Why is the entire communist philosophy lynch-pinned on the concept of equality?

Its the opposite. Communism claims everyone has different abilities.

To justify killing people who are not equal.

>classless society
>its not
pick 1

Why would a demagogue want people to think nobody is better than anyone else

how do you reason that the absence of class equates to equality of outcome?

you can't eliminate hierarchy which will lead to class

elimination of the state does not mean the elimination of all hierarchies

>murder is bad

then why do you want the eleimination of state, how would you eliminate it, and what hierarchies would still be around after the elimination of state

I don't want any of those things. I'm a fascist. I was just helping you improve your understanding of marxist theory which you seem to have gotten entirely from YouTube.

Political quality is the goal of Liberalism. Material equality is the goal of communism

Do marxists not want an elimination of state then

To appeal to the lowest common denominator. They're LCD because they have low IQ's and discipline, so conveniently they're too stupid and lazy to figure out all the obvious faults with Marxism fundamentally. Or even in the face of obvious detrimental examples being all they have to show for themselves.

It’s not though. Marx thought equality was a bourgeoise concept, see Critique of the Gotha Program. The distribution philosophy of communism is fundamentally individualistic and based on individual needs and capability. Communism is not from each the same, to each the same, it is from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. This can be interpreted as a society supposed to be a synthesis of individualism and communalism, that is able to motivate and utilize every individual to their utmost capacity, and provide every individual with their needs based on their individual situation(such as being disabled or a child) so their needs do not limit their potential. Communism does not dictate equality, it seeks a compatibilist model that is good for the individual and society as a whole. There may be winners, but there are no losers. Growing the economic pie, a rising tide raises all boats so to speak. Communism seeks rooting out arbitrary privilege that holds others back.

The problem is that people with enlightenment ideals like egalitarianism saw Marxism as more egalitarian as capitalism. But even in soviet states there was income inequality and hierarchy. The communism means equality meme has to do with egalitarians and anti-capitalists adopting Marxism, and idiots attributing egalitarianism to Marxism to disprove it.

If you were on an island by yourself you could still have the ambition to build a mud hut for yourself, no competition nessecery

>Communism seeks rooting out arbitrary privilege that holds others back.
>arbitrary privilege

Here's your problem.

>Marx thought equality was a bourgeoise concept

The rest of his sauce is about equality being intrinsic to utopianism. I think what he might have been trying to argue also is that not everyone will perform robotically the same, which even he managed to figure out.

>from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
And who determines people's ability and need?

...

>To appeal to the lowest common denominator
>das kapital is 4 massive incredibly long books
>literally incoprehensible at points
>technically unfinished

Arbitrary means because Bill’s dad was board rich and George has the divine right of kings. Any power that is a social construct and not derived from personal merit is up for debate.

Marx explicitly said equality is bourgeoisie and people want to do different things. As others have stated, Marx was closer to equality of opprotunity, and not be chained by the circumstances of your birth and such, but to be judged as an individual.

Marx though arbitrary privilege unrelated to merit of the individual tended to amplify inequality and made things less fair. In that sense he sought greater equality.

It's incomprehensible because it's gibberish. There are times where Marx blows himself the fuck out and never adjusts. It appeals to the LCD because over half the retards shilling communism tell people to read it but haven't read it themselves but feel secure that others aren't. The fact their long,convoluted, and outright fallacious at times is part of what makes it hard for sub standard IQ readers guided by emotion to uncover themselves.

Society obviously since it’s a state of a society. What kind of stupid question is this?

Society being guided by a bottleneck of rulers. Most often dictators. There's no built in mechanic in communist ideology to prevent that from happening and requires the conditions that lead to Plato's cycle of governments to begin at the dictatorial stage.

>pepper speech with monarchy and religious references
>implying that any merit isn't of subjective value
>Marx created a system which is very egalitarian, but at least recognized physiological differences as opposed to those he was surrounded by and those who carry on his legacy
>Marx advocated for the reduction of opportunity for individuals and detailed what a society must do to enforce communism collectively
>arbitrary privilege is the same thing as private vs personal property. It's up to the government, the bottleneck of individuals at the top, to decide.

>tfw can't decide who was the worse writer, marx o an rand

>Society
So the state?

I’m not debating whether or not communism is feasible. I’m debating the topic given by the OP relating to communism revolving around equality. It doesn’t. I’m not even a communist.

A state is part of a society, but it’s debatable if an advanced centralized state even has a role in communism. And any other number of states of society also have states, so the question would be if the supposed state matches the definitional criteria to be communism.

In other words: you have no idea who gets to determine people's capabilities and needs.

Society. The state reflects society, controls society, or some combination. If you want a more obvious answer it’s people who hold power, whether or not that power is centralized.

>people who hold power determine the people's individual capabilities and needs for them
Right. And people wonder why communism keeps failing.

China might be failing as communism, but not as a state. Even dprk isn’t a failed state. But other non nuclear autocracies fall under the imperial might of the western powers. The US is stepping closer to corporatism, not in the Mussolini way either. The EU is facing immigration issues. None of these states adhere to a strict single ideology. They exist as real polities in the real world.

So I don’t really see your point. Capitalism controlled by corporate oligopoly with limited welfare is the ideal state?

Oh I know right

>Even dprk isn’t a failed state

It has nukes for international sovereignty and a police state to keep the citizenry under control with law and order.

It’s just a really shitty place to live because of low standards of living and lack of civil liberties. But as a polity and nation state it manages to function without collapsing.

>caring about the shitty elite that runs the country instead of the people
no user you are supposed to care about the people not the regime

I care for myself, not the spook of mankind. I am the unique and not merely one of another.

So from what I read here Marx was more socialist? At least in the sense that shit like healthcare and education should be accesible to all so that they grow with the same opportunitities?

In Marxism socialism leads to communism. Marx was unsure if Russia could skip capitalism. Given its failure, then you should assume traditional historical materialism which means implementing socialism first. Part of the confusion is young Marx was much more a utopian communist like people like to portray him as, and he never completely let go.

Utopianism is the path to the dark side.

Marxism leads to socialism, socialism leads to communism. Communism leads to hate, hate leads to suffering...

Politics and economy are one and the same.

And doesn't mean it isn't worth as an end to itself.

Is it? It seems more like it's built on fairness.

I mean, "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need" in communist societies tends to translate to "you only eat if you work", which I don't know, that makes sense since it's trying to correlate need and work.

>Marx was unsure
He was pretty eager to give it a try, actually.

Also keep in mind that Marx thought communism would happen in already industrialized first-world countries where they actually had the money and infrastructure to potentially handle the system, not say shitholes where half the people are starving.

But the concept appeals to starving people a lot more.

But he wasn't sure of the result. He just was speculating it might be possible.

Its not you fucking moron its lynchpnned on capitalism operating in an exploitive fashion and it being desireable for those being exploited to rebel and establish a system that benefits them. Workers being exploited and paid less than the value of their labour is pretty self evident, otherwise companies wouldn't make any profits. Where do you think profit comes from?

Time preferences or something

He wrote a whole letter on why it was totally possible and most of the things he wrote did not apply to Russia and ended with, "if, just saying, if they get it on, well, we've got our new revolutionary leaders"
Late Marx was short on places to bet on, he'd even take on southern slavs if they weren't so southern slavic

>less than the value of their labor
How do you determine that? The reasons corporate leaders make so much is that they employ and give careers to lots of people, they took lots of risks and underwent lots of effort to start up a company. The workers got to just waltz in when everything was going already. But what if the CEO leading the company simply bought it and didn’t found it? Well, they had to get the money somehow. And, if the worst case scenario here is true, and they inherited the company/ the funds to do so, inheritance is a legitimate form of wealth and incentivizes hard work and risk-taking to give money to your children so they may live better.

>he doesn't know the CEO is a worker
>he thinks a CEO is owner/chief shareholder
How can wagecucks be so cucked that they don't even know what they're defending as long as GLORY TO THE JOB CREATORS.

>haha I almost had to rethink my position there but you used terminology that wasn’t correct haha bad luck buddy
Fuck you

No, it's just that you literally have no idea how capitalism works yet you rush in to defend it because you think evul libruls are so dumdum and you like being a wagecuck.

I'm honestly not even sure if you're /pol/, because if you are, you haven't read Mussolini on heroic capitalism and supercapitalism, about Strasserism, or your brain is too small to understand that Nazis hated Jews because Jews were basically capitalists, hence the caricatures about gold and finance.

Honestly, you just sound like a retarded redneck alt-light.

>Workers being exploited and paid less than the value of their labour is pretty self evident, otherwise companies wouldn't make any profits. Where do you think profit comes from?
It doesn't sound like you understand basic economics, but then again it comes as no shock considering you're a Marxist. It also doesn't sound like you've even worked a single day of your life.

Finance "capitalists" aren't actual capitalists. They're leeches.

>your brain is too small to understand the Nazis hated Jews because they were basically capitalists
Who on this board doesn’t know that?
>ad hominem
>you CLEARLY haven’t read DA BOOK so that means you can’t have any opinion on this matter whatsoever

I got lucky with bitcoin (thanks Veeky Forums) and have $2.4m in the bank because capitalism is retarded and I don't have to work. It's a pretty stupid system if I can get rich because of cryptocurrency speculation.

So you actually haven't worked a single day in your life and you're complaining about workers being "exploited" lmao. I just got back from wagecucking to laugh at you.

>Who on this board doesn’t know that?
You apparently.

>ad hominem
But you are retarded, and a tripfag.

>you CLEARLY haven’t read DA BOOK so that means you can’t have any opinion on this matter whatsoever
You clearly haven't read any books, at all. The Strasserist wing of the Nazi party was anti-capitalist. Mussolini and Italian fascism was anti-capitalist. You probably haven't even read a book on capitalist economics because you seem to be confused on how it works and you just know wagecuck talking points.

communism isn't a philosophy, it is a real movement of proletarians towards self emancipation.

>why are liberals fascinated with equality
it is the negation of value

Yeah, but you don't have $2.4m because you lost the capitalism lottery and now you're wagecucking. I'm rich and I didn't even have to work for it because of capitalism. Even I can see this is a pretty stupid system. But I guess cucks enjoy being cucked. That's what makes them cucks.

>I'm rich but I didn't earn it
>This is supposed to be bad because every economical system should be based on meritocracy, and not free market economics.

Capitalism is the natural development of economy, you pay me to do some work and I help you generate profits so that you can pay me so I can pay the butcher to pay the farmer for the meat so I can provide for my family. Capitalism is a never ending set of mutual contracts and transactions based on the freedom to choose who you want to pay to provide you with the good/service. It's not about 'WHO CAN GET RICH THE FASTEST!!", that's a silly understanding of it.

What’s wrong with initial argument? All you’re doing is stating things about the Nazis I already knew and that doens’t interfere with my point.

So you're a selfish retard that can only exist in modern society. Got it.

Equality is the greatest lie ever told.

Always with this threads we have exactly one guy who knows what he's on aboult and the rest is just so frustrating and sad

>I'm rich but I didn't earn it
>This is supposed to be bad because every economical system should be based on meritocracy, and not free market economics.
Pretty much. I didn't spend all day telling myself I deserved to inherit great riches or moralize getting rich off the backs of others. One day I realized if I sold, I had enough money to NEET for a lifetime if I live modestly. I don't moralize why I deserve to be a poor wagecuck either since I'm rich.

Capitalism is the natural development of private property rights, which historically didn't always exist. Market economy is the good part of capitalism. I had time to read Adam Smith when I wondered how could this whole system be so retarded. It's enlightening because he talks about small scale trade like you talk about, and also about people who make money because they own stuff instead of working for stuff. Then it all made sense to me because bitcoin rocketed when the big investors stepped in.

Good for you that you enjoy the freedom of being a wagecuck, and you wave around your cuck badge as proof of how good and free you are. Seems like Stockholm syndrome from here. Apparently you like to moralize it because capitalism means freedom to you and you don't actually care about making money. You care about making agreements and stuff.

Is there a single religious scripture which teaches that all men were created equal?

And no, being judged equally by gods law or whatever is not the same thing as teaching that all of mankind were created equally.

Wealth is entrenched in familes as it always has been. We've progressed far enough that more people can luck out and get the opritunity to control capital, but the system is still fundementally dependant on ruthlessly taking advantage of the underclass

>capitalists create value with their effort!
>therefore they should be allowed to confer value on those without effort

muh freedumb tho
also tax is theft

>You're not a millionaire like me so you're a cuck because you actually have to work for a living like everyone else instead of getting rich from meme currency

>Apparently you like to moralize it because capitalism means freedom to you and you don't actually care about making money. You care about making agreements and stuff.

Capitalism isn't some political ideology to me, I don't associate it with 'freedom'. It's just a natural economic system that we've always had and it makes sense too, even socialists have to make contractual agreements for goods/services. Only recently have we been able to break the system so that even the average pleb can live a better life, like you have done so.
I care about not being a bitch and pointing fingers at business owners and claim I'm being "exploited" when I don't make as much money as them. This is a victim mentality, it's pathetic and sad.

Yes

Better than cuck mentality. I fully support anyone who gets fed up with getting exploited and decides to strike it out on their own as a self made man and seeks self-employment. Maybe not everyone is cut out for it, like you, but I think that's more admirable than being a cuck.

>Wealth is entrenched in familes as it always has been.
This is a lie. My uncle had nothing when he moved to this country and now he runs his own successful business and has his own house and family. He worked his ass off for it too, he didn't get it from his father.
>Paying others to work for you to produce your goods/services is now taking advantage of others
Come on now.

You don't understand how capitalism works and you think capitalists, finance and investors put work into a company.

...

so that no one questions them or questions the way of things
see also disaffected voters who think all politicians and the voting public are shit so why bother

There is no non-arbitrary reason why some people should have it better than others. People in power usually just pick whatever demographics they belong to and say that other groups are less deserving.

I could attack your views but I'm going to say thank you for being objective about this

Except the only people being exploited are in your mind, the poor, exploited proletariat pleb doesn't exist. This is just some bullshit excuse to have a sense of entitlement over actual successful business owners who worked hard to get where they are. With the money I've earned working for someone else I can start my own business and pay others to work for me. It doesn't make you a cuck to work for others, it's just normal.

You're not admirable at all by your own standards, you're a degenerate NEET who never will have to work and develop his virtue and ethics. Stop trying to be the voice for people who actually have to work to provide for themselves.

Good job being a wagecuck I guess? Even you admit people that work hard are better than you and you don't deserve shit. Being a cuck is normal I guess.

Why do I need to be admirable? I'm rich. Am I supposed to change my ethics to say I'm a good person and I deserve this money and I'm a good contributing member of society for selling bitcoin?

I'm not being the voice for anyone. I'm saying I won at capitalism, by pure dumb luck, you got cucked by capitalism. It's painful to watch cucks trying to justify to themselves why they deserve to be cucked.

Is that all you can say

I never claimed I don't deserve shit. I'm just saying I have no right to point my finger at my employer and claim I'm being exploited when we both entered into a mutual accepting contract where I'm being paid to produce his goods.

>Why do I need to be admirable? I'm rich.
You don't need to be admirable, just don't give others shit for not being a degenerate sloth.
>I'm not being the voice for anyone.
You made a whole post about your world of victim-hood and misunderstanding of how capitalism works. See: >It's painful to watch cucks trying to justify to themselves why they deserve to be cucked.
I'm not going to justify not being a millionaire because there's nothing to justify. Working for a living isn't some kind of punishment where you get "cucked" whenever you get paid your wages. This is just normal life, you will have to accept this is how the world works eventually.

That wasn't me. I must have jumped in at some point in the conversation.

Basically, here's how it works.

I get married to my 10/10 childhood friend with a good personality because we were close as children, despite being a 5/10 who posts on Veeky Forums. I won the marriage game by pure luck.

I bump into a friend who got divorced once and he found his soul mate with a wicked sense of humor and he puts in a lot into a loving relationship with this girl he met on an online dating site and after living together for 4 years they're getting married in March. I say good for you, I don't know jack shit about what it's like to go through a divorce or dating after divorce or anything but I'm happy for you, you earned it, then I go to his wedding.

Then I bump into you. You tell me how you're dating this girl you met at a bar and you're in an open relationship, but you're not having sex with anyone else. She's having sex with Jamal twice a week though because his big black cock makes her happy in ways you could never make her. I say that's fucked up man, you should find someone else. You tell me about how he grew up in the inner city and I'm being a racist judgemental prick for saying that and start getting mad at my 10/10 wife because I'm not in an open relationship like you and saying I have no right to judge you and you want this and it's none of my bussiness. But yeah, you're just a cuck.

Is asking loaded questions with dubious premises really the best bait?

This analogy made no sense. You're being intellectually dishonest with yourself if you're actually comparing getting cucked by Jamal with working for a living like everyone has done since the dawn of civilization.

If you aren't a professional earning 6 digits or don't have a side hustle, you're a cuck. You're married to a job that doesn't respect you.

You're an idiot if you think that everyone did wage labor at the beginning of civilization and that serfs and slaves aren't megacucks.

That's just like, you're own opinion, man.

No, it's a fact that not everyone performed wage labor at the dawn of civilization, and serfs and slaves are megacucks who worked even though they were abused by their masters.

I don't get how you equate not earning 6 figure digits with being a cuck. By your logic 95% of the world is full of cucks.