A Review of 'An Illusion of Equal Rights'

Over twenty years ago, Gennady Maltsev wrote An Illusion of Equal Rights (Legal Inequality in the Capitalist World) for, as he said, "...the achievement of genuine equal rights for all people as individuals, the establishment of class equality and equal relations between peoples, nations and states" (Maltsev, 7). However, many see this work as being aimed not so much at aiding the plight of human rights abuse victims, but more to aid the Soviet government in its attempts to proliferate communism worldwide. Allegedly this book, by having been translated into English, indicates that it was intended more for a tool of communist states then as a tool to end human rights abuse.

This view is easier seen in historical context. At the end of World War II the United States of America and the Soviet Union began the Cold War. A cold war is a war in which the focus is on posturing and diplomacy in lieu of actual fighting, and this Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union lasted close to fifty years, until the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991. But unlike most cold wars of the past, this one in particular had the extra bonus of mutually assured destruction, because both sides had nuclear weapons; enough nuclear warheads were built that all life on earth could very well have been, theoretically, completely decimated. Ending the world was, after much discussion, not a viable option for either side, so warfare was taken away from the generals and soldiers, and put into the hands of the authors. The authors of the west expounded the virtues of freedom and democracy in their attempt to lure people away from the "evil empire" of the communist states. It is safe to assume that An Illusion of Equal Rights was written to silence the western writers, not to further human rights.

To point out the inequality in capitalist states, Gennady Maltsev shows the small number of wealthy companies and people in relation to the large amount of workers. He asks how Americans can claim to all be equal when the poor live in modest conditions while the rich wallow in luxury. He uses figures from these Capitalist countries themselves to make this point. He found numbers indicating that "...0.002 percent of the American population (a mere 3,500 people) control almost half the shares in industry, banks, the system of communications and in transport and services area..." (Maltsev 25). That means that when this book was written, less then four thousand people basically controlled half the production of the United States. It was worse in other countries: in Great Britain during 1976 the bottom 75% of the population only owned only 7.2 percent of the country's wealth (Maltsev 26). Maltsev uses this empirical very convincingly to show the lack of economic equality in capitalist countries.

But in America people do not regard economic equality as an important factor (cf. legal equality). Since the foundation of the United States, leaders have recognized that people would never be fully equal economically speaking, in a capitalist democracy, so the goal of the U.S. was not to make a economically equal society, but a legally and politically fair society where no person would see themselves as unequal to another person. This has been the trend in America since the beginning, and Alexis de Tocqueville expounds upon it in his work Democracy in America. This historically significant and incredibly insightful work is a study of American culture ca. 1800, and upon studying the work, one can find patterns of culture in democracy that are still relevant in modern America today. On the subject of economic equality Tocqueville writes:

"Equality of conditions turns servants and masters into new beings, and places them in new relative positions. When social conditions are nearly equal, men are constantly changing their situations in life; there is still a class of menials and a class of masters, but these classes are not always composed of the same individuals." (Tocqueville, 181).

Even in the 1800s it was apparent that Americans judged equality not through bank accounts and property but through opportunity and fairness of conditions, i.e., the legal system.

Maltsev contends that the U.S. and her allies do not believe in freedom because they do not allow all people equal access to the political system. Maltsev explains that as capitalist countries speak of human rights, communist countries, including the USSR, have been at the forefront of the battle for self-determination: the right of people to choose their system of government for themselves, the right to be free of dictatorship. He also contends that western capitalists do not believe in the same rights: he writes, "Imperialist circles [the United States and her allies] are putting constant pressure on many developing countries in an attempt to direct their social and political development towards capitalism and to bind them fast to the world capitalist system." (Maltsev, 167). These actions can be seen as hostile to self-determination, a basic human right. But he then goes farther, saying that America herself does not allow her own criticizes equal access to their own political system. To make this argument he points to America's own constitution, saying that the right to vote has had to have been "leveled up now for over two hundred years" (Maltsev, 170). He makes the argument that African Americans were not given the vote until 1870, and even then restrictions were placed not allowing African Americans and other minority groups to vote alongside their white counterparts. He then goes on to point out that American women were not allowed to vote until the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in 1920, and the nation's young adults (from ages 18-21) were not given the vote until 1971. He asks how America can say she believes in self determination when she has not permitted so many of her citizens to vote for the first hundred and fifty years of her history, and have used propaganda and military action to limit the choices of other nations.

Many would point out to Mr. Maltsev that his government, the C.C.C.P, along with other communist countries was not a positive force that furthered human rights. Joseph Stalin, a former Soviet Premier, put millions of his subjects to death for mundane reasons, and Pol Pot executed a third of Cambodia's population because they were different: intellectuals, persons who could read, or persons with any type of physical deformity (including poor eyesight). This trend still continues with the actions China has taken against persons who speak out for religious and political freedom. Falun Gong and Tienanmen Square are two prime examples. Another source of confusion is the fact that in Communist Russia there was only one political party for the populace to choose from, so the voters in Russia had a choice between a Communist and a Communist, and this cannot be considered self-determination in any sense of the word. While most find fault with his first argument, the second argument alleging that America's Constitution has not always allowed all of her citizens the right to vote is a provoking one. It is true that the U.S. has not lived up to its ideals of equality; the turmoil over the last two presidential elections is an example of the imperfection of America's voting system. This, coupled with the racial blocks put up by Southerners in the past to prevent blacks from exercising basic human rights makes a good case against America. It was interesting that Maltsev did not bring up the subject of campaign finance. That would have given him an edge in saying that corporations and wealthy individuals are running the country instead of the middle and lower classes. However, even with the obvious hypocrisy of some parts of his argument, it was still thought-provoking, and well done.

The next issue Maltsev brings against capitalist society is his belief that capitalism has, and is predetermined to discriminate against women. He starts this argument by saying that women are not naturally the weaker sex. He points to some "primitive" societies of hunter-gatherers where women and men coexist in mutual respect in all sectors of life; economic, social, marital and family, with neither one dominating the other. Maltsev makes the deduction that since genetics are not to blame for the lower status of women, then capitalist society must be to blame. Capitalist society, as seen by Maltsev, is a struggle to gain more wealth in the form of private property, and one's social class rises only when one gains more wealth. He then contends that the gaining of private property was a job for men during the foundation of capitalist society, and therefore the social class of men rose while women's social status fell: the lust for possessions had made men the dominate sex. He continues, "The patriarchal structure, habits and customs survived many socio-economic stages and became entangled in a mass of prejudices, traditional rules and standards." (Maltsev, 212), meaning that men continued to overpower women in every aspect of life until their dominance over them was complete. Maltsev does point out that in many capitalist countries today women are entering the work force and gaining a somewhat equal presence; however, he notes that these women do not receive the same pay as their male counterparts. Maltsev believes, as do many feminists in America, that the male leaders of America and her allies are not making a real attempt to give women the truly equal rights, and that they want to "prevent the spread of equality of the sexes into other spheres in particular, in labor and political relations." (Maltsev, 219). Maltsev believes that the only way to correct this is to institute worldwide socialism so that there no longer will be a separation of men and women in regards to labor. However, most communist countries saw rampant spousal abuse, female prostitution, and other evidence that women suffered inequality irrespective of governmental format, so this argument holds strong only in the abstract.

This last argument is a strong and powerful one that may have lured many people away from capitalism. Most Americans do not like the idea of inequality of the sexes and the concept of equal pay is often espoused in feminist circles. It does seem that socialism would solve the problem of equal pay and could bring about equality of the sexes; however, the fear Americans had at this time about the threat of communism limited the ability of Maltsev to persuade many women.

Overall, Genady Maltsev wrote an informative and persuasive book, touching upon equality of the classes, the ease or lack of access to the political system, and sexes, explaining how each would benefit from a move towards socialism. He hit upon important ideas, some of which shake American values to the core. His commentary about America's history of unequal access to our political system is extremely poignant. Also, his statements concerning the equal treatment of women and his theory that capitalism is to blame for the oppression of women, carry a great deal of weight. However, he totally misses the point on economic equality as people studying America for over two hundred year have observed it. He fails to see that Americans do not regard economic equality as an important issue. The writings of Tocqueville point this out well, so his writing on the issue does little to sway one's opinion. Overall it was a well written piece of propaganda that probably had little effect on the eventual outcome of the Cold War, because by the time it was finally translated into English, the Cold War was being dominated by the N.A.T.O. powers.

Maltsev, Genady. An Illusion of Equal Rights-Legal Inequality in the Capitalist World. Moscow: Progressive Publishers, 1982.

de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy In America.