Category: Capitalism

Essay on Capitalism in the USA During the Period 1900-1940 and Its Influence

Capitalism had a significant economic and therefore social and political impact on United States society during the years 1919-1941. Capitalism is an economic system that encourages individuals to make profits through investments and the private ownership of goods, property and the means of production, distribution and exchange. Capitalism created economic prosperity for business and industry resulting in an increase in mass production as corporations were unregulated. Capitalism also sparked mass consumerism resulting in a rise in household monetary flow yet it hindered unskilled workers who were displaced due to technological developments. Capitalism also had an impact on the political spectrum, as the economic doctrine used to regulate the economy failed, which was a poor reflection on the Conservative government’s management of US society. Finally, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency incorporated aspects of capitalism which greatly contributed to the resurgence of the US society after the Great Depression as it promoted employment, infrastructure developments and stimulated the agricultural market. Capitalism had a significant impact on the United States during 1919-1941, which was predominantly visible within the economic, social and political aspects of society.

Capitalism had a major impact on the US economy during 1919-1929 as business and industry were able to prosper due to the economic policies implemented by the US government. The conservative governments of the 1920s under Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge undertook the economic doctrines Laissez-Faire and Trickle-Down Economics to stimulate the US economy and create wealth within society following World War One. America was a leader in the global economy throughout the 1920s as industry and businesses were unregulated. The US became a predominant global producer with 40% of the world’s automobiles and manufactured goods being produced within the US. Mass production rose substantially as labor production increased by 5.6% annually which was more than 5 times the rate of the 1910s. The amplified mass production rates of the 1920s allowed for businesses to develop and net income to increase sequentially as the price of commodities decreased. In 1922 the price of manufactured goods decreased by 41%, raw materials decreased by 45% and agricultural products decreased by 48%. The price decrease of commodities had a substantial effect on corporate profits as businesses were able to produce more goods at a lower cost. Capitalism created a monopoly which allowed 0.26% of all businesses to gain 60.3% of net corporate income which limited the chance for small upcoming businesses to gain wealth. Businesses such as Ford dominated their markets as they were able to produce cheap and reliable products to consumers. From this, these businesses were able to expand greatly both nationwide and internationally post the 1920s prosperity. However, the business prosperity was unevenly distributed throughout the workforce, as despite real income increasing by 25% from 1922-29, corporate profits exceeded that rate by 200%. The gap between the rich and the poor was augmented as the economic doctrine of trickle-down economics failed as the distribution of net profits was corrupted by business owners who gained wealth through the lack of government intervention. Capitalism sparked economic prosperity for US industry, however due to the uneven distribution of profits, the gap between the wealthy and the poor increased.

Similarly, capitalism had a significant positive social impact as it helped develop a consumerist culture within the United States. New domesticated technological developments including vacuum cleaners, electric toasters and washing machines ultimately saved time on domestic household duties which created leisure time opportunities. In 1929 one in five households owned an electric toaster and one in four owned a vacuum cleaner. From this, individuals had the opportunity to partake in leisurely activities including live sports and cinema. Over the 1920s, more than 20 thousand cinemas were constructed in the US and the quantity of tickets sold rose from 40 million per week in 1922 to 115 million in 1930. Live sport was extremely popular as by the end of the 1920s the National Football League’s gate takings rose to $21 million per annum. In 1929, 50% of American families owned an automobile due its inexpensive manufacturing and therefore affordable pricing. This significantly impacted the lives of Americans as automobiles provided a greater access to rural and remote communities along with contributing to the process of urbanization and suburbanization. Employment opportunities arose as people were able to commute to the inner-city work and be able to live in the suburban areas where land was cheaper. Automobiles also increased the opportunity for differing recreational activities including distant holiday destinations and the development of shopping centres. One of the most outstanding impacts of capitalism in the US during 1919-1941 was the emergence of consumerism. Due to the rise of real income and the introduction of credit, people were able to afford more nonessential goods and services as they had disposable income. Spending became a pleasurable activity and encouraged conformity in regards to clothing, food and household items. Conspicuous consumption became a facet of society as people would often purchase items and use them as an indicator for their social status and wealth. George Tindall and David Shi describe the culture shift as the “old time values of thrift and saving gave way to a new economic ethic that made spending a virtue” (Tindall and Shi, 1984 pg.372). Capitalism brought significant technological developments which assisted everyday activities along with transforming the lifestyle opportunities of Americans and redefining the purpose of purchasing commodities.

In contrast, capitalism had a devastating impact on the vulnerable groups of society as there was a decline in union membership and technological developments displaced workers. After the strike defeats of 1919-23, US union membership declined by 25% which left the working class underrepresented. The radical decline of union membership was the outcome of economic prosperity in businesses and industry as both anti-union views were evident in both employers and the government making organized strikes almost impossible to execute. In 1919, 21% of workers participated in a total of 3600 strikes in an attempt to increase workers’ rights, however in 1929 only 1.2% of the workforce participated in 900 strikes across the United States. The economic prosperity of the 1920s resulted in stable pricing, a reduction in unemployment and the rise of real income, causing a major decline in union membership. This left the working class underrepresented and due to the lack of union support from both the government and the employers, employees often faced threats and termination if they were to participate in pro union activities. The development of new technologies resulted in the displacement of many factory and agricultural workers as their skills were replaced by machinery. In 1929, the rate of labor hours decreased by 40% since 1921 simultaneously resulting in a high job seeking population. Through both the decline in union membership and the high displacement of workers, the divide between the rich and the poor increased substantially with the wealthiest 5% of society earning more national income than the bottom 60%. Capitalism heightened the inequality within the US as the vulnerable factions of society were underrepresented and faced technological displacement within the workforce.

Furthermore, capitalism impacted the political functioning of the United States during the interwar period as conservative economic policies failed leading to The Great Depression. Calvin Coolidge along with Harding and Hoover believed “The chief business of the American people is business”. The conservative governments of the 1920s assumed that lack of government intervention through Laissez-faire would significantly benefit the US economy and its population. Through this approach, ideally businesses are able to have freedom to take risks and are able to maximize profits, from this the wealth is able to be transferred to the lower classes through the Trickle-down effect. However, the doctrine failed as the gap between the wealthy and the poor was enlarged, the Conservatives lost their power over the US which subsequently resulted in the Great Depression. The conservative government’s lack of intervention within the US economy resulted in the rise of small-scale banks. The McFadden Act 1927 allowed national banks to have unlimited access to various investment powers such as real-estate, stocks, deposits, loans and trust operations. The economic freedom given to US banks enabled by the capitalist government had detrimental effects on their political power as by 1929, 50% of the nation’s financial resources were controlled by 1% of America’s banks. The conservative government also implemented lower taxes for personal and business income in an attempt to weaken the power of unions across the US. By reducing union membership, the Conservatives lost contact with the working class as they were underrepresented within the workforce who were the majority of their supporters during the 1921 election against the Democrats. The conservative government essentially brought their own end to their presidential reign as they weren’t able to act in accordance to the economic chaos of the Great Depression. Hoover’s successor F.D. Roosevelt (1932) proclaimed his presidency “well, this will elect me”, before he won the 1932 election 57.4% to 39.7% due to the poor economic doctrines imposed by the conservative government. The capitalist approach to governing had a significant impact as the economic doctrines caused political change within the United States, therefore causing economic and social distress.

Despite the apparent changes made, F.D. Roosevelt’s presidency still had evident capitalist intentions which had an impact on the functioning if the US between the years of 1933-1941. During FRD’s presidency, there were numerous attempts to stimulate the economy by implementing capitalist initiatives from the New Deal to combat the Great Depression. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) 1933 played a significant role in stimulating the agricultural market. The AAA imposed a domestic allotment that would assign a quota to each famer to reduce over production and to increase the demand for agricultural products. This capitalist approach stimulated the agricultural market by limiting the surplus of agricultural commodities which enhanced the demand for agricultural products and increased the income of large-scale properties. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was a project based in the west aimed to rebuild the Miami to Key West railroad. This ultimately brought jobs and tourism to the Western States who suffered significantly due to urbanization as for the first time in American history more people lived in cities compared to rural areas. The 1933 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was implemented to increase the production and sale of electrical power across the state. The control of the electrical power was contracted with privately owned businesses who were sold to wholesaler for distribution. The low electricity rates generated by the TVA were due to the TVA’s tax immunity and how it was not compulsory for the TVA to publish its revenue on its operations. The capitalistic facets of Roosevelt’s presidency stimulated the agricultural market, generated employment and constructed new infrastructure which had a key impact on the rebuilding of the economic and therefore social and political chaos that arose from the Great Depression.

Capitalism had a significant impact on all areas of US society during the interwar period. The economic prosperity of the 1920s allowed businesses and industry to advance as the economic doctrines enforced catered for mass production and therefore converted the US into a consumerist society. Socially, capitalism transformed the everyday American’s lifestyle as consumerism provided the opportunity for leisure, along with the development of automobiles which enabled long distance travel to occur. The decline in union membership and technological developments hindered American society as many unskilled workers were left unemployed. The economic doctrines imposed by the conservative government proved detrimental to their campaign, however FDR’s incorporate of capitalism stimulated the failing economy along with providing employment opportunities and infrastructural developments across the US. Therefore, the impact of capitalism during the years of 1919-1941 proved to be significant in regards to the economic, social and political spectrum of the United States of America.

The Link Between Democracy and Market Capitalism: How Private Enterprise Harms Democracy

Democracy and market capitalism are two partners, although there are ample to benefits of their relationship yet market capitalism has extraordinary influential impact on the outcomes of country’s democratic status. The voting system in countries make them more democratic and the term market capitalism means private enterprises where monetary entities are people or other ventures. Some people believe that relationship between democracy and market capitalism is mutually fair but I think that there is need to improve that because it is more harmful than beneficial because of the inequalities produced by market capitalism, one scholar change and controls other and market capitalism is unfavorable to the progress of vote-based system.

First, market capitalism unavoidably makes inequalities, it limits the majority rule potential of vote-based system by creating imbalances in the distribution of political asset. Dahl (2015) demonstrates that inequalities in the dispersion of political resources such as wealth, wages, literacy, reputation and authority affects the livelihood of masses and due to these disparities among political assets a few residents gain essentially more impact than others over the administration’s approaches, choices and activities and other lack behind to get the benefit of executive’s grants. Parakkal (2016) illustrates that the relationship among capitalism and democracy has considered as devil because of the inequalities in business, education and economy and wealth inequality is one of the results of their relationship that harms public a lot. The author says that logical inconsistencies in American popular government defines argument clearly as larger part of the American wealth is in the hands of elites, as a result middle class people not able to get the profit of democratic laws and schemes properly.

Second, reason that makes the relationship of private enterprises and democracy more unfavorable is that these two scholars are secured in a preserving clash in which each alter and bound other. The writer says that in 1840, a market economy with automatic markets in work and other factors had been completely introduced in Britain and got success over other parties not only in monetary but also ideologically and politically. These enterprises brought gains for few people however as it generally does, it conveyed harm to people. In Britain, and other British countries executive could be affected by mainstream development of discontent could not be supported and market capitalism limits vote-based system yet it is nothing without democracy because its intercession and regulation is incomprehensible in democratic notion. Market economy cannot work directly because of the fact that of free enterprises relies on government as without government guidelines a marketing economy genuine mischief on some individuals and who hurt or hope to be hurt will request government for help. The author illustrates that capitalism and democracy works together and lay on a perfect uniformity and everyone take part in basic leadership of politics and do as well as can be expected in the market but these opportunities were progressive in the relatively recent past. In some cases, the relationship among both of them create controversies and market capitalism is responsible for bust and blast as democracy cares about the coequality and unity, on the contrary capitalism is founded to create disparities among rich and poor.

Moving ahead, Dahl says that capitalism supports the improvement of majority rule government but “up to the level of polyarchal democracy” (where many people are authorized) but since of its unfriendly ramifications for political coequality it does not support the improvement of democracy to the dimension of polyarchy. According to Dahl, when dictator government in less modernized notion then attempts to build up an effective trade economy, at that point they are probably going to “sow the seeds of their own” definitive decimation but when governmental and society’s issues are changed by market free enterprises and law-based organizations are set up the viewpoint on changes at the most basic level. Presently, the imbalances in resources that private enterprises produce create serious political disparities among residents.

Although there are many demerits of their relationship but sometimes in the long run private enterprises has prompted a significant financial development which is further directly proportional to law-based organization and the consumers stay up to date and aware to what they need to spend on and by reducing poverty and improving expectations for everyday comforts, financial development helps to diminish political and social clashes. Whether democracy leads to economic growth but on the other hand economic inequalities are result of private enterprises and these negative variations in financial factors led to beggary and diminish the healthy law-based system, as a result globalization has been destroyed. My willingness on my so provided reasons is that market capitalism is primarily based to keep the market value of the product in vogue and hence just sell the products regardless of its actually value or productivity but democracy is in the favor of citizens and allows people speak against the loss of rights while capitalism only favor the elite people first and give birth to conflicts.

Due to the inequalities among rich and poor, one cannot work freely without other and less progress of democracy I have trying to show that relationship among democracy and market capitalism is more disadvantageous than the valuable.

In conclusion, it is necessary to improve the connection between vote-based system and private enterprises to work according to the public needs and to avoid partiality. Every system has their own merits and demerits but there is need to improve this system because of the factors discussed above.

Communism Vs Capitalism: Main Differences

There are different operations, strategy, beliefs, and principles that guide every economic structure. The principles and ideas that are dominating in such territories determine the type of system in operation. Capitalism vs. communism are two contrasting economic systems which are applicable in different places. Majorly, the difference between communism and capitalism is that the formal support equality in society by making economic services owned and controlled by the community, whereas the latter seeks to privatize production activities.

Definition of Communism

Communism is a socio-economic structure that supports equality in the society. In order words, everyone has a balanced and equivalent level of right to every productive activity and decision. In such communities, properties and production activities are equally owned by every member of the society. Irrespective of individual contributions, the profit or returns are usually shared equally. It could also be referred to as the state-controlled or government economy. However, if it will be described in its real sense, any form of governance wouldn’t exist; no superiority or controlling power is involved. Everyone simply has common ability and power to make decisions and take similar rewards. The primary aim is for sustainability and survival, and every member of the society simply co-operate to ensure the continuity of society. So, no form of privatization is found in communism.

Definition of Capitalism

Capitalism is the type of socio-economic system whereby economic activities and ownership are majorly owned and controlled privately. In other words, there is no governance or state ownership; certain individuals control production activities for the purpose of making profit. Also, this could be described as a system that is characterized by a free market operation, and the only contribution of the government is to ensure appropriate checks and rules to regulate the system. Usually, there is always a very high market competition in such systems that are accompanied by social disparities in terms of product and prices. Majorly, the aim of any capitalist system is to make profit. This will ensure efficiency in production since every producer will be willing to have the best rate of demand for its product.

Main Differences Between Communism and Capitalism

1. Communism is a socio-economic structure that supports equality in the society, while capitalism is the type of socio-economic structure whereby economic activities and ownership are majorly owned and controlled privately.
2. The purpose of communism is social satisfaction, while that of capitalism is profit-making.
3. There is no free market under communism, but under capitalism it is.
4. The goods or profits under communism are shared equally regardless of contributed effort, but under capitalism this is largely a matter of individual choice.
5. The main agent of change in communism is the governing body, not market interaction. The effect of such changes may be slow. Under capitalism, the market forces of supply and demand determine the level of change in price and quantity. And the changes take effect quickly.
6. Under communism, production is determined by social needs and what is available, while under capitalism it is based on supply and demand.
7. The political system under communism is controlled directly by the people on an equal footing, but with an elected body to govern and regulate the system. In capitalism, this can be done in anarchism, direct democracy, or a dictatorial system of politics.
8. Under communism, financial and monetary decisions are based on societal needs, while under capitalism decisions are made by the forces of supply and demand and in part by regulations and policies imposed by a governing body.

Conclusion

In summary, communism and capitalism has clear disparities which are based on societal nature and demands. Basically, communism believes all production services to be owned by the community, whereas capitalism privatizes all production services in the economy. These systems also allow governance except in a clear or strictly communized economy. Without looking at other variations, this forms the major difference between capitalism and communism. Since market and production services are privately owned in a capitalist system, then it is expected that everyone works independently. On the other hand, wealth is expected to be shared based on the needs of society and available resources.

Is Capitalism Humane? Essay

The debate over how humane capitalism is and most probably will be never completely settled. However, in a lecture at Cornell University in 1977, Milton Friedman provides a different perspective. One that does not fault the systems of the economy itself, but the results the system encourages and the role of individual morality. He touches upon the social injustices that result from the economic systems and the benefit of voluntary exchange. Friedman is able to convey through analysis of different situations, that capitalism is not moral, immoral, humane, or inhumane, but a lesser evil compared to other economic systems.

When Friedman first talks of morality, he identifies the issue that morals are determined individually and not collectively. It is what we individually believe and how it affects our actions. Morality is somewhat subjective, and a person makes their decisions based on their own beliefs, whether they align with everyone else. He also says that economic systems are “means but not ends”. Meaning, these systems are not the reason why the results are morally correct or incorrect but are because the results are encouraged by the system in combination with human nature. This is a result of self-interest and relationships with other people. It is human nature to act in self-interest, but it produces different effects based on the economic system. Friedman gives the example of a Russian worker and a U.S. worker acting in self-interest. The reason for the Russian worker to act in self-interest is different from the reason the U.S. worker acts in self-interest because of the consequences they would face. A person’s morality cannot be assumed the same as everyone else and therefore individuals need to be able to make their own decisions.

In socialism, the idea of having group control rather than individual control seems morally better and sets everyone up as equal. However, socialist societies require someone to make the decisions and have a central power that makes the decisions for the entire group. This gives too much power to one person because they can control and force everyone else to do anything. They may think they have good intentions, but the decision may not be beneficial to everyone. People are forced to follow one decision, unable to make their own decision in self-interest, and will most likely be harmed by that decision. Friedman provides an aphorism by Lord Acton, “Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts completely”. A decision that benefits you, may not benefit the person sitting next to you. In a socialist society, it does not matter what the person sitting next to you thinks because the decision is going to be made by whoever has the power and whatever they want to do. Individual morality plays no role in socialism and is completely dependent on whoever makes the decisions.

Another interesting point he made was about the moral decline in our society. The idea that moral decline occurs due to the shift from belief in individual responsibility to societal responsibility. This results in no one taking any blame and no one taking any responsibility for any that happens. It is proven that people are shaped by society and what occurs in the world, but if that is used as reasoning to prove people innocent, it applies to everyone. A villain is shaped by society, and the victim is just a result of society’s treatment of the villain. If we blame society for all our faults, we are blaming ourselves, as we are all a part of society, yet not taking any responsibility for anything that happens. This moral decline is influential in how much people will react to immorality and how they make decisions based on self-interest.

Surveillance Capitalism: An Essay

In an interview with the Harvard Gazette, Zuboff defined surveillance capitalism as “the unilateral claiming of private human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioral data; these data are then computed and packaged as prediction products and sold into behavioral futures markets business customers with a commercial interest in knowing what we will do now, soon, and later”, a practice that she goes on to define as just too lucrative to resist (Laidler, 2019). Surveillance capitalism can be understood as an economic system that places the commodification of personal data for profit at its heart. According to Zuboff, Google was a pioneering force in this field as it was one of the first organizations that started employing user data as a resource. At first, personal data was used to improve search results and overall user experience, what Zuboff calls behavioral value reinvestment cycle. In this cycle, user data is a resource created by the user, for the user, thus creating a closed cycle of value creation that benefits the user but is not profitable for the organization (in this case, Google). Zuboff believes that the turning point that resulted in the creation of surveillance capitalism is when personal data was first used for ad-matching.

Zuboff first analyzed this new form of capitalism, along with its societal implications, in a 2015 article in which she examined the ways that surveillance capitalism is reliant on a global, technologically-mediated architecture that she named ‘Big Other’. This new globally distributed and largely uncontested form of power feeds into a hidden to the consumer web of mechanisms of extraction, commodification and control of personal data that, according to Zuboff, is incredibly harmful to freedom, privacy and even democracy. Donnell Holloway (2019) identifies the foremost ‘Big Other’ actors as companies such as Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple, and also warns of the dangers they pose by turning the vast amounts of personal data at their disposal into incredibly lucrative products and services.

Key Features

Zuboff identifies four key features of surveillance capitalism:

1. An escalation in data extraction and analysis.
2. The constant development of new forms of computer-monitoring and automation.
3. The need to increasingly personalize and customize the services offered to users.
4. The use of technological infrastructure to experiment on its users and consumers.

An Escalation in Data Extraction and Analysis

The way in which the real world and the digital environment interface is called ‘extraction architecture. In surveillance capitalism, extraction benefits only one side that of the aforementioned corporations and is not influenced by the other the users, as the process is almost entirely automated; the data is not used to improve the user experience anymore, but is instead sold to other corporations. This data is analyzed in order to predict behaviors and shape them to reach the desired outcome in the case of targeted ads, this is often the sale of a product. The data is extracted and personal information is used to provide users with targeted ads or other similar experiences that lead to further creation of data by the user, feeding into a never-ending loop that has proven to be astoundingly profitable.

The extraction architecture has some limits, however. While the loop described above is successful in the creation of more raw material, it is not only quantity that must be kept in consideration, but also quality, in order to more accurately predict behavior. As Zuboff says, the best predictions approximate observations. The kind of data needed therefore needs to also approximate observations as much as possible. This need for a vast surplus of data along with quality data is described as economies of scope. This is actualized in two steps:

• The data collection needs to be extended from the virtual world into the real world as the data collected in the former needs to mirror as closely as possible the experiences lived in the latter. So far, the most common ways to implement this extension happen online, in the form of user inputs such as likes and clicks. However, the implication is that this will result in efforts to gather data in offline settings as well. This would remove the need for active engagement on the part of the user and leave the data gathering to sensors or other devices that passively extract physical data.
• This form of extraction needs to reach a deeper and more intimate level of information on individuals. The economies of scope dictate that data gathered on user preferences must not be limited to the virtual environment it is simply not enough. The ways in which data is collected are too limited and, as such, new techniques need to be developed and employed, new ways to try and get even more sensitive and personal data, such as: facial recognition and affective computing to voice, gait, posture, and text analysis that lay bare personality, moods, emotions, lies, and vulnerabilities.

The economies of scope impose a strict escalation of extraction as limits are reached. This constant escalation is supported by what Zuboff calls economies of action.

The Constant Development of New Forms of Computer-Monitoring and Automation

Economies of action are distinct to surveillance capitalism and its digital milieu and are defined by a process of behavior modification. Economies of action allow the Big Other to not only predict behavior, but actively influence it. The idea of trying to influence customers behavior to promote revenue creation is not something that was created by Big Other, but unlike other attempts to shape user behavior such as priming, suggestion or social comparison, these economies of action operate in a new and different way. This is due to the digital architecture in which they operate: a continuous network of data input that allows for uninterrupted monitoring and, as a result, shaping of user behavior. This is accomplished by nudging, herding and conditioning individuals, larger groups or populations in real time in subtle and hidden ways, such as inserting a specific phrase into your Facebook news feed, timing the appearance of a ‘buy’ button on your phone with the rise of your endorphins at the end of a run, shutting down your car engine when an insurance payment is late, or employing population-scale behavioral micro-targeting drawn from Facebook profiles.

If at first the extraction of user data was a way to improve user experience, it is now a well-oiled machine with the reach and power to modify the behaviors of countless people. Just as industrial capitalism was characterized by the intensification of means of production, surveillance capitalism is now following the same logic, but applying it instead to means of behavioral modification. These new systems and procedures take direct aim at individual autonomy, systematically replacing self-determined action with a range of hidden operations designed to shape behavior at the source. Zuboff considers the ability to shape human behavior as instrumentarian power. In her words: instrumentarianism, defined as the instrumentation and instrumentalization of human behavior for the purposes of modification, prediction, monetization, and control. Instrumentarianism represents the crux of the democracy dilemma that surveillance capitalism presents and will be analyzed further in a subsequent section.

The Need to Increasingly Personalize and Customize the Services Offered to Users

While features that are designed to customize and create tailored experiences for users are not inherently associated with malevolent surveillance, things like cookies or the ability to access the location of individuals have been instrumental in shaping surveillance capitalism. It must be said that most of these features are usually classified as opt-in meaning that an individual as to personally consent to them being activated asking, in a way, for consent to be monitored. However, the design of these features is often purposefully obscure and cryptic, especially when it comes to communicating the extent to which a user is being monitored and the ways in which their data is used. Most websites will claim to collect behavioral or other personal data, such as location, to optimize or customize the user’s experience but, as was explored above, the ways in which personal data is employed under surveillance capitalism extend far beyond personalization. The clear asymmetry of knowledge between the Big Other and the individual creates a convenient state in which users allegedly provide informed consent to surveillance.

The Use of Technological Infrastructure to Out Experiment on Its Users and Consumers

It is only logical that the need to provide adaptive content and increasingly customized experiences would require continuous experimentation, in order to increase the accuracy of behavior prediction and modification. Users could be shown different products or recommendations to figure out what they respond to and the most effective way to manipulate them. New algorithms are constantly being created, trailed and tested for the same reason. Zuboff uses Facebook as an example, in particular the way in which the company has been able to influence user’s emotions: emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions without their awareness.

Relevance for Democracy

The swift escalation of surveillance capitalism can be credited in no small part to exploitative agreements between users and the Big Other, such as the one mentioned above. These can be defined as unconscionable contracts, a form or agreement that strips away the ability to negotiate terms from users and often puts them in a position where they have insufficient knowledge to truly provide informed consent about personal data collection and the ways in which said data is used. Nevertheless, the means through which surveillance capitalists amass personal data and profit from it is entirely permitted under the law, thanks to cryptically written end user license agreements and by making data privacy and data protection policies purposefully hard to find. It must also be said that the very nature of these policies and agreements is not to benefit the customer, but to protect the Big Other in their endeavour to collect personal data. User privacy, however, is only one of a number of values at risk under surveillance capitalism: autonomy, fairness, equality, due process, and democratic sovereignty are all threated by corporate personal data practices.

Surveillance capitalism uses algorithms and other programs to analyze and monitor our lives online the ways in which this happens have already been analyzed, but the implication this has individuals outside of the virtual environment is not only limited to buying a certain product because it was advertised to them on social media, it can in fact have quite sinister ramifications. Thanks to massive data files, corporations and governments the Big Other can profile users, judge them, predict their credit worthiness or tastes, their spending habits, and take actions accordingly. This results in the creation of what Davidow (2014) calls ‘algorithmic prisons’. These prisons have the very real power of restricting individuals’ freedom and rights. Information that used to be private or hard to access can now cause certain people to no longer qualify for certain loans or be able to cash a check. Credit card interest rates or car insurance can also be influenced by surveillance capitalism predictions and profiling. Because of algorithmic predictions, some people may have difficulties finding employment, some might be selected for government audits or subjected to increased scrutiny and screenings, such as at the airport. Davidow (2014) uses the airport as an example to really showcase how far-reaching and terrifying the implications of surveillance capitalism are for personal rights and freedom. No-fly lists, screenings and other controls are all influenced by algorithms rooted in surveillance. By combining data such as tax identification numbers, past travel itineraries, property records, physical characteristics, and law enforcement or intelligence information, the algorithm is expected to predict how likely a passenger is to be dangerous.

It isn’t entirely appropriate to refer to these algorithmic prisons as an invention of surveillance capitalism. Even before the advent of more modern technologies such as the internet, credit scores and rating agencies were already in existence. However, the unbridled scale of data production, commodification and exploitation that characterizes surveillance capitalism bring this phenomenon to new heights; never before has so much information about individuals been so readily available, and never before has that information been monetized and harvested to this extent.

The concept of instrumentarianism analyzed above should also be seen as incredibly concerning, as it not only has the potential to harm our individual freedoms, but to undermine the concept of democracy. Privacy theories have demonstrated that there is a link between the concept of privacy as necessity and personal autonomy. Democratic theories also show that there is a correlation between autonomy and democracy that is to say, personal autonomy is an imperative condition for democracy to be effective. Thus, it can be inferred that loss of autonomy as can occur as the result of behavior modification, which is instrumental in surveillance capitalism will have a direct effect on effective democratic participation. When Zuboff talks about privacy rights, she defines them as decision rights that are redistributed. This redistribution must be seen in combination with the potential for manipulation that occurs as a result of instrumentarianism. As more behavioral data is collected and as the services offered by surveillance capitalism become more and more personalized, they are also able to predict and shape our behavior much like in the case of the aforementioned algorithmic prisons. The right of choice might indeed be redistributed, but since the loss of privacy that is inherent in surveillance capitalism creates a loss of personal autonomy, thus leading to the tarnishing of one’s democratic participation, it can be argued that the right of choice is redistributed in a way that is harmful to democracy itself. In other words, surveillance capitalism architecture strips the individuals of their power of choice and autonomy. If we understand democratic participation as individuals placing power in the government, this redistribution of power makes it so it is not the individuals who bestow their power to the government, but the surveillance capitalism architecture itself. Even more worrisome, the techniques employed to manipulate customers behavior are designed to evade individual awareness and thus bypass individual decision rights. Through this, we the customers are left blissfully unaware of their influence. Zuboff herself gives us an example of this happening in real life, using the case of Cambridge Analytica, a consultancy firm that influenced American elections and the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom by using targeted ads and other similar tactics.

Karl Marx and His View of Class Relations Under Capitalism

Karl Marx is undoubtedly the most prominent and well-known figure in anti-capitalist literature. His most famous piece of work, ‘The Communist Manifesto’, goes into very close detail about the class struggle and the exploitation by the few of the many. This essay will go into detail about Marx’s characterization of the relationships between classes in capitalist society. By looking at his thoughts on economic, social, and personal implications of the relationships between different classes in capitalism it will be much easier to understand Marx’s true characterization of the relationships between classes and ultimately what this means for future society.

To understand Marx’s characterization of class relationships, it is important to understand that class struggle is not a new thing. Since the dawn of society, people have been grouped into different sub-sections of society based on a numerus array of characteristics. Mostly, this has led to a hierarchical structure with some at the top commanding those below. A good example would be the feudal system which was prevalent for many centuries. This is where the King would have ultimate power at the top of the proverbial food chain with lower ranking members having control of those lower and so on leading eventually to simple peasants who had no power at all. This eventually, in most Western societies, gave way to capitalism. This was thanks to power eventually spreading to be attainable for all, with entrepreneurs being able to build power for themselves. The feudal system had died out almost everywhere at the time Marx was writing, except in Russia where serfdom still thrived. One of Marx’s key teachings is that if a group are left at the bottom of the hierarchy for too long, they will fight back. This was done in most Western countries through industrial revolution where the new technology allowed workers to band together to form societies, ultimately creating the capitalist society we now live in.

Marx’s main critique of the class structure in a capitalist society is the economic implication of the exploitation of the workforce by the proletariat. Marx’s thoughts on the means of production queried that the laborers do not own the products or commodities that they labor to create.

They do not own the means to their own production. The individualistic effort of the many are stolen by the few simply for their own economic gain. Thus, those doing the work receive little compensation in the form of wages for the amount that they essentially gift to those who are further up the company ladder than them. Simply, business in capitalist society thrives on inequality. Due to this fact of capitalist economics, Marx details how this does create friction in the relationship between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The poor relationship between the two classes on an economic basis can mostly be seen through workers’ protests and strikes. A workers’ strike is a clear reprehension of the classist system that exists in a capitalist society. Taking, for instance, the Delano Grape strike in the 1960s. In California, a small group of grape farmers started a strike against poor pay. Cesar Chavez, a popular civil rights activist in the area joined the cause, starting the United Farm Workers Union. The protest spread to the whole nation. This led to the grape growers relenting in 1970 improving pay dramatically. This is a great example of the power that the proletariat holds over the bourgeoisie. Marx talks often about the economic relationship between the classes in capitalist society relying solely on those who labor for the commodities that are traded in free markets. Therefore, Marx characterizes the economic relationship between classes as the proletariat being the ones in control but rarely empowered to seize the means to production.

In Marx and Engels ‘Communist Manifesto’ it is proclaimed that “society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other”. Marx perceived from a societal standpoint that social classes in a capitalist society were pitted in strong opposition to each other. Marx split society into three societal class groups. There is the upper, middle, and lower classes and what class in the hierarchical order you fit into comes down to your economic status and property situation. The upper class were prosperous and powerful, owning property and often businesses. They were afforded the luxuries in life and did minimal work for high rewards. Marx significantly categorized class based on ownership of property rather than monetary reputation. Therefore, in the class groups there is a clear focus on how powerful the people are. The more property one has consistently equates to power over others. For instance, someone owning three properties including a factory will be able to afford the price of human labor, giving them power over those who need to see their labor to make a living and support their families. The relationship consequently breaks down between classes because in a capitalist society the aim for those in the upper class is to maintain power. The only way to do this in the current social structure is by keeping those below them down, making sure those in lower classes stay in the lower classes.

Marx’s theory of alienation is poignant when looking at the sociological implications of a capitalist society. His theory details the disillusionment of human nature and the role they play in society. Marx argues that this is down to the simple fact that people are thrust into bedded social classes from birth with little chance to change their fate. Becoming part of the capitalist machine where commodities and money are the only things that matter grind down a person’s will to self-determination, ultimately leading to an alienation of the self. The major point that Marx brings up though is that before capitalism laborers took pride in their own work as they owned their means to production. Individuality was portrayed in a significant way through the products that the laborers would create. However, in a capitalist society this individuality through labor is replaced by the laborer becoming perceived as almost non-human, just a tool for the bourgeoisie to exploit. Thus, this crucial part of human nature is stolen from people in a capitalist society. Personal implications of capitalism have led in recent times to the rapid increase in celebrity culture. Reality TV shows like ‘Keeping Up’ with the Kardashians are so popular because they give those who have become alienated from their own human nature a chance to almost live through others who are further up the class hierarchy. Therefore, looking at the personal implications of the relationship between classes in capitalism it is clear to see that the relationship is, once again, characterized by exploitation.

To conclude, Marx holds an extensive volume of literature about class struggles in capitalist society, leaving no base uncovered when it comes to the relationships between the classes. Looking at the economic, social, and personal implications that Marx pertains that a classist capitalist society has, there is an overriding trend of exploitation of the upper classes on those lower than them, predominantly for simple financial gain. The relationship comes down to a simple fact of those on top wanting to remain on top and those on the bottom having little to no power to stop their own exploitation. This, in turn, is the reason that we live in such a segregated society in the modern era. Marx’s social theory still holds up today, perhaps even more than when he was writing. Highlighted by areas being classed as rich or poor depending on how much property costs in that area. Money controls everyday life in modern society with people held in such high regard for being rich. Just looking at the traffic that things like the Forbes rich list get, it is easy to see that people care about those who are rich while those who make people like Richard Branson his millions simultaneously are looked down upon.

Karl Marx’s Critique of Capitalism: An Essay

Capitalism as a self-destructing political, economic and social system is central to the understanding of Marx’s ideologies. By critiquing a structure that shapes the lives of many populations today, his work proves to still be extremely significant in offering an insight into capitalism and its implications. However, this assumption of capitalism inevitably self-destructing is one of which that is debated amongst scholars, usually in the light of how applicable it is in today’s societies. By examining his primary theses, I will argue that Marx’s work on this topic holds immense validity and leaves a legacy in that his work can be used to understand past, present and future crises. The crises Marx speaks of will be explored in sections, with the first being the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and the second being the crisis of overproduction. It will further focus on the inherently toxic structure of capitalism, followed by its potential to breed a proletariat uprising. The essay will also analyze root causes of crises and its relationship to the capitalist structure, which appear to mirror his ideas showing his arguments hold not only truth, but also immense value.

Capitalism’s thirst for maximizing profit involves the struggle of competition between capitalists, a thirst that cannot be sustained according to Marx. The drive for investing in constant capital and increasing the mass production of cheaper commodities is based around this emphasis on profit maximization. Automated machines (or dead labor as Marx called it) that produce the commodities quicker without having to pay wages was seen as revolutionary, as seen in the Industrial Revolution during the early 19th century. Yet improved productivity in the hands of the capitalists breeds crises, and in this case, it is his theory of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, which is, according to Marx, an ultimate way in which capitalist defeats itself. The competition between capitalists means they are forced to invest in ever greater percentage of their surplus value in machinery. However, the use of machines makes skilled human labor less necessary, and by replacing living labor with dead labor, it introduces the possibility for the rate of profit to fall. Furthermore, this is because capitalists are tied up in constant investment of machinery maintenance, and in the long run, the rate of profit therefore falls. This substitution of manual work not only leads to the rate of profit to fall, but it increases unemployment as their jobs are replaced with machinery which in turn leads to the fall in demand, which will be looked at in the next section. It is clear to empirically see the rate of profit to fall, for example Italian sociologist Luciano Gallino estimated the gross rate of profit in the period 1960-1980 to have fell by 50% in the major economies of the world, translated from his book ‘The Irresponsible Enterprise’. This can be explained in terms of rising production throughout the 20th century, showing the validity of Marx’s ideas. Marx attempts to show that this tendency for the rate of profit to fall arises through capitalism’s inherent nature in that to stay afloat, capitalists must expand and compete with other capitalists, captured in his infamous ‘Accumulate, accumulate!’. This competitive struggle is also subject to the crisis of underconsumption and overproduction, which is the result of the increased dead labor and unemployment.

One of the most detrimental features of capitalism is the epidemic of over production, accompanied by the under consumption of the proletariat, deriving from the bourgeoise’s tendency to maximize profit in which they are ignorant in realizing their anticipated value of the capital investment in the production process. This value diminishes in the hands of rising productivity and wealth, lowering the rate of profit and thereby exposing a contradiction in the system as discussed previously. Marx relates the falling rate of profit as inseparable with overproduction; they originate from the same conditions, showing the crises are interlinked in that they arise out of competitive struggle. Jeppe Druedahl captures Marx’s claim on the why overproduction is endemic to capitalism through Marx explains that this possibility of overproduction arises because the capitalist economy is not a barter economy, where commodities are exchanged with commodities, showing the inescapability of self-destruction due to the nature of the capitalist system. Although intrinsically convincing, it is useful to apply his theory. It is also clear to see his theory in action after his death. For example, the Great Depression during the 1930 brought scholars to understand the period in a Marxist light, concluding that overproduction was indeed endemic to capitalism. By the bourgeois class focusing heavily on the maximization of profit, they naturally adapt to the levels of demand by producing more commodities, and in this case, it began with food. It led to, particularly farmers, overproducing commodities which drove the price down without increasing demand, leaving many on the brink of poverty and unemployment as they could not afford the basic necessities. Yet this begs the question to why a country like the United States is currently considered a consumer society by many, such as historian Lawrence Glickman. It is possible that Marx did not appreciate the possibility for intervention in providing help for the working class to avoid underconsumption. Financial sectors like banks can remove the possibility of under consumption and thus will balance the supply and demand. To understand what may look like an invalid theory in today’s economy, it is useful to look at how underconsumption may vary under capitalism’s changing dynamics. Although America is one of the largest input countries, it is said that blue collared Americans can only sustain a basic lifestyle under over borrowing. Although there are now short – term solutions such as more achievable loans, capitalism is unable to sustain this without breeding financial crisis. For example, blue collared Americans have an average personal debt of $38,000, with 50% of their wages paying of these debts. The crisis of overproduction therefore exposes the irrationality of the system, and even a century after the Great Depression, it seems capitalism is still vulnerable to crises like the 2008 global financial crisis, thus validating Marx’s theory.

Marx anticipated the death of capitalism through its inherent unstable nature, particularly in ‘Grundrisse’ and ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’. The nature of the capitalist system is self – destructive as it breeds the potential for financial crises, and crises carry the most frightful devastation in their train, like an earthquake. A financial crisis, according to Marx, is the result of the contradictions inherent in the capitalist structure. The structure that leads to its downfall consists of many inconsistencies, including overproduction; underconsumption and the falling rate of profit. Furthermore, through its little government intervention as a means to improve the production of wealth, it allows for companies to express its thirst for profit. This is the laissez faire aspect, one of which is the core of capitalist countries today as seen in a neoliberal economy, which will be discussed later in this section. Furthermore, the crises of overproduction and little intervention breeds a potential crisis, such as the 2008 global financial crisis. Furthermore, the crisis arose from the collapse of the housing market, which was arguably the result of the inherent capitalist goals of profit maximization. As Andrew Kliman states, the home price bubble of this period undoubtedly boosted profitability artificially by stimulating demand in an unsustainable way. This unsustainable way Kliman speaks of refers to the lending out of subprime loans, of which brought up the housing prices with the risk of the buyers ending up in default (not being able to repay). The risk that these investors and banks took lines up perfectly with Marx’s M-C-M formula. The formula demonstrates the incessant self-expansion aspect of capitalism: M – refers to the money, in which buys commodities in the form of means of production and labor power; C – refers the production of commodities for exchange, and thus more money which is reinvested for more profits. This, according to Marx, is the capitalist structure and that of which will be the cause of a crisis. During 2008, it is clear to see the detriments that the result of more money to invest precipitates future crisis that not only affects the economy, but the average population too. In 2009, the number of unemployment persons grown by 3.6 million since 2007 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009), mirroring Marx’s claim that the financial crisis will attack the working class, referring to the unemployed reserve army of workers.

The apparent inevitability of capitalism self-destructing appears to be logically intelligible, as capitalism is deemed an ever-ending line of profit maximization and self-expansion and cannot sustain itself. However, it is unable to avoid in a capitalist structure. Arguably, state planning and strategic intervention may overcome this notion that capitalism will dismantle itself; this has been particularly evident in the emergence of Keynesianism as a response to the overly deregulated market which caused the 2008 crisis. Keynes’ ideas were based on the idea that with some intervention, the market will prosper without the likeliness of a crisis. Through his ideas on fining countries for the purpose of restraining them from running large trade deficits or surpluses; and his ideas on the government adjusting their fiscal policies, injecting demand into the economy in times of recession and [creating] high employment by either increasing public spending or reducing taxation, it would vanquish the ills of capitalism that Marx anticipated. Marx may have responded by claiming that short term solutions or improvements like investing money to level out demand does not remove the possibility of a crisis; it merely delays one. Henry Hazlitt follows this thought, through his dissecting of Keynesian economics in his book ‘The Critics of Keynesian Economics’ claiming that Keynes failed to see that speculative anticipations and risks are necessarily involved in all economic activity, and that somebody must bear these risks, implying that his theory is based on overly optimistic predictions, disregarding the unpredictability of capitalism. It is clear that Marx’s emphasis on capitalism being self-destructing holds critical value, as the more solutions to overcoming what may have been thought of as mere obstacles, is actually the fundamentals of capitalism which cannot be solved without eradicating it altogether. Therefore, the theories that aim to improve capitalism or discredit Marx’s ability to appreciate the flexibility of capitalism tend to fall apart as they still base their ideas on competition and profit, which inevitably will result in its own downfall and the polarization of the classes.

Class struggle and the mode of production are interlinked within the capitalist system. Marxist dialect encapsulates the motion of history and its relationship with the classes, followed by Marx’s most controversial idea of a mass social revolution. His uses the dialect as a way to understand the social processes that follow from previous systems onto the next and aims to show how revolutions serve as the locomotives of history. Furthermore, by analyzing historical shifts, such as the move from feudalism to capitalism, it is clear to see the productive forces that develop alongside it. With the rise of productivity, as discussed previously, comes issues that lead to its own downfall. His analysis of history through the use of dialect is captured in the ‘Critique of Political Economy’: revolution is the midwife of every old society, which is pregnant with a new one. These advancements in society will lead to a social uprising as the class struggle sharpens, and a social class capable of taking the forces of production forward assumes power from its erstwhile masters. Although, the idea of constant progression and the advancements of productive forces is on the one hand questionable. Critics may argue that this seeming linear notion of history is too decisive and does not predetermine a social revolution. However, Marx’s claims on this progression are not as linear and deterministic as some may have thought. As Terry Eagleton points, stages of productive forces do not dance harmoniously hand in hand throughout history, it involves little guarantee on when or if the new developments will come about. It is the expanding of surplus which introduces the possibility of an uprising to happen once the organization of labor is more advanced than the previous. It is the expanding of surplus which comes at the price of the proletariat, because only with capitalism can enough surplus be generated for the abolition of scarcity, generating the potential for an uprising. Furthermore, this removes the idea that Marx did not fully appreciate the flexibility of capitalism. Marx did in fact appreciate the disordered paths of history and the rigged complexities of society; by using historical materialism he understood that the material conditions vary and therefore a revolution is sought to be a singular uprising, however in today’s age the material conditions seem to lead smaller scale, sporadic uprisings. For example, we can explain the protests such as the anti-capitalist demonstration outside the European Union’s summit in Gothenburg to have been deterred from it becoming large scale because of the advanced militant strength of the opposition.

By exploring Marx’s ideas on the tendency for the rate of profit to fall; the crisis of overproduction, the unstable nature of capitalism and his thought on a social uprising, it is clear that Marx’s work is not only convincing on the idea of self-destruction but proves a great deal in understanding how destructive capitalism is to those who exist within it. Unfortunately, to gather the entirety of his work in relation to capitalism’s own downfall would be exceptionally lengthy, but to understand his key thoughts provides a basis to seeing day to day life as something that exists under material conditions. Therefore, to claim capitalism is self-destructing is not only convincing through his social, political and economic theses, but because it is still extremely useful today. The derived points in this essay show the immense value of his work, and how it can be used to understand current crises and the roots it has within the capitalist structure.

Capitalism Vs Socialism Essay

Capitalism and socialism are somewhat opposing schools of thought in economics. The central arguments in the socialism/capitalism debate are about economic equality and the role of government: socialists believe economic inequality is bad for society and the government is responsible for reducing it via programs that benefit the poor. e.g. free public education, free or subsidized healthcare, social security for the elderly, higher taxes on the rich. On the other hand, capitalists believe that government does not use economic resources as efficiently as private enterprise and therefore society is better off with the free market determining economic winners and losers. This lack of government involvement in the economy is called “laissez faire” (literally “let it be”) The U.S. is widely considered the defender of capitalism and large parts of Scandinavia and Western Europe are socialist democracies. However, the truth is every developed country has some programs that are socialist.

Capitalism

At its root, capitalism is an economic system based on three things: wage labor (working for a wage), private ownership of the means of production (things like factories, machinery, farms, and offices), and production for exchange and profit (you pay for what you get). While some people own means of production, or capital, most of us don’t and so to survive we need to sell our ability to work in return for a wage. In terms of government involvement in the economy, capitalists believe in the principle of “Laissez‐ faire economics, which means to ‘let it be’. Therefore, capitalism is opposed to government intervention in economics because capitalists believe it is inefficient. Rather, a free market produces the best economic outcome for society. Govt. should not pick winners and losers.

Socialism

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production, such as money and other forms of capital, are owned by the state (the government) or public. Under a socialist system, everyone works for wealth that is, in turn, distributed to everyone. Under capitalism, you work for your own wealth. A socialist economic system operates on the premise that what is good for one is good for all. Everyone works for their own good and the good of everyone else. The government decides how wealth is distributed among the people. In a socialist economy, the government provides for the people. The taxes are usually higher than in a capitalist system. There may be government‐run health care and a complete system of government‐ operated education. It is a misconception that people do not pay for these services. They do pay for them through higher taxes. Socialist systems emphasize equal distribution of wealth among the people.

Communism

In a way, communism is an extreme form of socialism. Many countries have dominant socialist political parties but very few are truly communist. The key differences between socialism and communism are due to the fact that socialism is simply an economic system, while communism is both a political/governmental system and an economic system. The second main difference between socialism and communism is that within communism the distribution of goods and services takes place according to the individuals needs, while in a socialist system, goods and services are distributed based on individual efforts (e.g. paying taxes). Finally, within a socialist system, capitalism CAN exist (e.g. privately owned companies), while in a communist system capitalism CANNOT exist.

Influential Leader in the development of Socialist and Communist theory

German economist, philosopher, and revolutionist, and one of the most original and influential thinkers of modern times, Karl Marx produced much of the theory of modern socialism and communism. In his publication the Communist Manifesto, Marx declared that all history was the history of class struggles. Under capitalism, the struggle between the working class and the business class would end in a new society, a communist one.

Difference Between Communism vs. Capitalism

There are different operations, strategies, beliefs, and principles that guide every economic structure. The principles and ideas that are dominating in such territories determine the type of system in operation. Capitalism vs. communism concepts are two contrasting economic systems that are applicable in different places. Indeed, the difference between communism and capitalism is that the former supports equality in society by making economic services owned and controlled by the community. In contrast, the latter seeks to privatize production activities. However, this article will explain more about this discussion.

Communism is a socio-economic structure that supports equality in society. In other words, everyone has a balanced and equivalent level of right to every productive activity and decision. Irrespective of individual contributions, the profit or returns are usually shared equally. In such communities, properties and production activities are equally owned by every member of the society. It could also be referred to as the state-controlled or government economy. However, if it will be described in its real sense as any form of governance wouldn’t exist; no superiority or controlling power is involved. Everyone simply has the common ability and power to make decisions and take similar rewards. The primary aim is for sustainability and survival, so every member of the society simply co-operates to ensure the continuity of society. In fact, no form of privatization exists in communism.

Capitalism is the type of socio-economic system whereby economic activities and ownership are mainly owned and controlled privately. In other words, there is no governance or state ownership. Well, certain individuals control production activities for the purpose of making a profit. Also, this could be described as a system that is characterized by a free market operation. Here, the only contribution of the government is to ensure that appropriate checks and rules exist to regulate the system. More often than not, there is always a very high market competition in such systems that are accompanied by social disparities in terms of product and prices. Sure, any capitalist system aims to make profit. This will ensure efficiency in production since every producer will be willing to have the best rate of demand for its product.

1. Main Differences between Communism vs. Capitalism
2. The table further shows the major disparities between them
3. S/N Basis of comparison Communism Capitalism
4. Meaning It is a socio-economic structure that supports equality in the society. It is the type of socio-economic structure whereby economic activities and ownership are majorly owned and controlled privately.
5. Purpose Social satisfaction Profit making
6. Market Structure There is no free market There is a free market.
7. Market distribution The goods or profits are shared equally, regardless of contributed effort. It is primarliy determined by individual choices.
8. Process of change The key agent of change is the governing body rather than market interaction. The effect of such changes could be slow. Market forces of demand and supply determine the level of change in price and quantity. Similaly, changes are made effective quickly.
9. Production It is determined by the societal needs and what is available. Based on demand and supply.
10. Political system This system is controlled directly by people in an equal manner but with a selected body to govern and regulate the system. This can be operated in anarchism, direct democracy or dictatorship system of politics.
11. Economic decision Financial and monetary decision is based on societal needs. Decision is made by the forces of demand and supply, and partly by regulating rules and policies imposed by the governing body.

In summary, the communism vs. capitalism concepts have clear disparities that are based on societal nature and demands. Without a doubt, the former regards every production service to be owned by the community, whereas capitalism privatizes production services in the economy. These systems also allow governance except in a clear or strictly communized economy. Without looking at other variations, this forms the key difference between capitalism and communism. Since market and production services are privately owned in a capitalist system, then it is expected that everyone works independently. In a similar vein, wealth is expected to be shared based on the needs of society and available resources.

Capitalism vs Democracy Essay

Populism is a term used to describe political movements or parties that have anti-establishment leanings and run on a quasi-tribalistic platform that presents a binary worldview of the “the good and morally pure people [against] the corrupt, self-serving elite (Brett, 2013) and populism exists in both right- and left-wing politics. Despite this, I will primarily focus on right-wing populism. The two most effective lenses to analyse the causes of populism are Constructivism and Marxism; both are useful as to evaluate the threat posed by populism it is first essential to understand why it occurs. This essay argues that while populism presents a threat to the status quo in the short term as can be seen with the Brexit vote and the 2016 US presidential election, the enduring threat posed by populism to democracy itself is minimal and that populism is an inherent characteristic of democracy.

The Marxist account for understanding why populism seems to be on the ascendancy comes from Marx himself. The key to understanding the rise of a populist movement such as the UKIPBrexit party is that capitalism is inherently alienating. The alienation comes from the capitalists extracting the surplus value from the labour of the workers, and this causes dissatisfaction between those workers and the economic and political system as the more value he creates, the more worthless he becomes (Marx, 2021). Leading us to believe that populism arises from capitalism of whose main tenets are exactly what Marx called them: inhuman and alienating.(Otteson, 2012). An important premise that needs to be expressed to realise why populism could be seen as the fault of capitalism, is the demographics of who votes or supports populists. In the Brexit vote, polling data found that the poorest households, with incomes [under] £20,000 per year, (Goodwin and Heath, 2016) were far more likely to support leaving the EU. Other investigations into populism more broadly ruled that the populist parties in Europe represented blue collar workers and those who lost out as a result of globalisation (Wodak, Majid Khosravinik and Mral, 2013. pp15). This makes a convincing argument that it is the poorest people who are most receptive to populist rhetoric due to the Marxist concept of alienation. Though, this analysis becomes undone by one simple question, if it is the case that capitalism is to blame how come the most powerful populists are some of its most ardent supporters?

This question has some potency as Trump arguably the most famous populist is characterised as champion[ing] property and profit, and celebrat[ing]s wealth -especially his own. (Robin, 2017). So, there is a good argument to be believed that the problem is not just as simple as capitalism as the problem. The point of influential populists being pro-capitalist is also reinforced by the policy platform put forward by the Reform Party the new rebranded Brexit party. Their policies were patently pro-business owners and ardently in support of capitalism, (Reform UK, 2021). Still, one of their main policies which were to cut taxes and reduce government waste which many attributes to public sector cuts that have been shown to hurt the poorest in Britain (Aldridge and MacInnes, 2014). This means there is a conceivable argument that the support for policies and parties like Reform UK is a case of turkeys voting for Christmas, that relies on the premise of misdirected anger from capitalist alienation. However as that will result in a circular argument that does not seem to be convincingly solved, I shall move onto the Constructivist account.

The constructivist account also recognises that it seems to be that the poorest in society are the most receptive to populist rhetoric and arguments. The thesis presented by Constructivists to understand the rise of populism comes from the Silent Revolution (SR) and the Cultural Backlash Model (CBM), with both, intersect to claim that as a direct result of the socioeconomic development that occurred in western democracies after world war 2, and how these changes impacted the prevailing views in society. The SR describes how despite the rising inequality in the later 20th century period of economic growth caused a significant increase in most people’s level of financial security. As a direct consequence, there was a shift in politics that eroded materialist values emphasizing economic and physical security above all, bringing a gradual rise of post-materialist values prioritizing individual free choice and self-expression. (Inglehart and Norris, 2019). The CBM argues that this rise in post-materialist issues caused a backlash as those who missed out on the economic gains were still focused on the material, and A Materialist reaction against [the increased attention put on post-materialist issues] led to the [populist parties (Inglehart and Norris, 2017). The CBM provides a convincing account as both the SR and the CBM account for another political shift that is going on as politics seems to be less determined on class especially in the UK (Curtis, 2019), and the ramifications that shift will have on left-wing parties like the UK Labour party. The constructivist account is, therefore, more convincing as, unlike the Marxist explanation its argument is not circular and has wider applications, although both give credence to the argument that socio-economic developments have caused the rise in populism.