c



 are the economic theories and practices of hypothetical and existing
socialist economic systems.

A socialist economy is based on public ownership or independent cooperative ownership of the

means of production, wherein production is carried out to directly produce use-value, usually,
but not always, coordinated through economic planning and a system of accounting based on
calculation-in-kind or labor-time.[1][2]

The term Y
Y
 
Y may also be applied to analysis of former and existing economic
systems that call themselves "socialist", such as the works of Hungarian economist János
Kornai.[3]

Socialist economics have been associated with different schools of economic thought, most
notably Marxian economics, Institutional economics and Evolutionary economics. Early
socialism, like Ricardian socialism, was based on Classical economics, and some forms of
market socialism are based on the Neoclassical school of economics.

A socialist economy is a system of production where goods and services are produced directly
for use, in contrast to a capitalist economic system, where goods and services are produced to
generate profit.[4] Goods and services would be produced for their physical utility and use-value,
eliminating the need for market-induced needs to ensure a sufficient amount of demand for
products to be sold at a profit. Production in a socialist economy is therefore "planned" or
"coordinated", and does not suffer from the business cycle inherent to capitalism. In most
socialist theories, economic planning only applies to the factors of production and not to the
allocation of goods and services produced for consumption, which would be distributed through
a market. Karl Marx stated that "lower-stage communism" would consist of compensation based
on the amount of labor one performs.[5]

The ownership of the means of production varies in different socialist theories. It can either be
based on public ownership by a state apparatus; direct ownership by the users of the productive
property through worker cooperative; or commonly owned by all of society with management
and control delegated to those who operate/use the means of production.

Management and control over the activities of enterprises is based on self-management and self-
governance, with equal power-relations in the workplace to maximize occupational autonomy. A
socialist form of organization would eliminate controlling hierarchies so that only a hierarchy
based on technical knowledge in the workplace remains. Every member would have decision-
making power in the firm and would be able to participate in establishing its overall policy
objectives. The policies/goals would be carried out by the technical specialists that form the
coordinating hierarchy of the firm, who would establish plans or directives for the work
community to accomplish these goals.[6]

However, the economies of the former Socialist states, excluding SFR Yugoslavia, were based
on bureaucratic, top-down administration of economic directives and micromanagement of the
worker in the workplace inspired by capitalist models of scientific management. As a result,
socialists have argued that they were not socialist due to the lack of equal power-relations in the
workplace, the presence of a new "elite", and because of the commodity production that took
place in these economies. These economic and social systems have been classified as being
either [






Y, 

Y, 
 Y or 


YYY, the
exact nature of the USSR  remains unresolved within the socialist movement

Economic planning is a mechanism for the allocation of economic inputs and decision-making
based on direct allocation, in contrast to the market mechanism, which is based on indirect
allocation.[8] An economy based on economic planning appropriates its resources as needed, so
that allocation comes in the form of internal transfers rather than market transactions involving
the purchasing of assets by one government agency or firm by another. Decision-making is
carried out by workers and consumers on the enterprise-level.

Economic planning is not synonymous with the concept of a

 , which existed
in the Soviet Union, and was based on a highly bureaucratic administration of the entire
economy in accordance to a comprehensive plan formulated by a central planning agency, which
specified output requirements for productive units and tried to micromanage the decisions and
policies of enterprises. The command economy is based on the organizational model of a
capitalist firm, but applies it to the entire economy.[9]

Various advocates of economic planning have been staunch critics of command economies and
centralized planning. For example, Leon Trotsky believed that central planners, regardless of
their intellectual capacity, operated without the input and participation of the millions of people
who participate in the economy and understand the local conditions and rapid changes in the
economy. Therefore, central planners would be unable to effectively coordinate all economic
activity because they lacked this informal information.[10]

Economic planning in socialism takes a different form than economic planning in capitalist
mixed economies (such as Dirigisme, Central banking and Indicative planning); in the former
case planning refers to production of use-value directly (planning of production), while in the
latter case planning refers to the planning of capital accumulation in order to stabilize or increase
the efficiency of this process.

Socialist economic theories base the value of a good or service on its use value, rather than its
cost of production (labor theory of value) or its exchange value (Marginal Utility).[12]

Other socialist theories, such as mutualism and market socialism, attempt to apply the labor
theory of value to socialism, so that the price of a good or service is adjusted to equal the amount
of labor time expended in its production. The labor-time expended by each worker would
correspond to labor credits, which would be used as a currency to acquire goods and services.

Market socialists that base their models on neoclassical economics, and thus marginal utility,
such as Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner, have proposed that publicly-owned enterprises set their
price to equal marginal cost, thereby achieving pareto efficiency.

c


   
Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert identify five economic models within the rubric of socialist
economics:[14]

y? u

   u 

in which all property is owned by the
State and all key economic decisions are made centrally by the State, e.g. the former
Soviet Union.
y? u

 c 

, one form of market socialism
which attempts to use the price mechanism to increase economic efficiency, while all
decisive productive assets remain in the ownership of the state, e.g. socialist market
economy in China after reform.
y? A


, where public and private ownership are mixed, and where industrial
planning is ultimately subordinate to market allocation, the model generally adopted by
social democrats e.g. in twentieth century Sweden.
y? u

 
  

, another form of market
socialism in which publicly owned, employee-managed production units engage in free
market exchange of goods and services with one another as well as with final consumers,
e.g. mid twentieth century Yugoslavia, Two more theoretical models are Prabhat Ranjan
Sarkar's Progressive Utilization Theory and Economic democracy.
y? u

 u
  u  , an economy featuring social ownership of
the means of production with allocation based on an integration of decentralized
democratic planning, e.g. stateless communism, libertarian socialism. An incipient
historical forebear is that of Catalonia during the Spanish revolution. More developed
theoretical models include those of Karl Polanyi, Participatory Economics and the
negotiated coordination model of Pat Devine, as well as in Cornelius Castoriadis's
pamphlet "Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed Society"[15]

Additionally, Janos Kornai identifies five distinct classifications for socialism:

y? 
 conception, where socialism is a stage of economic development in

which wage labour, private property in the means of production and monetary relations
have been made redundant through the development of the productive forces, so that
capital accumulation has been superseded by economic planning. Economic planning in
this definition means conscious allocation of economic inputs and the means of
production by the associated producers to directly maximise use-values as opposed to
exchange-values, in contrast to the "anarchy of production" of capitalism.
y? ´ / c
 which defines socialism as public-ownership or
cooperative-enterprises in a market economy, with prices for producer goods set through
a trial-and-error method by a central planning board. In this view, socialism is defined in
terms of de jure public property rights over major enterprises.
y? ü   conception, which includes a form of political organisation based on control of
the means of production and government by a single political party apparatus that claims
to act in the interest of the working class, and an ideology hostile toward markets and
political dissent, with coordination of economic activity through centralised economic
planning (a "command economy").
y? c



concept, based on the capitalist mode of production, which defines
socialism as a set of values rather than a specific type of social and economic
 organisation. It includes unconditional support for parliamentary democracy, gradual and
reformist attempts to establish socialism, and support for socially progressive causes.
Social democrats are not opposed to the market or private property; instead they try to
ameliorate the effects of capitalism through a welfare state, which relies on the market as
the fundamental coordinating entity in the economy and a degree of public
ownership/public provision of public goods in an economy otherwise dominated by
private enterprise.
y?  model, or socialist market economy, based on a largely free-market, capital
accumulation for profit and substantial private ownership along with state-ownership of
strategic industries monopolised by a single political party. Janos Kornai ultimately
leaves the classification of this model (as either socialist or capitalist) to the reader.[16]

Oc


 


Although a number of economic systems have existed with various socialist attributes, or have
been deemed socialist by their proponents, almost all of the economic systems listed below have
largely retained elements of capitalism such as wage labor and commodity production.
Nonetheless, various elements of a socialist economy have been implemented or experimented
½


  

After gaining independence from Britain, India adopted a broadly socialist-inspired approach to
economic growth. Like other countries with a democratic transition to a mixed economy, it did
not abolish private property in capital. India proceeded by    various large privately-
run firms, creating     and 
  income through progressive
taxation in a manner similar to social democratic Western European nations than to planned
economies such as the USSR or China. Today India is often characterized as having a free-
market economy that combines economic planning with the free-market. It did however adopt a
very firm focus on national planning with a series of broad Five-Year Plans.

with in various economies throughout history

   c c
 



½


  
 
Y ½Y
 

  Y 

Y
  

  
 

The Soviet Union and some of its European satellites aimed for a fully centrally planned
economy. They dispensed almost entirely with private ownership of capital. Workers were still,
however, effectively paid a wage for their labour. Some believe that according to Marxist theory
this should have been a step towards a genuine workers' state. However, some Marxists consider
this a misunderstanding of Marx's views of historical materialism, and his views of the process
of socialization.

The characteristics of this model of economy were:

y? u 
 !  for every productive unit. A farm, mine or factory was judged on the
basis of whether its production met the quota. It would be provided with a quota of the
inputs it needed to start production, and then its quota of output would be taken away and
given to downstream production units or distributed to consumers. Critics[ !] of both
left and right persuasions have argued that the economy was plagued by incentive-related
problems;[
 ] claiming, for instance, that the system incentivized enterprise
managers to underreport their unit's productive capacities so that their quotas would be
easier to achieve, especially since the manager's bonuses were linked to the fulfillment of
quotas.

y? 
   

 . In contrast with systems where prices 

allocation of resources, in the Soviet Union, allocation, particularly of means of
production was determined by the bureaucracy. The prices that were constructed were
done so 
the formulation of the economy plan, and such prices did not factor into
choices about what was produced and how it was produced in the first place.
y? - 

 . Every worker was ensured employment. However workers were
generally not directed to jobs. The central planning administration adjusted relative
wages rates to influence job choice in accordance with the outlines of the current plan.
y?   
   : if a surplus of a product was accumulated, then the central
planning authority would either reduce the quota for its production or increase the quota
for its use.
y? -"u  for the long-term development of key industries.
y? ½


  "

y? Singapore pursued a state-led model of economic development under the People's Action
Party, which initially adopted a Leninist approach to politics and a broad socialist model
of economic development.[30] The PAP was initially a member of the Socialist
International. Singapore's economy is dominated by state-owned enterprises and
government-linked companies through Temasek Holdings, which generate 60% of
Singapore's GDP.[31]
y? The state also provides substantial public housing, free education, health and recreational
services, as well as comprehensive public transportation.[32] Today Singapore is often
characterized as having a state capitalist economy that combines economic planning with
the free-market.[33] While government-linked companies generate a majority of
Singapore's GDP, moderate state planning in the economy has been reduced in recent
decades.
y? c
- 

 "  
y? ½


  # " Y

y? Yugoslavia pursued a socialist economy based on autogestion or worker-self
management. Rather than implementing a centrally-planned economy, Yugoslavia
developed a market socialist system where enterprises and firms were socially owned
rather than publicly-owned by the state. In these organizations, the management was
elected by directly by the workers in each firm, and were later organized according to
Edvard Kardelj's theory of associated labor
y? Criticism of socialist economics comes from market economists, including the classicals,
neoclassicals and Austrians, as well as from some anarchist economists. Besides this,
some socialist economic theories are criticized by other socialists. Libertarian socialist,
 mutualist, and market socialist economists, for example, criticize centralized economic
planning and propose participatory economics and decentralized socialism.
y? Market economists generally criticise socialism for eliminating the free market and its
price signals, which they consider necessary for rational economic calculation. They also
consider that it causes lack of incentive. They believe that these problems lead to a slower
rate of technological advance and a slower rate of growth of GDP.
y?   
  economists, such as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises, have
argued that the elimination of private ownership of the means of production would
inevitably create worse economic conditions for the general populace than those that
would be found in market economies. They argue that without the price signals of the
market, it is impossible to calculate rationally how to allocate resources. Mises called this
the economic calculation problem. Mises called socialism "economic insanity". Polish
economist Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner attempted to rebut Mises' argument by
developing the Lange Model during the Economic calculation debate. The Lange model
states that an economy in which all production is performed by the state, where there is a
functioning price mechanism, has similar properties to a market economy under perfect
competition, in that it achieves Pareto efficiency.
y? The 

 view is that there is a lack of incentive, not a lack of information in a
planned economy. They argue that within a socialist planned economy there is a lack of
incentive to act on information. Therefore, the crucial missing element is not so much
information as the Austrian school argued, as it is the motivation to act on information.[59]
y? In his work, Socialism, Ludwig Von Mises criticized socialism for its inability to
calculate rationally:
y? To suppose a socialist community could substitute calculation in kind for calculation in
terms of money is an illusion. In a community that does not practice exchange,
calculations in kind can never cover more than consumption goods. They break down
entirely once goods of higher order are concerned. Every step that moves away from
private ownership of the means of production is a step away from rational economic
calculation[60]
y? Von Mises also pointed out socialism's tendency to consume capital, whose accumulation
is the source of economic progress:
y? In fact, socialism is not in the least what it pretends to be. It is not the pioneer of a better
world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization has created. It does not
build; it destroys. Destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, and only consumes
what the private ownership of the means of production has created. Since a socialist order
of society cannot exist, unless it be a fragment of socialism within an economic order
resting otherwise on private property, each step leading towards socialism must exhaust
itself in the destruction of what already exists.[61]
y? In conclusion, Von Mises warned his audience against the consequences of socialist
economics.
y? If the intellectual dominance of socialism remains unshaken, then in a short time the
whole cooperative system that Europe has built up for thousands of years will be
shattered. For a socialist order of society is unrealizable. All efforts to realize socialism
leads only to the destruction of society. Factories, mines, and railways will come to a
standstill, while towns become deserted. The population of the industrial societies will
die out or migrate elsewhere. The farmer will return to the self-sufficiency of the closed,
 domestic economy. Without private ownership of the means of production there is, in the
long run, no production other than hand-to-mouth production for one's needs.[62]

½



A


(or



) is an economy that includes a variety of private and
public control, reflecting characteristics of both capitalism and socialism.[1] Most mixed
economies can be described as market economies with strong regulatory oversight, in addition to
having a variety of government sponsored aspects. See (Elements of a mixed economy)

There is not one single definition for a mixed economy,[2] but the definitions always involve a
degree of private economic freedom mixed with a degree of government regulation of markets.
The relative strength or weakness of each component in the national economy can vary greatly
between countries. Economies ranging from the United States[3] to Cuba[4] have been termed
mixed economies.

The economic freedom side includes privately owned industry for reasons including individual
freedom, economic efficiency (most especially the allocative efficiency provided by the invisible
hand of markets), and the incentive to innovate provided by competition. The government
regulation side addresses concerns that the private sector cannot be (or at least has never yet
been) well equipped to address, such as environmental protection, maintenance of employment
standards, and maintenance of competition. In some mixed economies, it even includes various
degrees of centralized economic planning, that is, state ownership of some of the means of
production for national or social objectives.[
 ]

Mixed economies as an economic ideal are supported by people of various political persuasions,
typically centre-left and centre-right, such as social democrats[5] or Christian democrats.
Supporters view mixed economies as a compromise between classic socialism and pure laissez-
faire capitalism that is functionally superior to either one.

The term "mixed economy" arose in the context of political debate in the United Kingdom in the
postwar period, although the set of policies later associated with the term had been advocated
from at least the 1930s.[6] Supporters of the mixed economy, including R. H. Tawney,[7] Anthony
Crosland[8] and Andrew Shonfield were mostly associated with the British Labour Party,
although similar views were expressed by Conservatives including Harold Macmillan.

Critics of the British mixed economy, including Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek,
argued that what is called a mixed economy is a move toward socialism and increasing the
influence of the state.[

The term mixed economy is used to describe economic systems which stray from the ideals of
either the market, or various planned economies, and "mix" with elements of each other. As most
political-economic ideologies are defined in an idealized sense, what is described rarely if ever
exists in practice. Most would not consider it unreasonable to label an economy that, while not
being a perfect representation, very closely resembles an ideal by applying the rubric that
denominates that ideal. However, when a system in question diverges to a significant extent from
an idealized economic model or ideology, the task of identifying it can become problematic.
Hence, the term "mixed economy" was coined. As it is unlikely that an economy will contain a
perfectly even mix, mixed economies are usually noted as being skewed towards either private
ownership or public ownership, toward capitalism or socialism, or toward a market economy or
command economy in varying degrees.[10]

There is not a consensus on which economies are capitalist, socialist, or mixed. It may be argued
that the historical tendency of power holders in all times and places to limit the activities of
market actors combined with the natural impossibility of monitoring and constraining all market
actors has resulted in the fact that, as we understand a "mixed economy" being a combination of
governmental enterprise and free-enterprise, nearly every economy to develop in human history
meets this definition; though some systems may be so close to being completely one way or the
other that to call them mixed is redundant and it is more meaningful just to call them a free
market economy or a command economy


  


 
 Oaccording to whom?
   
#

A TGV train in Marseille operated by the publicly owned SNCF. In many countries, the rail
network is partly or completely, owned or controlled, by the state.

A mail truck. Restrictions are sometimes placed on private mail systems by mixed economy
governments. For example, in the U.S., the USPS enjoys a government monopoly on nonurgent
letter mail as described in the Private Express Statutes.
This hospital run by the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. In most countries the
state plays some role in the provision of health care.

y? to possess means of production (farms, factories, stores, etc.)

y? to participate in managerial decisions (cooperative and participatory economics)
y? to travel (needed to transport all the items in commerce, to make deals in person, for
workers and owners to go to where needed)
y? to buy (items for personal use, for resale; buy whole enterprises to make the organization
that creates wealth a form of wealth itself)
y? to sell (same as buy)
y? to hire (to create organizations that create wealth)
y? to fire (to maintain organizations that create wealth)
y? to organize (private enterprise for profit, labor unions, workers' and professional
associations, non-profit groups, religions, etc.)
y? to communicate (free speech, newspapers, books, advertisements, make deals, create
business partners, create markets)
y? to protest peacefully (marches, petitions, sue the government, make laws friendly to
profit making and workers alike, remove pointless inefficiencies to maximize wealth
creation)

 $
$   
   
 $ 
 $ 

#

y? libraries and other information services

y? roads and other transportation services

y? schools and other education services
y? hospitals and other health services
y? banks and other financial services
y? telephone, mail and other communication services
y? electricity and other energy services (e.g. oil, gas)
y? water systems for drinking, agriculture, and waste disposal
y? subsidies to agriculture and other businesses
y? government-granted monopolies to otherwise private businesses
y? legal assistance
y? Government-funded or state-run research and development agencies
   
 
   


        
  
 
 
   

 
#

y? welfare for the poor

y? social security for the aged and infirm
y? government subsidies to business
y? mandatory insurance (example: automobile)

 

 $  #

y? environmental regulation (example: toxins in land, water, air)

y? labor regulation including minimum wage laws
y? consumer regulation (example: product safety)
y? antitrust laws
y? intellectual property laws
y? incorporation laws
y? protectionism
y? import and export controls, such as tariffs and quotas

      


    

 
 

The mixed economy is most commonly associated with social democratic forms of
government[
 ]. However, given the broad range of economic systems that can be
described by the term, most forms of government are consistent with some form of mixed
economy.

Authors John W. Houck and Oliver F. Williams of the University of Notre Dame have argued
that Catholic social teaching naturally leads to a mixed economy in terms of policy. They
referred back to Pope Paul VI's statement that government "should supply help to the members
of the social body, but may never destroy or absorb them". They wrote that a socially just mixed
economy involves labor, management, and the state working together through a pluralistic
system that distributes economic power widely.[


   


is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and
operated for profit. Income in a Capitalist system is split between the business owners and the
workers, with profit sent to the owners, in other words the Capitalists, who have invested money
in businesses, and wages are paid to workers.

There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor how the term should be used as
an analytical category.[1] There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the
means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages
are elements of capitalism.[2] There are a variety of historical cases to which the designation is
applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[3] Some define capitalism as where 
the means of production are privately owned, and some define it more loosely where merely
"most" are in private hands ² while others refer to the latter as a mixed economy biased toward
capitalism. More fundamentally, others define capitalism as a system where production is carried
out to generate profit and governed subject to the laws of capital accumulation, regardless of
legal ownership titles. Private ownership in capitalism implies the right to control property,
including determining how it is used, who uses it, whether to sell or rent it, and the right to the
revenue generated by the property.[4]

Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis
of capitalism. Economists usually emphasize the degree that government does not have control
over markets (laissez faire), and on property rights.[5][6] Most political economists emphasize
private property, power relations, wage labor and class.[7] There is general agreement that
capitalism encourages economic growth.[8] The extent to which different markets are free, as
well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy, and many states
have what are termed mixed economies.[7]

Capitalism, as a deliberate economic system, developed incrementally from the 16th century in
Europe,[9] although proto-capitalist organizations existed in the ancient world, and early aspects
of merchant capitalism flourished during the Late Middle Ages.[10][11][12] Capitalism became
dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[12] Capitalism gradually
spread throughout Europe, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the main means of
industrialization throughout much of the world.[3] Today the capitalist system is the world's most
dominant form of economic model.

Capitalist economics developed out of the interactions of the following elements.

A product is any good produced for exchange on a market. "Commodities" refers to standard
products, especially raw materials such as grains and metals, that are not associated with
particular producers or brands and trade on organized exchanges.

There are two types of products: capital goods and consumer goods. Capital goods (i.e., raw
materials, tools, industrial machines, vehicles and factories) are used to produce consumer goods
(e.g., televisions, cars, computers, houses) to be sold to others. The three inputs required for
production are labor, land (i.e., natural resources, which exist prior to human beings) and capital
goods. Capitalism entails the private ownership of the latter two ² natural resources and capital
goods ² by a class of owners called capitalists, either individually, collectively or through a
state apparatus that operates for a profit or serves the interests of capital owners.

Money was primarily a standardized medium of exchange, and final means of payment, that
serves to measure the value all goods and commodities in a standard of value. It eliminates the
cumbersome system of barter by separating the transactions involved in the exchange of
products, thus greatly facilitating specialization and trade through encouraging the exchange of
commodities. Capitalism involves the further abstraction of money into other exchangeable
assets and the accumulation of money through ownership, exchange, interest and various other
financial instruments. However, besides serving as a medium of exchange for labour, goods and
services, money is also a store of value, similar to precious metals.
Labour includes all physical and mental human resources, including entrepreneurial capacity and
management skills, which are needed to produce products and services. Production is the act of
making products or services by applying labour power to the means of production.[




The price (P) of a product is determined by a balance between production at each price (supply,
S) and the desires of those with purchasing power at each price (demand, D). This results in a
market equilibrium, with a given quantity (Q) sold of the product. A rise in demand from D1 to
D2 would result in an increase in price from P1 to P2 and an increase in output from Q1 to Q2.

In a capitalist economy, the prices of goods and services are controlled mainly through supply
and demand and competition. Supply is the amount of a good or service produced by a firm and
which is available for sale. Demand is the amount that people are willing to buy at a specific
price. Prices tend to rise when demand exceeds supply, and fall when supply exceeds demand. In
theory, the market is able to coordinate itself when a new equilibrium price and quantity is
reached.

Competition arises when more than one producer is trying to sell the same or similar products to
the same buyers. In capitalist theory, competition leads to innovation and more affordable prices.
Without competition, a monopoly or cartel may develop. A monopoly occurs when a firm
supplies the total output in the market; the firm can therefore limit output and raise prices
because it has no fear of competition. A cartel is a group of firms that act together in a
monopolistic manner to control output and raise prices.

  
 




   
" 
 Y 


   

In a capitalist system, the government does not prohibit private property or prevent individuals
from working where they please. The government does not prevent firms from determining what
wages they will pay and what prices they will charge for their products. Many countries,
however, have minimum wage laws and minimum safety standards.

Under some versions of capitalism, the government carries out a number of economic functions,
such as issuing money, supervising public utilities and enforcing private contracts. Many
countries have competition laws that prohibit monopolies and cartels from forming. Despite anti-
monopoly laws, large corporations can form near-monopolies in some industries. Such firms can
temporarily drop prices and accept losses to prevent competition from entering the market, and
then raise them again once the threat of entry is reduced. In many countries, public utilities (e.g.
electricity, heating fuel, communications) are able to operate as a monopoly under government
regulation, due to high economies of scale.

Government agencies regulate the standards of service in many industries, such as airlines and
broadcasting, as well as financing a wide range of programs. In addition, the government
regulates the flow of capital and uses financial tools such as the interest rate to control factors
such as inflation and unemployment.[50]

Critics of capitalism associate it with: unfair distribution of wealth and power; a tendency toward
market monopoly or oligopoly (and government by oligarchy); imperialism, counter-
revolutionary wars and various forms of economic and cultural exploitation; repression of
workers and trade unionists; social alienation; economic inequality; unemployment; and
economic instability.

Notable critics of capitalism have included: socialists, anarchists, communists, social democrats,
technocrats, some types of conservatives, Luddites, Narodniks, Shakers and some types of
nationalists.

Marxists have advocated a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism that would lead to socialism,
before eventually transforming into communism. Many socialists consider capitalism to be
irrational, in that production and the direction of the economy are unplanned, creating many
inconsistencies and internal contradictions.[72] Labor historians and scholars such as Immanuel
Wallerstein have argued that unfree labor ² by slaves, indentured servants, prisoners, and other
coerced persons ² is compatible with capitalist relations.[73]

Many aspects of capitalism have come under attack from the anti-globalization movement,
which is primarily opposed to corporate capitalism. Environmentalists have argued that
capitalism requires continual economic growth, and that it will inevitably deplete the finite
natural resources of the Earth.[74]

Many religions have criticized or opposed specific elements of capitalism. Traditional Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam forbid lending money at interest, although alternative methods of banking
have been developed. Some Christians have criticized capitalism for its materialist aspects.[75]
Indian philosopher P.R. Sarkar, founder of the Ananda Marga movement, developed the Law of
Social Cycle to identify the problems of capitalism.[76][77]