Egilitarianism

[Die Rote Fahne]

Egalitarianism, the premise that people should be treated and considered equal on the basis of things like race, social class, political affiliation, etc.

What does Marx say of this, what is the normal communist position?

To me, it seems very liberal. We wouldn't treat the bourgeoisie as equal to us, would we?

Or am I misinterpreting the word? Does it mean on a basic human level we are all of equal value? Or?

I used to be a supporter, maybe I still am. I'm just confused based on anti-egalitarianism arguments from capitalists...is the meaning fluid?

Note: yes, I'm aware I spelled the thread title wrong...

[Old Mole]

Isnt the word open for interpretations? I mean saying words like freedom and equality belongs to the liberals is wrong, they belong to communists which seeks real freedom and equality as opposed to just formal. To a liberal the only thing that is important is the legal aspect, in liberal-democratic society everyone is equal (in the eyes of the law), but some are more equal than others. My opinion is that, yes, Marxists should champion egalitarianism, but they should create real equality instead of the farce we have nowadays.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Egalitarianism, the premise that people should be treated and considered equal on the basis of things like race, social class, political affiliation, etc.

To me, it seems very liberal. We wouldn't treat the bourgeoisie as equal to us, would we?


Egalitarianism generally means "equality". It's the class system which is suppressing, but the bourgeoisie also suppresses the lower classes. 'We' wouldn't treat the bourgeoisie as equals because they don't see 'us' as equals and they defend the system which we're all a part of, mostly because of their own comfort. My view is that egalitarianism is one of the goals in a communist society, and it can't be reached of course in today's capitalist system. 'We' want to abolish the bourgeoisie (as a class, of course, and all classes with them), and only then, with no classes, true egalitarianism can be reached.

[Wubbaz]

Egalitarianism, the premise that people should be treated and considered equal on the basis of things like race, social class, political affiliation, etc.

What does Marx say of this, what is the normal communist position?

To me, it seems very liberal. We wouldn't treat the bourgeoisie as equal to us, would we?

Or am I misinterpreting the word? Does it mean on a basic human level we are all of equal value? Or?

I used to be a supporter, maybe I still am. I'm just confused based on anti-egalitarianism arguments from capitalists...is the meaning fluid?

Note: yes, I'm aware I spelled the thread title wrong...

Equality is more a Social democractic value than a Marxist one. I believe that Marxists are more concerned with classes than with equality.
Liberals only see equality as being equaility before the law. They are not concerned (at least traditionally) with economic and social equality. Equaility is indeed open to interpretation.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Equality is more a Social democractic value than a Marxist one. I believe that Marxists are more concerned with classes than with equality.
Liberals only see equality as being equaility before the law. They are not concerned (at least traditionally) with economic and social equality. Equaility is indeed open to interpretation.

Perhaps my definition of egalitarianism as equality was to superficial, because different ideologies and politic views use them in different ways. Egalitarianism is perhaps better defined as abolishment of the classes, and giving the same materialistic standard to everyone, sharing the goods equally etc. This is what I see as equality, while a liberalist or liberal democrat or whatever will say that equality is, as you say, equality to the law (which many capitalist countries fail to give) or the equal opportunity to get as rich is you like. And I guess this is why egalitarianism is a better word.

[Desperado]

Egalitarianism, the premise that people should be treated and considered equal on the basis of things like race, social class, political affiliation, etc.

People being treated equal on the basis of social class for us necessarily entails the abolishment of social class. The question is the "treated", where precisely it is concerned. Socialists, to put it crudely, take the question of equal "rights" from the abstract political realm where the liberals are so concerned and into the economic realm. This is what Marx is on about in "On the Jewish Question". If this is not done, the abstract "equality" political realm presupposes the real inequality - it's illegal for both the rich and the poor to sleep under bridges, legal for both the rich and the poor to hire good lawyers, etc.

Don't shy from egalitarianism. Besides, from where I have read it, egalitarianism is generally used in the leftwing way (as compared to equality which the liberals use for their message (though by socialists also)).

[Rowan Duffy]

Egalitarianism formed the basis for the first communist theorists.

We can see, even prior to the French revolution the notion of egalitarianism being taken in a communist direction (albeit quite utopian) in the works of Morelly and Mably. During the later period of the French revolution you have Babeuf. Using the liberal concepts of egalitarianism and utilitarianism you have William Thompson describing very communist ideas in the early 1800s. From there you have the Ricardian socialists, the Proudhonists, and on to the expressions of Marx.

It was this tradition of radical egalitarianism - taken out of the realm of freedom as strictly based on legalistic bourgeois rights - into the realm of the social/political-economic which forms the seed out of which communism flowers.

Certainly there have been other currents prior that have sought economic justice, but they are less directly genetically related to the modern secular republican and post-republican notions.