Bureaucratization focuses on how the large number of people should be organized for the purpose of administration. On the other hand, rationalization is the process, by which values, traditions, and emotions ought to be put in place of more rational ones in the society. Max Weber, a Germany sociologist and an anti-positivist, believes that rationalization has underlying aspect of bureaucracy. One of the most popular forms of rationalization is legal rationalization that is based on impersonal laws that govern individual values and emotions. During the WWII, modern legal institutions were tied up by colonial authority since their bureaucracy was to govern everyone within their territory.

According to Weber, economy can grow if and only if there are legal institutions that will handle economists and investors’ issues on property ownership. Thus, to realize significant growth in the economy, there must be rights and laws to be followed and judge the right of property ownership. Therefore, there is a need for judges, law courts, and advocates, which necessitates the need for modern legal institutions. Max Weber argues that for bureaucracy to work, technical rules must be applied in every institution. The hierarchy of bureaucracy should be put in place, where one always appeals to someone who is above in authority.

Fredrick Taylor brought out clearly the ways, by which managers can shun the risk in the attempt to avoid the culture, in which the factory is organized. In addition, there was a provision for management commitment, gradual implementation, and education on scientific management methods. Taylor argued that scientific management methods will change the empirical ‘thumb rule’ leading to division of labor, where work break down is put in place. In this case, each worker is assigned with respect to his or her line of specialization. Division of labor minimizes wastage of time hence increasing output per worker.

On the other hand, experts are said to extend responsibilities in an effort to replace the old management methods with the modern ones. They also scientifically select, teach, train, and develop the workers. In addition, class cooperation would result to effective management hence success of firms and industries.

Lenin viewed imperialism as a state, in which capital is monopolized and the market competitors are overdone by monopolists who have powers to control market forces, particularly demand and supply. In addition, imperialism generates much capital as a result of monopoly of market powers. Hobson was an economist, whose views were of great impact to Lenin’s views and for this reason he is said to be bourgeois economist. He says that agrarian economy needs the embrace of bourgeoisie hence the name. Hobson believed that for imperialism to be effective, all the surplus capital should be ploughed back to home. Lastly, Schumpeter argued that there is no relationship between capitalism and imperialism despite that people think there is a relationship. He strongly rejected any idea concerning the relationship between the two. Additionally, he says that overproduction cannot be realized under imperialism.

Keynesians insist that the aggregate demand is the major source of recessions and business-cycle instability, which are directly linked to shrinking of economy. It, therefore, recommends fiscal policies to be initiated by the government as the primary way of solving the problem. Moreover, it posits that it is possible for the government to attain market equilibrium without reaching full employment. They emphasize their assertion by noting that such equilibrium was attained during the Great Depression. In addition, they discourage excessive saving that prevents investments. In such cases, the demand raises beyond the production thereby resulting to disequilibrium of the markets. It, therefore, advocates for saving of investment equality by stabilizing the prices and decreasing the interest rates. These measures would also go a long way in solving the shrinking of economy. They are considered heretical because they managed to solve the shrinking of economy during the economic depression.

Polanyi associates fascism with the rise of capitalism. Fascism divides the world into nation-states, which results in emergence of the world market. Additionally, capitalism provides strong economic background for fascism, where nationalism and nation-states are emphasized.  The rise of few rich people while millions continued to suffer in hunger creates the feeling of anger and injustice among the poor. These feelings have led to emergence of social crisis. In addition, capitalism supports the far-right movement, which opposes ownership of the greatest industries by proletarians. The result is conflict between merchants and landlords due to the notion of different economic interests of various social groups. Polanyi, therefore, advocates for the removal of land, labor and money from the market. It will help in eliminating the existing conflict between the two groups.

Heilbroner critiques the central topics of Marxist thoughts. He critically looks at the socio-analysis of capitalism, the materialist interpretation of history and dialectic approach to philosophy, as well as commitment to socialism. He argues that Marx focused on criticizing rather than proposing on the methodologies of how to replace the system. He also says that Marx only foresaw technological unemployment, but ignored the crisis of ‘cybernated’ production. He also advocates for family planning in order to avoid spilling off the earth due to exhaustion of resources. He is also remembered for his theories of the Undeserving Poor.