On February 29, 2016 the day budget was announced there was a debate sparked out everywhere that where are we going, towards Socialism or Capitalism? First lets begin by defining both of them. Socialism is that economic theory which believes that each and every means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned by the society as a whole. Put in simple words this theory advocates equality and says that all the resources are of and by the society and so should be owned equally by the society. Capitalism is that economic theory in which trade and industry is owned by the private players and is run for profit without any government intervention. Thus this economy works on the principle of free economy and says that the market will itself determine its benefit and works on the demand and supply. So this theory does not require Government intervention. Now moving back to our original question whether this government is going towards socialism or capitalism? With the implementation of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) and providing rebate to the 10% slab (A income level of 2.5 to 5 lacs) and concentrating on Agriculture and rural infrastructure this may seem to be a socialistic budget. Here the question is not towards what we are moving but the question is where is it required to move. So lets see the other side of coin. Look into history each and every country which is having capitalism (Though not complete), did it directly move to capitalism? The answer for most of them is no. What all the countries do when it comes to development is asset creation in form of infrastructure which in result empowers the rural areas and gives a boost to rural demand. In 1950s and 1960s the countries like USA and China were also facing the same problem i.e. majority of rural population, dependence on agriculture and unsuccessful urbanization. So did they move directly to capitalism? No, they did not. For the industries to grow two things are necessary: 1st infrastructure and 2nd demand. Since demand cannot be created and is market driven all the countries focussed on the infrastructure factor. After they provided what was required to the industry these countries moved to capitalism that too not complete capitalism. Capitalism or socialism both are extreme conditions. No country can fully achieve either of them. In the short run or long run they are bound to fail. Take any country in the world and it is bound to have government regulations may be less or more, but they do have. So what mistake did India make? In 1950s when India became independent it had to decide what to do. India went for building heavy industries and made infrastructure a secondary objective. But soon India shifted its focus towards infrastructure as the public industries started running into losses. As a result, it created unemployment because the industries were not built during that time. And till date the problem is not solved and it worsened with the increase in population and as a result a situation came when India was not having funds to run the country even for a week and so it adopted LPG (Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization). So looking to all this what do we require. The complete socialization was not successful as clearly evident from 1950 to 1990. We cant afford privatization looking to the income disparity in the country. So what we require is a capitalist approach with a socialist thought. Yes, it may seem weird but mixed economy with the dominance of capitalism is what I feel we require. And this is what the current budget showcased. It focuses on empowerment of youth and capacity building which in turn will create rural demand, thus satisfying both the factors required by the industry to cherish. Just we need to change our mind and consider BOP (Bottom of Pyramid) as an opportunity for growth instead of neglecting them. India will develop at a very fast pace and will definitely prove to be a beacon of stability. https://summit661.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/socialism-or-capitalism