What's so wrong with inequality?

Can you give me a non moral and ethical reason for fighting inequality in all ways of life? I need them for a discussion.

Other urls found in this thread:



I'm not sure what you mean by this. People have different natural attributes and talents, tall, short, art, science, etc.

If you mean material inequality and inequality of opportunity, it's important to fight that because high levels of both lead to political and economic instability.

Because unless you have a large portfolio of stocks, bonds, properties and hedge fund accounts and are on the board of directors of any major corporations, greater equality directly benefits you.

Considering the fact that poverty has incredible negative effects on people, this is one issue



The rich have enough money to get the world out of global poverty four times over


More detrimental effects of poverty




I dont like it

Might is right, the commune will come from a power system, not from a moral ome

The whole theory of socialism as critique of capitalism is predicated on the notion that eventually capitalism will cause such a wide divide that the inherent disparity in the system will be unworkable for those living in it. From too many workers being out of a job or through automation, eventually capitalism outpace itself and it's own work force. Now we can add ecological catastrophe to that. The point is capitalism just wont work forever and the problems arising out of it's sustained existence are growing rather than receding.

Capitalism is ironically inefficient in the sense of getting goods to people that actually need them. We call crises in capitalism "busts" but what these really represent are large scale cases where capitalist goods and services are over or under valued and cant be met with the demands of the actual populace. This happens all the time in the market on a smaller scale but were told it's not a crisis even when we have more empty homes than homeless people living on the street, more food wasted in a day then people who could eat it. You can call this a moral problem, but it's also an efficiency issue and were told constantly that capitalism is more efficient and realistic and yet it constantly doesn't get products and services into the hands of people that really need them.

Believing somehow that the reasoning for fighting inequality ought to be explained is for those who attach themselves to moralism.

The highest ideals should be acted upon, not pondered about.

Capitalism is great at producing things, but terrible at getting efficent use of the things it produces

Yes it is capitalism what produces these goods, the spectre of capitqlism matrializes and it itself starts producing shit

Its not like all of that shit was designed and manufactured by the workers

Extreme wealth inequality in first-world countries is often a sign of someone rent-seeking in uncompetitive industries.
In that case, it will be better for economic growth to tax those people and redistribute it, since they're not taking money in order to provide a service - they're just extracting money because they can.


And as we all know except the environmentalists except the ones who want a collapse, growth is nice and we need growth.

The Marxist argument for social and economic equality is not moral in nature. Equality is not considered by Marxists as a transcendental goal in itself but rather as a framework for building a different, better, freer society. As Marx put it in the Manifesto: The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

There is nothing "wrong" with inequality, it's just a fact of life. People just differ, and while some of them face serious challenges and impediments that are worth addressing, it's not a central tenet of socialist thought.

Your picture suggests the inequality you're thinking of is economic in nature. What socialists are against is not some abstract "inequality", but an oppressive system of laws that allows individuals to appropriate (and perpetually accumulate) wealth produced by other people.

>Because if inequality is not inherently a problem, that must mean that it's inherently never a problem.
I'm sick of this non-argument.

Is that it gives you a broken society where corruption is rampant and anti democratic anti meritocratic in every sense of the word, see the US as example, the wealthy literally have so much wealth that they can buy lobbies to benefit them, huge rich owned media that will only report what the wealthy want, while the poor his no power what so ever to change anything no matter how bright his ideas are.

In short, equality is not the goal of communism or socialism but it is a very good outcome of it.

That is the promise of equality of power, it is to highlight this uniqueness of everyone equally and reward it with praise, social worth and pussy those who are the best among us.

Inequality is a by-product of the real problem, and it its self leads to many other social problems.

You don't fight inequality.

Inequality is just symptom of system's dysfunction.

Money is power meaning inequality leads to hierarchy where the workers are under the foot of the rich. Also, even children understand why fairness is desirable.

More crime, dumbass.

Isnt it obvious? Unless you're bourgeoisie or a pettit-bourgeoisie, you are the one being exploited. It's therefor in your self-interest to destroy the system of exploitation

Objectively analyse our current system. You have the haves and the have-nots. The have-nots exist as nothing more than cash cows to the haves. They serve as a source of labor when you need it, and they are cast to curb when you don't. They consume the vast majority of goods, providing you capital

But the reality of the situation is our current system isn't helping anybody. We crank out good, the vast majority we don't need, in reality only to meet an artificially generated demand to fill the capitalists pockets. The only progress we see in regard to capitalism is how to further fuck the working class over to increase profits. You could argue it helps the consumer, but the vast majority of consumers are working class anyway and end up being fucked over at their own jobs by the same principles.

So the end result a deepening wealth divide, and no real progress by any meaningful metric. So its not a question of "what's so bad about inequality", but instead a question of "is it necessary". There isn't a good reason to keep this system going. It's not helping progress society, inequality actually hurts society. Can't we do better than that?

This is the most critical problem with inequality.

More specifically, any society that is too harsh toward the majority of people for too long will inevitably result in violent revolution by the have-nots against the haves. Since violent revolution has an extremely poor track record in actually redistributing wealth and rights instead of simply transferring them to a "new boss same as the old boss", this means after the original ruling class has been dragged from their homes, raped, and executed, society will be stuck in rapid paroxysms of violent upheaval for decades.

In other words, an equal society is a stable society.

Nothing. The problem is quality of life, which will cost those who extracted the surplus wealth of working people to create this problem in the first place.

If there isn't equality you have to constantly hear about people complaining about it. They will become increasingly disgruntled till things may escalate to them killing you.

Depends what you mean by inequality.
That some people are shorter, taller, dumber, smarter, faster, slower, cuter, uglier, etc is normal and not really a big deal.
That some people are born into wealth and kill, blackmail, murder, exploit, enslave to maintain that inequality - that is to be fought until it no longer exists.

Because being rich is loving in constant fear of the proles getting sick of poverty and rising up

makes me have sad feelings :(

Obama did 100x more for the interest of the working class than Lenin or Stalin ever did.

top kek

killing over a billion peasants is just working class interest at work!


Now this is how you shitpost

I take off my top hat to you sir

Mind the ableism.

Would you not rather live in a society in which your needs are looked after, work is the minimum required to provide a comfortable living and you have free time with which you can persue hobbies, better yourself etc?

It's a matter of self-interest. Dont forget that empathy can still be self interest, I can want a better life for those around me because it pleases me.This is not necessarily a moral persuit.

What you are doing is distorting the sociological balance of society. A society cannot succeed with a frozen social mobility. It will fall into itself with trivial ease.

Socialism isn't about equality in every way. It's about putting everyone at the same starting point.

Socialism is about worker control over the means of production. What you are describing is opportunism of the neoliberal flavor.

What does the "worker control over the means of production" entail? Can you give an example?

how about you read a book cuck!

Two weeks tops read. Don't be weak.

How about you a craft an original thought without consulting a century old tome you fucking cuck bitch


Here you peabrain

That's not the proper book you pleb

leave with your ignorance intact

if wealth/power is concentrated to a minority then it's in the self-interest of those in the majority to even it out


Nah, less is better. A book like that is more suited for common hard-working proles.

Yeah that was the whole point

Its the dumbed down version you double pleb

Inequality is destabilizing. It leads to revolutions.

This has been shown consistently in comparative research.

The way you phrase it, it sounds like the goal is to avoid revolutions.

Revolutions are like puking. Puking is a symptom of food poisoning and helps the organism fight it. It's painful and sometimes dangerous, but necessary and a net positive in the long run. The argument against poisoning is the harm it does to your body, not the act of puking that helps to ease said harm.


You yourself are not of the propertied class. You'd be needlessly supporting other people's right to exploit you.