Socialism and Freedom

Everybody loves freedom. Both capitalists and socialists love freedom. The only difference is how much they love it, and whether they'd be willing to give up their freedom to create a world in which everyone is equal.

​It's not always easy to distinguish between socialism and capitalism.

---

Some of the connections between socialism and freedom are explored in Inequality in Britain, depicting equality as a means to achieve greater freedom.

​Inequality in Britain returns to those older traditions of the Left which espouse freedom as the main objective, and greater equality as a means to that end.

Frank Field, Inequality in Britain.

Field's argument is that equality matters a great deal; but it is not an end in itself and it should not be promoted at the expense of freedom. Nor should it be assumed that promoting equality always requires more and more government intervention, because sometimes government intervention has unintended consequences that hurt not just the rich (let's face it, nobody cares if the rich are hurt) but also the poor. In that situation, even though equality has been advanced, it may still be that in the final analysis nobody is better off and everyone is worse off:

High taxes, social democrats have assumed, would take resources away from the rich; high social spending would distribute them to the poor. But if the state takes my money away from me to give it to someone else, my freedom is thereby diminished.

If those to whom it is given receive it in the form of cash, which they can spend as they like, and if there are a lot of them and only a few of me, there may well be a net gain in freedom.

If they receive it in the form of services, in the direction of which they have no say and over the allocation of which they have no control, there will be no gain in freedom, though there may still be a gain in equality.

​Frank Field, Inequality in Britain.
​

The socialist picture changes greatly when freedom is seen as the goal. For example, the socialist ideal of cash redistribution can be seen as a way of promoting a net gain in freedom. 

Inequality in Britain argues that both socialism and freedom can be served by redistribution of cash in four ways:

first, a cash redistribution from the state to individuals;

second, a cash redistribution over an individual's lifetime so that forty years' earnings are spread over a seventy- to eighty- year period;

third, a cash redistribution from rich to poor;

and fourth, a cash redistribution from men to women.

It is interesting to see freedom promoted as the goal of equality, rather than promoting equality of income as some kind of inherent moral good. I would definitely feel more free if the state would take other people's money from them and redistribute it to me. But there is no society which has became more free by redistributing cash: probably because there is no way to redistribute other people's cash without resorting to the use of force (you go to jail if you don't pay your taxes).