Socialists no longer seek fundamentally to reshape society (40 marks)

Socialists have the main goal of reaching a socialist utopian society in which all people are equal, however the extent to which they support this in action and how they interpret such things is entirely reliant on their views. This links to the clear divisions within socialist thought, between fundamentalists and revisionists and whether the goals of the revisionists can still be seen as fundamentally reshaping society. It could be said that although they are less fundamental than the fundamentalists such as Marx, that they still wish to reshape the society in which they live. From a fundamentalist mindset Marxists desired to reshape society to create equality through the redistribution of wealth and the removal of the ruling classes, Marx hypothesised building from Hegel, his idea of historical materialism, that society would reach a conflict between the current thesis (the bourgeoisie) and the antithesis (the proletariat) this divide would result in a new thesis bringing about a new society that would be fundamentally different to the previous one, reaching a communist goal. This goes to show clearly how Marx was in favour of fundamentally reshaping society and through this there would be a clear revolution to bring about such ends. Marx argued that society needed such a dramatic change because of the alienation that was built into the system to take advantage of the surplus value of the workers. That the structure of society was constructed to repress the workers. Marx then argued that for this alienation and subjugation of the working classes to be removed that the system it relies upon needs to be disposed of as well. Therefore it can be said that fundamentally Marxist ideas are clearly a way in which there is fundamental change and with the rise of Neo-Marxists from the Frankfurt School adapting these ideas in their modern pretexts it can be said that there is still a desire to fundamentally change society albeit through a relatively small school of thought. However, on the other hand there is the movement of neo-revisionists towards supporting of capital, through their desires to humanise it, as proposed by socialist thinkers such as Blair. This proposes that not all capital is inherently negative, that it can indeed work for the public good and therefore if it is doing so that elements of competition should be preserved and allowed to function. This appears to diverge from the fraternal ways of moving society towards more collectivist ideals, abandoning with such the drastic changes in the concepts. It could be argued that this , alongside their abandonment of equality of outcome is in itself abandoning the need for drastic change. This could be argued to be an argument to support the fact that they no longer wish to fundamentally change society, rather sticking with the social systems in place with minor reforms through equality of opportunity by promoting education and healthcare within the system, but not changing it directly. Therefore it could be said that neo-revisionists, and even some social democrats, have gone as far to abandon their want for dramatic socialist change towards the end goals of a socialist utopia and have instead settled with reforming the current system. Alternatively it could be said that there is still a strong belief in democratic socialism which still promotes a greater state role in bringing about nationalisation of key industries, taking away the control of such from the ruling elite and giving it to the working classes through collective ownership. This could go to suggest that they still support a collectivist role, and therefore their positive views on human nature, that people can work with one another to achieve a grand societal role through the removal of competition in industries through the nationalisation. This goes to protect the workers as well, and the democratic socialists have a strong faith in the power of the trade unions, with their power being the reason why Bernstein felt that reform could bring about a fundamental change in society rather than there being a need for revolution. This shows that there is still a strong desire to reshape society and to bring about clear changes but simply in different ways to those that have been seen previously. The Fabians see a more empirical approach to such, that radical change can be achieved but through gradual reform and education of those in power, believing that through this people cannot deny the success of socialism, then allowing greater reforms into a socialist utopia. This goes to suggest that there is still a want for change and that therefore democratic socialists and the Fabians still wish to see a fundamental shift in the running of society but they simply view it as needing to take a longer time through means of reform. Finally it could be suggested that there is no longer support for such dramatic socialist ideals such as collectivism and people working with one another, through a support for the competitive nature and drive of the capitalist system. It could be said therefore that the people are no longer in support of such motions that socialists have adapted to reflect such with the centre ground moving more towards the right. This can be why social democrats no longer support nationalisation of industries and feel that there is a greater place for business to operate. It can go as far to be said that with the views on rule of law they abandon their views on human nature, looking to punish those for crime rather than reducing the causes of crime, which has previously been seen by socialists as deprivation and poverty. In doing such it represents that there is perhaps a questioning of this view on human nature always being positive because if so then there would be no benefit to punishing those for crimes committed out of necessity. This goes to show that there is an abandonment of key ideals within social democrats and neo-revisionists which can be seen through the core value of maintaining the rule of law and justice that is tough on the causes of crime rather than through criminalising people. It therefore could be suggested that they are abandoning a change on such issues to focus rather on the capitalist view that people commit crime through greed and want, which in itself also appears to show an abandonment of their ideals on human nature. Overall it can be said that there is no longer a desire for a revolution of ideas overall, and it could be argued that without this there is no fundamental change that can take place. As Marx proposed that reforming the state would simply enable the capitalists to restructure and survive, making a socialist utopia harder to achieve. The argument for gradual change is a difficult one to manage, with there being instead an argument that this perhaps is not fundamental in its core if viewed from a Marxist communist perspective. However it can be said that the speed of the ideals does not change the value of the change that is occurring. That through revolution or reforming the system so long as the end goals of socialism are met then there would have been, through that period of change, a fundamental restructuring of society based around socialist principles which can be seen still through democratic socialists wishing to bring about more equality in the system. Even neo-revisionists propose the humanising of capital and more control over big business which ti could be proposed is indeed a fundamental change in their climate. Therefore to conclude it can be said that although groups such as Neo-revisionists do not propose the same dramatic ideas as democratic socialists or Marxists, that there is still a desire to reshape the society in which they live to give more people the power they desire and this can be said to be bringing about a fundamental change to some extent.