how to solve basic economic problems under socialism

Solution to the Basic Economic Problems: Capitalistic, Socialistic and Mixed Economy

Solution to the Basic Economic Problems: Capitalistic, Socialistic and Mixed Economy!

Uneven distribution of natural resources, lack of human specialization and technological advancement etc., hinders the production of goods and services in an economy. Every economy has to face the problems of what to produce, how to produce and for whom to produce. More or less, all the economies use two important methods to solve these basic problems.

These methods are:

(a) Free price mechanism and

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(b) Controlled price system or State intervention.

Price mechanism is defined as a system of guiding and coordinating the decisions of every individual unit within an economy through the price determined with the help of the free play of market forces of demand and supply. Such system is free from state intervention.

Price of goods and services are determined when quantity demanded becomes equal to the quantity supplied. Price mechanism facilitates determination of resource allocation, determination of factor incomes, level of savings, consumption and production. Price mechanism basically takes place in a capitalistic economy.

On the other hand, Controlled price mechanism is defined as a system of state interventio n of administering or fixing the prices of the goods and services. In a socialist economy, the government plays a vital role in determining the price of the goods and services. The government may introduce ‘ceiling price’ or ‘floor price’ policy to regulate prices.

However, how a capitalist, a socialist and a mixed economic system solve their basic problems is given below:

1. Solution to Basic Problems in a Capitalistic Economy:

Under capitalistic economy, allocation of various resources takes place with the help of market mechanism. Price of various goods and services including the price of factors of production are determined with help of the forces of demand and supply. Free price mechanism helps producers to decide what to produce.

The goods which are more in demand and on which consumers can afford to spend more, are produced in larger quantity than those goods or services which have lower demand. The price of various factors of production including technology helps to decide production techniques or methods of production. Rational producer intends to use those factors or techniques which has relatively lower price in the market.

Factor earnings received by the employers of factors of production decides spending capacity of the people. This helps producers to identify the consumers for whom goods could be produced in larger or smaller quantities. Price mechanism works well only if competition exists and natural flow of demand and supply of goods is not disturbed artificially.

2. Solution to Basic Problems in a Socialistic Economy:

Under socialistic economy, the government plays an important role in decision making. The government undertakes to plan, control and regulate all the major economic activities to solve the basic economic problems. All the major economic policies are formulated and implemented by the Central Planning Authority.

In India, Planning Commission was entrusted with this task of planning. The Planning Commission of India has now been replaced by another central authority NITI Ayog (National Institution for Transforming India). Therefore, the central planning authority takes the decisions to overcome the economic problems of what to produce, how to produce and for whom to produce.

The central planning authority decides the nature of goods and services to be produced as per available resources and the priority of the country. The allocation of resources is made in greater volume for those goods which are essential for the nation. The state’s main objectives are growth, equality and price stability. The government implements fiscal policies such as taxation policy, expenditure policy, public debt policy or policy on deficit financing in order to achieve the above objectives.

The methods of production or production techniques are also determined or selected by the central planning authority. The central planning authority decides whether labor intensive technique or capital intensive technique is to be used for the production. While deciding the appropriate method, social and economic conditions of the economy are taken into consideration.

Under socialistic economy, every government aims to achieve social justice through its actions. All economic resources are owned by the government. People can work for wages which are regulated by the government as per work efficiency. The income earned determines the aggregate demand in an economy. This helps the government in assessing the demand of goods and services by different income groups.

3. Solution to Basic Problems in a Mixed Economy:

Practically, neither capitalistic economy nor socialistic economy exists in totality. Both the economic systems have limitations. Consequently, a new system of economy has emerged as a blend of the above two systems called mixed economy. Therefore, mixed economy is defined as a system of economy where private sectors and public sectors co-exist and work side by side for the welfare of the country.

Under such economies, all economic problems are solved with the help of free price mechanism and controlled price mechanism (economic planning).

Free price mechanism operates within the private sector; hence, prices are allowed to change as per demand and supply of goods. Therefore, private sector can produce goods as per their demand and their price in the market. The government may control and regulate production of the private sector through its monetary policy or fiscal policy.

On the other hand, controlled price mechanism (economic planning) is used for the public sector by the planning authority. The goods and services to be produced in the public sector, hence, are determined by the central planning authority.

Private sector determines the production technique or production method on the basis of factor prices, availability of technology etc. On the other hand, production technique or production method for the public sector is determined by the central planning authority. While determining the production technique for the public sector, national priority, national employment policy and social objectives are major considerations.

Private sector allocates its resources to produce those goods which are demanded by people who command high purchasing power. Although, production by the private sector is sometimes controlled and regulated by the government through various policies such as licensing policy, taxation policy, subsidy etc., the price determined by free price mechanism may go beyond the purchasing power of low or marginal income group.

Therefore, the government may undertake production of certain goods in its hands. The rationing policy is also introduced to provide essential goods at reasonable price to the poor people. The government, thus, ensures social justice by its actions in the mixed economy.

Basic Problems of an Economy and Price Mechanism (FAQs)
Mixed Economy: Meaning, Features and Types of Mixed Economy
Price Mechanism: in Free, Socialistic and Mixed Economy
5 Basic Problems of an Economy (With Diagram)

UC Berkeley’s Premier Undergraduate Economics Journal

Socialism’s Economic Calculation Problem

EVAN DAVIS – October 31st, 2022 EDITOR: AAYUSH SINGH

“Socialism… has a record of failure so blatant only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.” – Thomas Sowell

When the Berlin Wall fell and Soviet Russia collapsed, capitalism triumphed over socialism on the global stage. Or… so we thought.

Today, renewed interest in socialism among younger generations has resulted in an upswing in anti-capitalist rhetoric, with politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez marketing themselves as socialists and promising more government intervention in the economy. This has resulted in backlash from followers of capitalist thought, with Donald Trump declaring that America will never turn to socialism .

But is socialism even wrong? Arguments against socialism span a wide range of critiques, from the difficulty in its implementation to human selfishness . While these claims concern socialism’s practicality, one argument against socialism pushes a different idea altogether: that even in theory, socialism is untenable: the economic calculation problem (ECP).

What is the ECP?

To understand the ECP, it is first necessary to outline the underlying concept. Economic calculation refers to the ability of businesses and entrepreneurs in a market to use available prices to predict or calculate the net profitability of economic projects by calculating expected profit and loss. As economist Per Bylund covers in his book How to Think About the Economy: A Primer , the goal of a business or entrepreneur is to turn a profit: earn more money from consumers than they spend. Entrepreneurs are the driving forces of change in an economy, as they constantly innovate in ways big and small. Their expected profit is what determines which resources they use up. Higher expected profits mean they expect to generate more value for consumers, and can thus afford to buy more expensive, in-demand, and scarce resources. Lower expected profits mean lower expected value generation, resulting in a constrained ability to use up valuable resources. While entrepreneurs can be mistaken, their correct guesses facilitate a process which drives economic progress, and the price system indirectly allocates resources to where they are expected to produce the most value.

The price system and the resulting system of profit and loss exists because of our market economy. State socialism (socialism without markets) abolishes the market economy as the system of production and distribution of scarce resources, replacing it with a system of centralized planning. The ECP is essentially the issue socialism has with figuring out how to distribute resources between different productive sectors of the economy without market prices, profit, and loss. Consider how a central planner would determine where to distribute wood. How much would go towards production of pencils? How much towards chairs? Tables? Houses? Doors? Firewood? Paper cards? The same problem exists for gasoline, steel, and any other resource in an economy, which goes into direct production of commodities, production of machines used to produce commodities, production of transportation for machines and commodities, etc. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises states in his book Socialism , without market prices, “All economic change… would be a leap in the dark. Socialism is the renunciation of rational economy.”

It should be clarified that the ECP applies to a Marxian conception of socialism, involving the abolition of capitalism. Social democracy, the model European countries such as France and Italy follow, and strong traits of which can be observed in places such as Nordic Europe and even the United States, is still broadly capitalism, yet the government involves itself heavily in regulating the economy and providing social services. This is not socialism in a strict sense; the ECP does not apply.

It is also worth noting that this problem applies mainly to centrally planned socialist societies. There exist forms of ‘market socialism’, where competitive markets remain, but hierarchical business models are entirely replaced by co-ops. But the majority of Marxian socialists see market competition as an anarchic issue of unplanned chaos to be solved through central planning.

Empirical Evidence

The ECP in the past has been a verifiable problem in socialist societies. The most notable example was the USSR, the earliest large-scale attempt at a planned socialist economy.

After the Bolsheviks seized power, in 1918 they banned private trade, nationalized almost all industry, and seized control of food products . The pressure of this attempt at planning, combined with the effects of the Russian civil war, destroyed the economy. Trotsky admitted that Russia’s economic collapse “surpassed anything of the kind that history had ever seen,” leaving the country staring into the “abyss.” To rectify this issue, Vladimir Lenin was forced to re-introduce what he’d fought to abolish: markets. His New Economic Policy (NEP) allowed for limited free market trade, and it was able to jump-start the Soviet economy back to pre-war levels.

However, in 1929, Lenin’s successor, Joseph Stalin, abolished the NEP. With the reintroduction of a more planned economy, the USSR and socialist societies that followed were left with a problem: they would have to include some sort of non-market “monetary” calculation in their planning models. Economist Paul Cockshott from the University of Glasgow writes, “if there are hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, of distinct products, no central planning authority could hope to keep track of them all… by resorting to monetary targets, the socialist economies were already conceding part of Mises’s argument. They were resorting to the monetary calculation that he had declared to be vital to any economic rationality…”

The ECP can be glaringly observed when Stalin outlined an issue where planners had submitted faulty pricing proposals which failed to account for the relative scarcity of cotton and bread to grain, stating, “what would have happened if the proposal of these comrades had received legal force? We should have ruined the cotton growers and would have found ourselves without cotton.” While market prices would account for scarcity as businesses adjust them to maximize profit, the planners in the USSR found themselves grasping blindly for proper prices to set.

Studies have also shown that allocative efficiency (distribution of goods and resources to where they are needed most) in the USSR was very low. According to the 2019 Presidential Economic Report , socialist planning and pricing policy in the USSR – including “excessive centralization of the planning, control, and management of agriculture, inappropriate price policies, and defective incentive systems” – reduced Soviet agricultural output by about 50%. Furthermore, an empirical study on Soviet industry found “low levels of allocative efficiency.” Former Soviet Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar even gives numerous concrete examples of material inefficiency in his book Collapse of an Empire .

Other socialist societies have also attempted to grapple with the ECP, notably socialist Chile. Under Marxian President Salvador Allende, Chile attempted to develop a planning model for the economy known as Project Cybersyn . It was never completed. In the meantime, Allende implemented a transition towards socialism involving “a strategy of income distribution, expansion of government programmes and services, state control of key industries and extension of land reform…” The state mandated higher wages, while prices for goods and services were barred from rising. As a result, goods became scarce, and hyperinflation took place.

Due to the replacement of market allocation mechanisms with socialist policy (as opposed to the empirically refuted explanation of an “invisible blockade” ), Chile’s economy continued to worsen. To try to curb hyperinflation, Allende implemented “rationing, price controls, and the nationalization of product distribution,” which led to “massive shortages, hoarding, and queuing.” While Pinochet’s dictatorial regime committed far more human rights violations and had economic problems of its own, Allende’s catastrophic economic mismanagement through planning measures such as rationing and wage and price distortions had destroyed the Chilean economy before a central planning system was even fully implemented.

Further empirical analysis comparing market economies to planned economies as a whole showed that almost all planned economies in the Soviet Bloc were substantially less allocatively efficient than almost all measured market economies. The sole exception was Bulgaria, which was successfully experimenting with markets at the time.

Despite the evidence, the ECP as an argument has not gone unchallenged. A variety of socialist and non-socialist academics have done their best to attempt to discredit the ECP, either by undermining its foundations or creating planning models which try to circumvent the issue entirely.

One common objection is that capitalism does not achieve complete efficiency: resources are wasted every day. This argument is often put forward by Keynesians, who note that competition is imperfect, markets are disequilibrated, workers are unemployed, and resources are idle. However, as economists Bylund and William Hutt note, complete efficiency cannot be achieved by any economic system, markets included. As long as desires and conditions are in flux, change occurs, and equilibrium shifts, always sought rather than reached. Thus, resources have to shift hands to adjust for the shift in equilibrium, meaning complete efficiency is more of a target to be moved toward than actually hit. Furthermore, leaving resources and labor “idle” allows for long-term investment plans to take fruition, and labor to switch between industries as economic conditions change. This dynamic process is something socialism, to the extent that it lacks market prices, does not share.

Neoclassical economist Bryan Caplan objects that the ECP is not a serious problem for socialism. He argues that other problems were more damaging. It’s true these problems exist. F.A. Hayek’s Knowledge Problem posits that prices convey information about consumer desires, and without prices, this decentralized information isn’t properly distributed. Planning models may simply be computationally intractable , and issues with incentives certainly existed under socialism. However, the ECP is still a fundamental problem which empirically cripples socialism, even if other factors contributed to its downfall.

Socialists such as Cockshott and Jan Dapprich from the University of Glasgow have objected that the ECP is irrelevant, because it’s already been solved through modernized central planning models. These models take available resources in an economy as inputs, and optimize material production of desired outputs, often sold on a market where wages and prices are determined by the state. Production is planned; if distribution isn’t, the market for goods is heavily regulated.

First off, by leaving a market for consumer goods (goods such as food which are immediately consumed), many socialist solutions already concede the inefficiency of planning when it comes to distributing commodities. However, none of these “solutions” to the ECP extend the same considerations to capital goods (resources used for producing other goods). If producers can’t trade capital goods when they could better use other capital goods, production cannot be optimized as economic conditions change. Furthermore, the innovative drive of entrepreneurship is eliminated, as capital goods cannot be traded to be used in entrepreneurial endeavors. The process driving growth under markets is removed, leaving behind the inefficiency that has historically plagued socialist societies which utilized planning models and pre-set plans. It is important to remember this inefficiency. As previously mentioned, the USSR, operating under a series of central plans, was horrifically inefficient despite its planners’ best efforts. What remains to be desired in these solutions is that they don’t imitate a market well enough.

In the future, could theoretical supercomputers, given enough information about the physical world and wired up to people’s brains, successfully simulate their interactions and the resulting market economy (thus overcoming the ECP by perfectly predicting the market economy), before improving upon it to try and maximize human happiness? This near omniscient-level of required accuracy presents a completely unsolvable problem for any society which isn’t both totalitarian and far more technologically capable than ours today. It’s questionable if this solution is even possible, and in such an advanced future society, such planning might not even be strictly necessary if scarcity is effectively abolished beforehand.

In conclusion, does the ECP make a rational implementation of socialism impossible? In a literal sense, no. However, given the inability of today’s advanced technology to successfully simulate and surpass market functions needed for rational economic activity, the ECP remains a serious issue for socialist societies for the foreseeable future. Without it being solved, capitalism will continue to outperform socialism in nearly all cases. As Mises wrote in his magnum opus Human Action , “Socialism is an alternative to capitalism as potassium cyanide is an alternative to water.”

Featured Image Source: Wikimedia Commons

Disclaimer: The views published in this journal are those of the individual authors or speakers and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of Berkeley Economic Review staff, the Undergraduate Economics Association, the UC Berkeley Economics Department and faculty, or the University of California, Berkeley in general.

Share this article:

Is economic man really a rational agent?

Social Security: An Answer for Developing Nations

subscribe to our Monthly Newsletter!

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons
Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

20.2: Socialist Systems in Action

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 21800

Learning Objective

Describe the operation of the command socialist system in the Soviet Union, including its major problems.
Explain how Yugoslavian-style socialism differed from that of the Soviet Union.
Discuss the factors that brought an end to command socialist systems in much of the world.

The most important example of socialism was the economy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Soviet Union. The Russian Revolution succeeded in 1917 in overthrowing the czarist regime that had ruled the Russian Empire for centuries. Leaders of the revolution created the Soviet Union in its place and sought to establish a socialist state based on the ideas of Karl Marx.

The leaders of the Soviet Union faced a difficulty in using Marx’s writings as a foundation for a socialist system. He had sought to explain why capitalism would collapse; he had little to say about how the socialist system that would replace it would function. He did suggest the utopian notion that, over time, there would be less and less need for a government and the state would wither away. But his writings did not provide much of a blueprint for running a socialist economic system.

Lacking a guide for establishing a socialist economy, the leaders of the new regime in Russia struggled to invent one. In 1917, Lenin attempted to establish what he called “war communism.” The national government declared its ownership of most firms and forced peasants to turn over a share of their output to the government. The program sought to eliminate the market as an allocative mechanism; government would control production and distribution. The program of war communism devastated the economy. In 1921, Lenin declared a New Economic Policy. It returned private ownership to some sectors of the economy and reinstituted the market as an allocative mechanism.

Lenin’s death in 1924 precipitated a power struggle from which Joseph Stalin emerged victorious. It was under Stalin that the Soviet economic system was created. Because that system served as a model for most of the other command socialist systems that emerged, we shall examine it in some detail. We shall also examine an intriguing alternative version of socialism that was created in Yugoslavia after World War II.

Command Socialism in the Soviet Union

Stalin began by seizing virtually all remaining privately-owned capital and natural resources in the country. The seizure was a brutal affair; he eliminated opposition to his measures through mass executions, forced starvation of whole regions, and deportation of political opponents to prison camps. Estimates of the number of people killed during Stalin’s centralization of power range in the tens of millions. With the state in control of the means of production, Stalin established a rigid system in which a central administration in Moscow determined what would be produced.

The justification for the brutality of Soviet rule lay in the quest to develop “socialist man.” Leaders of the Soviet Union argued that the tendency of people to behave in their own self-interest was a by-product of capitalism, not an inherent characteristic of human beings. A successful socialist state required that the preferences of people be transformed so that they would be motivated by the collective interests of society, not their own self-interest. Propaganda was widely used to reinforce a collective identity. Those individuals who were deemed beyond reform were likely to be locked up or executed.

The political arm of command socialism was the Communist party. Party officials participated in every aspect of Soviet life in an effort to promote the concept of socialist man and to control individual behavior. Party leaders were represented in every firm and in every government agency. Party officials charted the general course for the economy as well.

A planning agency, Gosplan, determined the quantities of output that key firms would produce each year and the prices that would be charged. Other government agencies set output levels for smaller firms. These determinations were made in a series of plans. A 1-year plan specified production targets for that year. Soviet planners also developed 5-year and 20-year plans.

Managers of state-owned firms were rewarded on the basis of their ability to meet the annual quotas set by the Gosplan. The system of quotas and rewards created inefficiency in several ways. First, no central planning agency could incorporate preferences of consumers and costs of factors of production in its decisions concerning the quantity of each good to produce. Decisions about what to produce were made by political leaders; they were not a response to market forces. Further, planners could not select prices at which quantities produced would clear their respective markets. In a market economy, prices adjust to changes in demand and supply. Given that demand and supply are always changing, it is inconceivable that central planners could ever select market-clearing prices. Soviet central planners typically selected prices for consumer goods that were below market-clearing levels, causing shortages throughout the economy. Changes in prices were rare.

Plant managers had a powerful incentive for meeting their quotas; they could expect bonuses equal to about 35% of their base salary for producing the quantities required of their firms. Those who exceeded their quotas could boost this to 50%. In addition, successful managers were given vacations, better apartments, better medical care, and a host of other perquisites. Managers thus had a direct interest in meeting their quotas; they had no incentive to select efficient production techniques or to reduce costs.

Perhaps most important, there was no incentive for plant managers to adopt new technologies. A plant implementing a new technology risked start-up delays that could cause it to fall short of its quota. If a plant did succeed in boosting output, it was likely to be forced to accept even larger quotas in the future. A plant manager who introduced a successful technology would only be slapped with tougher quotas; if the technology failed, he or she would lose a bonus. With little to gain and a great deal to lose, Soviet plant managers were extremely reluctant to adopt new technologies. Soviet production was, as a result, characterized by outdated technologies. When the system fell in 1991, Soviet manufacturers were using production methods that had been obsolete for decades in other countries.

Centrally controlled systems often generated impressive numbers for total output but failed in satisfying consumer demands. Gosplan officials, recognizing that Soviet capital was not very productive, ordered up a lot of it. The result was a heavy emphasis on unproductive capital goods and relatively little production of consumer goods. On the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Soviet economists estimated that per capita consumption was less than one-sixth of the U.S. level.

The Soviet system also generated severe environmental problems. In principle, a socialist system should have an advantage over a capitalist system in allocating environmental resources for which private property rights are difficult to define. Because a socialist government owns all capital and natural resources, the ownership problem is solved. The problem in the Soviet system, however, came from the labor theory of value. Since natural resources are not produced by labor, the value assigned to them was zero. Soviet plant managers thus had no incentive to limit their exploitation of environmental resources, and terrible environmental tragedies were common.

Systems similar to that created in the Soviet Union were established in other Soviet bloc countries as well. The most important exceptions were Yugoslavia, which is discussed in the next section, and China, which started with a Soviet-style system and then moved away from it. The Chinese case is examined later in this chapter.

Yugoslavia: Another Socialist Experiment

Although the Soviet Union was able to impose a system of command socialism on nearly all the Eastern European countries it controlled after World War II, Yugoslavia managed to forge its own path. Yugoslavia’s communist leader, Marshal Tito, charted an independent course, accepting aid from Western nations such as the United States and establishing a unique form of socialism that made greater use of markets than the Soviet-style systems did. Most important, however, Tito quickly moved away from the centralized management style of the Soviet Union to a decentralized system in which workers exercised considerable autonomy.

In the Yugoslav system, firms with five or more employees were owned by the state but made their own decisions concerning what to produce and what prices to charge. Workers in these firms elected their managers and established their own systems for sharing revenues. Each firm paid a fee for the use of its state-owned capital. In effect, firms operated as labor cooperatives. Firms with fewer than five employees could be privately owned and operated.

Economic performance in Yugoslavia was impressive. Living standards there were generally higher than those in other Soviet bloc countries. The distribution of income was similar to that of command socialist economies; it was generally more equal than distributions achieved in market capitalist economies. The Yugoslav economy was plagued, however, by persistent unemployment, high inflation, and increasing disparities in regional income levels.

Yugoslavia began breaking up shortly after command socialist systems began falling in Eastern Europe. It had been a country of republics and provinces with uneasy relationships among them. Tito had been the glue that held them together. After his death, the groups began to move apart and a number of countries have formed out of what was once Yugoslavia, in several cases accompanied by war. They all seem to be moving in the market capitalist direction, with Slovenia and Macedonia leading the way. Over time, the others—Croatia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, and even Serbia and Montenegra–have been following suit.

Evaluating Economic Performance Under Socialism

Soviet leaders placed great emphasis on Marx’s concept of the inevitable collapse of capitalism. While they downplayed the likelihood of a global revolution, they argued that the inherent superiority of socialism would gradually become apparent. Countries would adopt the socialist model in order to improve their living standards, and socialism would gradually assert itself as the dominant world system.

One key to achieving the goal of a socialist world was to outperform the United States economically. Stalin promised in the 1930s that the Soviet economy would surpass that of the United States within a few decades. The goal was clearly not achieved. Indeed, it was the gradual realization that the command socialist system could not deliver high living standards that led to the collapse of the old system.

Figure 34.2 shows the World Bank’s estimates of per capita output, measured in dollars of 1995 purchasing power, for the republics that made up the Soviet Union, for the Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe for which data are available, and for the United States in 1995. Nations that had operated within the old Soviet system had quite low levels of per capita output. Living standards were lower still, given that these nations devoted much higher shares of total output to investment and to defense than did the United States.

Source: United Nations, Human Development Report , 1998.

Ultimately, it was the failure of the Soviet system to deliver living standards on a par with those achieved by market capitalist economies that brought the system down. Market capitalist economic systems create incentives to allocate resources efficiently; socialist systems do not. Of course, a society may decide that other attributes of a socialist system make it worth retaining. But the lesson of the 1980s was that few that had lived under command socialist systems wanted to continue to do so.

Key Takeaways

In the Soviet Union a central planning agency, Gosplan, set output quotas for enterprises and determined prices.
The Soviet central planning system was highly inefficient. Sources of this inefficiency included failure to incorporate consumer preferences into decisions about what to produce, failure to take into account costs of factors of production, setting of prices without regard to market equilibrium, lack of incentives for incorporating new technologies, overemphasis on capital goods production, and inattention to environmental problems.
Yugoslavia developed an alternative system of socialism in which firms were run by their workers as labor cooperatives.
It was the realization that command socialist systems could not deliver high living standards that contributed to their collapse.

What specific problem of a command socialist system does each of the cartoons in the Case in Point parodying that system highlight?

Case in Point: Socialist Cartoons

These cartoons came from the Soviet press. Soviet citizens were clearly aware of many of the problems of their planned system.

Answer to Try It!

The first cartoon shows the inefficiency that resulted because of the failure to take into account the costs of factors of production. The second cartoon shows the difficulty involved in getting business to incorporate new technologies. The third shows the system’s failure to respond to consumers’ demands.

Search Search Please fill out this field.

Socialist Theory

Socialism in practice, one idea, multiple forms, a complicated track record, the bottom line, socialist economy: what is it, in theory or practice.

Daniel has 10+ years of experience reporting on investments and personal finance for outlets like AARP Bulletin and Exceptional magazine, in addition to being a column writer for Fatherly.

Yarilet Perez is an experienced multimedia journalist and fact-checker with a Master of Science in Journalism. She has worked in multiple cities covering breaking news, politics, education, and more. Her expertise is in personal finance and investing, and real estate.

Generally speaking, a socialist economy is a system in which there is collective ownership of the means of production, central planning, and a broad emphasis on equality.

In comparison, one of the traditional arguments for a free market economy is that it provides businesses with a tangible incentive to offer goods and services that people want. That is, firms that successfully respond to the needs of the consumer get rewarded with higher profits.

Nevertheless, some economists and political philosophers have contended that the capitalist model is inherently flawed. Such a system, they say, necessarily creates clear winners and losers.

Because the means of production are in private hands, those who own them not only accumulate a disproportionate share of wealth but have the power to suppress the rights of those they employ.

Key Takeaways

Some economists and philosophers believe capitalism is flawed and leads to class divides.
In capitalism, production is in private hands, and socialists argue that those who own it accumulate a disproportionate share of wealth and suppress the rights of those they employ.
In contrast to capitalism, socialists believe the shared ownership of resources and central planning offer a more equitable distribution of goods and services.
Karl Marx was the most prominent voice of socialism and believed the working class would rise up against the wealthy when faced with injustices.
Most modern nations don't believe in toppling current capitalistic orders, but opt for incorporating some socialist practices into their economic systems.

This idea of class conflict lies at the heart of socialism . Its most prominent voice, Karl Marx , believed low-income workers, faced with inequality, would inevitably revolt against the wealthy. In its place, he envisioned a society where the government—or the workers themselves—owned and controlled industry.

In contrast to capitalism, socialists believe shared ownership of resources and central planning offer a more equitable distribution of goods and services. In short, they hold that workers who contribute to economic output should expect a commensurate reward. This sentiment is crystallized in the socialist slogan: “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”

Below are some of the key tenets of socialism:

Public or collective ownership of the means of production
Central planning of the economy
Emphasis on equality and economic security
Goal of reducing class distinctions

Marx himself thought that toppling the existing capitalist order required a revolution led by the working class or proletariat. However, many socialist leaders—including influential “social democrats” in France, Germany, and Scandinavia—advocate for reforming, rather than replacing, capitalism to achieve greater economic equality.

Another source of confusion regarding the term “socialism” stems from the fact that it’s often used interchangeably with “ communism .” In fact, the two words have different meanings.

According to Friedrich Engels , who worked alongside Marx, socialism is the first phase of the revolution, in which the government plays a prominent role in economic life, and class differences begin to shrink.

This interim stage ultimately gives way to communism, a classless society where the working class no longer relies on the state. In practice, however, communism is the name often given to a revolutionary form of socialism, also known as Marxism-Leninism, which took root in the Soviet Union and China during the 20th century.

In a capitalist economy, the market determines prices through the laws of supply and demand . For example, when demand for coffee increases, a profit-seeking business will boost prices to increase its profit. If at the same time, society’s appetite for tea diminishes, growers will face lower prices and aggregate production will decline.

In the long run, some suppliers may even exit the business. Because consumers and suppliers negotiate a new “market-clearing price” for these goods, the quantity produced more or less matches the public’s needs.

Under a true socialist system, it’s the government’s role to determine output and pricing levels. The challenge is synchronizing these decisions with the needs of consumers. Socialist economists such as Oskar Lange have argued that, by responding to inventory levels, central planners can avoid major production inefficiencies. So when stores experience a surplus of tea, it signals the need to cut prices, and vice versa.

One of the critiques of socialism is that, even if government officials can adjust prices, the lack of competition between different producers reduces the incentive to do so. Opponents also suggest that public control of production necessarily creates an unwieldy, inefficient bureaucracy. The same central planning committee could, in theory, be in charge of pricing thousands of products, making it extremely difficult to react to market cues promptly.

Furthermore, the concentration of power within the government can create an environment where political motivations override the basic needs of the people. Indeed, at the same time the Soviet Union was diverting vast resources to build up its military capability, its residents often had trouble attaining a variety of goods, including food, soap, and even television sets.

The word “socialism” is perhaps most associated with countries such as the former Soviet Union and China under Mao Zedong, along with present-day Cuba and North Korea. These economies conjure the idea of totalitarian leaders and public ownership of virtually all productive resources.

However, other parts of the world sometimes use the same term to describe very different systems. For instance, the main Scandinavian economies—Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland—are often referred to as “social democracies” or simply “socialist.” But rather than the government running the entire economy, such countries balance market competition with robust social safety nets. That means nearly universal healthcare and laws that rigorously protect worker rights.

Socialist movements in the United States have gained in popularity, primarily seen through the success of Senator Bernie Sanders, a proponent of social democracy.

Even in decidedly capitalist countries, such as the United States, some services are thought too important to leave to the marketplace alone. Consequently, the government provides unemployment benefits, social security , and health insurance for older adults and low-income earners. It’s also the main provider of elementary and secondary education.

The most ardent critics of socialism contend that its goal of raising the standard of living for those in the lower and middle classes is hard to prove historically. By the 1980s, the economic well-being of most Russians trailed that of Westerners by a wide margin, laying the groundwork for Soviet disintegration. Meanwhile, China’s growth accelerated only after it began implementing pro-market reforms in the late 1970s and 80s.

A study of income levels around the globe by the Fraser Institute, a right-leaning think tank, supports this assessment. Countries with the highest levels of economic freedom have historically had higher per capita averages. See the map below for an illustration of economic freedom around the world.

When one looks at European-style socialism—with democratically elected leaders and private ownership of most industries—the results are quite different. Despite their relatively high taxes, Norway, Finland, and Switzerland are three of the top five most prosperous nations according to the Legatum Prosperity Index.

While in certain respects, these countries have moved farther to the right in recent years, some argue that Scandinavia is proof that a large welfare state and economic success are not mutually exclusive .

What Are Three Examples of Socialist Economy?

A key feature of a socialist economy is the collective ownership of enterprises and the means of production. This is in contrast to a capitalist economy, where private ownership is encouraged. While there are no purely capitalist or socialist states, there are a handful of economies that have prominent socialist features: North Korea, China, and Cuba all feature economies with significant levels of state-control.

What Are the Disadvantages of Socialism?

Proponents of a free market economy argue that socialism can have its disadvantages. In socialist economies, there's often less financial incentive to innovate or increase productive efficiency, compared to within a free market. In addition, in the case of state-owned or state-controlled enterprises, political motivations can sometimes outweigh collective interests.

What Are the Advantages of Socialism?

Those who advocate for socialism argue that centralized planning and collective ownership enable a society to more equitably distribute goods and services, leading to more overall fairness. Other advantages attributed to socialism include less pressure to maximize profit, and more focus on meeting basic needs.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union marked a major setback for the Marxist brand of socialism. However, more moderate versions of the ideology continue to have a strong influence throughout the world. Even in decidedly capitalist countries, governments provide social safety nets while also fostering free market-based economies.

Marxist Internet Archive. " Critique of the Gotha Programme "

Fraser Institute. " Annual Report: Economic Freedom of the World 2020 ."

The Legatum Prosperity Index. " Rankings ."

Terms of Service
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Your Privacy Choices

Socialism: Foundations and Key Concepts

What is the political, philosophic, and economic system known as socialism? Some starting points for further study.

Depending on whom you ask, socialism might be described as historically inevitable, evil incarnate, a utopian fantasy, or a scientific method. Most fundamentally, socialism is a political, philosophic, and economic system in which the means of production—that is, everything that goes into making goods for use—are collectively controlled, rather than owned by private corporations as they are under capitalism, or by aristocrats under feudalism.

In seeking to make the case for socialism—and to understand impediments to a world governed by people’s needs rather than corporate profits—thinkers in the socialist tradition have grappled with topics as varied as colonialism, gender, race, art, sex, psychology, economics, medicine, ecology, and countless other issues. As such, this Reading List makes no claim of being exhaustive; rather, it seeks to achieve two modest goals: to acquaint readers with a handful of key socialist preoccupations, and to demonstrate how the core concepts of socialist thought have been articulated at different historical moments and taken up by women and people of color.

Eugene W. Schulkind, “ The Activity of Popular Organizations during the Paris Commune of 1871. ” French Historical Studies , (1960)

What kind of society do socialists want? Many unfamiliar with the socialist tradition assume the Soviet Union or other putatively communist states represent socialist ideals come to fruition. But for many socialists throughout history, the most generative and compelling model is the seventy-two-day social experiment known as the Paris Commune. During their brief time ruling Paris, the communards eliminated the army, secularized education, equalized pay, and implemented numerous feminist initiatives, including establishing child care centers and abolishing the distinction between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” children.

Rosa Luxemburg, “Reform or Revolution” (1900) Socialists uniformly believe that different social arrangements are needed to address social problems, but how might those transformations most effectively come to fruition? One of the major questions that has animated socialist debates throughout the centuries is whether it is possible to achieve socialism through progressive reforms, or whether reforms would only serve to strengthen capitalism. Here the revolutionary presents her thoughts.

Clara Zetkin, 1914 Preface to Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward (1887) in Utopian Studies , 2016 Karl Marx was famously opposed to rigidly outlining what future socialist societies should look like, claiming that this would be like writing “recipes for the kitchens of the future.” Despite his reticence, many artists, frustrated by the constraints of capitalism and captivated by the promises of socialist futures, have contributed to imagining alternative worlds. Edward Bellamy’s early science fiction novel Looking Backward presents one attempt at envisioning a socialist society of the future—free from war, poverty, advertisements, and other unpleasantries. Here, Clara Zetkin, a prominent socialist and feminist activist of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (best known for her efforts to establish International Women’s Day ), introduces the novel.

Eric Foner, “Why Is There No Socialism in the United States?” History Workshop , 1984 One of the country’s best living historians examines questions that have preoccupied generations: How does the political and economic exceptionalism of the United States shape its historical relationship to socialism? Why does the U.S. working class appear less inclined toward socialist class consciousness than in other “advanced” capitalist countries?

Cedric Robinson, “C.L.R. James and the Black Radical Tradition.” Review (Fernand Braudel Center ), 1983 Telling the story of C.L.R. James, one of the most important socialist intellectuals of the twentieth century, Cedric Robinson (an intellectual giant in his own right) traces the history of socialism as it crosses continents and oceans. Centering Black radicals, not as a homogenous group but as members of a multifaceted tradition who write as seamlessly about cricket, anticolonial struggles, and class formation, Robinson takes the reader through issues at the heart of socialism.

Combahee River Collective, “A Black Feminist Statement” (1978) in Women’s Studies Quarterly , 2014 “Identity politics” has become a controversial and often derided topic in recent years. In this groundbreaking text, the Combahee River Collective—a group of Black feminist socialists named for the location from which Harriet Tubman launched one of her major military missions—underscores the necessity of rooting anti-capitalist projects in people’s lived experiences: “We believe that the most profound and potentially most radical politics come directly out of our own identity.”

Sarah Leonard, “What is Socialist Feminism?” Teen Vogue , 2020 Teen Vogue may have once evoked adolescent frivolity, but in recent years the magazine has repositioned itself as a serious contributor to the rising popularity of leftist politics among bright young people, thanks to its rigorous and accessible political analysis. Here, socialist feminist writer Sarah Leonard draws from bell hooks , Congressperson Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the 1970s feminist collective Wages for Housework to outline a few key socialist feminist insights . For those interested in pursuing the topic further, Leonard encourages readers to connect with the extensive resources generated by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)’s Socialist Feminist working group.

Brett Clark and John Bellamy Foster, “Marx’s Ecology in the 21st Century.” World Review of Political Economy , 2010 Marx may have written in the nineteenth century, but his insights are still used by contemporary thinkers to understand many of today’s most pressing issues. Here Clark and Foster draw from central concepts in Marx’s oeuvre to understand how capitalism has led to climate catastrophe and, eventually, might inspire ecosocialism. In their words, “The power of Marx’s ecology is that it provides a rigorous approach for studying the interchange between society and nature, while taking into consideration the specific ecological conditions of an ecosystem (and the larger web of nature), as well as the particular social interactions as shaped by the capitalist mode of production.”

Michael Lowy and Penelope Duggan, “Marxism and Romanticism in the Work of Jose Carlos Mariategui.” Latin American Perspectives , 1998 A compelling introduction to Mariategui, the Peruvian socialist philosopher who merged precolonial history, romanticism, and a trenchant analysis of capitalism. In contrast to the austere world many antisocialists imagine, “[s]ocialism according to Mariategui lay at the heart of an attempt at the reenchantment of the world through revolutionary action.”

Red Nation, “Communism Is the Horizon” (2020) In their recent pamphlet, the Indigenous collective Red Nation expounds upon the centrality of queer, Indigenous feminism to their understanding of socialism and their struggle toward a communist horizon.

Editor’s Note: This list has been updated to include journal titles.

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our new membership program on Patreon today.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Saffron: The Story of the World’s Most Expensive Spice

An illustration showing fencing positions, 1610

The Fencing Moral Panic of Elizabethan London

Support JSTOR Daily

Origins and Change of the Social Market Economy pp 197–207 Cite as

Political Economy of Socialism: Theoretical and Practical Controversies of “All-People Socialist” Ownership

Plamen D. Tchipev 7
First Online: 01 October 2023

97 Accesses

Part of the book series: The European Heritage in Economics and the Social Sciences ((EHES,volume 26))

This chapter focuses on one of the major problems of the socialist economies, which were unable to provide needed level of independence for efficient functioning of their enterprises within the constraints of the socialist ownership . Requirement to preserve and maintain the sole existence of the latter was set by the socialist political economy as an unquestionable condition for the socialist economic system. Thus, a seemingly simple practical issue appeared eventually as a complex knot of both theoretical and practical problems, which initiated a lot of attempts for their resolution. The reforming efforts had been carried out in the various socialist countries up to the end of 1980s, i.e. to the last days before the system breakdown. The paper focuses on the experience from the Soviet Union and Bulgaria.

Comparative economic systems
Property rights theory
Socialist political economy
NEP ( New Economic Policy )
All-people socialist ownership

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Plovdiv University “Paisii Hilendarski” and Economic Research Institute at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Plamen D. Tchipev

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Krupp Chair in Public Finance and Fiscal Sociology, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

Jürgen G. Backhaus

Austrian Chamber of Labour, Vienna, Austria

Günther Chaloupek

Faculty of Economics, M 14.33, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

Hans A. Frambach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Tchipev, P.D. (2023). Political Economy of Socialism: Theoretical and Practical Controversies of “All-People Socialist” Ownership. In: Backhaus, J.G., Chaloupek, G., Frambach, H.A. (eds) Origins and Change of the Social Market Economy. The European Heritage in Economics and the Social Sciences, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39210-8_12

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39210-8_12

Published : 01 October 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-39209-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-39210-8

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance Economics and Finance (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Module 12: Work and the Economy

Reading: capitalism and socialism.

An overhead view of the New York Stock Exchange is shown here.

The New York Stock Exchange is where shares of stock in companies that are registered for public trading are traded (Photo courtesy of Ryan Lawler/Wikimedia Commons)

Scholars don’t always agree on a single definition of capitalism. For our purposes, we will define capitalism as an economic system in which there is private ownership (as opposed to state ownership) and where there is an impetus to produce profit, and thereby wealth. This is the type of economy in place in the United States today. Under capitalism, people invest capital (money or property invested in a business venture) in a business to produce a product or service that can be sold in a market to consumers. The investors in the company are generally entitled to a share of any profit made on sales after the costs of production and distribution are taken out. These investors often reinvest their profits to improve and expand the business or acquire new ones. To illustrate how this works, consider this example. Sarah, Antonio, and Chris each invest $250,000 into a start-up company that offers an innovative baby product. When the company nets $1 million in profits its first year, a portion of that profit goes back to Sarah, Antonio, and Chris as a return on their investment. Sarah reinvests with the same company to fund the development of a second product line, Antonio uses his return to help another start-up in the technology sector, and Chris buys a small yacht for vacations.

To provide their product or service, owners hire workers to whom they pay wages. The cost of raw materials, the retail price they charge consumers, and the amount they pay in wages are determined through the law of supply and demand and by competition. When demand exceeds supply, prices tend to rise. When supply exceeds demand, prices tend to fall. When multiple businesses market similar products and services to the same buyers, there is competition. Competition can be good for consumers because it can lead to lower prices and higher quality as businesses try to get consumers to buy from them rather than from their competitors.

Wages tend to be set in a similar way. People who have talents, skills, education, or training that is in short supply and is needed by businesses tend to earn more than people without comparable skills. Competition in the workforce helps determine how much people will be paid. In times when many people are unemployed and jobs are scarce, people are often willing to accept less than they would when their services are in high demand. In this scenario, businesses are able to maintain or increase profits by not increasing workers’ wages.

Capitalism in Practice

As capitalists began to dominate the economies of many countries during the Industrial Revolution, the rapid growth of businesses and their tremendous profitability gave some owners the capital they needed to create enormous corporations that could monopolize an entire industry. Many companies controlled all aspects of the production cycle for their industry, from the raw materials, to the production, to the stores in which they were sold. These companies were able to use their wealth to buy out or stifle any competition.

In the United States, the predatory tactics used by these large monopolies caused the government to take action. Starting in the late 1800s, the government passed a series of laws that broke up monopolies and regulated how key industries—such as transportation, steel production, and oil and gas exploration and refining—could conduct business.

The United States is considered a capitalist country. However, the U.S. government has a great deal of influence on private companies through the laws it passes and the regulations enforced by government agencies. Through taxes, regulations on wages, guidelines to protect worker safety and the environment, plus financial rules for banks and investment firms, the government exerts a certain amount of control over how all companies do business. State and federal governments also own, operate, or control large parts of certain industries, such as the post office, schools, hospitals, highways and railroads, and many water, sewer, and power utilities. Debate over the extent to which the government should be involved in the economy remains an issue of contention today. Some criticize such involvements as socialism (a type of state-run economy), while others believe intervention is necessary to protect the rights of workers and the well-being of the general population.

Further Research

One alternative to traditional capitalism is to have the workers own the company for which they work. To learn more about company-owned businesses check out The National Center for Employee Ownership .

A colorful painting featuring Mao Zedong and other symbols of Chinese communism is shown here.

The economies of China and Russia after World War II are examples of one form of socialism. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Socialism is an economic system in which there is government ownership (often referred to as “state run”) of goods and their production, with an impetus to share work and wealth equally among the members of a society. Under socialism, everything that people produce, including services, is considered a social product. Everyone who contributes to the production of a good or to providing a service is entitled to a share in any benefits that come from its sale or use. To make sure all members of society get their fair share, governments must be able to control property, production, and distribution.

The focus in socialism is on benefitting society, whereas capitalism seeks to benefit the individual. Socialists claim that a capitalistic economy leads to inequality, with unfair distribution of wealth and individuals who use their power at the expense of society. Socialism strives, ideally, to control the economy to avoid the problems inherent in capitalism.

Within socialism, there are diverging views on the extent to which the economy should be controlled. One extreme believes all but the most personal items are public property. Other socialists believe only essential services such as healthcare, education, and utilities (electrical power, telecommunications, and sewage) need direct control. Under this form of socialism, farms, small shops, and businesses can be privately owned but are subject to government regulation.

The other area on which socialists disagree is on what level society should exert its control. In communist countries like the former Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, and North Korea, the national government exerts control over the economy centrally. They had the power to tell all businesses what to produce, how much to produce, and what to charge for it. Other socialists believe control should be decentralized so it can be exerted by those most affected by the industries being controlled. An example of this would be a town collectively owning and managing the businesses on which its residents depend.

Because of challenges in their economies, several of these communist countries have moved from central planning to letting market forces help determine many production and pricing decisions. Market socialism describes a subtype of socialism that adopts certain traits of capitalism, like allowing limited private ownership or consulting market demands. This could involve situations like profits generated by a company going directly to the employees of the company or being used as public funds (Gregory and Stuart 2003). Many Eastern European and some South American countries have mixed economies. Key industries are nationalized and directly controlled by the government; however, most businesses are privately owned and regulated by the government.

Organized socialism never became powerful in the United States. The success of labor unions and the government in securing workers’ rights, joined with the high standard of living enjoyed by most of the workforce, made socialism less appealing than the controlled capitalism practiced here.

A world map depicting the countries which have adopted a socialist economy, and the length of time which they adopted it for.

This map shows countries that have adopted a socialist economy at some point. The colors indicate the duration that socialism prevailed. (Map courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Socialism in Practice

As with capitalism, the basic ideas behind socialism go far back in history. Plato, in ancient Greece, suggested a republic in which people shared their material goods. Early Christian communities believed in common ownership, as did the systems of monasteries set up by various religious orders. Many of the leaders of the French Revolution called for the abolition of all private property, not just the estates of the aristocracy they had overthrown. Thomas More’s Utopia , published in 1516, imagined a society with little private property and mandatory labor on a communal farm. A utopia has since come to mean an imagined place or situation in which everything is perfect. Most experimental utopian communities had the abolition of private property as a founding principle.

Modern socialism really began as a reaction to the excesses of uncontrolled industrial capitalism in the 1800s and 1900s. The enormous wealth and lavish lifestyles enjoyed by owners contrasted sharply with the miserable conditions of the workers.

Some of the first great sociological thinkers studied the rise of socialism. Max Weber admired some aspects of socialism, especially its rationalism and how it could help social reform, but he worried that letting the government have complete control could result in an “iron cage of future bondage” from which there is no escape (Greisman and Ritzer 1981).

Pierre-Joseph Proudon (1809−1865) was another early socialist who thought socialism could be used to create utopian communities. In his 1840 book, What Is Property? , he famously stated that “property is theft” (Proudon 1840). By this he meant that if an owner did not work to produce or earn the property, then the owner was stealing it from those who did. Proudon believed economies could work using a principle called mutualism , under which individuals and cooperative groups would exchange products with one another on the basis of mutually satisfactory contracts (Proudon 1840).

By far the most important influential thinker on socialism is Karl Marx. Through his own writings and those with his collaborator, industrialist Friedrich Engels, Marx used a scientific analytical process to show that throughout history, the resolution of class struggles caused changes in economies. He saw the relationships evolving from slave and owner, to serf and lord, to journeyman and master, to worker and owner. Neither Marx nor Engels thought socialism could be used to set up small utopian communities. Rather, they believed a socialist society would be created after workers rebelled against capitalistic owners and seized the means of production. They felt industrial capitalism was a necessary step that raised the level of production in society to a point it could progress to a socialist and then communist state (Marx and Engels 1848). These ideas form the basis of the sociological perspective of social conflict theory.

Obama and Socialism: A Few Definitions

In the 2008 presidential election, the Republican Party latched onto what is often considered a dirty word to describe then-Senator Barack Obama’s politics: socialist. It may have been because the president was campaigning by telling workers it’s good for everybody when wealth gets spread around. But whatever the reason, the label became a weapon of choice for Republicans during and after the campaign. In 2012, Republican presidential contender Rick Perry continued this battle cry. A New York Times article quotes him as telling a group of Republicans in Texas that President Obama is “hell bent on taking America towards a socialist country” (Wheaton 2011). Meanwhile, during the first few years of his presidency, Obama worked to create universal healthcare coverage and pushed forth a partial takeover of the nation’s failing automotive industry. So does this make him a socialist? What does that really mean, anyway?

There is more than one definition of socialism, but it generally refers to an economic or political theory that advocates for shared or governmental ownership and administration of production and distribution of goods. Often held up in counterpoint to capitalism, which encourages private ownership and production, socialism is not typically an all-or-nothing plan. For example, both the United Kingdom and France, as well as other European countries, have socialized medicine, meaning that medical services are run nationally to reach as many people as possible. These nations are, of course, still essentially capitalist countries with free-market economies.

So is Obama a socialist because he wants universal healthcare? Or is the word a lightning rod for conservatives who associate it with a lack of personal freedom? By almost any measure, the answer is more the latter.

Short Answer

Explain the difference between state socialism with central planning and market socialism.
In what ways can capitalistic and socialistic economies converge?
Heidimarie Schwermer
Émile Durkheim
centrally planned
secured workers’ rights
guaranteed health care
broke up monopolies
diversified the workforce

a form of socialism under which individuals and cooperative groups exchange products with one another on the basis of mutually satisfactory contracts

Newest Posts

Encouraging Student Participation in Class Discussions
Creating an Engaging Learning Environment in the Classroom
Creating Objectives for Socialism Classes
Evaluating Student Performance in Socialism Classes
Memberships and benefits
Eligibility requirements for membership
Benefits of belonging to a socialist teacher organization
Types of memberships available
Advocacy and support
Political action for socialist teachers
Support for socialist teachers' causes
Advocacy for socialist teachers' rights
Professional development
Continuing education opportunities
Educational seminars and conferences
Networking opportunities for socialist teachers
Classroom techniques
Engaging students in socialist education
Experiential learning techniques
Innovative approaches to teaching socialism
Learning resources and materials
Using technology in the classroom
Online resources on socialism education
Books on socialist teaching methods
Assessment and evaluation
Assessment of students' knowledge of socialism
Modifying assessments for different learning styles
Evaluating student performance in socialism classes
Education and qualifications
Certification for socialist teachers
Educational qualifications for socialist teaching
Courses for becoming a socialist teacher
Skills and knowledge
Knowledge of socialism and its history
Understanding of socialist principles
Essential skills for socialist teaching
Career paths and opportunities
Opportunities for socialist teachers
Career paths in socialist teaching
Employment prospects for socialist teachers
Developing a lesson plan
Designing a lesson plan for socialism classes
Creating objectives for socialism classes
Developing activities to teach socialism
Promoting student engagement
Encouraging student participation in class discussions
Using interactive activities to teach socialism
Creating an engaging learning environment in the classroom
Teaching critical thinking skills
Integrating critical thinking into lesson plans
Encouraging students to think critically about socialism
Developing critical analysis skills in socialism classes
Historical perspectives on socialism
Modern perspectives on socialism
The Cold War era and its impact on socialism teachings
Early history of socialism in Europe and Asia
Theories and ideologies of socialism
Differences between various types of socialism
The origins of socialist theory and ideology
Major contributors to the development of socialism theory and ideology
Contemporary applications of socialism
Socialism as a response to global inequality
Socialism in contemporary politics and society
The role of technology in the spread of socialism ideas
Tools and software
Tools for creating interactive lessons about the history, theories, and ideologies of socialism.
Software designed to facilitate online learning about socialism.
Technology-based tools for assessing student understanding of socialism.
Online resources
Online forums discussing current developments in socialist education.
Educational videos on the history, theories, and ideologies of socialism.
Websites dedicated to exploring the fundamentals of socialism.
Books, journals, and articles
Books on the history, theories, and ideologies of socialism.
Articles exploring current trends in socialist education.
Journals devoted to researching and discussing the implications of socialism.
Integrating technology into the classroom
Using technology to teach the fundamentals of socialism.
Integrating online media into lessons to engage students in learning about socialism.
Utilizing social media as an educational tool to teach about socialism.
Curriculum design and implementation
Assessing the effectiveness of a curriculum for teaching socialism
Implementing a curriculum for teaching socialism theory and ideology.
Designing a curriculum for teaching socialism principles and practices
Lesson plan development and delivery
Developing lesson plans that teach the fundamentals of socialism.
Integrating current events into lesson plans to reinforce the relevance of socialism.
Delivering lesson plans on the history, theories, and ideologies of socialism.
Exploring Socialism as a Response to Global Inequality
Teaching socialism

As global inequality continues to increase and a growing number of people are left behind in a world of wealth and privilege, more and more people are looking for solutions. One of the most popular responses to this problem is socialism, an economic and political system that seeks to create greater economic equality by eliminating private ownership of the means of production. This article will explore socialism as a response to global inequality, taking a look at its historical roots, current applications, and potential for the future. This article is part of the Silo “Teaching Socialism” / “Contemporary Applications of Socialism” and will examine how socialism can be used to address global inequality.

Contemporary Applications Of Socialism

In Venezuela, the government has adopted a system of ‘21st Century Socialism’ which seeks to reduce inequality by expanding access to public services and providing economic assistance to the most vulnerable segments of the population. In Brazil, the government has introduced a range of social policies aimed at reducing poverty and inequality, such as guaranteed minimum wage, free healthcare and education, and subsidized housing. In Europe, socialist parties have come to power in several countries over the past decade, including Spain, Greece, and most recently France. These governments have introduced a range of policies that seek to reduce inequality and poverty, such as increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations, introducing minimum wage laws, and expanding access to public services.

In the United States, several cities have adopted socialist policies aimed at reducing poverty and inequality. For example, Seattle’s city council recently passed a ‘head tax’ on large businesses in order to raise money for affordable housing programs. Overall, it is clear that socialism is being increasingly used as a response to global inequality today. By implementing policies that seek to reduce inequality and poverty, countries around the world are hoping to create a more equitable society.

Long-Term Implications Of Socialism

Under a socialist system, economic decisions would be made by the government rather than individual consumers or businesses, potentially leading to slower growth due to a lack of incentives for innovation and entrepreneurship. Additionally, government control over the economy could lead to inefficiencies, higher taxes, and diminished economic freedoms. Another potential long-term implication of socialism is its potential to stifle social progress. A highly regulated socialist system could limit opportunities for individuals to pursue their interests and goals, as well as stifle creativity and innovation.

Criticisms Of Socialism

Some of the most common criticisms involve its potential for creating a lack of incentives, its potential for centralizing too much power, and its potential for creating a lack of economic freedom. One of the most prominent criticisms of socialism is that it does not provide incentives for people to work hard and produce more. Without incentives, it is argued, people may become complacent and lack motivation to work. This could lead to a decrease in productivity and a decrease in overall economic growth.

Furthermore, because resources are distributed equally, those who are more productive may not be rewarded for their efforts, leading to a sense of inequality. Another criticism of socialism is that it has the potential to centralize too much power in the hands of the government. This could lead to corruption and abuse of power as the government could have control over all aspects of life, including the economy, education, healthcare, and other areas. This could also lead to a lack of economic freedom as individuals would not have the freedom to make their own economic decisions. Finally, some critics of socialism argue that it has the potential to create a lack of economic freedom. Under socialism, the government would have control over all aspects of the economy and would be able to dictate prices, wages, and other economic matters.

The Principles Of Socialism

The core principles of socialism are rooted in the idea of economic and social equality. This means that all citizens should have access to the same basic services, such as health care and education, regardless of their financial situation. Additionally, socialist systems strive to reduce income inequality by redistributing wealth and ensuring that everyone has a basic minimum standard of living. Another key principle of socialism is the concept of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”.

This means that those with higher incomes should contribute more to society than those with lower incomes. In this way, those who are most able to contribute to society will help those who are in need. Finally, socialism seeks to prioritize the public good over private interests. This means that resources are allocated for the benefit of the whole population, not just for a select few.

History Of Socialism

The Soviet Union was the world's first socialist state, and it served as a model for other socialist states around the world. These countries implemented a variety of economic and political systems based on socialist principles, including planned economies, collective ownership of industry, and workers' self-management. Despite these successes, there were also some failures. In particular, many socialist countries suffered from poor economic performance and rampant corruption. This led to the downfall of many socialist countries in the 1980s and 1990s.

Today, many countries have adopted more moderate forms of socialism, such as social democracy and market socialism. Overall, socialism has had a long and varied history. It has been used in many different contexts and has had both successes and failures. Despite its flaws, socialism remains an important part of the modern political landscape and is seen as a viable solution to global inequality. Overall, socialism presents an intriguing solution to global inequality, with the potential to provide economic stability and incentivize innovation and productivity. However, it is important to consider all aspects before making any decisions, and this article has explored the principles of socialism, its history, contemporary applications, criticisms, and potential long-term consequences to help readers better understand this complex topic. Ultimately, socialism is a complex system that requires careful consideration and discussion before any decisions are made.

By understanding the principles of socialism, its history and contemporary applications, criticisms, and potential long-term implications, readers can better assess whether or not it is an appropriate response to global inequality.

New Articles

Socialism in Contemporary Politics and Society

Socialism in Contemporary Politics and Society

This article explores socialism in modern politics and society, from its origins and history to its current applications and implications.

Educational Seminars and Conferences: A Comprehensive Look

Educational Seminars and Conferences: A Comprehensive Look

Learn about the types of educational seminars and conferences available and how they can help you reach your professional development goals.

Support for Socialist Teachers' Causes

This article provides information about socialist teacher organizations, their causes, and how to support them.

Exploring the Role of Technology in the Spread of Socialism Ideas

Exploring the Role of Technology in the Spread of Socialism Ideas

Learn how technology has been used to spread socialist ideas in the modern age and how it continues to shape the discussion surrounding socialism today.

Assessing Student Understanding of Socialism with Technology-Based Tools
Understanding Socialist Principles
Innovative Approaches to Teaching Socialism
Exploring Online Forums Discussing Socialist Education
Continuing Education Opportunities: A Comprehensive Overview
Networking Opportunities for Socialist Teachers
Integrating Current Events into Lesson Plans to Reinforce the Relevance of Socialism
Exploring Experiential Learning Techniques
Career Paths in Socialist Teaching
Engaging Ways to Learn About Socialism Education Online
Exploring Educational Videos on the History, Theories, and Ideologies of Socialism
Essential Skills for Socialist Teaching
Political Action for Socialist Teachers

Developing Lesson Plans that Teach the Fundamentals of Socialism

Developing Critical Analysis Skills in Socialism Classes
Exploring Current Trends in Socialist Education
Uncovering Employment Prospects for Socialist Teachers
Becoming a Socialist Teacher: Education and Qualifications
The Knowledge of Socialism and Its History
Using Social Media as an Educational Tool to Teach About Socialism
Tools for Creating Interactive Lessons About the History, Theories, and Ideologies of Socialism
Exploring Journals Devoted to Researching the Implications of Socialism
Exploring the Cold War Era and Its Impact on Socialism Teachings
Early History of Socialism in Europe and Asia
Membership Eligibility Requirements

Implementing a Socialist Curriculum: A Guide

Modern Perspectives on Socialism
Exploring the Fundamentals of Socialism
Integrating Critical Thinking into Lesson Plans
Modifying Assessments to Fit Different Learning Styles
Educational Qualifications for Socialist Teaching

Designing a Curriculum for Teaching Socialism Principles and Practices

The Benefits of Belonging to a Socialist Teacher Organization
Designing a Lesson Plan for Socialism Classes
Engaging Students in Socialist Education
Assessment of Students' Knowledge of Socialism
Opportunities for Socialist Teachers
Advocating for Socialist Teachers' Rights
Certification for Socialist Teachers
Encouraging Students to Think Critically About Socialism
Exploring the History, Theories, and Ideologies of Socialism
A Comprehensive Overview of Software Designed to Facilitate Online Learning about Socialism
Using Interactive Activities to Teach Socialism
Types of Memberships Available
Understanding Socialism: A Comprehensive Look at History, Theories, and Ideologies
Understanding the Differences Between Various Types of Socialism
Using Technology in the Classroom: A Comprehensive Overview
Exploring Books on Socialist Teaching Methods
Exploring the Origins of Socialist Theory and Ideology
Using Technology to Teach the Fundamentals of Socialism
Assessing the Effectiveness of a Curriculum for Teaching Socialism
Exploring the Major Contributors to Socialism Theory and Ideology
Engaging Students in Learning About Socialism Through Online Media
Socialism Teaching Strategies: Developing Activities to Teach Socialism

Developing Lesson Plans that Teach the Fundamentals of Socialism

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

34.2 Socialist Systems in Action

Learning objectives.

Describe the operation of the command socialist system in the Soviet Union, including its major problems.
Explain how Yugoslavian-style socialism differed from that of the Soviet Union.
Discuss the factors that brought an end to command socialist systems in much of the world.

Command Socialism in the Soviet Union

Yugoslavia: Another Socialist Experiment

Evaluating Economic Performance Under Socialism

Figure 34.2 “Per Capita Output in Former Soviet Bloc States and in the United States, 1995” shows the World Bank’s estimates of per capita output, measured in dollars of 1995 purchasing power, for the republics that made up the Soviet Union, for the Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe for which data are available, and for the United States in 1995. Nations that had operated within the old Soviet system had quite low levels of per capita output. Living standards were lower still, given that these nations devoted much higher shares of total output to investment and to defense than did the United States.

Figure 34.2 Per Capita Output in Former Soviet Bloc States and in the United States, 1995

Per Capita Output in Former Soviet Bloc States and in the United States. Per capita output was far lower in the former republics of the Soviet Union and in Warsaw Pact countries in 1995 than in the United States. All values are measured in units of equivalent purchasing power.

Per capita output was far lower in the former republics of the Soviet Union and in Warsaw Pact countries in 1995 than in the United States. All values are measured in units of equivalent purchasing power.

Source: United Nations, Human Development Report , 1998.

Key Takeaways

In the Soviet Union a central planning agency, Gosplan, set output quotas for enterprises and determined prices.
The Soviet central planning system was highly inefficient. Sources of this inefficiency included failure to incorporate consumer preferences into decisions about what to produce, failure to take into account costs of factors of production, setting of prices without regard to market equilibrium, lack of incentives for incorporating new technologies, overemphasis on capital goods production, and inattention to environmental problems.
Yugoslavia developed an alternative system of socialism in which firms were run by their workers as labor cooperatives.
It was the realization that command socialist systems could not deliver high living standards that contributed to their collapse.

What specific problem of a command socialist system does each of the cartoons in the Case in Point parodying that system highlight?

Case in Point: Socialist Cartoons

These cartoons came from the Soviet press. Soviet citizens were clearly aware of many of the problems of their planned system.

Answer to Try It!

IMAGES

Socialism in Economy (Socialist Economic System)
Socialist Economy Features and Solution to Central Problem
Socialism Characteristics: Socialist Economy Features
Socialism: History, Theory, and Analysis
Economic Update: 3 Basic Kinds of Socialism
What Is Socialism? Definition, Features, Pros, And Cons

VIDEO

The Economic Case for Socialism
Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism
Basic Economic Concepts and Three Basic Economic Problems
SOLUTIONS TO THE BASIC ECONOMIC PROBLEMS UNDER DIFFERENT ECONOMIES-2|ECONOMICS|CLASS-11|
Ch 5 : Solutions to Basic Economic Problems under Economic Systems (Part
Basic Economic Theory

COMMENTS

Solution to the Basic Economic Problems: Capitalistic, Socialistic and
However, how a capitalist, a socialist and a mixed economic system solve their basic problems is given below: 1. Solution to Basic Problems in a Capitalistic Economy: Under capitalistic economy, allocation of various resources takes place with the help of market mechanism. Price of various goods and services including the price of factors of ...
Socialism's Economic Calculation Problem
Socialism is the renunciation of rational economy.". It should be clarified that the ECP applies to a Marxian conception of socialism, involving the abolition of capitalism. Social democracy, the model European countries such as France and Italy follow, and strong traits of which can be observed in places such as Nordic Europe and even the ...
34.1: The Theory and Practice of Socialism
The Economics of Karl Marx. Marx is perhaps best known for the revolutionary ideas expressed in the ringing phrases of the Communist Manifesto, such as those shown in the Case in Point.Written with Friedrich Engels in 1848, the Manifesto was a call to arms. But it was Marx's exhaustive, detailed theoretical analysis of market capitalism, Das Kapital (Capital), that was his most important effort.
Socialist economics
"Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs." ... Every citizen had a right in practice to take part in discussing and solving any problems in the life of the ...
34.1 The Theory and Practice of Socialism
The Labor Theory of Value and Surplus Value. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith proposed the idea of the labor theory of value, which states that the relative values of different goods are ultimately determined by the relative amounts of labor used in their production. This idea was widely accepted at the time Marx was writing.
Socialist calculation debate
Economics. The socialist calculation debate, sometimes known as the economic calculation debate, was a discourse on the subject of how a socialist economy would perform economic calculation given the absence of the law of value, money, financial prices for capital goods and private ownership of the means of production.
20.2 Socialist Systems in Action
Market capitalist economic systems create incentives to allocate resources efficiently; socialist systems do not. Of course, a society may decide that other attributes of a socialist system make it worth retaining. But the lesson of the 1980s was that few that had lived under command socialist systems wanted to continue to do so.
20.1 The Theory and Practice of Socialism
The Labor Theory of Value and Surplus Value. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith proposed the idea of the labor theory of value, which states that the relative values of different goods are ultimately determined by the relative amounts of labor used in their production. This idea was widely accepted at the time Marx was writing.
PDF Economic Analysis of Planned Economic Systems
8.2 Flaws of the Planned Economy: Information Problem and Incentive Distortion. In a planned economic system, society is organized as a unitary economic entity, in which the central planning agency allocates resources via administrative command rather than the price mechanism of the competitive market. Thus, two prerequisites must be satisfied ...
20.2: Socialist Systems in Action
Market capitalist economic systems create incentives to allocate resources efficiently; socialist systems do not. Of course, a society may decide that other attributes of a socialist system make it worth retaining. But the lesson of the 1980s was that few that had lived under command socialist systems wanted to continue to do so.
Socialist Economy: What Is It, In Theory or Practice?
Generally speaking, a socialist economy is a system in which there is collective ownership of the means of production, central planning, and a broad emphasis on equality. In comparison, one of the ...
Economics of Socialism 1: Prices vs. Labor Value
Footnote. 1; The owner of the factory earns $20, leaving the workers with $80. According to Marxist theory, If the owner wants to earn more, say $25, he can only do so by shrinking the labor share to $75. Likewise, workers can earn more if and only if the owner—the capitalist—concedes part of his income.
On the Economic Theory of Socialism: Part One
The economic problem is a problem of choice between different alternatives. To solve the problem three data are needed: (i) a preference scale which guides the activity of choice, (2) know- ledge of the " terms on which alternatives are offered," and, finally, (3) knowledge of the amount of resources available.
Economic system
Problems with socialism. The socialist experiments of the 20th century were motivated by a genuine interest in improving life for the masses, but the results instead delivered untold suffering in terms of economic deprivation and political tyranny.Nonetheless, the egalitarian values that inspired the socialist experiments continue to possess great intellectual and moral appeal.
Socialism: Foundations and Key Concepts
In seeking to make the case for socialism—and to understand impediments to a world governed by people's needs rather than corporate profits—thinkers in the socialist tradition have grappled with topics as varied as colonialism, gender, race, art, sex, psychology, economics, medicine, ecology, and countless other issues.
Political Economy of Socialism: Theoretical and Practical ...
This chapter focuses on one of the major problems of the socialist economies, which were unable to provide needed level of independence for efficient functioning of their enterprises within the constraints of the socialist ownership.Requirement to preserve and maintain the sole existence of the latter was set by the socialist political economy as an unquestionable condition for the socialist ...
Socialist economics
Socialist economics is a term which refers in its descriptive sense to the economic effects of nations with large state sectors where the government directs the kind and nature of production. In a normative sense, it applies to economic theories which advance the idea that socialism is both the most equitable and most socially serviceable form of economic arrangement for the realization of ...
Reading: Capitalism and Socialism
Socialism is an economic system in which there is government ownership (often referred to as "state run") of goods and their production, with an impetus to share work and wealth equally among the members of a society. Under socialism, everything that people produce, including services, is considered a social product. Everyone who contributes to the production of a good or to providing a ...
Exploring Socialism as a Response to Global Inequality
Socialism as a response to global inequality. As global inequality continues to increase and a growing number of people are left behind in a world of wealth and privilege, more and more people are looking for solutions. One of the most popular responses to this problem is socialism, an economic and political system that seeks to create greater ...
Solution to Basic Economic Problems
Solutions to the basic problems under a socialist system. The basic problems of an economy can be solved either by the decisions of the Government or by the Market through interactions of buyers and sellers. The Centrally Planned or Socialist Economy. Here the government or the central authority plans all the important activities.
4.1.8: Socialism
Socialism was a specific historical phenomenon born out of two related factors: first, the ideological rupture with the society of orders that occurred with the French Revolution, and second, the growth of industrial capitalism. It sought to address both the economic repercussions of the industrial revolution, especially in terms of the living ...
34.2 Socialist Systems in Action
Market capitalist economic systems create incentives to allocate resources efficiently; socialist systems do not. Of course, a society may decide that other attributes of a socialist system make it worth retaining. But the lesson of the 1980s was that few that had lived under command socialist systems wanted to continue to do so.
PDF J V STALIN Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR
Remarks on economic questions connected with the November 1951 discussion 1. Character of economic laws under socialism 2. Commodity production under socialism 3. The law of value under socialism 4. Abolition of the antithesis between town and country, and between mental and physical labour, and elimination of distinctions between them 5.

Solution to the Basic Economic Problems: Capitalistic, Socialistic and Mixed Economy

1. Solution to Basic Problems in a Capitalistic Economy:

2. Solution to Basic Problems in a Socialistic Economy:

3. Solution to Basic Problems in a Mixed Economy:

Socialism’s Economic Calculation Problem

Related Articles

Is economic man really a rational agent?

Social Security: An Answer for Developing Nations

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

subscribe to our Monthly Newsletter!

20.2: Socialist Systems in Action

Learning Objective

Command Socialism in the Soviet Union

Yugoslavia: Another Socialist Experiment

Evaluating Economic Performance Under Socialism

Key Takeaways

Case in Point: Socialist Cartoons

Answer to Try It!

Socialist Theory

Key Takeaways

What Are Three Examples of Socialist Economy?

What Are the Disadvantages of Socialism?

What Are the Advantages of Socialism?

Socialism: Foundations and Key Concepts

Get Our Newsletter

More Stories

Saffron: The Story of the World’s Most Expensive Spice

The Fencing Moral Panic of Elizabethan London

Support JSTOR Daily

Political Economy of Socialism: Theoretical and Practical Controversies of “All-People Socialist” Ownership

Author information

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Module 12: Work and the Economy

Capitalism in Practice

Further Research

Socialism in Practice

Obama and Socialism: A Few Definitions

Short Answer

Newest Posts

Contemporary Applications Of Socialism

Long-Term Implications Of Socialism

Criticisms Of Socialism

The Principles Of Socialism

History Of Socialism

New Articles

Developing Lesson Plans that Teach the Fundamentals of Socialism

Implementing a Socialist Curriculum: A Guide

Designing a Curriculum for Teaching Socialism Principles and Practices

34.2 Socialist Systems in Action

Command Socialism in the Soviet Union

Yugoslavia: Another Socialist Experiment

Evaluating Economic Performance Under Socialism

Key Takeaways

Case in Point: Socialist Cartoons

Answer to Try It!

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS