You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson examines the deepest division within socialism: the argument between those who believe capitalism must be overthrown by revolution and those who believe it can be reformed by gradual, democratic means. This is the single most important internal debate in the whole socialist tradition, and it is examined frequently, because it concerns both the ends of socialism (the abolition of capitalism or merely its civilising) and the means (revolution or reform). For the 24-mark essay you must be able to distinguish revolutionary socialism (Marx and Luxemburg), evolutionary or social-democratic socialism (Webb and Crosland) and the Third Way (Giddens), to deploy these prescribed thinkers as evidence, and to reach a reasoned judgement on whether they belong to a single ideology or to fundamentally opposed ones. This lesson develops the strands and their tensions; the individual thinkers are treated more fully in the lesson that follows.
At its core, the revolutionary/evolutionary divide turns on a single question: can capitalism be reformed into justice, or is injustice built into its very foundations? Revolutionary socialists answer that exploitation is structural — that capitalism cannot exist without extracting surplus value from the labour of the workers — so that no amount of reform can make it just; the system must be replaced. Evolutionary socialists answer that capitalism's injustices, however grave, are remediable — that a democratic state can tax, regulate and redistribute its way to social justice, and that the spread of democracy and prosperity has already transformed capitalism out of all recognition. Every other disagreement between the strands — about the state, about common ownership, about the pace and method of change — follows from this fundamental difference of diagnosis.
The classic statement of revolutionary socialism is that of Karl Marx (1818–1883) and his collaborator Friedrich Engels (1820–1895). Their analysis rests on several connected ideas.
Historical materialism. Marx argued that the economic base of a society — its mode of production and the class relations it generates — ultimately shapes its political, legal and cultural "superstructure". History is therefore driven not by ideas or great individuals but by the development of the economy and the class struggles it produces. Society passes through successive stages — primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism — each giving way to the next through conflict, and capitalism, in its turn, will give way to socialism and ultimately communism. This is sometimes described as the dialectical view of history: each economic system develops internal contradictions — above all the antagonism between the class that owns the means of production and the class that does the work — and these contradictions eventually burst the system apart, giving rise to a new order built on its ruins. Capitalism's central contradiction, for Marx, is that it brings together a vast, organised, propertyless working class whose collective interests are diametrically opposed to those of the owners; in developing the productive forces, capitalism thus "produces its own gravediggers". The significance of historical materialism for the revolutionary case is profound: it presents the overthrow of capitalism not as a mere moral aspiration but as the predicted outcome of forces already at work within the system, which is precisely why Marx called his socialism "scientific" and distinguished it from the moral appeals of the earlier utopians.
Exploitation and surplus value. Central to the analysis is the claim that capitalism rests on exploitation. Workers produce goods worth more than they are paid in wages; the difference, which Marx called surplus value, is appropriated by the capitalist as profit. This exploitation is not the fault of individually wicked employers but a structural feature of the system: competition compels every capitalist to extract surplus value or be driven out of business by rivals who do. The crucial implication, for the revolutionary case, is that exploitation cannot be reformed away by good intentions or kindly employers, because it is woven into the very logic of capital: the system requires the extraction of surplus value in order to generate the profit on which it runs. This is why the revolutionary insists that only the abolition of private ownership of the means of production — not higher wages or better conditions within capitalism — can end exploitation. It is also the analytical heart of the disagreement with the evolutionary wing, which denies that exploitation in this strict, structural sense exists, or holds that whatever injustice the wage relation involves can be offset by redistribution, regulation and welfare.
Marx: "Capital is dead labour, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour."
Class consciousness and revolution. As capitalism develops, Marx held, it concentrates the workers in factories and cities, sharpens the contrast between the immense wealth of the few and the poverty of the many, and so creates the conditions in which the proletariat will develop class consciousness — an awareness of its common exploitation and shared interest. The obstacle is false consciousness: the dominant ideology, propagated through the institutions controlled by the ruling class, encourages workers to misperceive their interests and accept a system that exploits them. The revolutionary expects that the deepening crises and intensifying inequality of capitalism will eventually shatter this false consciousness, allowing the workers to see their situation clearly. Once class-conscious, the proletariat — the overwhelming majority — will rise in revolution, overthrowing the bourgeoisie and seizing the means of production. For Marx this revolution was the necessary culmination of capitalism's internal contradictions, not an optional tactic.
The dictatorship of the proletariat and communism. The revolution would inaugurate a transitional dictatorship of the proletariat, a workers' state that would suppress counter-revolution and reorganise the economy on common-ownership lines. The phrase is easily misunderstood: by "dictatorship" Marx meant the class rule of the proletariat — the majority — over the defeated bourgeoisie, not the rule of a single dictator, and he conceived it as a temporary phase rather than a permanent regime. As classes were abolished, the state — which Marx understood as an instrument by which one class dominates another — would lose its reason for existing and "wither away", leaving a classless, stateless communist society distributing goods "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This vision of an eventual stateless communism is crucial to understanding Marx, because it shows that his ultimate goal was not an all-powerful state but its disappearance — a point of genuine contrast with the permanent, centralised dictatorships that twentieth-century communist regimes actually built, and which their critics, including Luxemburg, had feared from the outset.
For the revolutionary socialist, the crucial point is that the structural exploitation at the heart of capitalism cannot be reformed away. Higher wages, welfare and regulation may soften capitalism's edges, but they leave the basic relationship of exploitation intact, and the capitalist class will always use its economic power, its control of the state and its grip on the dominant ideology to defend its position. Worse, reforms may actually entrench capitalism by reconciling the workers to it and dissolving their revolutionary consciousness. Only the revolutionary transformation of ownership can end exploitation and realise genuine socialism.
Evolutionary socialism — also called social democracy or democratic socialism — accepts much of the socialist critique of capitalism's injustices but rejects the revolutionary conclusion. It holds that socialism can and should be achieved gradually, peacefully and democratically, through the ballot box, legislation and the steady expansion of the state, rather than through violent upheaval. Several developments made this position attractive: the extension of the franchise, which gave the working class the vote and so a peaceful route to power; the gradual improvement in living standards under reformed capitalism; and a moral revulsion against the bloodshed and authoritarianism that revolution seemed to entail.
An important early statement of the case came from the German Eduard Bernstein, whose "revisionism" argued that Marx's predictions of capitalist collapse had not come true and that socialism could be reached through parliamentary reform. In Britain the evolutionary road found its most influential expression in Fabianism and the work of Beatrice Webb, and later in the revisionism of Anthony Crosland.
The evolutionary case rests on a distinctive set of arguments. The first is democratic: once the working class has the vote and forms the majority of the electorate, it can in principle vote socialism into being, so revolution becomes both unnecessary and illegitimate — a seizure of power against the democratic will rather than an expression of it. The second is moral: revolution entails violence, coercion and, as the twentieth century repeatedly showed, the risk of dictatorship, whereas gradual reform respects persons, the rule of law and individual rights. The third is empirical: Bernstein and his successors argued that Marx's predictions had simply not come true — capitalism had not collapsed, the workers' condition had improved rather than worsened, and the class structure had grown more complex — so that the revolutionary scenario looked increasingly implausible. And the fourth is prudential: gradual, tested reforms are less likely to produce disastrous unintended consequences than the wholesale overthrow of a complex social order. Evolutionary socialists therefore see themselves not as betraying socialism but as pursuing the same egalitarian ends by methods that are at once more democratic, more humane and more likely to succeed.
The Fabian Society, in which Beatrice Webb (1858–1943) and her husband Sidney were leading figures, championed the gradual, peaceful, democratic achievement of socialism through education, research and progressive legislation. Webb captured the strategy in a famous phrase.
Webb: socialism would come through "the inevitability of gradualness".
The Fabians believed that the steady expansion of the state — extending public provision in education, health, housing and municipal services, and bringing key industries under public control — would deliver socialism piece by piece, without the need for revolution. The name of the society is itself instructive: it honours the Roman general Fabius Maximus, who defeated a stronger enemy not by pitched battle but by patience, caution and the gradual wearing-down of his opponent — an apt emblem for a strategy of incremental, undramatic advance. Government by expert administrators, informed by careful empirical research, would design efficient public services and progressively reshape society on collectivist lines. This faith in expertise and administration is one of Fabianism's distinctive features, and also one of its most criticised: where Luxemburg looked to the spontaneous action of the workers themselves, the Fabians looked to enlightened officials acting on the workers' behalf, an approach critics condemn as paternalistic and top-down.
| Social-democratic commitment | What it involves |
|---|---|
| Democratic methods | Achieving change through elections, legislation and participation, not revolution |
| The mixed economy | Private enterprise combined with a substantial public sector |
| The welfare state | Universal healthcare, education, housing and social security |
| Keynesian economics | Active government management of the economy to sustain employment |
| Progressive taxation | Redistribution of wealth from rich to poor through the tax system |
| Trade union rights | Protection of workers' collective bargaining power |
The classic achievement of evolutionary socialism in Britain was the post-war welfare state built by the 1945–51 Labour government: the National Health Service, national insurance, public housing and the nationalisation of major industries. Comparable models include the social-democratic settlements of Scandinavia. These achievements are, for social democrats, proof that capitalism can be civilised by democratic means — and, for revolutionary socialists, proof that reform merely stabilises a system that ought to be overthrown.
The most influential post-war restatement of evolutionary socialism came from Anthony Crosland (1918–1977) in The Future of Socialism (1956). Crosland argued that socialism is about equality, not ownership. The post-war transformation of capitalism — the welfare state, Keynesian management, the separation of ownership from control in large firms — meant that the old socialist obsession with nationalising industry was outdated. Equality could be advanced instead through redistribution, welfare and above all education, with economic growth generating the wealth to fund public services without the need to expropriate the owners. Crosland was a particular champion of comprehensive schools as the engine of greater equality and social mobility. His revisionism decisively shifted the centre of gravity of British socialism away from common ownership and towards equality pursued within a managed market economy.
Evolutionary socialism faces criticism from two directions, and a strong answer can deploy both. From the revolutionary left, it is charged with naivety and even betrayal: by working within capitalism it leaves the structures of exploitation intact, becomes dependent on the very economic growth that capitalism alone can supply, and risks being captured by the system it set out to change — managing capitalism rather than transcending it. Reforms, on this view, are reversible: what one government grants, another can withdraw, as the revival of free-market politics from the 1980s seemed to confirm. From the right and from sceptics generally, evolutionary socialism is charged with the opposite faults — that its expanding state and high taxation stifle enterprise and economic dynamism, that its faith in expert administration is paternalistic and inefficient, and that its central premise, the "inevitability of gradualness", proved false when the post-war social-democratic consensus was decisively challenged and partly dismantled. Crosland's revisionism in particular depended on continuous economic growth to fund equality without redistribution from the rich; when growth faltered in the 1970s, that strategy came under severe strain. These criticisms feed directly into the debate over whether the evolutionary road can deliver genuine socialism or merely a humanised capitalism.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.