Egalitarianism is ANTI-Marxism

Egalitarianism is Anti-Marxism

by John Spritzler

April 16, 2023

The reason some people, when hearing egalitarian views expressed, think that egalitarianism is really the same as Marxism, is this. There is indeed important overlap in the views held by Marxists and egalitarians because we both agree with the many wonderful ideas about class conflict that were around long before Karl Marx was even born--ideas that I discuss in "Great Ideas That Were Around Long Before Karl Marx". But when it comes to the new ideas that Karl Marx (and later Lenin) invented, egalitarians and Marxists are in sharp disagreement.

The following is a list of some key ways that egalitarianism is very different from Marxism, with links to articles that elaborate on the given topic.

#1. Egalitarianism says the chief conflict in society is between those (the vast majority in most communities) who hold the egalitarian moral values of equality in the sense of no rich and no poor, mutual aid, fairness and truth, versus those who hold the opposing values of inequality in the sense of some oppressing and dominating others and dog-eat-dog competition and using lies to pit people against each other.

In contrast, Marxists say that the chief conflict in society is not a conflict between opposing subjective moral values but rather between the objective self-interest of those who own the means of production versus the objective self-interest of those who don't. Read this footnote to see how egalitarians and Marxists differ totally in this regard.*

Read about this in "What Is Egalitarianism?" and "A Person's Values Are Important, Not Their Class or Race or Religion," and "Some Rich People ARE Good" and "Socialism and Communism? NO! Egalitarian Revolution? Yes!"

#2. Egalitarianism is for genuine democracy; Marxism is for fake democracy.

Egalitarianism says that the purpose of revolution is to shape all of society by the egalitarian moral values that most people ALREADY hold.

In contrast, Marxists say that the purpose of revolution is to put into power over everybody the Marxist party (possibly permitting other parties to have some role if they don't interfere with the Marxist party's aim) that will use social engineering to CHANGE people from having their current capitalist values to one day (far in the future) having socialist values. Read this footnote to see how egalitarians and Marxists differ totally in this regard.*

Because of this Marxist view of the purpose of revolution, Marxist regimes are always profoundly anti-democratic because Marxists believe that ordinary people's values are the wrong values and therefore they must not be allowed to have the real say in society.

In contrast, egalitarians know that most people have the good egalitarian values that ought to shape all of society (I call such people egalitarians whether they have ever heard that word or not.) Egalitarians therefore say that such people should have the real say in society, with local assemblies of egalitarians being the sovereign (no higher law-making governmental body) power, as described in "Genuine Democracy: What Is It?".

Thus when Marxists talk about "workers taking control of the means of production" they mean the Marxist party bossing the workers around just as un-democratically as the capitalist bosses do. In contrast, when egalitarians talk about "workers taking control of the means of production" they mean, for example, what egalitarians in Spain did in 1936 as described here.

In my article, "Egalitarianism: What Is It?", the section about workers and the means of production reads as follows:

"Within an economic enterprise (including, in this context, organizations such as a school or hospital, as well as non-economic neighborhood associations, etc.) at the local community level, the workers (or members) are all formally equals, although some, as discussed above, may provide leadership based on respect for their greater experience, knowledge, integrity or commitment to the purpose of the enterprise. All of the workers democratically determine all of the policies relating to the enterprise, consistent with all policies and decisions and laws of the local assembly. Among other things, the workers of the enterprise decide how, exactly, they will democratically make decisions (majority rule, consensus, elected "officers" or otherwise), who is or may become a member of the enterprise or organization and the general and individual-specific conditions of their membership, and all decisions formerly considered the responsibility of "management." A worker in any enterprise is always free to quit working for the enterprise and look for a different way of "contributing reasonably according to ability.""

Read more about this in "Life Under a Marxist Regime."

#3. Egalitarianism says there should NOT be an authoritative (i.e., law-making) central government nor a centralized economy.

In contrast, Marxists say there should be an authoritative (i.e., law-making) central government with a centralized economy.

Read about this in "Genuine Democracy: What Is It?" and "What Is an Egalitarian Economy?" and "What Replaces the "Free Market" in an Egalitarian Sharing Economy?" and "Socialism and Communism? NO! Egalitarian Revolution? Yes!" and "Why Should Laws Only Be Made By Local Assemblies?" and "What Makes a Government Legitimate?" and "History of People Rejecting the Invalid Authoritarian Princip Ie" and "Life Under a Marxist Regime,"

#4. Egalitarianism says that we should shape all of society by the principle of "From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to need or reasonable desire, with scarce things equitably rationed according to need" and we should do this immediately.

In contrast, Marxists say only when society has reached "a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" [from Marx's "Critique of the Gotha Program", my emphasis supplied]

Read how egalitarians in Spain (who called themselves anarchists) created an egalitarian society without waiting to achieve a "higher phase of communist society..." in "Egalitarianism Worked in Spain 1936-9".

Read in this footnote * how horribly unequal the pay rates were in the Soviet Union, because making society equal with no rich and no poor was not the Bolshevik Party's goal.

#5. Egalitarians say that capitalism is oppressive and should be abolished immediately.

In contrast, Marxists say that capitalism is progressive until it begins to fetter rather than increase the means of production. Karl Marx, for example, praised English colonial rule in India despite admitting that it was barbaric on the grounds that it was progressive, writing:

"England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution." [source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/06/25.htm ]

The Communist Party of China promotes capitalism--a very oppressive form of it too--while at the same time being genuinely Marxist and teaching Marxism to its population at all levels of education, as shown in the section about China in the article here.

Read about this in "Which Creates a Higher Standard of Living: Capitalism or Egalitarianism?" and "Xi Jinping's and Joe Biden's 'Good Cop, Bad Cop' Routine" .

6. Egalitarians believe that we need revolutionary organizations whose goal is to:

help people gain confidence that their egalitarian moral values are right and ought to shape all of society (which is the goal of egalitarian revolution);
help people gain confidence that they are not alone in having egalitarian moral values but rather are the vast majority (this entails persuasively refuting the many divide-and-rule lies that the ruling class uses);
help people gain confidence that it is possible--because it is what the vast majority of people already would love--to remove the rich from power to have real, not fake, democracy with no rich and no poor, i.e., to create a sustainable society based on egalitarian moral values and principles and GENUINE DEMOCRACY (discussed here) and in more general discussed here;
organize acts of large-scale solidarity that can lead to removing the rich from power as discussed here.

Marxists, in contrast, do not believe that most people already today would love to remove the rich from power to have real, not fake, democracy with no rich and no poor. Marxists insist that people don't have this egalitarian revolutionary aspiration because they are not "class conscious" yet (only potentially so in the future) and that Marxists need to somehow make them become "class conscious."

Marxist-Leninists, in great contrast to egalitarians, believe that what is necessary is for their revolutionary party to seize state power exclusively in the hands of the party leaders for the purpose of a) increasing economic productivity (using capitalism to do so when possible, on the grounds that capitalism in some nations is still a progressive force as Marx declared it to be in India under British imperial rule, as for example in China today--a nation of billionaires and have-nots) and b) changing people's moral values from their current supposedly pro-capitalist values to future generations with socialist values.

WHAT WOULD ANTI-EGALITARIANS DO WITHOUT HAVING MARXISM TO SO EASILY ATTACK?

Jordan Peterson is a prominent anti-egalitarian defender of capitalism. In his video, "Critique of the Communist Manifesto" at https://youtu.be/j_MXSE3wUT4 Peterson quite easily argues that the Communist Manifesto is profoundly wrong. From this, Peterson illogically (and implicitly) concludes that capitalism is the only sensible game in town. Peterson gets away with this by absolutely ignoring (out of ignorance possibly, or some other reason) the egalitarian alternative--the fact that one need not be a pro-capitalist to say that the "Communist Manifesto" is wrong; in fact I, an egalitarian, wrote "The Communist Manifesto Is Wrong."

__________________________

* The following words are from the Marxist Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL):

The collective experience of the civil rights, women’s, immigrant rights, LGBTQ and climate justice movements is now blended into the U.S. working-class experience and is something to draw from as it gains consciousness of itself. Racism, sexism, and anti-LBGTQ bigotry continue to play a critical role in dividing workers – but there exists an even stronger material basis for workers to overcome that bigotry.

Note that a) PSL views workers as bigots, and b) PSL believes that it is not the subjective values of workers that will "overcome that bigotry" but rather a "material basis," which means the fact that bigotry is not in their material interest.

In contrast, below are the words of Dave Stratman, author of the book We CAN Change the World: The Real Meaning of Everyday Life and co-author with me of the egalitarian revolutionary pamphlet, "Thinking about Revolution," from a speech he gave to high school students:

I wanted to begin these remarks by talking with you about a series of experiences that changed my life. The experiences began in Dorchester, a white, blue collar Irish Catholic section of Boston in 1974. Then it occurred to me that none of you was born in 1974, and maybe none of you had much idea of what had gone on in 1974 and 1975, the first years of busing in Boston. (Raise your hand if you were alive in 1974. Raise your hand if you think you know anything about the battle over busing in Boston.)

My wife and I and two small children moved into Dorchester in 1974, the first year of busing. Our neighborhood, called St. Mark's, had been the center of the anti-busing movement outside South Boston. The school year began with terrible conflict. School buses carrying black children were being stoned in South Boston, and there was racial conflict in many parts of the city. Our daughter was just beginning kindergarten at the Patrick O'Hearn School in Dorchester.

The principal of three small elementary schools called a meeting of parents to organize Home and School Associations–the equivalent of PTAs–at the schools. He set up the meeting at the Adams Street Library, deep in the heart of the white section of Dorchester. There were about 45 parents there, all of them white. As the meeting began, the principal made a snide comment clearly directed at the missing black parents, saying, "Well, I guess we can see which parents really care about their children." Immediately 8 white parents–not me; I was new to the neighborhood and was keeping my head down–jumped up and told the principal, "Of course the black parents aren't here. They're afraid to come to this part of the city. You should have held the meeting in neutral territory where everyone could feel safe."

I admit I was pretty surprised by their reactions. I was an ex-college professor and was also a Marxist at the time. With my academic and leftist background, I had fully expected these Irish Catholic parents to be very anti-black.

What happened next was even more surprising to me. The principal then talked about conditions at the three schools. The Patrick O'Hearn, he said, was being ruined by the new kids–the black children. The school was built only to hold 280 students, but 80 more had been bussed in, so that the gym was converted to four "open-space classrooms." This time even more parents objected, saying that it wasn't the black children's fault that the school was overcrowded. It was the fault of the federal Court and the political big shots who had designed the busing plan.

This meeting began my political education away from the stereotypes I had in my mind about white working people and toward something very different. It also began changing my understanding of what busing in Boston was all about.

In the next couple of months nine other white parents from that meeting and ten black parents got together and formed an organization which we called Better Education Together (BET). We said that we felt as parents that we were trapped between two bad alternatives. On the one hand, the Boston School Committee had delivered an inferior and segregated education to all our children for years. On the other hand the Federal Court was making the situation worse. It closed down 34 schools in the black neighborhoods in the first year of busing, it was breaking up the relationships between parents and schools and parents and teachers that give ordinary people some degree of political power in the schools, and it was making the issue in the schools not education but race. We said that the issue in the schools was not race but education. We felt that we as parents had the same hopes and dreams for our children and the same fears, and that nobody was going to fight for our kids but us.

So we held coffees in each others' living rooms, where black and white parents had a chance to talk about their feelings about our children and find out how much we had in common. We wrote up literature with the pictures of four black and four white parents on it, explaining why they were part of Better Education Together, and we went to every neighborhood in the city–to white South Boston and black Roxbury, to different sections of Dorchester, to Brighton and Allston and Hyde Park. Everywhere we went, people would come up to us, some of them with tears in their eyes, and say, "Oh, I'm so glad to see this. I thought nobody felt this way but me."

Contrary to the egalitarian practice of the anarchists during the Spanish Revolution of 1936-9, the Bolsheviks during those same years instituted extreme wage inequality. A former Bolshevik [who, as a Bolshevik, wrote this in 1922, but by 1937 was exiled by Stalin to a harsh existence in Siberia and only saved from being executed by the fact that he was a well-known writer in Europe], Victor Serge, provides the following information for wages at this time (the following paragraph is partially exact quotes and partially my edited quotes from Serge's book Russia Twenty Years After [after the 1917 revolution], pg. 4-5:

Hundreds of thousands of Soviet women workers get between 70 and 90 rubles a month (all figures are monthly here), a poverty wage entirely inadequate to feed the one who gets it. Laborers (males) get 100 to 120 rubles. Skilled workers get 250 to 400 rubles. Stakhanovist workers (i.e., those who work supposedly--it's all propaganda--absurdly hard) get 500 rubles and over. A scientific collaborator of a large establishment gets 300 to 400 rubles; a stenographer knowing foreign languages, about 200 rubles; a newspaper editor 230 rubles; miscellaneous employees, 90 to 120 rubles. A director of an enterprise or head of an office gets 400 to 800 rubles; high functionaries (communists) and big specialists get from 1,000 to 5,000 rubles. In the capitals, renowned specialists get as high as between 5,000 and 10,000 rubles per month. Writers get the same income. The great official dramatists, the official painters who do the portraits of the important leaders over and over again, the poets and novelists approved by the Central Committee, may get a million a year and more.