Any increase in unemployment, particularly when coupled with a reduction of social protection, is tantamount to an effective decrease in personal freedom. The importance of having an occupation which provides a reasonable income is directly commensurate with the magnitude of private consumption. In a society of this kind - that is to say, in a capitalist society - effective freedom is, in the final analysis, largely the freedom of the individual consumer. Where the consumer is ‘sovereign’, those who have no gainful occupation and no personal fortune are de facto disenfranchised. Conversely, those who are rich are freer; they can do more. It is the possession of money which transforms many formal rights into real, effective rights. No amount of liberal rhetoric, no shrill protestation of concern for the rights of the individual, can possibly disguise the fact that where the market rules, those without money effectively lose thier membership of the consumer society. As they sink into the demoralising morass of poverty, they are not only disempowered from obtaining so-called luxuries (the term which designates the necessities of the rich), and those commodities which make life comfortable and pleasant, but they are also effectively denied ‘access’ goods, such as culture and education. Eventually, they are condemned to a life dominated by an obsessive preoccupation with the cash nexus, by the endless worry of making ends meet, by the anger of being unwanted, unemployable, unacceptable, by the frustration of having become a human surplus which cannot be absorbed - a human mass whose only economic raison d’etre is to keep those who are in employment pliant and disciplined and their wages lower than they would be otherwise.

Socialist parties were thus in an impasse. They aspired to redistribute power away from the impersonal forces of the market towards ordinary people. They sought to help the poor, establish economic and social justice, expand opportunities for those who could not obtain them through the market. Little of this could be done without accepting economic growth - in other words, capitalism growth - as the overarching priority. The constraints of democratic electoral politics compelled them to do so.

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.

On average the amount redistributed to the poor actually decreases as welfare states become more targeted. Any increase in redistribution from an increase in targeting is clearly outweighed by the smaller expenditure that is associated with the lower willingness to pay of targeted welfare states. This confirms the hypothesis that strategies of targeting result in welfare states that do less redistribution to the poorest than strategies of universalism.

Social democrats believe in a well regulated, efficient market-­based economy aimed at sustainable growth. We also believe in strong social and fiscal policies aimed at achieving greater equality.

But what do we mean by equality? This is a critical point of difference between liberals and social democrats. The liberal concept of equality emphasizes political and civil rights. Such rights include the right to vote, the right to stand for office, freedom from discrimination and equality before the law. These rights are fundamental, and social democrats support them and fight for them, but they are not enough.

When social democrats speak of equality, we also speak of social and economic rights, of substantive equality. These are rights like the right to medical care, to education, to retirement and to freedom from poverty. We believe in a society that distributes wealth and income more evenly. Social democrats reject unfettered markets because unfettered markets produce the unfair distribution of wealth we are experiencing today. Only by combining progressive taxation with social rights, removing appropriate goods and services entirely from market criteria, can we ensure a fair degree of real equality.

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.