----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom is an ambiguous concept. Wars are fought, lives are lost, and entire nations have crumbled over the interpretation of what it means to be free. This concept can and is examined from all sides. For example, philosophical freedom may simply address the idea of being free. Political freedom may be seen as the absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual. Individual freedom stresses individualism and self-reliance while liberty itself refers to the conditions in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will. Economic freedom wields concepts such as libertarianism, welfare economics, and distributive justice. Regardless of the various definitions of freedom, the one certainty is the lack of a universal concept that incorporates all of these definitions.
There are consequences to not adopting a universal definition of freedom which can be seen in the debate between capitalism and communism. While both proponents and opponents of Marx’s analysis of capitalism present valid claims, it is Marx’s scientific observations along with his analysis of freedom that provide the best arguments to support his critique. Freedom, at a cursory glance, is believed to originate out of a country’s political institution. Democracy is often times linked with the American interpretation of political freedom. Both Socialism and Communism are connected to the loss of freedom by those who do not truly understand those political institutions. While societal political structures are commanding social institutions, the economic structure is where the true origin of freedom emerges from. In a capitalist economy, freedom is synonymous with wealth or the ability to try and achieve wealth while in a communist economic structure, true freedom comes when everyone has their needs met and there is no fear of oppression. Ultimately in a capitalist society, political freedom is inextricably linked to political freedom. Political freedom presses negative liberties on governmental entities which allows people to pursue advancements in innovation and technology which is what drives capitalistic economic freedom.
Contrary to Marx, proponents of capitalism saw increasing technology and an increase in the labor force as a positive economic and societal advancement. Innovation and creativity drive the modes of production and those who possess the traits necessary to dominate the domestic and international markets should be rewarded. Capitalism is about perpetuating freedom and choice to the American people, for the American people, by the American people though the use of negative liberty. Negative liberty refers to the freedom from interference from other people in one’s autonomy. Positive liberty, on the other hand, is liberty that allows one to have the power and resources to fulfill one’s own potential, usually with help from governmental means. Proponents of capitalism see positive liberty as government invasion into private matters. To take away individual control over one’s livelihood is to threaten the very foundation of democracy which America was built upon. Furthermore, in the spirit of rugged individualism and the American dream, America’s capitalist economic structure provides people from all backgrounds opportunity to obtain employment and/or education therefore in the words of Philosopher Hobbes, “a free man is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do." In other words, one’s success is only affected by one’s desire and ability to achieve their dream. Capitalism is a structure that is designed to encourage economic growth which allows all people to have individual choice and maintain private property. However, the basic tenets of Marx’s analysis of capitalism illustrate how those who control the means of production use their financial wealth to dictate exactly how “free” someone can be. Therefore, capitalism as an economic structure perverted the definition of freedom as Marx saw it and more so, gave way to the perpetuation of the oppressive American dream myth.
Quasi- Freedom: Employment Choices and Owning “Stuff”
Freedom and choice are attractive rights to possess; however, it would be irresponsible to not consider the cost to acquire these rights. This is what the proponents of capitalism fail to do. It is the owners of production who sets the wage that will be paid and the hours that one will work. The obvious freedom is that the worker has the choice to accept or reject the job at the conditions presented. If the worker accepts the job, he or she has just sold his or her labor to that owner for the price set forth in the conditions. At a cursory glance, it would appear that this is a fair trade between owner and worker; money paid for money earned through labor. This is a free decision and no coercion has taken place. However, applying a multivariate analysis of this “transaction” provides better insight to the reality of the relations between owner and worker and supports Marx’s original suppositions. The owner not only sets forth the wage and hours for the worker but also, through competition with other businesses, can dictate the types of products the market will sell. In this transaction, workers do not have a free choice in employment. Workers must work to maintain a lifestyle that is produced by the very corporations they go to work for. Workers must pay the rent or mortgage, keep food on the table, pay utility bills, and so on. There are car payments, gas, insurance payments that need to be made just so that one may continue to go to their job. The very things one needs on a daily basis to maintain their life are the very things that workers produce and in turn, work to pay for. Without their jobs, workers wouldn’t be able to afford the very things American culture tells them they need to be all that they can be.
A self-perpetuating cycle between employer and employee began to emerge. Marx related to this cycle of commodity fetishism as further infringement on employee freedom. The employer relies on the worker to produce the product and the employee relies on the employer for their wage and life sustenance. However, the workers began to desire the very items they were producing. Owning extravagant items became easier as workers no longer needed cash in hand to purchase material goods; they could borrow money against their homes or through a bank to obtain the item they wanted. Access to credit became easier and workers now went to their jobs to not only pay for their basic needs but additionally to pay the creditor from whom they borrowed money. The banking and financial industries flourished when the realization was made that a profit could be derived from financing American dreams.
Limits to Capitalistic “Freedom”
Proponents for capitalism argue that various stratums of workers are not a bad thing and anyone can rise to the top through meritocracy. This appears, prima facie, to be an accurate representation of how the labor system operates; however, it is not the ‘pull one’s self up by their boot straps” economic structure that one wishes to believe. From the beginning, the system was not designed for self-promotion. For most of the 20th century, women and minorities were not granted the equal access to employment as white men were. Prior to the civil or women’s rights movements, at one point in history or another, every nationality that has stepped on American soil in search of the American dream was discriminated against in the work place. In contemporary society as both genders and all ethnicities vie for positions within the work place, people in power seem to have a natural propensity towards others keeping the scales of competition unbalanced through promotion of those with whom they have most in common, specifically race and gender. Social science observation and analysis suggests that meritocracy is the myth which is replaced by the fact “It’s not what you know but who you know.”
Institutional Discrimination
Hidden discrimination is further built into the economic and social systems through unequal access to education, unequal access to healthcare, and predatory lending practices. The aim of discrimination is to keep a certain group or groups of people from advancing. This does not promote fair competition between all people but rather alienates diverse populations from one another which further perpetuate discrimination. Schools are funded though property taxes and levies. This does not grant equal access to books and resources that the students need to get into a good college. People are “free” to place their children in well-funded private schools in the hope of guaranteeing a better education for their children, however, non-religious private schools range upwards of $10,000 per year and the tuition generally increases as the progression through school progresses. There are need-based scholarships which are available to low-income families and merit scholarships that are awarded to exceptional students; however, the competition for these scholarships is tough and there is not enough money to help all low-income families no financial aid packages cover the entire costs of tuition. Furthermore, these schools are generally not in low-income neighborhoods and work schedule and transportation is a common problem with access to this type of education. While there is a choice for parents suggesting that parents are “free” to make this choice, is the choice really viable?
Secondary education requires financial compensation which usually has some aid come from the government if one’s family cannot afford to pay for the tuition. Most students who are awarded Pell grants through the government will also need to take out student loans to finance their remainder of their education. This engenders indebtedness to someone prior to even entering the work force allowing financial need to dictate one’s career path.
America does not offer socialized healthcare to the citizens therefore majority of the population either utilizes the healthcare option through their employer or pays for healthcare out of pocket. In fact, America is one of the only industrialized nations to not offer universal healthcare to its citizens. Healthcare being as expensive as it is forces one to stay in their jobs to maintain their health benefits for themselves and their families. Those who can afford a private option do not experience this discrimination. The wealthy have the freedom to purchase healthcare out of pocket. Proponents of capitalism would respond with the fact that every citizen has the same freedom to purchase their healthcare. While this is true, it begs the question if I have a freedom but lack the resources it requires to exercise the freedom, do I truly have that freedom? In other words, what good is having a freedom that one cannot act upon? To draw on a common example that is relevant in today’s society, let’s say hypothetically, I am a single mother living in a meager apartment in a questionable part of town and the only job I can get is as a waitress in a low-end restaurant that doesn’t offer health benefits. I am “free” to purchase outside healthcare. However, I do not work at a job that affords me that right, I do not have training that affords me a better job, and I do not have the resources to obtain education for a brighter future. Do I really have the freedom to purchase outside healthcare? What if I had a pre-existing medical condition? These are very salient problems that most of the working class experience on a daily basis. Just because something is a right de jure does not mean it is a right de facto, at least not without some sort of positive liberty to intervene and provide access to this freedom.
Additionally, predatory lending practice is a term that is being heard more and more in news media. This refers to deceptive or unethical lending practices that impose unfair terms on the borrower. Most people who accept these terms are uneducated about lending practices or do not have a high enough credit rating to engender a good loan. This is often times the result of racial profiling and discriminatory practices. The pressure to pay back these types of loans without default also prevents workers from having fluidity in their career choices. So while each person is “free” to make whatever choices they wish too regarding employment and purchases, hidden reasons behind why some workers feel trapped into positions can be seen when different social issues are examined.
In capitalism, not everybody has the true freedom to not worry about their needs which is why Marx opposed the interpretation of freedom that the process of capitalism created and society’s stagnation in it. When workers go to work for a paycheck, they aren’t taking pride in their craft, most are simply “doing time” until they go home. Workers aren’t driven by what they produce but rather the product drives them, specifically to go purchase what they produce. Workers find themselves in competition with one another not only for advancement but to simply maintain their positions in hard economic times. Finally, workers face alienation with themselves because they are not doing what they were called to do; workers are working to live instead of living to work. For Marx, while capitalism is a necessary step towards communism, capitalism can be described as quasi-freedom. Proponents of capitalism might not see the “quasi” part of their freedom, however, Marx’s critique offers a good description with a clear line of demarcation between positive and negative liberty. As long as the American people continue to believe that they can achieve the American dream with a little hard work and the right FICO score, capitalism with be perpetuated and freedom will continue to be lost.
Posts
