This tight bond between the government and bourgeois leads

This tight bond between the government and bourgeois leads to the exploitation of the laborers and one of the pitfalls of liberalism. What leads to class conflict? There are many remarkable findings when looking at this problem from a global point of view. According to Leninists’, the profit-seeking capitalists would not use surplus capital to raise the standard of living of the proletariat. “Therefore, capitalists societies would remain unevenly developed ones, with some classes prospering as others were mired in poverty” (81). In reality, the standard of living has risen for the majority of people worldwide because of the effects of modernization. V.I. Lenin was wrong when it came to the standard of living for the proletariat, but he was correct in his analysis that capitalists societies would be unevenly developed and that the proletariat would still get the short end of the stick. Lenin’s imperialist theory of capitalism seeks to “explain how it was that capitalism shifted from internal to international exploitation, and how the inequality among the classes had as its parallel the law of uneven development among nations” (81). Lenin believed that the imperial phase of capitalism exported exploitation to poor peripheral countries as wealth and poverty were put onto the world stage. Looking at the world’s economy, this made a new class of proletariats that was not bound within nations. For Lenin, imperialism was a tool that rich capitalist nations sought to use to increase revenue by making poor nations dependent on them for manufactured goods, jobs, and financial resources. It also made these poor nations heavily in debt, thus making them more dependent on the rich capitalism nations. This leads to a cycle of dependency. The bourgeois (by owning the means of production) and the government benefit from this ‘tool’ while the proletariats suffer tremendously. Why do the proletariats suffer? Imperialism heavily exploited the working class, especially of the colonized countries, by denying them basic workers rights and keeping them impoverished through a cycle of debt. Basically, structuralists see the bond between the rich and the government as detrimental to the working class.

When it comes to competition, liberals believe that it “constrains self-interest and prevents it from becoming destructive to the interests of others” (50). Producers must push prices down because of competition, thus benefiting the working class by creating low prices. This is countered with Marx’s “law of concentration (or accumulation of capital)” (76). The theory is that the capitalist system produces “inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. As the bourgeoisie continue to exploit the proletariat and weaker capitalists are swallowed by stronger, bigger ones, wealth and the ownership of capital become increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands” (76). The law of disproportionality also counters the liberal view that competition benefits the working class. According to the law of disproportionality, “capitalism, because of its anarchic, unplanned nature, is prone to instability” (75). Capitalism can be subject to overproduction or underconsumption. “Capitalists are not able to sell everything they produce at a profit and workers cannot afford to buy what they make” (76). This disproportionality between supply and demands leads to economic fluctuations and increases the chance of social unrest and revolution. The Keynesian Theory of economics can further prove this disproportionality.