LIBERALISTIC STATE V.

SOCIALISTIC STATE:
A COMPARITIVE POLITICAL ANALYSIS

CHAPTER I

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

In this research project the author is going to analyze the liberalistic state and socialistic states as
how the liberal state and social state will function and what are the benefits the people will enjoy.
And at last which type of state would be suitable for the people to live sophisticated life.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This project has required consultation to an assorted range of books and websites that a part of
the primary sourses. The project mainly advocates from the doctrine of liberalism and the
funtioning of the liberlistic state and Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded
on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their
understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such
as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil
rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.
Socialism, a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means
of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a
whole.

HYPOTHESIS

In this project the researcher is going to find functioning of the liberal and social states and
analyze comparatively both the states find out the well being of the state and comfort to the
people who are living and which would be the suitable state for the people ti live their life
peacefully and sophisticated life.
 CHAPTER II

INTRODUCTION

Philosophers of liberalism and socialism actually have very different visions for the world. They
dont disagree at all on the idea that spreading the wealth around is good for everybody. In fact,
this idea finds one of its greatest expressions in the work of the philosopher of welfare
liberalism, John Rawls. He proposed two principles of justice, one of whichthe Difference
Principleclaims that inequalities are permissible if and only if they benefit the worst-off
person. Since many inequalities arising from the free market violate this principle, some wealth
must be redistributed.

The difference between liberals and socialists, rather, is founded on their different answers to this
question: Can the principles by which I vote differ from the principles by which I live?

Liberals say yes, they can. Rawls, for example, said that you must be guided by principles of
distributive justice, such as the Difference Principle, only when you think about the basic
structure of society. Roughly, those times are when you self-consciously think of yourself as a
citizen: when you vote, when you debate political ideals, when you think about those ideals in
your time alone. Otherwise, you dont need to heed principles of distributive justice.

So a liberal allows you to accept a salary that is four, ten, 100 times greater than that of the least
well-off person in your society, so long as, when you step into the voting booth, you don a new
hat and act so that all inequalities are arranged to benefit the least well-off.
That picture deeply disturbs socialists. Jerry Cohen, the preeminent contemporary philosopher of
socialism, wrote:

Liberally minded economists take for granted that economic agents are self-seeking, or, like
James Meade, they think that they should be, and then they want people as political agents to act
against the grain of their self-interest: pile up your earthly goods on the mundane plane of civil
society but be a saint in the heaven of politics.

CHAPTER III

DOCTRINE OF LIBERLALISTIC STATE:

Liberalism has been a dominant political philosophy of the west which created immense impact
for about four centuries. It was not developed at a particular point of time. A few thinkers have
expressed liberalism as a faith and a spiritual affair. Others viewed it as a matter of intellectual
affair. A few writers equated liberalism with individualism. Yet there are a few others who
interrupted it in terms of social democracy. It is thus evident that it is difficult to describe it
either as a dogma or doctrine. It represents a system of ideas which ultimately aims in realizing a
plural society with abundance of diversity in socio, politico, economic and cultural.

Liberalism may be traced in the writings of Socrates and Plato who argued, for the freedom of
inquiry and expression. In fact liberalism is the movement which was adopted to fight against
authority of the monarchy, the feudal lords and the tyranny of the church in fifteenth and the
sixteenth centuries. In reality it was a product of reformation, individualism and scientific temper
representing the middle class. It stood for the removal of hurdles coming in the way of human
progress so as to free the individual and the society from the bondage of the state and
government. In essence its political expression was manifest in the assertion of individual and his
rights, autonomy and freedom against the arbitrary authority of the state.1

Subsequently it was further developed and consolidated at the hands of the john Locke,
Montesquieu, Thomas paine, Bentham and Rousseau during 17th nod 18th centuries. Liberalism

1
Edmund Fawcett, LIBERALISM, The life of an idea, 2 nd edition.
as a movement though made itself felt in almost all the countries of western Europe and in
America but the most spectacular development took place in England due to rise of the middle
class with the industrial development in the 19th century. Liberalism is the theory and practice of
individual liberty, judicial defense and constitutional state. It was an attempt to give back to man
his personality and individuality. Liberalism means freedom from the authority of the
government in the affairs of the individual. Thus, liberalism means the absence of governmental
authority in matters relating to the welfare of the individual. Thus, theory is based on the
principle that the individual can develop his personality to the fullest possible extent, if alone he
is left free from the arbitrary interference of the government. That is why J.S.Mill declared that
that government is the best which governs the least

According to David G. Smith, Liberalism is the belief in and commitment to a set of

methods and policies that have as their common aim, greater freedom for individual men.

As per H.J. Laski, Liberalism is the expression, less of a creed than of a temperament. It
implies a passion for liberty and that passion may be compelling, it requires a power to be
tolerant, even skeptical about opinions and tendencies you hold to be dangerous, which is
one of the rarest human qualities.

In the words of Sartori, very simply, liberalism is the theory and practice of individual
liberty, judicial defense and the constitutional state.

Principles of Liberalism:

Social:

Liberalism is opposed to all artificial pressures as well as regulation on individual

freedom and conscience of individuals.
It believes that traditions and institutions being outdated will have no relevance in the
individual prosperity and development.

Economical:

In economic sphere liberalism supports free trade and production.

 It vigorously opposes any restriction on imports and exports.
It advocates that the citizens should be allowed freely to exploit natural resources and
distribute economic dividends as he desires.

Political:

Initially liberalism had advocated the total restriction of state interference in the freedom
of man.
It advocates the strict application of the theory of separation of powers, judicial review,
parliamentary control over the executive, protection of minority interests, prevention of
the concentration of power and the rule of law.
Liberalism preaches that the power rests with the people and the government must be
accountable to the people through periodic elections. It is a voice in favour of equality
before law. It advocates freedom of thought and expression. It maintains that state and
society should protect individuals natural rights. It stands for secularism.

LIBERAL STATES

Countries following the understand liberalism in continent of America is USA, Argentina,

Bolivia, Brazil, Chili, Cuba, Colombia, Equador, Honduras, canada, Mexsico, Nicaragua,
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. Now liberalsm also adopted for Aruba,
Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Greenland, Grenada, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico dan
Suriname.
Countries following the understand liberalism in continent of Europe is Albania,
Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatian, Cyprus, Republik Cekoslovakia,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungaria, Islandia, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Russia, Serbia Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Ukraina and United Kingdom Now liberalsm also adopted for Andorra, Belarusia,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Faroe Islands, Georgia, Ireland and San Marino.
Countries following the understand liberalism in continent of Asia is India, Iran, Israel,
Jepang, South korea, Fhiliphines, Taiwan, Thailand and Turki. For now, a lot of state in
 asia whose start the understand liberal. Another for now is Myanmar, Kamboja, Hong
Kong, Malaysia and Singapura.
Countries following the understand liberalism in Oceania islands is Australia and New
Zealand liberal economic system In Africa is a new. Basically, only adopted for those
living in Mesir, Senegal, And South Africa. For now, liberalsm already understood by
country Aljazair, Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Mantol Verde, Cte D'Ivoire, Equatorial
Guinea, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Maroko, Mozambik, Seychelles, Tanzania,
Tunisia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

TYPES OF LIBERALISM

Liberalism Liberalism is one of the theories in international relations; it focuses on democracy

and cooperation. Liberalists belief that individuals share many interests and can thus engage in
cooperation. Basic liberal assumptions:

A positive view of human nature

A conviction that international relations can be cooperative rather than conflictual

A belief in progress. Liberal theory after the Second World War was divided into four main
standards of thinking: Sociological Liberalism Interdependence Liberalism Institutional
Liberalism Republican Liberalism

Interdependence Liberalism means mutual dependence: People and governments are

affected by what happens elsewhere, by the actions of their counterparts in other countries. A
high level of transnational relations between countries --> a high level of interdependence.
Basically these liberals argued that a high division of labour in the international economy -->
increases interdependence between states --> discourage and reduce violent conflict between
states. Complex interdependence is qualitatively different from earlier and simpler kinds of
interdependence. Under complex interdependence: Transnational actors are increasingly
important Military force is a less useful instrument Welfare (not security) is becoming the
primary goal and concern of states. Hence, the world is more cooperative interdependence
relations.
Republican Liberalism is built on claim that liberal democracies are more peaceful and law-
abiding than are their political systems. Michael Doyle claimed that there are three elements that
democracy leads to peace with other democracies: The existence of domestic political cultures
based on peaceful conflict resolution Democracies hold common moral value which lead to the
formation of a "pacific union Peace between democracies is strengthened through economic
cooperation and interdependence. Democracies do not go to war against each other owing to:
their domestic culture of peaceful conflict resolution their common moral values their
mutually beneficial ties of economic cooperation and interdependence

Institutional Liberalism According to international liberals, international institution is an

international organization, such as NATO, the European Union; or it is a set of rules which
govern state action in particular areas, such as aviation or shipping. International liberals adopt a
behaviouralistic, scientific approach to claim that international institutions help promote
cooperation between states. Institutions alleviate problems concerning lack of trust between
states and they reduce states fear of each other.

Neo-Liberalism and institutions Post-1945 International Relations: Rise of international

institutions as collective actors Rise of European integration Rise of Pluralism in the US
Pluralism focused on new actors (transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations)
and new patterns of interaction (interdependence, integration).

Neo-Liberalism (Institutionalism) Nature of the International System: Anarchy For the

liberalist, anarchy signifies that there is no supranational authority that is able to enforce
agreements. While liberalism and realism share the assumption of international anarchy,
neoliberals criticize realists for underestimating opportunities for cooperation within that system.
Question becomes how to create an international system that encourages cooperation.

Neo-liberalism Neo-liberal institutionalists recognize that co- operation may be harder to

achieve in areas where leaders perceive they have no mutual interests. Neo-liberals believe that
states co-operate to achieve absolute gains and the greatest obstacle to co- operation is cheating
or non-compliance by other states. This is were institutions come in. Neo-liberal
institutionalists see institutions as the mediator and the means to achieve co-operation in the
international system.
Neo-Liberal Institutionalism Transnational cooperation needed to resolve common problems
Cooperation in one sector would extend range of collaboration Growing integration increases
the cost of withdrawal from cooperative ventures Pluralism of actors

FEATURES OF LIBERAL STATE 2

1. A liberal state always adopts a liberal attitude towards the rights of the citizens.mention
has been made that the most vital precondition of individuals development is granting of
rights and previleges to all individuals equitably.by resorting to this system the authority
of the liberal state will be in a position to ensure the progress of the individual.
2. Liberal state presupposes the existence of many grops and organizations and the
characteristic feature of a liberal state is they are engaged in cooperation and conflict
among themselves. These groups are termed in various ways such as power elite
ruling elite etc. under normal and peaceful conditions liberal state does not normally
intend to impose restrictions upon their activities.
3. The liberal state maintains a neutrality among all these groups. Since multiplicity of
groups and organizations and co existence among tem are the characteristics feauture any
conflict or clash of interests can also be regarded as inevitable consequence. Here is the
question is : what would be the exact role of the state in the situation? The liberal state
maintain utmost neutrality.the liberal state does not favour any particular class in the case
of conflict. As a provider of ceck and stability in the political system the state adopts
reforms so that the destabilization cannot occur.
4. The important feature of a liberal state is it is accountable to the citizenry which means
that all its activities, decisions and policies are to be approved by the body politic. The
consent and accountability is the twin ideas associated with the liberal state.
5. Liberal state is never a one idea state; it embraces multiplicity of ideas, views and
existence of numeral groups and parties. This finally indicates a competition among
them. Competition involved seizure of political power through constitutional means,legal

2
Michael Freedon, Liberalism: A very short introduction, oxford.
 procedure and democratic ways, competition in views and ideas.it iss belived that the
truth will emerge only from this struggle of words and ideas.
6. A liberal state cannot be imagined without political parties; and this is not all. In any
liberal state there are number of ideas and number of political parties and they struggle to
capture power. A liberal state sometimes called as pluralist statebecause of the plurality
of the ideas and organizations.
7. Separarion of power is generally regarded as a feature. A liberal state means limited state
and it again implies the three organs of the state will discharge this function keeping
themselves within the confine ment decided by law and constitution. When tis is
implemented no organ of the government will interfere wth the functions and jurisdiction
of another organ.
But the separation of powers need not be the only precondition of being liberal. For
example, Britain is the liberal state but the separarion of powers has failed to be an
integral part of state machinery. But someforms of separation of powers must exist in all
liberal states.
8. A liberal state does not endorse the domination of a particular ideology, various opinions
or ideologies work and exist side by side.
9. In all liberal states there are mainly two centre sof power- one is economic and other is
political. But the interesting fact is that economic power centre controls the political
power centre. Marx emphasize this aspect of liberal sate.
10. There is no fixed form of liberal state. For example, we find in Britain a constitutional
monarchy.there is clear incongruity between monarchism and liberalism. But the mere
fact is that Britain is the liberal state. On the other hand, united states is also the liberal
state with constitutional republic in charater.

ECONOMIC POLICY OF THE LIBERAL STATE

In the background of economic crisis such as the great depression in American economy during
the thirties of the last century and the financial crisis from which the west European capitalist
countries frequently suffered, growing unemployement qhich was a very common feature of all
capitalist countries of both hemispheres it was strongly felt that the state could never be a simple
onlooker, it has cetain roles to play to combat these crisis.
The laissez faire doctrine of the classical liberals was not abandoned, but it received a thorough
overhaul at the hands of a number of liberal philosophers who wanted to see the role of the state
in economic affairs in a new grab. The state must adopt monetory policy which would be able to
reduce the volume of unemployement , extent of poverty and ensure stability in the field of
production.

Not only this, the state must see that the produced commodities ae properly distributed among
the persons who really require them. It was urged that the state cannot have monopoly power
over the economy, but absolute free and competitive economy is neither desirable. It is the duty
of the stateto keep a vigil over both the money market and production market.

The individual entrepreneurs will have full freedom in economic affairs but that freedom shall be
based on certain rules and regulations framed by government modern liberals or advocates of
modern liberal state did not believe that laissez faire was the only solution to all evils from which
economy suffered.

Function of liberal state:

There is a very significant aspect of liberal state which can be stated in the following way. There
are, in general terms, two ways to do the works stated briefly above. One is democratic or
constitutional maeans such as legal ways, refrms approved by those for whom the reforms are
made, and to do everything according to the wishes of the people.

There is another way and this is called coercive method. In the case of any slightest reluctance
the state authority will proceed to apply coercive measures. Coercion is the sine qua non of the
govenmenrt/state. Coercion forces the citizen to do work reluctantly. In this respect a liberal state
can responsibly be distinguished from an authoritarian state.

A liberal state always encourages peoplesparticipation in the affairs of the state. Only through
participation people can think of translating their political dreams into a viable reality. In such a
state, participation is never mind.
 CHAPTER IV

CHALLENGES TO LIBERAL STATE

If Russia and China really are not marching inevitably toward liberal democracy, as Ignatieff
argues, that is a problem not just for their repressed people but also for us [bold mine-DL].

Ignatieff says that our attitude toward Russia and China is a question of such great import
because both countries are attempting to demonstrate a novel proposition: that economic
freedoms can be severed from political and civil freedom, and that freedom is divisible.

He is right that this is the fundamental operating proposition of Russia and China, and he is right
that it poses the most serious challenge that the very idea of liberal democracy faces anywhere
today.

Let me ask the obvious question: how is that a problem for us (by which I assume Freeland
means Western democracies)? I am hardly a triumphalist when it comes to the spread and
promotion of liberal democracy, but this concern that Freeland expresses suggests a strange lack
of confidence in the virtues and resilience of Western political and economic systems. Suppose
that Russia and China continue to develop as authoritarian regimes with state capitalist
economies. Lets imagine that over the next several decades the current systems simply become
more entrenched and dont liberalize. Are Western democratic nations likely to dismantle their
own systems and start imitating them? It seems unlikely, so how does this proposition pose the
most serious challenge to the very idea of liberal democracy? Even if economic freedom
doesnt necessarily have to be accompanied by political freedom, it doesnt follow that most
nations are going to prefer a system that severely limits the latter indefinitely. Its not as if people
value representative government and civil liberties because they associate these things with a
certain amount of economic growth.
It seems to me that there are two challenges here in the U.S. that are more serious than the
proposition that freedom is divisible. The increasing concentration of power and wealth into
fewer hands is one, and the decline in social mobility is the other. Stratified societies can
sometimes have liberal governments that arent broadly democratic, or they can have populist
democratic governments that arent all that liberal, but they dont balance the two very well, and
sometimes they end up with neither. If America continues to become more socially and
economically stratified, our political system will face enormous strains, and our political
institutions and norms as we know them could be badly damaged.3

CHAPTER V

DOCTRINE OF SOCIALISTIC STATE

Definition of Socialism:
Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics defines Socialism as, a political and economic theory of
system of social organisation based on collective or state ownership of the means of production,
distribution or exchange. C.E.M. Joad thinks that socialism denotes both a doctrine and a
political movement. Socialism consists of both economic and political doctrines.

Bernard Crick in his small book Socialism (World View, 1998) describes socialism as, an
invented system of society that stressed the social as against the selfish, the cooperative as
against the competitive, sociability as against the individual self-sufficiency and self-interest,
strict social controls on the accumulation and use of private property; and either economic
equality or at least rewards according to merits (merits judged socially) or rewards judged
according to need.

Crick has not simply defined socialism as economic and political doctrine; he has briefly
elaborated what is exactly meant by this concept. Strictly speaking socialism is not a political

3
www.4pt.su/en/content/critique-liberal-ideology
and economic doctrine, it at the same time envisages methods to reach certain goals which large
number of men aspire to.4

Objectives of socialism ideology:

1. Property, disease and ignorance shall be eliminated.

2. Property and privilege in any form shall occupy a strictly limited place.
3. All citizens shall have equal opportunities.
4. Ethical and spiritual values shall contribute to the enrichment of the individual and
communal life.

SOCIALISTIC STATE

A socialist state or socialist republic (sometimes Workers' State) refers to

any state that is constitutionally dedicated to the establishment of socialism. In Western
usage, the term "Communist state" is often used in reference to single-party socialist
states governed by parties adhering to a variant of MarxismLeninism; however these
states officially refer to themselves as "socialist states" or states that are in the process of
building socialism, and do not describe themselves as "communist" or as having
achieved communism. Aside from the "Communist states", a number of other states have
described their orientation as "socialist" in their constitutions.

A socialist state is to be distinguished from a multi-party liberal democratic

state governed by a self-described socialist party, where the state is not constitutionally
bound to the construction of socialism. In such cases, the political system and machinery
of government is not specifically structured to pursue the development of socialism.

The concept of a socialist state is closely related to "state socialism", the political view
that a socialist system can be established through the use of state action or government
policies. As such, the concept of a socialist state is usually advocated by Leninists and
Marxist-Leninists but rejected as being either unnecessary or counterproductive by some

4
Ludwig von mises, Socialism: an economic and sociological analysis
 classical Marxists, libertarian socialists and political thinkers who view the modern state
as a byproduct of capitalism which would have no function in a socialist system, and as a
result, cannot be used to construct socialism. In the MarxistLeninist view, a "socialist
state" is a state under the control of a vanguard party that is organizing the economic,
social, and political affairs of the country toward the realization of socialism. The
vanguard party presides over a state capitalist economy structured upon state-
directed capital accumulation, with the goal of building up the country's productive
forces and promoting worldwide socialist revolution, with the eventual long-term goal of
building a socialist economy.

MARXIST LENINIST SOCIALISTIC STATES

States run by Communist parties that adhere to MarxismLeninism, or some variation thereof,
refer to themselves as socialist states. The Soviet Union was the first to proclaim itself a
"socialist state" in its 1936 Constitution and a subsequent 1977 Constitution. Another well-
known example is the People's Republic of China, which proclaims itself to be a "socialist state"
in its 1982 Constitution of the People's Republic of China. In the West, such states are
commonly known as "communist states" (though they do not use this term to refer to
themselves).

"Socialist state" is widely used by Leninists and MarxistLeninists in reference to a state under
the control of a vanguard party that is organizing the economic, social, and political affairs of
said state toward the construction of socialism. This often includes at least the "commanding
heights" of the economy to be nationalized, usually operated according to a plan of production, at
least in the major production and social spheres. Under the Leninist definition, the socialist state
presides over a state capitalist economy structured upon state-directed accumulation of capital,
with the goal of building up the country's productive forces and promoting worldwide socialist
revolution, with the eventual long-term goal of building a socialist economy.

These "Communist states" often don't claim to have achieved socialism in their countries; rather,
they claim to be building and working toward the establishment of socialism (and the
development towards communism thereafter) in their countries. For example, the preamble to
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's constitution states that Vietnam only entered a transition
stage between capitalism and socialism after the country was re-unified under the Communist
party in 1976, and the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Cuba states that the role of the
Communist Party is to "guide the common effort toward the goals and construction of socialism
(and the progress toward a communist society)".

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) used to be a MarxistLeninist state.
In 1972, the country adopted a new constitution, which changed the official state ideology to
"Juche", which is held to be a distinct Korean re-interpretation of the former ideology. Similarly
in Laos, direct references to communism are not included in its founding documents, though it
gives direct power to the governing ruling party.

Features of Socialism:
The features of socialism are as under.

1. Public Ownership:
A socialist economy is categorised by public ownership of the means of production and
distribution. There is collective ownership whereby all mines, farms, factories, financial
institutions, distributing agencies (internal and external trade, shops, stores, etc.), means of
transport and communications, are owned, controlled, and regulated by government departments
and state corporations. A small private sector also exists in the form of small business units
which are carried on in the villages by local artists for local consumption.

2. Central Planning:
A socialist economy is centrally planned which operates under the supervision of a central
planning authority. It lays down the various objectives and targets to be accomplished during the
plan period. Central economic planning means "the making of major economic decisions such as
type of goods and quantity is to be produced, how, when and where it is to be produced, and to
whom it is to be allocated by the conscious decision of a determinate authority, on the basis of a
wide-ranging survey of the economic system as a whole."

The central planning authority establishes and utilises the economic resources by deliberate
direction and control of the economy for attaining definite objectives and targets laid down in the
plan during a specified period of time.
3. Definite Objectives:
A socialist economy functions within definite socio-economic objectives. These objectives "may
concern aggregate demand, full employment, satisfaction of communal demand, allocation of
factors of production, distribution of the national income, the amount of capital accumulation,
economic development." To accomplish, these objectives laid down in the plan, priorities and
gallant targets are fixed to include all features of the economy.

4. Freedom of Consumption:
In socialism ideology, consumer's independence infers that production in state- owned industries
is generally governed by the inclinations of consumers, and the available merchandises are
distributed to the consumers at fixed prices through the state-run department stores. Consumer's
autonomy under socialism is limited to the choice of socially beneficial commodities.

5. Equality of Income Distribution:

In a socialist economy, there is great equality of income distribution as compared with a free
market economy. The removal of private ownership in the means of production, private capital
accumulation, and profit motive under socialism avert the accrual of large wealth of a few
wealthy persons. The unearned incomes in the form of rent, interest and profit go to the state
which utilises them in providing free education, public health facilities, and social security to the
people. "As far as wages and salaries are concerned, most modern socialists do not aim at
complete and rigid equality. It is now generally understood that the maintenance offered choice
of occupation implies wage differentials."

6. Planning and the Pricing Process:

The pricing process under socialism ideology does not operate freely but works under the control
and regulation of the central planning authority. There are administered prices fixed by the
central planning authority. There are also the market prices at which consumer goods are sold.
There are also the accountings prices on the basis of which the managers decide about the
production of consumer goods and investment goods, and also about the choice of production
procedures.

Merits of Socialism:
There are numerous advantages of socialism ideologies in society.
Prof. Schumpeter stated many arguments to support socialism.

1. Greater economic efficiency

2. Welfare due to less inequality
3. Absence of monopolistic practices
4. Absence of business fluctuations.

Types of Socialism:
Democratic Socialism: It promotes Socialism as an economic principle (the means of production
should be under control of ordinary working people), and democracy as a governing principle
(political power should be in the hands of the people democratically through a co-operative
commonwealth or republic). Reformist socialism believes in 'socialism through the ballot box',
and thus accepts basic liberal democratic principles such as consent, constitutionalism and party
competition. This ideology attempts to bring about Socialism through peaceable democratic
means as opposed to violent insurgence, and represents the reformist tradition of Socialism.

It is similar to Social Democracy. This refers to an ideology that is more centrist and supports a
broadly Capitalist system, with some social reforms (such as the welfare state), intended to make
it more impartial and humane. Democratic Socialism, by contrast, suggests an ideology that is
more left-wing and supportive of a fully socialist system, established either by gradually
reforming Capitalism from within, or by some form of radical transformation.

Revolutionary Socialism: This types of ideology advocates the need for central social change
through revolution or than insurgence instead of gradual reform as a strategy to accomplish a
socialist society. Revolutionary socialism reflected in the communist tradition, holds that
socialism can only be initiated by the revolutionary overthrow of the existing political and social
system. It is based upon the belief that the existing state structures are incurably linked to
capitalism and the interests of the ruling class. The Third International, which was founded
following the Russian Revolution of 1917, described itself in terms of Revolutionary Socialism
but also became broadly identified with Communism. Trotskyism is the theory of Revolutionary
Socialism as supported by Leon Trotsky (1879 - 1940), stating the need for an international
grassroots revolution (rather than Stalin's "socialism in one country") and firm support for a
factual dictatorship of the proletariat based on democratic philosophies. Luxemburgism is
another Revolutionary Socialist tradition, based on the writings of Rosa Luxemburg (1970 -
1919). It is similar to Trotskyism in its opposition to the Totalitarianism of Stalin, while
concurrently avoiding the reformist politics of modern Social Democracy.

Utopian Socialism: It described the first currents of modern socialist thought in the beginning of
the 19th Century. Generally, it was used by later socialist philosophers to define early socialist,
or quasi-socialist, scholars who created hypothetical visions of perfect egalitarian and
communalist societies without actually concerning themselves with the manner in which these
societies could be created or sustained. They precluded all political (and especially all
revolutionary) action, and wanted to attain their ends by peaceful means and small experiments,
which more practical socialists like Karl Marx saw as necessarily doomed to failure. But the
early theoretical work of philosophers such as Robert Owen (1771-1858), Charles Fourier (1772-
1837) and Etienne Cabet (1788-1856) gave more push to later socialist movements.

Libertarian Socialism: This type of socialism ideology has aim to create a society without
political, economic or social hierarchies, in which every person would have free, equal access to
tools of information and production. This would be attained through the eradication of
authoritarian institutions and private property, so that direct control of the means of production
and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole. Most Libertarian
Socialists support abolishing the state altogether, in much the same way as Utopian Socialists
and many varieties of Anarchism.

Market Socialism: This ideology elucidates an economic system in which there is a market
economy directed and guided by socialist planners, and where prices would be set through trial
and error (making adjustments as shortages and surpluses occur) instead of relying on a free
price mechanism. By contrast, a Socialist Market Economy, such as that practiced in the People's
Republic of China, in one where major industries are owned by state entities, but compete with
each other within a pricing system set by the market and the state does not routinely interfere in
the setting of prices.

Eco-Socialism: It is a philosophy amalgamating aspects of Marxism, Socialism, Green politics,

ecology and the anti-globalization movement. They promotes the non-violent dismantling of
Capitalism and the State, focusing on collective ownership of the means of production, in order
to alleviate the social exclusion, poverty and environmental degradation brought by the capitalist
system, globalization and imperialism.

Christian Socialism: It denotes to those on the Christian left whose politics are both Christian
and socialist, and who visualize these two things as being interconnected. Christian socialists
draw parallels between what some have characterized as the egalitarian and anti-establishment
message of Jesus, and the messages of modern Socialism.

Scientific socialism: It undertakes a scientific investigation of historical and social development,

which, in the form of Marxism, proposes not that socialism 'should' replace capitalism, but
forecasts that it inevitably 'would' replace capitalism.

Fundamentalist socialism: This ideology aims to abolish and replace the capitalist system,
observing socialism as qualitatively different from capitalism. Fundamentalist socialists, such as
Marxists and communists, generally associate socialism with common ownership of some form.

Revisionist socialism: This ideology believe in reform, looking to reach an accommodation

between the efficiency of the market and the enduring moral vision of socialism. This is most
clearly articulated in social democracy.

The moral power of socialism originates not from its concern with what people are like, but with
what they have the capacity to become. This has led socialists to develop utopian visions of a
better society in which human beings can attain sincere emancipation and fulfilment as members
of a community. In this regard, socialism is intended to persist because it serves as a reminder
that human development can extend beyond market individualism.

ESTABLISHING A SOCIALISTIC STATE BY REFORMISM OR REVOLUTION:

Reformist socialists, exemplified by Eduard Bernstein, take the view that a socialist state will
evolve out of political reforms won by the struggle of the socialists. "The socialist movement is
everything to me while what people commonly call the goal of Socialism is nothing."These
views are considered a "revision" of Marxist thought.
Revolutionary Marxists, following Marx, take the view that the working class grows stronger
through its battle for reforms (such as, in Marx's time, the ten-hours bill):

"Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies,
not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers... it ever rises up
again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the
workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the ten-hours
bill in England was carried."

Marx and Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians

Nevertheless, according to the orthodox Marxist conception, these battles of the workers
eventually reach a point at which a revolutionary movement arises. A revolutionary movement is
required, in the view of Marxists, to sweep away the capitalist state, which must be smashed, so
as to begin to construct a socialist society:

"In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more
or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out
into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for
the sway of the proletariat."

Marx and Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians

In this view, only through revolution can a socialist state be established.

CHAPTER VI

CHALLENGES TO THE SOCIALISTIC STATE

1. A socialist state is based on the international category of class, which enables a new
approach to the national question. Only through a resolute focus on class is the
recognition of and equality between nationalities fully achieved. To be clear: by national
question I mean not the nation as it is understood now (as an imagined community) but
the question of nationalities (minzu), which should not be translated as ethnic
minorities. In each state a number of nationalities exist together. One may approach such
a reality either by prioritising cultural-national factors (what may be called culturism)
or by focusing resolutely on class. Only with class does one enable the dialectical
 position in which class unity produces not merely recognition and equality, but a whole
new level of diversity. In other words, a socialist state enables a new approach to the
dialectic of the universal and particular.
2. This dialectic is embodied in the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasants. This is a
totalising unity based on class that produces new levels of diversity, and it requires a
linking of liberation from class oppression with liberation from national oppression.
When this link is made, the role of the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes clear: it is
the necessary foundation for the equality between and indeed diversity of peoples of
different nations, after liberation has been achieved. The dictatorship of the proletariat
does so by guaranteeing the rights of national minorities.
3. A socialist state is the source and embodiment of what may be called affirmative action
(polozhitelnaia deiatelnot). This was first enacted in the Soviet Union on a vast scale
and has been followed, with modifications, by all socialist states since especially China.
The program involves a comprehensive effort at social, cultural and economic recreation.
Nationalities, no matter how small, are identified, named and established in territories,
where local language, culture, education and governance are fostered. Dispersed
minorities with no territory are provided with strong legal protections. I use the term
recreation quite deliberately, for it is very much a creative act entailing the creation of
groups, peoples and nations to the point of creating new nationalities out of groups that
had never dreamed of such an existence. The process involves the deliberate intervention
by socialists into the process of producing and developing a new society, among which
national groups play a central role.
4. A socialist state undertakes cultural revolution. By this I mean the raising of the many
people of the state to a new socialist level. In the Soviet Union cultural revolution
meant the cultural development of the working class and of the masses of the working
peasantry, not only the development of literacy, although literacy is the basis of all
culture, but primarily the cultivation of the ability to take part in the administration of the
country. In China, we need to reclaim the meaning of cultural revolution in this sense,
and not in terms of the period of the 1960s and 1970s. In other words, cultural revolution
means Marxisms influence on and infiltration into social and cultural assumptions. This
 is increasingly clear in China, where Marxism is becoming a cultural force, indeed a part
of the long history of Chinese culture.
5. A socialist state is anti-colonial. This crucial insight first appeared in the Soviet Union:
the October Revolution and the affirmative action program of the Soviet Union
functioned as a microcosm of the global struggle against colonialism. This insight is a
logical extension of the argument I noted earlier, in which a focus on class provides a
distinct, dialectical, approach to the national question that leads to the worlds first
affirmative action program. Once this logic is applied to national minorities, it also may
be applied to gender, religion, and then anti-colonial struggles. The logic is clear:
socialism has led to a new approach to nationalities, liberating them and fostering them
through the affirmative action program; further, socialism is opposed on a global scale to
capitalist imperialism; therefore, global socialism engages in and fosters anti-colonial
struggles throughout the world. No wonder the Soviet Union actively supported anti-
colonial struggles around the world, so much so that what we call post-colonialism, as
both an era and a theory, could not have happened without such anti-colonial action. This
also applies to China, whose socialist revolution was also an anti-colonial revolution,
finally throwing off European semi-colonialism (which dated from the nineteenth
century) and Japanese colonialism. Chinas involvement today in formerly colonised
countries in the world is a continuation of this anti-colonial policy by the most powerful
socialist state in history.
6. A socialist state must deal with counter-revolutionary forces within and especially
international efforts to undermine it (the two are often connected). Whenever a socialist
revolution happens, we do not find international capitalist countries saying, Wonderful!
Go ahead, construct your socialist country. We will leave you in peace; indeed, we are
enthusiastic bystanders. Instead, historical reality reveals consistent efforts to undermine
and overthrow socialist states, including the fostering of counter-revolutionary forces
within. We need only recall the civil wars in Russia and China, the international
blockades, sabotage, efforts at destabilisation in Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong, and the
international pastime found even among international Marxists of China bashing.
7. The communist party is integral to a socialist state. This is a relationship of transcendence
and immanence: the party arises from and expresses the will of the masses of workers,
 farmers and intellectuals, while it also directs the masses. From the masses, to the masses
as Mao Zedong stated. If the relationship is broken, the party loses its legitimacy and
the project is over. Thus, the party undergoes constant renewal and reform in order to
maintain legitimacy. If a communist party accedes to a bourgeois or liberal democratic
system, it is soon out of power, for bourgeois democracy is one of the most effective
weapons against socialism.
8. A socialist state develops socialist democracy. Integral to socialist democracy is the
communist party in terms of transcendence and immanence in relation to the masses. In
contrast to Greek democracy, liberal (or bourgeois) or illiberal democracy, socialist
democracy includes the majority of the population workers, peasants and intellectuals.
Socialist democracy is a constantly evolving process and may, as Mao Zedong pointed
out, include among others stages of new democracy, democratic dictatorship and
democratic centralism. The latter is the reality in China today.
9. In a socialist state we find the growth of socialist civil society. This is in contrast to
bourgeois civil society, which entails a basic alienation between private individual and
the state, as well as a systemic exclusion of the majority. Instead of this alienation,
socialist civil society operates in a new way, in the dialectical space between official
discourse and individual expression, in which the individual finds freedom through the
collective. Indeed, socialist civil society is based on a redefinition of freedom, which
provides a new universal based on the particularity of the majority, in an explicitly open
way. This freedom is a freedom from bourgeois civil society and freedom for the socialist
project. Eventually, the category of freedom itself will become an everyday habit.

Conclusion

In this free market world socialism has become nothing short of history the concepts of
equal distribution of wealth among the citizens and common ownership of the forces
have become a distant dream . but yet socialism still lives on within the new founded
concept of a welfare state. Ensuring certain fundamental rights of the citizens are
protected and making sure the state works towards the progress of the society are the
main elements of this welfare state . yet this is not enough as more than half of the world
has fallen prey to the greed of the liberalistic capitalist ideologies. But certain
 Scandinavian states and theexception of cuba have made sure that their countries stay a
socialistic as possible.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Edmund Fawcett, LIBERALISM, The life of an idea, 2nd edition.

2. Michael Freedon, Liberalism: A very short introduction, oxford.
3. Alan Ryan, The making of modern liberalism
4. Larry Siedentop , Inventing the individual, The origins of western liberalism.
5. Ludwig von mises, Socialism: an economic and sociological analysis
6. www.4pt.su/en/content/critique-liberal-ideology