Comparing Economic Systems Karl Marx, German philosopher, economist, and revolutionary, laid the ideological groundwork for modern socialism and communism. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels turned the world upside down.
Generally, most senses of the concept of equality are controversial and are seen differently by people having different political perspectives, but of all of the terms relating to equality, equality of outcome is the most "controversial" or "contentious".
This conception generally describes fair competition for important jobs and positions such that contenders have equal chances to win such positions,  and applicants are not judged or hampered by unfair or arbitrary discrimination. Equality of outcome attempts to ensure that everyone finishes at the same time.
In a teaching guide, equality of autonomy was explained as "equality in the degree of empowerment people have to make decisions affecting their lives, how much choice and control they have given their circumstances".
One view is that there is a moral basis for equality of outcome, but that means to achieve such an outcome can be malevolent. One writer suggested greater socioeconomic equality was "indispensable if we want to realise our shared commonsense values of societal fairness".
Cauthen argued that this was a fundamental basis for both equality of opportunity as well as equality of outcome. According to this view, economic wealth and social status are rewards needed to spur such activity and with these rewards diminished, then achievements which will ultimately benefit everybody will not happen as frequently.
If equality of outcomes is seen as beneficial for society A comparison of communism and socialism if people have differing levels of material wealth and social prestige in the present, then methods to transform a society towards one with greater equality of outcomes is problematic.
A mainstream view is that mechanisms to achieve equal outcomes—to take a society and with unequal socioeconomic levels and force it to equal outcomes—are fraught with moral as well as practical problems since they often involve political coercion to compel the transfer.
There is also general agreement that outcomes matter. In one report in Britain, unequal outcomes in terms of personal wealth had a strong impact on average life expectancysuch that wealthier people tended to live seven years longer than poorer people and that egalitarian nations tended to have fewer problems with societal issues such as mental illnessviolenceteenage pregnancy and other social problems.
Rawls further claims that all economically and socially privileged positions must be open to all people equally. In reality, Marx eschewed the entire concept of equality as abstract and bourgeois in nature, focusing his analysis on more concrete issues such as opposition to exploitation based on economic and materialist logic[ citation needed ].
Marx renounced theorizing on moral concepts and refrained from advocating principles of justice[ citation needed ]. Despite this, socialists, communists and Marxists believe that by eliminating exploitation their respective principle of compensation will lead to emancipation and greater equality than that found in capitalism because there would be no inequality arising from private ownership of productive property.
Perhaps the most insistent proponent of equality of outcome in modern political discourse was Fabian socialist, political thinker and dramatist Bernard Shaw — As opposed to Marxists, Shaw would have socialists place more emphasis on distribution rather than production.
He developed his ideas on economic equality and its implications for social, democratic, legal, military and gender concerns in lectures and articles in the ten years following the writing of his play on poverty and power, Major Barbaraat the same time as his Fabian colleague Beatrice Webb as primary author of the Minority Report on the Poor Law, along with her husband Sidney Webb, was proposing to abolish poverty in industrial societies by introducing what we now call the welfare state.
In the end, the goal would have been achieved not at absolute equality, but when any remaining income differences would not yield any significant social difference.
Like the later Fabian, W. Tawney, who further developed the equality debate, Shaw considered equality of opportunity as virtually meaningless without economic equality.
When evaluated in a simple context, the more preferred term in contemporary political discourse is equality of opportunity or, meaning the same thing, the common variant "equal opportunities"which the public as well as individual commentators see as the nicer or more "well-mannered"  of the two terms.
A mainstream political view is that the comparison of the two terms is valid, but that they are somewhat mutually exclusive in the sense that striving for either type of equality would require sacrificing the other to an extent and that achieving equality of opportunity necessarily brings about "certain inequalities of outcome".
However, the two concepts are not always cleanly contrasted since the notion of equality is complex. Some analysts see the two concepts not as polar opposites but as highly related such that they can not be understood without considering the other term.
One writer suggested it was unrealistic to think about equality of opportunity in isolation without considering inequalities of income and wealth. A person born into an upper-middle-class family will have greater advantages by the mere fact of birth than a person born into poverty.
Furthermore, when comparing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome, the sense was that the latter type was "worse" for society. Moving towards a higher equality of outcome albeit not perfectly equal can lead to an environment more adept at providing equality of opportunity by eliminating conditions that restrict the possibility for members of society to fulfill their potential.
For example, a child born in a poor, dangerous neighborhood with poor schools and little access to healthcare may be significantly disadvantaged in his attempts to maximize use of talents, no matter how fine his work ethic.
Thus even proponents of meritocracy may promote some level of equality of outcome in order to create a society capable of truly providing equality of opportunity. While outcomes can usually be measured with a great degree of precision, it is much more difficult to measure the intangible nature of opportunities.
That is one reason why many proponents of equal opportunity use measures of equality of outcome to judge success. Analyst Anne Phillips argued that the proper way to assess the effectiveness of the hard-to-measure concept of equality of opportunity is by the extent of the equality of outcome.
Moreover, access to social institutions is affected by equality of outcome and it is further claimed that rigging equality of outcome can be a way to prevent co-option of non-economic institutions important to social control and policy formation, such as the legal system, media or the electoral process, by powerful individuals or coalitions of wealthy people.
Purportedly, greater equality of outcome is likely to reduce relative povertyleading to a more cohesive society. Critics of equality of outcome believe that it is more important to raise the standard of living of the poorest in absolute terms.
A related argument that is often encountered in education, especially in the debates on the grammar school in the United Kingdom and in the debates on gifted education in various countries, says that people by nature have differing levels of ability and initiative which result in some achieving better outcomes than others and it is therefore impossible to ensure equality of outcome without imposing inequality of opportunity.
The concept in political argument[ edit ] Debate about economic issues surrounding equality is as old as civilization —painting: Ancient Greek philosophers Plato left and Aristotle by Raffaello Sanzio The concept of equality of outcome is an important one in battling between differing political positions since the concept of equality was overall seen as positive and an important foundation which is "deeply embedded in the fabric of modern politics".
In The Guardiananalyst Julian Gloverrote wrote that equality challenged both left-leaning and right-leaning positions and suggested that the task of left-leaning advocates is to "understand the impossibility and undesirability of equality" while the task for right-leaning advocates was to "realise that a divided and hierarchical society cannot — in the best sense of that word — be fair".This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably.
Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding or removing subheadings. (June ). Socialism, like communism, calls for putting the major means of production in the hands of the people, either directly or through the government. Socialism also believes that wealth and income should be shared more equally among people.
As an ideology, communism is generally regarded as hard-left, making fewer concessions to market capitalism and electoral democracy than do most forms of socialism.
Communism vs. Socialism vs. Capitalism With every type of government, there are going to be many inefficiencies and flaws to deal with.
A perfect way to run a country, socially and . In a way, communism is an extreme form of socialism. Many countries have dominant socialist political parties but very few are truly communist.
In fact, most countries - including staunch capitalist bastions like the U.S. and U.K. - have government programs that borrow from socialist principles. Communism vs. Socialism By: Jeffrey Glen More often than not, in media and in conversation the concepts of Communism and Socialism are used interchangeably to refer to the essentially the same economic/political philosophy.