Equality, in the modern, just, and reasonable sense, is entirely different from egalitarianism and populism. It is a concept that complements freedom. Freedom, equality, and social cooperation constitute the basic conceptual bases of social justice. With the advancement of modernization and the market economy, and the popularity of the people-oriented concept, equality has become an important goal that members of society pursue. Equality also increasingly determines people’s behavior. It plays an irreplaceable role in modern society. It should be noted that the concept of equality, the idea of people’s urgent need for equality/dignity, and the intuitive appearance of equality are relatively independent ideologies, and they sometimes lead to ambiguous understandings. Furthermore, these ambiguities could cross the reasonable and necessary boundaries of equality itself, and lead to people taking equality and deviating from what it was originally meant to mean. It then, in a sense, risks becoming somewhat detrimental to people’s freedoms and social justice, as well as to the healthy development and safe operations of society. Because of this, it is necessary to clarify the basic meaning, boundaries, and characteristics of equality, so that equality and social justice can be effectively understood and pursued in the correct way.

1 The Basic Meaning of Equality

Equality is an essential—but not unique—concept and a basic value in modern society. It implies the universal expectation that members of society should have the same basic rights, that their basic dignity should be protected equally, and that they should be provided with an equal platform that allows them to fit into that society and seek development. Hobbes states that “every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature,” and it is necessary “for man’s life, to retain some; as right to govern their own bodies; enjoy air, water, motion, ways to go from place to place; and all things else, without which a man cannot live, or not live well” (Hobbes 1998). Locke also believes that “there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all, should by any manifest declaration of his will set on above another, and confer on him by an evident and clear appointment an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty” (Locke 1982). Paine further asserts that there should be an equal relationship between generations. “The illuminating and divine principle of the equal rights of man (for it has its origin from the Maker of man) relates, not only to the living individuals, but to generations of men succeeding each other. Every generation is equal in rights to generations which preceded it, by the same rule that every individual is born equal in rights with his contemporary” (Paine 1981).

This idea and basic value orientation of equality directly determines how institutions are arranged in modern society. In turn, these institutions then determine how specific interests, rights, obligations, responsibilities, and risks are distributed to all members of society. Equality, freedom, and social cooperation constitute the conceptual bases of social justice.

Everybody’s contribution in a social community entitles them to equal rights. A community cannot exist nor maintain its dignity without individuals making contributions and having a sense of dignity. Marx points out, “The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals” (Marx and Engels 1995a). People’s basic contributions are indispensable and equal, in terms of how they build a community. Everybody has “prerequisite contributions,” by which they form dignity in their community; accordingly, people possess human dignity. So, “the equality of all human beings is the equality of their dignity as persons … The truth of the proposition that all human beings are by nature equal is confined to the one respect in which that equality can be truly affirmed; namely, their all being equally human, their having the species-specific properties and especially the differentiating properties that belong to all members of the species” (Adler 1984). It is “human” for people to have their basic contributions affirmed in society and means that people recognize their dignity; this is also how people recognize their basic rights. If people do not enjoy the same basic rights, then they cannot guarantee their “normal” development or survival. They cannot maintain their dignity, and they will find that “equality” loses its practical significance. Engels points out that “the modern demand for equality is something entirely different from that; this consists rather in deducing from that common quality of being human, from that equality of men as men, a claim to equal political and social status for all human beings, or at least for all citizens of a state or all members of a society” (Marx and Engels 1995b).

Equality is the inevitable product of historical development. What we mean here by “equality” is equality both in the modern sense and in the real sense. This kind of equality will become a reality only when it is universally recognized and accepted by the public in a modern society and in a market economy.

In traditional society, equality did not exist. Traditional society was based on a natural economy, where productivity was extremely low and producers could only exchange materials in order to play a role in a community. As Marx states, “The less social power the medium of exchange possesses … the greater must be the power of the community which binds the individuals together” (Marx and Engels 1979a). Therefore, traditional society was an authoritarian and hierarchical society. Normally, members of the proletariat showed an unconditional attitude toward members of the bourgeoisie, and over time, they became accustomed to personal dependence and oppression. It was impossible to realize a universal concept of equality. Even if there was equality, it was only “equality” among the oppressed majority. It is in this sense that Montesquieu’s analogy has some truth to it: “In republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are, also, in despotic governments: in the former, because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing” (de Montesquieu 1777).

In a modern society and in a market economy, equality has become an inevitable trend, and it has been widely recognized and accepted in society. Modern productive forces have liberated people from social hierarchies, personal dependence, and oppression. People are more dependent on the economic system ensuring their development and survival. They are no longer limited to a specific small production base or a “blood circle” as they were in the past; they have become “individuals” with independent personalities, autonomy, and subjectivity. Marx believes that “man is only individualized through the process of history … Exchange itself is a major agent of this individualization. It makes the herd animal superfluous and dissolves it. Once the situation is such, that man as an isolated person has relation only to himself” (Marx and Engels 1979a). The emergence and development of the market economy has meant that equality has been promoted and popularized. The market economy emphasizes equal exchanges between independent individuals who are qualified as “legal persons” (“natural persons”). Marx points out that “commodities are a born leveller and a cynic … Commodities are things, and therefore without power of resistance against man. If they are wanting in docility he can use force; in other words, he can take possession of them” (Marx 1975). The reciprocal exchange of commodities between people has become a popular way of life in modern society, and this means that the spirit of equality has been popularized throughout society. This trend has broad and profound foundations. However, in short, it is due to the modern economy that equality has become a universal concept and trend. As Tocqueville states: “The gradual development of equality of conditions is therefore a providential fact and it has the principal characteristics of one: it is universal, it is enduring, each day it escapes human power; all events, like all men, serve its development” (de Tocqueville 2002).

Equality increasingly influences society. The scope of the concept is evolving, and there are more and more types of equality. There is no longer just political equality; there is economic equality, social equality, cultural equality, gender equality, educational equality, intergenerational equality, ethnic equality, racial equality, religious equality, national equality, and equal opportunities. More and more people are being increasingly affected by equality, even within the same field(s). In developed countries, the right to vote has gradually been extended to everyone over the age of 18, without restrictions on property, gender, race, age, or education. Equality has clearly become an essential and integral part of people’s daily lives.

2 The Main Function of Equality

Equality is not only an important symbol of modern civilization; it is a positive influence on modern society. Equality is so important that modern society cannot survive without it.

2.1 Equality Effectively Guarantees Freedom

Freedom and equality are part of an organic whole, and they are prerequisites for one another. There is no equality without freedom, and there is no freedom without equality. Both concepts grow together and promote one another. They collectively allow people to progress as a civilization, and they facilitate socio-economic development.

With regard to the specific relationship between freedom and equality, freedom is more important than equality; equality is largely subordinate to freedom. If there is no freedom, there is no equality in the modern sense. First, freedom is the end, and equality is the means to achieve freedom. Equality essentially serves freedom. Obviously, freedom is essentially a human trait, and it makes us different from other animals. Marx points out that “free, conscious activity is man’s species-character” (Marx and Engels 1979b). Equality guarantees that humans have freedom, and it enables humans to continue realizing freedom. Without equality, the majority of people cannot fully recognize freedom. When freedom is difficult for some people to realize, they lose their most basic dignity in society. If freedom is essentially a human trait, then equality is a matter of human dignity. People are essentially only categorized as humans if they have their basic dignity. Second, the premise of equality is that it allows for the existence of independent individuals. Giovanni Sartori states that “liberty must materialize, in time and in fact, before equality. Liberty comes first, then, on the simple consideration that equality without freedom cannot even be demanded” (Sartori 1987). Third, to a large extent, equality depends on how much certain freedoms are supported. Equality in the modern sense often depends on, or develops, according to specific processes, specific requirements, or according to how much support there is for certain freedoms. Equality can only be realized in a healthy fashion if it doesn’t violate the basic attributes of freedom. “Freedom” has some basic attributes. These include individuality, autonomy, rationality, and diversity. If any of these are violated, people’s equality will become distorted, and this will mean that there are a great many hidden dangers in society. “The distribution of rights stresses equality even at the expense of equality and freedom. When people differ in capabilities, interests, and preferences, identical treatment is not equitable treatment, at least by some standards” (Okun 1975). For example, if equality affects people’s individuality and diversity, then equality will inevitably evolve into something harmful such as egalitarianism, or possibly lead to “tyranny” of the majority.

Although freedom is essentially more important than equality, equality effectively guarantees freedom. As a result, freedom, as a concept, is inseparable from equality. Equality can be described as the “greatest common denominator of freedom.” Rousseau believes: “If we seek to define precisely the greatest good of all, the necessary goal of every system of legislation, we shall find that the main objectives are limited to two only: liberty and equality; liberty, because any form of particular subordination means that the body of the state loses some degree of strength; and equality because liberty cannot subsist without it” (Rousseau 1985). It is in this sense that Spencer’s “law of equal freedom” has some truth to it, because “the freedom of each must be bounded by the similar freedom of all” (Spencer 2017). Three implications can be made about this kind of freedom. First, that equality helps to rid the world of autocratic forces and eliminate inequalities and various privileges, so that everyone can realize their basic dignity and have a platform where they can freely develop. Second, that equality helps members of society who are not able to reach the baseline of freedom in society. It should be acknowledged, however, that some natural and social phenomena have been the reason behind some vulnerable communities. Many people in disadvantaged groups have little education; they lack labor skills and have little opportunity to develop. Their circumstances inevitably have a very adverse impact on their basic living conditions and the basic living conditions of their descendants. For these people, it is difficult to realize freedom. Equality is important to these groups because it provides them with necessary social security, a compulsory education, public healthcare, employment opportunities, and other assistive services. They can then survive and develop at a basic level, and realize the baseline of freedom. As a result, freedom is enhanced as a whole across society. Third, equality can effectively prevent a phenomenon whereby the freedom possessed by some impacts on the freedom of others. Equality is a fundamental right to everybody in society. With equality, people can not only obtain what they deserve, but crucially, they can prevent other people or groups of people from harming their legitimate interests and using freedom as an excuse to undermine their own freedoms. It should be noted that, in reality, people have different abilities, resources, and status. If they are not equally protected and are allowed to behave as they freely like, some people will damage the legitimate interests of others. “There are libertarians, who not only place the highest value on liberty but also seek to maximize it at the expense of equality. They not only want an unlimited amount of freedom, but they are also willing to try to achieve it even it achieving it results in an irremediable inequality of conditions, under which some portion of a society, usually a majority, suffer serious deprivations” (Adler 1984). As a proverb vividly quoted by Berlin in his Liberty: “Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep” (Berlin 2002).

2.2 Equality Gives Momentum to Development and Stimulates Social Vitality

When a society has the equality that goes with freedom, it will develop at a great pace and effectively stimulate its own dynamics.

Equality enables society to fully develop social resources. Since social resources (human resources, cultural resources, etc.) are the most important driving forces for developing society, when they are effectively mobilized, organized, utilized, and developed, there is social development (Wu 1995). However, these resources need to be actively developed in order for there to be real momentum; otherwise they simply offer potential. Different ideas and different social environments mean that there is different momentum behind social resources. If a society lacks equality, people will not cooperate equally or effectively, and it is unlikely that social resources will be fully developed. Only a modern society with a market economy can provide a platform for the vast majority of its members to survive and develop; that is, as long as people’s equality is compatible with their freedoms, and social resources are developed effectively and to the max. There will then be huge momentum for development and social vitality will effectively be stimulated. Having equal and basic rights is a necessary prerequisite for “the masses” in order that they can survive and develop. Since the differences between most people in their potential for survival and development are not that large, if society can provide them with a compulsory education and basic vocational training based on the concept of equality, then they will have basic cultural and vocational abilities, and they will be able to survive and develop. At the same time, people will realize that they are able to effectively cooperate with one another in society, as equality serves as a criterion for interactions. It should be noted that people’s ability to survive, develop, and cooperate happens at a public level and involves the masses; therefore, such momentum involves the large-scale development of social resources. There are large, sustainable results, and these fuel competition in society.

Equality helps to minimize internal frictions in society. It is difficult for different social groups to cooperate effectively in society unless they are able to reach a consensus; however, there may be frictions as a result of people’s completely different behaviors. When groups find it hard to cooperate effectively, the momentum will be consumed or offset by unnecessary frictions in society, as well as disputes and conflicts among different social groups. There will be unprovoked chaos, and this will be all-consuming. Obviously, the more internal frictions there are in society, the less effective the momentum is in that society. Equality can effectively solve these problems, and minimize social frictions. In a society where inequalities prevail, it is difficult for different social groups to reach a consensus. Rousseau points out: “If you wish to give the state cohesion, bring the limits of wealth and poverty as close together as possible: do not allow either extreme opulence or destitution. The two are inseparable by nature, and both are equally damaging to the common good; one produces the instruments of tyranny, and the other produces the tyrants. It is always between them that public liberty is traded, one buying and the other selling” (Rousseau 1985). It is hard to imagine that if there is a differentiated and unequal socio-economic situation, different social groups will form a consensus on large goals. However, if equality becomes a common socio-economic phenomenon, people will have similar social and economic foundations. It will be easy for different social groups to reach a consensus. Similarly, equal social and economic conditions will allow different social groups to be able to recognize mutual benefits and reciprocity, and they will be able to move together in the same direction. Competitive behavior will even be on an equal playing field, and therefore will be beneficial and cooperative among different groups, rather than vicious, harmful, and useless. For example, if there is equal taxation and social transfer payment policies, the situation will be as follows: rich groups will develop continuously, but the living conditions of vulnerable groups will also improve at the same time. So there will be development among the wealthy, middle-income groups and vulnerable groups all at the same time. In short, the more equality there is in society, the more social cooperation there will be. There will also be fewer internal frictions between different groups, and so more positive energy in society.

Equality can also directly promote economic development. The specific situation of equality has a notable impact on domestic consumption. Generally speaking, domestic consumption is much more of a driving force behind the economic growth compared to export or investment activities. High-income groups have the strongest purchasing power, but their marginal propensity to consume is the lowest of any socio-economic group. The opposite is true of low-income groups. Their marginal propensity to consume is the strongest of any group, but they have the least purchasing power. Middle-income groups have a relatively strong marginal propensity to consume, and relatively strong purchasing power. Ensuring more equality in society means weakening the gap between the rich and the poor, and this leads to a social structure that is dominated by middle-income groups. In turn, this leads to a society with a fair and reasonable consumption structure. This “olive-shaped” social structure is a strong, driving force for domestic consumption. A pyramid-shaped social structure that is dominated by low-income groups would be unfair, and there would be little momentum for domestic consumption under this social structure. It should also be noted that establishing or improving a social security system and basing it on the concept of equality could effectively enhance domestic consumption. Social security systems function as “safety nets” and “stabilizers,” and they have a “crowding out” effect, that is, they can do things like prevent people setting money aside. People can use their social security system to understand important risks in society and the market, and this helps them feel less worried about their pension, medical care, or being unemployed. They can have relatively stable expectations about what their future will hold, and this prevents them from making savings. Such systems lead to increased real-time consumption, or more advanced consumption habits, for example, taking out a large mortgage (a loan for consumption). In this way, equality, manifested in social security systems, can mean more expansive domestic consumption (Wu 2008).

2.3 Equality Ensures That There Are Safe Operations in Society

Whether society can operate safely or not depends on many factors, but it is largely down to people’s interests. In a modern society with a market economy, people value their interests the most. Disputes, contradictions, and conflicts, which are rooted in inequalities of interests, can be common, long-lasting, and dangerous, thereby affecting how safe society is. The unfair and unequal distribution of commodities that are rooted in people’s interests can have a broad, long-lasting, adverse impact on the safe operation of society.

Inequalities will inevitably lead to social insecurity. People feel deprived when they are treated unequally, and that leads to dissatisfaction and resistance in society. “From the unequal distribution of wealth and power arise all the disorders of which nine-tenths of the inhabitants of all civilized countries justly complain. From thence result to them privations, sufferings, humiliations, and slavery” (Buonarroti 1836). Mao Zedong wisely states that where there is oppression, there is resistance. Crucially, if inequalities are so severe that they directly affect the basic survival of some people, especially of too many people and main social groups, then there will be strong resistance. In some developing countries/regions, inequalities inevitably lead to serious social problems, intense social conflicts, social unrest, and social crises. These in turn have a negative impact on the safe operation of society. Society pays a price in terms of how it develops, and in serious cases, the development process is interrupted altogether. There is another phenomenon, whereby the “scope” of disputes and conflicts increases rather than decreases among people, as society becomes more advanced and civilized. In this context, social disputes and conflicts are less intense. But equality remains an important variable that affects the ability of society to function safely.

Obviously, introducing more equality in society can eliminate hidden dangers, such as social instability. Therefore, equality is necessary to ensuring that there are safe operations in society.

3 The Main Characteristics of Equality

In the process of the people’s pursuit of equality, the idea of equality reveals the following main characteristics:

3.1 Equality Often Contains Too Many Idealized Elements

Compared to liberty, equality itself and the people’s pursuit of it contain many idealized or even passionate elements, and the motivation for it is strong. Tocqueville points out: “But freedom is not the principal and continuous object of their desire; what they love with an eternal love is equality; they dash toward freedom with a rapid impulse and sudden efforts, and if they miss the goal they resign themselves; but nothing can satisfy them without equality, and they would sooner consent to perish than to lose it” (de Tocqueville 2002). Sartori also believes that equality is “the most insatiable of all our ideals. Other strivings can conceivably reach a point of saturation, but there can hardly be an end to the race for equality - among other reasons because the attainment of equality in one respect seemingly generates inequalities in others. If, then, one ideal exists that starts man on an endless race, it is equality” (Sartori 1987).

The reason why equality can contain so many idealized elements is that, for one thing, the term equality has broad implications, which leaves a wide variety of interpretations and room for people with different interests to interpret. It not only refers to fair equality (equality that is compatible with freedom), but also to parity, egalitarianism, populism, and so on, which are disconnected from the concept of freedom. Different members of society can often take what they need for different meanings of equality based on their own specific circumstances, unique requirements, immediate goals, and long-term expectations, and imagine the idea of equality freely. Therefore, the term equality embraces a wide range of ideals and expectations with very different or even conflicting goals. Secondly, the people’s pursuit of equality is often divorced from the actual situation in society. To a great extent, the concept of equality is easily disconnected from the institutional design and policy arrangement of the society. When people talk about equality, they do not need to personally build the institutions related to it. More often, they just discuss what “should” be done or just express their resentment against inequality, their understanding of equitable goals, and their pursuit of equitable ideals by criticizing, attacking, and fighting against various inequalities. Accordingly, people tend not to consider feasible things such as “how to do it” and “whether it can be done,” which are related to the design and construction of an equal system because they regard it as the business of others, especially of those in power. Because of this, equality carries many idealized elements that are divorced from reality. It has been found that “writers on the subject of equality are eloquent and persuasive in voicing a cahier de doléances when denouncing the evils of inequality. But their arguments become thinner and less convincing as they tackle the question of how the ideal of equality is to be realized” (de Tocqueville 2002).

This characteristic puts equality in a complex situation. A society cannot exist without ideals. Among all kinds of ideals, equality is an essential one. A proper ideal is an inexhaustible driving force in promoting social progress. However, if the ideal of equality is exceeded beyond reasonable limits, it can have a very negative impact on society because, elements that are too idealized bring uncertainty to the actual forms of equality, which may cause some potential adverse effects or even harm the healthy development and safe operation of society. “The passion to which equality gives birth will therefore be both energetic and general” (de Tocqueville 2002). Many idealized equality goals are realistic and have too many errors. Under such circumstances, if the members who advocate for idealized equality take a dominant position and forcibly turn these goals into reality, then the existing social order will be destroyed; however, at the same time a new social order that can be recognized by the real society and the people cannot be established based on the idealized goals. If so, that society will fall into a state of chaos and disorder.

3.2 Equality Has a Broad and Profound Public Base

Compared to freedom, equality has a broader and stronger public base. “The charms of equality are felt at all moments, and they are within reach of all; the noblest hearts are not insensitive to them, and the most vulgar souls get their delights from them” (de Tocqueville 2002). Moreover, with the advancement of modernization, this base is likely to expand instead of getting smaller. “As citizens become more equal and alike, the penchant of each to believe blindly a certain man or class diminishes. The disposition to believe the mass is augmented, and more and more it is opinion that leads the world” (de Tocqueville 2002). Obviously, equality is more attractive to people than freedom. Tocqueville feels the same way by saying that “men in all times prefer equality to freedom” (de Tocqueville 2002). Sartori also states, “Yet no sooner does a situation of liberty open the way to the appetite for equality than the ideal of liberty finds itself at a disadvantage, and the appeal of equality proves stronger” (Sartori 1987).

Some scholars have analyzed the reasons for why equality has a public base. According to Tocqueville, the reasons are as follows: First, equality forms the distinctive characteristic of the period they live in. Second, people believe that equality will last forever. Third, the evils that extreme equality can produce become manifest only little by little, while the advantages of equality make themselves felt from now on. Sartori says, “This occurs for two major reasons. First, the idea of equality is more accessible, since equality can be given a tangible meaning (albeit a misleading one), whereas liberty cannot. Second, equality results in providing tangible benefits, material benefits, whereas the benefits of liberty are, as long as they are enjoyed, intangible” (Sartori 1987).

In fact, besides the aforementioned reasons, the following reasons also deserve the people’s attention.

  1. (1)

    In normal modern society, most people will value equality. The disadvantaged, such as members of vulnerable groups, rely on an equitable social security system to ensure their basic survival, so they naturally attach great importance to equality. A large number of middle-income people, who fear falling into the low-income rank, also need equality as a necessary protective barrier. Together, these two groups make up the majority of society’s members, and thus form a broad public base for equality.

  2. (2)

    Most members of a transitioning society attach great importance to equality. During the period of social transformation, due to an imperfect system and unbalanced development, the gap between the rich and the poor will widen rapidly, and many members of that society will fall into poverty (absolute poverty). Moreover, during such a period, there will be an obvious phenomenon of relative poverty, which means that the relatively poor are also unable to enjoy, or at least fully enjoy, the fruits of social development. The relatively poor are a group of relatively deprived members who have difficulty living up to and developing “social expectations.” They “do not enjoy basic standards of diet, living conditions, leisure activities, and amenities which are socially perceived as ‘customary’ ” (Webster 1990), nor do they fully participate in social life and thus cannot receive development opportunities such as education and employment like “normal” citizens. Clearly, both the poor and the relatively poor value equality, and they all hope to change their predicament through equitable policies. In fact, most members of society attach great importance to equality. The reason is simple. Social transformation means that the overall interest structure of the society must be adjusted in all aspects; in other words, the economic and social positions of a large number of people must be reshuffled. People cannot predict the future of the society and their own situations. In this case, most people especially hope to have a social security system that guarantees their basic survival and development—that is, they hope to have the safety net of a social security system.

  3. (3)

    It is easier for public management groups and citizens to reach a consensus on equality in modern society. The function of public management groups in modern society is to maintain justice and improve the people’s livelihood. Since equality is an essential part of social justice and the people’s livelihood, under normal circumstances, public management groups will certainly regard improving equality and the people’s livelihood as an important task. Moreover, even from the perspective of winning the people’s hearts and consolidating their ruling position, those in power must also emphasize equality. Therefore, under certain conditions, the people and the government will work together to advance the process of equality. The joint efforts are an important aspect that makes the public base of equality more reasonable and legitimate, before it becomes more extensive and profound.

3.3 Equality Requires More and Higher Social Costs

In general, society pays significantly more for improvements in equality than in freedom. The cost of freedom is relatively low. In a sense, the cost paid by the society involves issuing relevant systems and policies, drawing certain insurmountable boundaries, and setting up relevant protection agencies, and the costs for the coordination of social groups and these public funds are relatively small. Things are different with equality. The cost of social equality often includes not only major institutional measures or policies, but also significant human and material resources and public funds for social security, compulsory education, public health, and housing. These investments can be costly and quite expensive at a given time. Technically, the cost paid by the society for equality also includes the follow-up of supporting measures because equality is complex, as it involves various systems and policies that are often or even forever in conflict with each other. For example, “equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either the one or the other, but not both at the same time. The equality before the law which freedom requires leads to material inequality” (Hayek 1973). It requires a lot of manpower and material resources to carry out the necessary revision and coordination of laws and regulations, in order to match all kinds of equitable policies and minimize the adverse effects caused by conflicts and contradictions. Taking the migrant workers in present China as an example, we can clearly see that the cost of equality is much higher than that of freedom. It is relatively easy for migrant workers to obtain liberty, because it only requires some policies that allow them to move freely and lift the old, unfair restrictions. However, in order for migrant workers to truly enjoy freedom, they must be treated equally, and this requires relevant equitable systems and policies to follow. The cost for these is extremely high because they involve the household registration (hukou) system, labor-capital policy, social security scheme, children’s schooling, and especially housing security.

It is not difficult to understand the reason for why equality requires more and higher social costs. Freedom requires a relatively small cost to society, but a relatively high cost to the individual member of society. For example, when the necessary policies are already in place, the ability of individuals to move and migrate, to be employed, etc., becomes largely a matter of their determination and effort, and they face many risks. In contrast, the cost of equality paid by individuals is relatively small and is limited to actions such as appealing and striving. Equality is primarily a matter that requires the society to pay its cost. Furthermore, there is often a large gap between the expectations of members of society for equality and the ability of that society to satisfy them. The public is often unsatisfied with equality, while their expectations can easily and consistently rise. They will strive to have what they do not have, and they will strive to have more of what they already have. This inevitably leads to a rapid escalation of the social costs of equality.

This third characteristic of equality has a profound impact on society. Equality is an inevitable trend of history, and society should certainly pay the necessary costs for pursuing this important concept. However, it should be noted that equality requires relatively high and continuously increasing social costs, which tends to create a dilemma for a country. On the one hand, the high cost of equality makes a country continuously invest large amounts of public funds, which in turn tends to strain the country’s finances. This will crowd out public funds that should be used for developing science and technology, enhancing economic competitiveness, etc., and thus weakens the vitality of society. On the other hand, when a country tries to alleviate the pressure in this area by making necessary cuts in public funds for equality, it will likely cause public discontent and even social unrest, resulting in social instability.

4 Types of Deformed Equality and Its Complications

In particular, it should be noted that equality has a reasonable boundary, beyond which it will become excessive and unreasonable. The reasonable boundary lies in the recognition and tolerance of people’s differences and mutual adaptation alongside freedom. If this boundary is broken, then equality will become excessive and even deformed, which will inevitably damage freedom. “Equality can either be the best complement of freedom or its worst enemy. The relationship between equality and freedom is a love-hate relationship, depending on whether we demand an equality that suits diversity or an equality that sees inequality in every diversity. And, certainly, the more equality is sameness, the more an equality so conceived feeds a distaste for variety, self-assertion and eminence, and thereby, in the final analysis, for freedom” (Sartori 1987). The damage to freedom caused by excessive equality can have serious consequences. It will obliterate social differences, undermine the people’s freedom of personality and their property rights, deny the diversity of people’s lifestyles, suppress the creativity and vitality of society as a whole, and actually go against the historical trend of modernization and the market economy. More importantly, once equality severely breaks through its reasonable boundary, then the three main features of equality will further expand the possible negative effects of excessive equality, which will in turn make excessive equality deformed and extreme.

Generally speaking, a society, whether it is a traditional or a modern one, is always more or less mixed with elements of excessive equality such as egalitarianism. However, the egalitarian elements do not become mainstream in that society, thus having no influence on its overall situation. However, under the influence of various factors, once excessive equality evolves into an extreme and deformed equality that influences the society, it will cause great damage to the whole society. “There is in fact a manly and legitimate passion for equality that incites men to want all to be strong and esteemed. This passion tends to elevate the small to the rank of the great; but one also encounters a depraved taste for equality in the human heart that brings the weak to want to draw the strong to their level and that reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom” (de Tocqueville 2002). In this regard, there are three major types of deformed equality.

First, institutionalized egalitarianism.

Institutionalized egalitarianism is achieved by combining the upper and lower classes with institutional arrangements. Although this is a deformed equality, the entire society is not out of control because there is still a specific order, and the social economy still runs (albeit irregularly) for a relatively long time. China (prior to the reform and opening up), the Soviet Union, and Eastern European countries practiced this type of equality. Among them, China was a more typical case of institutionalized equality, because at that time, China’s planned economy had a broader mass base. Additionally, the bureaucracy and privileges of the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries were much larger than those of China, resulting in fewer elements of absolute equality.

The institutionalized egalitarianism in China before the reform and opening up had three basic features, which are as follows:

  1. (1)

    Implementing an all-round monopoly of resources. At that time, the state monopolized all the resources which all members of society depended on for survival, work, life, and development, and every member showed a kind of personal dependence. No one could survive or develop without their work units, organizations, and the country. The people had no freedom and autonomy, so there was almost no possibility for them to choose freely in important aspects of life such as career, migration, and even lifestyle.

  2. (2)

    Suppressing thoughts and private property. Freedom of thought was regarded as a hotbed of heresy, so the state’s top priority was to control the ideological sphere by stressing the absolute unification of the whole society in terms of ideas and concepts. All the members’ thoughts must be highly consistent with what the state advocated for; anything different was labeled as heresy, and it was completely suppressed and blocked. This explains why universities and knowledge fields, which take ideological innovation as their duty, were shut down in all previous political movements. At the same time, private property was regarded as the root of all evil, so almost all private economy was banned and a public economy prevailed. By November 1958, some 26,000 people’s communes had been formed out of 740,000 agricultural cooperatives in the country’s rural areas. More than 126.9 million households joined the communes, accounting for 99.1% of the total rural households in China (Zhao 1989). Since then, China continued to upgrade and merge some collective ownership systems, while the individual economy was massively abolished or restricted. By 1978, the number of urban workers was 94.99 million, of which 150,000 were individual (self-employed) workers, producing a ratio of 633:1 (National Bureau of Statistics 1989). The high degree of communalization and the large scope of the system are evident.

  3. (3)

    Implementing high-intensity social mobilization. The core of social mobilization is the people’s extensive and in-depth participation in social affairs. High-intensity social mobilization was an important feature of Chinese society at that time, which also lasted a long time. More importantly, the social mobilization gradually merged with political movements, with class struggle as the key link. In the 1950s, social mobilization was mostly associated with the content related to modernization. But from the early 1960s, this situation began to change. Social mobilization was mostly connected with political movements with class struggle as the key link, and they affected and induced one another. Social mobilization was abused, often used for ideological reform and the removal of dissidents, so that it almost lost control in the end. Both of them together led to the “Cultural Revolution” movement (Wu et al. 2002). Under the influence of the above-mentioned conditions of the times, China at that time had formed a typical institutionalized egalitarianism.

At the beginning, institutionalized egalitarianism objectively produced certain positive effects. Historically, the institutionalized egalitarianism in China and in the Soviet Union has made great contributions for ending unequal society, establishing a national heavy industry and military system, promoting mass education, women’s liberation, and realizing national equality. However, with the passage of time, the harm caused by institutionalized egalitarianism to society increased, and eventually it even became a huge obstacle to social development, thus moving toward the opposite of equality in the truest sense. (1) Egalitarianism caused serious personal attachment and subordination. Under the condition of institutionalized egalitarianism, the state controlled the social and economic resources in an all-round way, so that public rights were expanded almost endlessly. Individuals must be attached to a certain unit or commune, and they did not have the space for self-choice or even the right to move independently. Moreover, when it came to the relationship between the state, the collective, and the individual, there is no doubt that the former had absolute priority over the latter, and the most costly interests of the latter could even be sacrificed for the benefit of the former’s least costly interests. (2) A new identity hierarchy was formed. In the Soviet Union two levels were formed, one for the state management cadres and the other for the masses. The former had various privileges. Before China’s reform and opening up, a strict household registration system resulted in the classification of individuals into either urban or rural residents. The two unequal identities allowed for different treatment in terms of people’s lives and work. According to the political composition and “family background” of the individuals, people were divided into different political series with significant differences in political trust and social status (Wu 2006). (3) The private sphere of members of society was controlled and violated to varying degrees. Under the condition of institutionalized egalitarianism, people often did not know what they should do, but they always knew what others were not allowed to do. There were no basic rights, privacy, or even the basic dignity as individuals. Even the individual’s lifestyle was made uniform and strictly restricted, and the society advocated for asceticism. (4) Egalitarianism inhibited the creative vitality of society. Personal dependence, the new hierarchy, and the disappearance of the private sphere made most members of society lose their hopes in life and development prospects. Society is made up of countless individuals. The loss of hopes and development prospects of most members of society inevitably means the loss of the creative vitality of the whole society. No matter if it was in the Soviet Union, Eastern European countries, or China before the reform and opening up, it is completely consistent that social creativity and economic development efficiency declined, and the people’s mental state flagged.

Second, “the tyranny of the majority.”

“Tyranny of the majority” means that, when equality goes to the extreme, it is easy to form a situation in which the majority controls the behavior or even the fate of the minority based on the superiority of number rather than the principle of justice. This is divided into two subtypes. One is that some important policies and behaviors are formulated and selected according to the number of people or the opinion of the majority of people when the society is running relatively normally—that is, when there is no disorder in the society. The abuse of public opinion in the process of democratization in some developing countries and today’s cyberviolence belong to this subtype. The other is the hasty decision of the majority on the fate of the minority when there is a lack of good social order. The latter is the most typical and has the greatest harm, which should arouse the people’s attention and vigilance. It was fully embodied during the French Revolution and China’s “Cultural Revolution.”

The tyranny of the majority in the period of social disorder is a deformed equality from the bottom up. “Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If the majority are united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will not be guaranteed.” Then, “anarchy may as truly be said to reign, as in a state of nature where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger” (Accessed Sept 1, 2022). This deformed equality is spontaneous, irrational, disorderly, and anarchic, and its duration is relatively short, but it causes more damage in a given time and its harm is far-reaching.

In a sense, the “tyranny of the majority” is no less harmful than the “tyranny of the minority.” Equality originally has an idealized element and a broad and profound mass base, while deformed equality is more powerful because of strong passion and a strong mass base as a huge supporting force. Tocqueville describes the driving force behind the French Revolution as follows: “One, older and more deeply rooted, was the violent, inextinguishable hatred of inequality. This was ignited and fueled by the sight of inequality itself, and with constant and irresistible force it had long driven the French to seek to destroy, down to the very foundations, whatever remained of the institutions of the Middle Ages, and once the ground was clear, to build upon it a society in which men would be as similar and conditions as equal as humanity would allow” (de Tocqueville 2002). “The tyranny of the majority” may reach the extreme since people are likely to behave irrationally and cruelly for an extreme ideal goal. “ ‘Through an ocean of blood to the Kingdom of Love’, said Robespierre” (Berlin 2002). Once the tyranny of the majority reaches its extreme, the social control system will fail accordingly, and the majority will take its place. Under such circumstances, there are no rules and laws in the whole society; the society is bound to fall into chaos, and the will of the majority will dominate the whole society. At this time, the will of most people will present random, changeable, and fanatical features. Moreover, the will of the majority is even worse than the autocracy of a minority since the latter at least bears a certain responsibility and is more likely to consider ways to maintain society in the long run—albeit from the perspective of a hereditary monarchy—maintaining social order and never daring to stoke social chaos.

The extreme “tyranny of the majority” will cause great disaster to freedom and even the whole society. Under the extreme “tyranny of the majority” situation, the problem faced by members of society is not whether they can keep their free choices, but whether their basic rights can be guaranteed in the least: personal property can be deprived at any time, and even personal life seems insignificant and may be deprived at any time. Moreover, it seems that the majority decides the fate of the minority, but in fact, everyone is in danger, because the future fate of any one of the majority is uncertain under such a background. Furthermore, the extreme “tyranny of the majority” has plunged the entire society into a state of full-scale civil strife and serious crisis, making it impossible for the economy and society to maintain normal operation, and making the society pay a huge price for it.

Third, “social tyranny.”

Extreme institutionalized egalitarianism and the extreme “tyranny of the majority” may cause the phenomenon of “social tyranny” as Mill has said. “Social tyranny” refers to the social control and oppression of the minority by the majority through human relations, social customs, and public opinion. This is another deformed equality and against which people must remain vigilant.

In the state of “social tyranny,” members of that society appear isolated and helpless: the most basic human relations that they could have relied on are unreliable, and basic groups such as families and relatives have lost their sense of trust and dependence; the lack of law makes it impossible for people to rely on the law for support; people cannot think beyond the scope stipulated by society, let alone think independently, otherwise it will be a dangerous “heresy” rejected by the entire society; people’s behaviors are restricted and monitored in all directions by huge, invisible, and almost all-pervasive social forces, and their spirits are tortured unprecedentedly. Members of society are always faced with various threats, and their lives lack the minimum predictability. “If private areas of life still survive, they do so … on sufferance, as it were, from the government which at any time and for any reason may control, invade or take them over” (Sartori 1987). Under such circumstances, for many members of society, it is not only a question of whether an individual has a future and hope, but also a question of fear an individual has to face in the real society. For example, during the Stalin era of the Soviet Union, which lacked legal protection, there were five Great Purges. Among them,

Of the 24 Central Committee members who led the October Revolution, except for two who were killed by reactionaries, seven who died naturally and one who died in a crash, the remaining 14 were treated unfairly or illegally executed. Of the 31 Politburo members from 1919 to 1935, 20 were killed. Of the 21 members of the People’s Committee chaired by Molotov in 1937, only 5 people, including Molotov, survived (one was dismissed), and the rest were all executed, including 4 vice-chairmen. This has made the top leadership of the party and the country feel insecure, resulting in an abnormal atmosphere in which everyone is at risk. (Huang 2003)

“Social tyranny” has caused the most direct damage and even destruction to freedom. People are the sum of social relations, and sociality is one of the most basic characteristics of humanity. Obviously, freedom refers to the freedom of people in the social environment to a large extent, and “social tyranny” directly damages freedom from the level of social environment. This kind of damage is extremely serious. In a certain sense, it is even worse than the damage caused by natural disasters to members of society, because when natural disasters come, people may hide in other places, but in the face of “social tyranny,” people have nowhere to hide. People are social animals, and they cannot go outside a society. As long as they are in the society, the people cannot find a place to hide from “social tyranny.” Similarly, in a certain sense, “social tyranny” is more serious than political oppression. Because it is often a certain group that is oppressed by politics, the members of this group can take care of and comfort each other. However, when members of society face “social tyranny,” the situation is much more serious. Mill says that “it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself” (Mill 2001). The damage of “social tyranny” to freedom means that it damages the foundation of social vitality. Under such circumstances, it is impossible for the society to maintain normal development.

On the basis of the above analysis, we can demonstrate the following points.

First, we should conform to the historical trend of equality. Equality is a people-oriented requirement and an inevitable trend. Under the conditions of modern society and the market economy, members of society hope to gain the barrier of freedom and the dignity that a person should have through equality. It has irreplaceable positive significance for the development of equality and freedom, the stimulation of social vitality, and the safe operation of society. Therefore, society should actively promote the process of equality. Especially at the critical stage of development, for example, when people’s basic survival and dignity cannot be guaranteed, the gap between the rich and the poor is too wide, people’s basic rights are damaged, and inequality has become a huge obstacle to the overall development, society should pay more attention to and promote equality. Otherwise, social vitality will not be stimulated as it should be, domestic demand will not be effectively boosted, and social security will not be guaranteed.

Second, we should seek fair, reasonable, and appropriate equality. Although freedom and equality are an organic whole, their status and weight in modern society are different. In contrast, freedom is something more essential. Marx put freedom in an extremely important position, thinking that freedom is a “species-character” (Marx and Engels 1979b). It is in this sense that equality is fundamentally subordinate to freedom. At the same time, it should be noted that equality has its own relative independence. In this way, freedom and equality need to develop in a balanced way and adapt to each other’s development at a certain stage. Otherwise, both of them have the possibility of “excess.” Further, both need the necessary restrictions. One of the important limitations is that everyone needs to take the other’s certain development status as the boundary and premise of their own existence and development. In other words, from the perspective of equality, only by taking the necessary development of freedom as the boundary can fair, reasonable, and appropriate equality be formed. Otherwise, due to some characteristics of equality itself such as too many idealized elements, a broad and deep public base, and the need to pay more and higher social costs, it is sometimes easy for equality to cross the necessary boundaries. Once we go beyond the necessary boundary and break away from the foundation of freedom to deliberately pursue formal and idealized equality, then equality will most likely reach the opposite side; that is, it will evolve into “excessive” or even deformed equality, such as “institutionalized egalitarianism,” “tyranny of the majority,” and “social tyranny”, etc., thus causing a harmful influence or even great damage to society.