to what extent do socialists agree on society essay

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

How to write an essay on socialism and common humanity

Answering a 24 mark ideologies question on paper 1 edexcel politics: socialism.

The  core ideologies in Paper 1 are Socialism, Liberalism and Conservatism and there will be two questions from which you will answer one. These ideology questions are worth 24 marks so you should writes for about 25- 30 minutes.

You will also need to refer to at least two key thinkers.

A lot of students say that socialism is a difficult ideology to understand because there are so many strands and indeed the differences within socialism are very great.

The three most common divisions in socialism are between:

·   Revolutionary socialists (also called fundamentalist)

·   Social Democracy. (Revisionist and evolutionary)

·   The Third Way. (neo revisionist and evolutionary)

Follow this link for a description  of the Divisions in Socialism

However, there are beliefs which all socialists share and one their view of human nature. All socialists believe that human nature is malleable and improvable by nurture such as education not fixed by nature. On e aspect of this generally optimist view of human nature is a belief in Common humanity

So a typical 24 mark question might be:

 To what extent do socialists accept the concept of common humanity?

While all socialists share this belief revolutionary socialists, such as Marx, believe that human nature is especially susceptible to whichever economic system it lives under. Therefore, people are likely to suffer a ‘false consciousness’ that can be cured only by revolution and authoritarian rule (the dictatorship of the proletariat). Other socialists, including revisionists like Anthony Giddens, argue that human nature can prosper under capitalism.

As with the 30 mark questions you should decide the direction of your essay. However, if you were answering a 30-mark question, you would have a larger introduction which would outline the debate before stating your direction. But for an ideology question, you only need a one-line sentence because you have less time.

For example if you argue that socialists mostly disagree about the concept of common humanity, you might write:

‘While all socialists agree about the general concept of common humanity they fundamentally disagree about how it can flourish.’

If you argue that socialists mostly agree about the concept of common humanity, you might write:

‘While there is some disagreement   about how common humanity can flourish all socialists are united in their  understanding of common humanity.’

Remember the key instruction word in the question is ‘extent’ so you are not expected to say they have no agreement or that they completely agree.

The Sandwich Structure

One way to structure these essays is to adopt the  agree-sandwich approach, or disagree-sandwich approach. i.e Two paragraphs support your direction are the ‘bread’ and one shows you know the alternative view- i.e. the ‘filling’. So begin with the one-line introduction then three paragraphs followed by a conclusion.

Always mention two strands in your first sentence of every paragraph.

 For example if you are arguing that they disagree about common humanity, the first paragraph could contrast the difference between Revolutionary Socialist and Third-Way Socialists. Revolutionary  and third-way views differ widely when it comes to human nature and common humanity. Revolutionary socialists believe that humans are naturally sociable and cooperative. Capitalism, they argue, distorts human nature and brings out the selfishness and greed that works against common humanity. Capitalism, they argue, imposes  alienating pressures on humans, resulting in selfish behaviour and decisions that do not result in human happiness, as it emphasises the acquisition of wealth above all other human priorities. However, Third Way socialists argue that humans are motivated by material rewards such as money and status. But for the third way, being driven by material and being competitive as well as seeking material rewards isn't necessarily a bad thing, just as being motivated by community action and collective endeavour isn't a bad thing. Therefore, Revolutionary Socialists and Third Way socialists have a fundamentally different view of the economic conditions which allow  common humanity to thrive.

Third-way socialists also disagree with Social Democrats about how and whether common humanity can be achieved if society is too unequal, so you can also  mention that in your first paragraph.

In this example, your middle  paragraph, which is the the filling of the sandwich, you should show that you are aware of ways they are similar which means going against the direction you set in the introduction and in the other paragraphs. However you should still remind the examiner of what you believe at the end of this paragraph. If you don’t do this you'll sound like you’re contradicting yourself.

To show that you are acknowledging views counter to the direction of your essay you could use words such as ‘while’ and ‘granted’ or phrases such as ‘there is some agreement’ or ‘It can be argued’. These word distance you from these views.

For example:

‘ While Social Democrats and Revolutionary socialist agree……..the differences remain more significant’

‘Granted, Social Democrats and Revolutionary socialists have some agreement that……however…..’

You can make the point that Social Democrats and Revolutionary Socialists agree about the harmful  effects of capitalism on human nature. Revolutionary socialists point to the inevitable exploitation of the weak by powerful elites, and the wide social inequality as well as the damaging effects of alienation. Social Democrats accept these dangers and so for common humanity to flourish there must be welfare equality, a mixed economy where public services must be properly funded through taxing the proceeds of capitalism. That's what social democrats would say, hence Anthony Crosland's support for what he called ‘managed capitalism’, which he argued would tame market forces and allow humans to flourish. You can also show that  Social Democrats and Third-Way Socialists agree that common humanity can still flourish and exist in a capitalist system, in fact the wealth produced by capitalism is vital for human happiness. Third Way thinker Anthony Giddens agued that a fairer society had to embrace new technologies and the inevitability of globalisation. This is simar to Crossland’s call for managed capitalism. You should end this paragraph by returning to the direction you are arguing:

Granted all socialists see  many flaws in the effects of capitalism which hinder acceptance of our common humanity  and they accept the ability of capitalism to produce wealth, but more significant differences remain since revolutionary socialist see the necessity of destroying capitalism, social democrats can accepted a just management of capitalism and third way socialists see ethical values in capitalism.

In the third paragraph you should describe how Revolutionary and Social Democrat Socialists have significant differences regarding just how common humanity is realised. Revolutionary Socialists believe that working together, supporting each other, is human nature's natural state which leads to collectivist policies on the economy, including common ownership, workers control and nationalisation. Yet the other two strands provide a different route, which is described as a revisionist approach to how common humanity can be achieved and how human potential could be maximised. For social democrats, a mixed economy and Keynesian economics need not require complete common ownership, so you don't necessarily need the government to take over every single business. Third-way Socialists, accept that some form of market economy is necessary for human flourishing.  Anthony Giddens for example supported the policies of privatisation as necessary for wealth production. Too much collectivism will stifle human’s natural individualism  so within capitalism, you can still have common humanity. Collectivism, they argue, isn't entirely rejected, but individualism is promoted far more than Social Democrats and Revolutionary socialists would promote.

Finally your conclusion should sum up by returning to the question directly and making the point that while all socialist share a general concept of common humanity in terms of foundational equality- i.e. ‘all men are created equal’ they have significant differences over equality of outcome, which fundamentalist socialist place greater emphasis on and revision socialist tend to reject in favour of equality of opportunity. Above all they differ significantly over the ability of market capitalism to produce a socialist society. This means there are fundamental differences between socialist over the concept of common humanity.

What if you decided that your direction would be:

‘ While there is some disagreement   about how common humanity can flourish all socialists are united in their  understanding of common humanity.’

Your first paraph might make the point that Revolutionary Socialists and Social Democrats both accept that   unrestricted laissez faire capitalism creates inequality of outcome and inequality of opportunity.  Revolutionary Socialists such as Rosa Luxemburg  called for mass action by workers to oppose capitalism and Beatrice Webb sought incremental change which would lead to the end of free market capitalism. Therefore they both believed that common humanity requires a recognition of social justice and that market forces and capitalism do not reflect this truth. Free markets favour the strong over the weak with little regard for justice. Collective endeavour, community engagement, are themes common to all socialists. Third Way socialists also accept that capitalism lacks ethical values which instead must be pursued by community action.

In the middle paragraph you should show awareness of the alternative view.

It can be argued that there are differences between Revolutionary Socialists and Social Democrats over whether   common humanity means that human beings are  motivated by personal ambition or material rewards. Marx believed that individualism and competitiveness are a form of false consciousness produced by the powerful to mislead and divide the workers as well as deny their common humanity.  Social Democrats differ because they accept that to some extent these motives are inevitable and need to be managed so Crossland called for manged capitalism and Third Way Socialists go further and see individual ambition as ethically good. For third-way socialists, the responsibility of the state to provide services, which is heavily emphasised by social democrats, must be balanced with responsibility, the responsibility that individuals have for themselves and for others.  Rights and  responsibilities leads to the third way to support self-reliance, ‘welfare to work’ and personal responsibility as well as a more limited welfare state with a carrot and stick approach to benefits. This is different to social democrats who argue that welfare equality,  through services such as the NHS, is the ultimate expression of fraternity, of common humanity. The idea of fraternity is that we see fellow humans as siblings rather than rivals, people that we look after in time of need, and that we have bonds with one another. And these services, these welfare services, help promote that kind of fraternity, that kind of common humanity.  While Third-Way socialists believe that humans are able to compete in a market economy so long as there is a quality of opportunity.

In this ‘middle’ paragraph it’s important to make it clear that this is not the line you are arguing, so prefacing these points with ‘It can be argued’ or ‘There is some disagreement..(or agreement depending on your line). End the paragraph with:

While it can be argued that socialists differ over human motivation their common  acceptance that the moral and ethical emptiness of laissez faire capitalism leads to an attack on common humanity since all strands of socialism accept that humans are mouldable and that humans are plastic and thus shape-able and that equality in one form or another will likely lead to greater social cohesion and thus to common humanity, to a shared sense of purpose in your community. Therefore the fundamentalist support for absolute equality and hence the third way support for equality of opportunity although very different types of equality, cannot be achieved through  unrestricted capitalism.

Social democrats share the idea of classlessness with fundamentalists (Revolutionary Socialists) and how this will bring about the best in people. All s ocialists in foundational equality that each of us is of equal worth and opportunities should be spread as widely as possible. There is  no natural order or hierarchy. Fundamentalists believe that class is the most significant divider of humans from one to another. Class divisions are inevitable in capitalism for fundamentalists and must be addressed for common humanity to be recognised. Similarly The third way share all socialists view that social classes are an obstacle to meritocracy and equality of opportunity. Anthony Crosland saw class as “the indefensible differences of status and income that disfigure our society”. In this sense all socialists are advocates of a society free of irrational traditions and structures such as class and privileges of birth, because these deny social justice and in an unjust society common humanity can not flourish.

Finally as with all of these essays  your conclusion should sum up by returning to the question directly and making the point that while  socialists have profound disagreements over the nature of human motivation they share a common belief in shared humanity as reflected in human’s natural fraternity and desire for justice. They also share a common analysis of the essential immorality of laissez-faire capitalism. This means there is a fundamental  agreement between socialists over the concept of common humanity’s shared goals.

Overall It is worth remembering that socialism is a very divided ideology because while all socialists share the view that societies based on rationality and justice are the only systems which can allow common humanity to thrive there are considerable differences over how a just and rational society might be achieved and how that society should be organised. These differences are so great that a belief in the evolutionary route to a just society and the belief in the revolutionary route is one of the oldest and deepest divides- Mensheviks argued for  evolutionary change  through education and reforms of capitalism which would gradually lead to a socialist society, whereas Bolsheviks argued for revolutionary change followed by vigorous repression of capitalism through the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Revolutionary socialists view capitalism as too powerful and too adaptive to be changed slowly. According to Marx, common humanity can only be achieved through acknowledging historical materialism. This is the idea that whoever controls the economy influences every aspect of human life and thus it is important that the bourgeoisie, the middle class, the property class be immediately removed from the economy and replaced by workers control. Revolution to achieve common humanity is also inevitable, according to Marx, because of Marx's idea of the dialectic, that capitalism produces two competing forces that will always lead to conflict.

However, even with these considerable differences all strands of socialism accept that humans are naturally sociable, cooperative and community-minded yet for these very reasons evolutionary socialists reject the chaos and violence that they think will be caused by a revolution. The Webb’s believed that the middle classes because of human sociability could be co-opted into supporting socialism as they too would come to see collectivism as being in their own interest since cooperation would be seen as more efficient than unrestricted market capitalism.

All socialists are somewhat vague about exactly what a completed socialist society might look like. Marx seemed to think that once achieved, it would require very little organisation with the state ‘withering away’ and technology making material inequality unnecessary and work itself being unnecessary. Evolutionary socialists are also vague but do not agree with Marxists that it would  involve the complete collective ownership of all wealth  and means of production. For Social Democrats and Third Way Socialists, some capitalism would persist. This is a fundamental difference.

Socialism emerged as an attempt to find an alternative to capitalism, seeking to find a more humane economic system.

As such, it is often seen as the ideology of the working classes, as it seeks to reduce or remove class divisions in society. A difficulty in considering socialism as an ideology is that it could be understood in different ways. It could be seen as an economic model of state collectivisation; an alternative to capitalism. Although, in practice, most socialists have attempted to include elements of both systems, and socialists today wish to reform rather than abolish capitalism.

Alternatively, socialism could be seen as an instrument of the labour movement to make capitalism more responsive to worker’s needs. However, socialist ideas have been popular amongst many groups in society, not just workers. Finally, it could be seen as an ideology, although Karl Marx saw ‘ideologies’ as ways of covering up the truth, whereas his ideas were scientific analysis of how things are. However, socialism seems to meet the criteria for an ideology, not least because there is a core set of principles.

Collectivism

At the heart of socialism is the idea that people are unified by the concept of community. They can use this to overcome any difficulties, both economic and social. Socialists believe this because they agree with the idea that the group as a whole is more powerful than that of individual efforts.

They therefore believe in collectivism- following group goals and not trying to follow individual self-interest. Many socialists have quoted the ideas of English poet John Donne who said, ‘no man is an island’. People share commonality and have common goals and therefore share fraternity (humans are bound together by common interests and inclinations).

Socialists believe that human nature is not formed at birth and claim that it is entirely flexible or ‘plastic’ and is shaped by the environment and experiences of every moment of life. They think that people are therefore inseparable from society and it creates all aspects of a person’s identity. People are not self-sufficient individuals and they can only be understood in relation to society. Their behaviour can only be understood in this way and not because they were born with a ‘natural character’.

Socialists have linked the ideas of competition, individualism and selfishness to the idea of private property, property not being personal possessions such as clothes, but personal ownership of what is produced or made. Socialists criticise private property for many reasons:

• Private property is unjust as there is always more than one person involved in its creation and so they all should share it.
• Private property makes people greedy to acquire possessions and therefore creates a lack of morality and causes competition when pursuing wealth.
• Property is divisive as it causes conflict between those with different priorities related to that property – for example – owners of factories against their workers.

Some socialists such as Marxists believe that collectivism is best achieved through the abolition of private property. They believe that all property should be ‘collectivised’ through being owned by the group (the state). This could be done through ‘nationalisation’; the state would own all property and business. This results in communism , a system where there is no private property or class division, as the means of production is owned collectively. Others, such as social democrats, believe collectivist goals should be promoted through ideas such as progressive taxation, welfare and public services. This would mean using a ‘mixed economy’ such as the one Keynes suggested in the UK in the post-war era. This was designed to achieve ‘social justice’ (or fairness) rather than complete equality. In these systems, capitalism (where wealth is privately owned and goods and services are produced for profit) is retained, but the inequalities resulting from it are addressed.

Common Humanity

Socialists believe that people have a natural relationship that should be based on cooperation (working collectively to achieve mutual benefits) and not competition, as competition leads to conflict which leads people to ignore their natural relationships with others. As a result, people who are in conflict learn negative traits such as aggression and selfishness, and people who work together learn to care and have affection for each other. Peter Kropotkin said that the human race thrives due to ‘mutual aid’, the desire to help each other out, knowing that the favour will be returned. Socialists tend to have a very positive view of human nature, suggesting that people are naturally inclined towards sociable cooperation.

Socialists believe that cooperation rewards people for hard work on a deeper moral level rather than the material rewards of liberal capitalism. They think that people will be motivated to aid the ‘common good’ rather than just their own short term aims. Many socialists believe that individual material rewards can be balanced in harmony with community based moral rewards. For example, people who work hard will not only benefit themselves but they will create more wealth to provide welfare for society.

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;

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.

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.

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.

Different kinds of socialists disagree about the extent to which equality should exist in society. Marxists and communists believe in total equality whereby private property is abolished and the state / society distributes everything according to needs. There is common ownership , meaning that the means of production are owned commonly, by everyone, so that everyone benefits from the wealth of society. Social democrats on the other hand believe in the reduction of inequality through progressive taxation and welfare. They do not wish to destroy capitalism but only limit and tame it. This slightly blurs the desire for equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. Marxists would reject equality of opportunity, suggesting that it does not address the fundamental inequalities created by capitalism.

Opponents of social equality argue that treating everyone in the same way fails to recognise the difference in talents and efforts amongst people. By rewarding everyone similarly, it also saps motivation to work hard. In addition, as such an outcome can only really be achieved by state intervention, this potentially restricts the liberties of individuals.

 Search all political ideas articles here or click on the tags below.

Liberalism • Conservatism • Socialism • Multiculturalism

Sign up to my free essay writing video tutorials

To what extent do socialists agree or disagree over equality of outcome

Most socialists aspire to an equal society but do not agree on equality of outcomes. Revolutionary socialists are committed to equality of outcome that can only be realised through revolution. On the other hand, social democrats although believe in the ideal of equality of outcome, favour equality of opportunity through the expansion of the state to introduce socialist policies to ensure social justice, they see this as practical and creating harmony between the owners of capital and the workers. The Third Way reject equality of outcome and neither see it as an ideal or a positive measure of success.

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

Level 5 Response – To what extent do Socialists agree on the economy?

Economic considerations are central to socialist ideology because socialists strive to create an egalitarian society and economic reform is central to this fundamental aim. As part of their economic reform, socialists advocate the active redistribution of wealth to remove the differences between classes that have emerged since the Industrial Revolution. To answer this question the following need to be considered: the fundamental nature of socialist economics, socialist views toward capitalism and views towards common ownership. Ultimately, it is clear that socialists diverge significantly on the issue of the economy, with modern ‘third way’ thinking being largely unrecognisable to that of revolutionary socialism.

Fundamentally all socialists can be recognised by their opposition to a laissez-faire economy and a completely free market. They are influenced by the heavy inequalities in society that have emerged from free-market economics. Socialists believe that, if left unchecked and unregulated, the economy inevitability falls victim to the unpredictability of the capitalist market, which often leads to social problems such as unemployment that only serve to further the inequality socialists wish to prevent. As such, all three strands accept the need for some public ownership within the economy. Socialists believe that society has been harmed by inequalities between social classes, which emerge due to economic determinism. Therefore, all socialists recognise the need for the safety net of a welfare system to support those in need. Despite these points of agreement, there also points of clear disagreement.

One difference is over the extent to which capitalism can be tolerated. revolutionary socialists are clear that capitalism must be abolished and are willing to advocate revolution, followed by a ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’, to achieve this. Marx and Engels argued as part of their belief in historicism that the defeat of capitalism was the next dialectical stage in societies advancement. Revolutionary socialists advocate for ‘equality of outcome’ as the only answer to the problems created by Socialism. However, evolutionary socialists are willing to tolerate implementing socialist policies within a capitalist system in order advance their ideological goals. For example, Beatrice Webb called revolution ‘chaotic and inefficient’ and instead called for ‘gradualism’ whilst Social Democrats including Anthony Crosland advocated the use of Keynesian economics as a method for socialists to moderate capitalism. Crosland believe that the debate of public v private ownership was less important than other issues, such as the levels of public taxation. It is clear therefore that whilst revolutionary socialists and social democrats agree on the limits of capitalism, only revolutionary socialists believe in its destruction. Conversely to both revolutionary and evolutionary socialists, third way thinkers like Anthony Giddens argue that capitalism should not only be tolerated but should be embraced. Giddens believed that it was not abolishing capitalism that should be a goal, but making sure it was working for the most vulnerable in society. Third way socialists argue that the free market creates wealth that can then be used on socialist projects, like improving the NHS. Famously, New Labour figure Peter Mandelson said “we don’t mind people being filthy rich, as long as they pay their taxes”. Therefore, it is clear that Socialists disagree significantly over the extent to which capitalism should be tolerated, with views ranging from the idea that it has to be abolished (revolutionary socialists) to the idea that it should be actively embraced (third way).

Socialists also disagree on the importance of common ownership. Revolutionary socialists believe that as part of a post-capitalist system there should be no private ownership. Marx and Engels believed that private ownership was made possible due to the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. They believed the abolition of private property would be achieved through a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ removing the last vestiges of the capitalist state and creating a classless society in which private property would no longer be desriable, let alone a right. Similarly, early evolutionary socialists, like democratic socialists, supported the notion of common ownership. They argued that capitalism had to be replaced by a system that saw workers fully rewarded for their work. As an example of this, the Labour Party, influenced by Beatrice Webb, included Clause IV in their constitution which called for nationalisation of “the means of production, distribution and exchange”. However, social democrats support a mixed-economy, where private property could be regulated through Keynesian inspired government intervention. Crosland argued that a mixed-economy allowed an element of collective planning to the market forces that drive capitalism. Alternatively, third way socialists take an entirely different approach to common ownership, as is seen by New Labour’s decision to abandon Clause IV. Third way socialists believe that only through a privatised and deregulated economy can enough taxation be raised to support the weakest in society. In this thinking they were influenced by Giddens who saw that the fundamental nature of the economy had changed and that governments in the ‘post-fordist’ economy should seek to arm citizens to play a role in the new economy. This helps explains Blair’s statement that his three priorities were ‘education, education, education’. Therefore, whilst there is some compatibility in the views of revolutionary and evolutionary socialists to the notion of common ownership, third way socialists depart entirely from this position and believe common ownership is harmful to implementing socialist policies.

Ultimately, on the issue of the economy socialists do not agree to a significant extent. Revolutionary socialists and evolutionary socialists, including social democrats, generally agree on the same ends, but differ over the means to reach them. However, third way socialists do not even agree on ends – fundamentally rejecting the notion that capitalism should be abolished and that private property is ideologically harmful. Therefore, although there is some agreement amongst socialists on economic issues, it is clearly incorrect to state that socialists agree on the economy.

Share this:

One response to “level 5 response – to what extent do socialists agree on the economy”.

this is helpful thank you!

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

Written for

Document information.

• Related courses
• PEARSON (PEARSON)
• Government And Politics
• Unit 3 - Key Themes in Political Analysis

Socialism state essay A* - EDEXCEL A LEVEL POLITICS IDEOLOGY ESSAY

• Institution

To what extent do different socialists disagree over the role of the state? A high-quality essay that explores this essay question. Includes introduction, 2 agreement paragraphs, and 2 disagreement paragraphs as well as an evaluative conclusion!

Preview 1 out of 3  pages

•   Report Copyright Violation

Preview 1 out of 3 pages

• Uploaded on May 6, 2021
• Number of pages 3
• Written in 2020/2021
• Professor(s) Unknown
• Grade A+
• Study Level A/AS Level
• Examinator PEARSON (PEARSON)
• Subject Government and Politics
• Unit Unit 3 - Key Themes in Political Analysis

10  reviews

By: boho1 • 11 months ago

By: freddiefawcett2018 • 1 year ago

By: yasseranwoir • 2 year ago

By: olivia2022 • 1 year ago

By: milksnatcher • 2 year ago

By: teodoraamarioarei5 • 2 year ago

By: sjguthrie • 2 year ago

Reviews received

The benefits of buying summaries with stuvia:.

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do i get when i buy this document.

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller oliviawoolley10. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £4.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

93915 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now

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

A* Essay Plan - Socialism, A Level Politics, Ideologies

Subject: Government and politics

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

31 March 2020

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

To what extent do socialists agree on both the means and ends of socialism? A* Essay Plan Includes key thinkers, strands and core concepts

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Get this resource as part of a bundle and save up to 22%

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 Essays and Essay Plans (A*)

Contains a wide selection of A* essays and essay plans for A Level Politics (Ideologies). Includes Liberalism, Socialism, Conservatism and Feminism. Perfect for revision or to see a great example of A* work. Items individually would be worth £55.

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: