Claudia Hodges – period 2. Although often associated with negative connotation, the idea of communism possesses beneficial, productive, and, ultimately, successful goals. But can this form of government develop at society that is based on true equality and freedom? Many countries, such as China, have experienced the downfalls of this noteworthy but pathetically insufficient way to gain total equality and true freedom because of the basic human necessity for inequality and individualism. Because of China’s persistent attempts at creating a society devoid of advantage, this seemingly adequate and productive form of government has plummeted China into a plight that has resulted in more negative outcomes that positive ones.
The idea of true equality forced its way into China’s society with little progress. While their economy was quickly growing, the gap between the upper class and lower class was swiftly increasing, leaving a practically nonexistent middle class. Because of this sudden increase in class difference, the levels of income have greatly varied based on the position in society a person holds. These large differences in income have resulted from the Communists Party’s push for growth policies over the last few decades (Dollar). Although these policies have decreased the levels of poverty, it has led to uneven wealth distribution. According to China’s Gini-coefficient, which is a measure of the amount of wealth that is distributed in society, resulted in 0.47, meaning that the inequality in China has surpassed the inequality levels in the United States (Wong). Ironically, the U.S., who enacts a capitalist form of government, now contains less forms of inequality than a country whose sole purpose of their government was to develop an equal society that excludes all personal advantage (Wong). According to Liberty and Property by Ludwig von Mises, these communistic ideals attempt to grasp something ultimately unattainable, unrealistic, and virtually impossible. This extreme form of socialism may seek to benefit the masses but in reality, prevents society from expanding in a healthy, productive way, mercilessly rushing the success that must be achieved over a longer period of time, allowing the markets to modify themselves according to the needs of the people.
Instead of allocating wealth to the greatest number of people, China’s communist form of government “makes these good things accessible to a small minority of people, [while] capitalism gives to the many a favorable chance of striving after them” (von Mises). The problem of China’s increasing income gap originates in the attempt to gain perfect equality for each person in society, to place everyone on the same playing field with no advantages, benefits, or leads. In a capitalistic form of government, there always remains a “continuous circulation of elites” that contributes new and creative ideas and places them into effect. Without this proactive group of influential leaders, society is unable to adjust itself to most sufficient methods of productivity (von Mises). If everyone is placed on an even playing field with no advantages whatsoever over their peers, than how can progress continue to be achieved? Society will collapse in on itself due to the lapse in insufficient technology and procedures. The incentive to advance mentally in order to achieve the maximum amount of productivity becomes undesirable due to the fact that although a person may be contributing more to the society that another, they will still reap an equal amount of rewards. Although China has not developed a society this extreme, if they keep their communistic form of government, they may head in this direction, resulting in an underdeveloped society with insufficient methods and uninspired consumers that are reluctant to invent more proficient methods of productivity because of the unfair, but “equal” pay.
In addition, liberty is defined as a state of freedom from restrictions. Without these restrictions, each person is placed on a level playing field, and that field serves as equivalence between each person in society. Therefore, in order to have liberty you must have “freedom from the government”, which must be without constraint, regulation, or limitation (von Mises). Because, according to von Mises, total equality is not possible unless a government does not exist. Based on von Mises’s statement, is complete freedom even possible? China will try its hardest to prove this question right. Instead of using tactics similar to Stalin or Castro, China’s strategies not only prohibit certain rights or actions, they also hold the power to manipulate society into making people believe that they are truly free. In 2004, China established their own private, national internet system, which his still used today that controls what the viewers can look at, in hopes of preventing any foreign, western influence from invading the brainwashed minds of their country’s “free” citizens (Chu). In addition, China violates parents’ rights to have children, hoping that by limiting each family to one child, their ongoing surge in the masses will not cause overpopulation. By imposing into matters of the family, the Chinese communist government has overstepped its boundaries. In order to gain the freest society while still maintaining a form of government, the China must allow for the individual to be unique and, well, individual. The communist government obliterates the choice, takes it completely away, enabling itself to become a totalitarian force, one with little opposition and resistance.
On the other hand, capitalism allows for individual decision and choice. In order for there to be any sort of freedom, there must first be a “field in which individuals are free to plan for themselves” (von Mises). A communist government prevents these “fields” from even being thought of because of the tight grip they have on society, where everything is the governments choice and not the people’s. Because of this, it is impossible to be any form of freedom under a communist system because, according to communist and socialist parties, the “difference between the servile state and economic freedom” is nonexistent (von Mises). By saying this, communist societies are concluding that there is no freedom in the exchange of goods and services. Von Mises directly counters this argument by stating that in order to have total freedom between the exchanges of goods, there must be an “absence of any obstacle” that is in the way his or her material good. This is directly contrary to China’s communist policies. Rather than attempting to create a society that is as close to total freedom as possible, China is implementing numerous obstacles that impede society from reaching economic success. By asserting economic pressure, they believe they can force society into conforming to their desires, while rejecting private government power as well. Ironically, China is against other people having control over their own decisions and businesses, but supports having control over everyone else’s private ownerships, thus, implementing a “restriction on liberty” (von Mises). In order to retain complete control over society, China seeks to limit freedoms by concentrating all their energy on the restriction of certain rights that they have delineated as unnecessary and superfluous. By limiting certain freedoms, this communist society prohibits individualism, which is essential to the growth of the economy; for the “exceptionally gifted individuals are free to give their fellow citizens all they are able to give” (von Mises). This reflects back to the idea of the necessity for inequality, rather a perfect society where the incentive to engage in and create advanced methods loses its value.
Therefore, there can be no liberty without freedom and there can be no freedom without complete equality, exhibiting the poor ability that communism has of creating a successful, proactive, and free society because, by the prohibition of individuality, these qualities are unable to be attained. Although communism aims at creating a seemingly, “perfectly equal” society, the way at which it seeks to achieve these goals actually proves a detriment to the cause. In conclusion, von Mises states that in order to acquire total equality, a form of government must be nonexistent. Because this is not a plausible and sufficient way to organize society, the goal of China and other communist countries should be to strive to attain the closest form of government that allows for the maximum amount of individualism, equality, and freedom because without these elements, a successful government ceases to be a realistic outcome.
Sources:
Chu, Ruvan. “Communism and Computer Ethics.” Communism: Censorship and Freedom of Speech. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013.
Dollar, David. “Poverty, Inequality, And Social Disparities During China’s Economic Reform: Policy Research Working Papers.” Poverty, Inequality, And Social Disparities During China’s Economic Reform: Policy Research Working Papers. N.p., June 2007. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.
Wong, Edward. “Survey in China Shows a Wide Gap in Income.” The New York Times. N.p., 19 July 2013. Web. 12 Dec. 2013.
Von, Mises Ludwig. Liberty and Property. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Auburn University, 1988. Print.
Bear Market 