Category: Socialism

Introduction

Ukraine became a socialist republic in 1919 after the civil war tore the Russian Empire apart. The country was one of the founding members of the USSR in 1922. The history of the socialist Ukraine is full of dramatic events and deeply entwined with other countries of the Eastern Bloc.

Transforming Into a Socialist State

Ukraine became a socialist republic in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution of 1917. After the Petrograd uprising, the Bolshevik government instigated a rebellion in Kiev. That resulted in the civil war in Ukraine itself between the nationalists, the Bolsheviks, and the foreign intervention forces. The chaos continued until the end of the Soviet-Polish war and the signing of the Peace of Riga in 1921. At that point Ukraine finally became a socialist republic, as most of the resistance forces, including foreign armies, anarchists and nationalists were rooted out by the Communist government. During its early years as a part of the newly formed USSR, Ukraine thrived. The educational programs carried out by the government increased literacy levels and promoted urbanization with more people moving into the cities from their rural homeland.

That time was also marked by the flourishing of the Ukrainian national culture. The support of the central government helped promote national arts. That period lasted until the late 1920s. With Stalin rising to power, the industrialization began. It was aimed at increasing the production of the USSR by any means necessary. In 1929 the forced collectivization started across the USSR. Ukraine also was subjected to the reforms which included forced confiscation of land and possessions of the peasantry for use in the kolkhozes – government-ruled collective farms used to centralize peasant labor. The results of collectivization and the related reforms were especially dire in Ukraine. The country was swept by the widespread famine, as individual and kolkhoz-owned food stocks were confiscated by the secret police called NKVD. The event became known as Holodomor and reportedly took lives of more than 10 million people across Ukraine. It was aimed to cow Ukranian peasants into submission and to prevent the nationalist movement from causing any unrest (Bilinsky, 1999).

Ukraine During the Second World War

During the Second World War, the territory of Ukraine became a part of the Eastern Front. The heavy fighting devastated the country. First, the Soviet troops retreating through Ukraine used the scorched earth strategy to stall the German advance. Soon after, the Nazi troops pillaged all that was left. Ukrainian nationalists saw the German occupation as another chance to reclaim freedom for their country as they viewed the Soviet regime as oppressive and unjust, especially after the Holodomor. The long-time leader of the nationalists Stepan Bandera led the Ukrainian Insurgent Army first against the Germans, then against the Soviets in hopes of creating a truly independent government. However, their methods were more than questionable, as some of their activities included ethnic cleansing of the Poles and attempts to collaborate with the German occupational forces.

Ukraine During the Cold War Era

After the war, Ukraine remained a part of the USSR becoming a member of the Warsaw pact in 1955. The cold war era was peaceful for the country. However, Ukraine remained an important strategic area for the USSR. The city of Dnepropetrovsk housed the largest missile factory in the Union, which prompted the KGB to close the access to the place for foreigners. On the other hand, Lviv in the Western Ukraine was one of the most open cities in the country, full of foreign tourists and black markets where foreigners peddled forbidden goods (Zhuk, 2008).

The Chernobyl Disaster

One of the most dramatic events in the history of Ukraine and the USSR as a whole took place towards the end of the socialist era. On the 26^th of April, 1986 the Chernobyl atomic power plant suffered an explosion of unknown origin. The blast heavily damaged the reactor building and destroyed the reactor itself sending a large amount of the radioactive elements into the atmosphere. The catastrophe caused the radioactive fallout across the Eastern Europe and endangered a large part of the Western Europe as well. It poisoned large areas in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. The effects of the radiation are still felt today as some of the isotopes continue to poison the land. A lot of people gave their lives to stop the leak and prevent further poisoning of the environment. After the incident many foreign leaders saw the Soviet government as incompetent and in need of reformation. The event had an adverse effect on the nuclear industry and the politics of the USSR, causing the acceleration in the reforms.

The End of the USSR

The democratization of Ukraine started with the implementation of the first perestroika and glasnost policies by Gorbachev in 1985. During the late 1980s, the USSR saw a slow transition from the planned economy and autocratic socialist rule to democracy and free market economy. The changes started with the replacements in the government. The old hardliners of the Brezhnev era were substituted with new more open-minded politicians. After the Chernobyl accident and a sharp drop in oil prices the reformation was hastened. New economic rules were implemented, introducing elements of the free market economy. The glasnost policy ended the state censorship and led to the creation of various independently printed oppositional magazines and newspapers. By 1989, it became evident to the Soviet leaders that they were failing. None of the reforms impacted the economy positively and the stagnation was growing deeper and deeper. At that point, the massive political reforms started. For the first time in its history, the USSR saw freely nominated parliamentary candidates. The changes, however, ultimately spelled the end of the Union. In 1991 Gorbachev resigned from his post of the president of the USSR and the next day, USSR ceased to exist and was replaced by the CIS – a union of independent democratic states.

Perestroika and the 1990s

During the perestroika era, the change in Ukraine moved slowly. The country was ruled by an old-time hardliner communist Volodymyr Shcherbytsky. He resigned only after the reforms reached their peak in 1989 and effectively prevented perestroika from reaching Ukraine. By 1990, 90% of the enterprises were still state-owned. That caused a lot of displeasure and contributed to the country breaking away from Russia with the independence referendum of the 1991 (Magosci, 1996). That year marked the end of the Soviet era. Ukraine became a fully independent democratic state. However, the stagnation of the late 1980s was not so easily reverted. All of the former Soviet states suffered a major economic crisis in the early 1990s. Ukraine saw a sharp drop in the GDP, losing 60% by the 1999 (International Monetary Fund, 2007). That was caused by the extortionist tax rates and slow privatization rates which were caused by the corrupt politicians of the early 1990s. The country experienced its fair share of civil unrest and protests in that time. Interestingly, a large part of the economic trouble in the country is attributed to the widespread anti-Russian sentiment which caused the Ukranian government to be reluctant about radical economic reforms, as Russia followed that route (Aslund, 1995). The situation stabilized by the 2000s after the criminal factions were mostly ousted from the government and the necessary economic changes were complete.

Ukraine in the 21^st Century

Since the year 2000, Ukraine has seen two revolutions and is still in the state of civil war. These conflicts are related to the split between the Western and the Eastern Ukraine which has existed since the middle ages. In the Soviet era, the western parts of the country were more liberal and open to the foreigners while the eastern regions were secluded and closely guarded by the government due to their strategic importance. After the disintegration of the USSR, most of the country was united by the anti-Russian sentiment. That has faded over time, and east and west returned to their respective allegiances. In 2004, the bloodless Orange Revolution deposed the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych in favor of a pro-Western coalition led by Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Timoshenko. After a series of economic crisis in the 2004-2009 and the disputes with Russia, Yanukovich returned to power in 2010.

However, the unrest continued in 2014, as Yanukovich broke the Europe integration deal almost sealed by the Ukranian government with the EU. The shift towards pro-Russian policies aggravated the nationalist movement and instigated the uprising which became known as Euromaidan. This revolution was bloody and mired in controversy as the power was seized from Yanukovich, who had to flee the country and move into Russia for protection. The following election was won by the magnate Petro Poroshenko. In the aftermath of the revolution, the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk in the east rebelled against the new regime and Russia annexed, or according to the Russian point of view “reclaimed”, the Crimean peninsula. The separatist movement in the east is supposedly supported by Russia. The fighting between the Ukrainian army and the pro-Russian militants continues to this day. That remains the most serious crisis for the government.

International Economic Support

Economically, the Ukrainian state is highly volatile at the moment. With the civil war going and the Corruption Perception Index labeling Ukraine the most corrupt state in Europe, it is not surprising that the national currency is dropping, and the economy is slowing down. However, the country is closely monitored by the international organizations like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The main focus of the collaborative work with the World Bank, the EU, and the UN is stopping the conflict in the East. The programs include the military aid, the monitoring the situation, and ensuring the agreements reached between the government and the rebels are enacted. The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery under the World Bank plans for the reconstruction and peacebuilding in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions (Rahman, 2014). At the same time, the IMF monitors the economic state of the state as a whole and advises the Ukrainian government on the existing issues.

Conclusion

The Soviet era left its mark on Ukraine. The population still remembers the rule of the USSR, all of the failing and successes of that period. The divide between the west and the east of the country which was strengthened by the communist administration resulted in a recent civil war. However, presently the country is following the route of democracy and free market economy. There are a lot of problems, but the Ukrainian government is working with the international organizations seeking to solve them and bring economic and social stability to the restless country.

References

Aslund, A. (1995). Eurasia Letter: Ukraine’s Turnaround. Foreign Policy 100, 125-143.

Bilinsky, Y. (1999). Was the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 Genocide? Journal of Genocide Research 1(2), 147-156.

International Monetary Fund. (2007).World Economic Outlook Database.Web.

Magocsi, P. (2010). A history of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Rahman, S. (2014). Shaping Ukraine’s Recovery.Web.

Zhuk, S. (2008). Religion, “Westernization,” and Youth in the “Closed City” of Soviet Ukraine, 1964-84. Russian Review 67(4), 661-679.

Introduction

There are a number of significant economic ideologies currently practiced by governments all over the world. Obviously, the most popular ideology is capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership of property and the means of production and each individual is responsible for their own lives.

Socialism is another significant ideology that promises to transform government systems and create a world where fairness and prosperity for all is guaranteed. In spite of its inspiring promises, socialism continues to be viewed with suspicion by many governments and citizens who express doubts about its ability to work. This paper will argue that socialism could work with significant benefits for the entire society.

Socialism: A Definition

Ludwig (2009) defines Socialism as “a policy which aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized” (p.20). Socialism advocates for the abolition of the private-enterprise economy favoured by capitalism and the establishment of a system where public ownership maintains a dominant position in the economy.

Why Socialism can Work

Socialism will lead to a more sustainable community characterized by low poverty rates. High government involvement and a huge welfare system will lead to greater distribution of wealth among the citizenry. Citizens of many developed nations are beginning to acknowledge that the capitalistic system is unsustainable.

Problems such as starvation and homelessness are being experienced by the richest countries in the world due to a lack of emphasis on social services. Socialism is characterized by an emphasis on provision of social services by the government. Galbraith and Ludmila (2004) document that this crucial services decrease the mortality rate and increase the standards of living for the citizens.

In a socialistic society, the government in exchange for high taxation guarantees pension, housing, and healthcare. Norway, a country that leans to socialism, enjoys very low poverty rates and unemployment rates compared to countries that are primarily capitalistic such as the US. Socialism can work in the current environment where poverty levels are rising and unemployment rates are increasing in most countries.

Socialism can work since it provides a feasible way to deal with the gross inequalities that the world currently faces due to capitalism. Citizens in both developing and developed nations all over the world are experiencing growing income disparities that are increasing the divide between the rich and the poor.

These social injustices can be blamed on an exploitative capitalistic system that rewards the capital owners at the expense of the labour providers (Schwartz & Schulman 2000). Socialism is the most favourable system for the working class who make up the majority of the population in all countries. The socialism system insists that the worker should play a bigger role in the decision making process in the industry.

By doing this, the worker will play an active role in the community and therefore address the imbalances that exist due to the capitalistic system which has made workers inactive players in the industry. Adopting socialism will ensure that a fair system is adopted therefore bringing about social equality.

Socialism might work since it provides a means to amend the ills that society currently faces because of capitalism. Specifically, the system proposes to bring back an emphasis on important human values such as compassion and altruism (Ludwig 2009). Because of the individualistic nature of capitalism, these values have been all but destroyed with the emphasis being placed on making a profit no matter the human cost.

Socialism will bring back these human values since the system will emphasis on the collective well being of society members. This system will obligate people to put the interest of others ahead of their own and work towards the common interest. It is conceivable that once people see the advantage that

A Case against Socialism

Opponents of socialism argue that this system would result in a significant reduction in production since people would not have a strong motivation to put direct their energies towards optimal production. A major concept of socialism is that the economy should be run to meet the needs of the majority and not to enrich a few individuals (Busky 2000).

This collectivist ideology would be very demoralizing since persons will not be justly rewarded for their individual efforts. However, this argument is based on presumptions as opposed to absolute facts. Socialism does not encourage laziness as can be deduced from the socialist principle, which declares “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” (Busky 2000, p.115). It can therefore be expected that people will continue working hard even in an economic system that favours public ownership.

The wealth and advancement currently enjoyed by the world can be credited to the capitalistic system. For this reason, policy makers and citizens fear that a socialism system will lead to a decrease in wealth creation and advancement. This fear is not unfounded since historically, countries that practice capitalism have experienced greater growth than those practising socialism (Ludwig 2009).

Private ownership is therefore regarded as the foundation of economic growth and advancement. However, public ownership does not necessarily lead to poor economic performance as can be seen from the case of China, which has experienced monumental economic growths over the last 2 decades in spite of having a system that is characterized by centralized planning and majority public ownership (Ludwig 2009).

Discussion

In spite of all the many merits of socialism, capitalism has continued to gain significant support in countries all over the world. While detractors of socialism might see this as a suggestion that a socialistic society would not be feasible, this is not the case. Molyneux (2009) reveals that most people raised in capitalistic societies have been conditioned to view socialism with suspicion and react unfavourably to it.

People assume that socialism is synonymous to a charity state where people refuse to work and instead rely on government handouts. The discussions presented in this paper have demonstrated that socialism does not necessarily result in reduced production. Instead, the system encourages equal distribution and overcomes the many social injustices heightened by capitalism.

Conclusion

This paper set out to argue that the socialism system could work in the world today with significant benefits for everyone. It began by offering a definition of socialism and proceeded to state some of the reasons why the socialism system can work. Socialism will offer a solution to the harms caused by capitalism and lead to a more equitable society.

The paper has also reviewed some of the arguments against socialism and offered rebuttals to the same. From this paper, it is clear that socialism can work in the modern world. However, for this to happen, people need to be educated on what socialism entails in order to remove the many misconceptions and prejudices that most individuals in capitalistic societies have concerning socialism.

References

Busky, DF 2000, Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Greenwood Publishing Group, New York.

Galbraith, J & Ludmila, K 2004, ‘The Experience of Rising Inequality in Russia and China during the Transition’, The European Journal of Comparative Economics, vol. 1, no.1, pp. 87-106.

Ludwig, M 2009, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Frankfurt.

Molyneux, J 2009, ‘Socialism can Work’, Socialist Review. Web.

Schwartz, J & Schulman, J 2000, Towards Freedom: Democratic Socialist Theory and Practice.

Introduction: Definition of Socialism

Socialism/leftism is a political and economic ideology that advocates for a collective regulation of the means of production in a given society. In other words, socialists believe that for a society to be successful, its wealth should be governed by society for the benefit of the entire community. In a different sense, socialism refers to a system where all people have the right to intervene in governing decisions that have a direct impact on them.

Today, many people are concerned with the question of whether socialism has been successful in countries where it is practiced. The answer to this question depends on what is agreed upon as “success” in this relationship. To some people, a successful political system is the one that offers a high level of satisfaction and the quality of living to its citizenry. As the paper reveals, despite its shortcomings, socialism is a feasible economic and political system that affords people high levels of happiness, job security, and consumer protection relative to people living in capitalist societies.

Socialism as a Feasible Economic and Political System

Socialism is a feasible economic and political system because it helps to eliminate greed in the society, hence preventing the accumulation of much wealth by a small proportion of the population. According to Schumpeter, socialism facilitates the redistribution of wealth, which in turn reduces income disparities in society.¹ Presently, American society is suffering from income inequality whereby one percent of the population controls all the resources at the expense of the rest of the people.

As such, poorer people face hardships such as being unable to afford basic healthcare and proper diet. Conversely, in countries that have embraced socialism, people benefit from universal healthcare that is affordable to all. For instance, as Wedge and Currie reveal, healthcare in Canada focuses on universal coverage, which has resulted in better health for Canadians when compared to people in the United States.² Consequently, healthy people are more productive.

Hence, they can drive economic success. Also, socialist countries post higher standards of education relative to their capitalist counterparts. Hahl, Järvinen, and Juuti present Finland as an example, which is one of the leading countries in terms of qualities of education and hence the view that socialism is a feasibility political and economic system.³

The Case of Present-day Social Democratic Countries

As revealed in the lecture notes by Seay, in socio-democratic countries, the basic needs of the people are met freely and with ease.⁴ Such needs include access to proper healthcare, diet, and housing. This goal is achieved by structuring the economy in a manner, which avails equal opportunities for all people. The basic tenet of socialism is the belief that it is unfair for some people to thrive at the expense of others.

As such, according to Williams, all resources are distributed fairly based on the need to satisfy people’s needs.⁵ Based on the lecture notes by Seay, this perspective is different from that of capitalists who focus on making a rip off on other people’s basic needs.⁶ Utilizing the example of healthcare insurance, the United States has failed in affording universal coverage because health care systems value profits over the health of the people. Hence, they are noncommittal to health outcomes. Also, in capitalist societies, only the rich can afford high-quality education offered by private schools as opposed to public education.

Socialism as a feasible economic system facilitates the mobilization of goods based on necessity rather than profitability. In this type of cost-effective system, the focus on genuine necessity eliminates potentially harmful behaviors such as hoarding and the existence of cartels. Thus, the existence of such unethical practices is evidence that the concept of “free markets” has been watered down by greed in capitalist economies.

Conversely, in a socialist society, goods are distributed based on a democratically laid down plan.⁷ Consequently, all people have access to basic goods whenever they need them. Importantly, because demand is managed properly, the threat of inflation is limited. As a result, socialist countries rarely face the risk of becoming bankrupt due to the reduction in the value of their currencies. An example of a capitalist nation that nearly became bankrupt in recent times is Greece.

International labor provisions on minimum wage are respected and emphasized in socialist nations. This situation proves that socialism is a feasible political system. As a result, people’s pay is commensurate with the amount of work they perform. The exploitation that is typical of capitalist societies is absent in the socialist world. As a result, people lead healthy lives because they earn more without having to take up two or more jobs.

Besides, being properly paid means that people in socialist setups have higher standards of living relative to their counterparts in capitalist societies. Silvasti provides an example of the Scandinavian nations where the citizens enjoy much higher living standards when compared to Americans.⁸ Also, the rate of unemployment in these countries is low because institutions and organizations work to create equal opportunities for all people.

Notwithstanding, opponents of Socialism such as Kaminski believe it leads to the production of poor quality goods since people are not motivated to put their best effort.⁹ Others also argue that socialism encourages laziness due to the absence of individual initiative. True, countries such as China and Russia lagged in the industrial revolution due to socialism.¹⁰ As the means of production are commonly held, there is no motivation to excel, as is the case with capitalism, whereby individuals feel the urge to outshine each other. However, laziness is in human nature. As such, it exists everywhere. Hence, it would be erroneous to blame people’s lack of motivation for socialism. The motivation to work is rather intrinsic and does not depend on an external political ideology to be exhibited.

Socialism leads to slow economic growth due to the lack of entrepreneurial opportunities. Major investments and technological research depend on the availability of massive resources such as those owned by wealthy individuals. For example, companies, including Apple and Tesla, have been successful because of the availability of disposable resources to carry out market research concerning the said products. Besides, this argument does not apply in the case of modern socialist states such as Finland and Norway, which are home to some of the most progressive companies in the world. Also, the economy of the Nordic countries cannot be said to be stagnant since they have high GDPs and impressive annual growth indices. Hence, the argument that socialism discourages economic or political growth is misplaced.

Conclusion

Communism has been both lauded and criticized with equal zest. Proponents argue that it eliminates greed hence, attracting income disparity in society. On the other hand, opponents believe that socialism encourages laziness and consequently, slows economic growth. However, despite its apparent drawbacks, socialism has been a success in countries such as Finland and Norway, with their citizens enjoying impressive standards of living, universal coverage in health care, and job security among other benefits.

Bibliography

Hahl, Kaisa, Heini-Marja Järvinen, and Kalle Juuti. “Accommodating to English‐Medium Instruction in Teacher Education in Finland.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 26, no. 3 (December 2016): 291-310.

Kaminski, Bartlomiej. The Collapse of State Socialism: The Case of Poland. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014.

Schumpeter, Joseph. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London, England: Routledge, 2013.

Seay, W. “The Origins of Political Economy.” Lecture, the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 2017.

Silvasti, Tiina. “Food Aid–Normalizing the Abnormal in Finland.” Social Policy and Society 14, no. 3 (2015): 471-482.

Wedge, Richard, and Dayne Currie.”System-Level Reform in Healthcare Delivery for Patients and Populations Living with Chronic Disease.” Healthcare Papers 15, no. 1 (2015): 67-73.

Williams, Raymond. Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism. Brooklyn, NY: Verso Books, 2016.

Footnotes

1. Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (London, England: Routledge, 2013), 50.
2. Richard Wedge and Dayne Currie, “System-Level Reform in Healthcare Delivery for Patients and Populations Living with Chronic Disease,” Healthcare Papers 15, no. 1 (2015): 67.
3. Kaisa Hahl, Heini-Marja Järvinen, and Kalle Juuti, “Accommodating to English‐Medium Instruction in Teacher Education in Finland,” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 26, no. 3 (2016): 293.
4. W. Seay, “The Origins of Political Economy” (lecture, the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 2017).
5. Raymond Williams, Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism (Brooklyn, NY: Verso Books, 2016), 200.
6. Seay, “The Origins of Political Economy”.
7. Ibid.
8. Tiina Silvasti, “Food Aid–Normalizing the Abnormal in Finland,” Social Policy and Society 14, no. 3 (2015): 472.
9. Bartlomiej Kaminski, The Collapse of State Socialism: The Case of Poland (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014), 155.
10. Ibid.

Contemporary politics comprise an array of approaches, which show varying results upon long-term implementation. The relation between market trade and the involvement of the state from one of the primary aspects upon which such models are compared. The Washington Consensus was a popular policy at the end of the 20^th century, but it showed mixed results. Simultaneously, socialism was one of the dominant models throughout the previous century. Despite its large-scale collapse in the 1990s, it managed to survive into the present in a different form. Both policies demonstrate particular differences in the context of the balance between the state and the market. The purpose of this essay is to explore both models and compare their approaches to state regulation in the market.

The Washington Consensus was an important political model of the 20^th century recommended for emerging economies. According to Moosa and Moosa, this policy was actively developed by organizations based in Washington, D.C., namely the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (19). The primary points of the doctrine are neoliberal in nature, encouraging free market relations. The Washington Consensus promotes direct foreign investments, as well as market-determined interest and exchange rates. This model implies that the role of the government in the economy must be reduced, thus allowing the market to organize itself. These principles derive from developed democracies, such as the United States, which aimed at providing emerging economies with a clear framework of sustainable growth. Overall, the Washington Consensus made an attempt to introduce democratic, free-market values into the economies of developing countries.

On the other hand, socialism has been an opposing force to capitalism and its principles. Gilbert states that this model aims at confronting the principles of neoliberalism, relying on the centuries-old dogmas of classical socialism and Marxism (33). Proponents of such policies claim the neoliberalist approach leads to greater labor market insecurity and increased individualism. According to Gilbert, the primary objective of 21^st-century socialism is to encourage people to work together, thus meeting the goal of networking (35). In other words, society must demonstrate a stronger sense of unity and cooperation in the economic context, whereas the state should regulate market relations to ensure stability. 21^st-century socialism opposes the dominant model of capitalist rule in the light of technological progress, promoting equal sharing of knowledge among all people. This approach dwells on the dogmas of its prior iterations while adjusting itself to contemporary reality.

The two models discussed above share common human-centric ideas while being inherently different. Moosa and Moosa write that the Washington Consensus promoted liberty of trade as the only path to sustainable growth for developing economies (20). At the same time, it said that the model had a negative impact in terms of the increasing domination of large, multinational corporations. As a result, many players lost their share of the market in the countries where the Washington Consensus was in effect. Socialism of the 21^st century takes an opposing stance in this regard, as Gilbert argues that industry giants, such as Apple, must be transformed into workers’ cooperatives (36). This way, regular people are expected to wield the actual power of the economy instead of being elements of a globalized system. Both policy sets have demonstrated mixed results, which explains their position in the modern environment.

In conclusion, the Washington Consensus and 21^st-century socialism promote opposing ideas. The former aims at free-market relations, in which the role of the state is reduced to a minimum. Socialism recognizes the power of the government in terms of market regulation, considering its role one of paramount importance. Overall, neither policy set managed to dominate the political landscape, which is why classic forms of democracy determine present-day economic development.

Works Cited

Gilbert, Jeremy. “Models of Anti-Neoliberalism: Moralism, Marxism, and 21^st Century Capitalism”. Alternatives to Neoliberalism: Towards Equality and Democracy, edited by Bryn Jones and Mike O’Donnell, Policy Press, 2017, pp. 27-40.

Moosa, Imad A., and Moosa, Nisreen. Eliminating the IMF. Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.