SW 112- PHILIPPINE SOCIAL REALITIES AND SOCIAL WELFARE

PART I -BASIC CONCEPTS: DEFINITION OF SOCIAL WELFARE, SOCIAL SERVICES, SOCIAL REALITIES AND
SOCIAL PROBLEMS

Social Work – is the profession which is primarily concerned with organized social service
activity aimed at facilitating and strengthening basic social relationships and the mutual adjustment
between individuals and their social environment for the good of the individual an do fsociety by the use
of social work methods. (R.A. No. 4373 )

Social Welfare – broadly speaking, it is an organized system of social services and institutions
designed to aid individuals, groups and communities to attain satisfying standards of life and health, and
personal and social relationships which permit them to develop their full capacities, and to promote
their well-being in harmony with the needs of their families and the community . (Walter Friedlander)
It covers practically everything that men do for the good of society. Gertrude Wilson characterizes social
welfare as an organized concern of all people for all people. According to Elizabeth Wickenden, social
welfare includes those laws, programs, benefits and services, which assure or strengthen provisions for
meeting social needs recognized as basic to the well-being of the population and the better functioning
of the social order. ( Thelma Lee- Mendoza Revised Edition )

Social welfare – are preventive and developmental interventions that seek to support the
minimum basic requirements of the poor, particularly the poorest of the poor, and reduce risks
associated with unemployment, resettlement, marginalization, illness, disability, old age and loss of
family care. Social welfare and assistance programs usually comprise direct assistance in the form of
cash or in-kind transfers to the poorest and marginalized groups, as well as social services including
family and community support, alternative care and referral services. (The Philippines Social Protection
Framework and Strategy: An overview by Undersecretary Florita R. VIllar of DSWD)

Social Services – in a very general sense refers to those organized activities that are primarily
and directly concerned with the conservation, the protection, and the development of human beings;
e.g health, education, welfare. (Dictionary of Social Work, Philippine setting by Leonora Serafica-de
Guzman). Social Welfare would be a meaningless term unless there is concrete demonstration of its “
concern for the well-being of human society through actual social services.

Social Services refer to the variety of programs, projects and activities made available by public
or private agencies to individuals and families needing assistance. Social Welfare services are actions or
procedures that cover the basic well-being of the individuals and society. They may be provided as a
citizenship right or negotiated in the market, and managed by governments and institutions or private
sectors.

Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that
which is only imaginary. The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their
existence. In physical terms, reality is the totality of a system, known and unknown. (Wikipidia)

Social reality is distinct from biological reality or individual cognitive reality, representing as it
does a phenomenological level created through social interaction and thereby transcending individual
motives and actions. (Wikipidia)

1|Page
The Nature of Social Problems

What is a Social Problem?

Reab and Zelznick (1961) define social problem as “ a problem in human relationships which
seriously threatens society or impedes the important aspirations of many people. “
Mckee and Robertson (1975) state that a social problem exists when a significant number of
people or a number of significant people, perceive an undesirable difference between social ideals and
social realities, and believe that this difference can be eliminated by collective action.
One can note that this definition actually contains several ideas which Mckee and Robertson
enumerate and explain as follows:

1. Social problems involve the subjective perception of an objective condition.

For a social problem to exist, there must be a real, objective condition, such as crime, drug
abuse or poverty. But the mere existence of such condition is not enough to make it a social problem.
According to him, there must be a subjective response in people’s minds; they must perceive the
condition as presenting a problem.
Public perception of a social problem depends to a great extent on the visibility of the condition
in question. For this reason, groups that are newly aware of their disadvantaged condition often take
dramatic action to bring their plight to public attention. Movements, like women’s liberation, have
attempted to attract public attention by unusual methods, for their adherents realize that unless the
situation they complain of is widely perceived as a social problem, no social action will be taken to solve
it. The visibility of a social problem depends too on the willingness of the mass media to develop
publicity to it.
2. Social problems involve a gap between social ideals and social reality.
All social problems involve a widespread perception of the difference between the real – what is
– and the ideal – what ought to be. The ideals of any society are based on the values and attitudes of its
people. Values are shared ideas about what is desirable, such as belief in the sanctity of marriage, equal
opportunity, etc. Attitudes are predispositions to respond favorably toward particular people, events, or
situations – such as feeling of prejudice against an ethnic group. Because social values and attitudes are
continually changing, the gap between particular social ideals and particular social realities also changes.
Sometimes closing, sometimes widening – it results in the emergence of new social problems and the
disappearance of old ones.
The problem of environmental pollution provides an example of how changing values and
attitudes contribute to the emergence of a new social problem. We are now aware of environmental
pollution and take a very unfavorable attitude toward industrial pollutants. The result is that
environmental pollution, a subject that did not appear as a social problem a few years ago, is now
regarded as a critical social problem.
3. Social problems must be perceived as problems by a significant number of people or by a number of
significant people.
No matter how undesirable a social condition may seem to a few people, it cannot be regarded
as a social problem until it is subjectively received as such as either by a significant proportion of the
population or by a number of people who occupy positions of power and influence in society.
For example, the problem of juvenile delinquency reveals the importance both of significant
numbers of people and of numbers of significant people in leading public opinion to perceive a social
condition as a social problem and then to confront that problem by collective action. Mckee and
Robertson entertain the view that a few highly significant individuals – a president or a pope – can place
a “new” social problem before a population in a single speech.
4. Social problems must be regarded as a capable of solution through collective action.

2|Page
 All societies experience social conditions that they recognize as undesirable, such as disease,
war, or a fume. But is only when people believe that they have the capacity to do something about
these conditions that the conditions are regarded as social problems.
Collective action may take many forms. In the extreme case, it can involve public
demonstrations, violence or even revolution, but more commonly it involves the efforts of interest
groups to inform, the public of the issues at stake and to persuade those in positions of authority to
make the necessary changes. Sometimes those authorities take the initiative themselves; usually,
however pressure of public opinion is necessary to provoke specific changes. Solutions to social
problems are rarely based on any one strategy or approach, but legislative action is often a vital element
in the process.
Reference: Contemporary Social Problems and Issues, Third Edition 1997 (Custodiosa A. Sanchez and
Fe B. Agpaoa)

PART II – PERSPECTVES IN ANAYZING SOCIAL REALITIES

The evolutionary Theories

Early social scientists, particularly sociologists like Auguste Comte. Herbert Spertcer, Karl Marx,
Edward Tylor and others were influenced in their theorizing about society by the ideas of evolution as
profounded by Charles Darwin. Some held that society underwent a progressive development or
unilinear evolution toward progress. Some maintained a cyclical theory of social change. Others
attributed the factors or determinants of social change to an economic, demographic, geographic, racial,
technological or ideological factor. Others like Comte held at pluralistic . The main thesis in evolutionary
theories is that human societies developed from the simple or primitive condition to more complex or
civilized forms and passed through certain stages in the process. Models in the study of modernity go
back to the evolutionism of Spence and Durkheim concerning the process of change in terms of
increasing social differentiation and complexity.

Emile Durkheim’s Theory of Social Change

A notable example of a social theorist who wrote within the evolutionary tradition was Emile
Durkheim. His ideas did not subscribe to the unilinear progression but rather to the notion of ever-
increasing society’s complexity and relatedness. Durkheim held that societies grow from simple to highly
complex social organizations and accompanied by social cultural changes. He dichotomized these
societies into those characterized by mechanical and organic solidarity. In his book, On the Division of
Labor in Society (1964), he traced the development of social solidarity within human society, it must be
pointed out that evolutionism did not dominate Durkheim’s thought (Timasheff 1957:117). His insights
and interpretation of the process of increasing social complexity and social differentiation opened up a
basic and major approach toward the understanding of change in society.
Comparing archaic or primitive societies and advanced societies, Durkheim showed certain
differences, especially in the type of solidarity.
Primitive societies are usually small, consisting only of families and class with little division of
labor. The members are bound by common norms, values, ideas, outlooks and dialects, and thus
become similar. The similarity in behavior of the members is based on the likeness of and collective
sentiments of conscience which is the sum total of beliefs common to the average member of the
society. The social organization is integrated by a type of unity called mechanical solidarity. Under
conditions of mechanical solidarity, there are sanctions or means of social control to ensure conformity
which are highly repressive and primitive. The repressive, severe and punitive criminal law serves as a
deterrent to violations of norms and ensures mechanical solidarity.

3|Page
 In the process of social development from the archaic to the more complex, advanced
structures, there are certain social changes. There is a decline in the collective conscience and the
uniformity of ideas with the replacement of the homologous social units by differentiation of units. The
Division of Labor increases. Progress results in specialized talks which make men dependent upon one
another. The function of the Division of Labor is the integration of society. Organic solidarity emerges
based on the differences and the growing interdependence for the goods and services of others. Organic
solidarity fulfills a particular function previously met by the mechanical form.

What is the cause of the increasing Division of Labor? This comes out with the increase in moral
density or social interaction, resulting from population pressure. The condition threatens the cohesion
of society because it is accompanied by intensified competitiveness. To reduce competition, it is
necessary to have a division of labor demanding differentiation and interdependence. With the
development of society and the consequent division of labor, various results ensue that :
1. Behavior is less guided by the collective conscience and more on the basis of individual beliefs
and tastes. What results is moral individualism stressing the values of equality, liberty, fraternity and
justice.
2. A significant dissociation between religion and law occurs.
3. Social control is based less on common beliefs and the rigid and repressive measures and
becomes replaced by contractual civil and administrative law calling for restitution of rights.
4. Political affairs are run less and less by the whole body of the group and more by specialized
bureaus and officials. Emphasis is on contractual relationships (Cohne 1968: 221 ff; Timasheff 1957: 109
-110).
Searching for the cause of the appearance of the Division of Labor, Durkheim considered
variations of the social scene. Digressing with the prevailing belief of his time that the search for
happiness is the cause, he contended that the increasing population is the general cause. He held that
increasing population leads to intensified struggle for life, thus, to be a “Jack of all trades” becomes
more and more difficult. What is needed is to specialize in the fields of business, profession, and trades
or to narrow one’s sphere of operation in order to be able to compete. Thus, increases in the density of
population lead inevitably to an increase in the division of labor. Durkheim (1964) declared that the
division of labor produced solidarity not because it makes an individual an “exhangist” but because it
creates among men an entire system of rights and duties which link them together in a durable way. The
division of labor varies in direct proportion with the volume and density of societies and of society
progressing in a continuous manner in the course of social development. It is because societies become
regularly denser and more populous.
However, Durkheim felt that organic solidaity is not sufficient to integrate a society, to identify
points of societal stress, and to predict probable adjustment in the future. He pointed out that in the
process of modernization, the old forms of social organization like the family, the community and even
the territorial unit are swept away and replaced by the state. Lacking a larger collectivity with which an
individual can identify himself, there is a growth of isolation in him which may lead to a state of
alienation, anomic or extreme egoism. These are reflected in the increasing suicide rate. Which is the
remedy for this state of alienation and anomie in the modern society? Durkheim felt that theanswer is in
the revival of mechanical solidarity along occupational decentralization and the putting up of a moral
individuality. He amends, “ We must in the past the germs of new life which it contained and hasten
their development (1964:391)”. Durkheim offered the establishment of new communal societies along
occupational lines as one solution to the problem of social disintegration in a highly urbanized society
(Applebaum 1970:35).

4|Page
 DURKHEIM’S SOCIAL SYSTEM BASIC CONCEPTS

ARCHAIC/PRIMITIVE INDUSTRIALIZATION ADVANCED COMPLEX

SOCIETY URBANIZATION SOCIETIES

COLLECTIVE REPRESEN- CONTRACTUAL CIVIL AND

TATIONS (NORMS, BELIEFS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
SANCTIONS)
SOCIALIZED INDIVIDUAL

LITTLE DIVISION OF LABOR INCREASING DIVISION OF

LABOR

MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY ANOMIE

ORGANIC SOLIDARITY

Redfield’s Folk-Urban Continuum

Robert Redfiled’s Folk-urban Continuum is a construct of two ideal polar types with the folk
society on one end and the urban modern society on the other. Societies could be arranged in the order
of the degree of resemblance to the ideal type. While this approach does not provide much theoretical
insight, this presents a conceptualization of gross types in societal evolution and Redfield put up a
theoretical model to distinguish gross types. The folk ideal type might be a model for underdeveloped or
undeveloped societies in their incipient stage. Redfield gave certain characteristics of folk societies made
by many students to describe the folk type, as gleaned from observations of cities and peasant groups.
He never specified clearly he characteristics of the urban portion of the typology. By implication, the
urban ideal was characterized by the opposite traits or elements of the folk community. Redfield (1947)
averred that “ the type is an imagined entity created only because through it we may hope to
understand reality.” These folk-urban ideal types may be comparable to distinctions of societies made
by some authors like Toennies, Gemeinschaft-Gesellscaft, Becker’s sacred-secular and Durkheim’s
mechanical and organic solidarity.
Redfield (1947) described the folk society as small, isolated, non-literate, and homogeneous,
with strong sense of group solidarity. The ways of living are conventionalized into that organized,
integrated coherent system called “culture”. The goals are set by the culture, making activities
stimulating and meaningful. The norms or designs for living guide the conventionalized behavior. The
folkways and ores of the culture are followed spontaneously and uncritically and they fix the rights and
duties of the individuals. Laws are not legislated but made up of traditional conceptions of rights and
obligations. The institutions are crescive, growing out informally from the folkways, mores and laws of
the group. Common practical knowledge guides the people. However, within the limits set by the
custom, there is motivation to excel in performance as the members are made to feel that what the
culture prescribes them to do is worth doing. The nuclear familial group and the kinship group are the
units of action. The pattern of kinship tends to extend outward from the group of genealogically related
individuals into the whole society. This is further extended by blood brotherhood, godparental
relationship, and other ceremonial sponsorship. Religion and magic centering in ritual festivals and
worship pervade the life of the people.
The economy of folk societies is subsistence and is one of status rather than the market. The
group is economically independent of all other societies. The members produce what they consume.

5|Page
The tolls and ways of production re shared by everybody. Division of labor is based on sex. Technology is
simple with relatively few tools which are secondary and tertiary non-manufactured ones.
Behavior is personal and intimate. Members are bound by a strong sense of belonging or “we
feeling”. The mutual like-mindedness results in strong group solidarity. In short, the society is sacred and
constitutes a little world by itself.
Redfield never specified clearly the characteristics of the urban portion of the typology. By
implication, urban life would be characterized by the opposite traits and elements of the folk society:
large population, high density, high literacy, heterogencity, individualism, commercialism and
secularism.
As mentioned earlier, there are a lot of criticisms levied against Redfield’s folk-urban
construction. As Miner (in Applebaum 1970): empirical evidence and the ideal type construct or whether
societies “hang together” as predicted by the ideal types; second, the question of how adequately is the
ideal type of characteristics defined and operationalized; and third, the theoretical insight provided by
the folk-urban concept.

Structural – Functionalism

The structural-functional perspective can be traced in the work of Durkheim, Cooley, Thomas
and Pareto.
Essentially, this theory conceives of society as a social system which has a structure made up of
parts. Within the social system is a complex integrated, mutually interrelated, and functionally
interdependent parts. Each part has its own identity and individuality while performing its function or
contributing to the maintenance, strengthening, and stability of the whole. Thus, we say that the
function of the family is reproduction to make for the continuity of the social group, or that the function
of the polity is the maintenance of peace and order. However, the whole is greater than its parts and has
properties and functions which encompass those in the parts.
The society as a social system is composed of actors occupying statuses or structural positions
within the social system and perform roles or behavior patterns in relation to these positions. The
members are oriented toward the promotion of their needs as well as of society’s. Social behavior is
patterned by the expectations of others as well as by the cultural norms and values. Culture is also
viewed as a system composed of durable parts and stands in a complicated relationship of
interdependence with the social system (Timasheff 1976:26).

The structural functionalists hold that there is order, stability, and equilibrium in society. The
society maintains its order and stability or is functional when the needs of its members are met and in
return the members follow the shared norms and values. Disruption in the society occurs when he
shared norms and values are not conformed with or there are great changes in the society.

The ideas of Talcott Parsons

Parsons is one of the major functionalist theorists. He viewed society as a system composed of
parts which have functions in the total system. Parsons (18:51:25) considered a social system as a
system of process of interaction between actors. It is the structure of the relations between the actors
involved in the interactive process which is essentially the structure involved in the interactive process
which is essentially the structure of the social system. The structure of the social system is the patterned
system of relationships between the actors involved in the interactive process based on their statuses
and roles. The status is an actor’s place or position in the relationship. The social system has a physical
or environmental aspect, and the interactions within is defined and mediated in terms of culturally

6|Page
structured and shared systems. The culture patterns consist of belief systems (cognitive aspect), systems
of expressive symbolism (affective aspect) which a social system needs for stability and equilibrium.
Parsons stated that stability or stable equilibrium is essential for any society. Stability results when the
society tries to develop routine ways of dealing with the less than perfect fit among its parts and the
resultant conflicts and tensions. Then the relations between its structure and the processes which go on
within it and between its environment are such as to maintain them. This maintenance is dependent on
some processes which would neutralize the internal or external sources of variability. There are also
processes productive or structural change (Parsons in Ezioni and Etzioni 1964).

If the system is to continue a persistent order or to undergo an orderly process of

developmental change, there are certain functional prerequisites that must be met. First, the social
system must be so structured that it is compatible with the conditions of the functions of its members
and be integrated with the cultural system. Second, the social system must have the support of the
other system. Third, the component members must be sufficiently motivated to meet its minimum
needs like nutrition and public safety. Fourth, the social system must be able to control disruptive
behavior or deviant behavior. Fifth, the social system must have minimum conditions of stability or
orderly behavior to withstand deviance and conflict (Parsons: 1951: 26-28).

A higher order unit of social structure than the role is an institution. As defined by Parsons
(1951:43), an institution is made up of a plurality of interdependent role-patterns or components of
them. It is a complex patterned, interdependent role expectations that have to do with the integrations
of action expectations that have to do with the integrations of action expectations with the value-
patterns. Since institutionalization entails the patterning of value even in the social system and the
internalization of value systems in the human personality, it becomes an important integrative and
stabilizing mechanism. Institutionalization becomes the antithesis of anomie, the absence of structured
complementarity of the interaction process.

The types of institution comprising value-orientation patterns are as follows:

1. Relational institutions which define the reciprocal roles and statuses of the members to the
interactive processes.
2. Regulative institutions which control and direct the pursuits of interest in terms of value
standards of the social system.
3. Cultural institutions which define obligations to the acceptance of cultural patterns as the
cognitive beliefs, systems of expressive symbols, and private moral obligations.

Parsons gave Four functional imperatives of all systems:

1. Adaptation or meeting the situational needs or requirements facing the system.

2. Goal-attainment or realizing the systems’ primary orientations and objectives.
3. Integration or regulating the interrelations of the other functional requirements.
4. Pattern-maintenance and tension reduction of providing, maintaining, and renewing both
motivational and cultural patterns

7|Page
 The conflict Theories

Conflict theories focuses on change as a permanent and inseparable aspect of society with
conflict as an accompaniment of the change. Conflict theorists stress change and regard it as endemic
to all societies. Conflict theories see structural change everywhere and view class conflict and class
exploitation as the fundamental moving force in the development of society. Conflict theorists discount
the functionalists view of society being held together by shared values as forming a true consensus. To
them, this is an artificial consensus in which the dominant group or class imposes its values and rules
upon the rest of society. To the conflict theorists, the society is composed of different parts which are
interdependent not because of common values but because of the greater power of certain groups in
society who try to achieve their ends by taking advantage of others. The power of the privileged classes
can be expressed by coercion or the control over jobs, police courts and military. Class struggle ensues
and the conflicts end in order and stability.

Karl Marx : Theory of social changes

Conflict theory had its origin in the early sociologists, especially with Karl Marx. Conflict theories
constitute the legacy of Karl Marx. Marx (1818-1883) was German Jew who was trained in law but
changed to philosophy. He is popularly known as the original leader of the r evolutionary movement
which is divided into two branches: socialism and communism. He wrote a great deal and his best
known works are The Communist Manifesto with Fredrich Engels and Das Capital. His impact and
influence on the twentieth century, especially on Russia and China, together with some countries in
Asia, Africa, South America and Europe have been great. He has inspired and influenced men like
Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin of Russia, Mao Tze Tung of China, Marshall Tito of
Yugoslavia, Fidel Castro of Cuba, Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, and Jose Ma.
Sison of the Philippines, among others.

For Marx, society is not a smoothly, functioning social system, rather, society is in a constant flux of
change. Its elements and structural form are always in continuous change which results to conflicts by
struggling groups and classes. Society thus is characterized by regularity of change which ensue from the
inevitable struggle between the workers and the owners of the means of production (the capitalists). In
the words of Marx, “without conflict there is no progress. This is the law which civilization has followed
to the present day.” Specifically stated, he wrote, the history of all societies up to the present is the
history of class struggle (communist manifesto, 1955: 1959).

Marx Assumption is that the structure of society is determined by economic organization,

particularly the ownership of property. He maintained that the key to the understanding of structure
and conflict in any period lies in the mode of [production, specifically in its technology for this
determines the relations of production(the organization of production), and together they constitute the
substructure of society. The other elements like social institutions, values and beliefs make up the
superstructure. To Marx, influence is not shared by many groups but is exercised only by those who
control economic resources. He hypothesized that economic institutions are dominant and relatively
autonomous. Large corporations and financial institutions exert much greater influence on other
institutions such as the schools, government and church than can be exerted on them in return. His
Theory of social change holds that all human history is a conflict between opposing social issues.

8|Page
Inherent in any economic system that supports inequality are forces that generate class conflicts. These
class struggles and conflicts will end later in a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large or in the
common destruction of the contending classes.

Marx’ dialectic sheme

Two basic postulates in Marxism revolve on first, economic determinism and second, on the
mechanisms of change.

Economic determinism is the view that the economic factor is fundamental determinant of the
structure and development of society. The economic factor consists essentially of the state of
technology which refers to the relations into which men must and do enter to produce goods more
effectively that they could if working separately. This organization of production constitutes the
economic substructure which shapes the whole super-structure. The latter includes the political
organization, the juridical, law, religion, philosophy, art, literature, science, and morality. These various
components of the super-structure are established by the victorious class after a successful battle. Thus,
the economic movement is necessary to produce these results.

The mechanism of change involves the development of the class structure. In the explanation of
social change, Marx borrowed the dialectic scheme of George Hegel, a German Philosopher. This
dialectic scheme makes us of the three ever present phases. According to this view, everything in the
world, including society passes by a kind of dialectic necessity through three stages of affirmation or
thesis, negation or antithesis and reconciliation of opposites or synthesis. The dialectic process
continues with new conflicts and accommodations, always marking the historical process ( Timasheff
1967:4).

At the start of every system of economic production, there is thesis or affirmation. One the
system of economic production becomes socially entrenched, obstacles to the application of new
technological inventions and the use of newly discovered markets and supplies of raw materials are
formed. Development cannot stop at this stage; hence the established social order must be overcome
by a social revolution. This is especially true of capitalistic society which came into existence with the
industrial revolution.

In a capitalistic society, two or more social classes exists namely:

1. The bourgeosie - composed of the property owners and the capitalists

2. The proletariat – make up the laborers and the wage earners.

The propertied class is dominant class who try to take advantage, if nor exploit the proletariat. The
exploited proletariat recognize their inferior and subordinate position. This is the stage of the antithesis
or negation. Intense struggle between the two social classes is inevitable. These classes tend to polarize,
and the society breaks up into two hostile classes, namely, the bourgeoisie or the property owners and
the proletariat or the laborers. In the process of polarization, their situation becomes increasingly
extreme, with sections of the proletariat becoming extremely poor while the bourgeosie or the
capitalists become wealthier. The classes become more homogeneous and other groupings like the
middle class are absorbed into the two classes and align with them.

9|Page
 The ideas of Lenin

Vlademir Lenin, a Russian writer and chief leader of the Russian Revolution in 1917 and head of
the Soviet government from 1917 to 1924, in his pamphlet “Imperialism, the highest stage of
capitalism , applied Marxist theory in the analysis of imperialism.

As commonly used, imperialism, denotes the domination of the vast territories by force and the
subsequent exploitation of their populations and resources. Deviating from the popular definition of
imperialism, Lenin defined imperialism as the “role of finance capital”, the highest stage of capitalism in
which the separation of the ownership of capital (the rentier) from the productive application of capital
(the entrepreneur). Imperialism developed from the rapid concentration of capital in the hands of a few
monopolies. This came out with the division of markets of their home countries and then through the
export capital and formation of international cartels which divided control over the world market.

Imperialism has certain basic features:

1. Monopolistic control of production and capital which play a decisive role in economic life
2. Th creation of “finance capital” by a financial oligarchy as a result of the merger of bank capital
and industrial capital.
3. The export of capital which has become very essential to the oligarchy
4. The formation of international capitalist monopolies which share the world among themselves
5. The completion of territorial division of the world as a whole among the greatest capital powers

10 | P a g e