Since the left is about treating people equally...

Since the left is about treating people equally, why would someone with natural talents or at least someone with a drive to be better want to be brought down to a mass horde of retards?


I mean, compare this place to run-of-the-mill sjws. Theres a reason we're posting here and not on Tumblr. You can't deny that Social justice warriors are simply what you get when the common person takes up class struggle. They are educated, have all their needs met, and yet they turn the struggle into a joke, just another way for Neolibs to keep ruling. Even Marx had to assume we would move past physical and mental talents, which is simply not going to happen.

Every successful society knows that the hordes need to be reigned in. You can't do that while holding that people are equal in any way

Stopped reading there. Wrong.

Wrong, go read some theory dude

Lmao, welcome to the aristocracy

dumb nigger

equality is false god. Read Marx

How can you equalize personal wealth and still hold that talented people should get more

Oh, and stop pretending to be "one of us"

Come on dude.

So you should just be free to acquire as much social capital as possible?

Who the fuck argues that you cant?

wew lad


There is nothing wrong with more skilled/hardworking person getting more than lazy one. The only thing people won't be able to do is having police protecting """their""" private property.

So if I rule over an entire country through my social capital and say that it's part of the common good for everyone to give me an extra labour voucher because I'll rule better, this is fine?

What does that even mean?

It means I've acquired maximum social capital

Reactionaries get out. Every single oppressive institution has justified itself by claiming that the savages must be protected from themselves, and each time these institutions are done away with there is no mass outbreak of disorder.

If your proposition is that those who happened to be born with particular skills or talents should be granted more material wealth for the same work, issues of supply and demand being equal, then I don't think that's a moral or necessary way to order things.

...

It's not that they should, it's that they will because they're more talented, and you'll have the mass of fermenting dregs complaining about this unjustly

nobody is arguing that. people simply should obtain all wealth their created.

How do you do that?

Be being a genius leader and socializer

If you already have 100% of the population entirely in your pocket there's effectively nothing you can't do in the first place.
What's the point of this question?

Well, a communist might argue that it's unjust for me to demand more material wealth through manipulation

Lurk more, faglet.

>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege.
Karl Marx about the first phase of communism. We can then shift more and more in the direction of the principle "to each according to needs", based on what changes in technology and social mores allow. Btw. neither does distribution according to deed correspond to current society (landlords, patent trolls), nor does distribution according to need imply equal distribution. The idea of insurance is not to give out equally, but to give to those who are otherwise pretty much fucked.

Why do you suppose this?

The value of their work is determined by the labour that went into it.

Easy there, dworkin.

You conveniently left out the part where he says that these defects will be fixed eventually. In the next passage he mentions that they will be fixed because people will inevitably lack talent distinctions

of course. But labour of skilled carpenter when making chairs is much more valuable than mine, hardly useful labour when it comes to woodworking.

When you're more talented, you work more efficiently and longer. There's a limit to how many raw hours people can work, but not quite a limit to how efficient they'll be.

Wrong.

On what grounds can someone claim that you don't deserve many times someone else's private property. You can pretend that it isn't Justice, but when you say someone "ought not to have or do this", these are moral/justice statemnts

Good thing I don't make "ought" statements beyond how things interact with my own personal desires then, because they're meaningless and retarded.

...

Okay, "material wealth".
Or even better, why can't someone extend their personal wealth indefinitely


Okay well, my personal desires claim that my personal property ought to extend to hundreds of factories

Okay then.
You're really bad at this.

they can, anyone should be able to work any long and hard they want

it's not physically possible to work in hundreds of factories at the same time

but i want it and therefore should have it.
socialism BTFO!!!!!

Okay, so since I'm entitled to my personal property, I should receive the rewards of it. If I own a peach tree in my yard, I should get its peaches. Likewise when when I acquire two of my planned several hundred factories, which are both personal property, I should get all the rewards that come with that. According to you, this is perfectly fine and in line with communist thinking.

Unless of course, you were to use ought statements..

t. young child of capitalist [capitalist: a person who lives of free stuff]

I've also started owning people as my personal property tio

You're pretty retarded and your sophism is pathetic.

Well, I'm using them within the realm of my own personal desires no? Which you said was okay

start using argument any time

1. Ought statements within personal desires are okay
2. I personally desire to own people and factories
3.they become my personal property, an extension of my personal desires
4. I do what I see fit with my personal property

Believe that as much as you want. It's not a communist line of thought, though.

And what benefits come with personally owning factories?

Lmao what

Unless you use non-physical ought statements like "no one person should own factories and solely reap their reward" it's perfectly okay and in line with communist thinking

Non-personal*

My point against ought statements is not communist, it's nihilist, though there can be overlap there.
Do and believe whatever the fuck you want as a nihilist. Whatever you have the power to do, do it.

Yeah, I agree with that entirely

...

Come on man. Read some theory please.