Questions For "Real" Socialists

Thoughts on the book Harrison Bergeron?
Is it equality of everything good?
How can everyone be equal if some people have a heating system in their house and others don't?
The answer is they can't, and you'll have to make everyone equal by getting rid of the heating. - Romania during commie rule

Other urls found in this thread:

How's kindergarden, you illiterate fuckwit?

I agree, communists have the mind of kindergardeners.

And the trend of right wingers getting their political theories from work of fiction continues.

Mate, I'm a left wing liberal.

my point stands

Ah shit i forgot to sage

How does it still stand?

liberals are right wing, so anyway communism does not seek to make everyone equal. im not sure where this meme comes from.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

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. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

t. marx

This is your brain on reactionary drivel

Let me guess: socially liberal, economically conservative?

Imagine clinging to dusty ass "arguments" that were btfo over a hundred years ago.

Some people being better at ballet than others does not oppress those who are shit dancers. Property owners extracting the surplus value of workers who have no real alternative to wage labor means that the working class around the world gets shit on day in and day out.




Mate, you're wrong, liberals can ether left or right.

Mate, remember the answer commie Romania had, is they can't, and you'll have to make everyone equal by getting rid of the heating.

So the communists were reactionary, because that's what they thought.



Let me expand on what we're talking about when we say we don't actually care about equality when as you've noticed the aesthetic is otherwise.

Economic inequality isn't a problem in and of itself - the problem comes from the idea of diminishing marginal utility. The wealthier someone is, the less each additional quantum of wealth matters to them, since more of their needs and wants are already fulfilled and extra wealth won't help as much. By contrast, a person on the brink of the starvation will be much more greatly helped by that quantum of wealth. Hence, having a lot of people who are exceptionally wealthy while poverty exists isn't really republican, since a shift of wealth from the wealthy to the poor will increase the poor's quality of life much more than it decreases the rich's. That's the problem we have with economic inequality - people so poor that they struggle to meet basic needs but others so wealthy they consume things just to prove how wealthy they are is evidence that something can be changed in our society to make it better fitting the republic.

The other "inequality" we oppose is legal inequality. But the problem here is more about "legal" than "inequality", personally. Strict hierarchies written into law where one group has less rights than one group means that if the first group wants something done, it needs to jump through hoops, whereas the second does not. Just as requiring someone to dig a ditch and fill it back up again to give them sustenance is a damper on economic activity, having them jumping through hoops someone else placed is a damper on "social activity". Strict standards of social interaction placed by force of arms just generally are terrible. As an example: the atmosphere of the job interview. Since the to-be-employed is so terrified about landing the job or starving to death, they have to lie to cover up their flaws, over-emphasize their benefits, pretend it's about something other than the money, wear uncomfortable clothing because it happens to be fashionable, and generally put a lot of effort into something that only helps the employee because the employer would inflict arbitrary punishment on them otherwise. We talk a lot about specifically "inequality" since so many of these barriers that block honest, productive interaction come about to protect some group or another, but the problem is the barriers, not the groups.

Of course, that's why I'm using the fag flag.

Dude that test is a meme

Nice loaded question, faggot.

Top tier irony m8.

I like how you are answering my shitposts and not the serious responses you received. If this is not clear evidence of your malicious intentions…

Also scoring in the green square in that test is the minimum to be considered a functioning human, not a leftist.

Partly true, some do exploit workers. But I have a question for you, what about the symbiotic system of business that we've seen make everyone happy, that you'd destroy if given the chance?(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)


What the fuck.

Capitalism is predicated on exploitation. All capitalists exploit all workers. Your boss being a "nice guy" is irrelevant to the kind of exploitation we refer to.
{citation needed}

Destroy what exactly? You seem to think it's businesses to create wealth, when this is quite far from the truth.
You argument can be easily used to justify slavery. What about the great prosperity brought by slaves to society? Would you want that destroyed by your dirty revolutionary thoughts?

a ☭TANKIE☭ is fine too

Please read a book.

Interesting way to spell parasitic. Deny it all you want, there is no way to resolve the fundamental conflict of interest between the owner and the employees. Managerial functions are important, sure, but just because someone has a coordinating role doesn't mean they're entitled to take a giant cut of everyone else's value.

Wasn't Vonnegut a socialist?

Why do people who haven't bothered to read left-wing works bother posting here?

holy shit liberals are insane

he was


Mr repub, I may disagree with you on many things because I'm left wing. But I agree whole heartily with those statements you just made.

I thought I was answering both.

So if I'm paid to mow peoples lawns, are the people exploiting me?
Have you seen the perks people get for working at starbucks?

Destroy the capitalist system.
I do not agree with it, but places like Rome's food and circus era, were worse off before and after that time. But I do not think it's a good system if the majority are literal slaves, to make everyone else happy. That is why I'll be happy when we get robots that can take the place of slaves, when that time comes, I believe we'd end up getting all the food and entertainment we want.
Would you want that destroyed by your dirty revolutionary thoughts?
I'd want to fix it, most slave systems weren't like Rome's.

Symbiotic is the opposite of parasitic.
What conflict? The employee knows how to fix computers and wants money, and the owner has money and can't fix his computer.
I agree, equal pay for equal work.
I do not know, but even if he was, that doesn't delegitimize his books.

You are a bit ignorant as far as socialist theory goes.
To give you a falsh course on exploitation theory: all value comes from labour. Gold does not have value unless a person invests his labour to extract and refine it for example. Machines do not produce labour either, they are merely efficiency multiplier.
Capitalism is a system that relies on the private ownership of the means of production to accumulate wealth. The claim is that by using their property the product of the worker's labour is property of the owner/employer. The worker then is paid less than what the product or service he gave the employer is worth. This is a necessity as if a worker produced less or equal to what he is paid the employer would not be able to extract the surplus value from him, meaning he doesn't get to make money.

This is why we want the end of commercial property. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The capitalist is able to steal the product of the worker's labour through his claim of ownership.
Your point?
If all the robots are owned by somebody else, why would they maintain you? Will you maybe threaten them with revolution if they do not provide welfare to everyone through the state? Or are you saying that when we reach full automation the powerful of Earth will voluntarily let go of their power for the good of all?
You don't know shit about Rome slavery system. The slaves were never a majority, they were never even a plurality. Slaves were the 10-15% of the empire's population and the vast majority of their production went into satisfying the local needs.

This is another great difference between capitalism and all other systems, socialism included. Capitalism aims its production capabilities exclusively towards commodity production or production with the exclusive intention to sell the product, not use it directly, while all other systems have as primary goal to satisfy the community needs.
The employer wants to pay as little as possible the employee to increase his own profit, the employee wants the opposite.
Then why do you defend a system that allows a small minority to steal the work of the majority?