So, why do Communists think equality means more happiness, freedom, wealth, etc?

So, why do Communists think equality means more happiness, freedom, wealth, etc?

I'm not being rhetorical here, maybe it's somewhat obvious but I at least want to know the logic it's derived from, it itself is not good enough for me.

Attached: not-equal-sign-thumb-250xauto-32850.jpg (250x249, 9.43K)

Other urls found in this thread:

communism is not about equality

Equity if you will, whatever. But I want to know the reasoning

Imagine ancient athens with machines doing the work instead of slaves

Ancient Athens was shit tho.

It's not about equity either, it's about people who do work getting the full value of their labor and not having a parasitic class of do nothings that benefit from everyone else's work.

neither equality nor equity. communism is about ending exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class, and establishing self-governance of the workers. inequality can and will exist under socialism, it just won't manifest itself as exploitative economic relations. naturally abolition of the exploitative order will result in greater happiness, freedom and wealth for all, but it's not about "more or less equaler". equality is a term used by liberals who want everyone to have "equal opportunity" under capitalism



kek, okay that would sufficiently reduce a lot
of pain and certainly open new doors of prosperity.
I see, I see.

I see.
And you don't believe that would make the pain of humanity cease either?

what does this account for?

That's stage 1 to unleash productive forces

End game is nobody needs to work

Is sparta more your fancy?

Communism is not about any of those. The inherent contradictions of capitalism have to be resolved somehow (this is not a historical necessity, but a logical one). These contradictions stem from simple value-relations that present themselves as commodity-relations. Therefore, the abolishment of value-form is a natural sublation of capitalism (ie communism).


Suffering by it's own definition.
Economic, Social, Emotional, etc.
And if it cannot completely remove all of these things from having a permanent insistence in life then I see no point in caring at all. It is only a step, all perhaps large, in the right direction.


good bookpost, very nice

so you believe that if we can't instantly solve all of humanity's problem we shouldn't do anything?

Not exactly, I believe if we can't solve the one underlying problem then we should figure out how, but do as we might I suppose.

We aren't really about equality.

Communism is a process of breaking down barriers to universal liberty and pursuit of happiness at no detriment to others.
By reshaping the economic conditions of our lives we can affect the social and emotional condition of our lives they are largely conditioned by material factors.
I doubt that it is possible or even desirable to entirely eliminate 'suffering', particularly emotional. While economic prosperity/security of livelihood will undoubtedly remove many of the hampers on social life (less divorce, stable, cohesive relationships and communities) unburdened by economic strain, this does not eliminate heartbreak and interpersonal antagonisms entirely, however i think that that is quite alright. Some degree of suffering is part of the human condition and shapes it in a good way. We can't hope to eliminate all the possibility of us hurting one another without giving up the individuality which makes living worthwhile. With communism we can at least hope and work towards getting along and living together.

Get off armchair and show new comrade with MS-Paint

I understood that, most won't

Manuscripts predates Critique of golgotha program by over 20 years
Marx's assumptions of how Communism will develop in the Critique only make sense in terms of fragment on machines in Manuscripts
Otherwise stage after labour vouchers where it is from each according to their ability to each according to their need not practical
Marx well aware of resource limitations, free rider issues (cf. Critique)

Now don't you just prefer it when I insert some carriage returns
Or I can separate paragraph's like this, but I grew up with monospace and this style is more for handwriting or high quality typesetting

Now this spacing on the other hand /is/ plebbit spacing

What is the "problem" you're referring to? Be specific. "Suffering" doesn't really mean anything, it's too vague. Do you mean the fact that you can be born with a disability or something? That's not a good view of "Suffering". If Existance itself is suffering, then your "cure" would be to read Shopenhauer, he's the best sadboy thinker out there (just watch out for the misoginy).

gee its almost like freedom and equality are mutually contradictory for 90%

What makes you think you can build a society without pleasing your community

Eh, his studies in pessimism made me want to die tbh

A Liberal Professor on Equality


Can anybody give me one (1) quote of Marx or Engels or Lenin or Stalin advocating for a perfectly equal income distribution? It must be in some secret book that only mouthbreathing boomer professors with moobs that drag over the ground and who never worked a job on the factory floor know about.

If you consider equality to mean living with dignity, yes, I might be a brainlet, but the appeal of communism is that everyone gets to live with basic dignity, there's no groveling at anyone's boots, there's no begging or stealing or huckstering because desperate people aren't driven to do those things.

Why is equal opportunity is bad?

Because they don't understand Marx

Attached: cockshott.png (300x300, 179.57K)

Actually I misunderstood your question OP. This post answers your question. If you're wondering why someone might think it's egalitarian then it probably stems from a misinterpretation of, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" And, you don't necessary need to be a communist to make the observation, it's pretty obvious more unequal societies tend to have more social issues.