page 5

Are we really free ?

Discussion about the merits of capitalism and socialism often centre around the restrictions placed on individual freedom of societies under the different systems. New Zealanders, like most people in western societies, cherish what they believe to be their extensive individual freedom. Sympathise as they may with socialist ideals, they nevertheless would not like to live in socialist countries because they believe they would be coerced, brainwashed, coaxed, re-educated or otherwise forced to do things that they as individuals, do not want to do.

Such are the misconceptions that surround the whole idea of freedom. Freedom itself, is a hazy ideal (that is) loosely defined and in reality, unattained in any society that has existed or exists today. Notions of freedom most often find their expression in the ideal of democracy, which although it too has never purely existed, has often been aimed at by societies throughout history. It is very much culturally and historically defined in actual practice. Democracy in ancient Athens for instance, was actively practised by a small class of citizens, while the majority of the populace languished in slavery. While the style of democracy practised by the elite was pure and to an admirable degree, the society as a whole would not be considered democratic by today's standards.

This immediately leads to the question of just what today's standards are which to be answered must be looked at in terms of how these standards arose, and what exactly it was that decided how democracy would be defined and expressed in our society. Democracy as we know it evolved with the rise of the bourgeois class, and arose as a guiding set of principles to safeguard and to sanction their rights. For instance, bourgeois claims to private property are reflected in the supposedly democratic idea that is a person's inalienable right to own private property. But of course, it is naive to suggest that everyone has equal access to property and wealth, therefore such ideas merely become apologies for the continued privileged access of one class of people to property and wealth". At the same time, they mask the fact that the majority of people are denied access, and so their freedom is in this sense, quite illusory.

The idea of classes is essential in understanding just who has the real freedom in our society. It is only because of their privileged position that members of the dominant classes can in fact enjoy freedom, a precondition being that such freedom is denied to the majority of people. For instance, students are only "free" to come to university and choose what courses they will do precisely because the mass of people in New Zealand are in one way or another denied that choicer' Only a minority, a privileged few, can attend at any one time, and there are numerous safeguards and limitations to ensure that only this few exercise what is supposed to be a freedom for all — the right to a free education. Many of the freedoms we enjoy are of this type — they are based on the fact that only a select few can exercise them and the mass of people are unable to. When this exercise takes the form of petty self-indulgence that pursuit of trivial self-interests so often does, then the situation becomes even more exploitative and more unjust.

Our notions of freedom are usually of a "do your own thing" type, wherein people have complete freedom insofar as they do not impinge upon or deny the rights of others. This qualification, of being careful not to tread on other's toes, carries with it in an important implication. It implies that other people are somehow a restriction or hindrance, that they some-how restrict one's own unbridled pursuit of freedom, happiness or whatever. As such the bourgeois democratic concept of freedom is essentially a negative one, because others are seen as obstructions rather than as necessary means to fulfillment.

It is often supposed that individual freedom and socialism are somehow directly opposed. This misconception arises out of the western method of philosophy that tends to separate out ideas, and to pit them one against the other. A dialectical approach however would show how the two concepts are in fact reciprocal and mutually incorporate each other. For instance the key to socialistic progress lies in giving wide scope to individual drives and talents. But here the objection is often raised that it is individuality expressed along narrowly defined lines, that one is free insofar as one conforms to the will of the majority. This is where it is important to realise in just what specific cultural and historical situations are these notions of socialism and democracy being expressed. In China for instance, a dictatorship has indeed been established, but it is unique in history in that for the first time the majority of people control the means of production and hence have the decisive power in the society in which they live. The restrictions that are imposed on people we lend to regard as somehow inimical to freedom. This view is however very ethnocentric, very much a reflection of our own cultural bias towards individualism. In a country such as China, with its stress throughout history on the collectivity and group action, this emphasis on individual rights and freedoms is somewhat meaningless.

Socialism acknowledges that individuals find their true realisation through others, and seeks to encourage this, hence there is far less emphasis on purely self-interested needs. Man is a social animal not only in that he needs the company of other men, but it is through this very company that he is created and transformed. Ultimate freedom can only ever come by realising and then utilising the potential for self-fulfillment, for liberation, that resides in others. Such a realisation will dispel the image that we tend to have of other people outside of and confronting us, objective and at times oppressive. Our society fosters such an image, and as such is at sharp variance with one that realises that the only avenue to true freedom is through and with others.

Patrick Martin