[Sasa]

I think the definition of equality is really about that phrase that Potemkin quoted, "To each according to their ability and to each according to their need." Humanity is diverse. You got people who have Down Syndrome, or who have speech impediments, or who have a lack of ability to perform certain tasks.

That means that society and the economy should be structured around a simple premise. Who is this individual worker? What kinds of work they have an affinity and love for doing it? Can we train and educate them in that field so they can give the society many many years of high quality work? Can we invest in them in their youth through access to a fine education that is equal in quality regardless of ethnic group, which neighborhood they are born into and what obstacles they face? Invest in PEOPLE. Give them excellent educations, reliable health care that is top drawer, and stable housing, give them guidelines of nutrition, exercise and health care. Balance the entire society for recreation, work, hobbies, study and family life. A whole complete network of development. Maximizing the potential of all people. Don't assume because people are black or Latin American or Native American or European etc. that they are superior or inferior. Acknowledge that people have varying levels of intelligence, abilities and affinities and talents. All people vary.

The society should be able to create stability in work, education, housing, and health. Cradle to grave stability. If it fails to do so because it caters to only a small plutocracy? And to hell with the vast majority? You got a dysfunctional society on your hands and instability, resentment, anger and a big waste of human potential is the ultimate outcome. Class conflict that is violent and blood filled is also the natural outcome. Who the hell loves being used, exploited, and thrown away and disrespected like trash, simply because one is a female or Black or poor or has some disability? People should be valued as they are for what they are by all of society. Not told that they are trash and unworthy because they are not rich, or not male, or not wealthy or not this or that.

In the end all of us are mortal and die from some form of disease, accident or problem. All of us. Why allow rules in which lies and ideas about being wealthy means you are better or more valuable than the next person? In the end? We are not like the Egyptian pharoahs of old. We can't take our cars, houses, toys and material possessions with us into the grave anyway. All that has to be let go of. Eventually. What makes all that material wealth useful is if we share it wisely to serve the human society and make it better for those with less abilities but great needs. Share. If you are a brilliant person with a fine mind and a great education? Teach or show or produce great things serving the ones who are not as brilliant. If you are a great carpenter or architect, or singer, or dancer, or engineer, etc. Do the job serving all the others without selfishness, greed or ignorance and discrimination involved.

You do that? You got equality. Love all people and treat them with true equality because they are human just like you. We are equal in our human frailty and vulnerable flaws. Treat us as precious resources that if cared for? Give many years of fine service. And improve all the lives of all they serve.

That way? White guilt and white this or that in a racist society is GONE. If you truly believe all are your social, economic, gender, and class equals? Conspiracy of Equals. The French Revolution. Egalite. Believe it. And do it.

That will improve society greatly. The Great Leap Forward in consciousness for human society is that. Not that everything is the same, boring and authoritarian. It is not. In fact, Marx's goal is a classless society with no need for formal structures of government control because human beings have advanced enough to know that mistreating each other and believing in arrogant power struggles and exploiting the hell out of each other is not an improvement in life. It is retrograde and prison like and headed for failure. Ultimately what humans love is to be free. Be free to be who they can be. Without heavy crap like not being allowed an education because they are poor, or a certain color or nationality or because they were born with the wrong sex organs that are not the 'top' valued one, etc. That stuff is wasting way too many people.

True equality is achieved by knowing that all of us have to work together to lift each other up. Not tear each other down. That is having a spirit of equality.

Appreciate your words! Although I have to say most of them appear to be emotionally persuasive rather than a logical analysis of the topic itself.
All I focus here is what it is, regardless of what you feel about, the truth.
If a male worker outperformed a female worker and got higher pay, I don't think it's discrimination. But if any authority force the male worker to cut his salary it's open discrimination.
If African Americans did worse in class and you say they are not good at math because of discrimination?
As a result you call for bonus points given to African/Latino Americans with the name of anti-discrimination? (same applies to women)

A college in Australia open recruit "women only" for a position, saying it's for gender equality.
Who are the people discriminated against?

Next time I know if I get the lowest score in class, I just claim "I got discrimination", as a result you must grant me extra points, for equality.

[Sasa]

But that isn't Communism. Communism means that everyone works for everyone else and you take what you need from society. The rate or speed you work at is irrelevant. You do the jobs that are required for society as a whole. So to have equal pay for everyone is not Communism. It is actually liberalism.

But to your point about company's having to adhere to "say" a 50% gender requirement (this would never happen by the way). If the government did put that law into place, then every corporation would be handicapped by the same rule. But they still get to choose which candidates they hire. Believe it or not, women are not useless. I understand that there are biological differences in men and women which might affect the rate/speed of a job done by both sexes, but there is no job out there a woman cannot do. Also it is important to note that there are also exceptions even with stereotypes. It is not out of place to see women out perform men and there are even specific jobs out there that are more suited to the average woman too. So with this in mind, I see no reason to ever champion discrimination. There are jobs that men can (usually but not always) do better than women and there are jobs women can (usually but not always) do better than men. But I'd say with most jobs it actually doesn't matter what your sex is. And in every scenario, pay should still be equal.

" There are jobs that men can (usually but not always) do better than women and there are jobs women can (usually but not always) do better than men."
This sentence I cite is the key point, which liberal/feminists never admit, which is also the reason why that Google guy got fired.
I won't be that stupid to assert every man is smarter than every women, it's just an general trend represented by average performance. Exceptions do exist, but not commonly seen.
There are areas women are over-reprensented for instance in nursery, why don't liberal campaign for that?
Likewise no one so far argues about the over-represented males in military.
They are not stupid after all, they want those perceived good places where they appear less competitive (scientists/engineers/managers/presidents), while they never call for more female soldiers/truck drivers/firefighters.
I'm not stupid either.

Let's be honest.

[B0ycey]

" There are jobs that men can (usually but not always) do better than women and there are jobs women can (usually but not always) do better than men."
This sentence I cite is the key point, which liberal/feminists never admit, which is also the reason why that Google guy got fired.
I won't be that stupid to assert every man is smarter than every women, it's just an general trend represented by average performance. Exceptions do exist, but not commonly seen.
There are areas women are over-reprensented for instance in nursery, why don't liberal campaign for that?
Likewise no one so far argues about the over-represented males in military.
They are not stupid after all, they want those perceived good places where they appear less competitive (scientists/engineers/managers/presidents), while they never call for more female soldiers/truck drivers/firefighters.
I'm not stupid either.

Let's be honest.

Most people will acknowledge that there are differences between men and women. But this is no excuse to promote discrimination. We all need to pay our bills to make our way in this world.

As for Damore (the Google guy), he should have been able to air his views without the threat of reprisal. Nonetheless there should be nothing wrong with Google trying to promote diversity in its company. IT is actually an area that it doesn't matter what sex you are for the quality of work that can be executed within it. It is all down to intelligence levels. So for Google to try and ecourage more women into IT, this can only be a good thing. But they shouldn't have compromised free speech to do so. Damore actually brought up some key points to explain why women don't go into IT (social) but I didn't agree with his biological or mental assessments of why womens lack the desire to progress within a company. Personally I put it down to society norms. Women are expected to do the housework/childcareing and men are expected to be the bread winners. So subconciously that is what tends to happen when men and women get in a relationship. Only now things are changing to challenge this viewpoint.

[Sasa]

Most people will acknowledge that there are differences between men and women. But this is no excuse to promote discrimination. We all need to pay our bills to make our way in this world.

As for Damore (the Google guy), he should have been able to air his views without the threat of reprisal. Nonetheless there should be nothing wrong with Google trying to promote diversity in its company. IT is actually an area that it doesn't matter what sex you are for the quality of work that can be executed within it. It is all down to intelligence levels. So for Google to try and ecourage more women into IT, this can only be a good thing. But they shouldn't have compromised free speech to do so. Damore actually brought up some key points to explain why women don't go into IT (social) but I didn't agree with his biological or mental assessments of why womens lack the desire to progress within a company. Personally I put it down to society norms. Women are expected to do the housework/childcareing and men are expected to be the bread winners. So subconciously that is what tends to happen when men and women get in a relationship. Only now things are changing to challenge this viewpoint.

Be clear who is promoting discriminate, you need to clarify what is discrimination.
If I say average male students did well in math than female students as a matter of fact, is it discrimination?
My understanding is you told the public I got the lowest score in class which is true, it's NOT discrimination at all. People have the right to tell the truth. The problem with feminists is they never accept that truth. Conversely they call for privilege for Blacks/women which actually discriminates against Whites/Asians(Note: not just whites here & you know why).

I've no idea why you need to promote diversity? Any rule prevent women from joining Google? As I have said above, women & blacks have given privilege instead. What we really need here is to eliminate the open discrimination against Whites/Asians.

The widely accepted common sense is, if males outperformed females, feels like it's a guilty, as a result males deserve a penalty to be discriminated against.

If you are still not clear, in short, what is a discrimination. Before 1921 women were not allowed to vote, which is a discrimination. If google didn't allow women to apply for jobs, you could call it discrimination. The reality is it doesn't exist, what on earth you promote?

I don't bother if you have different opinions with Damore, the appropriate way you can do is to have a open debate, to disprove his hypothesis (if you can) rather than fire him. It's not about discrimination, it's discrimination against males + violation of human rights. Google's CEO should be arrested.


"Most people will acknowledge that there are differences between men and women"
Most people acknowledge this in their heart, but dare not say in public, or they may be fired. This is political correctness.
You know what you really need to promote?

@Sasa, For the fourth time, DO NOT DOUBLE POST. Especially when two posts are to the same person, for the same thing they said. If you want to add something to a previous post because you've just thought of it, then use the edit function. If you are replying to several people, put it all in one post.

Last warning - your double posts are just going to get deleted from now on.

Prosthetic Conscience - Political Circus moderator.

[B0ycey]

@Sasa

A fact is not discrimination. If you have data to suggest men are better than women at maths or I had data that said you had the lowest test score and declared it, these are facts.

Descrimination is penalizing someone for some prejudice. And not giving equal pay for the same job would be just that. But I will say that it is not against the realms of possibility for a white male to suffer from descrimination. It is just not as frequent as racism or sexism so it isn't so much an issue today. But I personally would stand up for a white mans rights just as much as a black womans. And so should you.

As for your issues with feminism or Googles diversity programs, if you have an issue with them perhaps create yet another thread on these subjects. You should not confuse these issues with discrimination.

[Sasa]

@Sasa

A fact is not discrimination. If you have data to suggest men are better than women at maths or I had data that said you had the lowest test score and declared it, these are facts.

Descrimination is penalizing someone for some prejudice. And not giving equal pay for the same job would be just that. But I will say that it is not against the realms of possibility for a white male to suffer from descrimination. It is just not as frequent as racism or sexism so it isn't so much an issue today. But I personally would stand up for a white mans rights just as much as a black womans. And so should you.

As for your issues with feminism or Googles diversity programs, if you have an issue with them perhaps create yet another thread on these subjects. You should not confuse these issues with discrimination.

I'm glad that you agree on the point: telling fact with evidence is not discrimination.
There's stats showing average IQ in different countries (many treat it as a taboo in fear of being accused of discrimination)
https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... e-all-men/


I respect every one regardless of their IQ/capability, but they can't reject the fact.
I'm not a top IQ guy either, I can't get scholarship to study a PhD in MIT. However I admit it without a problem, I won't say I can't enter MIT because of discrimination, should I campaign?

Only losers attribute their incapability to discrimination.
I'm a loser as well, but I at least face the reality honestly.

I don't think there's any policy discriminating non-white/women in any modern country. If you campaign for women rights? Sorry feminists need to be back to 19th century.

[B0ycey]

I think you missed my point @Sasa, but it doesn't matter.

Nonetheless, you can publish a fact to make a point but someone could also use a fact to challenge the same point. For example, nutrition and opportunity/standard of education could also contribute to IQ.

[Sasa]

I think you missed my point @Sasa, but it doesn't matter.

Nonetheless, you can publish a fact to make a point but someone could also use a fact to challenge the same point. For example, nutrition and opportunity/standard of education could also contribute to IQ.

I'm open to be challenged, and that's what democracy means, I wouldn't fire anyone.

It's fine if you argue that women/Blacks need better nutrition (sounds weird especially compared to Asians). In terms of opportunity/standard of education, there's no any policy as I know rejects women/blacks.

A better way you campaign next time is probably encourage women/blacks to drink more milk everyday, and I'm totally happy with that.

[Tainari88]

Appreciate your words! Although I have to say most of them appear to be emotionally persuasive rather than a logical analysis of the topic itself.
All I focus here is what it is, regardless of what you feel about, the truth.
If a male worker outperformed a female worker and got higher pay, I don't think it's discrimination. But if any authority force the male worker to cut his salary it's open discrimination.
If African Americans did worse in class and you say they are not good at math because of discrimination?
As a result you call for bonus points given to African/Latino Americans with the name of anti-discrimination? (same applies to women)

A college in Australia open recruit "women only" for a position, saying it's for gender equality.
Who are the people discriminated against?

Next time I know if I get the lowest score in class, I just claim "I got discrimination", as a result you must grant me extra points, for equality.

You don't truly get what the logical or 'scientific' part of Marxism is about do you Sasa? It means analyzing what a sociologist Jay McLeod who wrote a book about what forces are at work keeping people in place. That means the system is very thorough about creating or perpetuating a class system. Do you know what the superstructure of capitalism is about Sasa? Can you define it for me? If one creates an economic system that is based on property rights and trading your work for wages and that is your only means of surviving in such a system? Surplus value and what that means for profits?

Analyze those for me. And once you do? Then explain how such a system devalues women's labor, Blacks or minorities labor and how maybe if you are born, raised and grow up in a neighborhood with very badly funded public schools, with parents who never had formal educations, surrounded by other neighbors in the same circumstances and in which your entire social and economic circles is populated by people who never got educations, never did work that paid well, who never developed reading habits and were never taught well anything of value because they were deemed people that are not worth it. Throw away people....and you are in that circumstance Sasa how would you get out of it?

Both my mother and father grew up in the worst ghettos imaginable. How did they get out of that? Most don't. Most get thrown under the meat grinder and spit out. Only the strongest survive that shit. You don't understand it maybe because your circumstances are different? Did you ever analyze what advantages you had? In life? And did you ever analyze what obstacles you had to overcome? IN your own personal life and circumstances? Start thinking hard and scientifically on your particular privileges and your advantages.....could you deal with being born in a poor mountain town in the Andes where you were put to work in a mine as a child.....because it was either work or starve. And not going to school. Being fed a bad diet. Struggling to keep warm every day. A simple medicine costing you two weeks wages? And having someone like you judge you saying.....they are not making it. They can't do it? People have what McLeod in his book 'Ain't No Makin' It' a term called cultural capital. That means that people grow up socially bound to their circles and groups. They owe loyalty to them and identify with them on a very deep level. It is called class identity or class solidarity. In order to get out and move out of that class and economic group? Got to cut ties to them and imitate a group of people you are completely unfamiliar with, whom reject you innately, sneer and look down on you and know which socioeconomic class you are from every time you utter a word, speak or carry yourself. People are complex. Class and growing up poor or working class or underclass has consequences that are very strong and ingrained. How well could you cut off your social and economic loyalties, identity and upbringing and would you want to do so? For what? Trade it in for what? There are very strong social and economic controls Sasa. Thinking Blacks or women or any other 'inferior' group is inferior because they fail at being good at what? Who taught them something different? Do you spend time with immigrants who don't speak your language well? How many hours a week do you spend on helping them? Zero I bet. But you want to tell them or the 'minorities' what failures they are...and how they ride on the coattails of liberal band aid programs like affirmative action or special admissions. You are so woefully wrong in your perspectives.

Try to analyze the above questions. If you studied Marxism it should be easy. If you have not? But want to think you know? And you demonstrate you did not do the work?

Well, safe to say....you don't get the emotionally persuasive argument or the scientific one either. So? Get to it my man!

[Sasa]

You don't truly get what the logical or 'scientific' part of Marxism is about do you Sasa? It means analyzing what a sociologist Jay McLeod who wrote a book about what forces are at work keeping people in place. That means the system is very thorough about creating or perpetuating a class system. Do you know what the superstructure of capitalism is about Sasa? Can you define it for me? If one creates an economic system that is based on property rights and trading your work for wages and that is your only means of surviving in such a system? Surplus value and what that means for profits?

Analyze those for me. And once you do? Then explain how such a system devalues women's labor, Blacks or minorities labor and how maybe if you are born, raised and grow up in a neighborhood with very badly funded public schools, with parents who never had formal educations, surrounded by other neighbors in the same circumstances and in which your entire social and economic circles is populated by people who never got educations, never did work that paid well, who never developed reading habits and were never taught well anything of value because they were deemed people that are not worth it. Throw away people....and you are in that circumstance Sasa how would you get out of it?

Both my mother and father grew up in the worst ghettos imaginable. How did they get out of that? Most don't. Most get thrown under the meat grinder and spit out. Only the strongest survive that shit. You don't understand it maybe because your circumstances are different? Did you ever analyze what advantages you had? In life? And did you ever analyze what obstacles you had to overcome? IN your own personal life and circumstances? Start thinking hard and scientifically on your particular privileges and your advantages.....could you deal with being born in a poor mountain town in the Andes where you were put to work in a mine as a child.....because it was either work or starve. And not going to school. Being fed a bad diet. Struggling to keep warm every day. A simple medicine costing you two weeks wages? And having someone like you judge you saying.....they are not making it. They can't do it? People have what McLeod in his book 'Ain't No Makin' It' a term called cultural capital. That means that people grow up socially bound to their circles and groups. They owe loyalty to them and identify with them on a very deep level. It is called class identity or class solidarity. In order to get out and move out of that class and economic group? Got to cut ties to them and imitate a group of people you are completely unfamiliar with, whom reject you innately, sneer and look down on you and know which socioeconomic class you are from every time you utter a word, speak or carry yourself. People are complex. Class and growing up poor or working class or underclass has consequences that are very strong and ingrained. How well could you cut off your social and economic loyalties, identity and upbringing and would you want to do so? For what? Trade it in for what? There are very strong social and economic controls Sasa. Thinking Blacks or women or any other 'inferior' group is inferior because they fail at being good at what? Who taught them something different? Do you spend time with immigrants who don't speak your language well? How many hours a week do you spend on helping them? Zero I bet. But you want to tell them or the 'minorities' what failures they are...and how they ride on the coattails of liberal band aid programs like affirmative action or special admissions. You are so woefully wrong in your perspectives.

Try to analyze the above questions. If you studied Marxism it should be easy. If you have not? But want to think you know? And you demonstrate you did not do the work?

Well, safe to say....you don't get the emotionally persuasive argument or the scientific one either. So? Get to it my man!

I never studied Marxism, so I may disappoint you as I can't answer some of your questions in a way you expected (sorry, forgive my illiteracy)

However I did get your point: you argue that Women/Blacks may have a weak background for study or education which I haven't taken into account. It seemingly makes sense: if you do a experiment to let a same guy be raised in a, say poor African American neighborhood, compared to a high class rich neighborhood. Obviously the same person is more likely to succeed academically and economically in the latter scenario, regardless of the race/gender of that person.

That's been widely said by liberal to brainwash people with not very good logic thus seems to be convincing. But you ignored critical points here: the claim about men/whites/Asians outperforming women/blacks (like the research results I showed earlier), is a general sense (average) based on statistical data but not about any individual - having said before nobody would be so stupid to say every women/black did worse than every white/male. The class system exists in among all races - thanks to the fact it's equal society, no one is barred from attending school or applying for a job.
How dare you assume all whites/Asians are rich, or afford to offer the best education for their kids? Don't laugh, that should be the premise of affirmative action, you categorized people into different social classes by race, which makes this assumption itself racist. You ignored the existence of rich black people/women and poor /whites/Asians/males.

If you do want to help those born from a poor and vulnerable background, all right, the affirmative action should be like this:
give bonus to those from low-income families regardless of their genders/races. That'd be the real "AA" that logically makes sense & without discriminating against males/whites.
Why didn't they set the AA policy like that, the answer is simple: they either are unable to work out this logical reasoning or they intentionally discriminate against whites/males/Asians.

Even if you argue that some people did well in school due to their privileged background, all right, what about the stats of academic performance collected from the same social region/school, if blacks/female still did worse on average what would you say?

One more point I want to show you is, if African/females did worse in school due to discrimination & bad education background, how about Asian Americans (typically Chinese/Japanese/Korean/Taiwanese), they historically were facing discrimination as seriously as blacks (if not more), but how do you explain their successes in academic and economic fields? Contrary to the "common sense", the case of Asian people appears that the more they got discriminated against, the better they performed. No idea if there's such correlation but feel like that.

I personally don't believe anything, I use my eyes to observe and use my brain to reckon logically. If one day stats shows males did worse than females, I won't cry emotionally like a liberal, I'd first analyze what & why. This characteristic (extreme rationality) probably makes me distinct from most females I'm afraid.

[Tainari88]

Sasa you have so many flawed and defective arguments that it will take me quite a while to tackle them. You also are sexist and almost blind about what race is in the scientific field of biology and anthropology. But since we are having a debate I am going to deal with your serious problem of seriously illogical, insecure male, and uneducated conservative thinking who never cracked open a book on Marxism and deal with you tomorrow.

Why don't you clarify that you are using IQ as a definition for what? That we should be classifying people on what? I think tomorrow we are going to have to tackle these five concepts that you don't understand yet well at all.

1) Variation and what the purpose of it is in nature and evolutionary theory.

2) How economic systems evolve over time and why they evolve over time.

3) Why modern societies continue to have class systems in place and how class systems in societies even emerged in human history.

4) Why a capitalist system depends on maintaining class systems in place.

5) How I am not a liberal. And why I will never be a liberal.

So far? That post you did above demonstrated to me that you have no understanding of any of those concepts. I do know that last line is sheer sexism. If you believe I am a dumb and inferior woman and you can't learn from me because I have breasts and a vagina and I am a woman. Let me know now. I don't waste my time on men who think like that. Let them stay in their ideas. I won't educate them.

Decide on that last paragraph above Sasa. Do it before I come back here tomorrow.

[Sasa]

Sasa you have so many flawed and defective arguments that it will take me quite a while to tackle them. You also are sexist and almost blind about what race is in the scientific field of biology and anthropology. But since we are having a debate I am going to deal with your serious problem of seriously illogical, insecure male, and uneducated conservative thinking who never cracked open a book on Marxism and deal with you tomorrow.

Why don't you clarify that you are using IQ as a definition for what? That we should be classifying people on what? I think tomorrow we are going to have to tackle these five concepts that you don't understand yet well at all.

1) Variation and what the purpose of it is in nature and evolutionary theory.

2) How economic systems evolve over time and why they evolve over time.

3) Why modern societies continue to have class systems in place and how class systems in societies even emerged in human history.

4) Why a capitalist system depends on maintaining class systems in place.

5) How I am not a liberal. And why I will never be a liberal.

So far? That post you did above demonstrated to me that you have no understanding of any of those concepts. I do know that last line is sheer sexism. If you believe I am a dumb and inferior woman and you can't learn from me because I have breasts and a vagina and I am a woman. Let me know now. I don't waste my time on men who think like that. Let them stay in their ideas. I won't educate them.

Decide on that last paragraph above Sasa. Do it before I come back here tomorrow.

I'm not surprised to be labeled as a racist, sexist, uneducated or murderer if you like.
I'm not interested to judge what kind of woman you are (or if you are a women), I just talk about the topic itself no matter who you are.
Sounds like you failed to point out any flaw in the reasoning I've done but instead you raised five new questions.

Sorry I can't answer them, which are irrelevant to this topic. Others may help you if they like to answer.

I don't care about how much you hate me, anyway.

[Potemkin]

I'm not surprised to be labeled as a racist, sexist, uneducated or murderer if you like.

You shouldn't be surprised, as you clearly are racist, sexist and uneducated (though not a murderer, to my knowledge). For example, your statement that "This characteristic (extreme rationality) probably makes me distinct from most females I'm afraid" is clearly sexist. You have also asserted that white males are being "discriminated against" because their pay is being cut to bring it into line with the pay of their female colleagues. You have also denounced the whole concept of affirmative action for racial and ethnic minorities for the same reason. This is clearly a racist and sexist position. The fact that you seem to lack the self-awareness to recognise this fact is hardly Tainari's fault; she is merely pointing it out. And you have openly admitted that you know nothing about Marxism; nor, I suspect, do you know much about the workings of the capitalist free market. Yet for some reason this doesn't stop you from making pompous pronouncements about these things. Then you turn around and claim to think with "extreme rationality" rather than with emotionality and that this somehow makes you "distinct" from most females. Yet your only basis for preferring the free market over Marxism, or gender pay inequality over equal pay for equal work, is because of your feelings on the subject rather than any actual knowledge. Can you not see how absurd this makes you look?

[Zagadka]

Are you talking about equality of opportunity (good) or equality of outcome (bad)?

[Tainari88]

Well, I am having computers connectivity issues. Too many people running around on Christmas weekend using it I guess...Lol.

Sasa you are a waste of time. I only deal with respectful posters. So sorry I won't educate you on Marxism, free market capitalism or a damn thing. You need to be ridiculed and made to look like a fool.

You are not going to answer the questions because you are not going to go to google and plug in "Superstructure and base of Capitalism" according to Marxist theory and read what pops up. That is how unmotivated you are. You just want to have an argument about the definition of equality and if we are heading for communism, without doing any work. Period.

I don't deal with people like that. Sorry.

[Rugoz]

Inequality is mainly driven by wage inequality and not profit inequality (granted, it's kind of difficult to clearly separate the two at the very top).
Even if the government owns all means of production (i.e. makes all investments and earns the surplus), you still have labor that is worthless and labor that is worth a lot. Insofar communism solves nothing.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Money is just a proxy for status and a means to get power anyway. These human drives don't go away under Communism, hence why Communist countries had their "nomenclatura".

[Potemkin]

Even if the government owns all means of production (i.e. makes all investments and earns the surplus), you still have labor that is worthless and labor that is worth a lot. Insofar communism solves nothing.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." What doesn't that solve?

[Rugoz]

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." What doesn't that solve?

You mean everybody gets to do what they want and consume what they want? You're right, that solves everything.

[Tainari88]

You mean everybody gets to do what they want and consume what they want? You're right, that solves everything.

Rugoz, it is all very simple. People are the source of all wealth. All wealth. The wealth that working, ordinary people produce over an adult normal productive lifetime is what? Age 16-62 or 70. Going to work everyday. Everybody gets to do what they want? Poor people are in prison in terms of their choices. Most never get a decent education and are relegated to jobs that don't even provide basics. You are in danger of not having dental care, health care and catastrophic care in the USA if you are the working poor. You can't work and must be on some kind of total poverty to qualify for complete Medicare or Medicaid. You can't consume a damn thing. You can only go to thrift stores. Even if you work full time in many cities. Walmart employees are told to get on food stamps in many cities here because after paying rent and utilities and gas for the car and car insurance, and etc, they don't have enough the last week of the month for groceries.

There used to be a social contract with working people in the USA. That if you worked full time you could live a fairly decent standard of living and go on a week's vacation once a year.

All that is gone. Most working families can have two adults working but if they both make $10 dollars an hour in wages (above the federal minimum wage) they only bring in $400 a week for a 40 hour work week, before city, state and federal taxes kick in. The average rent in a city like mine? For a family of four and a two bedroom apartment? $1800 a month. You can't really go over 33% of your entire income for housing or you wind up short every month. Not if you have to save at least ten percent for emergencies.

It means both parents have to work full time. Who takes care of the kids? If you don't get home because you got a shift that goes beyond 5pm? There are a lot of issues with lack of investment in families, lack of investment in raising minimum wages, lots of issues with many things. The reality is the conservatives don't give a flying bean about the underclass, working class and won't do the job of creating stability. They serve a rich and very comfortable elite plutocracy. And not the poor, the underclass, the working class or even the middle classes and soon not even the professional traditional classes such as doctors, lawyers and engineers. They will only serve a small group of extremely powerful and wealthy people.

Who knows how long the American working and middle classes are going to continue to get less and less available income because their surplus value is not going into their pockets but into the pocket of already extremely wealthy people and the oligarchy?

The socialist camp and the Marxist camp and the Communist camp are the traditional group that has pressured the wealthy elite plutocrats, corporatists, bankers and top multinational rich elitist interests in the world. But the American people and the American worker have systematically never gotten an education on Marxism or the True Left. Only liberal bullshit that supports capitalism and does band aid ineffective social welfare programs. The Left has been systemically undermined. You see it with the vast ignorance their is about Capitalism and how it works and the history of how class systems work in that system. The American people don't even get true debates. Debates by people who study history of socioeconomics, sociology, economic and social theory, and analyze how markets work and they don't get world class educations anymore. They get shit educations and they specialize in a specific area and never venture beyond that.

You couple that with instant gratification and lack of concentration on a hard subject and short attention spans and having to be spoon fed information and lack of independent, critical thinking? You get people who despise studying history of the world, history of the USA, history of almost everything. A society with no memory or tolerance for the past and they can't make connections to a damn thing. They are fragmented.

You have to walk them through their own system of capitalism American style, because they just assume it came out of its own volition and somehow all this stuff is not planned out or thought out. You explain, slavery is an economic system. There is no wage labor involved. You got a slave owner paying for a human being like property. Why? You ask them that question and they are stumped. Is wage labor the same slavery? No? How is it different?

Explain to me how a society goes from slave labor to wage labor? Why would a capitalist be for wage labor over slave labor? The North vs The South. The American civil war. The Library of Congress has debates on the floor of the USA congress and senate with very detailed reasons of the pros and cons. Go and study that.

But no. You got debaters who want to be right without any sense of history or even doing a cursory search in google and wikipedia to figure out why you capitalist base and superstructure and how in Marxist theory that is a determinant of societal, economic and even religious cultural structures. Class is a very pervasive and powerful system of control and it is planned and calculated. If people don't understand that? There is not much else to debate now is there?

Equality is out of reach for people who don't study how the society got so unequal in the first place. It is. You don't study the underpinnings of inequality? Then equality will never arrive in human society and we are all condemned to staying in this exploitative and unjust system forever. And this natural world doesn't do static shit. This entire natural system is about change. Transformation. And progress. The universe out there in astronomy is infinite. The underlying characteristic of it all is CHANGE. Transformation. Not staying the same. Anyone who thinks capitalism is the natural order and will be around forever and that equality is not something obtainable by human beings because we are destined to be greedy, selfish, ignorant and crude and exploitative animals without a sense of rationality or any sense of social responsibility....only has to look back at our own history and study how slavery died off and wage labor took over. An improvement. But not the end of the line. No.

The far left is the end of the line. Total equality. Variation of abilities but meeting all the needs. Cooperation for survival and finally, it is scientifically more productive. Capitalism wastes too many good people. All day. Every day.

No more wasting good people due to extremely stupid ideas of inferiority because of having vaginas, breasts, more dark tones on the skin, or because someone is thinking in Algerian, or Farsi, or Urdu, or Spanish instead of some other 'imperial' language. That shit is for dummies. Sorry to tell the imperialists, the racists, the monarchists, the sexists and the professional discriminators. You guys are destined to go the way of the do do bird. Extinct. Because you waste people with the discrimination. Plain and simple.