Equality(Ed)

The socialist commitment to equality (egalitarianism) is the core feature of socialism and is what makes it very different from the other two main ideologies (liberalism and conservatism). This belief focuses not just on equality of opportunity or legal equality, but on social equality- equality of outcome. They believe in this for three main reasons;

1. Social equality upholds the ideas of justice and fairness that are taken away when people compete against each other. The inequality that exists in society has been created by the competitive and selfish nature of capitalism. Socialists do not believe that people are naturally equal in skills but do believe that each person plays a role in society and therefore should receive an equal reward. They think that the differences between people are exaggerated by the competitive nature of society.
2. Equality underpins community and cooperation. If people are more able to identify with each other they are more likely to work for the common good. Equality therefore strengthens a feeling of solidarity with each person and their fellow humans. They believe that inequality causes conflict and selfishness and leads to a breakdown of society.
3. Socialists believe that ‘need satisfaction’ is the key element of freedom and not the ability to act as each individual chooses. Each person should be treated by society according to what they need (not want) and therefore the whole of society benefits. Karl Marx said ’from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’, meaning that as everyone contributes to society (albeit in different ways), everyone should have their needs satisfied in society.

Socialists view equality as a key political principle and essential to being human. They focus on achieving equal outcomes, believing this idea is more important than equal rights and opportunities. According to socialists, capitalism causes major inequality by encouraging competition and exploitation. They highlight that inherited wealth and social status keep these imbalances alive. Socialists claim that the structures of society, not just individual talents, create inequality. They argue that real social equality would allow everyone to reach their full potential without barriers like debt or health issues. Within socialism, there is debate about what equality of outcome means: should it aim to close the wealth gap or eliminate it? Different groups within socialism have various ideas on how to tackle these issues. Some want to end capitalism and create shared ownership, while others, like social democrats, propose using the welfare system and progressive taxes to lessen inequality. Supporters of the "third way" focus on reducing poverty and social exclusion through measures like tax credits and raising the minimum wage, rather than insisting on complete equality of outcome.

Socialist egalitarianism believes in social equality, meaning everyone should have similar outcomes. Socialists offer three main reasons for supporting this idea.

First, social equality promotes fairness. They argue that wealth inequality isn’t solely due to natural differences in people's abilities. Instead, socialists think that capitalism creates selfish behavior, leading to the unequal structure in society. They recognize that while people are not born exactly the same, the biggest inequalities stem from how society treats individuals. An equal society wouldn’t mean that every student scores the same on a test, but socialists argue that major inequalities come from unfair treatment, not from unequal natural gifts. They believe that true justice requires fairer treatment from society regarding rewards and resources. Simply having legal equality does not address the deeper issues within capitalism, while equality of opportunity can falsely justify ongoing inequalities.

Second, social equality helps build strong communities. When individuals share similar social conditions, they are more inclined to connect and cooperate for mutual benefit. Equal outcomes can enhance social unity, while social inequality often results in conflict and unrest. This is why socialists criticize the idea of equality of opportunity, as it may create a “survival of the fittest” mindset. R. H. Tawney criticized this perspective, pointing out that only a small number of tadpoles will survive to become frogs.

Third, socialists advocate for social equality because they believe fulfilling people's basic needs is essential for personal growth and happiness. Needs are essential for life and include necessities like food, water, shelter, and companionship. For socialists, meeting these needs is a crucial part of freedom. Marx articulated this idea in his theory: everyone contributes based on their ability and receives according to their needs. Since most people have similar basic needs, distributing resources based on these needs supports equality. However, people with special needs, such as those with disabilities, can complicate this approach.

Although socialists all agree on the importance of social and economic equality, they disagree on how much it should be pursued. Marxists and communists strive for complete social equality by eliminating private property and collectivizing wealth. A well-known implementation of this concept occurred in China during the Cultural Revolution. In contrast, social democrats seek relative social equality through wealth redistribution via the welfare state and progressive taxation. Their approach aims to regulate capitalism rather than eliminate it, recognizing the ongoing need for material incentives and understanding that addressing need-satisfaction mainly involves reducing poverty. This perspective makes it harder to distinguish between social equality and equality of opportunity.