EGALITARIANISM IS ANTI-MARXISM
by John Spritzler
April 16, 2023
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 values of equality in the sense of no rich and no poor, mutual aid, and fairness, versus those who hold the opposing values of inequality in the sense of some oppressing and dominating others and dog-eat-dog competition.
In contrast, Marxism says that the chief conflict in society is between those who own the means of production versus those who don't.
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 says that the purpose of revolution is to shape all of society by the egalitarian values that most people ALREADY hold.
In contrast, Marxism says that the purpose of revolution is to put into power over everybody the Marxist party 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 about this in "Most People Are Egalitarians" and "WHY I AM CRITICAL OF "THE LEFT" AND NOT JUST CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS" and "GENUINE DEMOCRACY: WHAT IS IT?" and "Communism" and "The Communist Manifesto Is Wrong."
#3. Egalitarianism says there should NOT be an authoritative (i.e., law-making) central government nor a centralized economy.
In contrast, Marxism says 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 PRINCIPLE."
#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, Marxism says 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"]
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".
#5. Egalitarians say that capitalism is oppressive and should be abolished immediately.
In contrast, Marxism says 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.
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."