Kind of ashamed (please help)

[rvn10]

Ok, Marx saw capitalism as the greatest economic system ever created, i think there is no doubt that capitalism is great exploding human selfishness and greedyness and creating lots of wealth.

But the reason capitalism is problematic is because it obviously creates inequalities amongst the people of the society and thus the class system.

But thinking about this, a thought came to my mind which kind of made me guilty, and i need some help from you guys.

I was wondering, how is equality any better than inequality? That is, in terms of wealth, how is everyone having the same wealth any better than inequality of wealth?

I mean what would life be worth living for? Can someone explain to me if the term of "equality" that im thinking of, differs under a communist society? Or would everyone have the same amount of wealth?

[wtfm8lol]

inequality is better than forced equality because it gives the incentive to work hard in a way that will benefit society whereas forced equality only gives the incentive to work just hard enough to not piss off your neighbors.

[saint max]

inequality is better than forced equality because it gives the incentive to work hard in a way that will benefit society whereas forced equality only gives the incentive to work just hard enough to not piss off your neighbors.

This isn't a very logically consistant arguement. There's no causal relationship between inequality, one's work ethic and society. How can one who precieves and experiences them self as a more superior (or at very best, indifferent) subject, engage in labor that would [sooner or later] benefit society as a whole? One who is ideologically driven by a conscious and intentional pro-inequality position--if not ontologically pro-inequality position--cannot be concerned about society as a whole. This cannot be the crux of your arguement.

A pro-capitalist position about incentive loses all currency when recognized as a liberal form of egoistic discourse. To be genuinely selfish(egoist) one has to be indifferent to not equality or inequality by to the whole discourse about equality. This is the spook. There is nothing radical that cannot be merely swallowed up by ideologies by attempting to frame discourse about equality and inequality. This is why it is the same langauge of dinasaurs both on the left and the right.

A communist perspective, as someone has already pointed out, has to do with a communized means of production (of everything) but as well has little to do with or against equality.



I mean what would life be worth living for? Can someone explain to me if the term of "equality" that im thinking of, differs under a communist society? Or would everyone have the same amount of wealth?

Life would be worth living for moments, participation in drama and tragedy and beautiful complexity--similar to today, but without capitalism and the state and hopefully all hierarchy, if we can go all the way. There would be no wealth nor would there be regulation. If communism was to mean anything it would mean the deregulation of all life. But as it stands, most communists would rather have a state, and more forms of hierarchy.

kisses,
-max

[t_wolves_fan]

This isn't a very logically consistant arguement. There's no causal relationship between inequality, one's work ethic and society. How can one who precieves and experiences them self as a more superior (or at very best, indifferent) subject, engage in labor that would [sooner or later] benefit society as a whole? One who is ideologically driven by a conscious and intentional pro-inequality position--if not ontologically pro-inequality position--cannot be concerned about society as a whole. This cannot be the crux of your arguement.

Actually it is quite logical.

In capitalism, you cannot "get ahead" without offering something that people want. If you offer something that people want, they benefit by being able to purchase the product or service and you benefit by getting their money. You also cannot give people what they want unless you find people who are willing to produce the thing or the service you want to produce. So, when you hire people you provide them a benefit.

The problem with your view is that if the improvement is not equal, then those who benefit less did not really benefit. But that makes no sense. If I get $2 more and Joe gets $10 more, you cannot ignore the fact that I still have $2 more.

Now just like any other system it is not perfect. People break the law to get ahead, which is why government is necessary. But I guarantee you that in your system government is going to be necessary because you're going to have people who lie, cheat and steal to get ahead. Even if it's the mob punishing these people, that is still "governmental" in that power in the name of society is being used to enforce rules.


There is nothing radical that cannot be merely swallowed up by ideologies by attempting to frame discourse about equality and inequality. This is why it is the same langauge of dinasaurs both on the left and the right.

English is not your first language is it.


A communist perspective, as someone has already pointed out, has to do with a communized means of production (of everything) but as well has little to do with or against equality.

It's good that your version of communism is unconcerned with equality because that is precisely what it will lead to. The community as a whole is not educated enough to make wise economic decisions about how to do everything, therefore once it starts to break down you're going to need elites to help people make decisions.

That's of course assuming you even get to that point, which you won't. That's because like Cuba or any other example, the leadership will never relinquish power. Why would they? They can simply claim for eternity that the revolution isn't yet "finsihed" and needs their benevolent "guiding hand".


Life would be worth living for moments, participation in drama and tragedy and beautiful complexity--similar to today, but without capitalism and the state and hopefully all hierarchy, if we can go all the way.

It'd be really, really nice if we could Mr. Lennon, but we're not going to. And we have to deal with that fact instead of daydreaming all day long.

[Rasta Sapian]

"Everybody's Working for the Weekend!"

Driving a leased car,

Praying for that promotion or raise,

Having a new baby soon,

Moving to the new subdivision when the home is built,

shaking hands with neibors at church on sunday,

buying low fat food at the grocery store,

walking your dog in the municipal park,

yada, yada, yada

EQUAL, for this class anyway for the most part

People will always be different regardless of type of Society they live in, yet people will also be similar in culture, language, and they will also be defined by where they live and how they live their lives.

Conformity, Religion, Race, Music, Lifstyle, etc. People have things in common based more on demographics than free will however both come into play.

But hey, don't be ashamed about it, its just life, and thats how it is.

[Publius]

I don't even know why equality is desirable as end. What's so good about equality?

Why is it important that I be 'equal' to others in terms of wealth? What does that really say? That our labor is equally valuable? That would be the implication, but of course, that's clearly untrue. That, as a form of solidarity, I'm giving the less able/less willing some of my money? Why is this moral?

Communism seems to presuppose that 'equality' is a noble goal. I'm not sure that it is.

See, I'm not completely opposed to 'equality' as an idea, or an ideal. I think it's perfectly fine and good. But I don't see why it should be the sole concern. I think it should be balanced.

[BobKKKindle$]

On the point of inequality being necessary for motivation - you are making this point based on the conception of labour common to Capitalist societies. Due to the fact that workers do not have ownership or control over the commodities they produce and have no say in the organisation of their workplaces, under Capitalism work is primarily a means to live, and as you point out, in the absence of a material imperative, work is avoided and not treated as part of our lives and personal identity. When workers are forced to subject themselves to the orders and dominance of the Capitalists and those situated above them in the corporate structure, its hardly surprising work is treated with such distaste!.

Socialists reject this narrow conception of labour - we believe that labour should be an end unto itself - something that is a meaningful part of people's lives and an expression of their creative abilities. Under this conception, a material necessity will not be necessary for hard work. This can even be demonstrated within the framework of Capitalism! When factories have been seized and subject to workers' control in revolutionary insurrections - and even under reformist regimes such as that of Chavez - the re-organised enterprises have often incorporated egalitarian pay systems and democratic organisation. Instead of a disincentive emerging, productivity has often increased as labour is no longer alienating.

The tranformation in the nature of labour will be of much greater magnitude in a revolutionary situation, as a revolution yields changes in the human condition like no other circumstance.

[peaccenicked]

To understand something, it is a good idea to study it. Equality on its own is just a word meaning same as, inequality not the same as. How can one say what is better when there is no context.
What is equality in wealth? Is it possible? Even desirable? Communism is defined as the ''free development of all as the condition for the free development of each''
This means that the development of general social wealth is the condition for the development of personal wealth. The principle is that if we work for the good of each other we enhance our own wealth. It is a principle of social bonding. It is the guiding principle of all good relationships. Equality is abstract here it implies that every human being has the same needs but this is not true. Communism is the highest form of indivualism, the idea is to seek out the needs and desires of every individual and not only fufill them but develop them, all of this self determined and at the same time the goal of the whole community. Equality and inequality as terms of material wealth measurement become meaningless because such comparisons are no longer needed.
This is hard to imagine but it is the declared goal of communism. The only thing in our road is human stupidity and ignorance, not that we are clever but only that we are clever enough to see the social intelligence in our goal. Just getting on with life without messing anybody else about, but on the contrary building a system of mutual support, and respecting each others efforts for the community and our efforts to cultivate ourselves for ourselves and for others.

The capitalist slave mentality denies this as a possibility, it condemns people as being hopelessly corrupt, narrows individuality into profit for one self, and legitimizes the demise of everybody outside of themselves and including themselves.
What is most laughable is when they say we are free to make money if we have an idea good enough. And with such shallow reflections they are content with billions to live in poverty, and a very few to have billions. Truly sad, and then some of them try to come here and convince us that we are wrong. How stupid can they get?