To what extent are different socialists committed to 'equality of outcome'?
‘Equality of outcome’ refers to the concept that everyone, regardless of their abilities, should
have a similar amount of material wealth and income. Although all socialists are committed
to the concept of equality, there is much disagreement between the different strands of
socialism on whether socialists must remain committed to the idea of equality of outcome in
order to achieve a more equal society. While Revolutionary socialists remain committed to
equality of outcome, democratic socialists are only partly committed to the concept, and
social democrats and the third way are mostly skeptical of equality of outcome.
Revolutionary socialists like Marx and Engels were committed to equality of outcome, Marx
arguing that needs in society should not be determined by individual efforts or other factors.
This can be summed up in one of his most famous quotations ‘From each according to his
ability, to each according to his need’. However, Marx argued that this was only attainable
through revolution- seeing as the existing state under capitalism is biased towards the
bourgeoisie, and thrives on inequality and encourages hostility and competition. This state,
Marx argued, should be overthrown in favor of a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, which will be
achieved after the working class reaches a state of class consciousness, and will begin to
see a need for more equality among the working class. The post-revolutionary society that
revolutionary socialists seek to achieve is a society in which there is common ownership of
the means of production, and production is only determined by human need, not profits.
Other strands of socialism, however, don’t maintain the same commitment to this principle.
Social democrats are mostly against pure equality of outcome. One example would be
Anthony Crosland, who thought that pure equality of outcome would weaken the economy
by disincentivizing wealth creators, and argued instead for equality of opportunity and the
expansion of the state, in order for the state to ensure social equality by introducing socialist
policies, such as universal benefits and redistributive taxation.
Democratic socialists are committed to Equality of Outcome to some extent, however not
entirely, thinkers such as Beatrice Webb arguing more for equality of opportunity instead.
Webb believed that Capitalism could be gradually reformed and in turn society could get
closer socialism, at which point income would be far more evenly distributed and the income
inequality that did remain would be a lot fairer than under free market capitalism. She sought
to do this by supporting the introduction of socialism through democratic institutions,
rejecting the revolutionary socialist idea of overthrowing the government. The state
described by democratic socialists would include universal benefits, a mixed economy and
‘Equality of outcome’ refers to the concept that everyone, regardless of their abilities, should
have a similar amount of material wealth and income. Although all socialists are committed
to the concept of equality, there is much disagreement between the different strands of
socialism on whether socialists must remain committed to the idea of equality of outcome in
order to achieve a more equal society. While Revolutionary socialists remain committed to
equality of outcome, democratic socialists are only partly committed to the concept, and
social democrats and the third way are mostly skeptical of equality of outcome.
Revolutionary socialists like Marx and Engels were committed to equality of outcome, Marx
arguing that needs in society should not be determined by individual efforts or other factors.
This can be summed up in one of his most famous quotations ‘From each according to his
ability, to each according to his need’. However, Marx argued that this was only attainable
through revolution- seeing as the existing state under capitalism is biased towards the
bourgeoisie, and thrives on inequality and encourages hostility and competition. This state,
Marx argued, should be overthrown in favor of a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, which will be
achieved after the working class reaches a state of class consciousness, and will begin to
see a need for more equality among the working class. The post-revolutionary society that
revolutionary socialists seek to achieve is a society in which there is common ownership of
the means of production, and production is only determined by human need, not profits.
Other strands of socialism, however, don’t maintain the same commitment to this principle.
Social democrats are mostly against pure equality of outcome. One example would be
Anthony Crosland, who thought that pure equality of outcome would weaken the economy
by disincentivizing wealth creators, and argued instead for equality of opportunity and the
expansion of the state, in order for the state to ensure social equality by introducing socialist
policies, such as universal benefits and redistributive taxation.
Democratic socialists are committed to Equality of Outcome to some extent, however not
entirely, thinkers such as Beatrice Webb arguing more for equality of opportunity instead.
Webb believed that Capitalism could be gradually reformed and in turn society could get
closer socialism, at which point income would be far more evenly distributed and the income
inequality that did remain would be a lot fairer than under free market capitalism. She sought
to do this by supporting the introduction of socialism through democratic institutions,
rejecting the revolutionary socialist idea of overthrowing the government. The state
described by democratic socialists would include universal benefits, a mixed economy and
