Why is inequality undesirable? This is something I've always been confused about

Why is inequality undesirable? This is something I've always been confused about

Don't give me some bullshit le soshalism is troo meritocracy. I'm not claiming capitalism is in any way meritocratic.

But let us say we had a meritocratic capitalism, would that then be an ethical capitalism.

And let us take that a step further, why not advocate for social democracy in first world countries and pure capitalism in the third world? Have strong and garunteed standards of living for first worlders sustained upon the third world?

Yes, of course. I live in Have strong and garunteed standards of living for first worlders sustained upon the third world? I live in a "3rd" world and Americans outsource so many of their awful jobs here.

I am aware. My question is what is the problem with that

It's pretty great for you, just don't be surprised when the people you're exploiting put your head on a pike.

763754
Capitalism is the only meritocratic system there is. Therefore using force to achieve equality of outcome is evil.

Because I don't think there's a single group of people on this planet that inherently deserves shittier conditions than an another.

Furthermore:

This is the most common explanation, but I don't agree with it. It is possible to put down the have nots with enough political and social power. Alternatively you make enough concessions that they stop complaining but never reach equality

And this is the standard ethical/moral argument

What's funny is that in a call center I used to work at in this country, there was a lady who asked where we were located and I told her.

Then, in a upset way she said, "Why are those jobs over there? Americans need some jobs!"

Then I replied, "Thank capitalism."

Well, sure. As it so happens, that's precisely what goes on today. Doesn't mean it can work forever.

Leftists have been saying this for ages. Yet is has, all the way from the beginning of civilization till now

No it hasn't. Capitalism and its workings are relatively recent. Capitalism is an improvement from feudalism, but humans can do better.

...

I really don't know I'm asking for here. I believe that inequality is bad in itself, yet I cant logically convince myself that is indeed true. Perhaps I really am asking for some stupid metaphysical explanation so that I can keep believing what I do

What did you expect? It's a bait thread.

standards of living for first worlders
sustained upon the third world?
social fascism strikes again

Morality isn't founded in logic m8.

...

Inequality has existed since the dawn of civilization


Its not.


Explain.

There is no such thing as good or bad. Morality is subjective, and completely decided upon in the mind of the person. It is a spook.

I know. That's why I don't accept the arguments against inequality that appeal to morality.

So basically, there is no objective reason inequality is undesirable except the possibility of the exploited fighting back ?

Well, not entirely. It will always be against the best interests of the working class to be exploited by the ruling class, and workers far outnumber porkies. That said, porkies are as much a slave to the capitalist system as workers are, and while they may be better off in a material sense for the time being, the long term affects are against their better interests as well.

Capitalism encourages, and outright forces, excessive waste of resources, energy, and people that have adverse effects on both the environment and society.

Because I might end up being on the lower ledge, which is not desirable

By definition, capitalism cant be a meritocracy, because people get to take the fruit of other peoples labour because they "own" something simply for the fact for being slightly earlier than the rest, even though they dont do the work.


You mean like we have now? except for america, lol

Maybe because that sure is working our well. Those syrians sure love pure capitalism (tm)

No, what I meant by a meritocratic capitalism is that the ones who actually do the exploiting are those who are objectively more intelligent (in this fictioinal scenario).


I am against capitalism 100%. I'm asking about inequality in itself

There's nothing wrong with inequality in and of itself.

Give me a good reason why a higher intelligence gives you the right to exploit people? It doesn't seem to benefit anyone but those smart people at the detriment of the less intelligent majority. Due to the nature of capitalism, the "exploiter class" would be very small and thus the majority of non-exploiters is filled with smart people too, completely capable of running their own stores. Aside from the fact that the capitalists are not the most intelligent people, I would rather have the most intelligent humans to work on actual progress, like sciences, and not waste their life trying to get a higher score than the rest.

Meritocracy of intellect? Why?
Why does being smarter mean you get more rewards? Why isn't it about being stronger, or prettier, or simply more popular? What qualifies as merit, who decides what is merit-worthy and thus deserve to steal the work of others?

Also, inequality isn't necessarily bad, inequity is. I am pretty spooked but mostly due to empathy. I see no reason why I should have more than others and want a world where everyone else has it at least as good as me. I don't want others to suffer simply because I empathise with their suffering.

However there doesn't have to be a moral argument for ending capitalism or inequity, there doesn't have to be any argument. It is no more than people's self-interest that the inequity of the relations of production will cause its change. In the end might makes reality and the proles have might.

Shit. This is hard for me to accept

I think this is a really good point, thank you

I think that those who are able and willing can have a higher responsibility, thus higher rewards.

Those who are willing but less able, can have responsabilities that match their abilities.

Those who are unwilling, regardless of how able they are, can fuck right off.

However to express this in a social and economical equation sounds easier said than done.

And I think my post might have been worthless sophistry.

Polite self-sage

fuck off

My nigga

How many times are you going to ask this

First time I ever have buddy

Inequality is undesirable because individual success is largely determined by material conditions that are out of your control. You didn't choose to be born to a well-off family in a wealthy first-world nation, it happened by chance. Same with those born into poverty, slavery, genetic deformity, etc. If you accept that all men are created equal, then constructing a society that allows massive inequality is fundamentally unfair because it's basically a roll of the dice whether you will be rich or poor in life. Plus, massive inequality leads to the breakdown of civil and social ties between citizens, leading to crime, violent conflict, civil war, and destruction.

You could try and construct a society in which some inequality is allowed, but where institutions try and even out economic and political inequality. A society where capitalism is constrained in order to create a "rising tide" of development which gradually raises the standards of living for everyone regardless of their born status. Such a society would require a herculean effort of political mobilization on the part of the citizens to create and preserve these institutions, though. Any Marxist would argue that such a society would not last versus the constant, corrosive efforts of the bourgeoisie to undermine regulations and social safety nets to permit the exploitation of the proletariat for profit. The internal contradictions of capitalism would inevitably tear any "rising tide" society apart, in order to sustain the need to create profits and enrich the capitalist class.

This is to say nothing of the ecologist's point that exporting a rising standard of living to the entire planet's population is completely unsustainable and impossible. There is not enough resources to provide a decent first-world standard of living to the seven billion humans on earth, and it is incredibly naive to believe that all of these people could eventually be employed in professional first-world jobs that would guarantee a decent income and standard of living under capitalism.

It's one thing to have SOME inequality and another to have 5% of the population being in control of the rest of the 95%.

These are actually good questions. I'll answer from the perspective of an anarchist.


It's not inherently bad. The problem is that it places people in a hierarchy where the one with more power can impose their will those beneath them. You are not free if others can impose their will on you. Hence - inequality destroys freedom. For many Leftists, freedom is necessary for human dignity.

Inequality might or might not be inheritably bad i don't know but what i do know is that the current inequality is not well-earned and need to be disposed of.

...

Stalin was a manlet too

Lol who are you?

Its an epic troll. He's bumping random old threads to try and fuck with us