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
Hudson Hall
Stopped reading there. Wrong.
Ryan Allen
Wrong, go read some theory dude
Wyatt Taylor
Lmao, welcome to the aristocracy
Jeremiah Martin
dumb nigger
Ethan Price
equality is false god. Read Marx
Jason Turner
How can you equalize personal wealth and still hold that talented people should get more
Aiden Price
Oh, and stop pretending to be "one of us"
Juan Bennett
Come on dude.
Alexander Jackson
So you should just be free to acquire as much social capital as possible?
Nicholas Reed
Who the fuck argues that you cant?
Parker Watson
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.
Logan Hughes
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?
Brandon Allen
What does that even mean?
Ayden Cruz
It means I've acquired maximum social capital
Hudson Gomez
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.
Robert Ross
...
Justin Bennett
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
Ian Stewart
nobody is arguing that. people simply should obtain all wealth their created.
Nicholas Ortiz
How do you do that?
Jeremiah Torres
Be being a genius leader and socializer
Owen Sullivan
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?
Adam Bell
Well, a communist might argue that it's unjust for me to demand more material wealth through manipulation
Jayden Price
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.
Connor Young
Why do you suppose this?
Easton Clark
The value of their work is determined by the labour that went into it.
Adrian Thomas
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
Parker Martin
of course. But labour of skilled carpenter when making chairs is much more valuable than mine, hardly useful labour when it comes to woodworking.
Alexander Cook
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.
Gabriel Bell
Wrong.
Blake Lewis
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
Ryder Rodriguez
Good thing I don't make "ought" statements beyond how things interact with my own personal desires then, because they're meaningless and retarded.
Kevin Lee
...
Tyler Gutierrez
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
Julian Rodriguez
Okay then. You're really bad at this.
Gabriel Ramirez
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
Luis Gonzalez
but i want it and therefore should have it. socialism BTFO!!!!!
Joseph Cruz
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..
Cooper Williams
t. young child of capitalist [capitalist: a person who lives of free stuff]
Jose Rogers
I've also started owning people as my personal property tio
Easton Turner
You're pretty retarded and your sophism is pathetic.
Connor James
Well, I'm using them within the realm of my own personal desires no? Which you said was okay
Aiden Campbell
start using argument any time
Asher Anderson
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
Mason Lopez
Believe that as much as you want. It's not a communist line of thought, though.
And what benefits come with personally owning factories?
Christopher Brooks
Lmao what
Nicholas Thomas
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
Xavier Campbell
Non-personal*
Cooper Martin
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.