To what extent do socialists agree about the economy? (24)
Although within the branches of socialism it can be acknowledged that there are themes of agreement
between revolutionary socialists, democratic socialists, social democrat revisionists and third way
revisionists, it has to be argued that within socialism there is a far bigger consensus that socialists do
in fact disagree in terms of the economy. Their difference of opinion can specifically be highlighted in
their approaches towards capitalism, the way the economy should be run and whether it is truly
possible to achieve collectivism.
It can be argued that socialists do in fact however agree that capitalism has negative effects on the
people socially, regardless of what strand of socialism they lie in. This can be recognised in that
revolutionary socialists see capitalism as ultimately corrupting human nature and tempting them into
the prioritisation of wealth over cooperation. Along with this, it creates a class conflict between the
capitalists who exploit and those who are exploited, it is utterly detrimental to society and therefore
should be abolished through revolution as stated by Marx. Marx believed capitalism was harmful to
human nature and therefore was flawed in its approach; revolution in this case was inevitable. The
proletariat would eventually grow angered and tired of the rich and overthrow them to create the utopia
they envisioned of a communist society - ridding the nation of capitalism and the ills that come
alongside it. Similarly, evolutionary socialists see capitalism as damaging to society but, however,
prioritise reforming capitalism through democratic action. Beatrice Webb specifically saw capitalism as
a ‘corrupting force’, nonetheless states to achieve socialism it must be gradual, and driven by the
labour workers or entirety of the working class. It is further reinforced that socialism can still thrive in
compatibility with capitalism as seen in the Atlee government of 1945 which had a strong policy to
nationalise businesses for the benefit of the country, along with the social democratic argument that
capitalism with state control and a strong welfare state will ultimately reach a stable society to which
capitalism and socialism can coexist. However, the argument that socialists agree on economic terms
is insignificant as although they can both agree capitalism is an ‘evil’, they contrast entirely over the
extent they are willing to work in conjunction with it - evolutionary socialists are far more lenient to
work with capitalism, whereas revolutionary socialists wish to abolish it through revolt.
In contrast, it can be argued that there is far more disagreement within socialism about the extent to
which socialists can work with capitalism. Third way socialists ultimately seek to utilise capitalism for
their own welfare, seeing the need to embrace the free market for economic benefit far more
significant than the ills of capitalism. Giddens argued that free market or laissez faire economics
should be taken advantage of since globalisation has inherently weakened Keynesianism, as
demonstrated through the uprising New Right movement under Thatcher and her strong willed
privatisation along with her emphasis on economic recovery through the free market to aid stagflation.
Giddens ultimately suggested public ownership could not compete with such a policy so socialism
should be adapted to encompass some capitalist attributes. Whereas, revolutionary socialists and
democratic socialist suggest socialism cannot thrive under capitalism whatsoever. Political influencers
like Marx and Luxemburg, although having contrasting views on how to approach change, both
believed capitalism was exploitative of humanity. Luxemburg can be recognised to build on Marx’s
theories over capitalism agreeing it is impossible to achieve evolutionary socialism, however believed
that capitalism did not have to reach a stage of advanced development like Marx had said - she
acknowledged the idea that revolution could be spontaneous, which would inevitably appeal further
and ignite a mass revolution. Thus reinforcing the idea that capitalism can not be at the health of
socialism, it cannot be worked comfortably alongside. The idea that therefore there is more
disagreement is far more significant as socialists can be seen to not agree on economic terms and the
extent to which capitalism should be tolerated in society. Revolutionary socialists take a sceptic stance
on capitalism and believe it is neglective, which completely contrasts the stance of Third way
socialists.
Although within the branches of socialism it can be acknowledged that there are themes of agreement
between revolutionary socialists, democratic socialists, social democrat revisionists and third way
revisionists, it has to be argued that within socialism there is a far bigger consensus that socialists do
in fact disagree in terms of the economy. Their difference of opinion can specifically be highlighted in
their approaches towards capitalism, the way the economy should be run and whether it is truly
possible to achieve collectivism.
It can be argued that socialists do in fact however agree that capitalism has negative effects on the
people socially, regardless of what strand of socialism they lie in. This can be recognised in that
revolutionary socialists see capitalism as ultimately corrupting human nature and tempting them into
the prioritisation of wealth over cooperation. Along with this, it creates a class conflict between the
capitalists who exploit and those who are exploited, it is utterly detrimental to society and therefore
should be abolished through revolution as stated by Marx. Marx believed capitalism was harmful to
human nature and therefore was flawed in its approach; revolution in this case was inevitable. The
proletariat would eventually grow angered and tired of the rich and overthrow them to create the utopia
they envisioned of a communist society - ridding the nation of capitalism and the ills that come
alongside it. Similarly, evolutionary socialists see capitalism as damaging to society but, however,
prioritise reforming capitalism through democratic action. Beatrice Webb specifically saw capitalism as
a ‘corrupting force’, nonetheless states to achieve socialism it must be gradual, and driven by the
labour workers or entirety of the working class. It is further reinforced that socialism can still thrive in
compatibility with capitalism as seen in the Atlee government of 1945 which had a strong policy to
nationalise businesses for the benefit of the country, along with the social democratic argument that
capitalism with state control and a strong welfare state will ultimately reach a stable society to which
capitalism and socialism can coexist. However, the argument that socialists agree on economic terms
is insignificant as although they can both agree capitalism is an ‘evil’, they contrast entirely over the
extent they are willing to work in conjunction with it - evolutionary socialists are far more lenient to
work with capitalism, whereas revolutionary socialists wish to abolish it through revolt.
In contrast, it can be argued that there is far more disagreement within socialism about the extent to
which socialists can work with capitalism. Third way socialists ultimately seek to utilise capitalism for
their own welfare, seeing the need to embrace the free market for economic benefit far more
significant than the ills of capitalism. Giddens argued that free market or laissez faire economics
should be taken advantage of since globalisation has inherently weakened Keynesianism, as
demonstrated through the uprising New Right movement under Thatcher and her strong willed
privatisation along with her emphasis on economic recovery through the free market to aid stagflation.
Giddens ultimately suggested public ownership could not compete with such a policy so socialism
should be adapted to encompass some capitalist attributes. Whereas, revolutionary socialists and
democratic socialist suggest socialism cannot thrive under capitalism whatsoever. Political influencers
like Marx and Luxemburg, although having contrasting views on how to approach change, both
believed capitalism was exploitative of humanity. Luxemburg can be recognised to build on Marx’s
theories over capitalism agreeing it is impossible to achieve evolutionary socialism, however believed
that capitalism did not have to reach a stage of advanced development like Marx had said - she
acknowledged the idea that revolution could be spontaneous, which would inevitably appeal further
and ignite a mass revolution. Thus reinforcing the idea that capitalism can not be at the health of
socialism, it cannot be worked comfortably alongside. The idea that therefore there is more
disagreement is far more significant as socialists can be seen to not agree on economic terms and the
extent to which capitalism should be tolerated in society. Revolutionary socialists take a sceptic stance
on capitalism and believe it is neglective, which completely contrasts the stance of Third way
socialists.
