Liberal equality vs.

socialist equality
Uritu Andra-Ioana, 1211EB

Liberal equality and socialist equality are two competing concepts that have long been debated in
the fields of political philosophy, economics, and public policy. While both seek to achieve a
more just and equitable society, they differ in their underlying values, assumptions, and
approaches.

The idea of liberal equality is rooted in the Enlightenment tradition, which emphasized
individual rights, freedom, and the rule of law. Liberalism argues that equal opportunities,
protection of property rights, and merit-based rewards are the best ways to ensure fairness and
justice. On the other hand, socialism emerged as a critique of capitalism and sought to replace it
with a system based on collective ownership, economic planning, and social justice. Socialism
argues that inequality is inherent in capitalism, and that redistribution of wealth and power is
necessary to create a truly equal society.

In this essay, I will argue that while both liberal and socialist equality offer important insights
into the challenges of creating a more just society, neither concept alone is sufficient to address
the complex and multifaceted nature of inequality.

Unlike other systems like totalitarianism and aristocracy, socialism and liberalism systems
advocate for equitable distribution of resources and the ability of people to share in resources of
their organizations. These two systems are co-joined at the social liberalism point. Both systems
are opposed to people’s oppression by aristocrats (or small group of people). This forms the basis
of both systems giving focus to welfare of the people as opposed to the focus of the leaders.
(IvyPanda, 2022)

Some key thinkers who have contributed to the debates on liberal equality and socialist equality
include John Rawls, who emphasized justice as fairness and equal opportunities; Friedrich
Hayek, who advocated for free markets and individual liberty; Karl Marx, who critiqued
capitalism and advocated for a classless society; John Locke, whose ideas on natural rights and
limited government influenced liberal thought; Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who explored collective
decision-making and the general will; and Milton Friedman, who championed free-market
capitalism and limited government intervention. These thinkers have had a profound impact on
the development of these ideas and have shaped the ongoing discussions surrounding equality
and social justice. (Gombert and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2009)

The pursuit of equality is undeniably the fundamental objective of socialism. Throughout history,
socialists have passionately supported this cause. However, it is important to clarify the concept
of equality. Socialists advocate for a more equitable distribution of wealth and income within
society, in contrast to liberals and, to some extent, conservatives who prioritize equal
opportunities, although with different reasonings.

Regarding equality, it is essential to distinguish between various branches of socialism. Social

democrats, exemplified by figures like Anthony Crosland, assert that every individual possesses
equal worth irrespective of their social background. They aim to achieve a more equal society
through measures such as progressive taxation, a welfare state based on universal benefits, and a
comprehensive education system. This moderate form of socialism seeks to liberate individuals
from the constraints of the capitalist system. Conversely, those further to the left contend that the
state must assume a more prominent role in economic management to truly attain an egalitarian
society. According to this view, significant state involvement is necessary. Democratic socialists
reject the notion put forth by social democrats that capitalism can be restrained and humanized.
Capitalism, they argue, is fundamentally incompatible with the socialist ideal of equality. The
only shared ground between social democrats and democratic socialists lies in their support for
pursuing change through parliamentary means.

Marxists, driven by their distinct worldview, adopt a more fundamentalist stance. They posit that
each stage of history has been marked by class conflict and that only the establishment of a
communist society can bring an end to this struggle. They advocate for a revolutionary shift
toward a classless society rooted in communism. Critically, Marxists contend that the path to
socialism is unattainable within a parliamentary system dominated by the vested interests of the
ruling class. (“Equality (Socialism),” 2020)

On the other hand, liberals strongly believe in the principle of equality of opportunity. They
advocate for breaking down barriers like racism, homophobia, sexism, and transphobia that
hinder people's progress. Liberal equality is all about giving people the freedom to do what they
want, respecting their property rights, and making sure everyone has the same chances in life. It
says that if you work hard and have the ability, you should be rewarded for it, regardless of
where you come from or who your family is. (“Equality,” n.d.)

However, the concept of equality differs between liberals and socialists. Liberals support state
intervention to ensure equal opportunities, while socialists prioritize a more even distribution of
wealth and resources. Liberalism views equality as providing a fair start in life but allows for
varying outcomes based on individual abilities and hard work. They believe that confiscating
wealth from those who work hard is unfair. Liberals argue that an unequal distribution of wealth
can still be socially just. (“Equality of Opportunity (Liberalism),” 2020)

Liberals also argue that there is a trade-off between equality and individual liberty. They believe
society must choose between equal outcomes or preserving individual freedom. Classical liberals
like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek emphasize the importance of individual values and
freedom, warning that prioritizing equality over liberty can lead to the loss of both. (“Equality of
Opportunity (Liberalism),” 2020)

Moreover, those who support liberal equality say it encourages people to be creative, compete
with each other, and helps the economy grow. They believe that when individuals are free to own
property and make their own choices, it leads to more entrepreneurship and overall prosperity.
Liberal equality also aims to break down barriers that hold people back from reaching their goals
by providing equal opportunities for everyone.

To put this into action, governments have introduced different policies and programs. For
example, the welfare state ensures that everyone has a basic standard of living, so that socio-
economic inequalities are reduced. Affirmative action is another way to address historical
discrimination and give a fair chance to those who have been marginalized. These policies try to
level the playing field and tackle the disadvantages faced by certain groups. (Sachweh and
Olafsdottir, 2012)

Strengths and weaknesses can be identified in both liberal equality and socialist equality,
considering their theoretical foundations and practical implications.

Critics of liberal equality argue that its strong focus on individual rights and freedoms may
neglect the collective good and societal well-being. By prioritizing individual autonomy, there is
a concern that crucial social issues requiring collective action to address systemic problems
might be overlooked. They call for a more holistic approach to ensure a just and equitable
society.

Another critique focuses on the failure of liberal equality to adequately address systemic
disadvantages and inequalities. While liberal principles advocate for equal opportunities, critics
argue that they do not sufficiently account for the structural barriers that certain individuals face.
Factors such as socioeconomic background, race, gender, and other forms of social inequality
can create obstacles and limit opportunities for specific groups. Critics assert that addressing
these systemic inequalities requires more than simply ensuring equal opportunities; it
necessitates actively working to level the playing field and redress historical and ongoing
injustices.

Additionally, critics argue that liberal equality can perpetuate income and wealth disparities
driven by market forces. While the liberal approach assumes that equal opportunities will
naturally lead to equal outcomes, market dynamics and uneven starting points can result in
unequal distributions of wealth and resources. Critics contend that a more interventionist
approach is necessary to address these disparities and create a more equitable society. (O’NEILL,
2000)

Critiques of socialist equality include several key points. One prominent critique is that socialist
equality can undermine individual incentive and motivation. It is argued that in a system where
wealth and resources are more equally distributed, there may be reduced incentives for
individuals to work hard, innovate, and excel. Without the possibility of earning greater rewards
or enjoying the fruits of one's labor, critics contend that productivity and economic growth can
suffer.

Another critique focuses on the centralized control and potential inefficiencies associated with
socialist equality. Socialist systems, particularly in their more extreme forms, often require
centralized planning and control by the state. This centralized control can lead to inefficiencies,
lack of innovation, and slow decision-making processes. Critics suggest that a more
decentralized market-based approach, such as capitalism, allows for greater efficiency,
competition, and responsiveness to consumer demands.
Furthermore, critiques of socialist equality highlight concerns regarding the suppression of
individual liberties. It is argued that in the pursuit of a more equal society, socialist systems may
impose strict regulations and limitations on individual choices, including restrictions on personal
property rights, freedom of enterprise, and individual autonomy. Critics contend that such
restrictions can reduce individual freedoms and restrain personal initiative.

Lastly, the feasibility and sustainability of achieving socialist equality on a large scale is
questionable. Critics argue that human nature, with its inherent diversity and varying levels of
talent and ambition, makes complete equality difficult to achieve. Additionally, historical
examples of attempts to implement socialist systems have shown instances of economic
stagnation, inefficiency, and even the emergence of authoritarian regimes.

In conclusion, the evaluation of liberal equality and socialist equality reveals a complex
landscape of strengths and weaknesses for each concept. Liberal equality emphasizes individual
freedom, property rights, and equal opportunities, while socialist equality focuses on wealth
redistribution, collective well-being, and social cohesion. The strengths of liberal equality lie in
its promotion of equal opportunities and meritocracy, fostering motivation and productivity.
However, critiques center around its potential neglect of the collective good and perpetuation of
existing power structures. Socialist equality's strengths lie in its commitment to addressing
economic disparities and promoting social cohesion, but challenges arise in implementing
policies effectively and balancing individual and collective interests.

In light of these evaluations, it is crucial to recognize that the path to a just society may not lie
solely in one ideology or the other. Instead, a nuanced approach that integrates elements of both
concepts may be necessary. Balancing individual freedoms and collective well-being, addressing
systemic disadvantages, and promoting social and economic equality should be central
considerations in policy-making.

By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of liberal equality and socialist equality, we can
strive to create a society that values both individual freedom and collective well-being, ensuring
a more equitable and just future for all.
Bibliography:

Equality: Meaning, Theories & Acts [WWW Document], n.d. . StudySmarter US. URL
https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/politics/political-ideology/equality/ (accessed
5.13.23).
Equality of Opportunity (Liberalism) [WWW Document], 2020. URL
https://www.tutor2u.net/politics/reference/equality-of-opportunity-liberalism (accessed
5.13.23).
Equality (Socialism) [WWW Document], 2020. URL
https://www.tutor2u.net/politics/reference/equality-socialism (accessed 5.13.23).
Gombert, T., Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (Eds.), 2009. Foundations of social democracy, English ed.
ed, Social democracy reader. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Berlin.
IvyPanda, 2022. Socialism and Liberalism Comparison [WWW Document]. IvyPanda. URL
https://ivypanda.com/essays/socialism-and-liberalism/ (accessed 5.14.23).
O’NEILL, J., 2000. A Critique of Liberal Equality. J. Appl. Philos. 17, 303–307.
Sachweh, P., Olafsdottir, S., 2012. The Welfare State and Equality? Stratification Realities and
Aspirations in Three Welfare Regimes. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 28, 149–168.