24-mark questions

1The role of the state concerns how far it should be used to achieve socialist goals, from managing the economy to protecting the vulnerable. 2All three strands of socialism – revolutionary socialism, social democracy and the Third Way – give the state some part in changing society. 3However, they are deeply divided over whether it should be overthrown, kept or reduced, so socialism disagrees far more than it agrees over the role of the state.

1. 1
   DefinitionPins down the key term, keeping the essay on the state rather than socialism in general.
2. 2
   Context (one sentence)Sets up the debate and names all three specification strands (AO1).
3. 3
   Line of argumentA clear judgement on extent from the first paragraph (AO3).

1There is genuine agreement among socialists that the state is an agent of change. 2Revolutionary socialists believe the capitalist state must be overthrown, yet even Marx and Engels accepted that a temporary workers’ state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, would be needed to dismantle capitalism. 3Social democrats reach a similar conclusion by a very different path: because they believe capitalism can be reformed rather than abolished, they see the existing state as the means of managing the economy and providing welfare, an approach Crosland defended. 4The Third Way also gives the state a positive role, as an enabling state that invests in people’s skills and education. As a result, all three strands reject the idea that capitalism, left to itself, will protect the vulnerable, and therefore all look to the state to drive change. 5This agreement is significant, because it unites strands that otherwise differ sharply over capitalism. However, it is agreement about the state as a means, not about the role it should play in the long term, which is why it is outweighed by the divisions that follow.

1. 1
   Topic sentenceA direct claim tied to the question.
2. 2
   AccuracyThe dictatorship of the proletariat is temporary: avoids the most common socialism error examiners report. Each sentence starts from a strand, with Marx and Engels in support.
3. 3
   Agreement explainedShows how and why strands agree despite different starting points (AO2), rather than just stating it.
4. 4
   Strand-ledLeads with strands, not thinkers, as examiners repeatedly ask.
5. 5
   Interim judgementWeighs the agreement and links it to the line of argument (AO3).

The deepest division is over whether the state should survive at all. 1Revolutionary socialists see the state as part of the superstructure, an instrument of class oppression controlled by the capitalist economic base. 2For this reason, Marx and Engels argued that once class divisions had been abolished, the state would wither away, leaving a stateless communist society, while Luxemburg insisted that the existing state could not be reformed and had to be overthrown by revolution. 3By contrast, the evolutionary strands believe the state can be won through elections and used permanently: social democrats and the Third Way both treat the democratic state as a lasting feature of a fairer society, building on the gradualist tradition of Webb, who expected the state’s role to expand step by step. 4The exact point of fracture, therefore, is whether the state is a neutral tool that can serve the whole of society, or a weapon of the ruling class that must eventually disappear. 5This disagreement is fundamental, because it concerns the ends of socialism rather than its methods: one strand seeks to abolish the very state that the others wish to keep.

1. 1
   Strand’s view and whyExplains why revolutionaries hold their view (AO2), using precise terminology (AO1): superstructure, base, class oppression.
2. 2
   Thinkers used accuratelyIdeas are used, not just names: Marx and Engels (“wither away”) and Luxemburg.
3. 3
   Umbrella term used correctlyUses the broader term (“the evolutionary strands”) alongside the strand names and correctly places Webb as gradualist.
4. 4
   Point of fracturePinpoints the exact disagreement.
5. 5
   Interim judgementMeasures the depth of division, the heart of “to what extent” (AO3).

1Even the strands that would keep the state disagree sharply over how large its economic role should be. 2Social democrats believe the state should actively manage a mixed economy, combining some state ownership with a welfare state to achieve greater equality; Crosland was content with the level of state ownership in the UK in the 1950s, arguing that equality should be pursued through welfare and redistribution rather than further nationalisation. In contrast, the Third Way accepts the global free market as the best way of creating wealth, and so reduces the state’s economic role further. Giddens saw the state not as an owner or manager of industry but as an enabling state that sets the framework for competition and invests in human capital. 3Thus, while both strands see the state as a force for good, they disagree over its purpose: for social democrats it corrects the market to reduce inequality, whereas for the Third Way it equips individuals to succeed within the market. 4This weakens the agreement identified earlier, because it shows that even strands sharing the state as a tool use it for different ends.

1. 1
   Topic sentenceBuilds on paragraph 2, adding a second, separate area of disagreement.
2. 2
   Distinguishing similar strandsSocial democracy against the Third Way, Crosland against Giddens. It shows the Third Way still gives the state a role and is not unrestricted free-market thinking.
3. 3
   Integrated comparisonContrasts purposes, not just positions.
4. 4
   Interim judgementConnects back to paragraph 1, so the judgement builds across the essay (AO3).
5. Thinker countMarx and Engels, Luxemburg, Webb, Crosland, Giddens: well above the minimum of two, and every thinker is relevant.

1Socialists agree that the state can be used to bring about change, but this agreement is shallow. 2They are divided over whether the state should ultimately be abolished or kept and, among those who would keep it, over whether it should correct the market or help individuals compete within it. 3Because these divisions concern the purpose and survival of the state itself, the disagreements clearly outweigh the agreement.

1. 1
   Measures extent“…shallow…”: a judgement of degree, not a yes or no.
2. 2
   Justifies the line from the essay’s contentPulls together the judgements from all three paragraphs, so nothing new or surprising appears.
3. 3
   Measures extent“…clearly outweigh…”: the final judgement of degree.

1Paternalism is the belief that those best placed to govern have a duty to act in the interests of others, as a parent does for a child, either by guiding them 2(soft paternalism) or by imposing on them (hard paternalism). 3Conservatives broadly agree that society needs order and authority, but they disagree over whether, and how far, authority should act for others’ good. 4Ultimately, conservatism is more divided than united over paternalism.

1. 1
   DefinitionA precise definition of the key concept, so it cannot be confused with pragmatism, patriarchy or “the state” (AO1).
2. 2
   Soft/hard distinctionSets up the nuance the whole essay uses to measure extent (AO1/AO2).
3. 3
   ContextFrames the debate in one sentence.
4. 4
   Line of argumentA clear judgement on extent from the start (AO3).

1On the duties of those in power, conservatism is partly united, but this unity breaks down over the New Right. 2Traditional conservatives see society as an organic hierarchy in which each part has its place and its obligations. 3Burke described society as a partnership between the living, the dead and those yet to be born, so those who inherit power and property also inherit a duty to preserve society for those beneath them. One-Nation conservatives develop this into noblesse oblige: because inequality is natural, the privileged have an obligation to improve the lives of the less fortunate, partly as a moral duty and partly to avoid the unrest that a divided nation might provoke. 4Thus both strands arrive at paternalism, 5although traditional conservatives stress the duty to preserve order, while One-Nation conservatives stress the duty to improve conditions. 6The neo-liberal wing of the New Right, however, rejects this hierarchy of obligation altogether. Seeing society as a collection of atomistic, self-reliant individuals, it denies that any group knows better than individuals what is good for them; Nozick argued that individuals own themselves, so paternal constraints violate their rights. 7This disagreement outweighs the agreement, because it rejects the very premise of paternalism, that some are better placed to decide for others, rather than merely its extent.

1. 1
   Topic sentenceA direct claim about extent, tied to the theme.
2. 2
   Strand-ledEach point starts from a strand, and the thinkers come after as evidence.
3. 3
   Thinker used, not namedBurke’s partnership between generations, leading to inherited duty: the thinker’s idea is what proves the strand’s view (AO1).
4. 4
   Agreement explainedExplains how two strands reach the same view by different emphases (AO2).
5. 5
   Separating similar strandsDistinguishes traditional from One-Nation conservatism.
6. 6
   Disagreement and whyAtomistic individualism; Nozick’s self-ownership: explains why neo-liberals reject paternalism, not just that they do (AO2).
7. 7
   Interim judgementWeighs the depth of the disagreement, the core of “to what extent” (AO3).

1On moral and social order, conservatism is more united, although it splits between hard and soft paternalism. 2All conservatives fear the chaos that would follow a breakdown of authority; 3Hobbes argued that without a strong sovereign, life would be ‘nasty, brutish and short’. 4Traditional conservatives therefore favour a state that upholds law, tradition and institutions such as the family and the Church, setting a moral framework from above: a hard paternalism, justified because inherited authority is wiser than individual reason. The neo-conservative wing of the New Right reaches a similar position by a different route. Fearing that permissiveness and moral relativism erode social cohesion, it calls for a strong state to restore traditional values and enforce law and order. One-Nation conservatives also value order, but prefer a softer paternalism that guides rather than coerces. 5The neo-liberal wing again dissents: it accepts a state strong enough to enforce the law and protect property, but rejects using state power to impose morality on the free individual. 6On this theme, agreement outweighs disagreement, since three traditions accept that authority should shape behaviour for society’s good. Yet this unity is qualified, because the traditional and neo-conservative approach is arguably closer to authoritarianism than to the caring duty at the heart of paternalism.

1. 1
   Topic sentenceSignals a different balance on this theme, so the answer is not one-sided.
2. 2
   Shared ground, accurately framedBases the agreement on fear of disorder, which is accurate for all strands. It avoids wrongly claiming that the New Right believes in human imperfection.
3. 3
   Thinker and quotation, explainedThe quotation is short and tied straight to the point, rather than used without explanation.
4. 4
   Agreement by different routesTraditional (inherited authority) and neo-conservative (fear of permissiveness): two strands reach hard paternalism for different reasons. This is explained agreement (AO2).
5. 5
   Splitting the New RightNeo-conservatives support moral paternalism; neo-liberals reject it: the internal tension within the New Right (AO1/AO2).
6. 6
   Interim judgement, with nuanceA balanced judgement in favour of agreement on this theme. It then questions whether this is truly paternalism or authoritarianism (AO3).

1On economic intervention, conservatism is most clearly divided. One-Nation conservatives, applying pragmatism, accepted a mixed economy and the welfare state as practical ways to fulfil the duty of the better-off towards the poor and keep the nation united. 2Traditional conservatives, whose thinking predates the modern welfare state, supported economic intervention only where it preserved stability, not as a principle. 3Oakeshott’s pragmatism underpins this cautious approach: rather than following abstract blueprints, government should keep society ‘afloat on an even keel’, adapting to circumstance. 4By contrast, both wings of the New Right are deeply suspicious of economic paternalism. 5Neo-liberals favour free-market capitalism, self-reliance and a rolled-back state; Rand argued that rational self-interest is a virtue, so welfare that redistributes from the productive is not merely inefficient but immoral. 6Neo-conservatives share this hostility, fearing that state welfare breeds dependency and weakens personal responsibility, even as they support state authority on moral questions. 7The exact point of fracture is whether the state should take responsibility for individuals’ economic welfare. 8Because this places the whole New Right against One-Nation conservatism on one of the main practical expressions of paternalism, disagreement clearly outweighs agreement on this theme.

1. 1
   Topic sentenceEscalates the argument: the themes build towards the line of argument.
2. 2
   Historical accuracyAvoids wrongly claiming that 18th-century traditional conservatives supported the welfare state (AO1).
3. 3
   Thinker linked to the strandExplains why conservatives accept intervention cautiously, using the link between paternalism and pragmatism.
4. 4
   Comparative pivotA clear contrast between strands (AO2).
5. 5
   Thinker used to explainRand: self-interest as a virtue, so welfare is immoral. Shows that the objection is moral, not just economic, which deepens the analysis (AO2).
6. 6
   Consistency across themesLinks back to paragraph 2 and shows a precise understanding of where the neo-conservatives stand on each theme.
7. 7
   Point of fracturePinpoints the exact disagreement, as the template requires.
8. 8
   Interim judgementA substantiated judgement that feeds the overall line (AO3).

1Conservatives share a fear of disorder, and most accept that authority should shape behaviour for society’s good. 2However, their support for paternalism is conditional and inconsistent: hard paternalism on morality, soft paternalism through welfare, and outright rejection from neo-liberals. 3Because the whole New Right rejects economic paternalism, and its neo-liberal wing rejects the principle entirely, conservatism is more divided than united over paternalism.

1. 1
   Acknowledges the agreementGives the agreement its due, so the final judgement is weighed rather than one-sided.
2. 2
   Draws on all three themesMorality (paragraph 2), welfare (paragraph 3) and the rejection of the premise (paragraph 1). Nothing new or surprising appears.
3. 3
   Measures extent“conditional and inconsistent”, “rejects the principle entirely”: a judgement of degree that justifies the line in the introduction (AO3).