Crosland’s original assumption of constant growth amount to a recognition that capitalism had solved the problem of accumulation. This is no marginal admission: if capitalism can promote growth, then socialism can leave well alone and concentrate on its remaining priority: ensuring an equitable social division of the fruits of growth. In other words, belief in growth justified the greater significance placed by Crosland on the distribution of wealth at the expense of the struggle for the abolition of private capital

The new revisionism, by demoting the importance of ownership, downgraded that of nationalisation. State property no longer constituted the main road to socialism. The only remaining rationale for nationalisation had to be couched entirely in practical terms; for example, that it abolished a private monopoly, protected employment, permitted greater investment, guaranteed essential services or supplies - all reasons which had been used by non-socialists. The consequence of this was that socialist revisionism quite deliberately obliterated the painstakingly established border between socialist and non-socialist thought.

It was believed that the loss in doctrinal purity would be more than amply compensated by greater strategic flexibility, increased electoral appeal and, for parties operating in circumstances which made coalitions necessary, a better chance of finding allies. The new revisionism prided itself on its pragmatism and realism while being, at the same time, deeply ethical: it constantly referred to the values of socialism and particularly to the struggle against inequality and poverty. This ‘ethical pragmatism’ (ethical ends and pragmatic means) deliberately rejected Marxism, its theoretical intransigence and its apparent disregard for the ethical dimension.

Positively, egalitarians seek a social order in which persons stand in relations of equality. They seek to live together in a democratic community, as opposed to a hierarchical one. Democracy is here understood as collective self-determination by means of open discussion among equals, in accordance with rules acceptable to all.

But to return to the question: is the introduction of the universal welfare principle socialism? If socialism is a state of affairs - an ‘end-state’ - which describes the overall organisation of a particular social order, then the universal welfare principle is not socialism because it co-exists with a dominant capitalist production system. If socialism denotes a social relation, then the universal welfare principle whereby access to a service or good is available to all members of the collectivity, irrespective of their incomes, signals the presence of an element of socialism co-existing with elements of capitalism.

Security and equality are critical values, but they are means to an end. The reason we value security is that it enables us to act freely, without fear. The reason we value equality is that inequality is the throughway of domination: someone with vastly more resources than I—an employer, for example—can coerce and control me, abridge my freedom. By emphasizing security and equality, we focus on the means and lose sight of the end.

The benefits of universal quality services is that we all share the entitlements. This communality is part of our sense of who we are. If some choose to opt out, it should be because they want a different option, not because the quality is not good enough. If public services become residual services, the default option, they tend to deteriorate. The aphorism, that services to the poor become poor services, still applies as it is the more privileged users that tend to complain if they are badly served.

No nation in the world has eliminated poverty by firing teachers or by handing its public schools over to private managers; nor does research support either strategy.

Australian taxpayers contribute $27 billion a year in superannuation tax concessions (about the same as what the age pension costs) that enable some retirees - whose homes are paid off and children gone - to enjoy a tax-free income higher than that earned by many people with young children, and mortgages and tax to pay.

The tax concessions on superannuation are fundamentally inequitable because they’re not taxed at the marginal tax rate. It’s a 15 per cent flat rate.

The “tax effectiveness’’ of super is most stark for those on incomes of $180,000 and more - those who earn up to $37,000 get nothing.