Marxism Vs Classical Liberal Egalitarianism

Difference in economic systems has not only sparked debate between countries, but has also caused societies to engage in violent actions, such as war. Economic systems attempt to explain how a society should control their economy and are based on moral ideas. Classical liberalism, liberal egalitarianism, and Marxism have opposing views on inherent concepts within each economic system, which prevents any agreement on economic inequality or just distribution of resources between the three economic systems. Human nature is a main aspect of each economic system, but in classical liberalism, liberal egalitarianism and Marxism utilize this idea in opposing fashion. Classical liberals believe that individuals have natural rights that are granted
to them when they are born. Tom G. Palmer writes that “individuals have impenetrable rights” . Palmer also argues that humans have an “appreciation for the capacity for social order and harmony [that] emerges spontaneously” .
Liberal egalitarians share similar views on the basic rights of individuals, but have a different stance on how people are granted these rights.
They reject the idea of natural rights being granted to a person at birth, but rather that rights stem from the society in which an individual is located within. Liberal egalitarians do believe in moral individualism, which is described by David Moellendorf as “moral duties owed to individuals” .
Within Marxism, there is a rejection of the idea of morality and Marx believes that moral theory distracts from the truth of society. Marxists believe that human nature is inevitably evil and leads to the corruption of markets through an insatiable need for money and power. This leads to, what Andrew Levine describes as “alienation of the workers from [their] product” . Marxists believe that history of societies has been driven by the forces of production, which are main factors in capitalist societies that Marx was
against. The idea of liberty versus equality is another aspect that splits economic systems. Classical liberals insist on liberty and the free activities of individuals. Palmer argues that “interference with the freedom of others that must be justified, and not their free action itself.” This states that in order for ones right to be infringed, that the action must be explainable and not selfish in reasoning. Classical liberals are against government intervention as they believe that markets have an essential and natural flow which must not be disrupted. Adam Smith exemplifies this by stating that markets “shall be harmonious naturally, without the interference with government.” Government intervention in markets is not ideal to classical liberals due to the fact that they believe that it violates their rights to money and property. Intervention in the markets could lead to a decrease in the amount of money that an individual has the capability of making, which classical liberals believe is infringing on their rights to property.
Liberal egalitarians maintain a midline stance on liberty versus equality. Their main focus is on liberty and equality in terms of justice in order to provide equal opportunities for all people within a society. Philosopher Joh Rawls views justice as fairness, which is seen in his arguments for offices of fair equal of opportunity and the fact that inequalities can occur as long as they give the greatest benefit to the least advantaged people. This is seen in everyday society through progressive taxes. Liberal egalitarians also argue that inequality is natural within a society, and that it is the government’s main duty to ensure that these inequalities are kept under control. Marxism maintains an adamant stance that advocates for equality in society. An ideal Marxist system believes in the equal distribution of capital, which includes both money and physical items, between all people. In political applications of Marxism, such as communism, the government has implemented collectivization efforts in order to control the amount of goods produced and distributed to the people. Marx also believes that class distinction is the primary determinant of injustice in a system, and that the proletariat should be in constant revolution in order to keep private property distributed among the people and not in the hands of the few. Private property is another idea that allows these three economic systems to have no point of agreement. Classical liberals believe that individuals have a natural right to private property, including money. John Locke states that individuals have the “liberty to dispose, and order, as he lists, his Persons, Actions, Possessions, and his whole Property, within the Allowance of those Laws under which he is; and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary Will of another, but freely follow his own.” Classical liberals believe that the acquisition of wealth allows for the wealth to trickle down in all aspects of markets and in turn allow for all individuals to gain more wealth. Locke also emphasized that items that are in the natural state are owned by society, but once an individual puts labor into the item, that item becomes the property of the individual. Liberal egalitarians view no natural right to private property. They believe that property is given by a society in which an individual lives in, rather than a natural right.
Marxism believes that the human desire for property, or capital, is insatiable. According to Marxism, private property clouds an individual’s judgement and distorts their humanity. According to Marxists, the acquisition of money is evil, since money is regarded as property. In an ideal Marxist society, there would be no private property, and individual items would be shared by the society. Poverty exists in every society, which leads to disagreements about the solution to limit or end poverty among the economic systems. Classical liberals believe that poverty can be eliminated by encouraging wealth. They use the trickle-down effect in order to explain how wealth acquired by the few is actually wealth acquired by the society in general. Poverty is defined in terms of classical liberalism as a relative term. Poverty gains meaning when compared to wealth, and can also be described as the inability to create or hold onto wealth. Classical liberals dislike government intervention, and believe that is fosters a lazy class of people that rely on the government for basic needs, rather than themselves. Classical liberals are more likely to agree with using personal responsibility, mutual aid or charity in order for an individual to get out of poverty. Liberal egalitarians, such as Amartya Sen, believe that poverty in income inadequacy. They endorse institutions, such as governments, that provide aid to those in poverty. Liberal egalitarians “endorse institutions that adjust market distributions, limit international wealth transfers, and limit the extent of private ownership.” They also believe that progressive tax on a global scale can allow for the reduction of poverty. Marxism believes that the main alleviation of poverty rely on constant revolution. In order for capital and goods to be distributed equally, the proletariat must revolutionize and overthrow the bourgeoisie, who control a considerable amount of wealth. This must be repeated in order to prevent any individual from gaining too much property and allowing for the distribution of resources to all people. Although an agreement between all three systems is not attainable, there are key pieces that are similar between certain systems.
Classical liberalism and liberal egalitarianism emphasize the rights of individuals and the rights to own property, but disagree on whether the right to property is natural, which is seen in classical liberalism, or if the right to property is given to an individual through society, which is seen in liberal egalitarianism. Liberal egalitarianism and Marxism share key values concerning liberty and equality. Liberal egalitarians believe that justice is the most effective way to determine whether liberty or equality is a more important concept. Liberal egalitarians believe in inequality as long as the least advantaged individual is benefitting from the situation. Marxism takes a more extreme view on equality, as it wants all individuals to have equal resources, which is similar to liber
egalitarianism. It is evident that no agreement can be made among classical liberalism, liberal egalitarianism, and Marxism about economic equality and the just distribution of resources. Classical liberalism believes that wealth and the acquisition of property is a natural right of an individual, government intervention is a last resort and that the wealth of one individual will benefit all individuals. Liberal egalitarianism disagrees directly with many of the ideas that classical liberalism stands for by arguing that property is not a natural right, but rather an idea that had been created by society. They also believe that government intervention ensures justice and equality, rather than hinders it. Marxism not only disagrees with the ideas of classical liberalism, but also of liberal egalitarianism. Marxism rejects the idea of private property and envisions a society of collectivity. The disagreements between basic ideas of each theory prevents any sort of agreement from being reached. An agreement between classical liberalism, liberal egalitarianism, and Marxism based on the principles of just distribution and economic inequality cannot be reached. Each systems advocates for its own ideals which may agree with one other system, but be blatantly against the third system. Any agreement between the three would leave each side of the deal feeling as if they had to sacrifice a key idea in order to prevent conflict. Each economic system can live harmoniously on its own, as long as each society focuses on controlling their society, and not the society of others.