It used to be a favourite argument of the Marxists that material well-being is more important than freedom and that freedom should be sacrificed in the interests of pursuing what we now call economic growth. So it was admitted that the people of the Soviet Union (or East Germany) were less free than the people of the West but they were supposed to be achieving, in consequence, a uniquely high material standard of living.
Today this is nothing but a sick joke, So conspicuously unsuccessful were the communist countries in pursuing economic growth that it is not clear whether, when the people of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe revolted against communism, they were revolting primarily against the poverty which it imposed on them, or against their lack of freedom. Obviously, both were important. There can be no doubt that at the time of the popular overthrow of the communist regime in East Germany, that country was as far behind West Germany in standard of living as it was in freedom.
Recent research has shown conclusively that throughout the world there is a direct correlation between economic freedom and economic prosperity. Free countries have a higher standard of living, and the standard rises faster than in unfree countries. (See Economic Freedom of the World: 2001 Annual Report South African edition published by the Free Market Foundation)
So it is not necessary to decide whether freedom or economic prosperity is more important. They go together in any case. This does not alter the fact that the Marxist argument was not valid. Nobody denies that a rich person is effectively freer than a poor one he has more options to choose from. But to say, as Marx did, that formal freedom is of no use to the poor is obvious nonsense. In a free society the poor and unskilled still have the option to work for wages or to be self-employed in the informal sector; they can leave an unsatisfactory employer (as they often do), and, probably most important, they can move in search of opportunities. The restriction on freedom of movement, which has been so popular in unfree societies from early feudalism to recent apartheid and communism, was aimed at the poor. If freedom (specifically of movement) is of no value to the poor one wonders why the Soviet Union and apartheid South Africa were so anxious to withhold it from them.
Source:Michael ODowd is the Chairman of the Free Market Foundation. This article may be reprinted without prior consent but with acknowledgement. Everybody says they want freedom but they dont all mean the same thing in this series of brief articles Mr ODowd explains his concept of a free society. The patrons, council and members of the Foundation do not necessarily agree with the views expressed by the author of the article.
FMF\8 August 2001
