Australian Egalitarian Movement :: Offering a Socialist Political Alternative

The
Australian Egalitarian Movement
www.aem.org.au

Location:  

Home > Major Policies > Common Questions About, and Criticisms of Egalitarianism > Is the AEM Really a Communist Organisation?

 

Home Page

Our Mission

About the AEM

Our Major Policies
and Explanations

Questions & Answers

Current Affairs

Join the AEM
FREE Membership

Contact Us

Feedback

Resources

 

Is the AEM Really a Communist Organisation?; and Because of Certain Similarities in the Economies of Communist Societies and the AEMís Egalitarian Society, Does the Economic Collapse of Communist Russia Reflect upon the Credibility of the AEMís Egalitarian Economy?


As the founder of the AEM, it is appropriate that I should answer these important questions (briefly), although I may not reflect, or fully reflect the opinions of all Egalitarianists, who I sincerely hope will join the AEM, in order to unite together and help empower the Egalitarianist viewpoint within the society.

 

Is the AEM Really a Communist Organisation?
While certain Egalitarianists may regard themselves as communists, and while certain communists may regard themselves as Egalitarianists, many do not, and so far, no communist state has ever been an Egalitarian state (The same can be said of socialism in general, because all other socialist political parties that I know about are not proffering Egalitarianism either). Therefore, these communist states, along with all other elitist states, are the ideological and political enemies of the AEM. Therefore, even if you were to regard the AEM as a bunch of communists, to draw comparisons between any known communist state and the AEMís Egalitarian society would be just as ridiculous as drawing comparisons between the AEM and the liberal party, just because some policies appear to be similar. Also, the philosophy of Egalitarianism has been around a lot longer than the philosophy of communism. As such, rather than ask whether or not the AEM is a communist organisation, it would probably be more correct to ask whether or not certain communists are really Egalitarianists.

One may be an Egalitarianist if one believes that elitism, for whatever reason, is an invalid form of domination. And if one regards oneís self as being honest, fair, and pursuing truth, this alone is a good enough reason to support a change to Egalitarianism (without needing to imply a connection to communism, even though many communists may think the same).

I am also an Egalitarianist because upon examining my society, I see just how many things would no longer be a problem, and how much better off our society and culture would be if we changed to Egalitarianism (without needing to imply a connection to communism, even though many communists may think the same). There are also those who believe that money is the root of all evil, and they support Egalitarianism because of this (without needing to imply a connection to communism, even though many communists may think the same).

And because I believe such things, and because I also believe that Egalitarianism is achievable and maintainable, if the society is set up appropriately (without needing to imply a connection to communism, even when there are some similarities to the way in which communist societies have been set up). One communist-like aspect of this system requires that all business be owned by the state, and therefore all wages be paid by the state. This set up is only so because as yet, we cannot see any other way to ensure that Egalitarianism be achieved and maintained in highly populated modern societies without the state doing so (although we are still open to suggestions). However, as we have discussed on our other web pages, a centralised administration (often in association with other policies) produces many other practical, social, and economic benefits as well. Such state control tends to induce fears about domination and oppression, but this doesnít mean that it isnít the most sensible thing to do, if one doesnít need to worry about such things. With respect to this issue, the AEM also has several other major policies that prevent this from occurring (starting with Egalitarianism, which prevents anybody, including those who run the country, and their families, from receiving more than the rest of us, or having extra social privileges). Also, state ownership of all businesses does not imply communism either, because many other different forms of rule can also impose state ownership of businesses (eg. Kingdoms, military dictatorships, divine rulers).

The AEM however, also supports ideas that are not mentioned by communist groups. For example, the AEM views social problems, including elitism, from a sociological perspective, which focuses our attention on stopping the reproduction of social problems by changing what we do as a society, rather than by forcing change upon those individuals or groups of people who are part of the social problems (that the society has produced). We also favour (a different form of) democracy, although so do certain communists. We also do not support totalitarianism in that...

  • we welcome philosophical and ideological debate and challenges,
  • we believe we provide processes that allow citizens to challenge the decisions of government, and to have a much greater say in the law and policy-making process than we are currently experiencing within our democratic-capitalist society, and
  • we only continue to manage the society by maintaining the citizensí continued approval.

We also do not support dictatorships, and replace our leaders of government regularly. Communist states also appear to support inheritance, while the AEM views inheritance as a form of institutionalised corruption that allows wealth and poverty to remain where it is for generations. We also claim that inheritance contradicts the capitalist concept that individuals be economically rewarded in accordance to what they have demonstrated they deserve.

There are also some theoretical differences between what I think and what Carl Marx thinks. Marx and other communists believed that because no ruling class would ever go quietly, communism could only be installed through a revolution of the working class. I on the other hand, believe that in a democratic society, Egalitarianism can be achieved through educating the voting public. Further, I believe it is doubtful that revolution will ever deliver Egalitarianism or a just society because the people who typically succeed in climbing to the top of a military force usually crave power. And as we have discussed on our other web pages, the last people you want in power (if you want a just and Egalitarian society) are people who crave power (something that our contemporary democratic system repeatedly delivers to us). Also, revolution arises from a vengeful perspective, which leads to further destruction and violence, particular towards the ousted ruling class. I however, view the need to change to Egalitarianism from a concerned perspective Ė concern for future generations, the sustainability of the culture, life within the culture, the environment, the ecology, economic waste, over-consumption of non-renewable resources, institutionalised and invalid forms of domination and abuse, and the extremely long list of social problems. If you read through our other web pages, you will see that discussions focus on how Egalitarianism serves to dramatically improve these problems and remedy others, and not on how we need to make the elite pay for their deeds. As mentioned, I view elitism as a social problem that we can stop the reproduction of by changing what society does, and by doing so, there is no need or reason to punish the existing elite or to remove them of their wealth. After all, they are only doing what is sensible to do within a capitalist society. And demonstrating this non-vindictive approach toward elitism is vital if Egalitarianism is to spread beyond Australia.

The communist revolution in China and other countries also extended this vengeful perspective towards intellectuals, many of whom were imprisoned, tortured, and killed. I, and the AEM support the development of intellectual abilities, challenges, and debate, and I also view our contemporary democratic-capitalist society as another form of rule that severely suppresses such intellectual pursuits and viewpoints. Communist states have also been known to outlaw religions, whereas the AEM allows people to believe whatever they want to believe, and will provide facilities for people to unite together as a religion and develop public support (through the appropriate channels), unless of course they are preaching about uprising.

Also, Marx claimed that the elite within the society maintain their elitism by controlling the means of production. I instead believe that those who gain control of the law and policy-making processes within society, deliberately and unwittingly create various laws and policies that serve to socially, economically, and politically advantage these people in relation to other people. That is, gaining and maintaining oneís elite status by owning or controlling the means of production, and keeping the surplus from that production, is only possible because those whose make the laws and policies of the society have made such strategies legal. Therefore, one could have no control or ownership of the means of production and still be elite if other laws and policies allow elitism to occur via other means (eg. claiming taxes, being born to a particular family, being the head of the largest extended family, being higher in the hierarchy of a religious organisation that controls the society, being higher in the hierarchy of a military organisation that controls the society, being voted into power).

Finally, I must say that from a cultural perspective, I think that communism, as conceptualised by Marx, appears to be the next best thing to the AEMís version of Egalitarianism, in that it seeks to stop unjust social, political, and economic domination by an elite few, it raises the status of the worker, and recognises that elitism is maintained by deliberately molding the values and beliefs of the society. Marx also claimed that the people would come to rule themselves (although I donít think he explained how). It is easy to see why Marxís communism has often gained, and will continue to gain the support of many. Itís just a pity that it has never actually occurred. As such, I personally have no objection to Marxists joining the AEM, but we must always remember that Egalitarianism is the key concept, and the AEM goes into this quest to change the constitution of Australia with Egalitarianism as our stated objective and obligation, not someoneís version of communism.


 

Because of Similarities in the Economies of Communist Societies and the AEMís Egalitarian Society, Does the Economic Collapse of Communist Russia Reflect upon the Credibility of the AEMís Egalitarian Economy?
As communist Russia was not an Egalitarian society, the economic demise of communist Russia, or any other so called communist state, has no correlation to the economic success or failure of the AEMís Egalitarian society.

As with all elitist societies, the economy of communist Russia was/is designed to service the elite, at the expense of the needs of the country. Like capitalist societies, with elitism comes corruption, and with corruption comes chronic economic inefficiency and social problems. And because communist Russia was a totalitarian dictatorship, corruption was much more entrenched and widespread than the amazingly high amount of legal and illegal corruption that occurs within democratic-capitalist societies. As such, the wealth of the nation was forever being siphoned off, leaving the country with less than enough to function properly. After saying this however, it is more likely that the decision to abandon the so-called communist economy was not based upon the inability of Russia to continue economically, but upon the realisation by many of the elite within Russia (and now China) that they (i.e. the elite and powerful) could make even more by changing to capitalism.

The AEM's economic policy of state ownership of all business may also be evident within communist economies, but there are also some big differences between these two economies, which you can read about in our The AEM's Egalitarian Economy web page. For example, within the AEMís Egalitarian society, people in powerful positions, as with everybody else, have no ability to siphon off any of the nationís wealth because they have no control over the money that enters their accounts. We also create a cashless society, so nobody can stash cash or bribe officials.

Further, we save tens of billions of dollars annually simply because we no longer need the public and private infrastructure (eg. banks, insurance companies, corporate lawyers, personal accountants, tax departments) to administer, monitor, police, and service each individualís economic ambitions, security, and obligations. And if you have read our web pages you will see that we save billions of dollars in many other ways as well because we will eventually no longer be required to waste money tending to our many existing social problems (eg. unemployment, property crime, fraud, addiction).

This may sound unbelievable, but after we clear our foreign debts (created by our democratic-capitalist society), I predict that the Egalitarian nationís economy will look very similar to the economy of individuals within the Egalitarian nation. That is, each year we will save a portion of our income, which will usually not be needed in the future. As the years go by, this amount saved will continue to grow because we wonít have any reason to spend it (on domestic ventures). We, as a nation, might even eventually decide not to be so productive because of this unnecessary accumulation of wealth, particularly since one of the AEMís major goals is to reduce consumption of our non-renewable resources.

Consider this. If we were to examine modern intensified societies, we would see that the more wealth is distributed within the society, the more economically successful that society is, the less social problems develop, and the less violence occurs. There is no reason to believe that this trend will not continue as the wealth of the nation becomes even more equally distributed. We predict that success in these issues will increase dramatically, as resembled graphically by a J-curve (or rather three j-curves), as a society becomes more Egalitarian. If you read our web pages, we are sure you will start to see why.

But international economic success is not our goal. It is just one of the many beneficial things that occurs by becoming an Egalitarian society. Personally however, I would like to think that people are turning to Egalitarianism for the right reasons, and not because our nation is going to be more economically successful or powerful within the international rat race. I say that it shouldnít matter whether or not we are going to be economically better off by changing to Egalitarianism, just as it shouldnít matter whether or not a nation is going to be economically better off by not restricting access to primary school education or by stopping slavery. If something is perceived as wrong, a just society will outlaw it regardless of the economic outcomes.

Also, because Russia changed to communism during economically depressed times, and because Russia has such a large population, and because most Russians were poor, the so-called communist economy was under an enormous amount of stress from the outset. It would be many years, perhaps even generations, before most Russians would experience the benefits of becoming a communist state. Australia, on the other hand, is not in economically depressed times, has a much smaller population, and most of our population is already middle class. As such, the change to Egalitarianism will be far less traumatic economically.

Incidentally, because communism, as conceptualised by Marx, has never occurred, its economy has also never had the opportunity to fail.

 

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

Legal Issue:  Copyright  |  Privacy  |  Disclaimer