SOCIALISM
To what extent do socialists agree on the role of the state
Socialism is traditionally the view of opposing capitalist society and economic systems whilst supporting collective
ownership of economic and social systems which promotes equality. Revolutionary socialists see the state as an
instrument of class rule, and that all states are oppressive, but there must be one during the dictatorship of the proletariat
in order to achieve communism.
Social Democrats view the state as something that should be neutral, having a positive role in a mixed economy.
Third way socialists see a necessary role for a limited state and that it is neutral, existing to maintain capitalism.
Social democrats adopt a more limited role for the state and support a mixed economy with both state owned and
privately owned enterprises with only a few industries nationalised. This idea is argued by Anthony Crosland who
believed that this was the best way to generate economic growth and would eventually lead to prosperity. However, this
idea of a limited role for the state is criticised by Marxists who believe in a centralised state that organised all production
and distribution. Therefore, social democrats and Marxists do not agree on the role of the state in a society. Marx and
Engels would further disagree with the concepts of social democracy as they firmly believe that an individual cannot
achieved their full potential under a system like capitalism but communism and socialism essentially is the road to it and
once the state withers away' only then can an individual fully express themselves.
The third way also takes a different view of the state's function as they promote the concept of a competitive state to
develop the national workforce's skills and knowledge. They emphasise the importance of education as it provides
individuals with better job prospects. The third way do not agree on immense state intervention which can be seen
through the thinker Giddens who rejected state intervention and accepted free market in the economy with a emphasis on
community rather than class conflict which was argued by Marx and Engels who argued for class consciousness.
Marxists would completely oppose the principles of the third way as they believe that any attempt to humanise
capitalism, a system based upon inequalities and exploitation which the third way does is wrong as it does not get rid of
the fundamental flaws inherent in the system. Marx and Engels would further oppose the third way as they believe in the
abolishment of private property which the third way does not support due to them supporting a market state. Therefore,
Neo-revisionists further disagree with Marxists over the role of the state.
Agreement amongst socialists is the state’s role to provide social welfare and equality in society. This is due to
socialists’ fundamental belief of equality where humans are all born equal and only are different due to conditions in
society therefore this inequality in society should be removed by the state which will reinforce collectivism and
harmonious living. Furthermore, socialists are against the class division and social hierarchy created from inequality
stemming from capitalism which further supports their reasoning as to why the state should provide welfare. This is
because there are clear class differences which mean people who are lower in society need more support to achieve
equality. This view is shared by Social Democrats such as Crosland who advocate for a welfare system to promote social
justice and redistribute wealth and limit inequality. The third way such as Giddens do not oppose great individual wealth
as they as acknowledge that it leads to the betterment of society. They also believe that state should provide welfare to
socially marginalised groups and enable people by providing assistance to help them improve their own situation.
Similarly social democrats would further agree with welfare measures to narrow differences in wealth and to equal life
chances, which was also argued by Crosland. This idea is further supported by Webb who believed that the expansion of
the state was vital to deliver socialism as it would ‘silently change its character’, allowing equality to be delivered and
inequality to be abolished .
To what extent do socialists agree or disagree over equality of outcome
Socialists have a positive if not utopian view of human nature, and regard people as social creatures who are cooperative,
sociable and rational. Equality of outcome is a concept, realisable through state policies and systems, in which all
individuals have the same material wealth and income.
Revolutionary socialists are committed to equality of outcome that can only be realised through revolution.
Social democrats although believe in the ideal of equality of outcome, favour equality of opportunity through the
expansion of the state to introduce socialist policies to ensure social justice, they see this as practical and creating
harmony between the owners of capital and the workers.
The Third Way reject equality of outcome and neither see it as an ideal or a positive measure of success.
Revolutionary socialists, support equality of outcome, whilst social democrats and third-way ‘socialists’ are much more
sceptical of this concept.
Revolutionary socialists support equality of outcome.
Socialists believe that people have a natural relationship that should be based on cooperation, working collectively not
, competitively, as competition leads to conflict which leads people to ignore their natural relationships with others. Marx
and Engels believed in common ownership over means of production within a communist economy. Marx famously
declared, “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”, which has been widely interpreted as his
desire to create a society where needs were not determined by effort or other factors. The existing state is biased, in
which the ruling bourgeois class thrives on inequality, and stands in favour of hostility and competition. This state should
be overthrown in social revolutions to establish communist institutions as part of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. As a
‘class consciousness’ develops with the proletariat becoming aware of their exploitation, they will seek to strive for
equality between workers. Although Rosa Luxembourg warned against undemocratic, dictatorial revolutions that
diminished the proletariat, she also accepted the need for equality of outcome. Revolutionary socialists aspire towards a
society where the economy is centrally-planned with common ownership which will eradicate socio-economic inequality
dismissing differential outcomes based on abilities. This is further enabled by diminishing private ownership and
resolving the inherent contradiction within capitalism between production and wealth accumulation. Therefore,
revolutionary socialists are committed to equality of outcome to a significant extent.
Most socialists believe equality of outcome promotes cooperation, stability and rationality. Socialists believe that
cooperation rewards people for hard work on a deeper moral level rather than the material rewards of liberal capitalism.
They think that people will be motivated to aid the ‘common good’ rather than just their own short term aims. Most
socialists believe that inequality is driven by unequal treatment by society, which creates social conflict and instability,
which leads to deep agreements among socialists regarding their opposition to the inequality driven by capitalism and
the need for a more human approach to organising society, the state an the economy. This idea is advocated by Marx and
Engels, who state that Capitalism promotes ‘exploitation’, ‘alienation’ and the ‘oppression’ of one class by another and is
at odds with key socialist principles such as fraternity, solidarity and equality. Whereas, under communism, workers are
freed to realise their true human potential by engaging in activities, pursuing creative work in cooperation with others.
Furthermore, Webb engaged in the argument that the damage inflicted by capitalism upon the human psyche as a
‘corrupting force’ producing selfishness will be worsened by violent revolution. Therefore, humanity needs to be gradually
guided to its original, cooperate condition.
Unlike revolutionary socialists, third-way ‘socialists’ dismiss the concept of equality of outcome altogether and are
committed to the idea of equality of opportunity. Giddens rejected state intervention as encouraging a culture of
dependency, and discouraging investment and entrepreneurship through the eradication of financial inducements. In this
way, third-way socialists promote the priority of the market over the state, rejecting ‘top-down’ state intervention in favour
of further privatisation and de-regulation. Third-way socialists hold a belief in a ‘competitive state’ that develops the skills
and knowledge base of the workforce, improving job prospects of individuals and boosting economic growth – as
opposed to common ownership. Unlike revolutionary socialism that holds a belief that private ownership within laissez-
faire capitalism perpetuates socio-economic inequality and the oppression of the proletariat, these socialists promote
targeted welfare toward socially-marginalised groups as part of the concept of social inclusion to promote equality of
opportunity and genuine meritocracy (social justice). This can be seen in a raft of policies under Tony Blairs government,
influenced by the Third Way, investing in schools and hospitals but making choices to enable success as well as
introducing tax credits for the poorest of families. Thus, third-way socialists are not committed to equality of outcome but
Giddens would say they belong to the socialist tradition because he, like social democrats such as Webb, want to achieve
equality for all. Social Democrats would argue against Giddens, suggesting his form of equality would be too weak to
work against immense wealth disparities. Revolutionaries would question the ‘socialist’ credentials of Giddens and would
claim his commitment to the free market in effect brought him closer to Capitalism.
To what extent do socialists agree on the economy?
Socialism was an ideology that saw capitalism as inherently incompatible with socialism due to its generation of
inequality of wealth, which encourages egotism and competitiveness. Marxists and Democratic Socialists believed that
capitalism damages the cooperation and fraternity of human nature
Social Democrats advocate a Keynesian economic system tempered by state intervention, The Third Way suggests that
free markets with minimal state intervention are the most effective method of wealth creation.
Socialists disagrees over the role of the state in organising a socialist economy. Marxists, take a very hostile view of
capitalism, arguing that it promotes exploitation, oppression and alienation of the working class. Marx and Engels
suggested that human nature is contaminated by capitalism, since it instills a false consciousness among the working
class, and encourages selfishness and greed, both of which run contrary to the fundamental principle of socialism.
Marxists advocate an overthrow of the existing economic system, believing that revolution is essential. Democratic
socialist Beatrice Webb argued for the expansion of the state, with specialised administrators to organise, plan and
regulate the economy. Revolutionary socialist thinkers such as Marx and Engels and Rosa Luxemburg argue that
capitalism and the free market are incompatible with socialism's core principles as capitalism's inherent inequality and
exploitation that it cannot be reformed. Therefore, revolutionary socialists reject the ideas of social democracy and the
Third Way as Giddens believe in the free market in the economy and the market state and tries to humanise capitalism
whereas Marx believes in the abolishment of private property. Revolutionary socialists disagree over which economies
To what extent do socialists agree on the role of the state
Socialism is traditionally the view of opposing capitalist society and economic systems whilst supporting collective
ownership of economic and social systems which promotes equality. Revolutionary socialists see the state as an
instrument of class rule, and that all states are oppressive, but there must be one during the dictatorship of the proletariat
in order to achieve communism.
Social Democrats view the state as something that should be neutral, having a positive role in a mixed economy.
Third way socialists see a necessary role for a limited state and that it is neutral, existing to maintain capitalism.
Social democrats adopt a more limited role for the state and support a mixed economy with both state owned and
privately owned enterprises with only a few industries nationalised. This idea is argued by Anthony Crosland who
believed that this was the best way to generate economic growth and would eventually lead to prosperity. However, this
idea of a limited role for the state is criticised by Marxists who believe in a centralised state that organised all production
and distribution. Therefore, social democrats and Marxists do not agree on the role of the state in a society. Marx and
Engels would further disagree with the concepts of social democracy as they firmly believe that an individual cannot
achieved their full potential under a system like capitalism but communism and socialism essentially is the road to it and
once the state withers away' only then can an individual fully express themselves.
The third way also takes a different view of the state's function as they promote the concept of a competitive state to
develop the national workforce's skills and knowledge. They emphasise the importance of education as it provides
individuals with better job prospects. The third way do not agree on immense state intervention which can be seen
through the thinker Giddens who rejected state intervention and accepted free market in the economy with a emphasis on
community rather than class conflict which was argued by Marx and Engels who argued for class consciousness.
Marxists would completely oppose the principles of the third way as they believe that any attempt to humanise
capitalism, a system based upon inequalities and exploitation which the third way does is wrong as it does not get rid of
the fundamental flaws inherent in the system. Marx and Engels would further oppose the third way as they believe in the
abolishment of private property which the third way does not support due to them supporting a market state. Therefore,
Neo-revisionists further disagree with Marxists over the role of the state.
Agreement amongst socialists is the state’s role to provide social welfare and equality in society. This is due to
socialists’ fundamental belief of equality where humans are all born equal and only are different due to conditions in
society therefore this inequality in society should be removed by the state which will reinforce collectivism and
harmonious living. Furthermore, socialists are against the class division and social hierarchy created from inequality
stemming from capitalism which further supports their reasoning as to why the state should provide welfare. This is
because there are clear class differences which mean people who are lower in society need more support to achieve
equality. This view is shared by Social Democrats such as Crosland who advocate for a welfare system to promote social
justice and redistribute wealth and limit inequality. The third way such as Giddens do not oppose great individual wealth
as they as acknowledge that it leads to the betterment of society. They also believe that state should provide welfare to
socially marginalised groups and enable people by providing assistance to help them improve their own situation.
Similarly social democrats would further agree with welfare measures to narrow differences in wealth and to equal life
chances, which was also argued by Crosland. This idea is further supported by Webb who believed that the expansion of
the state was vital to deliver socialism as it would ‘silently change its character’, allowing equality to be delivered and
inequality to be abolished .
To what extent do socialists agree or disagree over equality of outcome
Socialists have a positive if not utopian view of human nature, and regard people as social creatures who are cooperative,
sociable and rational. Equality of outcome is a concept, realisable through state policies and systems, in which all
individuals have the same material wealth and income.
Revolutionary socialists are committed to equality of outcome that can only be realised through revolution.
Social democrats although believe in the ideal of equality of outcome, favour equality of opportunity through the
expansion of the state to introduce socialist policies to ensure social justice, they see this as practical and creating
harmony between the owners of capital and the workers.
The Third Way reject equality of outcome and neither see it as an ideal or a positive measure of success.
Revolutionary socialists, support equality of outcome, whilst social democrats and third-way ‘socialists’ are much more
sceptical of this concept.
Revolutionary socialists support equality of outcome.
Socialists believe that people have a natural relationship that should be based on cooperation, working collectively not
, competitively, as competition leads to conflict which leads people to ignore their natural relationships with others. Marx
and Engels believed in common ownership over means of production within a communist economy. Marx famously
declared, “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”, which has been widely interpreted as his
desire to create a society where needs were not determined by effort or other factors. The existing state is biased, in
which the ruling bourgeois class thrives on inequality, and stands in favour of hostility and competition. This state should
be overthrown in social revolutions to establish communist institutions as part of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. As a
‘class consciousness’ develops with the proletariat becoming aware of their exploitation, they will seek to strive for
equality between workers. Although Rosa Luxembourg warned against undemocratic, dictatorial revolutions that
diminished the proletariat, she also accepted the need for equality of outcome. Revolutionary socialists aspire towards a
society where the economy is centrally-planned with common ownership which will eradicate socio-economic inequality
dismissing differential outcomes based on abilities. This is further enabled by diminishing private ownership and
resolving the inherent contradiction within capitalism between production and wealth accumulation. Therefore,
revolutionary socialists are committed to equality of outcome to a significant extent.
Most socialists believe equality of outcome promotes cooperation, stability and rationality. Socialists believe that
cooperation rewards people for hard work on a deeper moral level rather than the material rewards of liberal capitalism.
They think that people will be motivated to aid the ‘common good’ rather than just their own short term aims. Most
socialists believe that inequality is driven by unequal treatment by society, which creates social conflict and instability,
which leads to deep agreements among socialists regarding their opposition to the inequality driven by capitalism and
the need for a more human approach to organising society, the state an the economy. This idea is advocated by Marx and
Engels, who state that Capitalism promotes ‘exploitation’, ‘alienation’ and the ‘oppression’ of one class by another and is
at odds with key socialist principles such as fraternity, solidarity and equality. Whereas, under communism, workers are
freed to realise their true human potential by engaging in activities, pursuing creative work in cooperation with others.
Furthermore, Webb engaged in the argument that the damage inflicted by capitalism upon the human psyche as a
‘corrupting force’ producing selfishness will be worsened by violent revolution. Therefore, humanity needs to be gradually
guided to its original, cooperate condition.
Unlike revolutionary socialists, third-way ‘socialists’ dismiss the concept of equality of outcome altogether and are
committed to the idea of equality of opportunity. Giddens rejected state intervention as encouraging a culture of
dependency, and discouraging investment and entrepreneurship through the eradication of financial inducements. In this
way, third-way socialists promote the priority of the market over the state, rejecting ‘top-down’ state intervention in favour
of further privatisation and de-regulation. Third-way socialists hold a belief in a ‘competitive state’ that develops the skills
and knowledge base of the workforce, improving job prospects of individuals and boosting economic growth – as
opposed to common ownership. Unlike revolutionary socialism that holds a belief that private ownership within laissez-
faire capitalism perpetuates socio-economic inequality and the oppression of the proletariat, these socialists promote
targeted welfare toward socially-marginalised groups as part of the concept of social inclusion to promote equality of
opportunity and genuine meritocracy (social justice). This can be seen in a raft of policies under Tony Blairs government,
influenced by the Third Way, investing in schools and hospitals but making choices to enable success as well as
introducing tax credits for the poorest of families. Thus, third-way socialists are not committed to equality of outcome but
Giddens would say they belong to the socialist tradition because he, like social democrats such as Webb, want to achieve
equality for all. Social Democrats would argue against Giddens, suggesting his form of equality would be too weak to
work against immense wealth disparities. Revolutionaries would question the ‘socialist’ credentials of Giddens and would
claim his commitment to the free market in effect brought him closer to Capitalism.
To what extent do socialists agree on the economy?
Socialism was an ideology that saw capitalism as inherently incompatible with socialism due to its generation of
inequality of wealth, which encourages egotism and competitiveness. Marxists and Democratic Socialists believed that
capitalism damages the cooperation and fraternity of human nature
Social Democrats advocate a Keynesian economic system tempered by state intervention, The Third Way suggests that
free markets with minimal state intervention are the most effective method of wealth creation.
Socialists disagrees over the role of the state in organising a socialist economy. Marxists, take a very hostile view of
capitalism, arguing that it promotes exploitation, oppression and alienation of the working class. Marx and Engels
suggested that human nature is contaminated by capitalism, since it instills a false consciousness among the working
class, and encourages selfishness and greed, both of which run contrary to the fundamental principle of socialism.
Marxists advocate an overthrow of the existing economic system, believing that revolution is essential. Democratic
socialist Beatrice Webb argued for the expansion of the state, with specialised administrators to organise, plan and
regulate the economy. Revolutionary socialist thinkers such as Marx and Engels and Rosa Luxemburg argue that
capitalism and the free market are incompatible with socialism's core principles as capitalism's inherent inequality and
exploitation that it cannot be reformed. Therefore, revolutionary socialists reject the ideas of social democracy and the
Third Way as Giddens believe in the free market in the economy and the market state and tries to humanise capitalism
whereas Marx believes in the abolishment of private property. Revolutionary socialists disagree over which economies
