The meaning of a word can evolve with time, sometimes by nuance.  In political philosophy, the word equality has evolved in different ways on either side of the Atlantic. In the USA, political equality has traditionally meant equal opportunity, while Europeans were more likely to view equality as pertaining to weath and status, i.e, equal outcome. To resolve this confusion, some in the US refer to equal outcomes as “equity”.

In thinking about today’s political conversations, it is helpful to review what one could call “a history of political equality”.

When Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal”, he was channeling John Locke and extending the English concept of “equality before the law” to include equal opportunity.  Jefferson said “created equal”, because, at birth, there are no outcomes, only opportunity.  The Declaration was never a lie. The US Founders anticipated equal opportunity as a moral ideal, which would be difficult to achieve, but could be approached.

In 1776, equal opportunity was a new idea in the salons of the Enlightenment England, but “equality of outcome” was inconceivable on both sides of the Atlantic … something that could never happen.  Outside of Enlightenment salons, and young America, political equality of any kind was nonexistent.

Enlightenment ideas powered the founding of the USA, and, in England, they created an industrial revolution.  Spreading across western Europe, the Industrial Revolution generated significant economic growth in the western world for the first time since the Dark Ages. 

In the US, the Industrial Revolution was not limited to upper classes, and generated opportunity for a large part of the population. This revolution coupled with political freedom, and cheap land allowed the US to advance from the 12th largest economy to the largest between 1789 and World War I.

In Europe, the Industrial Revolution created opportunities for elites, but, in the 125 years after America’s founding, most of the world’s rulers made minimal efforts toward any kind of equality, ignored freedom, and continued closed economies and social caste systems right up to World War I.

Toward the end of the Industrial Revolution (mid 1800’s), Karl Marx started his own discussion about equality, noting that the opportunities of the Industrial Revolution had not been extended to all.  History had always been written by the elites of society. Marx was one of the first to worry about the “have-nots” and their lot in life. 

To Marx, and other Europeans, who had no concept of equal opportunity (an Enlightenment idea that, by 1840, outside America, had been forgotten) equality had nothing to do with opportunity.  It meant having what your neighbors had, what Americans would call “equal outcome”.  Between 1776 and 1966, you could say that equal opportunity was American idea of equality, and equal outcome was the European idea of equality.

In Europe, equality meant getting more of what other people had, and it was clear that other people would be unlikely to give it up voluntarily.  Knowing this, Marx endorsed violent revolution as a way for the proletarians to secure the “means of production” and other stuff that was in possession of the bourgeoisie (Marx’s term for elites who owned property). 

If you accept this fundamental difference between the American and European concepts of equality in the 19th/20th century, you can see how the American revolution would be different from the French, Mexican, Russian, Cuban, and other revolutions.

The Americans were only fighting for equal opportunity, the right to try, something that might actually be possible, while other revolutions were fighting for equality of outcome which was problematic, since it meant the legalizing the taking of other people’s stuff.  Once you legalize the taking of other people’s stuff, as happened in France in 1793, it was hard for leaders to know when to stop … and they didn’t.

Several Mexican revolutions, the Russian and Cuban ones, and other revolutions across the globe were about getting more of whatever the elites possessed than they were about acquiring “equality of opportunity”, or free speech,or other rights.

American Founders were very different from other revolutionaries. Rather than Marxist ideas, they were channeling Enlightenment ideas including, Locke’s human rights and Adam Smith’s economics in which efficiency and technological advances created by the division of labor, specialization, the expansion of money and credit, led to a generally expanding economy, which benefitted everyone.

In contrast to the win-win game of a dynamic economy, the French revolution and Marxian ideas seemed to be based on the assumption of a static economy and a zero-sum game.  Any wealth you had was not created, but must have been seized from somebody else. 

Marx was born 28 years after Adam Smith’s death.  Economists are still arguing whether Marx was a different type of economist, or a guy who didn’t understand economics.  Rather than debate ideas, let’s ask how the USA was doing with its new ideas compared to the ideas practiced in the Old World.

We mentioned that the USA economy vaulted from twelfth to first place in 125 years. According to the World Bank, China’s economy (GDP) was 22 times the size of the USA’s in 1800 while the UK’s was 3 times as large.  By 1914 (WW I), the USA’s economy was two times the size of China and two times that of the UK.  After WW II (1950), the USA’s economy was 8 times that of China and 4 times that of the UK.

In the wake of two world wars, people outside the US began to notice that a single country featuring freedom, democracy, and equal opportunity had become the wild card in two world wars, and richest and the most powerful nation in history.   In the 60 years after World War I, 180 countries (approx. half of the world’s nations) converted to freer economies and democratic rule.

The information contained in the last couple of paragraphs is the reason the USA has been called “the leader of the free world”.

I feel like my brief history can help clarify some misconceptions that seem to be floating around current discussions about equality in the media.

Here is a summary of facts.

1. While you could debate how perfectly the USA achieved political equality between 1776 and 1946, it was far more successful than any other country. In fact, until a few social democracies were established after World War II, the USA was the only country that even had political equality as a goal.

2. In 1776, political equality was seen as equality of opportunity.

3. Equality of opportunity is complicated and difficult to approach, but generates great benefits.

4. The USA invented equality of opportunity, and still approaches it more closely than other countries.

5. Observing the wealth created by the Industrial Revolution, Marx began a clamor for equality of outcomes.

6. Equality of outcomes is much more difficult to approach than equality of opportunity, and attempts to do so have stifled economic growth.

7. Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea have come the closest to equality of outcomes. There seems to be a lot of evidence that striving solely for equal outcomes has created many more problems than it has solved.    

Categories: Commentary, Philosophy, Politics