This article aims to make a comparative analysis between capitalism, socialism and social democracy throughout the history of humanity from the economic, social and political point of view.

1. 1
CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY THROUGHOUT
HISTORY
Fernando Alcoforado*
This article aims to make a comparative analysis between capitalism, socialism and social
democracy throughout the history of humanity from the economic, social and political
point of view. Capitalism, which emerged as an economic system from the twelfth century
in Italy, continues to operate globally until the contemporary era. Soviet-style socialism
emerged as an economic system in the former Soviet Union in 1917 and ended in 1989,
although it is currently maintained in some countries such as Cuba and North Korea.
Social democracy emerged as an economic system in 1930 in Scandinavia and was also
adopted in some Western European countries after World War II.
1. Analysis of capitalism from the economic, social and political point of view
According to Braudel (1982), from the economic point of view, capitalism is constituted
by a three-tiered structure: the lower, the broader layer, of an extremely elementary and
basically self-sufficient economy, which it called material life, the non-economic layer,
the soil on which capitalism takes root, but never penetrates. Above this layer is the field
of market economy, with its many horizontal communications between different markets
in which there is automatic coordination linking supply, demand and prices. After this
layer and above it comes the anti-market layer where the great predators circulate and
the law of the jungles is in force. This - today as it was in the past, before and after the
industrial revolution - is the true home of capitalism (Figure 1).
Figure 1 - Structure of layered capitalism according to Fernand Braudel
It can be said that this three-tiered structure reflects the evolution of capitalism over time.
In the early days, capitalism was characterized by the existence of an elementary economy
corresponding to the material life described above, which later became a market economy
characterized by fierce competition between economic agents and, finally, achieving what
is termed the antimarket which is characterized by the existence of productive and
financial monopolies and oligopolies. Capitalism thus is liberal from the twelfth to the
eighteenth centuries with the presence of thousands of competing economic agents and
monopolist and oligopolist from the eighteenth century with the presence of gigantic
organizations that impose their wills on markets at the national and world levels.
Anti-market
Market economy
Material life

2. 2
The competition between economic agents in market economies contributes to the
advancement of the process of scientific and technological innovation promoted by
numerous companies that seek to surpass their competitors. This situation changes
significantly in an economic environment dominated by monopolies and oligopolies
whose tendency is to maintain the status quo and which only drive scientific and
technological innovation when threatened by their monopolistic and oligopolistic
competitors and, above all, by new companies entering the market. Those who effectively
sponsor innovations in monopoly and oligopoly-dominated economies are new entrants
into the market that force those who dominate the market to innovate.
Liberal capitalism failed in the field of economics because it was responsible for the
occurrence of two major depressions in the world capitalist system in 1873 and 1929, the
escalation of colonialism and imperialism throughout the Earth, and the advent of two
world wars (1914-1918) and 1939-1945). In liberal capitalism, the state did not intervene
in the economy except to save it from debacle and to collaborate with the ruling classes
of its countries. The first major crisis of capitalism, the First Great Depression, began
around 1873 and only ended in 1896 whose effects were most felt in Europe and the
United States. One of the consequences of the 1873 Depression was the strong
concentration of capital, creating monopolies, the merger of bank capital with industrial
capital, the export of capital, which surpasses the export of goods, and the emergence of
international monopolies that divide the world among themselves. Liberal capitalism has
entered a new phase, the monopoly phase.
In 1929, a new depression occurred in the world capitalist system. With the crash of the
New York Stock Exchange, banks and investors lost large sums of money. In several
countries around the world, the Great Depression of 1929 had disastrous effects with
rising unemployment and inflation, reduced purchasing power of the population and
disruption of economic production. One of the serious consequences of the Great
Depression of 1929 was the advent of World War II, which was unleashed by Germany,
Italy and Japan to promote the redivision of the world market among the great powers.
After World War II, capitalism adopted the Keynesian model of economic management
throughout the world capitalist system in an attempt to end the anarchy of production, to
order the economy in each country and the world sphere, and to avoid the occurrence of
economic depressions such as happened in 1873 and 1929.
Keynesianism, which contemplated active state participation in the conduct of national
economies, contributed to the world economic development with the boom of capitalism
of the "glorious years" of the 1950s and 1960s. The failure of Keynesianism to leverage
the development of central and peripheral capitalists countries occurred from the 1970s
onwards as a result of the oil crises that drastically raised their prices and the debt of the
peripheral countries with the sharp rise in bank interest rates. The failure of Keynesianism
added to the crisis that led to the end of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European
socialist system in the late 1980s paving the way for the change in the modus operandi of
the world capitalist system with the implementation of productive, commercial and
financial globalization crisis on a planetary scale when the neoliberal ideology that
advocates the internationalization of capital in all its forms (productive, commercial and
financial) and the adoption of policies of deregulation, liberalization and opening of the
markets of the central and peripheral countries of world capitalism.

3. 3
Liberal capitalism adopted until 1929 and neoliberal capitalism that has prevailed since
1990 have failed socially because it has contributed from its inception in the twelfth
century to the advancement of social inequality that reached alarming levels worldwide
in the twenty-first century. Thomas Piketty demonstrated in his book Capital in the
twenty-first century that there has been a steady increase in wealth inequality since the
1970s, contrary to the trend of the previous 60 years and much more pronounced and
socially relevant than rent inequality. From 1970 to 2010, the richest 1% (ruling classes)
held half of the entire world's wealth, while the poorest 50% (popular classes) held a mere
5%. The number of billionaires, according to Piketty, increased from 1,011 with a total
wealth of 3.6 trillion in 1970 to 1,826 with an aggregate value of 7.05 trillion in 2010. By
2010, this group had roughly the same as the poorest half of humanity. Five years later,
it hoists more than triple (PIKETTY, 2014).
Liberal and neoliberal capitalism was also an instrument of degradation of the global
environment. In his book The End of Progress, How Modern Economics Has Failed,
published by John Wiley & Sons in 2011, Graeme Maxton states that humanity is moving
backwards. Humanity is destroying more than building. Each year, the world economy
grows approximately US$ 1.5 trillion. But each year, humanity devastates the planet at a
cost of US$ 4.5 trillion. Humanity is moving in the opposite direction generating greater
losses than the wealth it creates. Maxton states that humanity has experienced rapid
economic growth but also created an unstable world. According to Maxton, in many
countries, for the first time in centuries, we are facing a decline in life expectancy and the
prospect of declining food production and water supply, as well as the depletion of the
planet's natural resources (MAXTON, Graeme. 2011). Add to this the climate change that
tends to become catastrophic from the mid-21st century that threatens the very survival
of humanity.
From a political point of view, both liberal and neoliberal capitalism defend democracy
until it does not harm the interests of the capitalist system, either nationally or
internationally. The affinities between liberalism, which is supposedly a defender of
democracy, and its opposite, dictatorship, manifested after the French Revolution in 1789
when the Jacobins implanted the regime of terror and in 1799 when General Napoleon
Bonaparte was placed in power, following the Thermidorian reaction to the 18 Brumaire
coup d'état (November 9, 1799) with the aim of controlling social instability in France.
Napoleon assumes the post of First Consul of France, establishing a dictatorship
(ALCOFORADO, 2016). It has always been quite widespread the thesis that states that
"the greatest enemy of fascism is liberalism" which is false. In the same way, that there
is an affinity between liberalism and dictatorship, as was the case with Bonaparte in
France, there is also between liberalism and fascism that are not strictly equal, but neither
is there an insurmountable wall. Among them, there are more points of convergence than
divergence. This was evidenced by the rise of fascism in Italy in the 1920s and Nazism
in Germany in the 1930s of the twentieth century, which had the support of liberals.
Liberals legitimized both fascism and Nazism in their dictatorships.
From the foregoing, capitalism has failed throughout history to promote economic, social
and political progress. One of the characteristics of capitalism throughout history has been
the abandonment of political democracy when its interests are threatened in the event of
worsening economic and social problems. Moreover, the world capitalist system is
coming to an end in the mid-21st century by placing on the agenda the need for its

4. 4
replacement by a new economic system capable of promoting economic and social
progress at the levels of each country and planet Earth as a whole. This finding results
from the fact that the profit rate of the world capitalist system and the World Gross
Product will reach zero from 2057. This means that the world capitalist system will be
brought to an end in the mid-21st century because the process of capital accumulation
will be halted when the world profit rate and the world gross product reach zero
(ALCOFORADO, 2019)
2. Analysis of socialism from the economic, social and political point of view
Socialism is a system based on public ownership and administration of the means of
production by state. It is also a philosophical and political theory developed by Karl Marx.
Its doctrine is associated with the search for the common good, social equality and state
interventionism. In political terms, its intention is to build a classless society through
social revolution. Socialism postulates the regulation of economic activities by the state
with the purpose of ending the anarchy of production characteristic of the capitalist
system. Socialism was implanted in 1917 in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe,
China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, among others countries after World War II.
With the creation of the Soviet Union, accelerated industrialization was considered
crucial to overcome the backwardness of the country that had precapitalist economic
structures. Accelerated industrialization for 70 years has made this country one of the
largest industrial powers in the world with an industrial park with great technological
development and great productive diversity (steel, metallurgy, chemistry, fuels,
armaments, transportation, space etc.). This accelerated process of industrialization
sought to equate the Soviet Union with the United States industrial park, its Cold War
rival. Regarding transport infrastructure, the Soviet Union made heavy investments in
railways, highways, waterways, ports, pipelines (gas and oil) and air modal. The need to
integrate the immense territory and to take advantage of the abundant riches scattered
throughout the regions are factors that contributed to great transport works. In the energy
sector, the Soviet Union also made heavy investments to harness the riches in the territory
- hydrocarbons, coal, hydroelectric potential, atomic minerals - to make the Soviet
superpower an industrial power without reliance on energy and minerals raw materials
imports and to become an exporter of these sources of energy and raw materials.
Despite the economic success achieved, the Soviet Union ended in 1989. Many analysts
believe that one of the causes of the Soviet Union's failure to build socialism would have
been the exhaustion of the extensive model of economic growth adopted, which required
the adoption of technological advances to substantially increase the productivity of the
economy as a whole. Another cause would have been the structural inability of the Soviet
economic system and of the industrialization model adopted to ensure the transition to
the information society using information- and knowledge-based factors of production.
Another reason the socialist system has succumbed is that it discouraged the pursuit of
innovation in a time of fundamental technological change, despite the enormous amount
of resources allocated by the Soviet Union for the advancement of science and research
and development (R&D), and although the country to possess the largest number of
scientists and engineers among the economically active population relative to any other
major country in the world. Despite the disincentive to innovation, the Soviets' advances
in aerospace were important because they launched the first artificial satellite and sent the
first dog, the first man and the first woman into space. They also developed the satellite

5. 5
communication system, created artificial organs, the first helicopter, xerography and also
the famous and famous AK-47 rifle.
The need to maintain its power on a planetary scale and, consequently, its areas of
influence and domination and the military and technological (aerospace) balance with the
United States after World War II, contributed to the Soviet Union facing a severe crisis
that brought negative consequences both for the economy and for meeting social
demands. In addition, there was the exhaustion of the closed, centralized and excessively
bureaucratic political model that led the Soviet Union into a political crisis as well,
causing strong popular dissatisfaction and the resurgence and growth of nationalist
movements that accelerated the end of the Soviet power. The economic crisis and the
inadequacy of the political model led to strong popular dissatisfaction in the Soviet Union
that led President Mikhail Gorbachev's government to pursue political reforms that would
lift the country from its rapid decay.
To address the economic and political failure, Gorbachev proposed two structural
reforms, one political, Glasnost, and the other economic, Perestroica. Glasnost proposed
an internal political openness, allowing for popular participation and organization,
freedom of the press, creed and cultural manifestations. Perestroica, on the other hand,
proposed a broad restructuring and liberalization of the economy, that is, reforms in the
structure of the economy in order to adopt pro-market measures, that is, the adoption of
capitalism. The intensity of the crisis did not give Gorbachev time to put his proposals
into practice and reap the results. In August 1991, the coup d’état by the conservative
Communist Party wing, contrary to the reforms proposed by Gorbachev, led to a
counterattack with strong popular participation and the effervescence of nationalist
movements in various republics of the country, which began to declare independence
relative to the central, Soviet government. In December 1991, Gorbachev resigns,
Parliament extinguishes itself and eleven of the fifteen republics formalize the creation
of the CIS - Commonwealth of Independent States, later formed by twelve countries and
with strong hegemony of the Russian Federation - the military, economic and political
heiress of the Soviet Union.
Despite the economic failure of the twentieth-century socialist system, great successes
have been achieved in the social sphere. Some of the social achievements of the
Revolution in the Soviet Union lasted until the 1980s, such as access to education and
culture, health and leisure. Mothers were entitled to 18 months of maternity leave,
receiving half of their salaries, and another 18 months with a quarter of salary if they
decided to stay home longer. Most women returned to work after 18 months, as the state
provides day care for a low price. Mothers who stayed at home was a rarity. Most adults
worked and unemployment was nonexistent. Early childhood education was very
structured. Home-schooled children were an even greater rarity. The school made it
possible for both parents to work full time without having to worry about their children.
People did not have much, but they had enough to live a respectable life. There were
social inequalities, too, but not as pronounced as in capitalism. The Soviet Union had a
structure to help families and children do after-school extracurricular activities. Each state
agency or factory had a cultural center where presentations and political and social events
were held, as well as free programs for children. Some were better than others, but every
child had access to them. It was a stable time when people knew what to expect the next
day. When the Soviet Union collapsed, life as we knew it was over and stability was gone.

6. 6
With the loss of stability, several benefits of the socialized country have disappeared
together.
The Eastern European Countries members of the socialist system led by the Soviet Union,
too, succumbed. To avoid the same fate of the Soviet Union, China adopted a mixed
economic model called “market socialism” that contemplates the presence of foreign
capital, besides capital state-owned and private local. Socialism has turned into state
capitalism in China. In 1980 China entered a period of intense economic growth, the
Chinese government offered incentives to set up foreign industries. Chinese exports
jumped from US $ 3.6 billion in 1978 to over US $ 250 billion in 2004, the growth of
which caused problems common to capitalist countries, such as rising social inequality,
unemployment and poverty, as well as regional disparities as certain regions of China
have which become more developed and industrialized than others.
China has become the land of new billionaires and extreme poverty. Almost seven
decades after the Chinese Communist Party came to power, 43 million people still live
on less than US$ 0.93 a day. There were 1640 industrial strikes or protests in 2018, about
400 more than in the previous year, and this figure is not representative of all strikes in
the country during the period either. If we look at the nature of these protests, the vast
majority of cases are somehow linked to economic problems. The protests are triggered
by employers' inability to pay their wages on time, factory closures and the collapse of
companies in the service sector, among other factors.
Wallerstein (1998) states that Marxist-based socialist parties failed because “the main
element that led to the popular withdrawal of these parties was disillusionment, a feeling
that these parties had had their historic opportunity, which had been backed by a two-step
strategy to transform the world (seize state power, then transform it), and that they had
not kept their historic promise”. As for the failure of the Soviet Union and the socialist
countries, Wallerstein pointed out that “the three biggest accusations against historical
socialism are: 1) the arbitrary use of state (and party) authority where, in the worst cases,
with terror commanded by the state; 2) the extension of the privileges of the
Nomenclature (dominant group in the power structure of the Soviet Union and other
socialist countries); and 3) extensive economic inefficiency, the result of which was
restraint in increasing social value rather than promoting it” (WALLERSTEIN, 1998).
In view of the foregoing, socialism has failed throughout its history to promote economic
and political progress, despite the social advances achieved.
3. Analysis of social democracy from an economic, social and political point of view
By analyzing the model of social democracy in the world, it is found that it was in
Scandinavia (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland) where the most
successful of them all occurred. Scandinavia is the cradle of the most balanced and
egalitarian model of society that humanity has ever known. Its origins date back to
Sweden in the 1930s, when the social democratic hegemony came to fruition in the Nordic
government, initiating a series of social and economic reforms that would inaugurate a
new model of society in opposition to the liberal capitalism of previous decades whose
final act it was the crisis of 1929. The initiative of Swedish economists was decisive, with
Gunnar Myrdal ahead who would provide the theoretical foundation for an alternative
social democratic economic policy. The Stockholm School, as this branch of heterodox

7. 7
economic thought would be called, denounced the ills of liberal capitalism and
demonstrated the primacy of the demand of families to resume cycles of economic
bonanza, as opposed to the innocuous supply stimuli that characterized (and still
characterize) the conservative view of liberal and neoliberal capitalism..
This is how the so-called Scandinavian model was born, which would quickly cross
Swedish borders to become influential in northern Europe, but also an important reference
in the formulation of heterodox (progressive) economic policies across the globe. The
success of this model was due to the combination of a broad welfare state with rigid
mechanisms of market forces regulation, able to put the economy on a dynamic trajectory,
while achieving the best welfare indicators between countries of the world. The Nordic
or Scandinavian model of social democracy could best be described as a kind of
compromise between capitalism and socialism. It is neither fully capitalist nor fully
socialist, being the attempt to merge the most desirable elements of both into a "hybrid"
system. In 2013, The Economist magazine declared that the Nordic countries are probably
the best governed in the world. The UN World Happiness Report 2013 shows that the
happiest nations are concentrated in northern Europe. The Nordics have the highest real
GDP per capita rating, the longest life expectancy, the greatest freedom to make life
choices, and the most generosity.
Among the Scandinavian or Nordic countries, Norway is the most prosperous in the
world, with the welfare state characterized by much equality and social justice. In Norway
the inequality, selfishness, and individualism that characterize liberal capitalism and
neoliberal capitalism do not thrive. 100 years ago Norway went from being one of the
poorest countries in Europe, living with ice and darkness for half a year to being
synonymous with wealth and social justice with a per capita GDP of US$ 100,000.
Norway prioritizes spending on education that is guaranteed for the entire population. In
30 years, Norwegians have reduced their work hours by 270 hours, earning more than ten
days of vacation a year, and a significant portion of workers are already able to work only
four days a week. According to the UN, a society has never reached a level of human
development equal to that of Oslo, the capital of Norway. In addition, Norway has
translated oil into prosperity and equality [BLOG DO TARSO. Noruega, um paraíso com
muito Estado Social, serviços públicos e impostos (Norway, a paradise with plenty of
welfare state, utilities and taxes). Available on the website
<http://blogdotarso.com/2014/04/13/noruega-um-paraiso-com-muito-estado-social-
servicos-publicos-e-impostos/>, 2014].
Even in an age of austerity and global crisis, Norway's welfare state system has remained
intact, with a minimum wage of US$ 4,800 and unemployment at 2 percent. Norway was
the country that least felt the global crisis that erupted in 2008 in the United States. In the
Norwegian elections, the only debate is what to do with the money left in the public
coffers. Norway has the largest sovereign wealth fund on the planet, estimated at US$
815 billion and the state coffers are overcrowded. The Norwegian state has bought 1% of
shares on stock exchanges worldwide and invests in 3,200 companies. In Norway there
is a strong state presence in virtually every field of the economy since after World War
II, when the government nationalized companies linked to Nazi Germany. The state owns
44% of Norsk Hydro shares, has a 37% stake in the Oslo Stock Exchange and dozens of
companies. Today, state of Norway controls the Statoil oil company, the Telenor
telecommunications group, the fertilizer manufacturer Yara, and the country's largest
bank DnBNor.

8. 8
In Norway, unions negotiate their salaries each year, depending on the needs of the
exporting sector and to ensure that the national product remains competitive in the global
market. In Norway's elections political parties promise not to cut taxes. In Norway's
welfare state men take care of their babies and each year the government allocates 2.8%
of GDP to support families in everything they need to have children. Parents who choose
not to take their children to day care receive a US$ 200 check each month to help with
spending. There citizens who receive social benefits from the state are not called
vagabonds. It is a legitimate right [BLOG DO TARSO. Noruega, um paraíso com muito
Estado Social, serviços públicos e impostos (Norway, a paradise with plenty of welfare
state, utilities and taxes). Available on the website
<http://blogdotarso.com/2014/04/13/noruega-um-paraiso-com-muito-estado-social-
servicos-publicos-e-impostos/>, 2014]).
In Norway, maternity leave is 9 months for the mother and 4 months for the parents. In
those months, the state pays the parents' salary. The government evaluates that this
incentive for women and laws to ensure gender equality are positive for the economy.
Companies are required to give 40% of the vacancies on their advice to women. 75% of
women outside the home and for the government this represents more activity in the
economy and more people paying taxes. In Norway, income tax reaches 42% being higher
than in Brazil. There is consensus that the value is fair to maintain the system. The state
pays from nursery to burial, finances students and even bank holidays. The Norwegian
society model is the minimum expected for a just society. The rest is barbarism.
According to The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), the 11 most democratic countries
in the world are, by order, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland,
Canada, Australia, Finland, Switzerland and the Netherlands. The 5 Scandinavian
countries are ranked among the most democratic in the world. For the fifth year in a row,
Norway was considered the most democratic country in the world, according to the 2018
Democracy Index published by The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). Norway scored
9.93 points on a scale of 10 for the third consecutive year, achieving the highest score on
four of the five factors assessed by the measurement (electoral process and pluralism,
civil liberties, government functionality, political participation and political culture). But,
what allowed the Nordic country to become the most democratic in the world? Answer:
A culture based on trust and low inequality is essential (ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE
UNIT, 2018).
Just as almost all countries of the world, some Scandinavian countries tried to adopt
neoliberalism from the 1990s. There was an attempt to adopt neoliberal prescriptions
starting with Sweden aiming essentially at financial deregulation and the flexibility of the
labor market. The logic of these reforms was, as usual, to remove the shackles present in
the economy in the form of norms and institutions so that the market could allocate
resources (capital and labor) as efficiently as possible. As was the case in all capitalist
countries, wage reductions, taxation and control of capital were adopted as a means of
resuming the stimulus to entrepreneurial activity. Neoliberal economists imagined they
had found the magic formula to lift capitalism out of stagnation worldwide (WIKIPEDIA,
2017).
Coincidentally, a small Scandinavian social democratic country, Iceland, faced one of the
worst crises in its history. There, the worsening economic and social situation brought

9. 9
about by neoliberal policies has led to an unprecedented challenge in Western Europe of
the strategy of deregulating markets. It should be noted that Iceland was the first country
in the world to feel the effects of the global capitalist financial meltdown. Its main banks
were foreigners and placed the Icelandic economy in a financial circle that would
anticipate, to a small extent, the effects of the global crisis that erupted in 2008 in the
United States. The speculative bubble produced by the population's savings finally burst
when it was revealed that banks would not be able to guarantee deposits because they had
invested in the notorious US mortgage bonds. The collapse led to Iceland's ruin. As a
result, unemployment exploded and an impressive number of Icelanders left the country.
After the crisis, an organized civil resistance movement emerged in Iceland. The results
came soon: the conservative government that introduced neoliberalism was defeated
electorally and replaced by a social democratic majority that decided to break with the
neoliberal orthodox view of the free market. The new government interfered directly with
the exchange rate, producing a devaluation of the local currency, capital controls and
investments in the social security system were resumed, and banks were nationalized to
ensure liquidity for citizens. Iceland was thus able to avoid a greater evil and, above all,
to draw attention to the need to rescue the Scandinavian democratic social model. The
key to the resumption of this model was the ability to establish between Civil Society and
the elites a national pact in which these elites would give up the unjustified abundance in
which they lived to contribute to a greater goal, the welfare of the population.
Today, the Scandinavians once again warn the world that to release market forces equals
opening a real catastrophic “Pandora's box”. For those still in this temptation is the
message of the Icelandic experience. The revolution in Iceland rescued the unorthodox
tradition of the Scandinavian economists, whose reflections inspired the drafting of a new
constitution in the country, aiming to regain social control over economic resources as
the indispensable path to independence and prosperity. To argue otherwise is to sustain a
death-wounded dogma with the global crisis.
In view of the above, Scandinavian social democracy would be the solution to promote
economic, social and political progress since it would end the anarchy of production,
social inequality and threat to democracy characteristic of liberal and neoliberal
capitalism and ensure economic stability. , social welfare and the exercise of political
democracy not achieved by liberal and neoliberal capitalism and the exercise of
democracy not achieved by socialism in the Soviet way.
4. Conclusions
It can be said that capitalism and socialism have failed to build an economically, socially
and politically viable society in various countries of the world. It is also concluded that
the promotion of economic, social and political progress in order to establish a civilized
coexistence among all human beings urges the building of social democracy
Scandinavian molds in every country in the world. This requirement is imposed because
Soviet-style socialism failed and ended in 1989, and capitalism, too, failed and will end
in the mid-21st century.
REFERENCES

10. 10
ALCOFORADO, Fernando. As grandes revoluções científicas, econômicas e sociais que
mudaram o mundo. Curitiba: Editora CRV, 2016).
______________________. The end of the world capitalist system in the middle of the
21st century. Available at the website https://www.academia.edu / 39554532 /
THE_END_OF_THE_WORLD_CAPITALIST_SYSTEM_IN_THE_MIDDLE_OF_T
HE_21ST_CENTURY, 2019.
BLOG DO TARSO. Noruega, um paraíso com muito Estado Social, serviços públicos e
impostos. Disponível no website <http://blogdotarso.com/2014/04/13/noruega-um-
paraiso-com-muito-estado-social-servicos-publicos-e-impostos/>, 2014.
BRAUDEL, Fernand. The Wheels of Commerce. Nova York: Harper & Row, 1982.
ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE UNIT. Democracy Index 2018: Me too? Political
participation, protest and democracy. Available on the website
<http://www.eiu.com/public/thankyou_download.aspx?activity=download&campaignid
=Democracy2018>.
LEITE, Pedro. Escandinávia: modelo de desenvolvimento, democracia e bem-estar.
Disponível no website
<https://www.academia.edu/40098789/ESCANDIN%C3%81VIA_MODELO_DE_DE
SENVOLVIMENTO_DEMOCRACIA_E_BEM-ESTAR>.
MAXTON, Graeme. The End of Progress, How Modern Economics Has Failed. Hoboken,
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
PIKETTY, Thomas. Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: The Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press, 2014.
WALLERSTEIN, Immanuel. Utopística ou as Decisões Históricas do Século Vinte e
Um. Editora Vozes. Petrópolis, 1998.
WIKIPEDIA. Modelo nórdico. Disponível no website
<http://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modelo_n%C3%B3rdico>, 2017.
* Fernando Alcoforado, 79, awarded the medal of Engineering Merit of the CONFEA / CREA System,
member of the Bahia Academy of Education, engineer and doctor in Territorial Planning and Regional
Development by the University of Barcelona, university professor and consultant in the areas of
strategic planning, business planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems, is author of the
books Globalização (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova (Des)ordem
Mundial (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2000), Os
condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado. Universidade de
Barcelona,http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003), Globalização e Desenvolvimento (Editora
Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos
na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social
Development- The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG,
Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe Planetária (Viena- Editora e Gráfica,
Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate
ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011), Os Fatores
Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), Energia no Mundo
e no Brasil- Energia e Mudança Climática Catastrófica no Século XXI (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2015), As
Grandes Revoluções Científicas, Econômicas e Sociais que Mudaram o Mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba,
2016), A Invenção de um novo Brasil (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2017), Esquerda x Direita e a sua

11. 11
convergência (Associação Baiana de Imprensa, Salvador, 2018, em co-autoria) and Como inventar o futuro
para mudar o mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2019).