MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

AURANGABAD

NAME: SOUMIKI GHOSH

ROLL NO: 10

SEMESTER: II

B.A.LL.B (Hons.)

SUBJECT: SOCIOLOGY-II

TOPIC: SIGNIFICANT POLITICALL IDEOLOGIES & THEIR

SOCIAL IMPACTS

GUIDED BY: Mr. Rahul Kosambi (Asst. Professor of Sociology)

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Serial No. Topic Name Page No.

1. Introduction 3
2. Discussion about the Ideologies 5
3. Conclusion 26

2
 INTRODUCTION

The topic of this project is “Significant Political Ideologies & Their Social Impacts”. So,
this project contains a brief study of the principles of various ideologies and their political
impact on the world.
Ideologies are the sets of basic beliefs about the political, economic, social and cultural
affairs held by the majority of people within a society.
In social studies, a political ideology is a certain set of ethical ideals, principles, doctrines,
myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class or large group that explains how
society should work and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order.
A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it
should be used. Some political parties follow a certain ideology very closely while others
may take broad inspiration from a group of related ideologies without specifically embracing
any one of them. The popularity of an ideology is in part due to the influence of moral
entrepreneurs, who sometimes act in their own interests.
An ideology is a collection of ideas. Typically, each ideology contains certain ideas on what
it considers to be the best form of government (e.g. democracy or autocracy) and the best
economic system (e.g. capitalism or socialism). Sometimes the same word is used to identify
both an ideology and one of its main ideas. For instance, "socialism" may refer to an
economic system, or it may refer to an ideology which supports that economic system. The
same term may also be used to refer to multiple ideologies, and that is why political scientists
try to find consensus definitions for these terms. For instance, while the terms have been
conflated at times, "Communism" has come in common parlance and in academics to refer to
Soviet-type regimes and Marxist-Leninist ideologies, whereas "Socialism" has come to refer
to a wider range of differing ideologies distinct from Marxism-Leninism.1 Political ideology
is a term fraught with problems, having been called "the most elusive concept in the whole of
social science". However, ideologies tend to identify themselves by their position on the
political spectrum (such as the left, the centre or the right), though this is very often
controversial. Finally, ideologies can be distinguished from political strategies (e.g.
populism) and from single issues that a party may be built around (e.g. opposition to

1
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/slavic-review/article/state-of-socialism-a-note-on-
terminology/4C742B00BE0D00ED3F0BE855097DE5F7#

3
European integration or the legalization of marijuana). There are several studies that show
that political ideology is heritable within families.
One ideology can belong to several groups and there is sometimes considerable overlap
between related ideologies. The meaning of a political label can also differ between countries
and that parties often subscribe to a combination of ideologies. The ideologies mentioned in
this project are - Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism.

4
 DISCUSSION ABOUT THE IDEOLOGIES

1. SOCIALISM

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and
workers' self-management of the means of production as well as the political theories and
movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective
or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of
socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership
is the common element shared by its various forms.2
Socialist economic systems can be divided into non-market and market forms. Non-market
socialism involves the substitution of factor markets and money with engineering and
technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind, thereby producing an economic
mechanism that functions according to different economic laws from those of capitalism.
Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated
with capital accumulation and the profit system. By contrast, market socialism retains the use
of monetary prices, factor markets and in some cases the profit motive, with respect to the
operation of socially owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them.
Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm,
or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend.3 The socialist calculation debate
discusses the feasibility and methods of resource allocation for a socialist system.
The socialist political movement includes a set of political philosophies that originated in the
revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 18th century and out of concern for the social
problems that were associated with capitalism. In addition to the debate over markets and
planning, the varieties of socialism differ in their form of social ownership, how management
is to be organised within productive institutions and the role of the state in constructing
socialism.4 Core dichotomies include reformism versus revolutionary socialism and state
socialism versus libertarian socialism. Socialist politics has been both centralist and

2
Arnold, Scott (1994). The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study. Hastings, Mason
and Pyper, Adrian, Alistair and Hugh (21 December 2000). The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought

3
Hastings, Mason and Pyper, Adrian, Alistair and Hugh (21 December 2000). The Oxford Companion to
Christian Thought
4
Nove, Alec. "Socialism". New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition (2008). Lamb & Docherty
2006, p. 1

5
decentralised; internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organised through political
parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions and at other
times independent of—and critical of—unions; and present in both industrialized and
developing countries. While all tendencies of socialism consider themselves democratic, the
term "democratic socialism" is often used to highlight its advocates' high value for
democratic processes in the economy and democratic political systems, usually to draw
contrast to tendencies they may be perceived to be undemocratic in their approach.
Democratic socialism is frequently used to draw contrast to the political system of the Soviet
Union, which critics argue operated in an authoritarian fashion.5
By the late 19th century, after the work of Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels,
socialism had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for a post-capitalist
system based on some form of social ownership of the means of production. By the 1920s,
social democracy and communism had become the two dominant political tendencies within
the international socialist movement. By this time, socialism emerged as "the most influential
secular movement of the twentieth century, worldwide. It is a political ideology (or world
view), a wide and divided political movement" and while the emergence of the Soviet Union
as the world's first nominally socialist state led to socialism's widespread association with the
Soviet economic model, some economists and intellectuals argued that in practice the model
functioned as a form of state capitalism or a non-planned administrative or command
economy. Socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power
and influence on all continents, heading national governments in many countries around the
world. Today, some socialists have also adopted the causes of other social movements, such
as environmentalism, feminism and progressivism.6

Impact of Socialism on Society

The history of socialism has its origins in the 1789 French Revolution and the changes which
it wrought, although it has precedents in earlier movements and ideas. The Communist
Manifesto was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848 just before the Revolutions
of 1848 swept Europe, expressing what they termed "scientific socialism". In the last third of

5
Nicholas Guilhot, The democracy makers: human rights and international order, 2005, p. 33

6
Garrett Ward Sheldon. Encyclopedia of Political Thought. Fact on File. Inc. 2001. p. 280

6
the 19th century, social democratic parties arose in Europe, drawing mainly from Marxism.
The Australian Labor Party was the world's first elected socialist party when it formed
government in the Colony of Queensland for a week in 1899.
In the first half of the 20th century, the Soviet Union and the communist parties of the Third
International around the world mainly came to represent socialism in terms of the Soviet
model of economic development and the creation of centrally planned economies directed by
a state that owns all the means of production, although other trends condemned what they
saw as the lack of democracy. In the United Kingdom, Herbert Morrison said that "socialism
is what the Labour government does" whereas Aneurin Bevan argued that socialism requires
that the "main streams of economic activity are brought under public direction", with an
economic plan and workers' democracy. Some argued that capitalism had been abolished.
Socialist governments established the mixed economy with partial nationalisations and social
welfare.
By 1968, the prolonged Vietnam War (1959–1975) gave rise to the New Left, socialists who
tended to be critical of the Soviet Union and social democracy. Anarcho-syndicalists and
some elements of the New Left and others favoured decentralized collective ownership in the
form of cooperatives or workers' councils. At the turn of the 21st century in Latin America,
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez championed what he termed socialism of the 21st
century, which included a policy of nationalisation of national assets such as oil, anti-
imperialism and termed himself a Trotskyist supporting permanent revolution.

List of Socialist States

The term socialist has been thrown around quite a bit in the past few years. Not since the cold
war has the term garnered so much attention in the press and from politicians. But when we
look at countries who actually have a socialist economic structure, we can see some
similarities to the United States – but there are some really stark differences.
Some of the most socialistic nations in the world today: China, Denmark, Finland,
Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand, Belgium, India.
Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and
welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are proof of that, such as Denmark and
Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce
remains stronger.

7
China
In China the government manages and controls the economy. Many of the domestic
companies are owned and run by the government. Recently, the Chinese economy has
become more geared towards capitalism, but is still officially socialist. Life in China remains
relatively less stressful and more relaxed than life in capitalist countries like America.

Denmark
Denmark has a wide range of welfare benefits that they offer their citizens. As a result, they
also have the highest taxes in the world. Equality is considered the most important value in
Denmark. Small businesses thrive, with over 70 percent of companies having 50 employees
or less.

Finland
Finland has one of the world’s best education systems, with no tuition fees and also giving
free meals to their students. The literacy rate in Finland is 100 percent. Finland has one of the
highest standards of living in the world. Like Denmark and other European countries,
equality is considered one of the most important values in society. Whereas in the
Netherlands, government control over the economy remains at a minimum, but a socialist
welfare system remains. The lifestyle in the Netherlands is very egalitarian and organized,
where even bosses do not discipline or treat their subordinates rudely.

Canada
Like the Netherlands, Canada also has mostly a free market economy, but has a very
extensive welfare system that includes free health and medical care. Canadians remain more
open-minded and liberal than Americans, and Canada is ranked as one of the best top five
countries to live in by the United Nations and the Human Development Index (HDI)
rankings.

Sweden
Sweden has a large welfare system, but due to a high national debt, required much
government intervention in the economy. In Norway, the government controls certain key
aspects of the national economy, and they also have one of the best welfare systems in the

8
world, with Norway having one of the highest standards of living in all of Europe. Norway is
not a member of the European Union
Ireland
Ireland has arguably one of the best welfare systems in the world, with unemployment checks
higher on average than Denmark or Switzerland’s average. Around 25 percent of Ireland’s
GDP goes towards paying for the welfare system, as compared to 15 percent of America’
GDP towards America’s social support programs.

New Zealand
New Zealand may not be a socialist country, but the welfare system in the country is very
wide ranging, offering support for housing, unemployment, health, child care, and education
as well. Therefore, New Zealand has many of the characteristics of a socialist country, even
while remaining officially free market.

Belgium
Lastly, Belgium has most of the same social security benefits that New Zealand offers,
including invalid and old age pensions. The welfare system causes much of the country’s
budget deficit though, and so is considered by some to be a burden on society.

Socialism in India

Some sentimental and humanitarian ideals regarding human fraternity, solidarity and spiritual
equality are found in the Rig-Veda and in the Buddhist scriptures, especially the
Dhammapada but Socialism as a philosophy of social and economic reconstruction is
developed and popularized in India solely due to the impact of the West. The growth of
socialist thought in India is almost absolutely a phenomenon of the twentieth century, unlike
the West, where pre-eminent socialist thinkers flourished in the nineteenth century. In the
articles of Bal Gangadhar Tilak written in 1908 in the Kesari, there is mention of the Russian
Nihilists. But they are mentioned as a group of terrorists or anarchists. There is no evidence
to show that Tilak had any acquaintance with the ideas of the eminent Nihilistic philosophers
like Pisarev, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolubov. Lala Lajpat Rai was possibly the first Indian
writer to write about Socialism and Bolshevism but his attitude to Bolshevism is
unsympathetic. In 1921-23, M. N. Roy wrote his India in Transition and Indian Problem in

9
which he engaged in a bitter criticism of the bourgeois domination of the Indian National
Congress. He wrote as a confirmed Marxist and held that Lajpat Rai was 'a bourgeois
politician with no sympathy for Socialism'. M. N. Roy and Virendra Chattopadhyaya were
the two Indians intensely interested in Communism in the early twenties. C. R. Das in his
presidential speech at the Gaya Congress (1922) referred to the great event of the Russian
Revolution of 1917, but he did not show any sympathy for it. Without being a socialist, Das,
however, helped in the building up of a Trade Union movement in India. Although the
economic and political theory of democratic socialism has been borrowed mainly from
England, nevertheless some thinkers and writers in India prepared the intellectual background
for the reception of this ideology. Indian culture from the Vedas, the Upanishads and
Buddhism to the times of Ram Mohan Roy and Gandhi has emphasized the aspect of
tolerance of contrary and contradictory opinions. The ideal of intellectual tolerance of the
view of opponents is a democratic heritage. Vivekananda and Rama Thirtha felt that the
Hindu Sannyasis who had renounced the attachment to wealth and power were true socialists.
Vivekananda's denunciation of the so-called upper castes in Indian society was trenchant.
Bankim Chandra preached the notion of Samya and talked about relief of the agricultural
workers. Dadabhai Naoroji believed in redeeming the labourers' from exploitation. Socialism
is, perhaps, the most significant and emotion charged concept in international politics today.
Several Indian thinkers and leaders also began to formulate some kind of a socialist ideology.
Jaya Prakash Narayan was the most well-known and recognized personality in the field of
Indian Socialism. It was his important contribution to have joined the socialist movement in
India to the great struggle for national freedom that was being fought under the banner of the
Indian National Congress. Narendra Deva and Jaya Prakash Narayan tried to orient the
socialist ideology to the emancipation of the masses from imperialist political domination and
native feudal thralldom. Hence they emphasized the socialist philosophy as a war-cry on two
fronts-national liberation struggle and social revolution. In the context of the immense
poverty and decadent agricultural society of India, Narayan has stressed the elimination of the
restraints, both mechanical and social that hampers agricultural productivity. Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia has made a significant contribution to the progress of socialist movement of
India. He had been a fiery propagandist of socialist thought in India and pleaded for a greater
incorporation of Gandhian ideas in socialist thought. As a socialist intellectual Ram Manohar
Lohia had done vigorous thinking. Impact of Socialism the greatest sources for the
propagation of socialist ideology in India have been the Congress Socialist Party and
Jawaharlal Nehru. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had enunciated in 1935 that true Socialism
10
consists in the development of village industries. He further maintained that in the Western
World, mass production had resulted in the creation of chaotic conditions. In refuting his
point of view, Jawaharlal Nehru pointed out that the poor sections could not be allowed to rot
under a system of underdeveloped economy. He opined that the basic evil did not lie in the
system of production but in the inadequacy and malformation of the distribution system.
Indian Socialists have contended that large-scale mechanization will release human labour
power which can be profitably utilized for other creative work. They state that it is only a
perverted vision that wants to utilize human power in all those works of drudgery which can
very well be done by machines. They recognize that mechanization will, of course, create
some degree of unemployment but this problem of unemployment can be solved by some
other means and not by tying ourselves to a primitive society based on utilization of human
labour power only. Indian Socialists say that what has failed is not the machine but the wrong
application of the machines by monopoly capitalism and a tyrannical state. After
Independence, the Congress Socialist Party became committed to the ideal of democratic
socialism. Ashok Mehta wrote a book entitled Democratic Socialism wherein he rejected the
idealistic theory of the State and totalitarianism. He preached, like Laski and Barker, the
notion of plural State and felt that Socialism was not antithetical to culture. He stated that the
planned economics of Russian Communism tends to centralization. But democratic socialism
is committed to cultural pluralism and certain absolute concepts and criteria of ethics. In
1964, the All India Congress Committee passed a resolution at Bhubaneswar wherein they
stressed democratic socialism. Kama raj (1903- 1975) as the Congress President emphasized
democratic socialism as the ideal of the Congress and invited all socialists to join its rank.
Democratic Socialism as it is being advocated in India claims to be an alternative to state
capitalism and bureaucratic tyranny. State capitalism can be more heartless and cruel in its
techniques of suppressing freedom than private capitalism. A private capitalist can only
engage in the economic exploitation of the laborers. But when the state becomes a capitalist,
then, on certain occasions, it can even legally arrest a laborer for engaging in what it
considers illegal practice. The controlling devices of the state can be more ruthless than those
of the private capitalists. Democratic Socialism, to be successful, has to make provisions for
ending the dreaded evils of state socialism which is an euphemism for state capitalism. It
must provide for increasing workers’ participation in the managerial processes. Mere
advisory councils of workers are not enough. Indian Socialists are more fascinated by the
experiments of the Social Democrats in Germany and the British Labor Party. The contend
that it will be a retrograde step in culture to reduce men to the condition of animals by
11
crushing them under the heels of an armed bureaucracy and total regimentation. Hence they
want to put adequate emphasis on individual initiative and freedom. They do not think that
the all powerful state alone can bring into existence a state of prosperity and growth.
Moreover, it will be suicidal on the part of the state to crush individual development under
the name of Socialism. The Socialists sincerely want to utilize the instrumentalities of the
States for effectuating social and economic reconstruction. But they do not want to vest it
with arbitrary and dictatorial powers. According to Indian Socialists, their system alone will
release the energy which will build a society based on leisure, in which the evils of capitalism
will be ended in which talent will come from the classes which have so long been considered
backward and inferior, in which illiteracy will vanish, in which sufficient attention will be
paid to the development of all kinds of art, literature, science, philosophy etc. While the
Communists, in India, are singing the praise of Russia and lately of China, Socialists believe
in an economy and polity which will be Indian and not a carbon copy of the Russian system.
An attempt has been made by Indian Socialists to build a non-proletarian basis for carrying
forward their schemes of social reconstruction. They felt that more than the urban and
industrial workers, the Indian rural workers and the landless farmers are the most exploited
sections of the Indian Society. Indian Socialists hold that for the last several centuries the
backward classes and the scheduled casts and tribes have been mercilessly exploited and
suppressed. Socialism wants that full economic and social opportunities should be provided
to these sections. Hence the SSP demanded that 60% of the posts under the government
should be reserved for the backward sections, including among the backward also women and
Muslims. Indian Socialists remark that only Socialism will provide relief to the vast majority
of the poorer sections of the Indian society. Democratic Socialists assert that intellectual
criticism is the foundation of every progressive. Hence scientific researches have to be
encouraged. Like their European counterparts, the Indian Socialists also say that only in a
socialist society it will be possible for the vast masses to reap the advantages of scientific
inventions which, so far, are generally utilized for the personal advantages of the capitalists.
Indian Socialists want to realize their ideals by democratic means and they have no desire to
categorize some people as permanent rulers and some people as permanent ruled. Socialists
want to free human beings from a system of slavery which capitalism breeds. The Indian
Socialists have received considerable inspiration from the researches of the Russian
biologists who pointed out that it is a dogma of aristocratic racial philosophers to propound
that people are made for ruling and some people are made for being ruled. So far as the
impact of Socialism on the Indian political system is concerned, the Zamindari system which
12
was a source of great exploitation and evil in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, had been abolished
immediately after the adoption of the Indian Constitution. The amendment of Article 31 of
the Indian Constitution sought to give power to the State to take away private property for
public purposes. The quantum of compensation in such cases was not justifiable. In other
words, the legislature or the executive could fix the compensation that was to be paid to those
whose properties were requisitioned. Influenced by socialist ideology, important public sector
enterprises were set up in this period in the field of iron and steel, electricity, hydro-electric
power etc. It is very true that the total amount of investment in public sector enterprises in
India was only to the tune of 20 per cent. This figure is much less than the figure for the so
called capitalist countries of Western Europe and America. Moreover a socialist thinking had
also been growing that the dividends of the enterprises must also be utilized for the
enhancement of the welfare of the workers. Mere state control of the means of production is
not enough. The distribution of the national resources for the enhancement of the good of the
workers is also a prime necessity. Estate duty as well as heavy and progressive income-tax
are being used to reduce the disparities in income of the lowest and the highest. Thus, the
Indian political system has made much headway in the path of achieving the ideals of
democratic socialism. It is true that Karl Marx and Lenin, the two most famous names in the
history of socialism, were materialists. Marx had written his doctoral dissertation submitted
to the University of Jena, on the difference between the materialistic philosophy of
Democritus and Epicurus. Lenin was a militant atheist. In India also, we have different
schools of thought like idealism, materialism and atheism. Buddhism, Jainism, the Samkhya
and the Mimansa are atheistic. Kautsa and Charvaka (Brihaspati) were recognized exponents
of anti-Vedas. But I do not think that socialism, in the primary sense of a philosophy of
economic organization wherein ownership of the means of production is prevented from
being transformed into a source of obtaining power over others, and wherein control of the
means of production is divested from private owners and given to the state, is necessarily and
logically attached to any one particular system of metaphysics, whether it is idealistic or
materialistic. It is true that a militant atheist like Lenin denounced the attempts of Bogdanov,
Bazarov, Lunacharsky and Yushkevitch when they tried to incorporate idealistic elements
into Marxism But in India we find that there have been agnostic atheistic and Idealist
champions of socialism. Jawaharlal Nehru was an agnostic and Lohia was an atheist. But Dr.
Sapurnanand was a confirmed believer in the teachings of Vedanta as well as Yoga. It is
therefore possible to accept an idealist approach in the field of metaphysics and cosmology
and at the same time to maintain that private capitalism is an inequitable institution and,
13
hence, to sponsor the socialist alternative. There is, however, no reason to denounce western
socialism as a social and economic philosophy on the ground that its basis is in materialistic
ontology. Socialism has been variously defined and interpreted. Durkheim made a distinction
between the ancient transcendental communism and the modern mechanistic socialism which
has developed in the post-Industrial Revolution era as a counterpoise to the evils generated by
industrialization. The key-concept in modern socialism has been the socialization of the
means of production. Sometimes, socialization and nationalization are used interchangeably.
But a distinction must be made.

14
2. COMMUNISM

In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal") is
the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate
goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured
upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes,
money and the state.7
Communism includes a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism and
anarchism (anarcho-communism), as well as the political ideologies grouped around both. All
of these share the analysis that the current order of society stems from its economic system,
capitalism; that in this system there are two major social classes; that conflict between these
two classes is the root of all problems in society; and that this situation will ultimately be
resolved through a social revolution. The two classes are the working class—who must work
to survive and who make up the majority within society—and the capitalist class—a minority
who derives profit from employing the working class through private ownership of the means
of production. The revolution will put the working class in power and in turn establish social
ownership of the means of production, which according to this analysis is the primary
element in the transformation of society towards communism. Critics of communism can be
roughly divided into those concerning themselves with the practical aspects of 20th century
communist states and those concerning themselves with communist principles and theory.8
Communism can be divided into two types:-
1) Marxist Communism
2) Non- Marxist Communism
Marxist Communism
Marxism, first developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the mid-1800s, has been the
foremost ideology of the communist movement. Marxism considers itself to be the
embodiment of scientific socialism, and rather than model an "ideal society" based on

7
The ABC of Communism, Nikoli Bukharin, 1920, Section 21. George Thomas Kurian, ed. (2011). "Withering
Away of the State". The Encyclopedia of Political Science

8
Raymond C. Taras, The Road to Disillusion: From Critical Marxism to Post-communism in Eastern Europe
(Routledge, 2015).

15
intellectuals' design, it is a non-idealist attempt at the understanding of society and history
through an analysis based in real life. Marxism does not see communism as a "state of
affairs" to be established, but rather as the expression of a real movement, with parameters
which are derived completely from real life and not based on any intelligent design.9
Therefore, Marxism does no blueprinting of a communist society and it only makes an
analysis which concludes what will trigger its implementation and discovers its fundamental
characteristics based on the derivation of real life conditions.
At the root of Marxism is the materialist conception of history, known as historical
materialism for short. It holds that the key characteristic of economic systems through history
has been the mode of production and that the change between modes of production has been
triggered by class struggle. According to this analysis, the Industrial Revolution ushered the
world into a new mode of production: capitalism. Before capitalism, certain working classes
had ownership of instruments utilized in production, but because machinery was much more
efficient this property became worthless and the mass majority of workers could only survive
by selling their labour, working through making use of someone else's machinery and
therefore making someone else profit. Thus with capitalism the world was divided between
two major classes: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.10 These classes are directly
antagonistic: the bourgeoisie has private ownership of the means of production and earns a
profit off surplus value, which is generated by the proletariat, which has no ownership of the
means of production and therefore no option but to sell its labour to the bourgeoisie.

Leninism

Leninism is the body of political theory, developed by and named after the Russian
revolutionary and later Soviet premier Vladimir Lenin for the democratic organisation of a
revolutionary vanguard party and the achievement of a dictatorship of the proletariat, as
political prelude to the establishment of socialism. Leninism comprises socialist political and
economic theories developed from Marxism, as well as Lenin's interpretations of Marxist
theory for practical application to the socio-political conditions of the agrarian early-
twentieth-century Russian Empire. In February 1917, for five years Leninism was the

9
Marx, Karl. The German Ideology. 1845. Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook
10
Engels, Friedrich. Marx & Engels Selected Works, Volume One, pp. 81–97, Progress Publishers, Moscow,
1969. "Principles of Communism"

16
Russian application of Marxist economics and political philosophy, affected and realised by
the Bolsheviks, the vanguard party who led the fight for the political independence of the
working class.

bMarxism–Leninism and Stalinism

Marxism–Leninism is a political ideology developed by Joseph Stalin, which according to its

proponents is based in Marxism and Leninism. The term describes the specific political
ideology which Stalin implemented in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. There is no
definite agreement between historians of about whether Stalin actually followed the
principles of Marx and Lenin. It also contains aspects which according to some are deviations
from Marxism, such as "socialism in one country".11 Marxism–Leninism was the ideology of
the most clearly visible communist movement. As such, it is the most prominent ideology
associated with communism.
Marxism–Leninism refers to the socioeconomic system and political ideology implemented
by Stalin in the Soviet Union and later copied by other states based on the Soviet model
(central planning, one-party state and so on), whereas Stalinism refers to Stalin's style of
governance (political repression, cult of personality and the like). Marxism–Leninism stayed
after de-Stalinization, Stalinism did not. In the last letters before his death, Lenin in fact
warned against the danger of Stalin's personality and urged the Soviet government to replace
him.12
Maoism is a form of Marxism–Leninism associated with Chinese leader Mao Zedong. After
de-Stalinization, Marxism–Leninism was kept in the Soviet Union, but certain anti-revisionist
tendencies such as Hoxhaism and Maoism argued that it was deviated from; therefore
different policies were applied in Albania and China, which became more distanced from the
Soviet Union.
Marxism–Leninism has been criticized by other communist and Marxist tendencies. They
argue that Marxist–Leninist states did not establish socialism, but rather state capitalism.

11
Contemporary Marxism, issues 4–5. Synthesis Publications, 1981. p. 151. "[S]ocialism in one country, a
pragmatic deviation from classical Marxism". North Korea Under Communism: Report of an Envoy to Paradise.
Cornell Erik. p. 169.

12
Ermak, Gennady (2016). Communism: The Great Misunderstanding.

17
Anarcho-Communism

Anarcho-communism (also known as libertarian communism) is a theory of anarchism which

advocates the abolition of the state, private property and capitalism in favour of common
ownership of the means of production, direct democracy and a horizontal network of
voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the
guiding principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".13
Anarcho-communism differs from Marxism rejecting its view about the need for a state
socialism phase before building communism. The main theorist of anarcho-communism,
Peter Kropotkin, argued that a revolutionary society should "transform itself immediately into
a communist society", that is should go immediately into what Marx had regarded as the
"more advanced, completed, phase of communism". In this way, it tries to avoid the
reappearance of "class divisions and the need for a state to oversee everything". 14

Impact of Communism on Society

Only twenty-seven years ago, communism fell in Russia. China, one of the largest nations on
earth, proudly displays the label of communism today. Other smaller countries, such as Cuba,
still follow the example of communism set by the Soviet Union. The main theory of
communism, created by Karl Marx, is the theory that was and is utilized by many of these
countries. Because of Marxism, the political landscape of the modern world has been
significantly altered, resulting in nations who call themselves communists and western
countries whose politics still contain remnants of Marxist ideology.
In 1917, a Russian revolution took place. This revolution would eventually lead to the
beginning of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1922, also known as the
Soviet Union. The Tsarist autocracy, which had been in place for centuries, was replaced by
the Bolsheviks, the first communist party in the world, led by Vladimir Lenin. After a series
of power struggles between the Bolsheviks and their political enemies, the Bolsheviks gained
complete control of Russia. In 1924, Lenin died, and the party needed a new leader. There

13
Makhno, Mett, Arshinov, Valevski, Linski (Dielo Trouda) (1926). "Constructive Section".

14
What is Anarchist Communism?" by Wayne Price

18
were several competitors, but Joseph Stalin was the person eventually chosen. After Stalin
took power, he instituted his own economic system of complete socialism, called the Five-
Year Plan. The plan worked by setting specific production goals for the entire country. This
included overarching control over the agricultural sphere. However, some of the slightly
wealthier farmers, known as kulaks, refused to join the state system of collective farming.
When they refused, their property was confiscated, and they were sent to Siberia to serve as
slave labour. Holmes explains that 99% percent of farmland was added to the collective
system by the close of the 1930s. Because of this collectivization, Russia experienced a harsh
famine from 1932-1933 that resulted in the death of millions of people, and Stalin was
accused of causing it (Holmes). Stalin and the Communists did not seize control over only
economic life; they also seized many civil liberties. All negative speech regarding public
policy was prohibited, and the secret police became far more powerful (Holmes). The
Communists were especially harsh towards religious groups such as the Roman Catholics and
Jewish communities (“Union”). Rather than deal with political enemies in a peaceful fashion,
Stalin chose to slaughter any person or group that posed a possible threat to his power. He
continued to rule through World War II into the Cold War, when the Soviet Union emerged
as one of the two most powerful nations on earth, along with United States, the USSR’s
capitalist rival. Around the time of the Cold War, a new nation founded on the ideas of
communism began to rise; this nation was China (“Union”). According to scholar Samir
Amin, China’s radical communist revolution was led by Mao Zedong. His goal was to create
an anti-imperialist movement that would lead towards the greater goal of socialism. The
revolution first began in the 1930s, when Mao sought to harness the power of the peasant
class in China to propel his movement. When the revolution took place, socialism first
affected the area of agriculture. None of the land was privately owned. Instead, there were
village communes which could be borrowed for use by families who farmed. The actual land
still belonged to the whole nation (Amin). As Marshall Berman points out, this is different
from the Soviet Union, because in 1917, after a peasant revolution, the people in power in the
USSR chose to recognize private property of those who received land from the government.
However, modern China has changed. While civil liberties continue to be scarce,
economically, China is growing fast and becoming more modern every day.15

15
How Communism Changed the World. By Richard Joshuva

19
List of Communist Countries in the World

1. China (People's Republic of China)

It is a unitary one-party sovereign country in Asian continent. On 21 September 1949,
Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong proclaimed the establishment of the People's
Republic of China.
The Constitution of China states that “The People's Republic of China "is a socialist state
under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance
of workers and peasants," and that the state organs "apply the principle of democratic
centralism.”
China is called ‘Red China' due to the Communist political regime. The Communist Party of
China (CPC) has total control over all the political appointments. In 2004, Constitution of
China move towards recognizing private property due to the disparities of wealth in the
country.

2. Cuba (Republic of Cuba)

It became a communist country when Fidel Castro and his associates came into power in
1961. Before, the disintegration USSR, Cuba has a close relationship with the Soviet Union.
The state of this country claims to adhere to socialist principles in organizing its largely state-
controlled planned economy.

3. Laos (Lao People's Democratic Republic)

It became a communist country in 1975 under the influence of Vietnam and the Soviet Union.
The Government and politics are largely run by the Military Generals who support unitary
one-party political system. In 1988, it opens its economy to allow forms of private ownership.
In 2013, it joins hands with the World Trade Organisation.

4. North Korea (DPRK- Democratic People's Republic of Korea)

It is an independent socialist state representing the interests of all the Korean people. The
political system of this country embodies the idea and leadership of Comrade Kim II Sung,
the founder of the Republic and the father of socialist Korea. In 2009, the country amended
its constitution and write-off all mention of the Marxist and Leninist ideals that are the
foundation of communism, and the very word communism was also removed.
20
3. CAPITALISM

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and
their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital
accumulation, wage labour, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets. In
a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by every owner
of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and
the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and
services markets.16
Economists, political economists, sociologists and historians have adopted different
perspectives in their analyses of capitalism and have recognized various forms of it in
practice. These include laissez-faire or free market capitalism, welfare capitalism and state
capitalism. Different forms of capitalism feature varying degrees of free markets, public
ownership, obstacles to free competition and state-sanctioned social policies. The degree of
competition in markets, the role of intervention and regulation, and the scope of state
ownership vary across different models of capitalism. The extents to which different markets
are free as well as the rules defining private property are matters of politics and policy. Most
existing capitalist economies are mixed economies, which combine elements of free markets
with state intervention and in some cases economic planning.17
Market economies have existed under many forms of government and in many different
times, places and cultures. Modern capitalist societies—marked by a universalization of
money-based social relations, a consistently large and system-wide class of workers who
must work for wages, and a capitalist class which owns the means of production—developed
in Western Europe in a process that led to the Industrial Revolution. Capitalist systems with
varying degrees of direct government intervention have since become dominant in the

16
Gregory and Stuart, Paul and Robert (28 February 2013). The Global Economy and its Economic Systems.
South-Western College Pub. p. 41. "Definition of CAPITALISM". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
Stilwell, Frank. “Political Economy: the Contest of Economic Ideas.” First Edition. Oxford University Press.
Melbourne, Australia. 2002.

17
Stilwell, Frank. “Political Economy: the Contest of Economic Ideas.” First Edition. Oxford University Press.
Melbourne, Australia. 2002.

21
Western world and continue to spread. Over time, capitalist countries have experienced
consistent economic growth and an increase in the standard of living.

Impact of Capitalism on Society

Capital has existed incipiently on a small scale for centuries in the form of merchant, renting
and lending activities and occasionally as small-scale industry with some wage labour.
Simple commodity exchange and consequently simple commodity production, which are the
initial basis for the growth of capital from trade, have a very long history. The "capitalistic
era" according to Karl Marx dates from 16th-century merchants and small urban workshops.
Marx knew that wage labour existed on a modest scale for centuries before capitalist
industry. Early Islam promulgated capitalist economic policies, which migrated to Europe
through trade partners from cities such as Venice. Capitalism in its modern form can be
traced to the emergence of agrarian capitalism and mercantilism in the Renaissance.18
Capital and commercial trade thus existed for much of history, but it did not lead to
industrialisation or dominate the production process of society. That required a set of
conditions, including specific technologies of mass production, the ability to independently
and privately own and trade in means of production, a class of workers willing to sell their
labour power for a living, a legal framework promoting commerce, a physical infrastructure
allowing the circulation of goods on a large scale and security for private accumulation.
Many of these conditions do not currently exist in many Third World countries, although
there is plenty of capital and labour. The obstacles for the development of capitalist markets
are therefore less technical and more social, cultural and political.

List of Capitalist Countries

Germany
Germany tops our list of one of the most capitalist countries in the world. Capitalism in
Germany is found in its institutions such as banking and educational systems. German
industries have prospered because the country has made it a priority to train its labour force to
succeed in various industries. These various systems have worked together to make a robust

18
Cradle of capitalism – via The Economist

22
capitalistic market for the country. The German model of prosperity supports allowing local
entrepreneurs to develop and initiate new industries which help the people to communicate
better with the world and to meet their needs in becoming current world players in the
technology industries. The flow of goods exported from Germany is grouped into sectors, and
Germany has the dominant role in exporting for markets which specialize in goods which are
the result of patents, niche markets and new innovations and inventions within the country.
For example, in the media industry, prosperous subsectors would be: film, radio, television,
tele services, advertisement, printing and publishing houses, and data processing software.

United States
Americans are known to be risk takers and capital makers. In the US it is possible to begin a
business of humble means and expand it to grow into a conglomerate business model for
people wanting to start a new business. Imagine a tiny dry cleaner who adds space in strip
malls and soon owns over twenty businesses. This is the epitome of wealth and capitalism in
the US. Capitalism in the US has no colour and welcomes anyone willing to work hard,
market a product and to bring it to fruition. Americans are said to be moved by their fear of
failure and their greed for monetary success. Capitalism allows private ownership to spur
production of goods and allows the private owner to keep and track profits for what sells.
This allows exclusive rights and patents to the production of modern technology and boosts
the social economy. Groups within industries shape the model for success in agriculture,
commerce, service industries, technology and other industries. There are allowances for
monopolies in financing, international trade, commodities, banking, insurance and commerce.
Some of these monopolies are family run companies which are leaders in their industries and
who have good will in the community which breeds loyalty for their products and services
among competitive markets and the masses.

China
China has focused in the last fifty years on educating the masses and the effort has paid off.
Adult literacy in China has risen to almost 95% and is steadily rising. China is placing a
priority on the development of its human capital and offers it workers more on the dollar to
produce goods for export. China reformed its economy and began to see economic growth as
a result the GDP doubled and market attitude to rule in the country as a whole. China focused
on exporting goods and developed a new economy as a result. Its new focus on manufactured

23
products created over a hundred million jobs for the Chinese which supported capitalism in
the country and offered a higher quality of life for the residents.
China is also a large global exporter, along with Germany and the United States. But is China
really a capitalistic country? In a way, yes. The Chinese government allows entrepreneurship
as long as it is done with the permission of the government.

Japan
The Japanese economy has rebounded from its near collapse in the 1990s and has prospered
with Keiretsu networks. Japan has a state-led economic machine, which keeps the country in
healthy economic shape. Japan has been interested in reform in a few major areas such as:
labour relations, bank relations, and corporate governance and supplier relations. Reform in
Japan has included the country allowing more of the US management style of capitalism with
restructuring to lay off workers when production is at the lowest cycles. Japanese companies
also have learned to focus on specialization instead of going into too many business areas
which are diversified. By focusing on a few key industries they are able to capitalize on gains
and become industry leaders in many fields such as in high technology for mobile telephones
and other communications components. Japan has continued with a hierarchy system which
rewards loyalty and long-term employment with the same organization by the employees. By
stressing a seniority-based pay system, the Japanese have encouraged employees to stay at
one company for their entire lives.19

Capitalism in India

Capitalism’s emergence in India in a colonial context, however, did not have a similarly
revolutionising effect. Colonialism itself played the kind of role that in Marx’s view merchant
capital did in Europe when it established its sway over production – expanding commerce but
preserving and maintaining the pre-existing mode of production as a precondition for a
surplus appropriation process. India’s agrarian sector under colonial rule provided the
prominent example of this phenomenon. The surplus appropriated from that sector, a kind of
primitive accumulation, in addition fed not capitalist accumulation in India but instead
formed the basis for tribute transfer to Britain from its Indian colony.

19
http://blog.peerform.com/the-five-most-capitalistic-countries-in-the-world/

24
The destruction of India’s traditional handicraft industry fostered by colonialism on the other
hand had little to do with the expansion of modern industry in India, facilitating instead
industrial expansion in Britain. It gave rise to a process of deindustrialization rather than
industrialization – whose effects were only partially reversed by the import substitution
process that took place towards the later part of colonial rule. In addition to these was the
absence of any consistent support to industrialization from a state guided by the imperatives
of maintaining India as an appendage of the British imperial system. The emergence of the
capitalist class in India also reflected the lack of capitalism’s revolutionary character.
Capitalist production was more or less synonymous with modern industry from the very
beginning. This emergence of modern industry was initiated by pre existing merchant capital
making use of the availability of machinery in the form of imports. It was thus an extension
of commercial activity rather than a process of industry coming to rule commerce. In addition
was the fractured development of the industrial capitalist class, its originally dominant
component being a European segment tied to and dependent on colonial rule and inhibiting
the development of its native component. This reinforced the effects of the fact that it was not
their mastery over production or technological innovativeness but instead accumulations
through trade and commerce and their connections and skills in that sphere that had formed
the basis for the emergence of India’s industrial capitalist class. This combined with the
colonial background to shape an attitude towards technology of long-term significance.
Technology was not something to be developed but simply something to be acquired in the
market and from foreign sources. India’s industrial capitalist class never fully shed this
attitude acquired as a result of its specific origin. The development of modern industry in the
period of over nine decades preceding independence was hardly spectacular. When the
process began, most of the world excluding Britain did not qualify to be called industrialized.
By 1947, however, all the advanced countries and regions had experienced their industrial
takeoffs.
In India, the modern industrial sector remained very small and narrow. The real historical
significance of its development under colonialism lay not in the great economic
transformation it produced but in it creating the future ruling class and its immediate
antagonist, the working class.

25
 CONCLUSION

If asked, most people would likely declare that they know fairly well what the terms in the
title mean. In the heat of the election year political debates, these terms are often used without
much thought about their meaning. There is no single political ideology to which each and
every member of the society gives his/ consent. In the world different countries have different
affiliations to the different political ideologies which is clearly evident from this project. USA
has a capitalist background where as China has a mixture of both Communism and
Capitalism.
From this project, it can be concluded that there is no country in this world which follows
only a single ideology. The basic difference between the countries is that to which ideology
they give more preference and the other ideologies which they do not follow but keeps it just
for a name. Further different social structures and situations in different countries led to the
origin of different Ideologies. The most we know is that the mixed ideologies or the conflict
of these ideologies may give rise to some new revolutionary concepts but till then the world
economy and politics will continuing to be dominated by these significant and crucial
ideologies.

26