To what extent do socialists differ over the role of the state?
Within socialist thought it can be argued that there is a broad agreement that the state is a key
mechanism through which socialism can be achieved; however, on the whole there is an
unwavering amount of disagreement regarding the degree of this and more importantly the
means through which this is achieved. The key areas in which socialists differ regarding the state
include equality, the economy, and the idea of collectivism.
Arguably, it can be said that across socialism there is agreement that inequality is abhorrent and
individuals should do everything in their power to reduce it. Thus all socialists recognise the role
of the state to facilitate this and to ensure a society in which division is minimised. This idea is
commonly associated with Marx who talks of historical materialism which is the idea that
throughout history there has been class struggle between different groups and this always
involves one group being exploited. Thus Marx argues that the current class struggle which
exists between the bourgeoisie and proletariat needs to be destroyed via revolution through the
help of the state to create a society in which equality is minimised. Similarly, Webb argued a
socialist state was best introduced through the process of evolution and via the ballot box
through electing a socialist government which then implements reforms to reduce inequality.
However, whilst all socialists recognise that inequality is wrong, the means through which
inequality is reduced and the role of the state in enabling this is a point of tension. This can be
shown by the fact that revolutionary socialists aim to achieve equality of outcome and argue the
state should enable a dictatorship of the proletariat whilst the socialist state is formed, and once
this is created the state will wither away. However, social democrats such as Webb thought that
the state needed to play a much more hands-on role in enabling equality through common
ownership and redistribution, they recognised the permanent role of the state. Contrarily,
revisionists moved away from both Marx and Webbs’ ideas and instead of equality of outcome
emphasised equality of opportunity. This is due to the fact third way socialists such as Giddens
recognised the strengths of regulated capitalism and promoted ideas such as the social
investment state. This essentially involves the state implementing policies such as education
which improve the mobility and skills of the population which helps to create a society in which
there is equality of opportunity and a meritocracy.
Overall, it can be shown that whilst there is broad agreement amongst all socialists that equality
is wrong, there is far more agreement than disagreement as to what the state’s role is in enabling
this. This contrast is most obvious between evolutionary socialists such as Luxemburg who see
the state’s role as imperative in ensuring equality of outcome, whereas revisionists argue the
state should play a much more limited role and simply enable equality of opportunity but their
role should not extend beyond this.
Within socialist thought it can be argued that there is a broad agreement that the state is a key
mechanism through which socialism can be achieved; however, on the whole there is an
unwavering amount of disagreement regarding the degree of this and more importantly the
means through which this is achieved. The key areas in which socialists differ regarding the state
include equality, the economy, and the idea of collectivism.
Arguably, it can be said that across socialism there is agreement that inequality is abhorrent and
individuals should do everything in their power to reduce it. Thus all socialists recognise the role
of the state to facilitate this and to ensure a society in which division is minimised. This idea is
commonly associated with Marx who talks of historical materialism which is the idea that
throughout history there has been class struggle between different groups and this always
involves one group being exploited. Thus Marx argues that the current class struggle which
exists between the bourgeoisie and proletariat needs to be destroyed via revolution through the
help of the state to create a society in which equality is minimised. Similarly, Webb argued a
socialist state was best introduced through the process of evolution and via the ballot box
through electing a socialist government which then implements reforms to reduce inequality.
However, whilst all socialists recognise that inequality is wrong, the means through which
inequality is reduced and the role of the state in enabling this is a point of tension. This can be
shown by the fact that revolutionary socialists aim to achieve equality of outcome and argue the
state should enable a dictatorship of the proletariat whilst the socialist state is formed, and once
this is created the state will wither away. However, social democrats such as Webb thought that
the state needed to play a much more hands-on role in enabling equality through common
ownership and redistribution, they recognised the permanent role of the state. Contrarily,
revisionists moved away from both Marx and Webbs’ ideas and instead of equality of outcome
emphasised equality of opportunity. This is due to the fact third way socialists such as Giddens
recognised the strengths of regulated capitalism and promoted ideas such as the social
investment state. This essentially involves the state implementing policies such as education
which improve the mobility and skills of the population which helps to create a society in which
there is equality of opportunity and a meritocracy.
Overall, it can be shown that whilst there is broad agreement amongst all socialists that equality
is wrong, there is far more agreement than disagreement as to what the state’s role is in enabling
this. This contrast is most obvious between evolutionary socialists such as Luxemburg who see
the state’s role as imperative in ensuring equality of outcome, whereas revisionists argue the
state should play a much more limited role and simply enable equality of opportunity but their
role should not extend beyond this.
