Marx and Engels Were Not Egalitarians 

I'm taking an economics course at the moment, and my teacher typically associates communism with the fixation on absolute equality, needless to say I doubt I'll be taking it for much longer.

I always thought that the maxim "From each according to their ability, to each according their need" implied that Marx and Engels weren't egalitarian, because they knew certain groups of people needed more than others. That maxim should lead to well-being for all, therefore its more accurate to say that communists want equality of power, not equality of everything. Great video!

I can still vividly remember being told as a kid that communism was when the government owns and operates everything and everybody makes the same wage, from the janitor to the doctor, and people owned nothing individually and the state provided what little ya had. I am forever grateful for the local crusties, streetpunks and squatters who put me in tune with anarchism, Marx, autonomism, etc and got me active in the scene (music and political action) that shaped (and saved) my life for decades to come, making me the person I am today. A//E Just revisiting some videos I haven't seen in a while, friend. Always appreciate your work! 👊✊✌

It's amazing how the idea of communism being completely egalitarian society persists despite Marx explicitly rejected the idea. If anyone ever bother to find out, the documents are there. Yet, until recently, like most people, i didn't know that. Makes me think what other ideas do I take for granted without realizing.

"Oh full equality will never be archieved" - as if that were the aim of egalitarianism and not a stupid people's take. Equality does not mean everyone has the same experience of life, breathes the same air, drinks from the same fountain etc.

Regardless of what one thinks of Marx or Marxism generally, he does have a point: Equality as an abstract principle is simply not realizable

A society where everyone has enough and no-one has undue political and economic power would be a more or less economically equal society, but this equality would be the result of us pursuing other values and not equality as a good in itself. If we consider economic and political equality as important then we will be concerned with wide patterns of inequality, as these could be indicative of unequal power relations. This is pretty much what Marx was getting at.

I really appreciate your channel, the topics you discuss, your tone in those discussions and the research you've done to give an intelligent view in each video. thank you for this and more, I look forward to watching more from you :-)

I think the dominant theme in a lot of Marx's thinking is the rejection of the common conception of politics as applied ethics in some form or another. Raymond Geuss wrote a whole book attacking that, which is referenced in this video and discusses Marx quite a bit. That is at the heart of the split between Marx and Bakunin, because Marx and Engels were not anti-authoritarians and rejected the anarchist rejection of the state (though it is important to note they did not embrace the existing state power like reformists and some other socialists), whereas Bakunin famously claimed socialism without freedom is slavery - a phrase Marx scoffed at. The anarchists, for Engels especially, were just another strain of thinking of politics as aesthetics.

Good video. Helps debunk right-wing myths about anti-capitalist worldview.

I honestly hadn't really thought about the distinction between "I want all classes to be equal." & "Pfffft, what classes?"

"staring is caring"

This seems to require an unusually narrow and strong definition of "egalitarianism."

Would it be fair to say equity is better than equality?

Will you make a video addressing Engle’s arguments regarding “Authoritarianism”? Just curious, I sent this video to a friend who had some confusions regarding equality and communism. He says it really cleared things up for him.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but is this basically the distinction between classical Marxists and neo Marxists , in that classical Marxists recognise that Marx merely called for an abolition of class as an economic concept whereas neo Marxists call for an abolition of class across multiple axes?

Hey Anarchopac, what is your opinion on why the Mondragon worker cooperatives have managers in the workplace? Do you think this is necessary, and if not then how do you think they could be removed?

I've got to take issue with the use of egalitarian here. In my opinion, people providing to society what they can and receiving what they need is the ultimate form of egalitarianism. Make sure everybody has equal access to their needs, like food housing, shelter and clothing, but also the opportunity to find a way to passionately contribute to society what they are able. That's equality if you ask me. Equality doesn't mean "everyone works forty hours and gets three loaves of bread" it means "everyone gets the chance to live the best life that they can."

"Liberty and Equality, through the law of Solidarity, will cause the welfare of each to contribute to the welfare of all." ~Benjamin Tucker

what is "social wealth"?

Great video comrade.

As a new Marxist, this is vital for me to hear, because I wasn’t really aware of this, but this makes Marxism seem so much better and more complete to me now. Thanks for the great video!

A valuable resource, as always. Thank you!

The more I learn about communism the more I learn that capitalism is very simple, exploitative yes, but simple. Its pushing me back the other way.

Excellent exposition - accurate and clear.

I'm commenting so that this is recommended to more people! Very good video.

More than great. The knowledge you provided me through this video helped med to school a lying fake news website.

No egaletarian talks about absolute equality

This i never knew. Makes me look at marxism from a new lens.

Arguably, one of the crucial fronts for the contemporary revolutionary left, is how they can formulate both an understanding, and a praxis for resolving, inequality. The global struggle for greater economic and material redistribution is of course an important one, but ultimately, the Left's ability to harness technology, infrastructure and embed the 'cognitariat' into radical programs is likely the greatest way of overcoming inequality. Orthodox Marxism, as it offers little for a communist blueprint, seems pretty redundant, to me, in understanding how genuine equality might manifest (not just economic; but social or political); as Anarchopac concluded, Marx wished to promote “true realm of freedom”, but left-futurists, anarchists and post-Marxist commentators are really needed for fleshing out what this "true freedom" might actually be like.

Amazing video!

I'm in a gig economy that doesn't offer that much work over the summer, but it's all coming back now! Once I have disposable income again, I'm going to donate to your patreon; this channel's deserves it!

I’m looking for a video on price stability in capitalism I once watched in youtube... I recall the name of the channel to be related to anarchism! Anyone please??

Thank you very much for making this video.

Lol this is so basic, but so widely misunderstood, thanks for making this video!!

the freedom of no alienation situation never works

Ok but real talk- if you own 11 shoes are you equal to someone who owns 10 shoes?

I know that this is an older video but I'll leave this here if anyone want's to know why marxists reject egalatarianism as a guiding principle. the reason is because marxism doesn't really have guiding principles. it has no moral center that guides us. it's a science, we form a hypothisis test it and observe. true, we all have our own individual reasons for being marxists. we form our morals from interacting with social relations, princibly class society. there is no unity in these morals however. marx and engels advocate for socialism and communism because they analysed previous class societies and realized that the principle leading contradiction was class struggle and that socialism and communism were the only things that could come out of the contradictions of capitalism resolving. the only other option is barbarism. total destruction from war and crimate disaster. lenin formed his ideology from a furthered anylisis of capitalism, imperialsm, and the dawn of the working class revolution. it formed stratagies for how to organize the masses. mao furthered these orginizing stratagies and furthered the stratagy for countering capitalist counter revolution. the only real unifying center of our ideology is dialectical materialism, the philisophical and methodological way in which we view the world (read on contradiction by mao if you want to more on that) and to expand on that the concrete analysis of concrete things.

This is a good video

But from an anarcho-communist perspective, i tell people the ideal of progressive equality or the being color blind ideal is kind of stupid and pedantic. However isnt it still egalitarian to say regardless of skin color, race, gender you have access to the same rights? I sort of think that marx like much of his stuff is loose with own definitions as well as a person who misrepresents his opponent. I like a lot of marx. But a massive edge anarchism has is that it has no one orthodoxy under one person such as marxism or marxist-leninism. Which to me is setting one up for to be dogmatic and lack free thought.

Egalitarian, as in equal access to the resources, citizen rights and social mobility, is not the same as... Cake or geography or wages. These two persons had different views and opinions on many subjects.. but egalitarianism and communism aren't the same either. as far as I know - the issue of ownership and control of the means of production, and land, and private property and financial sector and profit sharing or not, is where the biggest divides are, in a communist, socialist, Marxist or Engels school and beyond spectrum. That's why communism and socialism also differ...

Anarchopac, would you agree that equality like the term justice, is a nebulous a term and is problematic for dealing with oppression?

I am a bit late on the comment, but it seems to me that the first Engels quote you mentioned was rather similar to a famous dishonest deflection by Margaret Thatcher. Intentionally missing the point, she said something to the effect of "nobody is equal, thanks heavens for that."

So to say, Marxian communism is more libertarian than egalitarian. ✏-- C'est assez, languir en tutelle 𝐸𝑛𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑑𝑦 L'égalité veut d'autres lois 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑤𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑤𝑠 Pas de droits sans devoirs dit-elle 𝑁𝑜 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑑𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑠ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑦𝑠 Égaux, pas de devoirs sans droits 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑛𝑜 𝑑𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠

i am the king of cake consumption

Marxian socialist advocate an historical break from capitalist owned agricultural and industry __ capitalist commodity production by wage labour __ by a global working class revolution i.e. agricultural and industrial workers in a universal class expropriate the productive forces and eliminate capitalist commodity production, wage labour, rent and interests, thus putting an end to markets and money. Capitalists, landholders, bankers and the rest become ordinary workers in a classless global economy. This presupposes the highest levels of production and distribution to abolish appropriating classes, nation-states and political borders and also eliminate the bureaucratic-military State. Classes are socioeconomic political associations of solidarity predicated upon relations of production. The French philosopher Diderot wrote that 'just as in Nature species of animals prey on one another so in Society classes do the same. Class relations are production and appropriation of wealth. Labouring classes are producing classes - agricultural labourers, industrial labourers, transport labourers and commercial workers. Appropriating classes are the possessing classes - capitalists, landlords, financiers and commercial capitalists. Possessing classes are economic parasites. In the US economy the productive forces are private or corporate possession of this society's appropriating classes __ The producing classes possess nothing but their labour power. Factories, land, finance and means of distribution is in the hands of capitalists, big landholders, financial institutions and commercial establishments. Possession of means of production and distribution are restricted to class ownership distributed among the wealthiest top ten percent. It is not just an issue of quantity i.e. how much wealth is in possession of individual constituents of a specific class, but the mode of appropriation characteristic of the class. This is determined by relations of production: the economic organisation of production and distribution of labour and its products. Techno-economic relations of production corresponding methods of appropriation of labour power and its products are the material foundation of political class formations. Capitalist mode of appropriation of labour power and production forms of distribution as capitalist's profits, landlord rent, interests on money lending finance capital, commercial profits and wages of labour are the capitalist mode of production. The possessing classes are the appropriating classes that constitute capitalist relations of production. Wealth produced by working classes is taken by possessing classes because industrial production as commodity production correspond to capitalist methods of distribution of labour power and its products circulated by money. To live one must have access to food, clothing, shelter, health care. This require money. In capitalist Society everyone need money in order to live. Thus, the working class is compelled to participate in capitalist economic relations of production and distribution: Predicated upon the levels of development in agricultural and industrial developments of productive forces the economic relations of production and corresponding methods of appropriation each of the possessing classes as appropriating classes there is a correspond to specific producing classes. Agricultural and industrial capitalist's appropriation of labour power of workers is by purchase: capitalists own the products of the worker's work. The landlord class appropriate money-rent from the rent of space for a specific time. Land is rented to capitalist for use of land and working class tenants. Financiers lend money over specific time periods and appropriate money above that which is lent as interests on loans. Commercial capitalist's profits stem from commodities bought and sold. "These, then, are relations, or forms of distribution, for they express the relations under which the newly produced total value is distributed among the owners of the various production factors"(Marx) "Wealth, Income, and Power by G. William Domhoff: "Generally speaking, wealth is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale. Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth -- also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments." We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income." Fredrick Engels: "This solution can only consist in the practical recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, and therefore in the harmonising of the modes of production, appropriation, and exchange with the socialised character of the means of production And this can only come about by society openly and directly taking possession of the productive forces which have outgrown all control except that of society as a whole. The social character of the means of production and of the products today reacts against the producers, periodically disrupts all production and exchange, acts only like a law of nature working blindly, forcibly, destructively. But with the taking over by society of the productive forces, the social character of the means of production and of the products will be utilised by the producers with a perfect understanding of its nature, and instead of being a source of disturbance and periodical collapse, will become the most powerful lever of production itself. . . "The socialised appropriation of the means of production does away, not only with the present artificial restrictions upon production, but also with the positive waste and devastation of productive forces and products that are at the present time the inevitable concomitants of production, and that reach their height in the crises. Further, it sets free for the community at large a mass of means of production and of products, by doing away with the senseless extravagance of the ruling classes of today and their political representatives. The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialised production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties - this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here. With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation. . . . "The working-classes seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the producing classes frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. Karl Marx "What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. "In 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 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 Frederick Engels: "Man’s own social organisation, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have hitherto governed history pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, with full consciousness, make his own history -

Of course being an egalitarian means wanting more equality where it matters, not perfect equality in all forms. No one wants the latter, that's a straw man. Marx and Engels seem to distinguish themselves from (other) egalitarians by focussing on class and nothing else, something we might nowadays call class reductionism.

❤️🖤

They were egalitarians, they were just pedants who didn't like the word "equality." The arguments against equality in the abstract are based on lazy superficial reasoning. No one is talking about pure abstract equality, we mean equal rights of human beings in society. Of course things will never be exactly equal like making all people the same height, that's a straw man. The fact that people can never be exactly alike doesn't mean we shouldn't advocate equal political and economic rights for women, trans people, marginalized communities, immigrants, equal pay for equal work, equal voting rights, etc. Usually the pseudo-intellectual outright dismissal of egalitarianism comes from people who are on the more privileged side of race and gender dialectics and have never felt the pain of inequality firsthand.

A resource allocation system based on “to each according to his needs” will incentivise neediness, leading to need inflation.

human freedom, means development of human powers, means society where all individuals are developed fully and freely, means a community where individuals are subordinated to the community, their value is based on how much they contribute to the community, so we make the community control and own the economy because it will lead to more freedom and development for the individuals in the community, did i get this right?

I've heard many so-called "Marxists" claim that Marx and Engels were not egalitarians. This is patently false, even they who call themselves "Marxists", contradict themselves by quoting Marx in 1866 "The subordination of labour to capital can be superseded by the republican and beneficent system of the association of free and equal producers." And again Engels in 1886 "The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers." In 1844 we find Engels writing sympathetically of American Shaker communities, which he argued, proved that "communism. - is not only possible but has actually already been realized." Marx also co-authored a French worker's party program in 1880 which stated that "the emancipation of the productive class is that of all human beings without distinction of sex or race." Similarly Marx and Engels referred to Gracchus Babeuf as the "first modern revolutionary communist." Marx had also referred to the philosophy of Claude Adrien Helvétius as "real humanism" and the "social basis of communism." Marx to Kugelmann 1868 "great progress was evident in the last Congress of the American "Labour Union" in that among other things, it treated working women with complete equality... Anybody who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex (the ugly ones included)." "In the words of an American writer who, supported in his work by the Washington government, [’the higher plane'] ‘the new system’ to which modern society is tending ‘will be a revival, in a superior form, of an archaic social type.’ We should not, then, be too frightened by the word ‘archaic’." "Still, the research is sufficiently advanced to warrant the assertion that: (1) the primitive communities had incomparably greater vitality than the Semitic, Greek, Roman and a fortiori the modern capitalist societies: and (2) the causes of their decline lie in economic factors which prevented them from going beyond a certain degree of development." [of the Russian ‘rural commune'] "It is easy to see that the dualism inherent in the ‘agricultural commune’ may give it a sturdy life: for communal property and all the resulting social relations provide it with a solid foundation, it is just as evident, however, that the very same dualism may eventually become a source of disintegration. The privately owned houses, fragmented tillage of the arable land and private appropriation of its fruits, the mere accumulation over time of movable property, all these factors, then, serve to dissolve economic and social equality, generating within the commune itself a conflict of interests which leads, to the conversion of arable land into private property," *Marx-Zasulich Correspondence 1881 First Draft

Obligatory comment interaction

Most importantly, they weren't egalitarian in the sense that they were not against hierarchy. The opposite, Marx explicitly says how hierarchy is necessary, and workers need people "commanding" them in any mode of production. He says this in Capital, Vol. 3, Chapter 23; and Lenin refers to this view of Marx when talking about his horrendeous 'one man management' principle.

UwU

There will always be inequalities between people, the point is to control outcomes more equally. So the king in his castle and the beggar at the gate are both abolished However, the meritocracy abolishes neither, it's just the king becomes the billionaire in his castle. Begging the question, just because one has talent - does that give the talented the right to live like kings while the less talented live in poverty? Given we often forget the fact, that the meritocracy emerged from the aristocracy. With the self serving nostrum of 'merit equals success', the priori of feudal inequality the meritocracy grew our of is overlooked. E.G. if the Mafia decided to become more meritocratic, meaning anyone could rise to the position of boss, and didn't have to be Sicilian - it would still be the same criminal organization, it just becomes a criminal organization with a more egalitarian way of picking the boss.

Were they gay? The data points to that.

join a union. hope that it doesn't lead to egalitarianism. group divisions and distinction. crowd mentality. hope that doesn't lead to egalitarianism.

Unconditional care for others beside your family in a materialistic world driven by "value"? Simple answer? Just be rich, lol :)). Socialism is better than Communism even if it's only a transitional phase.

Communism and anarchism are the same thing. We need leaders who are unequal to us in intelligence and character as well as better relations among people in the same social class. Freedom is an important part of human development but it alone is not enough.

Based. Marxists should be anti-egalitarian

Yes if everyone would just become a worker and do what they're told. Equality of forced outcome seems fair. Not

I hate Egalitarianism

Taking other's people money is egalitarianism

in other words, marx is a capitalist

4:38 I think this is the best example of why communism/social collectivism and specifically Marx's view of these are such ethically bankrupt and oppressive ideologies. This perfectly highlights the contrast between equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. All the rhetoric about solidarity and human development/freedom, are just that. They are misnomers. The end goal is not to help bolster those who are disadvantaged or oppressed, but to cut the legs off the able bodied and oppress those who may have or will gain an advantage. There is no moral high ground for communism over capitalism.