Hi guys, what would you say to people who consider themselves intelligent and capable who only look out for themselves and would not prefer equality, because in their own thinking, it's unfair to them?
Other urls found in this thread:
Dunning-Kruger. They're most likely dumb as fuck.
Let's say they are not dumb as fuck. What would your argument be?
What kind of "equality" is being talked about? The classical clickbait.com
They are apparently smart, so they've got the inequality they want. Do you think communism will artificially lower thier intellect or some stupid shit?
Your link doesn't work but what I mean by equality is no matter what qualities a person may have, they get the exact same treatment everyone gets
No, no, that's not what I mean at all, what I'm saying is, what if someone says "I'm better than that person in every way, why should I not live a more luxurious life?"
Give me something other than "caring for other people is a good thing" please.
Fuck. I wrote a longass reply and hot wheels lost it. Fuck this retarded website.
Anyways, the gist of it was that the belief that people who are "better" are the ones who are the most well off is an idea perpetuated by those at the top to justify thier riches.
Recall the caste system in India. Ask any Indian in the 17th century and they will tell you that the upper caste does not hold power unjustly, but it is due to thier impeccable intelligence and morality.
You can find paper by Indian reactionaries justifying that heinous system by claiming exactly what these people claim
I would advise them to read some books because I'm pretty sure they have no idea what equality means.
The link doesn't work because I made it up (clickbait.com cum' on). I thought you would understand the kind of shit I was talking about.
If they are wage slaves then I would argue that socialism benefits their material self interest. If they are not, why would I waste my time convincing a bourg?
I'm not for complete equality, I believe it is unfair.
Guess you never read Lenin
Haha, I wasn't paying attention to that I guess.
Does that mean you would not oppose hierarchy in a system that doesn't exploit the people?
Hierarchy is what defines exploitation. The rest is just pecking-order.
Let me ask you the question this way.
If one citizen is contributing more to society than the other, why shouldn't we reward them for it?
And I'm not sure how hierachy is what defines exploitation.
Too bad. If they believe in might makes right then they shouldn't complain when the fist of the proletariat crushes them.
I think that we should, and that is clearly not the case today. Landlords for example contribute nothing and still get paid.
So does the smart man choose to be smart unlike the dumb one? Not to mention disability…
Of course we should [pic related]
Yeah. The people who adopt a "might makes right" ideology usually forget that an organized mob is more powerful than any individual.
lurk more you dumb faggot
What you're asking is the difference between equal opportunity versus equal outcome.
In other words, the premise of this question is already erroneous. You are assuming equality means equality of outcome, ie everyone gets the same no matter what. What communism entails is equality of opportunity, which is everyone gets what they are deserving of.
What about contributing with your time? If we have two people doing the same job, shouldn't we reward more the one working 7 hours a day than the one working 5 hours a day?
Surely it's better to just say everyone should work 6 hours.
Capital accumulation leads to capitalism
Their mindset aroses from the individualist idea that personal achievements come only from your own efforts, which is horseshit.
It negates the societal support of personal achievements. For example, a university graduate thinks he is the only person to thanks the merit of his achievement; and even in the case his parents havent aided him economically speaking, he isnt taking in account all the tasks and effort society as a whole had to do to let him study freely and to let him put all his energy and time in graduating.
If society wasnt there, if he had to do all the task to secure his life and security, he would have to get his own food, build his own shelter, protect himself… He wouldnt have time nor energy to study.
Aren't there socialists for the equality of outcome?
In communism everyone has unlimited access to the articles of consumption.
Contributing to society is its own reward.
Resources don't spontaneously become infinite just because a classless, stateless society is created. You are technically correct though in pointing out that it is socialism which is more concerned with distributing resources properly, as communism would have to be post-scarcity. There would still be limits, however.
Does that make them owe society?
As in, is it their duty? Do they have to take care of all they can?
Don't they have the right to say, I deserve more than the ones I'm better of?
Am I on the right board? Are you on the right board, porky?
I'm just playing the devil's advocate here
There's a limited number of people so that shouldn't be a problem.
Everyone who wants communism.
You're going to have to explain yourself on that one m8, because you just said something really stupid.
Which part you of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" you don't understand?
That's not the same thing as equality of outcome, which is a defined term, you dingus. "To each according to their need" is the exact opposite of "everyone gets the exact same".
Then they dont know what "equality" means, and this is on purpose, the propaganda system actively tries to misconstrued what their opponents actually want through misinformation and continual refinement of this misconception. It happens alot.
How mush more do you need as opposed form everyone else exactly? Are you so special that you need a small castle or some shit just to survive?
How can you get anything but the exact same when everything belongs to everyone?
You cheeky cunt, I'm talking about personal property in a functional sense, don't argue semantics with me.
I don't even know what it is you're trying to do here. There's playing devil's advocate and then there's being purposely retarded for the sake of being contrary.
No one needs a fucking castle. "To each according to their need" is in terms of, do I need food for myself or for myself and my three children? Do I need additional healthcare support due to my debilitating illness or disability, do I need supplies in order to do my job correctly, that sort of thing.
I'd like to add, that most of the time we fall in tha falacy, of thinking post capitalism, in capitalistic terms.
We think of the reward as mony, in a system without mony.
Also, these people are pure ideology.
As long as I have enough to live, I don't want or need to work and produce more, cause that is not what I am here for.
If I do produce stuff, I do it for the recognition of my skills.
"Hey user! Cool product you made there!"
But, people, especialy in north EU and US have this pure ideology of "moar mony = moar important"
And if they lost that their whole world would collapse.
And more importantly, if you so much IMPLY of a different system, were their mony give them no importance, you are a filthy commie that diserves death.
Do you think people will get their personal property based on how well they work? In a communist society the means of production is collectively owned by everyone – but the products of work are also collectivized! Everyone works into a big common stockpile and everyone takes as much as they want. This is what "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" means, not that some clueless bureaucrat or the free market decides how much toothpaste you can take based on some half-assed calculations of what they think your need is.
Yes, absolutely right. Which is why I don't think that's the case and you can stop putting words in my mouth.
You're gonna post this everywhere, aren't you?
What is white people?
Is it only US?
Are south european white?
Are you spooked?
So how is it not equality of outcome? Everyone gets the same reward (full access to the common stockpile of goods) regardless of the quality and quantity of the work they've done.
do you really need to ask that?
If there are enough goods, why should some of the people get less?
If you don't smoke, are you gonna get cigarets?
If there is no need to work more, why should you get more for something you did because you liked doing it?
What are you talking about? Everybody gets everything.
This not being retarded. I'm trying to see if anybody has an argument that reaches the people with dreams of "moving up in the world".
Is there enough of everything for everyone?
If yes, what's the problem?
If no, what are you talking about?
Also, your meme is shit.
These "dreams" are just an expression of capitaist ideology. They are not some sort of innate desire that people have
Are you trolling? I'm talking about communism being "equality of outcome", because everyone gets the same (i.e., access to the stockpile of goods) no matter what.
I think the breakdown we're having here is that you're using equal outcome to mean that everyone is taken care of equally well, while I am using it here to mean, everyone get 3 cigarettes, 1 bottle of water, etc. which is the context most non-socialists mistake it as, such as OP.
Socialists want to remove the inequality created through the institution of private property rights, not through natural ability and talent.