Politics: Socialism - Equality

They are therefore sceptical of the classical liberal claim that individuals can be the masters of their own destiny - this will always depend, they claim, on the nature of society. Society is often cited as the main reason for individuals not fulfilling their potential, yet for socialists, this is no cause for despair. They argue that if only society can be improved, there will be a corresponding improvement to the prospects of its individuals.

They argue that a society which allows inequality of outcome in one generation will be a society that produces inequality of opportunity in the next generation:

-They therefore argue that until we have a society where there is a greater equality of outcome, the noble objectives of liberalism and the Enlightenment - such as self-determination and foundational equality - will never be realised.

-They think it is insufficient just to improve the condition of society's poorest - they claim that unless there is a narrowing of the gap between social classes, society will continue to lack fraternity, cooperation and solidarity, instead fostering greed, envy, resentment and division.

This concept is very much linked to social class.

Free-market capitalism also generates huge inequalities of outcome, which for socialists, are incompatible with equality of opportunity, self-determination and social justice.

Socialists seek to rectify problems caused by capitalism, via providing greater workers' control in employment, and a significant redistribution of wealth and resources.

Proponents routinely call socialism a 'redistributionist' doctrine, practising what Tony Benn (1925-2014) described as 'the politics of Robin Hood - taking from the rich and then giving to the poor'.

Being 'redistributionist' usually involves:

-Emphatic rejection of laissez-faire capitalism advocated by classical and neo-liberalism, whereby market forces are given free rein by a state that is disengaged and minimalist in relation to society's economy. An economy where this is low taxation and little state interference will be one where unfairness and social injustice become exacerbated.

-Arising from the rejection of laissez-faire, socialists demand greater collectivism. This perspective on the economy claims to focus on the needs of society as a whole rather than on the abilities of a few enterprising individuals, as with economic liberalism. Economic collectivism can take many forms, such as: Progressive taxation, progressive public spending, extensive public services, extensive state regulation of capitalism, state/common ownership.

Progressive taxation, progressive public spending, extensive public services, sometimes common ownership = seen as expressions of a more fraternal, more cooperative society with greater social justice.

Collectivists policies are also thought to make the economy more efficient, as a collectivist economy is argued to be more stable and manageable, thus more likely to provide the material resources society needs.

-Instead, she envisaged revolution arising 'spontaneously', after class consciousness had gradually been brought about through the proletariat's ongoing battle for progress in the workplace.

She rejected the Marxist idea leading to a dictatorship of the proletariat:

-Instead, she advocated the immediate construction of a new democracy, underpinned by common ownership, open debate and elections.

They contest that to have equality of opportunity, there must first be greater equality of outcome in society. Given that socialism stresses the importance of social class, this means that socialists seek a narrowing of the gap between society's poorer and richer classes:

-In justifying this position, they argue that irrespective of character, ability and intelligence, an individual born into a lower/working/blue-collar-class background will have fewer opportunities than a similar individual born into a higher-class background.

They argued class differences 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 an 'historically inevitable' proletarian revolution.

They challenged 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 argued that revolution was not just inevitable but essential, and to describe what should happen once revolution 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.

After 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'. 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.

For socialists, the major consequence of the Industrial Revolution was the emergence of these distinct social groupings, based principally upon employment and an individual's source of income. According to socialism, these classes are central to an individual's fate.

They argue that an individual's status, priorities and prospects are shaped by the social class they are born into. According to thinkers like Marx and Engels, an individual's social class is determined by their status within society's economy.

Marx and Engels, along with more modern socialist thinkers such as Anthony Crosland, also noted that society's classes tend to be profoundly unequal in terms of power and influence: those in the working class, for example, are seen to earn less and therefore exercise less influence within our society:

-Put another way, individuals in some sections of society will have more opportunities to exploit their potential than individuals in other sections of society.

-This in turn leads to socialism's unique perspective on the issue of equality.

Although mainly known as a sociologist, this socialist key thinker's work on political theory helped create a new strain of thinking within socialism: The Third Way:

-Yet, he also stressed that capitalism and individualism were irreversible and that any future project towards greater equality would have to take account of this.

-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 claimed this triangulation was especially important given the emergence of 'post-Fordist' capitalist societies. During the mid 20th century, Fordist capitalism, based on huge industrial units of mass production, had spawned tightly knit urban communities, based on a uniformity of income and employment.

-These communities, he explained, complemented human nature's yearning for solidarity and fellowship by giving their members a strong sense of support and identity, which might then encourage them to challenge both economic and cultural elites (traditional trade unionism being one expression of this).

-He explained that the post-Fordist capitalism of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, involving the decline of heavy industry, had fragmented such communities, 'atomised' the modern workforce and left individuals feeling alienated.

-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.

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

Therefore for human nature 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 where physical capacity was less important). This links heavily to the concept of social justice.

He argued that socialism needed to reconcile itself to a more free-market brand of capitalism. However, he was thereby accepting that greater inequality of opportunity might have to be accompanied by greater inequality of outcome if the free market were to generate the sort of wealth needed to fund modern public services.

His arguments had a profound influence upon the New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and the German social democratic government led by Gerhard Schröder.

He urged modern leftists to 'go with the flow' by encouraging further privatisation and further de-regulation:

-He argued that as this was the modern way to boost economic growth, it was also the best way to boost government tax revenues, and therefore boost government spending in the name of more equality.

He argued greater equality of opportunity probably required more, not less, inequality of outcome:

-His reasoning was that in a neo-liberal economy, increasingly unequal outcomes often went hand in hand with increasing rates of economic growth, and if outcomes became less unequal, it often indicated slower growth and therefore a smaller tax yield, lower public spending and less opportunity to ameliorate the problems of society's poorest.

-Between 1994 and 1995 this Third Way was duly accepted by Blair and Brown, who persuaded the Labour Party to renounce its Clause IV commitment to common ownership and thus herald the era of New Labour.

-One of New Labour's architects, Peter Mandelson, later provided a stark illustration of the difference between Third Way and previous versions of socialism, stating, 'We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy stinking rich...just as long as they pay their taxes.'.

-To socialist critics of the Third Way, such as Tony Benn, this analysis represented little more than paternalistic conservatism, an effort to make inequality of outcome more palatable while consolidating the position of very wealthy individuals.

1. Capitalism was the principal cause of 'crippling poverty and demeaning inequality' in society and a 'corrupting force' for humanity, fostering 'unnatural' levels of avarice and selfishness among men and women.

2. Neither paternalism nor philanthropy was a sustainable solution to the problems of poverty and inequality.

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

4. Effective reform tends to be gradual rather than evolutionary.

She was involved in drafting Clause IV of Labour's 1918 Constitution, committing the party to 'common ownership' of the British economy, pursuing the goal via the existing political system.

Between 1905 and 1909, she served on a Royal Commission examining 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 above anticipated the 1942 Beveridge Report, implementing 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.

Fundamentalist Socialists argue this will eventually 'wither away', a blissful moment in human evolution, which Marx described as 'the end of history'.

Socialists agree that any reduction of this institution's power is likely to produce increased social and economic inequality.

-Contested that public or common ownership had gone far enough, arguing that public ownership had never been the aim of socialism, merely a method for achieving it. The true objective, he insisted, was equality, which could now be achieved within a managed capitalist economy.

-Argued capitalism had been changed forever as a result of economist John Maynard Keynes, whose belief in state-managed capitalism became orthodox in western Europe after 1945. Thanks to Keynesian principles, advanced societies could now enjoy permanent economic growth and full employment, without requiring any serious extension of public ownership. Thanks to constant growth, these societies could enjoy a steady expansion of the welfare state, which, in turn, would diminish inequality and advance socialism.

-In his later books, 'The Conservative Enemy' (1962) and 'Socialism Now' (1974), he focused on other issues affecting society, notably education. He argued for a new form of state education, known as comprehensive education, which would end the segregation of pupils at the age of 11 and create new schools catering for all abilities. He believed these comprehensive schools would break down class divisions far more effectively than any extension of public ownership, while ensuring all pupils had equality of opportunity. He pursued this idea while Secretary of State for Education between 1965 and 1967, initiating a process that made comprehensive education the norm by the time of his death.