The socialist faith in the concept of equality stems from their belief that inequality is caused less from people having naturally different abilities when they are born and more from capitalism which they believe has forced unnatural competition amongst people causing them to be selfish and materialistic. Inequality is therefore caused by the faults in the structure of society, not by differences between individuals. In response to this, socialism would aim to change the structure of society in such a manner as to make it more equal.
It is, however, difficult to reconcile mainstream socialist thought with any socialist philosophers who believe in complete egalitarianism and who believe it is something to which society should aspire. Advocates of absolute egalitarianism can be found amongst the proponents of extreme communism such as Gracchus Babeuf and Cabet but the majority of socialists have found the concept of absolute egalitarianism absurd. Complete egalitarianism can be regarded as a society in which individuals have the same rights, do the same level of work, have the same opportunities and are paid exactly the same regardless of differences in natural or physical ability.
Amongst the majority of socialists there is a belief that society should strive to become more equal, but the definition of the word ‘equal’ varies widely. The majority of socialists would not assert that humans are completely equal or that they can be made completely equal. Instead they argue that it is the treatment of individuals which must be changed so that people are treated equally regardless of gender, sex, class, ability or race. In this respect it is clear to see that socialists are arguing for greater formal equality rather than for greater equality of outcome. Their justification of their view is not based on a factual argument but on a moral one. The Fabians believed that greater equality would lead to greater efficiency as greater equality would allow a greater number of people to fulfil their potential. Other justifications of this view include questioning why we accept inequality.
Other socialists, particularly Christian socialists such as Tawney have focused on the concept of equality before God. To be specific, the belief that all souls have equal value and deserve equal treatment. This would support the concept of natural rights, in this sense, God-given rights, that all humans are entitled to. This argument is based on the concept of human rationality, that is, all humans when making a decision, will lean towards an option that is rational and causes either good to the individual or good to society.
A third argument socialists use in favour of equality is to view equality not as a goal, something that must be aspired to, but as a condition. In other words, that equality is something that puts everyone on an ‘equal footing’, that is to say, equality of opportunity. This view of equality is much more acceptable to the liberal west which often views an increase in equality with mistrust as it often leads to a decrease in individual freedoms. Proponents of equality as a condition would be in favour of state funded education, free healthcare and welfare benefits, in other words, a welfare state in the form seen in Britain during the post war consensus.
Most parliamentary socialists would support some form of wealth distribution through taxation and treasury intervention. Instead of creating a system in which everyone earns the same regardless of their occupation, they would allow different people to earn different amounts but then implement a progressive system of tax. This would take the most money from the rich and give the most money to the poor, thus ensuring a greater equality of outcome while avoiding the problem that people are not rewarded for their work. Alongside this, policies such as the national minimum wage also aim to decrease the wealth gap between the richest and the poorest in a country by ensuring the poorest cannot fall below a certain threshold in terms of living standard. Benefits are also intended to work in this manner. Policies such as these combine a belief in minimising the earning gap between the rich and the poor (thus making society more egalitarian) with a system which still rewards those who have certain talents or are willing to work hard.
In short it would seem that while a belief in equality is common to all forms of socialist thought, this support does not often extend as far as a belief in absolute egalitarianism. Between the various ‘fragments’ of socialism there is no one belief in what the term ‘equality’ means. All will support formal equality, where all members of a society share the same rights e.g. the right to a fair trial or the right to vote. All forms of socialist thought support the concept of equality as a condition, that is to say, equality of opportunity. It is over the concept of equality of outcome that controversy develops between the various forms of socialist thought. As mentioned earlier, it is rare to find socialist thinkers who support complete equality of outcome and they are normally found on the extreme fringes of communism. On the other hand, socialist governments tend to pursue policies which lead to greater equality of outcome such as progressive taxation, welfare benefits and the minimum wage. A belief in egalitarianism in its purest sense can therefore not be said to be common to all forms of socialism, on the other hand, a belief that society needs to be come more equal is at the core of all socialist thought.