Equality?

[Jacob Cliff]

Obviously communists don't stand for the absurd "equality of outcome" rubbish propagated by conservatives and liberals alike as the end goal of the "communist utopia."

But after a long time of viewing threads, and maturing my own thought gradually, from my understanding we communists know social egalitarianism will be the OUTCOME of a communist mode of production -- not necessarily being something externally "imposed" upon society.

If the aforementioned stance on equality is true, then why do many communists reserve themselves to merely shouting for "equality" in the abstract? In other words: why has equality become the fundamental "aim" of communists, when we ought to be striving for a fundamental reorganization of the mode of production? We don't seem to have that problem on this site, but anyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows that a lot of communists simply confine themselves to petty slogans and cries for "equality" of this-and-that, and so on.

The primary point of my question is this: if we stand for only a scientific understanding of the world, explained by a materialist analysis and devoid of all subjective emotional wish-washing, then wouldn't striving for equality contradict this? I'm not saying that I don't believe in equality of this-or-that, but I don't understand how we communists can call ourselves materialists if we recognize equality as some abstract, free-floating, metaphysical "good" that we need more of in our society because it's, well, "good."

Said equality will be an outcome of a communist mode of production, obviously, but this brings another question: why achieve this new communistic mode of production? Because when the reasoning becomes "because it's more equal," it ceases to be a thoroughly materialist reasoning, does it not?

[olahsenor]

Equality is like having those Soviet Ladas up for grabs to anybody in any niche of Soviet society. But where do some people put their monies? Vodka.

Dachas too are up for grabs to all. But where do they put their monies? Leisure.

There is indeed equality in the Old Soviet Union.

[Yung Trev]

Equality would be set in Socialism. Or at least the basic format of equality. Then, as Socialism advances more into Communism, then there equality in the means of production and social equality will take on full effect. In socialism we could see more social rights such as women's rights, immagratiln issues dissolved, etc. maybe this is off topic a little from your question, but as I said when we reach a communist society we will Acheive full equality.

[Jacob Cliff]

Equality is like having those Soviet Ladas up for grabs to anybody in any niche of Soviet society. But where do some people put their monies? Vodka.

Dachas too are up for grabs to all. But where do they put their monies? Leisure.

There is indeed equality in the Old Soviet Union.
?

[olahsenor]

? Three years after the October Revolution, seniors were privileged to receive their pensions. Americans during the 1920s have to work up to ninety without Social Security. Equality. The Soviets were ahead of the Americans in building the Metro or subway train system. Equality.:grin:

[Zoop]

? Three years after the October Revolution, seniors were privileged to receive their pensions. Americans during the 1920s have to work up to ninety without Social Security. Equality. The Soviets were ahead of the Americans in building the Metro or subway train system. Equality.:grin:

I can't tell if you're sincere or just trolling.

[olahsenor]

A genuine communist would be happy or elated to hear that Soviets were 'privileged to receive pensions' in the 1920s. A genuine communist too would be elated to hear that the Soviets were ahead of the Americans in building a subway train system. Wha..tf

[Zoop]

A genuine communist would be happy or elated to hear that Soviets were 'privileged to receive pensions' in the 1920s. A genuine communist too would be elated to hear that the Soviets were ahead of the Americans in building a subway train system. Wha..tf

And this demonstrates that equality existed... how exactly?

[olahsenor]

Because 90 million americans don't have SSS or retirement benefits during the 1920s and the Soviets had. Because everybody in the Soviet Union has access to free rides in the subway system while the Americans are divided between the haves and have-nots, the haves, having their own automobiles and the have-nots, walking, cycling or taking public transportation.

[Zoop]

Because 90 million americans don't have SSS or retirement benefits during the 1920s and the Soviets had. Because everybody in the Soviet Union has access to free rides in the subway system while the Americans are divided between the haves and have-nots, the haves, having their own automobiles and the have-nots, walking, cycling or taking public transportation.

Yeah, I don't think you really know what equality means.

[olahsenor]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion

[Tim Cornelis]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion

No you're not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion

I really can't tell if this is a troll or Tankie. Poe's Law at work.

[olahsenor]

I don't even know what a Tankie is or what Poe's Law is. Kindly explain, sir.

[Jacob Cliff]

Can somebody actually respond to the question, or are we going to have a comment section filled with irrelevant squabbles over things which aren't even mentioned in the post?

[Rafiq]

If the aforementioned stance on equality is true, then why do many communists reserve themselves to merely shouting for "equality" in the abstract? In other words: why has equality become the fundamental "aim" of communists

And here is the problem with the question: It has not, and never was, because the word "equality", like "liberty" and whatever you want is ntohing more than an abstraction: How can an entire movement be based off of a word? Equality has been a principle of bourgeois democracy for quite a long time - it is only in our sick, disgusting and degenerate epoch that as a principle it has been called into question.

Conservatives are the ones who are fascinated by the egalitarian aspect, which is a GIVEN for Communists. And why? Simply because equality does not have to be enforced. You are not born with a title, you are not born different at the level of enforcing social norms than other people. Reactionaries are fascinated by the fact that we Communists have no respect and regard for their rituals of dominance, servitude and the class violence of the state, that we detest these. They are outraged by this fact - you see, equality has nothing to do with everyone being the same. It is not some axiomatic eternal truth or principle, it is simply the consequential, logical conclusion of our movement. This is where the confusion sets in: Because equality is fundamentally a bourgeois principle too, reactionaries simply see Communism as the logical extension of this same bourgeois principle. Society, as you are aware, ALREADY formally values equality - a capitalist is just an ordinary guy who "worked harder", and so on. So when you say that it would be ridiculous that we would answer the question of why we seek Communism "because it's more equal", you're right, but iti s a mistake to think that Communists justify themselves in terms of making pretenses to big, grand others like that, i.e. axiomatic sacred cows and principles, "because it's more democratic", "because it's more fair", and the list goes on.

Equality is NOT an abstraction. It is expressed at the level of practice: Equality has nothing to do with, for example, everyone being the same or even everyone having the same amount of power at the level of the individual. Equality concerns something more simple: Even if a society is hierarchically organized, equality can still prevail insofar as it is universally acknowledged that there is no essential reason as to why one person has more power, or more specifically, at the level of reason, society is susceptible to merciless criticism always - there is no "I am right because I am in charge", there would be no special title of privilege which gives one person more access to society's common space of reason than someone else - this is what fascinates the conservatives, they are so appalled by it - i.e. everyone is subservient to their self-conscious, sum-total of social being. In fact, not to apologize for it, this is precisely why Hegel was so fascinated by the role of a monarch - for Hegel, a monarch, or at least a symbolic one, is important NOT because everyone is inherently unequal, but because on the contrary the arbitrary and purely proximal nature of a monarch for him was egalitarian: For Hegel, a monarch was simply a title, a symbol, that any idiot can assume - any idiot can wear a crown and have a scepter, only through these rituals does he become a monarch. What fascinated Hegel was this fact: The true power was not in the actual monarch, but the crown, the FUNDAMENTAL RELATION between these fetishistic symbols and society to which all were subservient to. Even Marx recognized this.

Now of course, this is a disgusting, vile and reactionary notion, it completely justifies Marx's break with Hegel: Because for all of Hegel's good intentions, at a practical level he ended up apologizing for absolutism and the ancien regime, just like the socialist Hegelians that followed him. Of course today there is some dispute about whether philosophy of right, which is the text in question here, actually endorses monarchy or is merely a description of the intricacies of state power (i.e. in the context of Prussia especially). None the less, the point I am trying to get at is simple: Equality means everyone is essentially equal, everyone is equal insofar as their relationship to the social-symbolic order of things. Slavoj Zizek notes in Less than Nothing that what would effectively be the proper Hegelian substitute for a "monarch", even more true to Hegel than Hegel was himself, would be an idea that is popular among certain Marxists today: Demarchy, or a kind of jury-duty like selection of power.

To "make" things equal presupposes people are inevitably unequal and have to be made equal. But that is a ridiculous, and frankly superstitious notion. To play the devil's advocate, EVEN IF some people were born with "superior" skills in certain areas or respects, this would not come close to justifying 'inequality', which has no basis in actual individuals on an essential level - EVEN IF somehow someone was born 'smarter' (which for all we know is bullshit), this does not confer upon him or her the power that so-called "smart" or 'skiled' people have in our society without things that are far beyond him or her.

[olahsenor]

Now I know what tankie is. No worries I would not fall for it. Many thanks Tim.

[Comrade Jacob]

No you're not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion

I really can't tell if this is a troll or Tankie. Poe's Law at work.

Does he defend the soviet occupation of Hungary in the 60s?