes that the increasing economic activity and banking have given rise to new kind of capitalism in which banks has assumed the role of controlling the flow of capital.

The transformation from an industrial capitalism to finance capitalism changed the role of the banks from being an intermediary to a powerful monopoly which has the ability of controlling a greater share of the societys wealth.

As the industrial sector required more capital for expansion and growth, the structural relationship between the financial and industrial sectors also changed. Industrialists were left with only a small portion of capital for their production purposes. Financial institutions such as banks, investment companies and insurance companies assumed the role of industrial capitalists and they were made to invest for their money to continue being profit producing.

Finance capital was thus a combination of industrial and money capital and therefore, banks were placed in a central position as far as the political economy was concerned. The concentration of capital over the years made the financial oligarchy to gain power.

The pivotal position of the financial oligarchy plays an important role in enabling them to have access to information regarding industrial capitalists. They in turn influence them by using such aspects as denying them financial access and thus determining their income. The financial oligarchy leads to the massive enhancement of monopolist power.

Lenin, in his analysis about imperialism as the highest form of capitalism, put much emphasis on capital export as opposed to export of goods. According to him, imperialism is largely based on export of productive capital as well as the export of money.

He however stressed that it is important to consider that the term movement of capital does not enhance imperialism but rather, the specific term export. The term export makes a clear distinction between national capital movements on one hand and international capital movements on the other hand. He held the view that export of capital was vital as compared to the export of goods.

The export of capital causes an increase in the volume of goods that are exported. In his formulation, export of capital usually occurs in a world which is divided by various states. According to him, the export of capital plays a crucial role of mediating the role of nations and the potential conflicts of the ruling class interests.

The potential conflict can exist between capitalist nations i.e. inter-capitalist conflict or it can be between a particular pre-capitalist state and a capitalist state. Lenin placed much emphasis on the inter-capitalist rivalry. He developed the opinion that accumulation in the imperialist period has the effect of causing inter-capitalist wars. It is in this context that Lenin identified the World War 1 as an imperialist war.

With regards to capitalism, Lenin argued that capital is accumulated by only a few states i.e. the developed nations such as Germany, France, England, and the United States among others. He was on the opinion that capitalism should be directed towards developing agriculture which has remained under developed as opposed to industry.

This would play an important role of raising the peoples living standards. This would also ensure that the issue of surplus of capital does not exist throughout the world. This view on capitalism was however criticized by scholars who argued that capitalism would not carry out its purpose by enhancing the living standards of people.

This is because under-developed nations are characterized with high profits, low accumulation of capital, cheap land prices and cheap labor and they therefore facilitate the export of capital (Schutz 201).

The fourth feature of imperialism according to Lenin is the creation of international monopolists which divides the world into spheres of influence. Lenin argues that the world has been divided among the capital associations such as business cartels. Capitalism has facilitated the expansion of big monopolist associations and this has brought about the emergence of such aspects as the international cartels.

The coercive power of the state determines the capitalists ultimate source of power. Lenin believes that the First World War was as a result of the imperialist conflicts among the major political powers.

He believes that the source of such conflicts was without doubt fueled by the desire to accumulate much wealth by the capitalists. He argues that capitalism always bring about a greedy and mad obsession for power. This led Lenin to wrap up by stating that imperialism represents the final stage of capitalism (OKane 6).

As a result of capitalism, the territorial division among the major imperial powers is fulfilled. Lenin terms this last stage of imperialism as moribund capitalism.

According to him, the major capitalist powers eventually end up becoming rentier states i.e. states that are characterized by parasitic and decaying capitalism. Lenin holds the view that a balance of power between the various capitalist states exists (Suneja 216).

Conclusion

Lenin believes that the imperialism forces were inherent to the capitalist system. He argues that the effects of imperialism cannot be avoided by any law and that only a socialist revolution has the capacity of eliminating it. Also, his analysis of imperialism as the highest form of capitalism can be found in the debt condition in which the developing nations find themselves.

In the modern world, imperialism exists as a neo-colonialism where imperial powers continue to benefit enormously. Imperial powers have over the years benefited directly from imperialism by exploiting their employees. They also continue to benefit from the debts that they impose on poor countries through the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Works Cited

Lenin, Vladimir. Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism. New York: Resistance Books, 1999.

OKane, Rosemary. Terror, force, and states: the path from modernity. Cheltenham: Edward Edgar Publishing, 1996.

Pauly, Louis. Global liberalism and political order: toward a new grand compromise? New York: SUNY Press, 2007.

Schutz, Eric. Inequality and Power: The Economics of Class. London: Taylor & Francis, 2010.

Suneja, Vivek. Understanding business: a multidimensional approach to the market economy. Markets. London: Routledge, 2000.

Many societies in the world have embraced the corporate social responsibility doctrine. Supporters of the dogma argue that corporations perceived to be socially responsible have higher chances of making enormous sales. Researchers have conducted studies to establish whether corporate social responsibility principle is a socialist or capitalist phenomenon.

Unfortunately, studies indicate that social responsibility is neither capitalistic nor socialistic in nature. By analyzing the practices emerging from the ideology and considering the presence of the axiom social, one could conclude that CSR is a socialist dogma.

However, entities practicing it are all capitalistic in nature. This raises a number of questions as regards to the principle CSR. It is observed through analysis that socialist ideas are completely inconsistent with capitalistic ideologies.

In his film Capitalism: A love story, Michael Moore underscores the fact that CSR has dominated the lives of many people in America (Kalt, & Zupan, 1984). The artiste observes that Americans pay dearly for capitalism. Many people lose their jobs on daily basis because of capitalism. People are forced to spent everything they own in order to sustain their lives in a capitalistic society.

This would imply that the lives of many are always in danger. Moore analyzes the lives of ordinary citizens in Washington, DC and concludes that lives have been affected negatively by capitalistic ideologies. Moore tries to understand the lives of Americans, especially their love for capitalism. This article will try to bring out the existing differences between capitalism and socialism. Analytically, socialism and capitalism are incompatible.

In a capitalistic society, resources are owned privately. These resources could be in form of money or other valuables such as property. This implies that an individual has full control of over resources. The society recognizes an individual as a private entity. In socialism, goods and other valuables in society are owned by the state. In other words, the public collectively owns goods.

From this analysis, it is observed that the two ideologies are dissimilar. Capitalists believe that competition is healthy in society. It sharpens the wits of individuals. In this case, an individual is allowed to accumulate as much resources as he or she can. For an individual, only the sky is the limit. An individual is to determine his or her own destiny in terms of property ownership.

The state on its part acts as a utility to individual fulfillment. The state is supposed to provide mechanisms through which an individual would accomplish his or her mission. In this regard, the state is supposed to provide security. The state should ensure that tranquility and calmness is in the society. It is only through this that the society could produce the best individuals (Earl, & Hickson, 2000).

On the other hand, socialism holds that members of society should cooperate in fulfilling their dreams and wishes. Through cooperation, people live in harmony. The ideology does not recognize the efforts of individuals because resources are managed centrally. Whatever an individual produces is distributed to other members of society. The state is given the responsibility of overseeing distribution of resources.

In relevance to CSR, corporations are managed by qualified personalities in a capitalistic society, who are usually employed by owners of a firm. One individual or a group of people, who are further guided by laws, could possibly own a firm. An individual is the only mandated entity to exchange shares or property in a firm. The role of the state is to provide guidelines that would bring sanity in business.

The state does not interfere with individual property, as long as laws are followed. Supporters of capitalism argue that the state should never interfere with market activities because it causes instabilities. In other words, the market should operate according to its own internal logics.

Capitalists believe that manufacturers and consumers will always check each other implying that goods produced would automatically be sold to the market. Capitalists however agree that the state should intervene whenever there is turmoil in the market. The state should withdraw immediately normalcy and constancy is restored in the market.

Labor is privately owned in a capitalistic society. Employees are only willing to dispose their labor to a reasonable employer. This means that each person is entitled to a job and only employees can determine the cost of their labor. Capitalism generates unequal relations in the labor market. Employers will always seek to employ cheap labor. The aim of workers is to achieve high salaries.

Consequently, work is a variety of supply and demand in a free market economy. As earlier stated, ownership of resources and property in socialism is communal. This could imply that each member of society has power over resource expenditure. Each member of society works for the benefit of the other.

This means that there is no stable market in society. Whenever an individual wants a good or service, he or she can always acquire it without any restriction. The government has full responsibility to determine how resources are distributed in society (Carroll, & Buchholz, 2008).

Proponents of socialism claim that capitalistic principles favor the rich in society. They argue that individuals are not given equal chances as regards to resource and property ownership in a capitalistic society. The rich are given an opportunity to accumulate resources while the poor continue languishing in poverty. According to socialists, capitalism leads to pauperization, alienation, domination and perpetration.

The poor are forced to work for the rich under poor working conditions. Socialism emerged to challenge capitalism by claiming that each person should be allowed to own property.

In other words, things should be made equal in society. Socialism came about during the industrial revolution where the rich owned big factories and industries. The poor wanted to enjoy the privileges associated with the rich. The poor and the middle class claimed that power should not be left in the hands of the few rich people in society.

Socialists argued that work ethic would improve in case individuals worked to fulfill the demands of the entire society. On their part, capitalists believed that the society could achieve its goals in case people were allowed to compete favorably.

Companies would produce the best products in the market because of competition. Capitalism disregards socialist ideas because distribution of resources equally breeds laziness. It is therefore concluded that CSR is an idea supported and propagated by capitalistic corporations (Julie, & Sheffrin, 1991).

This means that it is purely an advertising tool that does not take into consideration the wishes and desires of the population. Multinational Companies are known to promote CSR because they aim at maximizing their profits. They engage in public relations affairs through promotion of CSR. Their main aim is to win the confidence of locals in order to make sales.

References

Carroll, A., & Buchholz, A. (2008). Business and Society. New York: Cengage.

Earl, A., & Hickson, R. (2000). Ideology and the Evolution of Vital Economic Institutions. New York: Springer.

Julie, A., & Sheffrin, M. (1991). Economic Literacy or Economic Ideology. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(3).

Kalt, P., & Zupan, A. (1984). Capture and Ideology in the Economic Theory of Politics. American Economic Review, 74(3).

Austin (2014) considers the correlation between colonialism and capitalism. It was argued that the spread of capitalism was largely caused by colonial gains of major empires.

Austin (2014) does not refute this statement but offers particular ways in which capitalism found its way to the colonies and the way it developed in empires. Importantly, the author identifies five major features of development of capitalism in the second part of the nineteenth century.

These features are: divergence in wealth and technology of the West and the Rest, transformation of trade relations between colonies and empires and the very nature of this trade, appearance of new settler-monopoly and creation of new neo-Europes (Austin 2014, pp. 301-303). These features provide insights into the nature of the present-day world as well as the way imperial order of the world evolved and transformed.

It is noteworthy that each of the features requires particular attention. At this point, it is necessary to note that the new type of colonialism was characterised by the focus on commercial aspect and industrialisation. Development of technology (especially military one) was one of the primary forces that boosted transformations of the nineteenth century.

Thus, developed industrialised countries exercises their power and had the resources to exploit resources of less developed countries. Each year the gap between developed and developing countries increased as the former had all the necessary resources to advance technology and accumulate wealth.

It is noteworthy that some may focus on this feature of development of imperialism. However, the other four factors are equally important. It is also possible to add that these four features are especially interconnected.

Thus, development of new trade patterns contributed greatly to a new span of capitalism which was spreading globally. Transformation of the commercial relations as well as population patterns led to empowerment of the colonised countries.

In Americas, for instance, European settlers soon after the expansion to the continent made up the majority of the population. It is logical that they brought principles of capitalism to the new land and they were eager to gain independence (which was financial rather political).

At the same time, in Asian countries, local elites formed and these elites were also a potent force that enabled the states gain economic as well as political independence. Obviously, the contemporary world order is rooted in the transformations which were taking place in the second part of the nineteenth century.

Austin (2014) mentions the Soviet Union and its impact stressing that this empire was not capitalistic but communist. At the same time, even this empire followed the patterns which were developed in the nineteenth century.

In conclusion, it is possible to note that capitalism and colonialism shaped the world and formed the basis for the present-day models as well as state boundaries. Economic empowerment of empires was accompanied by financial strengthening of colonies. The five features of the correlation between colonialism and capitalism mentioned above help understand why the contemporary world is in its present state.

Reference List

Austin, G 2014, Capitalism and the colonies, in L Neal & JG Williamson (eds), The Cambridge history of capitalism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 301-347.

Modern day conceptions of factory and the interpretation of historical industrialization

Initially the term factory meant an establishment that housed traders. Soon it was transformed into a site of manufacturing on a large scale. Still further down the history factory meant a place where clothes were manufactured. Still later factory represented the construction which was into manufacturing non-agricultural products. However, gradually, industrialization came into existence and factory was the site where mechanized production with skilled labors was operational. This is the modern conception of the term factory. (Prude, 2006)

It should be noted that industrialization of today has an adverse effect on our interpretation of historical industrialization. This is because with specialized factories operational on specialized products and huge production rates made it possible to misinterpret the concept of historical industrialization where production was carried on a smaller scale and there was involvement of several different productive units in a single factory. Rigid production line of today, which is the general norm of a modern factory, makes it difficult to understand the sustainability of historical industrialization and the conceptualization of factory. The aspects of historical industrialization were based on rural capitalism of the North-West regions and the co-existence of nonprofit factories along with private properties makes it difficult to understand the milieu of the factory of the past and affect our interpretation of historical industrialization by a great margin.

Coming of factories as a representation of progress

Coming of factories as a representation of progress is a truth in the context of developing capitalism and emerging market economy. The factories played their parts in the development of modern capitalism with specialized production units and developing the skill levels of labors along with constructing a skill based wage pattern. This was made possible by the mechanized production units that excelled the output volume by a huge margin. The additional volume of merchandize helped the harvesting of capital and that generated enough potential to enforce a modern market economy induced society and this can be regarded as a huge leap of civilization. Thus, coming of factories as a representation of progress as it was the factories that made this development possible. (Jones, 2001)

Is progress always necessarily positive?

There is a huge scope of debate on the issue whether progress always is necessarily positive. The impact of the factories in the early society was fundamentally cultural. The division of labor created a division of class based on economic differences within the general masses. This was due to the structural wage differences between skilled and unskilled labor forces. This created a serious paradigm of labor market. The paradigm of the labor market holds that people were divided by capitalism into two major classes. At first there were the capitalists who were the owners of factories and machineries, i.e. the forces of production, and the proletariat comprising the wage earners who could only sell their labor and thus, did manual labor for wages.

The capitalists were continuously able to exploit the proletariat since the state along with its numerous coercive institutions, like courts and police, supported the capitalists, keeping them in power as the ruling class. The Marxist paradigm of labor market wanted the abolition of private property so that a radical egalitarian economy could be established. This paradigm believed that all through our human history we have seen the different social classes struggle with each other for power. (Grantham & MacKinnon, 2002) This class struggle is not very healthy for a society and thus even though the factories brought progress, it was not necessarily always positive.

References

Grantham, G. & MacKinnon, M. (2002). Labour market evolution: the economic history of market integration, wage flexibility, and the employment relation. NY: Routledge.

Jones, M. T. (2001). Mainstream and radical theories of the multinational enterprise: Complementary approaches? The International Executive, 35(4), 339-356.

Prude, J. (2006). Capitalism, industrialization, and the factory in Post-revolutionary America Wages of Independence. In Capitalism in the Early American Republic. Paul A. Gillie. (ed.) NY: Madison House. Pp. 81-100.

Capitalism: A Love Story is a documentary film by Michael Moore. The films main focus is on the effects that capitalism has had on America. The documentary film debuted in 2009 and Michael Moore wrote, starred in, and directed it. The films storyline revolves around the financial crisis that befell America in the late 2000s and the accompanying recovery efforts. Some of the hot topics that are covered by Michael Moore in this film include Wall Street, Goldman Sach, workers conditions, corporate insurance policies on workers, home foreclosures, and the runaway greed of corporate America.

The film also incorporates a religious angle in its outlook. Throughout the film, the filmmaker juxtaposes several historical situations with current ones. The subject matter that is addressed in Capitalism: A Love Story resonates with Michael Moores past topics. Michael Moore picks a topic that dominates day-to-day lives and then presents it in a manner that is appealing to the average citizen. This film is a testament of Michael Moores seasoned movie making abilities that have garnered him a league of admirers and critics alike.

Moores Capitalism: A Love Story examines the effects of capitalism on the American society. Americas loves and celebrates capitalism in equal measure and the filmmaker conducts extensive interviews with capitalism-gatekeepers. The film struggles to maintain a balance between the positives of capitalism and its negatives. At the beginning of the film, the filmmaker shows what capitalism has amounted to by running surveillance footages of bank robbers.

The filmmaker then takes viewers back to the golden age of capitalism. Michael Moore strategically fixes interviews with modern experts into the film. The films arrangement enables viewers to understand capitalism in a wider context. Furthermore, the filmmaker manages to maintain an outrageous and humorous analysis of capitalism using this strategy.

Moores attempts to highlight the evils of capitalism by taking a total stand against it. However, as a filmmaker Moore is part of capitalism. For instance, the budget for making this documentary was in excess of seventeen million dollars. Therefore, this venture requires investors most of whom have Wall Street connections. This fact puts a blemish on Michael Moore who on several occasions during the film can be seen putting crime-scene tape in front of some Wall Street offices. Nevertheless, Moores crime-scene tape plastering routine begins to become annoying to watch after some time.

Capitalism: A Love Story covers its subject matter less seriously as compared to other Moore-films such as Fahrenheit 9/11. In this film, Moore resorts to funny and outrageous depictions of capitalism. However, the serious concerns that are expressed in the film are still communicated to the audience successfully. For example, the audience can still recognize some of the serious effects of capitalism such as condo vultures and the Wal-Mart Dead Peasant life-insurance scam.

The lengthy nature of the movie is also another indicator of Moores talent because the filmmaker is able to capture and maintain the audiences attention. The over-simplified nature of capitalism stands out in this documentary film. Moreover, this over-simplification is meant to help ordinary audiences to understand capitalism in their own terms.

Capitalism: A Love Story is a movie that seeks to vilify American capitalism. However, the filmmaker decides to use subtle humor and outrageous acts to pass his message across. The film is informative and its simplicity appealed to me in a great way. Through Michael Moores body of work, I was able to reflect on the ills of capitalism.