Hotspots in Equality Revisited

"Leninade" by Jamison Wieser is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 

On my previous blog post, I discussed economic equality and laissez-faire economics and the successes and failures of those principles. I will discuss these further here.

1. The Failure of Forced Equality (How and why forcing aspects of absolute equality has failed.)

• Historical Connections: Oh man, examples abound on the failure of forced equality. A few years after the beginning of the French Revolution, Maximilien Robespierre ordered the deaths of thousands who were viewed as enemies of the state and enemies of equality. In the early 1920s and 1930s in the Soviet Union, rich landowners (kulaks) were targeted as greedy and counter-revolutionary, and so these were removed from their lands, along with their means of production. The peasants remained, but without the knowledge and oversight of the kulaks, their farming was inadequate. As a result, millions of people died from starvation in the early 1930s. A similar famine happened in Maoist China during the Great Leap Forward, where rich peasants were prosecuted for being counter-revolutionary. In addition, many peasants were occupied by the regime’s drive to increase steel production, so food production dropped precipitously, resulting in the starvation of tens of millions of people, victims to a whimsical fantasy put forth by Chairman Mao. More recently, socialist policies in Venezuela (designed to re-distribute wealth to the masses) have resulted in mass shortages, chaos, violence, and malnutrition.
• Communication Connections: In general, socialism and Marxism-espousing politicians adopt a populist stance on the issue of wealth inequality, portraying rich individuals and corporations as greedy tyrants to the masses. These politicians use the deep dissatisfaction of the masses as a vehicle to get into power, against the demonized wealthy. However, as we see in George Orwell’s work Animal Farm, those who seem to promote wealth redistribution and equality of outcome adopt the very characteristics of wealth and greed that they appear to oppose.

2. Laissez-Faire Economic and the Origin of Inequality (The alternative to forced economic equality and why inequality exists.)

• Historical Connections: Perhaps one of the best examples of a laissez-faire (let-do) approach to the economy was during the 1920s in the United States of America, especially during Calvin Coolidge’s administration. Calvin Coolidge vetoed many bills, and his cabinet member Andrew Mellon advocated for limited government intervention in the economy. As a result, the decade of the 1920s was one of the largest boom times in the last century. Similarly, in the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan cut taxes, and the 1980s were also a period of economic boom and shrinking inflation, in stark contrast to the sluggish growth and high inflation of the 1970s. However, the income gap between the middle class and the wealthy began to widen in the 1970s and accelerate during the 1980s, partly due to the Reagan tax cuts. Inequality seems to derive from differences in property ownership and inherent differences in every human being.
• Communication Connections: Many individuals and politicians see large problems arise from a perceived economic inequality. They see the need to combat poverty and improve the lives of the middle class. They then take an activist stance, that they will fix the problem of inequality by being elected to public office, because the purpose of public office to them is to actively work to improve the lives of the public. It is seen as politically unpopular to do little in the face of large problems, such as economic inequality.

3. Specialization over Inequality (Why being different enriches the world and enriches ourselves.)

• Historical Connections: A very visible and common aspect of modern global trade in the United States of America is the amount of goods that are manufactured in China. Our trade with China overall is mutually beneficial. In the United States, we have the innovators and the technology but we lack the inexpensive labor to produce a competitive product. In China, there is a huge workforce, but their technology development is relatively small. As the United States and China trade, the United States can bring their technological innovations into the hands of millions of consumers, while China can grow their workforce and build their economy. Both countries benefit from trading with each other, and they both would not be as prosperous if they did not trade with each other. The economic differences (inequalities) between the countries allow the trade overall to be mutually beneficial.
• Communication Connections: The economist Adam Smith discussed specialization and trade in his work The Wealth of Nations, where he wrote: “This advantage, however … will give a superiority to the country which enjoys it, rather by depressing the industry and produce of other countries, than by raising those of that particular country above what they would naturally rise to in the case of a free trade.”

I chose to discuss economic inequality for these past two posts because as a student of history I have learned about the repeated failures of socialism, communism, and Marxism and their horrific impacts on those subjugated to them. I endeavor to help others understand the virtue of capitalism and privatization, and I also endeavor to help others understand the failures of wealth redistribution. I am making my learning of these past failures of Marxism public to make it known that societies do not need to try out these failed ideologies for the umpteenth time in a row. I welcome any comments about economics and socialism and laissez-faire economics.