Socialism Essay plans
Socialism and the state
To what extent do socialists agree on the state
Intro
- Overall, there is very little agreement between socialists regarding the state, with the different strands
advocating very different ideas on how it should be formed and how it should be run.
- While some agreement can be reached between the strands of socialism regarding some aspects of the
state's nature, ultimately this agreement is negligible compared to the extent to which these strands
disagree.
- For this reason, we can say that socialists disagree on the state to a large extent.
Para 1 – disagree – one way in which socialists can be seen to have starkly different views on the state it due to the
extent to which they differ over the nature of the state and its role within society – different strands, different states.
- Marxists, for example, argue for common ownership/ nationalisation, where the means of production and
privately owned assets are brought under public ownership of the state – in addition this state would be a
‘one-party’ state where any political opposition is removed as it is viewed as counter revolutionary (as
Marxists are a sub strand within the revolutionary socialist strand).
- In contrast, Social Democrats argue that the state should work around a mixed economy rather than a
command economy – therefore, Social Democrats tend to favour a state firmly rooted in Keynesian
economics, one that manages the economy rather than one that exerts full control over it – this view is
informed by Crosland who advocated for the state's promotion of welfare in its management of the
economy as a means of promoting a minimum standard of living.
- In contrast to this, Third way Socialists such as Anthony Giddens strongly reject the levels of state
intervention advocated by the other strands of socialism – socialists belonging to this strand tend to push for
a more non-interventionalist role for the state within the economy, arguing that the free-market should be
preserved and that the state's role should be social investment in infrastructure and education not economic
and social engineering – the state should not be overbearing as this will undoubtedly cause more problems
e.g., over dependency, etc – especially in the context of welfare.
- This is upheld by Giddens who famously stated, “all welfare states create problems of dependency, interest-
group formation and fraud.”
Para 2 – agree – there are some areas in which socialists can be seen to hold similar views on the role of the state.
- For example, all socialists support a strong state as they believe it is the state's duty to increase and uphold
equality and a strong state is required to achieve this.
- This feeds into the ideas of Webb, who argued for an expansion of the state, stating that ‘state expansion is
critical in the delivery of socialism’.
- Furthermore, most socialists are in agreement in their collective view against absolute tyrannical power
within the state as this invariably contradicts the fundamental socialist principle of collectivism.
- While it can be argued that Marx’s ‘one-party’ state would lead to tyrannical power being exercised by the
state (such as that seen in communist Russia), ultimately, this notion is still upheld by the majority of
socialists.
Para 3 – disagree – despite this, socialists still only have similar views of the state to a very small degree.
, - For example, revolutionary socialists such as Marx and Engles are arguable alone in their views of the
necessity and longevity of the state.
- Marx argued that once socialist values were upheld by all individuals within society, the state would wither
away naturally.
- This view that the state is only temporary until the values of fraternity, cooperation and altruism are upheld
by all in society cannot be seen to be expressed amongst the other strands of socialism – therefore exposing
another stark contrast in the views of the state held by socialists.
- There are also contrasting views amongst socialists regarding how the perceived ‘necessary’ changes to the
state should be implemented.
- For example, Marx believed historical development is driven by a dialectic – a clash of ideas and perceptions
between each stage of history – when pre-existing set of values held by the ruling classes are no longer held
by the majority, a new society will emerge – partially for this reason both Marx and Engles stressed that this
new socialist state would emerge via a ‘proletarian revolution’.
- Contrastingly, evolutionary socialists such as Crossland argue that these changes should occur through
gradual change via voting and comprehensive education to achieve these desired changes to the state.
- This view was concurrent with the views of social democrats such as Beatrice Webb, who argued that, the
capitalist state and system should be overthrown via the ballot box not revolution – Revolutions are 'chaotic,
inefficient and counterproductive'.
Socialism and the economy
To what extent do socialists agree on the economy
Para 1 – disagree – socialists tend to differ over the extent to which capitalism can be tolerated.
- Revolutionary Socialists are clear that capitalism must be abolished and are willing to advocate revolution,
followed by a ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’, to achieve this.
- Marx and Engels argued as part of their belief in historicism that the defeat of capitalism was the next
dialectical stage in societies advancement.
- Revolutionary socialists advocate for ‘equality of outcome’ as the only answer to the problems created by
Socialism.
- However, evolutionary socialists are willing to tolerate implementing socialist policies within a capitalist
system in order advance their ideological goals.
- For example, Beatrice Webb called revolution ‘chaotic and inefficient’ and instead called for ‘gradualism’
whilst Anthony Crosland advocated the use of Keynesian economics as a method for socialists to moderate
capitalism.
- Conversely to both revolutionary and evolutionary socialists, Third Way thinkers like Anthony Giddens argue
that capitalism should not only be tolerated but should be embraced. They argue that the free market
creates wealth that can then be used on socialist projects, like improving healthcare.
Para 2 – agree – fundamentally, all socialists can be recognised by their opposition to a laissez-faire economy and a
completely free market.
- Most distinctly, all socialists are united in their rejection of capitalism – while some strands tolerate it, all
strands strive to move away from it because it promotes inequality.
- They are therefore, influenced by the heavy inequalities in society that have emerged from free-market
economics.
- For this reason, Socialists tend to believe that, if left unchecked and unregulated, the economy inevitability
falls victim to the unpredictability of the capitalist market, which often leads to social problems such as
unemployment that only serve to further the inequality socialists wish to prevent.
- Therefore, socialists broadly advocate an egalitarian state that would promote equality of outcome via
interventionalist policies.
- However, despite these fundamental positions, there are clear differences in Socialist views towards the
economy and the finer details of state intervention.
Para 3 – disagree - Socialists disagree on the importance of common ownership.
