socialism essay a level politics

The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.

Main ideas of Socialism

The term 'socialist' comes from the Latin word sociare, which means to combine or share. It was first used in 1827 in the UK in the Co-operative Magazine. By the early 1830s, followers of Robert Owen in the UK and Henri de Saint-Simon in France began to call their beliefs 'socialism'. By the 1840s, the term was widely known in various industrialized countries such as France, Belgium, and the German states. Socialism is an ideology that is characterized by its opposition to capitalism and its aim to offer a more humane and socially beneficial alternative. At the heart of socialism is a view of humans as social beings connected by their shared humanity. Socialists prioritize cooperation over competition and value equality, especially social equality, as the central tenet of socialism. They believe that social equality is crucial for societal stability, cohesion, and freedom, as it addresses material needs and forms the basis for personal growth. However, socialism encompasses a wide range of divisions and competing traditions centered on differing views regarding the 'means' (how socialism should be achieved) and 'ends' (the vision of the future socialist society). For instance, communists or Marxists typically advocate revolution to eliminate capitalism and establish a classless society with communal ownership of resources. On the other hand, democratic socialists or social democrats favor a gradual approach, seeking to reform or humanize the capitalist system by reducing material disparities and eradicating poverty.

Human nature

Liberalism and socialism both have an optimistic view of human nature, making them 'progressive' ideologies. However, they differ in their reasons for this optimism. Liberals believe individuals are naturally self-reliant, while socialists see people as naturally cooperative and altruistic. Socialists argue that humans seek solidarity and comradeship, in contrast to liberals who emphasize autonomy and independence. Socialism acknowledges that external factors have diluted mankind's true nature, believing that human nature is malleable and can be improved. The key question is: what influences human nature and how can it be enhanced to unlock humanity's full potential?

Collectivism

Collectivism is the belief that cooperative human efforts have more practical and moral importance than individual pursuits. It suggests that human nature is inherently social and emphasizes the significance of social groups, such as classes or nations, as political entities. However, the term is used inconsistently. For instance, Mikhail Bakunin and other anarchists used 'collectivism' to describe self-governing associations of individuals. In contrast, some view collectivism as the opposite of individualism, asserting that it prioritizes collective over individual interests. Additionally, collectivism is sometimes associated with the state as the means through which collective interests are protected, implying that an increase in state responsibilities signifies the spread of collectivist ideals.  

Socialists endorse collectivism for two fundamental reasons .

· From a moral perspective, the interests of the group - such as a society or a community - should take priority over individual self-interest. Collective effort encourages social unity and a sense of social responsibility towards others.

· In practical economic terms, collectivism utilises the capabilities of the whole of society efficiently, avoiding the wastefulness and limited impact of competitive individual effort inherent in the capitalist economy.

Labour Broadcast: For the many not the few

Collectivism, therefore, reflects the socialist view that it is more important to pursue the interests of a society or a community rather than individual self-interest.

This emphasis on collectivism is rooted in the socialist view of human nature, which argues that humans are social animals; as such, they prefer to live in social groups rather than alone. It follows that humans have the capacity for collective action and can work together in order to achieve their goals. In this sense, they are tied together by the bonds of fraternity.

Socialists also argue that human nature is moulded by social conditions - the experiences and circumstances of a person's life. According to the socialist view, people can only be defined or understood in terms of the social groups they belong to. This line of argument leads socialists to conclude that membership of a community or society offers humans true freedom and fulfilment.

Most socialists call for some form of state intervention and state planning to promote collectivist goals and ensure that the distribution of goods and services is not left to free-market forces. The pursuit of collectivism is commonly seen to involve the growth of the state, the expansion of state services and responsibilities, and an increase in state spending.

As well as its primary aim, of redistributing a society’s wealth and resources, socialism believes that economic collectivism has two other benefits. First, progressive taxation, increased public spending, extensive public services and sometimes public ownership are seen as expressions of a more fraternal, more cooperative society with greater social justice. Second, such collectivist policies are thought to make the economy more efficient. As Marx and Engels were the first to point out, capitalism and market forces are inherently volatile and unpredictable — causing, for instance, periodic mass unemployment. A more collectivist economy, it is argued, will be more stable and manageable, and therefore more likely to provide the material resources society needs.

However, in practice, different strands of socialism vary in their commitment to collectivism.

Socialism seeks to rectify the problems caused by capitalism by championing an economy that provides for greater workers’ control in employment, and a significant redistribution of wealth and resources within the economy generally. Indeed, socialism is routinely described by its proponents as a ‘redistributionist’ doctrine, practising what Tony Benn (1925–2014) wryly described as ‘the politics of Robin Hood — taking from the rich and then giving to the poor’. For socialists, the ‘redistributionist’ economy will usually involve two broad principles.

First, there will be an emphatic rejection of the 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 a society’s economy. According to socialism, an economy where there is low taxation and little state interference will be one where unfairness and social injustice become exacerbated.

Marxists and state socialists advocate collective action through a centralised state that organises all (or nearly all) production and distribution. For example, in the USSR after 1929, most industries were nationalised and all agricultural land was collectivised in order to transform a backward state into a modern industrial society, using complete state control of the economy to bring about change. After the Second World War, communist regimes in China and eastern Europe pursued similar policies of state-controlled collectivism.

Moderate socialists who accept some degree of free-market capitalism in the economy have pursued collectivism in a more limited way. For instance, the 1945-51 Labour government in the UK nationalised key industries - such as coal, electricity, and iron and steel - but left much of the economy in private hands.

All Socialists believe that without a strong state, it will be impossible to bring about a fairer and more equal society. In the short to medium term at least, it would certainly be difficult to bring about a redistribution of wealth and greater social justice without a state that was expansive and dirigiste (actively seeking to direct a society’s economy). Some socialists (such as Marxists and orthodox communists  argue that, eventually, the state will ‘wither away’ —a blissful moment in human evolution, which Marx described as ‘the end of history’. However, all socialists agree that for the foreseeable future, a strong state is essential. They also agree it must be a certain type of state, and certainly not the sort that preceded the Enlightenment.

In many ways, collectivism is a difficult concept to pin down precisely. This is partly because it is often used to describe very different things. The term has been applied to small self-governing communities (such as those based on the ideas of the 19th-century socialists Robert Owen and Charles Fourier), general opposition to individualism, and a system of centralised state control that directs the economy and society.

There are two basic criticisms of collectivism.

· Because collectivism emphasises group action and common interests, it suppresses human individuality and diversity.

· As collectivist objectives can only really be advanced through the agency of the state, it leads to the growth of arbitrary state power and the erosion of individual freedoms

Since the 1970s, socialists generally have attached less importance to collectivism. This is due to a growing perception that collectivism in developed countries such as the UK (mainly in the form of state welfare, trade union power and government intervention in the economy) was producing a dependency culture and a sluggish, uncompetitive economic sector. The end of the Cold War in 1989 and the collapse of the USSR in 1991 reinforced this view as collectivism suffered a significant ideological defeat.

Socialist belief in a common humanity is also based on assumptions about human nature. Socialists see humans as social creatures with a tendency towards co-operation, sociability and humans naturally prefer to co-operate with, rather than compete against, each other. In fact the individual cannot be understood without reference to society, because human behaviour is socially determined.

Socialists advocate co-operation based on their positive view of human nature. They argue that humans are naturally inclined to work together for the common good and that co-operative effort produces the best results for society. Co-operation also reinforces and reflects the socialist idea of a common humanity, in both moral and economic terms. People who co-operate rather than compete with each other form connections based on understanding, respect and mutual support. They also channel the capabilities of the whole group or community, rather than just the potential of a single individual. 

By contrast, according to the socialist view, competition (particularly within a capitalist economy) is wasteful, promotes social divisions and generates conflict, hostility and resentment. Socialists maintain that capitalist economic competition sets one person against another, a process that encourages people to reject or disregard their common humanity (and social nature) rather than accept it. It encourages humans to be self-centred and belligerent. 

This emphasis on a common humanity has led socialists to conclude that human motivation can be driven not just by material considerations but also by a moral view of people's role in society. 

People should work hard in order to improve their society or community because they have a sense of responsibility for other humans, particularly the least fortunate. The moral incentive to improve society rests on the acceptance of a common humanity. 

For the economy to function properly, most contemporary socialists accept the need for at least some material rewards to motivate people, but they also stress that these should be linked to moral incentives. For example, co-operative effort to boost economic growth not only increases living standards for the working population but also provides the funds (through taxation) to finance welfare measures to help the vulnerable and the poor.

Finally the belief in a common humanity has led socialists to support an interventionist role for the state. Marxists and state socialists argue that the agency of the state can be used to control production and distribution for the benefit of everyone. Social democrats also advocate state intervention in a more limited form of welfare and redistribution programmes, to help those in the greatest need.

T he socialist approach to human nature is a stress on equality. This does not mean that socialists believe that all people are born identical, possessing precisely the same capabilities and skills. An egalitarian society would not, for instance, be one in which all students gained the same mark in their mathematics examinations. Rather, socialist egalitarianism is underpinned by the belief that the most significant forms of human inequality are a result of unequal treatment by society, instead of unequal endowment by nature. Justice, from a socialist perspective, therefore demands that people are treated equally (or at least more equally) by society in terms of their rewards and material circumstances. This implies a commitment to social equality, or equality of outcome, the liberal idea of equality of opportunity usually being dismissed by socialists on the grounds that it legitimises inequality by perpet-uating the myth of innate inequality. Nevertheless, although socialists agree about the virtue of social equality, they disagree about the extent to which it can and should be brought about. Marxists and communists believe in absolute social equality, brought about by the abolition of private property and col-lectivisation of productive wealth. Perhaps the most famous experiment in such radical egalitarianism took place in China under the ‘Cultural Revolution’. Social democrats, however, believe in relative social equality, achieved by the redistribution of wealth through the welfare state and a system of progressive taxation. The social-democratic desire to tame capitalism rather than abolish it, reflects an acceptance of a continuing role for material incentives, with egalitarianism being refocused on the task of eradicating poverty. This, in turn, has sometimes blurred the distinction between social equality and equality of opportunity.  

Social equality ensures fairness

Economic inequality (differences in wealth), according to the socialist view, is due to the structura inequalities in a capitalist society, rather than innate differences of ability among people. For this reason, some socialists tend to reject equality of opportunity because, in their view, such a concel justifies the unequal treatment of people on the grounds of innate ability. This argument reflects view of human nature that emphasises people are born with the potential to be equal.

Other socialists maintain that, since it is part of human nature to have different abilities and attributes, inequality in the form of differential rewards is inevitable to some extent. These socialists tend to endorse an egalitarian approach to ensure that people are treated less unequally, in terms of material rewards and living conditions. Without this commitment to sociali5, egalitarianism, formal political and legal equality is compromised because, on its own, the latter does nothing to tackle the structural inequalities (such as social class) inherent in capitalism.

Social equality reinforces collectivism

A second argument is that social equality reinforces collectivism, co-operation and solidarity with' society and the economy. Put simply, human beings are more likely to co-exist harmoniously

in society and work together for the common economic good if they share the same social and economic conditions. For example, modern Sweden has high levels of social equality based on extensive wealth redistribution and social welfare. Socialists argue that such measures have mad€ a major contribution to the stability, cohesion and economic output of Swedish society.

Social inequality, on the other hand, encourages conflict and instability. Societies with great econom and social inequalities are unstable because they are sharply divided into the 'haves' and 'have-not Eventually, if the situation is not addressed, the disadvantaged sections of society will revolt in protest against their conditions, as happened in Russia in 1917 and Mexico in 1910-20. In a similar way socialists also condemn equality of opportunity for fostering a competitive 'dog-eat-dog' outlook.

Social equality is a means of satisfying basic human needs

A third view is that social equality is a means of satisfying basic human needs that are part of human nature and essential to a sense of human fulfilment. Given that all people's basic needs are the same (such as food, friendship and shelter), socialists call for the equal, or more equal, distribution of wealth and resources to promote human fulfilment and realise human potential. In terms of the economy, most socialists agree that the free market, driven by the profit motive, cannot allocate wealth and resources fairly to all members of society. In their view, only the redistributive mechanism of the state can provide for everyone, irrespective of social position, and combat the divisive effects of the free market.

Common ownership

Socialists endorse common ownership because, in their view, private property (productive wealth or capital, rather than personal belongings) has several important drawbacks.

. As wealth is created by the communal endeavour of humans, it should be owned collectively, not by individuals.

Private ty encourages materialism and fosters the false belief that the achievement of personal wealth will bring fulfilment.

· Private property generates social conflict between 'have' and 'have-not' groups, such as owners and workers.

Broadly speaking, socialists-have argued either that private property should be abolished entirely and replaced with common ownership or that the latter should be applied in a more limited way. In the USSR from the 1930s, the Stalinist regime implemented an all-encompassing form of common ownership by bringing the entire economy under state control. More moderate socialists, including the Attlee Labour government in the UK (1945-51), have opted for limited common ownership by nationalising only key strategic industries, including the coal mines, the railways and steel-making, leaving much of the economy in private hands. However, in recent decades, western socialist parties have placed less emphasis on common ownership in favour of other objectives.

All socialists are concerned about the negative impact on society and individuals of private property, which they see as leading to inequality and exploitation. Some socialists believe that capitalism should be abolished and the workers should participate in the economic management of their place of work and share in the profits. This theory is an alternative to top-down state central planning and nationalisation, as used by twentieth-century communist states such as the USSR and China, and is therefore much more democratic. Syndicalists argue for workers’ control via trade unions. A major movement in early twentieth-century France and Italy, syndicalism aimed to overthrow governments through the use of general strikes and radical trade union action. As mentioned briefly earlier, the cooperative movement is a good example of a nonMarxist approach to workers’ control and an alternative form of economics. Developed in the nineteenth century by the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers, it originally consisted of groups of small retailers coming together to combine their buying power. Cooperatives are democratic organisations controlled by their members, and profits are shared. The Co-operative Group is the largest mutual business in the UK, owned by its 7 million customers and members. There are also workers’ cooperatives, for example Suma, a very successful wholesale business. 

The term 'workers' control' refers to the complete or partial ownership of an economic enterprise (such as a business or factory) by those employed there. It can also be used in a wider and more political sense to mean workers` control of the state. The concept has influenced different strands of socialist thought, including Marxism and syndicalism. Workers' control covers a range of schemes that aim to provide workers with full democratic control over their places of employment.

These schemes go beyond the right to be consulted and participate by seeking to establish real decision-making powers for workers in their particular industries or occupations.

Such a system is often justified in terms of core socialist ideas and principles. First, workers' control is clearly based on socialist views about human nature, as it promotes collective effort and the pursuit of group (rather than individual) interests. Furthermore, some socialists have argued that workers' control, with its emphasis on fully involving employees in all aspects of the production process, can maximise human potential by combating alienation at the workplace and undermining the capitalist view of labour as a mere commodity.

Second, workers' control has significant implications for the economy. Some socialists maintain that, as the workers are the key factor in the production process, they should have the right to control the means of production. Workers' control aims either to dilute or replace capitalist control of the economy. For example, French Syndicalists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries called for the overthrow of capitalism and the introduction of workers' control of the economy based on the trade unions and proletarian political institutions.

Third, those endorsing workers' control hold contrasting views regarding the role played by the state in the socialist transformation. Syndicalists are hostile towards the state, regarding it as an instrument of capitalist oppression and an inefficient bureaucratic structure incapable of initiating meaningful reform. Consequently, they call for the state to be forcibly replaced with a form of workers' control based on a federation of trade union bodies. British guild socialism a pro-workers' control movement that emerged in the early 20th century, was internally divided over the role of the state. Although all guild socialists argued for state ownership of industry in the pursuit of workers' control, some called for the state to remain essentially in its existing form, whereas others called for the state to be turned into a federal body composed of workers' guilds, consumers' organisations and local government bodies.

Finally, workers' control can be seen as an important step towards a socialist society. At one end of the spectrum, 'moderate' workers' control in a capitalist society (such as increased trade union and shopfloor influence over manager's decisions) provides a method of introducing limited reforms to the social and economic structure. At the other end, industrial self-management by workers living under state socialism (such as the workers' councils operating in Yugoslavia in the 1950s and 1960s) reinforces the idea that a socialist society should raise the condition and status of the working class.

Critics reject such schemes on the grounds that they are utopian and fail to acknowledge that business needs risk-takers and investors as well as workers. According to this view, workers often lack the entrepreneurial attributes necessary for success. In taking over the management functions of appointments, promotions and dismissals, manual employees may adversely affect the economic viability of their workplace.

Socialism: Core Ideas

Historical background.

• Socialism came into prominence during the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century as a reaction against the economic inequality caused by capitalism.
• The proponents of socialism sought to establish a society where wealth and power were distributed evenly among the population.
• Socialism became an influential ideology throughout the 20th century, with many variations and interpretations influencing different political movements worldwide.

Key Thinkers

• Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) are considered the key founders of socialism. Their works such as the ‘Communist Manifesto’ became the foundation for socialist and communist ideology.
• Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919) was another influential socialist thinker. She stressed the importance of democracy and of revolution in achieving socialism.
• Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) introduced the concept of cultural hegemony and emphasised the importance of intellectual and cultural change in addition to economic factors.

Core Principles

• Economic equality is a fundamental principle of socialism. It promotes the fair distribution of wealth and resources among society.
• Socialism advocates for common ownership of means of production, as opposed to private ownership, to prevent exploitation and create a more equitable society.
• Socialism values social justice and seeks to abolish forms of social inequality and discrimination such as class, race, and gender discrimination.
• Socialists believe in cooperation and community: they argue that the individual can flourish best in a society where everyone works together for the common good.
• Democratic control is another important value in socialism: it holds that decision-making power should lie with the people and their communities, rather than a select elite.

Remember : Socialism is, fundamentally, about economic, political, and social equality. It promotes a cooperatively run society, common ownership, and democratic decision-making. Variations of this ideology range from democratic socialism that emphasises democracy and peaceful reform, to revolutionary socialism that advocates for an overthrow of the capitalist system.

Socialism Theory

Origins and development

• Arose as a reaction against the social and economic conditions generated in Europe by the growth of capitalism.
• Character of early socialism was influenced by the harsh conditions in which the working class lived.
• Early socialists sought a radical, even revolutionary alternative to capitalism.
• Fourier and Robert Owen subscribed to utopianism in founding experimental communities based on sharing and cooperation.
• Marx and Engels developed a more complex theory – revolutionary overthrow of capitalism was inevitable.
• Democratic socialists – gradual movement. Growth of trade unions, working class political parties etc.

Core values

Collectivism – humans are social creatures, capable of overcoming social and economic problems by drawing on the power of the community rather than simply individual effort. Collectivist vision – stresses the capacity of human beings for collective action as opposed to striving for personal self-interest.

Believe that human nature is ‘plastic’ – individuals are not atomised. The radical edge of socialism derives not from its concern with what people are like, but with what they have the capacity to become.

Cooperation – natural relationship among humans is cooperation. Socialists believe that humans can be motivated by moral incentives and not merely material incentives. The moral incentive to work hard is to contribute to the common good, which develops from a sense of responsibility for fellow human beings.

Equality – in many respects is the defining feature of socialist ideology, equality being the political value that most clearly distinguishes socialism from its rivals. Socialist egalitarianism is characterised by a belief in social equality or equality of outcome. Socialists have advanced at least three arguments in favour of this: social equality upholds justice or fairness. Socialists are reluctant to explain the inequality of wealth in terms of innate differences of ability among individuals. Socialists believe that the most significant forms of human inequality are a result of unequal treatment in society.

Justice therefore demands that people are treated equally. Formal equality in its legal and political senses is clearly inadequate as it disregards the structural inequalities in the capitalist system. Equality of opportunity legitimises inequality by perpetuating a myth of innate inequality.

Social equality underpins community and cooperation. If people live equally, they are more likely to identify with each other and work together for common benefit. Equal outcomes therefore strengthen social solidarity.

Equality of opportunity is ‘tadpole philosophy’ – Tawney .

There are NEED-satisfactions – it is a necessity – basic needs such as food, water etc. are fundamental and thus are the stuff of freedom: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” Marx .

However, Marxists believe in absolute social equality brought about by the abolition of private property and collectivisation of productive wealth. Social democracy believe in relative social equality, achieved through redistribution of wealth through the welfare state.

Common ownership – often traced the origins of competition and inequality to the institution of private property, by which they usually mean productive wealth or ‘capital’. View it as unjust: wealth is produced by the collective effort of human labour and should therefore be owned by the community, not private individuals. Also seen as breeding acquisitiveness and thus is morally corruption. Encourages materialism and is divisive: fosters conflict in society between employee and employer for example.

Marxists envisaged abolition of private property.

Social democrats also attracted to the state as an instrument through which wealth can be collectively owned and the economy rationally planned. This is applied more selectively in the West, with a mixed economy.

Class Conflict - Radical socialists always see this as crucial as it is the vehicle by which real change can be enacted, not through democratic means as they are inevitably in favour of the middle classes.

Marx called it the ‘class consciousness’ others call it ‘common class interest’ but by achieving this the workers will be those people who will look to lead the revolution.

Evolutionary socialists would seek to alter capitalism pushing for economic and social equality, which would be achieved through democratic means but with the interests of the working class at their heart.

Democratic socialists modify capitalism with controls through state intervention on a huge scale e.g. Atlee government through welfare but also through nationalisation and the role of the state being to provide jobs for people. Class is less important the state is a neutral arbiter

Modern Socialists would claim that class is no longer important e.g. New Labour but their ideas on promoting equality and social justice remain .

Social Justice - Marxists believe that the distribution of wealth cannot occur under capitalism as it relies on incentives and inequalities

Moderate socialists believed it can work with capitalism e.g. minimum wage higher taxation of the rich

Rawls although a liberal provided a description of social justice for moderate socialists calling it distributive justice. The establishment of a fair and just principle for the distribution of rewards

Although their ideas have changed the basic premise is that free market is unjust and there has to be some state intervention. Particularly ensuring the provision of liberty, equality of opportunity, no restrictions on the individual and a society that does not allow the richest to profit at the poorest expense

All socialists believe that completely free markets do not produce a just society

A website to support students and teachers of A-Level Politics

What are the most likely questions for the 24 Mark Ideologies Question? (Edexcel)

Disclaimer: This post deals with potential examination questions. It is not a definitive list; others could be asked. It is simply designed to help students potentially sense the type of questions that might be asked. However, all questions so far (2019 and 2022) and fitted into the scope of the questions included.

Note: Please also note that this guidance should not be treated in any way as official Pearson Edexcel guidance.

The potential questions for the 24 Mark Ideologies Questions are much more predictable than the 30 Mark Essay and 30 Mark Source Question. This is because questions have to come from the specification and is much less scope for the examiners to find questions for the Ideologies Questions.

There are two types of Ideologies Question you will come across:

• Holistic Question
• Thematic Question

The holistic question is one that simply asks where or not there is more agreement or disagreement within an ideology. These questions will be rare, however, they have been asked before. If the question is holistic, you can answer it using the big four themes:

• Human Nature

The thematic questions will either be based on the big themes (Economy, Society, Human Nature and States) or core principles indicated on the first page of the specification for each ideology.

These questions should themselves be approached thematically, with themes selected which are relevant to the question.

What are the likely questions for Liberalism?

The precise wording of these questions will of course change, but the themes will be useful for gauging likely questions

To what extent do Liberal agree more than they disagree?

To what extent do Liberals agree/disagree over the issue of Human Nature?

To what extent do Liberals agree/disagree over the issue of the Economy?

To what extent do Liberals agree/disagree over the issue of the State?

To what extent do Liberals agree/disagree over the issue of Society?

To what extent do Liberals agree/disagree over the issue of Individualism?

To what extent do Liberals agree/disagree over the issue of Freedom?

To what extent do Liberals agree/disagree over the issue of Liberty?

To what extent do Liberals agree/disagree over the issue of Rationalism?

To what extent do Liberals agree/disagree over the issue of Equality?

To what extent do Liberals agree/disagree over issue of the Social Justice?

To what extent do Liberals agree/disagree over the issue of Liberal Democracy?

What are the likely questions for Conservatism?

To what extent do Conservatives agree more than they disagree?

To what extent do Conservatives agree/disagree over the issue of Human Nature?

To what extent do Conservatives agree/disagree over the issue of the Economy?

To what extent do Conservatives agree/disagree over the issue of the State?

To what extent do Conservatives agree/disagree over the issue of Society?

To what extent do Conservatives agree/disagree over the issue of Pragmatism?

To what extent do Conservatives agree/disagree over the issue of Tradition?

To what extent do Conservatives agree/disagree over the issue of Human Imperfection?

To what extent do Conservatives agree/disagree over the issue of the Organic Society?

To what extent do Conservatives agree/disagree over the issue of the Organic State?

To what extent do Conservatives agree/disagree over the issue of Paternalism?

To what extent do Conservatives agree/disagree over the issue of Libertarianism?

What are the likely questions for Socialism?

To what extent do Socialists agree more than they disagree?

To what extent do Socialists agree/disagree over the issue of Human Nature?

To what extent do Socialists agree/disagree over the issue of the Economy?

To what extent do Socialists agree/disagree over the issue of the State?

To what extent do Socialists agree/disagree over the issue of Society?

To what extent do Socialists agree/disagree over the issue of Collectivism?

To what extent do Socialists agree/disagree over the issue of Common Humanity?

To what extent do Socialists agree/disagree over the issue of Equality?

To what extent do Socialists agree/disagree over the issue of Social Class?

To what extent do Socialists agree/disagree over the issue of Workers’ Control?

What are the likely questions for Feminism?

To what extent do Feminists agree more than they disagree?

To what extent do Feminists agree/disagree over the issue of Human Nature?

To what extent do Feminists agree/disagree over the issue of the Economy?

To what extent do Feminists agree/disagree over the issue of the State?

To what extent do Feminists agree/disagree over the issue of Society?

To what extent do Feminists agree/disagree over the issue of Sex and Gender?

To what extent do Feminists agree/disagree over the issue of the Patriarchy?

To what extent do Feminists agree/disagree over the notion that the ‘personal is political’?

To what extent do Feminists agree/disagree over the issue of Equality Feminism?

To what extent do Feminists agree/disagree over the issue of Intersectionality?

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

How effectively are Human Rights and Civil Liberties protected in the UK?

Common Law – Why is it fundamental to the constitution?

Has devolution to England been successful?

How significant are public inquiries in the UK?

Discover more from politics teaching.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

A Level Politics Socialism Essay Plans

Subject: Government and politics

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Other

Last updated

27 June 2022

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

Ideologies socialism essay plans including plans on: To what extent are different socialists committed to ‘equality of outcome’? To what extent do socialists agree on the economy? To what extent do socialists have conflicting views over how the economy should operate? To what extent do socialists agree over the role of the state?

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Get this resource as part of a bundle and save up to 33%

A bundle is a package of resources grouped together to teach a particular topic, or a series of lessons, in one place.

A Level Politics Ideologies Essay Plans

Edexcel A Level Politics Ideologies Includes essay plans for Liberalism and Socialism (Conservatism not included)

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource: