Australian Egalitarian Movement :: Offering a Socialist Political Alternative

Australian Egalitarian Movement


Home > Major Policies > The Capitalist Scam (Part 1) > The Capitalist Scam (Part 2) > The Capitalist Scam (Part 3)


Home Page

Our Mission

About the AEM

Our Major Policies
and Explanations

Questions & Answers

Current Affairs

Join the AEM
FREE Membership

Contact Us






Egalitarianism and the Capitalist Scam (Part 3)

Continued from The Capitalist Scam (Parts 1 & 2).

The Invalidity of Unequal Wages
At first, equal wages for all types of labour seems anti-commonsensical and socially dysfunctional, but the AEM declares (like many others) that this view is the product of conditioning and emotional manipulation that goes on continually from the time we are born. The AEM also concludes that the desire to be highly paid motivates just as many unacceptable, ruthless, and nasty acts as does the competition between privately owned companies. In other words, we still have the same problem that we expressed earlier, which is, whenever you allow people to have more wealth than others (and all that goes with it), ruthless people, dominating people, frightened people, and greedy people will do whatever is necessary in order to be and remain one of these people, thus causing the endless social, economic, and environmental problems we experience currently. And because we have come to accept the rationalisations that support unequal wages, our own (conditioned) attitudes are also helping to reproduce these problems. We are brought up to be pro-capitalist (and pro-democratic), to see elitism as fair and elite people as deserving, and to desire wealth.

If you recall from our 'Why We Know that All Elitist Societies are Invalid' web page, we stated that all elitist societies are created by those people who gain control over the law and policy-making processes creating or maintaining laws and policies that serve to advantage themselves in relation to other people. With regards to wages within capitalist societies, those in control of the law and policy-making processes have increased the economic value of the skills and attributes required to do their job, and they have increased the economic value of the compensation associated with the working conditions and circumstances of their job. Conversely, they have decreased the economic value of the skills and attributes not required for their job, and they have decrease the economic value of the compensation associated with the working conditions and circumstances that are not required for their job. Fortunately for our new capitalists (i.e. businesspeople, managers, and politicians), this was not something they had to openly campaign for because justifications for why they should receive a higher wage than other people were already in place. As such, this part of our capitalist constitution is also a legacy of the previous feudal form of rule, and many other forms of elitist rule. However, according to our capitalist forefathers, higher wages and elitism were not the problems. The problem for these ambitious elitists was the royal family's control over the society and it's bounty. Indeed, they perceived unequal wage as a strong incentive to motivate people to apply themselves to the best of their abilities, thus serving to improve the society (just as it has always been regarded within all elitist societies). And to sell this idea to the people (even though the people didn't really have any choice in the matter), they did what politicians still do: they avoided any discussion about how capitalism is going to be extremely beneficial for themselves, and instead focused on how capitalism would benefit the society.

As capitalism was created by politicians who were also successful businessmen, jobs that require management, business, and political skills have become the most rewarding occupations within the capitalist world. These skills entail a number of skills, which we will discuss shortly. Generally, the bigger the business, the bigger is the manager's salary will be. Likewise, the chief managers of democratic nations or regions (i.e. politicians) are the highest paid people in the national or regional governments.   

We also stated that the rationalisations that support higher wagers filter down throughout society to explain why anybody receives a higher or lower wage than anybody else, and that this serves to create social support for this form of corruption, which was also already in place. One has to remember that within an economically stratified (capitalist) society, in which everybody is required to economically fend for themselves, everyone is usually motivated to take advantage of any legally accepted economic windfall that comes their way, regardless of its invalidity or unfairness, and this also refers to the fact that almost nobody knocks back a pay rise on the grounds that they don't deserve more. That is, much of the social support for unequal wages is bought, and this is a form of corruption. And in economically motivating these people to accept their higher wage, these individual high paid workers become part of socially, economically, and politically powerful group of people who use their economic, social, and political power to maintain their advantages and control in relation to other workers, and this is a form of domination brought about by collusion and bribery. You may suggest that low paid workers can also unit together in order to empower themselves in relation to those people on higher wages, which of course they do when they join workers' unions. Also, because there are many more low paid workers, they would be more empowered in relation to those who are already receiving a higher wage. However, there are several reasons why they will never achieve the same high wage that others do within our capitalist society. 

First, greater numbers of similar workers serves to disadvantage these workers in the negotiations over wages (between employees and employers) because one becomes much easier to replace, particularly when one performs unskilled or semi-skilled labour. This may initially seem fair to most people, but being easier to replace doesn't mean that one's labour is worth less. It means that one has less bargaining power, and it is this lower bargaining power that is being abused to rip these workers off. Conversely, because people in high skilled jobs are harder to replace, their bargaining power is increased, and this is abused to rip employers off. 

Second, low paid workers, who are not noted for their intellectual abilities, tend to believe and trust what learned people tell them. That is, they are brought up to believe that they should be paid less than higher paid workers. Therefore, they do not seek equal wages. In other words, people with intellectual abilities are exploiting our ignorance and our insecurity about our intellectual abilities to trick us into believing that they are worth more when they are not.

Third, allowing the concerns of employers to influence the wage negotiation process means that the negotiation process isn't actually determining what is fair or valid. Instead, it is determining what employers are prepared to pay (which is a very different thing), as though employers don't have a conflict of interest between what is valid and what is in the best interests of their company and themselves. And such negotiations are conducted with the incorrect assumption that there is nothing invalid about the private ownership of businesses, and therefore there is nothing invalid about the arguments, goals, and concerns of employers in these negotiations over wages. 

Fourth, low paid workers usually need to rely upon communicators and legal experts (including unions) to fight their wage cases for them. Unfortunately, people with advanced communication skills and legal qualifications are two of those groups of workers who are already economically advantaged within the capitalist society because two of the main reasons (which we will discuss the invalidity of shortly) for why businesspeople and politicians claim higher wages are because of their advanced communication skills, specialised knowledge, and their intellectual abilities. In other words, while these people may fight for a wage increase for low paid workers, to fight for equal wages is to fight for losing one's economic advantage as a communicator or a legal expert. And because they are not prepared to lose their economic advantages, they are therefore supporters of unequal wages and capitalism in general. As such, communicators and lawyers are never truly representing those workers that they claim to be representing, and are instead one of the major reasons why the idea of equal wages isn't fought for.  

Fifth, the people that lower paid workers are appealing to for higher or equal wages (eg. a wages council) are also communicators and legal experts (i.e. intellectual labourers), and they too have no intention of giving up their economic advantages within the society, particularly when they believe in the rationalisations that support their higher wage, which is what most people tend to accept when they receive a higher wage. This also explains why those people who are involved in intellectual labour will have a much greater chance of receiving a wage rise (i.e. because they are appealing to other intellectual labourers). And this is why a lawyer has come to receive an income of 5 to 10 times that of most other workers. We hope that it is obvious that the labour of lawyers is not worth this much more, and that it has only occurred because lawyers are highly involved in the law and policy-making processes, which is why this trend will continue.

Sixth, companies will never be able to bring low paid workers' wages up in line with high paid workers because most companies couldn't afford to do so. The trick is to bring high wages down as well as to raise low wages, but once set, lowering wages is strongly resisted by any group of workers, especially by those highly paid workers who are in charge of companies.

While these reasons serve to keep certain peoples' wages low, none of these reasons have actually stopped equal wages from being achieved because sadly, nobody has actually tried to achieve equal wages before. This is no surprise because equal wages contradict most elitist constitutions, and the national wage case is not a forum in which constitutions are changed.  

Let's now examine those criteria that are said to raise the economic value of one's wage. From what we have already claimed, to determine what these criteria are, all we need to do is to determine what types of labour businesspeople, and politicians (i.e. managers) perform, and what conditions they endure when performing their jobs. 

Intellectual Labour
Because politicians and businesspeople declare that they employ a range of intellectual skills, as well as rely upon intellectual labourers, intellectual labour has been raised in economic value within capitalist societies. And the more intellectually demanding one's job is, the higher one's pay will be. The justification for this is because workers with higher qualifications are able to perform more complex or difficult tasks, which are vital for the society and the further development of society and technology. And higher wages provide incentive for people to learn and further develop their level of expertise in a particular field of employment. As such, workers who develop greater physical skills (eg. tradesmen) will also receive higher wages than those who don't (eg. labourers), but those workers whose job requires greater levels of expertise in physical labour will never receive as much pay as those who require greater levels of expertise in intellectual labour (unless one's physical labour underwrites the profits generated in one's own privately owned business), because politicians and managers don't perform physical labour in their jobs. However, this claim that people who are involved in higher levels of intellectual labour are worth more than those people involved in lower levels of intellectual labour relies upon certain assumptions, which do not stand up to scrutiny. 

First, this criteria for higher pay makes the assumption that gaining the knowledge that underwrites intellectual labour (via education, training, or experience), and performing higher levels of intellectual labour requires one to put in a bigger effort or to undergo some greater sacrifice. Most of us tend to believe (what we have been told by intellectual experts, as though it is an obvious fact of life) that because these jobs, and/or the education that is required to acquire these jobs are difficult objectives for us to achieve, they are difficult for everyone to achieve, but this is not so. If one is mechanically orientated, one will do well in mechanical environments, and if one is intellectually orientated, one will do well in intellectual environments, but one will probably make a lousy mechanic. We all have our various aptitudes, and intellectual skills are just another group of necessary skills. Many of us find learning easy and rewarding, particularly when we like the industry we are in, and many of us have the strong desire to be involved in specific types of intellectual labour. Further, most of us would rather avoid physical labour, or mundane or repetitive work, and perceive it as requiring a much bigger effort to endure. From our own research, we are sure that if we offered most people who are involved in intellectual labour (e.g. politics, management, law, medicine, or science) the opportunity to be a bricklayer or to be employed in some other physically demanding job, for the same rate of pay per hour that they receive now, most of them would not take us up on the offer. Why not? Wouldn’t they be getting a bargain doing this low valued, low pressure, and this intellectually undemanding work for the same wage as their highly intellectual current job? And if they would not accept our offer, then why would we pay them anymore than a bricklayer or any other physical worker? Further, we are reasonably sure that we could offer many people involved in intellectual labour even lower wages than a bricklayer and they still wouldn’t change jobs. In actual fact, our intellectual abilities save us from the hard work, and we should be thanking our lucky stars that we can avoid it by being smart. And for those of us who do find that succeeding within the intellectual world is tough going, we do not have to do it if we do not want to, but many of us still do, and often for low wages (and student wages) for some years, because its not as tough as working in physically demanding jobs for the rest of our lives. As such, it is apparent that intellectuals do not really believe that their work, or the process of acquiring knowledge are more demanding or requires more of a sacrifice than does performing physical labour, so why do you? Therefore, there is no reason to provide extra economic incentives to seduce people to enter into occupations that require intellectual labour. The incentive of avoiding hard physical labour is enough for starters. However, in the AEM's Egalitarian society, the more qualified people become, the more they are able to direct their career towards the type of work they want to do. Further, when people choose to enter into a particular field of intellectual or physical labour, they are expected to develop their skills throughout their working lives and to help achieve this, we provide free on-the-job training and education, which means that nobody makes any personal sacrifice to develop their area of expertise, and that there is no excuse for not doing so. And those people who are motivated to develop their intellectual abilities during their spare time will usually be rewarded by getting to where they want to go faster.     

Second, it makes the assumption that the people who are capable of performing intellectual labour are more rare and more difficult to replace, and therefore the supply and demand logic of the marketplace allows these people to expect higher wages. This is actually what is currently occurring within the marketplace of employment, but as we discussed earlier, having more bargaining power doesn't mean that one's labour is actually worth more. Any rarity that is exists, exists because we deliberately limit access to these intellectually demanding jobs, and we also limit access to the education and training required for these jobs. And in certain occupations (e.g. medicine, management), this is done deliberately to artificially increase the value of the job within the marketplace. In reality, there is a rarity of jobs that require intellectual labour, and there is an oversupply of people who are capable of doing these jobs, and who want these jobs, which is why access is limited. To demonstrate this point: in the USSR, when communism (which was not really communism) was in full swing, doctors received an average wage, but there was no shortage of people who were still willing to become doctors. In fact, in the 1980's, doctors made up around 1.5% of the workforce in Australia, whereas doctors made up 3.4% of the workforce in the much more populated USSR, and in spite of a funding problem in the USSR, they still managed to push the frontiers of medical research and development (and in many other areas of technology). Incidentally, the AEM doesn't care if one really is a rare talent (e.g. Elvis). This still doesn't mean one should have more than others. Rarity is just yet another invalid excuse to fulfil one's immature desire to have more than others. 

Therefore, we conclude that the only reason that intellectual labour has been raised in economic value is because the people who created our constitution considered themselves to be involved in intellectual labour. It should always be remembered that the money required to fund intellectual labour provided by the managers of businesses and communities, and many other occupations, is provided by the productivity of those workers who actually do the real/physical work. As such, to be demanding a higher wage for performing intellectual labour is to be abusing the trust placed in the hands of intellectuals by the society, and to display one's ingratitude towards those physical workers who make intellectual labour possible.     

Advanced Communication Skills
Another primary type of labour performed in management (and legal services) is communication labour (and it is also required to gain such jobs). As such, the more one's job requires advanced communication skills, they more pay one is likely to receive. Advanced communication skills do not just refer to speaking and writing well, but mainly to those communication skills required by management, such as....

  • Debating skills
  • Mediation and negotiation skills
  • Handling complaints
  • Sounding authoritative and confident
  • Sounding sincere
  • Public speaking skills
  • Diplomacy skills
  • Selling skills 
  • Self-presentation
  • Maintaining composure under fire

While it is impossible to deny the importance of communication skills, particularly within modern societies, once again we say, such advanced communication skills are just another set of necessary skills that some people have an aptitude for, and some don't. In fact, we undoubtedly have a enormous oversupply of people who are capable of performing these skills, people who love to hear the sound of their own voice, people who desire to be the centre of attention that public speaking provides, and people who crave the adoration or respect of the society. Such people will gladly take on these jobs without being paid more (rather than perform physical labour), and those that don't desire such things don't usually seek such positions, even for higher wages. As such, the only reason these skills have been raised in economic status is because they are required for managerial and political occupations.    

Being the Winner
There are also greater economic rewards associated with being the winner. That is, the winner is said to deserve more than the loser, and when you are at the top of a large pile of winners and losers, you deserve the most, regardless of the skills or education you possess. And the winner is paid more because successful businesspeople and politicians gained their success by winning in the competition to gain the most consumers or votes.        

However, there is also no valid reason why the winner should receive more pay than the loser, and the fact they winners do receive more often serves to motivate competitors to cheat in whole range of ways (depending upon the type of competition) if they think they can get away with it. And often, cheats have nothing to lose because if they don't try something underhanded, they won't win anyway. The only reward that is required for those who are good at what they do (other than receiving the admiration and appreciation of the society) is that they get to keep doing what they are good at, whereas the losers may need to develop their skills further, or find new fields of employment. However, when you examine the world of business or politics, you will notice that one may not actually be the best at what one does in order to win. For example, the best salesperson may not have the best products to sell. A politician may have won the election, but this doesn't mean that he/she will be the best representative of the people who voted for him/her. The person who became the leader of the party because they won the most internal support may have bribed those supporters with favours or promises of promotion. Achieving economic growth doesn't mean that others couldn't have achieved the same thing, and usually government and businesspeople acquire profession advice on what the best thing to do is. Often, the difference between winning and losing is inconsequential in relation to skills. For example, in order to compete, one first has to win the competitive job, and this often requires a different type of competition because employers look for certain qualities that indicate that one is competitive, even though these qualities do not have anything to do with one's level of expertise. These skills are particularly practiced by managers and politicians because their job requires them to deal with the public, and they include....

  • Promotional and self-promotional skills
  • Self-presentation skills
  • Declarations of one's commitment and self-motivation
  • Speaking with authority and confidence
  • Stable work history
  • Previous success
  • Good references

Other than previous success, none of the above skills will help you acquire most jobs within the AEM's Egalitarian society. We pay more attention to what people do and have done in the workplace, rather than the show they perform.  

Other less discussed, but highly regarded qualities for managers and politicians, which gain increased respect from those above one, because they demonstrate just how competitive and ambitious one is, include....

  • Back-stabbing skills
  • The ability to work a mob
  • No shame
  • A thick hide
  • No conscience
  • Advanced arse-licking skills
  • A willingness to sell one's soul for money
  • A willingness to evade tax
  • A willingness to collude with others
  • A willingness to conspire with others
  • A commitment to ridiculing objectors
  • Passing the buck skills
  • Being a convincing liar
  • The ability to cry on demand
  • The ability to fake sincerity on demand
  • Coercion skills
  • No compunction about using people for personal gain
  • Having powerful friends
  • Side-stepping questions
  • A willingness to win by cheating
  • A knack for denying responsibility while appearing to be a responsible person
  • Digging for dirt and defaming others
  • Unashamedly displaying one's success and/or wealth
  • Exploiting/abusing one's position
  • The unquenchable belief that one is worth more still

It should be noted that because these personal qualities are not officially recognised amongst the claims for higher wages, they are not applicable to raising the wage of other workers who might display them. In fact, one could be sacked, or even go to jail for displaying them in other occupations. 

Being Higher in the Chain of Command (the old favourite), and the Size of One's Chain of Command
Being higher in the chain of command is the most powerful criteria there is for justifying why one should receive more pay than others because as you have may have deduced, most other criteria are found in other jobs that pay much less than the wages of managers of big businesses or politicians. This criteria generally justifies why anybody who is in charge of other workers will receive a higher wage than those he/she is in charge of. The reason why we referred to this criteria as 'the old favourite' is because it has been the reason why the leaders of all materially stratified societies have claimed the right to be more economically, socially, and materially rewarded in relation to all or most other workers within the society. Even though this criteria, like all other criteria for higher wages is the product of abuse of power (i.e. people in control promoting the economic value of what they do for a job), there are several sub-criteria (other than those already discussed) for why one is said to deserve more pay for being higher in the chain of command, and why one is said to deserve even more as the size of one's chain of command increases (or as the size of the profits increase). They include.... 

  • Being more indispensable
  • Having more responsibility
  • Dealing with more stress
  • Working longer hours 

It is actually true that one becomes more indispensable as one moves up higher in the chain of command because, as we have mentioned, there is restricted access to education and training of management and politicians. Further, because there is also a smaller supply of managerial and political jobs out there, only a small percentage of the society sets about becoming managers or politicians. And there is an even smaller supply of managers that have enough experience to manage big companies, which is one of the reasons why they are regarded as being even more indispensable, and thus worth more again. But being more indispensable doesn't mean that one's labour is worth more even if that person's skills are actually a rarity amongst human beings. In fact, there are some people who specialise in certain areas of technology for example, who are far more rare, and thus far more indispensable than even the highest paid managers or politicians, and yet they do not receive as much pay as the managers they work under. As we have already mentioned, being a rarity increases one's bargaining power against employers over wages, which is a form of blackmail, and this doesn't mean that one's labour is worth more. However, as we have seen time and time again, being more indispensable doesn't mean that one is indispensable. Nobody is indispensable except for people such as Archimedes, Albert Einstein, or Charles Darwin. In the AEM's Egalitarian society, managers and politicians actually become far more dispensable because we deliberately spread the job of management and politics between more people, rather than to have fewer people in such positions working longer hours. And because many people will also eventually be involved in multi-occupations, we will also have a greater supply of part-time managers and politicians. Both of these strategies serve to create a larger pool of managers and politicians from which we can easily find replacements for existing managers and politicians. Further, we can deliberately move these people around to work in different businesses so that we can compare their performance against the performance of other managers, and to do this means that no manager is, or feels indispensable.     

There is also no doubt that people who are higher in the chain of command do take on more responsibility and often endure more stress, but these reasons can't legitimately be used to claim the right to a higher wage (especially when control of the society was gained by force, which is how higher wages for those who are higher in command began). As with intellectual labour, taking on more responsibility and/or dealing with more stress is the price one pays for missing out on doing hard physical labour. That is, once again we can say that given the choice between being higher in the chain of command and doing physical labour, for the same pay, most people will choose to be higher in the chain of command. Of course, this is already known, as many people in lower and middle management are often required to work longer hours for a salary that would be less than the wage of those workers below them if those workers were working the same long hours. It may be true to say that many people can't handle responsibility or stress, but many people also can't handle doing repetitive or mundane work. And once again, many people like being important, desire to be in charge, thrive on having responsibility, enjoy the challenge of problem solving, and aren't overly affected by stress. This is similar to people who like to host parties, even though it costs them money to do so. Consider amateur team sports for example. Certain players desire to be the captain, which entails more responsibility and stress, but nobody gets paid anything. From this example we can see that certain personality types desire to be the leader or/and to be in charge, even when there are no monetary rewards. Such personality types can be extremely beneficial for the society, as can all personality types. However, this doesn't mean that one should receive more pay for fulfilling one's own needs and desires. Quite simply, many people want to be in charge of companies or communities for various reasons, and they will continue to want these jobs even when there is no money in it. After all, the AEM is seeking to take control of the nation and we are not complaining about the extra responsibility or the stress of the job, and we won't just be in charge of the community; we will also be in charge of every business. Incidentally, in the AEM's Egalitarian society, managing businesses, including big businesses, will become far less stressful (See our 'A More Humanised Workplace' web page for an explanation about why this is so). 

As far as working longer hours is concerned, the AEM considers this to be a valid reason for higher wages, but this could apply to any type of worker. However, in the AEM's Egalitarian society, most workers, including those who are higher in the chain of command, will not be required to work longer hours (although we know that many workers will choose to in order to remain competitive and because they can't leave their job alone, but these people will not be paid extra). And when one is asked to do overtime, we won't normally pay people more, but will offer time off work, extra holiday time, earlier retirements, or longer long-service leave, or we may offer other deals, such as to allow that person a chance to move closer to job he/she is trying to acquire. 

Also, many employers are prepared to pay more to those people who are higher in the chain of command because they fear certain consequences associated with these people leaving their company, even though these reasons are not included within the criteria for claiming a higher wage. For example, many employers fear replacing a manager that they already know they can trust with someone who they don't yet know whether or not they can be trusted to do the job responsibly or honestly. Many owners of businesses are actually afraid to go on holidays because they have to trust their managers with the company's bank accounts, and it is not uncommon for managers to abuse this trust. Also, managers have access to knowledge about the company, the owners of the company, and the secret ingredients or processes required to produce the company's superior goods, and when they leave the company, they may take this information to the opposition. As such, part of the high salary that is received by those who are higher in the chain of command is associated with buying confidentiality. This is akin to managers blackmailing companies, or companies paying protection money to managers. In the AEM's Egalitarian society, these types of concerns will no longer exist.

In this institutionalised capitalist domination fantasy, our intrepid managers and politicians tell us that they deserve more because of their vital role in saving our society from economic disaster. If plumbers were the ones who gained control of the society, they would be telling us that they deserve more because of their important role in saving the society from excretion and storm water. If electricians were the ones who gained control of the society, they would be telling us that they deserve more because of their vital role in providing electric power to the nation. When military leaders gain control of the society, they tell us that they deserve more because they save the society from invasion and civil unrest. The point we are making is that most jobs are vital for the society to continue in the way that it does, but this doesn't ever mean that those involved in particular jobs deserve more than others. Every reason is an abuse of the power given to them. Even though he was referring to communist Russia, the pigs in George Orwell's book, "Animal Farm" did exactly the same thing as our political and business leaders (and other intellectuals) have done, in that they gave some lame excuses for why they should receive more than the rest. Generations later, it was perceived as normal, fair, valid, logical, and necessary that the pigs should get more, and our society is no different in this regard. 

Other Social Problems Associated with Unequal Wages 
As with many other issues associated with economic stratification, unequal wages require quite of lot of expensive human resources (or social infrastructure) to administer them, which would not be required in an Egalitarian society. For example, we will no longer need the Industrial Relations committee because there is never going to be any more arguments about wages between employees/unions, employers, and the government, and this harmonious social situation will serve to create a far more harmonious workplace culture, which will also serve to create a far more harmonious society. Currently, in our capitalist society, this is an expensive three-way fight that will never end because there will always be economic conflicts of interest.

Unequal wages, particularly those between managers and the workers of a business, nurtures an 'us and them' mentality, and this serves to create a lack of respect for each others working efforts and working conditions, which is obviously detrimental to the culture of the workplace and society.

Because unequal wages provide incentive to acquire higher qualifications, and because universities and other institutions of higher or vocational education make their money by providing such courses, and because individuals are required to acquire these qualifications before they can acquire the type of job they seek, far more people undertake these courses than there are jobs available. This problem is made worse because governments, as part of their quest to display a reduction in the unemployment figures (as part of the process of conning the public into believing that they are improving our society), encourage unemployed people to take up study, which is said to make these people more employable. Consequently, Australia has literally thousands of people who are not employed in the field that they have studied, and some remain unemployed because they are not qualified for anything else. This unneeded education serves to waste the academic efforts, time, and money of these individuals. In the AEM's Egalitarian society, this doesn't occur very much because we train and educate people as we need to, although people can undertake free (unneeded) study in their leisure time if they wish to.

If you could image a culture was created like an extended family business, you would see that young adults are the main workhorses within the culture. That is, the society takes advantage of young adults while they are still strong and healthy, without injuries, and still possess plenty of stamina. After they have paid their dues in this way, they are able to move into less physically demanding types of work. And because most of one's peers go through this process, and because one knows that most elder person have also been through this process, there is no resentment about it. In fact, there is the desire to do one's bit for the social group or family, and a sense of failure and shame when one is unable to. In our contemporary capitalist society however, because young adults need to be concerned about their economic future from before the outset of their working life, they often skip physical labour completely, and instead go straight to university and then into a professional career. Also, because junior rates of pay are cheaper than senior rates of pay, many employers prefer to hire young adults for such jobs as clerks, secretaries, and sales assistants, and so these young people do not become involved in more physically demanding jobs either. Further, businesses, in their need to be competitive, prefer to hire pretty young women to seduce customers or clients, and so these young adults also skip physical labour. And while all this is going on, many older adults are unable to escape physical labour. In most economically stratified societies, physical labour has become a dirty word: it is what the poor people do. But physical labour is actually good for you, especially during young adulthood as this stage of life is an important period of muscle and bone development, and this serves to keep people much healthier throughout their lives, which also serves to reduce our medical costs. In the AEM's Egalitarian society, nobody needs to worry about their economic future anymore, we will not have junior or senior rates of pay, and we don't try to seduce customers to buy anything. As such, we will generally return to what is culturally sensible, where most young adults will initially be involved in physical labour for most of their working week, and as they grow older, physical labour will be reduced.

Lower wages serve to make people dissatisfied with their jobs and their lives. It would also appear that the lower someone is paid, the less they are appreciated for the efforts. Somebody once said that it is better to be poor than to be the working poor. What they mean is that it is better to put up with the poverty associated with being on unemployment benefits than to work hard all week to be only a little better off and totally unappreciated. How true. Low rates of pay are very de-motivational, especially compared to the social and material benefits enjoyed by those on high rates of pay. It is very easy to denounce people for not having a strong working ethic when one has always been well rewarded and supported in comparison to other people, and when one has no idea about what it is like to work for low wages and to know that things are not going to improve much for the rest of one's life. It is a form of blaming the victims of an invalid unequal wages system, which one's success within motivates one to deny its invalidity, and to deny that low wages cause depression, laziness, self-abuse, crimes of resentment, unemployment, and suicide. Our capitalist leaders are amongst this group of self-righteous, self-serving, and ignorant people, and because we still have very unequal wages, this means that they have successfully encouraged the majority of the society to think likewise. In an Egalitarian society, you may not get the job you want, but you won't be economically kicked in bum or feel less appreciated because of it. In fact, we are sure that many people will be prepared to do the most unpleasant of jobs when they are just as economically and socially appreciated for their efforts as anybody else.

To maintain a lucrative job often motivates people to keep those aspirants who are below them down, regardless of how talented they might be. To say this another way, capitalism is not a very nurturing culture. Those with money or good jobs are not trying to help everybody acquire what they have, but are instead making sure that other people stay away from their job so that they can maintain their privileged place in society. And in keeping people from reaching their potential, resentment flourishes, and ultimately society is the loser because we are not getting the best people into the right jobs.  

Throughout this and our other 'Egalitarianism' web pages, we have demonstrated to you that capitalism is not only invalid and the product of abuse of power, but that compared to Egalitarianism, the citizens are economically and socially worse off, it is the cause of wide ranging and endemic social problems, it is far more inefficient, it nurtures the over consumption of renewable and non-renewable material resources, and it is much more detrimental to the environment. What more do you need to realise that capitalism is one big mistake?

Now that you know a bit more about what the AEM represents, and when you have eventually read all of our other web pages: if you take the time to think about it, you will start to realise that there are many other social problems, stressful situations, and nasty acts etc, which are created by, or motivated within all levels of our capitalist society, and which would not exist at all within the AEM's Egalitarian society.

We wrote earlier that nobody was/is powerful enough to stop the capitalists' control of the society, but this doesn't mean that this is an unchangeable situation, and the AEM wouldn't be here if it was. In our democratic society, we can stop capitalism just by the AEM winning an absolute majority in both houses of parliament (which is still a very difficult thing to achieve). Up until now, we have been able to deny any responsibility for the social and environmental problems our capitalist society creates. We are not the ones in charge, we aren't powerful enough to stop it, and we have not even been offered any alternatives. But to continue with capitalism when we could have voted for Egalitarianism means that we can no longer deny responsibility for the direction that our society and environment is heading. Not surprisingly, your contemporary economic and political leaders and the media (i.e. the people with power and the only voices in our society) continue to announce and reaffirm how wonderful our capitalist constitution is, in spite of the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Never believe them: they are blinded by their self-interested desire for wealth and power. When the time comes, a vote to stay with the capitalist constitution is a vote for more of what we have discussed on this and our other web pages: more institutionalised corruption, more organized crime, more property crime, the reproduction of new heroin and nicotine addicts, more (child) homelessness, more poverty, more (long-term) unemployment, more outrageous salaries, etc., etc., etc. So don't be a part of the problem, and vote for Egalitarianism. However, until then, the AEM needs your support, so become a member and help begin this challenge against the contemporary capitalist constitution.

As mentioned at the beginning of 'The Capitalist Scam (Part 1)' web page, the AEM also sees that our contemporary form of democracy is also a scam, largely because it is based upon, and supports most of the same ideals that capitalism does. Therefore, it is also the cause of another large set of very serious and completely unacceptable social problems, and contrary to what is continually being reaffirmed, it also doesn't really achieve the goals that it is said to achieve. This is not to say that the democratic process is all bad, but we will discuss these issues, and what the AEM is proposing as an alternative, in our 'The Democratic and Undemocratic Nature of the AEM's Egalitarian Society' web page.

1  2  3


Home | Our Mission | About the AEM | Major Policies | Current Issues | Join the AEM | Contact Us | Feedback | Resource

Legal Issue:  Copyright  |  Privacy  |  Disclaimer