There is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There is a freedom to speak openly and iconoclastically, freedom to organize political opposition, freedom of opportunity to get an education and pursue a livelihood, freedom to worship as one chooses or not worship at all, freedom to live in healthful conditions, freedom to enjoy a various social benefits, and so on. Most of what is called freedom gets its definition within a social context. […]
U.S. policymakers argue that social revolutionary victory anywhere represents a diminution of freedom in the world. The assertion is false. The Chinese revolution did not crush democracy; there was none to crush in that oppressively feudal regime. The Cuban revolution did not destroy freedom; it destroyed a hateful U.S.-sponsored police state. The Algerian revolution did not abolish national liberties; precious few existed under French colonialism. The Vietnamese revolutionaries did not abrogate individual rights; no such rights were available under the U.S.-sponsored puppet governments of Bao Dai, Diem, and Ky.
Of course, revolutions do limit the freedoms of the corporate propertied class and other privileged interests: the freedom to invest privately without regard to human and environmental costs, the freedom to live in obscene opulence while paying workers starvation wages, the freedom to treat the state as a private agency in the service of a privileged coterie, the freedom to employ child labor and child prostitutes, the freedom to treat women as chattel, and so on.”