From the Left, what does economic and social equality even look like...

From the Left, what does economic and social equality even look like? The more I think about diversity and immigration the more I see them as fuel for cheap labor, and a way for the big corporate-machines to bust unions and worker solidarity.
Diversity doesn't breed unity, workers become less likely to band together when they speak different languages and have different social circles and interests.
Even educating them is extremely difficult.
To me it makes more sense to limit immigration and be very selective about it.

Other urls found in this thread:

breitbart.com/london/2018/03/02/judges-told-equality-favouring-minorities/
thetimes.co.uk/article/judges-offered-advice-in-how-to-avoid-giving-offence-kczkp6pzg
youtu.be/r9qiCN7CcB8

SAY IT LOUD SAY IT CLEAR REFUGEES ARE WELCOME HERE

Economic and social equality is liberalism NOT Marxism.

Marxism subsumes "economic and social equality", Marxism has a social dimension and tries to offer explanations for social inequality. It also fights against certain social organizations hence it's antagonism to religions and ethnic bonds not based around economic class ideology; it's not unique to just liberalism to want social equality.

it is though

it is though what? Im not following

I like that you cut off the header so no one would know that the article in your pic is from fucking Breitbart.
breitbart.com/london/2018/03/02/judges-told-equality-favouring-minorities/

Shitposting flag

Marxism's opposition to religion and ethnic nationalism is based on economic class considerations.

here is a kosher source thetimes.co.uk/article/judges-offered-advice-in-how-to-avoid-giving-offence-kczkp6pzg

what news sources do you use? breitbart is usually more honest than any MSM sources, washingtonpost, nytimes, cnn, msnbc, yahoo, and definitely better than absolute liberalism sources like tyt, huffpo, salon, buzzfeed

...

Nice argument, bucko.

...

I'm not subscribing to the fucking times, but from what they allowed me to read, it seems their point is that true equality of justice isn't a one-size-fits-all thing and instead people's individual situation should be taken into account. I fail to see the problem with that.

Who are you quoting?

What exactly does that mean?

Equality is actually one size fit all.

youtu.be/r9qiCN7CcB8

Except it doesn't?

Or, more to the point, there is no "one size fits all". It's idealist bullshit at best.

Except it does, because equality means everyone is the same.

And yes, it's idealist bullshit but anything else is not equality.

Equality means everyone has the same status within the greater socio-economic system, not that they're the same.

Taking people's individual circumstances into account in the justice process is a step forward, and that doesn't violate the concept of equality, it means that the court systems are acting with more nuance to give out more truly equal judgements instead of some mindless, mechanical legalism.

Buzzword, it means everyone is the same, socio and economic-wise, but in order to achieve this, nobody can be richer than other, or have more than others, which is impossible for any society.
It does, equality means everyone has the same rights as everyone else, why does individual circumstances matter into this account? Can you give an example? This reads like some are TRULY EQUAL than others.

Literally no one means that when they say equality, Ayn Rand.
If you don't live in an equal society (ie - a class society like our own) then crude "equal" legalism doesn't make for true equality. For instance, it is illegal for rich and poor alike to steal food, but what are the chances of a rich person stealing food? This is clearly a law against the poor. Or setting laws that, while they technically apply to everyone equally, they affect minorities more, like North Carolina restricting voting practices used primarily by minorities, the poor and students. Simple equality under the law does not necessarily equality make in our really existing conditions.

SJWs are liberals, not "the left".

Not this age-old autism fest again.

Well, sweetie, that's because you're an SJW.

That's exactly what equality means.
Oh right, if you don't like the present society then you can move away from it.
Oh, so you are poor, thus you are justified to steal food. How does this make sense?

Everyone is equal under the laws, not that everyone is MORE equal under the laws.

Well, hello, see here:

Yet that didn't stop all the european immigrants

you're a stupid fucking faggot OP

It's addressing our really existing social problems. Yes, I realize this is hardly adquate, I'm not naive, I'm pointing out that this is ultimately positive though. Not the outrage these right-wingers are making it out to be.


No.
Exactly, welcome to the socialist movement.
When the fact that you can't afford food is due to the bourgeoisie restricting resources and stealing your suplus labor. Then, yes, it's absolutely justified for you to steal food. Once again, we live in an inherently unequal society based on class domination for the purpose of the reproduction of capital. "Equality" under the bourgeois dictatorship is equality for the bourgeoisie.

...