socialism Flashcards
(42 cards)
Socialism
The term ‘socialism’ was first used by Charles Fourier (1772–1837) and Robert
Owen (1771–1858) in the early nineteenth century. Socialism is traditionally
defined as being opposed to capitalism. In a capitalist society, economic systems are
owned privately for profit, but socialism was originally based on ideas of collective
ownership of economic and social systems.
Like liberalism, socialism is a set of political ideas that grew out of the rationalism
of the Enlightenment (see page 284). It has two broad traditions: revolutionary and
evolutionary socialism.
Revolutionary socialism
The most common and influential form of revolutionary socialism is derived from
the ideas of Karl Marx (1818–83) and Friedrich Engels (1820–95) and is known
as Marxism. It argues that socialist values cannot coexist within capitalism and there
must be a revolution to transform society and the economy.
Evolutionary socialism
In contrast, evolutionary socialism argues that change should happen gradually.
Democratic socialism, social democracy and the ‘third way’ are all types of
evolutionary socialism.
l Democratic socialism comes from the ideas of Beatrice Webb (1858–1943) and
the Fabian Society, which influenced the Labour Party from its birth in 1900 and
Clement Attlee’s post-war government.
l Social democracy emerged in the 1950s. It viewed Marxism as irrelevant and
democratic socialism as outdated. Inspired by the ideas of Anthony Crosland
(1918–77), it values social justice above the common ownership advocated by
revolutionary socialism and democratic socialism. It seeks to achieve this by
working within existing capitalist systems through a redistributive welfare state.
l The ‘third way’ was developed in the 1990s and inspired by sociologist Anthony
Giddens (b. 1938). Giddens saw his ideas as a renewal of social democracy and
added a neo-liberal (see Chapter 9) element to socialism. The third way inspired
New Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the UK Labour
Party and US President Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party.
Key terms - Evolutionary socialism, Capitalism, Cooperation, Fraternity
Evolutionary socialism
Rather than a radical
change, via a revolution,
socialism is achieved
gradually within the pre-
existing parliamentary
structure. Socialism will
therefore emerge in a
gradual, piecemeal fashion
via the state.
Capitalism An economic
system, organised by
the market, and based
on private property, free
enterprise and competition
between individuals and
companies.
Cooperation Individuals
working collectively to
achieve mutual benefit,
with the fraternal belief
that humans perform best
when working together.
Fraternity Humans
regarding each other as
siblings rather than rivals.
Relationships are not
based on competition or
enmity but on generosity
and solidarity.
Core ideas and principles - Common humanity
Most socialists have an optimistic view of human nature, believing individuals share
a common humanity, are rational and are predisposed to cooperate. Socialists agree
that human nature is not fixed but is shaped by an individual’s environment. Unlike
classical and neo-liberals, who see society as a loose collection of individuals, or
conservatives, who see society as an organic hierarchy, socialists view society as a
collection of broadly equal individuals with a common identity and purpose.
l Socialists find pleasure and fulfilment in work that focuses on cooperation and
collectivism rather than individualism and competition.
l Underpinning this common humanity is a belief in fraternity and community.
l Socialists are united (albeit to differing degrees) in their concern about the effect
that unchecked capitalism can have on the individual. This leads them to argue
for an interventionist role of the state.
l Revolutionary socialism and democratic socialism are the most hostile to
capitalism, while social democracy and in particular the third way argue that
capitalism can be harnessed for the greater good.
Each branch of socialism shares a distinct vision of what common humanity looks
like (Table 11.1).
Table 11.1 Different views of humanity within socialism
Revolutionary socialism - Marx and Engels argued that individuals were ‘deformed’ by capitalism, as money
corrupts those who possess it. Capitalism must therefore be abolished by a revolution
started by the exploited working class. After a transitional period, a classless
communist society would emerge, based on absolute equality (see page 333), in which
all social and economic activities would be done collectively. Society could then enjoy a
common humanity
Democratic socialism - Webb argued for a socialist state via the ballot box. This would include common ownership
of the means of production, achieved by extensive state nationalisation run by a
socialist bureaucratic elite
Social democracy - Social democracy argued that capitalism should be reformed and not replaced, which
was a significant break with democratic socialism, which envisaged a fully socialist
state. Crosland had a vision of:
* supporting a mixed economy of both nationalised state industry and privately owned
companies
* economic state intervention based on Keynesian economics to ensure permanent full
employment and economic growth
* the welfare state used to redistribute wealth and challenge poverty and social
inequality
The third way - By the 1990s, Giddens argued that developed economies faced new challenges for the
twenty-first century. Giddens argued for:
* increased emphasis on equality of opportunity via public services, specifically
education and twenty-first-century skills
* neo-liberal ideas such as the free market and self-reliance
* moving away from universal welfare to means-tested welfare (such as higher
education students contributing towards the cost of their education)
Key terms - Common ownership, Mixed economy, Keynesian economics.
Common ownership The
state and the public have
ownership of property and
the economy. The opposite
of private ownership that
exists with the free-market
capitalist economy.
Mixed economy
An economic system that
combines private and
state enterprise.
Keynesian economics
Economist John Maynard
Keynes argued that
governments should
stimulate economic
demand in times of
recession via state
spending. Governments
should also state manage
the economy by using
tax and interest rates to
influence demand and
prevent recessions.
Core ideas and principles - Collectivism
Socialism’s positive view of human nature perceives people as naturally social
creatures. Generally speaking, collectivism prioritises the group over the individual.
Socialists believe individuals:
l prefer to work together rather than independently
l will work far more effectively within groups than by their individual actions.
Collectivism has been used in a variety of ways across socialist thinking and means
different things to different socialists.
Utopian socialists Charles Fourier and Robert Owen argued for small-scale
cooperative communities organised collectively as a way of promoting socialist values
(see page 340). Marx and Engels argued on a larger scale, saying workforces would
collectively own all industry and all agencies of society would be communal. The
Soviet Union, which was influenced by the ideas of Marx and Engels, nationalised
its industry, embarked on centralised state planning and collectivised its agricultural
land in the 1920s and 1930s.
Democratic socialist Beatrice Webb and the Fabian Society informed many of
the collectivist policies of Attlee’s Labour governments of 1945–51, in particular
nationalisation and top-down state management. However, Attlee’s governments
accepted the existence of free-market capitalism, in the form of private industry, so
a fully collectivised economy and society did not come to pass.
Social democrat Anthony Crosland was suspicious of the collectivism favoured by
Marx, Engels and Webb, while Giddens’ third way view of collectivism was partly
influenced by neo-liberal ideas (Table 11.2).
Equality
For socialists, equality is a multifaceted concept that causes tension and disagreement.
However, there are three aspects of equality that socialists can agree on:
l Foundational equality Like liberals, socialists believe that all individuals are
born with innate human rights that translate to political and legal equality.
l Rejection of natural hierarchies Each individual has the potential to take up
any position within society to which they may aspire.
l Equality of opportunity All individuals should have access to the same life chances.
However, socialists disagree about the nature of equality (Table 11.3).
Social class
Socialists believe that capitalism creates and reinforces harmful social class divisions
that result in societal hierarchies. While socialists can agree on a broad critique of
social class, they disagree on how best to rectify the problem:
l The revolutionary socialism of Marx/Engels and Luxemburg argues that
problems of social class can be resolved only via a revolution.
l The evolutionary socialism of Webb (democratic socialism), Crosland (social
democracy) and Giddens (third way) all have different ideas for reconciling social
class division.
Marx and Engels’ ideas placed social class as a core idea of socialism, arguing as follows:
l They perceived capitalists as parasites profiting from the work of an exploited
workforce.
l Differences between social classes could not be reconciled within a capitalist
system and therefore revolution was inevitable.
l The capitalists took the surplus value (the difference between the wages paid to
the workers and the profit taken by the capitalists), alienating workers from their
labour. (Marx and Engels called workers the ‘proletariat’.)
l The state was not neutral but actively reinforced this oppressive relationship via
laws, bureaucracy, police forces and the army — an idea that heavily influences
anarchism (see Chapter 12).
Webb shared Marx’s social class analysis. However, she argued that the nature of
the state could be altered from serving capitalism to delivering a socialist state.
The socialist state would introduce universal nationalisation: equality of outcome,
progressive taxation and a welfare state that would reduce class division.
Social democrats such as Crosland were critical of the collectively minded
utilitarianism of Webb’s ideas and the uniformity of nationalisation, which
Crosland felt compromised the freedom of the individual and would ‘make the
socialist state’ a ‘dull functional nightmare’. Crosland’s vision of socialism was
focused on a fairer distribution of wealth and equality of opportunity, so that the
individual could thrive in a society that would eventually become classless.
Crosland argued that education reinforced class division. His most famous
attempt to ensure equality of opportunity was to create comprehensive schools
that would cater for all abilities and eliminate the social segregation of grammar
schools. In her biography published in 1982, Susan Crosland said her husband had
told her, ‘If it’s the last thing I do, I’m going to destroy every *** grammar
school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland.’
Giddens’ position on education merely revises the aims of Crosland, arguing:
‘Investment in education is an imperative of government today, a key basis of the
redistribution of possibilities.’
Social democracy failed to eliminate class divisions. To further complicate the
matter, individuals no longer see themselves in the traditional class roles that they
did in the times of Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Webb or even Crosland. Political
scientists Geoffrey Evans and James Tilley argue that since the late 1970s, traditional
notions of class do not resonate as they once did. Some, like Giddens, argue this is
due to a breaking down of traditional class-based occupations (factory worker, coal
miner, ship builder); others argue that the working class mistakenly see themselves
as middle class (because many work in offices or call centres) even though they are
lowly paid.
Political scientist Wendy Bottero has argued that there exists a ‘paradox of class’,
whereby class identification is in decline and yet class position still affects life
chances. Sutton Trust research has demonstrated that while only 7% of people attend
independent schools, they dominate the higher-paid professions.
Numerous studies have shown that Crosland and Giddens were correct in claiming
that education is the single most important factor in occupational attainment, but
the chances of obtaining a good education remain strongly influenced by class
background. Evans and Tilley’s research shows that private education continues to
be a key predictor of occupational and educational success. In the UK, while 49%
of young people now attend university, poverty and inequality remain difficult to
eradicate.
Such figures would not have surprised Marx, Engels or Luxemburg, who argued
that the inequalities of capitalism were beyond reform. Marxism believes that
materialism dominates societal culture, ideology, politics and religion. Moreover,
it prevents the subjugated from perceiving their exploitation. Whenever socialist
governments have been elected, they are frustrated by the capitalist-supporting
interests of the political elites that dominate the judiciary, the civil service
and big business: the ability to radically change society is beyond their power. For
revolutionary socialists, evolutionary socialism can only disappoint; only a socialist
insurrection on an international scale can erase the injustice of social class.
workers’ councils or committees) is multifaceted. Marx, Engels and Luxemburg
advocate workers’ control (at least for a time), whereas Webb, Crosland and Giddens
do not see the worker seizing direct control of the economy or the means of
production.
Table 11.2 Two socialist positions on collectivism
Collectivist examples : Industrial relations. Social democrat solution : Workers belong to trade unions that have
strong bargaining rights to stop exploitation. Third way solution : Unions should exist to preserve fair practice
in the workplace. However, there must be a
recognition that wages are market driven
Collectivist examples : Healthcare. Social democrat solution : A national health service provides universal
care according to need. This service is ‘free’,
paid for by general taxation. Third way solution : The third way advocates healthcare reform, recognising that the cost of universal healthcare is unsustainable. It supports
prescription charges and private healthcare
for the rich to ‘jump the queue’ for non-
essential healthcare.
Collectivist examples ; Education. Social democrat solution ; Widespread comprehensive state education
is available for all, providing an equality of
opportunity. Third way solution ; There should be more equality of opportunity
and spending in education. New Labour
introduced academies and life-long learning
courses but expected university students to
help fund their tuition via fees.
Collectivist examples ; Key industries . Social democrat solution ; The key utilities (but not private industry)
are brought under government control and
operate in the collective interest of all. Third way solution ; The free market is the most efficacious
way to run business. No support for
renationalising state utilities.
Table 11.3 Socialists’ ideas on various types of equality
Type of equality and Differences among socialists
Equality of opportunity
Individuals are entitled to equal chances
to make the best of their abilities. Positive
steps should be taken to eliminate
artificial barriers to the progress of
individual groups -
Revolutionary socialism-
Marx, Engels and Rosa Luxemburg argued that equality of opportunity can
be achieved only after a revolution (capitalism is so corrupt and pervasive
that it is beyond reform)
Democratic socialism-
Webb argued that equality of opportunity could be achieved only by reforming
capitalism to the point that it is a truly socialist (common ownership) society
Social democracy -
Crosland believed in a mixed economy with state management based on
Keynesian ideas. He wished to break down class barriers so that they
were irrelevant. He argued for progressive taxation and to allow an even
distribution of opportunities via an expansive welfare state
The third way-
Equality of opportunity needs to target the neediest in society: the
underclass. Giddens advocated abandoning the universal welfare of
Crosland’s social democracy for means-tested benefits.
Equality of outcome
This proposes that economic rewards
should be distributed to the value of an
individual’s contribution. In such a system
the difference in rewards will be far
smaller than it would be in a free-market
economy -
Revolutionary socialism -
Marx, Engels and Luxemburg dismissed equality of outcome as it
presupposed that capitalism could be rid of exploitation, which they believed
to be impossible
Democratic socialism -
Webb argued for a gradual incremental process so that income would
eventually be far more evenly distributed. This would not be absolute
equality, but any income inequality that remains would be much fairer
Social democracy -
Crosland was against pure equality of outcome as he felt it would weaken
the economy by acting as a disincentive to wealth creators
The third way -
Like Crosland, Giddens argued that wage equality of outcome was
impracticable and a disincentive and would damage the economy.
Absolute equality
This suggests that all individuals should
receive the same rewards as long as the
contributions they make to society are
made to the best of their ability (absolute
equality is also understood in terms of
equality of outcome, where ‘fairness’ is
distributed to all citizens)
Revolutionary socialism -
Marx, Engels and Luxemburg believed that in an economy based on common
ownership and collectivisation, material rewards would be based on needs.
Each individual would contribute to society and take what they needed
Democratic socialism -
Although Webb believed in high taxation to flatten the differences between
classes, she did not advocate absolute equality, envisaging some wage
differences
Social democracy -
Crosland dismissed absolute equality as utopian (as it presupposed
abundant wealth). He accepted that in a meritocratic mixed economy,
those who contributed more would be rewarded accordingly
The third way -
Giddens dismissed absolute equality as a flawed concept and, like
Crosland, accepted that inequality was a natural consequence of society.
Equality of welfare
This aspect of equality perceives society
as inevitably unequal but argues that
everyone should be entitled to an equal
minimum standard of living, enabled by
the provision of state welfare
Revolutionary socialism -
Marx, Engels and Luxemburg rejected equality of welfare for its failure to
remove capitalism
Democratic socialism -
Webb argued that equality of welfare would be achieved by mass
nationalisation of industry. She argued that proper state management
would ensure equality of welfare by redistributing resources
Social democracy -
Crosland saw the state as a neutral force that could reduce class conflict
by breaking down barriers and widening opportunities: universal public
services would help achieve this. He married social democracy with modern
liberalism and supported nationalised utilities and the free-market economy
The third way -
Giddens argued that high levels of social security and welfare were a
disincentive to work and created a dependency culture. Benefits should be
targeted at the most needy
In focus - Social justice
Social justice remains a key topic of debate in the twenty-first century. The Sutton Trust Report
(2019) demonstrated the advantage that private education gives to the minority of people —
approximately 7% — who receive it.
Politics, the media and public service all show high proportions of privately educated in their
number, including 65% of senior judges, 59% of civil service permanent secretaries and 57% of
the House of Lords.
David Kynaston and Francis Green’s Engines of Privilege: Britain’s Private School Problem (2019)
argues that independent education ‘buys educational privilege which also buys lifetime privilege
and influence’. Kynaston and Green argue that the state should impose value added tax (VAT)
on school fees, with the proceeds going to state schools, and that leading universities should
exercise positive discrimination to counter the structural advantages of the privately educated.
Revolutionary socialism
In the immediate aftermath of a revolution, Marx and Engels imagined a transitional
period where the formerly exploited workers were in control (see Figure 11.1,
page 342). This interim stage would see society and the economy re-embracing
forgotten cooperative, collective and fraternal values while removing destructive
capitalist ideals. Workers’ control would be a short period between the revolution
and the stateless, classless, communist society and economy that would emerge from
the ashes of capitalism. There would be no need for workers’ control, as communism
would be free from the exploitation of capitalistic competition.
Key thinkers - Karl Marx (1818–83) and Friedrich Engels (1820–95)
Marx and his collaborator Engels are key figures within socialism. The Communist Manifesto (1848)
provided a radical reinterpretation of history and a revolutionary model for a utopian society.
The main ideas of Marx and Engels
l Marx and Engels claimed their theories were empirical and scientifically determined (their
critics dismissed this as nonsense as their theories are scientifically unprovable), so in
addition to explaining historical change, their ideas were inevitably going to occur.
l Class struggle, arising from property ownership, has existed throughout history. History has
a final destination: communism.
l Capitalism, with its crises and recessions, will eventually leave only a tiny minority of the
ruling class (whom Marx and Engels dubbed the ‘bourgeoisie’) benefiting from it. The
vast majority of individuals will form the proletariat, who will realise their exploitation and
achieve class consciousness.
l Liberal democracy was a ‘democratic swindle’ because the state was controlled by the
bourgeoisie. State and society used religion, patriotism, enfranchisement, parliament
and social reforms to weaken class consciousness and the masses’ mission to overthrow
capitalism. However, Marx and Engels believed socialism was inevitable and that the
proletariat will overthrow capitalism and a transitional phase — the dictatorship of the
proletariat — will occur.
l After this transitional period, the state will wither away and a stateless communist society
will emerge based on common ownership. (See also Figure 11.1, page 342.)
Workers’ control
All socialists agree that in an unchecked free market, the capitalist will exploit the
industrial worker. However, within the different branches of socialism, the concept
of workers’ control (where workers themselves manage the workplace through
workers’ councils or committees) is multifaceted. Marx, Engels and Luxemburg
advocate workers’ control (at least for a time), whereas Webb, Crosland and Giddens
do not see the worker seizing direct control of the economy or the means of
production.
Evolutionary socialism
Democratic socialist Webb did not believe in workers’ control, dismissing workers
as incapable of such responsibility:
‘We do not have faith in the “average sensual man”, we do not believe that he can
do more than describe his grievances, we do not think that he can prescribe the
remedies.’
Webb was openly critical of 1920s’ guild socialism, which supported state
nationalisation under workers’ control, as she argued that workers lacked the
intellectual capability to organise such an enterprise.
So, although Sidney Webb, Beatrice Webb’s husband, drafted Clause IV for the
Labour Party constitution with a specific aim of common ownership, the Webbs
never intended that common ownership would entail workers controlling the means
of production. Beatrice Webb had the most negative view of human nature of all the
socialist key thinkers, believing that the working class were innately intellectually
inferior and so in need of guidance from paternal superiors. For Webb:
l the evils of capitalism would not be solved by the workers but by ‘the professional
expert’; the working class would vote for socialism and, gradually, elected socialist
governments would refashion the state so that it could manage, not oppress, the
worker.
l the state would ‘silently change its character … from police power, to housekeeping
on a national scale’ — this strategy for achieving socialism would involve a highly
trained elite of administrators and specialists (rather than the workers themselves)
to organise society.
Key thinker - Beatrice Webb (1858–1943)
Beatrice Webb was a member of the Fabian Society and
believed that socialism would evolve peacefully through a
combination of political action and education.
Webb’s main ideas
l ‘The inevitability of gradualness’ is an evolutionary socialist
belief that parliamentary democracy and not revolution
will deliver the inevitable socialist society. It is inevitable
because universal suffrage leads to political equality, as
democracy works in the interests of the working-class
majority.
l Webb’s ideas are as fundamental as revolutionary
socialism, but she sought the overthrow of capitalism via
the ballot box rather than through revolution.
l The working class will vote for socialist parties that will
begin to instigate social, economic and political reform,
resulting in a socialist society.
l The expansion of the state is vital to deliver socialism. The
state will develop a highly trained elite of administrators
and specialists to organise the socialist society. This
technocratic elite would ‘impregnate all the existing forces
of society’.
l Webb’s The Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission
(1909) argued for a ‘national minimum of civilised life …
open to all alike, of both sexes and all classes, by which
we meant sufficient nourishment and training when
young, a living wage when able-bodied, treatment when
sick, and modest but secure livelihood when disabled or
aged’. Many of the ideas from this report later appeared
in modern liberal William Beveridge’s Beveridge Report
(1942) (see pages 293–94), which was the intellectual
basis for the modern welfare state introduced by the
Labour governments of 1945–51. A young Beveridge was
employed as a researcher on Webb’s Minority Report and
later wrote that his own report ‘stemmed from what all of
us had imbibed from the Webbs’.
l Workers’ control will be achieved by evolutionary means.
Revolutions are ‘chaotic, inefficient and counter-productive’ —
an ‘unpredictability’ that Webb could not tolerate.
Social democracy and the third way
Social democrats viewed workers’ control and militant class struggle as outdated
notions. Capitalism (they supposed) had largely been reformed of its most exploitative
traits. Crosland was comfortable with a mixed economy, where entrepreneurs could
thrive and pay taxation to fund a welfare state, but he did not approve of further
nationalisation, which would threaten individual liberty and be economically
counterproductive. He supported the Labour leader of the late 1950s, Hugh Gaitskell,
in his attempt to amend Clause IV. Gaitskell was unsuccessful in this endeavour as,
for the left wing of the party, it was a core value.
Giddens’ renewal of social democracy saw workers’ control as impracticable for
a similar reason to Webb and Crosland: the average worker lacked the skills or
expertise to successfully lead or manage their workplace.
Giddens also argued against the mixed economy because nationalised companies
could not compete with the wealth the free market creates. He shared the neo-
liberal belief that free-market economies are more efficient and prosperous than
state-controlled or mixed economies (see page 318) and that it would be better to
focus on channelling the proceeds of the free market towards ‘the interests of social
solidarity and social justice’.
Labour leader Tony Blair, who was heavily influenced by the ideas of Giddens,
amended Clause IV in 1995 so that it dropped the commitment to common
ownership for a vague commitment to social justice. More pertinently, Blair
accepted the neo-liberal reforms of Margaret Thatcher, who had privatised in the
1980s, and did not seek to renationalise the state utilities, nationalised by Attlee’s
post-war Labour government.
Key thinker - Anthony Crosland (1918–77)
Anthony Crosland was a privately educated Labour Party
politician and Cabinet minister during the 1960s and 1970s.
The ideas from his book The Future of Socialism (1956)
influenced social democracy within the UK.
Crosland’s main ideas
l Crosland criticised the Marxist view of capitalist
development, arguing that it did not drive social change as
the internal tensions required in Marx’s dialectic of historical
materialism were not present in post-war capitalism.
l Socialism is best served by the ‘state-managed capitalism’ of
a mixed economy rather than public ownership.
l Equality of opportunity can be achieved by giving all
state school students the same educational experience.
Crosland judged the existing school system in Britain to
be ‘the most divisive, unjust and wasteful of all the social
aspects of inequality’.
l Keynesian economics made state-managed capitalism
a reality and society can look forward to permanent
economic growth and full employment. This allows
socialists to expand the welfare state and social justice.
Key thinker - Anthony Giddens (1938–)
Anthony Giddens is a sociologist, whose political ideas have
offered a neo-revisionist form of socialism that supports
a third way between neo-liberalism and traditional social
democracy. This third way has influenced reformist socialist
parties in all advanced industrialised democracies. His key
publications are Beyond Left and Right (1994) and The Third
Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (1998).
Giddens’ main ideas
l Free-market capitalism enriches and empowers society
and, alongside individualism, is irreversible. Socialism
must collect the benefits of the free market while
neutralising its negative effects on community and
fraternity.
l Neo-liberal ideas of the free market and individualism
could be reconciled with social democracy’s emphasis on
community and social justice.
l Individuals will become stakeholders with both rights and
responsibilities within society.
l Third-way socialism prioritises spending on infrastructure
like community services and public transport while focusing
on equality of opportunity, particularly in education.
l Greater equality of opportunity would be funded via
prudent taxation of free-market wealth.
l An emphasis on active welfare would facilitate social
inclusiveness in society to provide wider opportunities
for the disadvantaged, for example increased access
to higher education and replacing comprehensives with
academy schools.
Key terms - communism, marxism
Communism Ideology
with a society that is
communally organised
with an economy built on
common ownership, in
which goods are held in
common and are available
to all as needed, at its
core.
Marxism An ideological
and revolutionary set
of ideas explaining the
inevitable demise of
capitalism by communism.
Engels assisted Marx in
his writings but Marx is
often individually credited
for this theory. Marx and
Engels advocated it as a
scientific theory of history.
Differing views and tensions within
socialism
We discussed above the different types of socialism in relation to their contribution
to the core ideas. This section provides a more thorough analysis of:
l revolutionary socialism
l social democracy
l the third way
and the tensions between them.
Revolutionary socialism
The earliest form of socialism was revolutionary socialism. This sought to abolish
the capitalist state, society and economy and to replace them with communism, a
system where humans work together and share common ownership.
The two main schools of revolutionary socialism were:
l utopian socialism
l Marxism.
Utopian socialism is the weaker of the two traditions, while Marxism has had the
greatest influence on socialist thought.