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 AEM’s 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 one’s 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 doesn’t mean that it isn’t the
most sensible thing to do, if one doesn’t 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 citizens’
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 –
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 one’s 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 AEM’s 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 don’t
think he explained how). It is easy to see why Marx’s communism has
often gained, and will continue to gain the support of many. It’s 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 someone’s version of communism.
Because of Similarities in the
Economies of Communist Societies and the AEM’s Egalitarian Society, Does
the Economic Collapse of Communist Russia Reflect upon the Credibility
of the AEM’s 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
AEM’s 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 AEM’s Egalitarian society, people in powerful positions, as
with everybody else, have no ability to siphon off any of the nation’s
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
individual’s 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 nation’s 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 won’t 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 AEM’s 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 shouldn’t matter whether or not we
are going to be economically better off by changing to Egalitarianism,
just as it shouldn’t 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.
