Politics: Socialism - The State

-They were the first socialist thinkers to explain the centrality of social class.

-They explained that an individual's social class is determined by their status within society's economy.

-They argued that capitalism created 2 conflicted economic classes: the bourgeoisie (in effect the ruling-class, which owned and managed the economy) and the proletariat (in effect, the working-class, which sold its labour to the bourgeoisie in return for wages).

-However, they also argued that class differences were far from harmonious: they involved harsh inequalities of wealth and power and the exploitation of the proletariat.

-For this reason, capitalist societies were also unstable and would eventually be overthrown by a 'historically inevitable' proletariat revolution.

-They were the first socialist thinkers to challenge the liberal notion that the state was politically neutral.

-Instead, they argued that the state would always serve the interests of whichever class controlled the economy.

-Consequently, the liberal state was 'merely a committee' for the ruling capitalist class and could therefore never provide an evolutionary road to socialism.

-They thus became the first socialist thinkers to explain why revolution was not just inevitable but essential and to describe what should happen once revolution had occurred.

-They asserted that, in the wake of revolution, an entirely new state should arise that would govern in the interests of the new, economically dominant class - one they called the dictatorship of the proletariat.

-Once this alternative state had cemented socialist values, it would 'wither away' and be replaced by communism: a stateless society involving common ownership and the principle of 'from each according to his ability to each according to his needs' - this would be 'the end of history'.

-Such a scenario has never been realised, yet their idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat proved hugely significant, justifying oppressive political systems in post-revolutionary societies such as the Soviet Union and China.

-She believed neither paternalism nor philanthropy was a sustainable solution to the problems of poverty and inequality.

-Poverty and inequality were most likely to be eliminated through vigorous trade unionism and extensive state intervention.

-Effective reform tends to be gradual rather than revolutionary.

-In her book, 'The Cooperative Movement in Great Britain' (1891), she rejected 'big bang', revolutionary change, arguing that revolutions were 'chaotic, inefficient and counter-productive' and, for that very reason, 'guilty of the same problem besettling capitalism - unpredictability'.

-Despairing of capitalism's volatility, she looked forward to a more planned and 'rational' society where 'matters may be resolved sensibly...by rational, educated and civic-minded officials'.

-Thus, the mayhem associated with revolution did not seem the ideal starting point for a bright and orderly future.

-She and other democratic socialists believed, that the extension of the suffrage, from the late 19th century onwards, had facilitated a more orderly, election-based progression towards post-capitalist society.

-In a scenario she and other Fabians dubbed 'the inevitability of gradualism', democratically elected socialist governments would steadily transform society via the existing parliamentary system, gradually replacing a society based on private ownership with one based on common ownership and public control.

-Along with her husband Sidney, she became active in the Fabian Society, an organisation committed to evolutionary socialism via reforms made at Westminster.

-She was instrumental in the Fabians' decision to align with the emerging Labour Party and was involved in drafting Clause IV of Labour's 1918 constitution.

-Although this committed Labour to 'common ownership' of the British economy, she helped ensure that Labour would pursue this goal via the existing political system.

-Between 1905 and 1909, she served on a Royal Commission that examined the state's approach to poverty.

-Her celebrated Minority Report argued that the state should guarantee 'a sufficient nourishment and training when young, a living wage when able-bodied, treatment when sick, and modest but secure livelihood when disabled or aged'.

-Much of this anticipated the Beveridge Report of 1942, which was implemented by a Labour government after 1945.

-Her views on poverty and inequality therefore pre-dated both the agenda of a democratic socialist government and the emergence of a welfare state in the UK.

-She had little sympathy for Marx's 'historicism' and denied that for revolution to occur, capitalism would have to reach an advanced stage of development, where the proletariat was well developed.

-Like Lenin, for her, the unacceptable implication was that less developed countries would have to endure many more decades of oppressive rule, plus all the horrors of a developing capitalist economy, before the salvation of socialism could arrive.

-In 'The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy' (1998), he argued that the survival of social democracy required recognition that free-market capitalism had an unmatched capacity to empower individuals economically.

-However, he also argued that capitalism functioned best when there was a strong sense of social cohesion, which neo-liberalism seemed to overlook.

-So a triangulation - reconciling neo-liberalism's view of economics with social democracy's view of society - was required to make centre-left politics relevant in the 21st century.

-He accepted that in many respects, post-Fordist capitalism was liberating for individuals - they were now freer than ever to 'self-actualise' and carve out individual identities.

-Yet, those individuals would also find it harder to develop, precisely because society was becoming increasingly amorphous and ill-defined.

-Stripped of the communities that once gave them confidence, human beings were likely to be less sure-footed and more likely to be influenced by both economic and cultural elites.

-So, for him, the great irony was that the 'individualisation' of society might actually result in less individualism.

-He therefore argued that if human nature were to flourish in the 21st century, the state - while retreating from economic management - would have to be more proactive, investing heavily in infrastructure (for example, better public transport and community services) and a modernised system of education, designed to prepare citizens for the knowledge economy (one which physical capacity was less important).

-He also found that because globalisation made governments less influential in the economic sphere, it was fitting that Third Way Governments should address other, 'less economic' examples of inequality within society.

-As such, governments like Blair's passed various measures promoting greater racial, gender and sexual equality; the legalisation of civil partnerships for gay couples is one example.

-Blair's government also brought in measures designed to redistribute political influence, such as devolved government and a Human Rights Act.

-For him and other Third Way exponents, these reforms - with their aim of equalising social and political power - were perfectly appropriate to socialism in a modern setting.