Under pure socialism, classes become indistinguishable—if not nonexistent—due to its focus on equality. Although this may be preferable to the lives of the Industrial Revolution-era lower class, it ignores the human race’s competitive nature, taking key motivations away from the people needed to spur their society’s economy. Pure capitalism, on the other hand, recognizes this need for motivation, stating that when people are given economic freedom, “the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord” (Smith). Despite the motivation that this system provides, it only serves to worsen the class inequality still present to this day. Because capitalist societies are barely under any government economic control, the most successful people continue to be just as successful, leaving the poorest with little to no chance of class mobility. Communism, like capitalism, attempts to provide motivation for its citizens. However, since communism is based mostly upon people being “instruments of labour” working for their societies (Marx and Engels), motivation for the sake of the individual becomes almost impossible. In place of this, communism attempts to provide a more community-focused motivation, but without monetary reward, the work can begin to seem …show more content…
Now, however, it is apparent that the solution was not an individual system of economy, but a combination between capitalism and socialism. This system allows individuals economic freedom while using tax to greatly lessen the inequality between classes, which was the root of many problems caused by the Industrial