Freedom Or Equality

[Revulero]

I was just having an argument with my friends one of them asked me which is better freedom or equality, of course i chose equality over freedom, but i dont know which is better?

[Cult of Reason]

I do not really think you can have much of one without the other. After all, if you have to obey someone's orders, and so are not really free, you are not really equal either.

[Whitten]

Usually they're the same. The only case in which they are onot is one in which you have the freedom to remove someone elses freedom, in which case it should be limited. Thus, I suppose thats my way of saying "equality"

[Janus]

which is better?
I don't think that is a good question at all since they go hand in hand. Without freedom, you can't have equality and vice versa. Furthermore, although one can have full equality per se, one can't have full freedom without infringing on another's freedom.

[Delta]

A lot of times in those kind of debates the one who is advocating "freedom" thinks that freedom means someone's right to acquire property and make wage slaves out of others.

But yes, I agree with the others, that you can't really have one without the other.

[Leo]

I was just having an argument with my friends one of them asked me which is better freedom or equality, of course i chose equality over freedom, but i dont know which is better?

I think they are the same thing.

[AK47]

It is my oppion (and you can view it as such) that equality, freedom, and justice are the three forces that when balanced with each other become the cornerstone for a working society. One cna not choose one over the other. One can only place these forces in tention with each other to create a structure for a society that grows people as having liberty, justice and being equal under the law. Not having one of these e;lements will not do so.

[KC]

Freedom isn't equality. Freedom is inequality.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+Jul 17 2006, 08:32 PM--> (Khayembii Communique @ Jul 17 2006, 08:32 PM) Freedom isn't equality. Freedom is inequality. [/b]
expain please?



Leo [email protected] 15 2006, 09:15 AM

I was just having an argument with my friends one of them asked me which is better freedom or equality, of course i chose equality over freedom, but i dont know which is better?

I think they are the same thing.
I don't think they are the "same" thing, but I think they contain common elements.


I'm quite interested about where this topic will go.

[Leo]

Freedom isn't equality. Freedom is inequality.

I think I hear a famous bourgeoise arguement when I turn this sentence around: "Equality isn't freedom. Equality is slavery". It's not good when communists start saying things like that.

Now, of course freedom to exploit, freedom to oppress, freedom to get rich and make someone poor etc. is not equality. But it is not freedom either. In fact, it is the very opposite, it is slavery.

Communism is freedom. It is being free from oppression, it is being free from exploitation, it is being free from wage-slavery, it is being free from the state, it is being free from corporations, it is being free from property, it is being free to think and participate, it is being free to produce according to your abilities and being free to consume according to your needs. All those freedoms create actual equality, therefore freedom is equality. But I think simply communism is a much better word for describing both.

[KC]

It is this communist society, which has just emerged into the light of day out of the womb of capitalism and which is in every respect stamped with the birthmarks of the old society, that Marx terms the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society.

The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it.

“Equality” apparently reigns supreme.

But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism), says that this is "equitable distribution", that this is "the equal right of all to an equal product of labor", Lassalle is mistaken and Marx exposes the mistake.

"Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).

But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."
-V.I Lenin, The State & Revolution Ch.5 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm)



Communism is freedom. It is being free from oppression, it is being free from exploitation, it is being free from wage-slavery, it is being free from the state, it is being free from corporations, it is being free from property, it is being free to think and participate, it is being free to produce according to your abilities and being free to consume according to your needs. All those freedoms create actual equality, therefore freedom is equality.

You are wrong, for the very reason I have shown above.

[Leo]

You are wrong, for the very reason I have shown above.

:blink: The word 'freedom' wasn't even in the text you had given me. How exactly are you proving me that freedom is inequality?

Lenin does prove that 'equal right' is not equality, but 'equal right' is not freedom eiher so what's your point?

So, do you think that communism is not being free from oppression, being free from exploitation, being free from the state, being free from corporations, being free to think and participate, being free to produce according to your abilities and being free to consume according to your needs? Do you think those circumstances are not necessary for creating an equal society?

Not only Marx but also Lenin would disagree with you here... In fact what Lenin argues is that communism has to do with being free to consume according to your needs instead of getting an equal share (equal right) so he proves one of my points.

[KC]

freedom is equality.

That is what you said. Since communism is the freest form of society, and since there isn't equality under communism as proven above, you are wrong. Simple.

[Leo]

Since communism is the freest form of society, and since there isn't equality under communism as proven above, you are wrong. Simple.

But they are equal, maybe what they get is not equall but they are because they all get according to their needs.

[KC]

But they are equal, maybe what they get is not equall but they are because they all get according to their needs.

People are contributing to society in different amounts (from each according to his ability), yet they are receiving the same (to each according to his need). This isn't equality at all.

"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal."
-Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme Ch. 1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)

[Leo]

People are contributing to society in different amounts (from each according to his ability), yet they are receiving the same (to each according to his need). This isn't equality at all.

In a society where each produce according to their ability and each consume according to their need, each has the same standart of living, each have equal amount of joy from production and consumption. This is the ultimate equality. What Marx means is that right should be unequal for the existance of ultimate equality.

[KC]

In a society where each produce according to their ability and each consume according to their need, each has the same standart of living, each have equal amount of joy from production and consumption. This is the ultimate equality.

In a society where each produce unequally and receive equal access to resources, this is inequality. Cmon, Marx outlined it perfectly; stop hanging on and admit that you're wrong.


What Marx means is that right should be unequal for the existance of ultimate equality.


"The existance of ultimate equality" doesn't exist - nor will it ever - for the very reason that right is unequal. What Marx means is that right will be unequal for the existance of ultimate freedom.

[Leo]

In a society where each produce unequally and receive equal access to resources, this is inequality. Cmon, Marx outlined it perfectly; stop hanging on and admit that you're wrong.

You are forgetting that they are unequal individuals as well... This is equal standarts, which can be called fair equality or ultimate equality and I would admit it if I thought I was wrong but I am not. Marx did outline it perfectly:


(Marx) Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view

[KC]

Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view

You obviously didn't read the whole thing, or you didn't understand it:


for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

[Leo]

You obviously didn't read the whole thing, or you didn't understand it:

Okay I might have missed the second part. :rolleyes: It is really late here, I am kind of sleepy...

Nevertheless, we do agree on the concept, but I think unequal (and different) workers producing (unequally) accordingly to their ability and consuming (unequally) accordingly to their needs can be called equal, and that is in fact how I would define equality. This is such a fair system that I can't bring myself to call it unequality. And neither can Marx. He says unequal right, not unequality.

[Sadena Meti]

Something good to read on this subject, which is independent of the ideology of this board:

The Social Contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau

One of the interesting points he makes is that forced equality is a form a freedom. To use an idea from Henri de Saint-Simon, "we must free the poor from their poverty, and free the rich from their wealth."

The best quote from the Social Contract is, in my opinion, "Some people must be forced to be free."


It's great reading.

[1984]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 17 2006, 09:33 PM

Freedom isn't equality. Freedom is inequality.

I think I hear a famous bourgeoise arguement when I turn this sentence around: "Equality isn't freedom. Equality is slavery". It's not good when communists start saying things like that.

Now, of course freedom to exploit, freedom to oppress, freedom to get rich and make someone poor etc. is not equality. But it is not freedom either. In fact, it is the very opposite, it is slavery.

Communism is freedom. It is being free from oppression, it is being free from exploitation, it is being free from wage-slavery, it is being free from the state, it is being free from corporations, it is being free from property, it is being free to think and participate, it is being free to produce according to your abilities and being free to consume according to your needs. All those freedoms create actual equality, therefore freedom is equality. But I think simply communism is a much better word for describing bo
Therefore, there is no freedom in "democracies" as we see it today - as freedom creates equality and there's no equality AT ALL, how could that be possible?

Only a minority of the population can break free from corporate media manipulation and TV-brainwashing and/or gain acess to good enough education so they can think for themselves. And that's about it - there can be no absolute freedom in a capitalist society or any other form of class society, as the people are bounded to class-exploitation relationships.

The vice-versa is also true, that is, equality bringing forth actual freedom, as rev-stoic quoted Rousseau in the last post. The simple existence of a true classless society can guarantee freedom.

[shifoe]

I agree that if you are truly free then the society at large cannot also have equality. When equality is thought of in a strictly economic and superficial sense. If you are free, and so is everyone else then there is equality in that everyone has the same right to freedom

But what is interesting to me is whether or not being truly free is possible in a society where there are dense populations and only certain resources. I define being free as being able to do whatever one pleases, but if that is the case then one persons freedom could potentially infringe on another persons freedom. So in order to be free from outside influence and problems one must subscribe to the idea that they are something larger than themselves, a part of society and reponsible to the species on a larger scale...I may be wrong here, but this is my thought process for now, what do you think?

Oh and in regard to my last line, in order to have everyone else be free and live as they please you must subscribe to a common goal no? And isn't that negating the idea of being truly free.

I mean as an allegory to ourselves in society think about the human biological system, a complex system of organs and cells all working ideally to preserve the larger being, and create what we as humans preceive as ourselves. So if our cells and organs had their own conciousness and had an innate idea and desire for freedom couldn't and wouldn't they destroy the living person?

So isn't our survival contingent upon functioning collectively as a species rather than for the self alone? Or would you put freedom first? I'm not sure...

[Black Dagger]

I don't understand, what is the point of this question? Why must we choose between one or the other? It just seems to me to be a really contrived argument, we want freedom and we want equality, we dont have to ever choose over the other.

[Sadena Meti]

Pure freedom exists when you can take any action. This is only moral if your actions only affect yourself. Obviously, the vast majority of our actions affect others.

This is the folly of the libertarian position.

If your actions only affect one other, then you can balance your actions with that one other. But if your actions affect two or more, you have to surrender your freedom to act to the will (perhaps betterment is a more appropriate word) of the group. If your life requires two deaths, sorry, no deal. If living above the average requires two (or even one) to live below the average, sorry, no deal.

Libertarianism, if relevant, must be tempered with utilitarianism.

Forced equality may not be a pleasant idea, but those that desire more are not free, they are slaves to greed and worldliness. "Some people must be forced to be free."

[shifoe]

That seems to be a bit oversimplified. The complexity of each persons life, upbringing, biological disposition would never allow a system of equality or freedom to be imposed on an entire society. And if you force freedom on people or equality for that matter what you are talking about is a dictatorship or fascism. If people are to be free and as equal and forgiving of others in a society they must accept the complexity of life and help others through it to the best of their ability, whether that ability is great or meager. And if they accept the idea that everyone has a right to life and that they must allow and help others acheive the same freedom and equality that they desire only then will it be a feasible plan.

And you cannot impose an idea like this on people they must figure it out for themselves, otherwise freedom becomes the guise for oppression.

And the other thing to consider is this, how can you have equality when we as humans desire and are innately drawn towards the opposite? No one is equal in the mathematical sense of equality, and any system of perceived equality that is imposed on a society will never be truly equal. So in order to have equality you must give everyone the equal right to freedom, which in turn will lead to inequality. I think we need to discern the difference between equality and freedom because they are not comparable in the context of this question.

I'm not speaking to everyones idea on equality, but I think we should definetely clarify what we perceive equality to be. Because true equality in terms of economic and situational equality is impossible.

"Only the educated are free." -Epictetus

"In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved." -Franklin D. Roosevelt

[JKP]

Originally posted by rev-[email protected] 20 2006, 06:27 AM

Forced equality may not be a pleasant idea, but those that desire more are not free, they are slaves to greed and worldliness. "Some people must be forced to be free."
"Equality of outcome" can only be introduced and maintained by force, which would not be equality anyway, as that requires some people to have more power than others. "Equality of outcome" is particularly hated by anarchists, as we recognise that every individual has different needs, abilities, desires and interests. To make all consume the same would be tyranny. Obviously, if one person needs medical treatment and another does not, they do not receive an "equal" amount of medical care.

[Esplin]

I personally would favour Freedom. But this is truly a difficult question to answer.
There are many different types of freedom. Political freedom, the ability to have a choice in terms of political parties, groups and votes, Ideological freedom, the ability to choose what collection of ideas to believe in, Personal Freedom, the ability to choose where one can go, say, think and do. These are just some examples. Equality can be social or politcial or anything else. Without freedom, if everyone was equal, why would they be so? Someone who have to use power to keep that equality, but that would violate the equality.


as freedom creates equality

Not true. Everyone could be free, but some people would have more powers than others, such as ones with more land, money or influence. In today's supposed Democracy, one has freedom, yet people are forced to work for others and live under goverments with laws and regulations.

To Me!

[Lenin's Law]

as freedom creates equality

Not true. Everyone could be free, but some people would have more powers than others, such as ones with more land, money or influence. In today's supposed Democracy, one has freedom, yet people are forced to work for others and live under goverments with laws and regulations.

Stop being more bourgeois than the bourgeois!

You have just explained why there is no freedom in capitalist "democracies". If people are forced to work for the profit of others, then they cannot possibly have freedom. Capitalism is dictatorship, of the minority over the majority, only a supreme cynic would describe such a situation as 'freedom.'

That is why (some of us) are advocating the overthrow of capitalism and the implementation of socialism; to win real freedom for the working class and vast majority of the world's people! Without socialism, there can be no freedom; only the bourgeois falscifaction and illusion of freedom.