
Egalitarianism is the moral doctrine that social equality ought to prevail throughout society. One can best understand various types of egalitarianism by asking "Who is supposed to be equal?" and "In what respect are they supposed to be equal?" The English language word is derived from the French language word ''égal'' meaning ''equal'' or ''level''. Almost all theories of egalitarianism regard humans as the relevant group among whom equality should prevail. However, some versions of utilitarianism, such as Peter Singer's, include animals and maintain that the pleasures and pains of every animal, not only human animals, should count equally in moral deliberation. Singer has defended this view on what he calls the principle of equal consideration of interests. The argument is outlined in his essay [http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm "All Animals Are Equal"]. Common forms of egalitarianism are material or economic egalitarianism, moral egalitarianism, legal egalitarianism, democratic egalitarianism, political egalitarianism, gender egalitarianism and opportunity egalitarianism. According to material egalitarianism, everyone ought to be equal with respect to material possessions. According to legal egalitarianism, everyone ought to be considered equal under the law. According to moral egalitarianism, each person is of equal moral worth. According to democratic egalitarianism, everyone ought to have an equal voice in public affairs. According to political egalitarianism, everyone ought to be equal in political power. According to opportunity egalitarianism everyone ought to be equal in economic opportunity. == Examples of Egalitarianism == Different kinds of egalitarianism can sometimes conflict, while in other situations they may be indispensable to each other. For instance, communism is an egalitarian doctrine according to which everyone is supposed to enjoy material equality. However, because material inequality is pervasive in the current economic systems, some form of material redistribution is necessary. And since those who enjoy the greatest material wealth are not likely to wish to part with it, some form of coercive mechanism must exist in the transition period before communism. But if the coercive powers of redistribution are vested in some people and not in others, inequalities of political power emerge. History has shown, in the former Soviet Union for instance, that people who are granted coercive redistributive powers often abuse them. Indeed, those with political power were known to redistribute vastly unequal shares of material resources to themselves, thereby completely confounding the justification for their unequal political status. Therefore, most Marxists now agree that communism can only be achieved if the coercive powers of redistribution needed during the transitional period are vested in a democratic body whose powers are limited by various checks and balances, in order to prevent abuse. In other words, they argue that political egalitarianism is indispensable to material egalitarianism. Meanwhile, other defenders of material egalitarianism have rejected Marxist communism in favor of such views as Libertarian socialism, which does not advocate the transitional use of the state as a means of redistribution. The United States Declaration of Independence included a kind of moral and legal egalitarianism. Because "all men are created equal" the state is under an obligation to treat each person equally under the law. Originally this statement excluded women, slaves and other minority groups, but over time this kind of egalitarianism has won wide adherence and is a core component of modern civil-rights policies. Other kinds of egalitarianism are more controversial. Economic egalitarianism, popular with liberals throughout much of the 20th Century, has given way to a concern not that everyone be strictly equal in material possession, but rather that everyone be equal in having enough material goods to successfully fulfill his or her native human capacities. As long as everyone's basic needs are met, material inequality can flourish. Libertarianism can be understood as radical political egalitarianism, according to which everyone is equal (or nearly equal) in coercive political power, because no one has any (or those who have it have little and are strictly limited in their use of it). However, political egalitarians, such as the libertarians, often face strong criticism from economic egalitarians who worry about the extremes of economic inequality made possible by unfettered markets. == See also == *Equality of outcome *Equal opportunity == External links == * [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry] Political theories
The author is seriously confusing two very separate doctrines of egalitarianism in addition to making a hasty generalization about broad agreement in the following paragraph. “[M]ost Marxists now agree that communism can only be achieved if the coercive powers of redistribution needed during the transitional period are vested in a democratic body whose powers are limited by various checks and balances, in order to prevent abuse. In other words, they argue that political egalitarianism is indispensable to material egalitarianism. Meanwhile, other defenders of material egalitarianism have rejected Marxist communism in favor of such views as Libertarian socialism, which does not advocate the transitional use of the state as a means of redistribution.” Marxists are Socialists historically and should not be confused with Communists. Communism is a variety of egalitarianism which was originally advocated by Lenin and his Bolsheviks and later became codified after the formation of the Communist International and the formation of the Soviet state. Although Marxism and Democratic Socialism were influential in much of Lenin’s early thinking there were historical rifts which kept these men at ideological and philosophical odds. Moreover, Lenin strove to expand the ideological gap between what were essentially popular social doctrines of Western Europe (Marxism and Democratic Socialism) and his own attitudes; Marxism, and more importantly the popular Democratic Socialism of that time, did not offer a practical or egalitarian solution to the people of then Czarist Russia in Lenin’s mind. Lenin, searching for a specific solution which might close the nationalistic and institutionalized disparities in Czarist Russia between the landless peasant class and the aristocratic Kulaks executed the October Revolution and later the Decree on Land. The most notable difference between Marxism as theory and Communism as history are the people seeking egalitarian distribution of property and wealth. Marxism is very specific when it predicts that the working class of any industrialized, capitalistic nation will be responsible for the overthrow and replacement of a plutocratic minority resulting in an egalitarian distribution of wealth and possession. Since Czarist Russia had very little industrialization prior to the formation of the Soviet state and was generally protectionist in what foreign economic policy it had the definition provided by Marx and his followers is not appropriate. Moreover, those who participated in this attempt at social transformation from dictatorial monarchy to progressive communism were not industrial workers (then afforded marginally more social, political and physical wealth than the average Russian peasant), but agrarian people living without possession. It’s possibly most important to note that Lenin, after the formation of the Communist International and the Russian Communist Party further refined his political philosophy by subtlety altering the words he used to describe the Russian Communist movement. The expansionistic and often corrupt outcome of what started as a Communist (Bolshevik) revolt intent on creating an egalitarian society based on redistribution of property through means provided in Lenin’s (non-Marxist) doctrine became Soviet in practice. The practices of former Soviet states cannot be considered Marxist by any stretch of the imagination and generally fail the definition of Communism as defined by Lenin. The conclusion of this article is muddled by the definition of “Marxist communism.” How can “defenders of material egalitarianism” reject anything in favor of “Libritarian socialism” when the predicate for this choice does not exists? Would Marxists be at all interested in the historical consequences of what was in practice a Communist revolt which later became a dictatorial régime hindered by its own inherent corruption and abuse? Why? Much of the information presented later in the article tends to run toward the American-centric and nationalistic and should be revised as well, but this collection of fallacy is all I have time for today.
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Egalitarianism:
Egalitarianism
Egalitarianism
Egalitarianism
Egalitarianism is the moral doctrine that social equality ought to prevail throughout society. One can best understand various types of egalitarianism by asking "Who is supposed to be equal?" and "In what respect are they supposed to be equal?" The English language word is derived from the French language word ''égal'' meaning ''equal'' or ''level''. Almost all theories of egalitarianism regard humans as the relevant group among whom equality should prevail. However, some versions of utilitarianism, such as Peter Singer's, include animals and maintain that the pleasures and pains of every animal, not only human animals, should count equally in moral deliberation. Singer has defended this view on what he calls the principle of equal consideration of interests. The argument is outlined in his essay [http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm "All Animals Are Equal"]. Common forms of egalitarianism are material or economic egalitarianism, moral egalitarianism, legal egalitarianism, democratic egalitarianism, political egalitarianism, gender egalitarianism and opportunity egalitarianism. According to material egalitarianism, everyone ought to be equal with respect to material possessions. According to legal egalitarianism, everyone ought to be considered equal under the law. According to moral egalitarianism, each person is of equal moral worth. According to democratic egalitarianism, everyone ought to have an equal voice in public affairs. According to political egalitarianism, everyone ought to be equal in political power. According to opportunity egalitarianism everyone ought to be equal in economic opportunity. == Examples of Egalitarianism == Different kinds of egalitarianism can sometimes conflict, while in other situations they may be indispensable to each other. For instance, communism is an egalitarian doctrine according to which everyone is supposed to enjoy material equality. However, because material inequality is pervasive in the current economic systems, some form of material redistribution is necessary. And since those who enjoy the greatest material wealth are not likely to wish to part with it, some form of coercive mechanism must exist in the transition period before communism. But if the coercive powers of redistribution are vested in some people and not in others, inequalities of political power emerge. History has shown, in the former Soviet Union for instance, that people who are granted coercive redistributive powers often abuse them. Indeed, those with political power were known to redistribute vastly unequal shares of material resources to themselves, thereby completely confounding the justification for their unequal political status. Therefore, most Marxists now agree that communism can only be achieved if the coercive powers of redistribution needed during the transitional period are vested in a democratic body whose powers are limited by various checks and balances, in order to prevent abuse. In other words, they argue that political egalitarianism is indispensable to material egalitarianism. Meanwhile, other defenders of material egalitarianism have rejected Marxist communism in favor of such views as Libertarian socialism, which does not advocate the transitional use of the state as a means of redistribution. The United States Declaration of Independence included a kind of moral and legal egalitarianism. Because "all men are created equal" the state is under an obligation to treat each person equally under the law. Originally this statement excluded women, slaves and other minority groups, but over time this kind of egalitarianism has won wide adherence and is a core component of modern civil-rights policies. Other kinds of egalitarianism are more controversial. Economic egalitarianism, popular with liberals throughout much of the 20th Century, has given way to a concern not that everyone be strictly equal in material possession, but rather that everyone be equal in having enough material goods to successfully fulfill his or her native human capacities. As long as everyone's basic needs are met, material inequality can flourish. Libertarianism can be understood as radical political egalitarianism, according to which everyone is equal (or nearly equal) in coercive political power, because no one has any (or those who have it have little and are strictly limited in their use of it). However, political egalitarians, such as the libertarians, often face strong criticism from economic egalitarians who worry about the extremes of economic inequality made possible by unfettered markets. == See also == *Equality of outcome *Equal opportunity == External links == * [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry] Political theories
Egalitarianism
The author is seriously confusing two very separate doctrines of egalitarianism in addition to making a hasty generalization about broad agreement in the following paragraph. “[M]ost Marxists now agree that communism can only be achieved if the coercive powers of redistribution needed during the transitional period are vested in a democratic body whose powers are limited by various checks and balances, in order to prevent abuse. In other words, they argue that political egalitarianism is indispensable to material egalitarianism. Meanwhile, other defenders of material egalitarianism have rejected Marxist communism in favor of such views as Libertarian socialism, which does not advocate the transitional use of the state as a means of redistribution.” Marxists are Socialists historically and should not be confused with Communists. Communism is a variety of egalitarianism which was originally advocated by Lenin and his Bolsheviks and later became codified after the formation of the Communist International and the formation of the Soviet state. Although Marxism and Democratic Socialism were influential in much of Lenin’s early thinking there were historical rifts which kept these men at ideological and philosophical odds. Moreover, Lenin strove to expand the ideological gap between what were essentially popular social doctrines of Western Europe (Marxism and Democratic Socialism) and his own attitudes; Marxism, and more importantly the popular Democratic Socialism of that time, did not offer a practical or egalitarian solution to the people of then Czarist Russia in Lenin’s mind. Lenin, searching for a specific solution which might close the nationalistic and institutionalized disparities in Czarist Russia between the landless peasant class and the aristocratic Kulaks executed the October Revolution and later the Decree on Land. The most notable difference between Marxism as theory and Communism as history are the people seeking egalitarian distribution of property and wealth. Marxism is very specific when it predicts that the working class of any industrialized, capitalistic nation will be responsible for the overthrow and replacement of a plutocratic minority resulting in an egalitarian distribution of wealth and possession. Since Czarist Russia had very little industrialization prior to the formation of the Soviet state and was generally protectionist in what foreign economic policy it had the definition provided by Marx and his followers is not appropriate. Moreover, those who participated in this attempt at social transformation from dictatorial monarchy to progressive communism were not industrial workers (then afforded marginally more social, political and physical wealth than the average Russian peasant), but agrarian people living without possession. It’s possibly most important to note that Lenin, after the formation of the Communist International and the Russian Communist Party further refined his political philosophy by subtlety altering the words he used to describe the Russian Communist movement. The expansionistic and often corrupt outcome of what started as a Communist (Bolshevik) revolt intent on creating an egalitarian society based on redistribution of property through means provided in Lenin’s (non-Marxist) doctrine became Soviet in practice. The practices of former Soviet states cannot be considered Marxist by any stretch of the imagination and generally fail the definition of Communism as defined by Lenin. The conclusion of this article is muddled by the definition of “Marxist communism.” How can “defenders of material egalitarianism” reject anything in favor of “Libritarian socialism” when the predicate for this choice does not exists? Would Marxists be at all interested in the historical consequences of what was in practice a Communist revolt which later became a dictatorial régime hindered by its own inherent corruption and abuse? Why? Much of the information presented later in the article tends to run toward the American-centric and nationalistic and should be revised as well, but this collection of fallacy is all I have time for today.
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
E
EA | EB | EC | ED | EF | EG | EH | EI | EJ | EK | EL | EM | EN | EO | EP | ER | ES | ET | EU | EW | EX | EY | EZ |Words begining with Egalitarianism:
Egalitarianism
Egalitarianism
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
