Do Communists Want ABSOLUTE Equality?



how much tyranny you have to impose in order to produce something like equality of outcome social justice is at it's very core a Marxist ideology socialism itself would eventually be replaced by communism under which absolutely everyone is equal anti Marxists often claim that karl marx and by extension communists advocate for absolute equality or a galaxy Arianism equality of outcome the particular kind used in most attempts to denounce marxist theory is in fact a notion that marx advocated directly against the concept itself is a product of liberalism and the ideas of the French Revolution subject areas which Marx frequently challenged there isn't a more concise worked as proving Marx as an egalitarian than the critique of the Gotha program one of his most significant pamphlets second to only the communist manifesto in the critique Marx analyzes the draft program of the Social Democratic Workers Party of Germany expressing various judgments that are ironically used by many denouncing Marx's work today including the notions regarding a Galit arianism Part 1 section 3 of the drafted program of the party states that the emancipation of labor demands the promotion of the instruments of labour to the common property of society and the co-operative regulation of the total labor with a fair distribution of the proceeds of labour to most anti Marxists this would sound exactly like something Marx would say except he didn't say this and the people who did held ideas that Marx despised he despised these ideas so much that he wrote an entire book were taking their main advocate Ferdinand lies el there is much to say about the ideological feud between Marx and lies el but what is important to note is that many of Liddell's followers would heavily shape the first draft program of the Democratic Workers Party of Germany the same draft marks critiqued in his pamphlet Marx had much to say about this section of the draft but one quotation should make it clear what his position on equality of outcome was but one man is superior to another physically or mentally and supplies more labour in the same time or can labor for a longer time and labor to serve as a measure must be defined by its duration or intensity otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement this equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor it recognizes no class differences because everyone is only a worker like everyone else but it tacitly recognizes an equal individual endowment and thus productive capacity as a natural privilege it is therefore a right of inequality in its content like every right this portion of the text should already make it clear that Marx was very much against equality of outcome but just in case here is the rest of it right by its very nature can consist only in the application of an equal standard but unequal individuals and they would not be different individuals if they were not only call a measurable only Barney quill standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view are taken from one definite side only for instance in the present case are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them everything else being ignored further one worker is married another is not one has more children than another and so on and so forth thus with an equal performance of labour and hence an equal in the social consumption fund one will in fact receive more than another one will be richer than another and so on to avoid all these defects right instead of being equal would have to be unequal so yes you can be wealthier than other people under communism as a side note like Adam Smith Karl Marx held the belief that educated labour is nearly always more valuable than uneducated labour so no taxi drivers would not be paid as much as doctors in an ideal communist society workers would receive rifle compensation for their work as capitalist enterprises would not exist to pay workers less than they are worth in order to maintain profit margins any ideology that does not uphold this basic principle cannot be classified as Marxist so I hope this video was able to clear up one of the biggest misconceptions about the communist ideology if you enjoyed this video and would like to see more content like this consider supporting my channel however you wish thank you all very much and I hope to see you soon




Comments
  1. Minor correction: The Poverty of Philosophy was written by Marx in response to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, not Ferdinand Lassalle. The Critique of the Gotha Programme and some of Marx's letters to Lassalle ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/letters/index.htm ) are the among best sources of Marx critiquing Lassallean ideas.
    Note: For the educated Marxists out there, I am talking about lower-stage communism in this video (since most people recognize "communism" as being merely a socialist state led by a communist party). For anybody interested in information on higher-stage communism and how it differs from lower-stage communism, look in the comments section for a message by Kevin Kalbermatten who explains this difference in a way that I believe is friendly to people who are less knowledgable on the topic.

  2. Communism and anarchism are the same thing. We need leaders who are unequal to us in intelligence and character as well as better relations among people in the same social class.

  3. The only equality we seek is in everyone's ownership relation to the means of production, that's it , period.

  4. I’m gonna show my family members this. This is amazing. You earned yourself a subscriber keep it up comrade!

  5. To sum up Marx's stance on income differences:
    – Earning more than your peers because you work more or harder than them is okay.
    – Earning more than others through the exploitation of wage labor made possible by the private ownership of the means of production is not.

    I think this is it, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

  6. what?? that side note was just wrong

    "Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much a source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which is itself only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power."

    -critique of the gotha program

    marx never said uneducated work should earn more than uneducated labour, that's just an oxymoron

    the products of human work, namely that the relative exchange-values of those products in trade, usually expressed by money-prices, are proportional to the average amounts of human labor-time which are currently socially necessary to produce them.
    that is the labour theory of value, which is key in Marxism

  7. im not big into theory but as a ex ygoslav nation i just brought up how my parents had different wages ..one was a miner the other a reporter ..and capitalists would just hand wave it away as oh ygoslavia just had capitalist influences it wasent true comunisem or some shit …like yeah why the fuck do these retards comunisem is about equal outcome

  8. Interesting. I myself am a National Socialist but I am learning about Marxism and why people follow it. I have an open mind. Go ahead and call me an evil hateful bigot. I don’t hate anyone apart from maybe Jews and sexual deviants. I am a strong supporter of Palestinian nationalism and black power movements in America. Blacks were treated like human beings in the Third Reich, unlike in the states. Not to mention the legitimately hateful polices towards the Japanese, both American citizens and Japanese soldiers, by the US government.

  9. Thank you, that was very informative and concise. I like that you relied on the quotes themselves.

  10. Firstly, The Poverty of Philosophy was a response to Proudhon, not Lassalle. Secondly, the quotations you've provided apply to the lower stage of communism ("defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society") but in the higher stage of communism, Marx explains, society will organise distribution according to the maxim "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" Lastly, you might like these relevant quotes from Engels:

    "As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen. The concept of a socialist society as a realm of equality is a one-sided French concept deriving from the old “liberty, equality, fraternity,” a concept which was justified in that, in its own time and place, it signified a phase of development, but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been discovered."

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm

    "[T]he real content of the proletarian demand for equality is the demand for the abolition of classes. Any demand for equality which goes beyond that, of necessity passes into absurdity."

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch08.htm

  11. As far as I understood it from Cuck Philosophy's video, Marx advocated for abolition of classes, which is a more concrete goal than "muh equality". Also, by creating a classless society people wouldn't be exploiting one another, i.e. they would be equal. Tbh I get the feeling this is some rehashed anti-communist myth that people like to repeat all the time. Which is bad because many people believe in it (even I did before decided to pick up some books).

    As for Jordan Peterson, I get the feeling that if Stalin was alive today he would've said something like this: "Clearly, Jordan Peterson fails to understand the dialectical method of Marx and Engels; he has conjured up his own dialectics, and it is against this dialectics that he's fighting so ruthlessly. All we can do is to laugh as we gaze at this spectacle, for one cannot help laughing when one sees a man fighting his own imagination, smashing his own inventions, while at the same time heatedly asserting that he is smashing his opponent."

  12. no, but you should've at least mentioned Engels critique of equality as well, as it was mentioned in the "Critique of the Gotha Programme" too and even might be a lot easier to understand than Marx's criticism

  13. the "equality of outcome" fake dilemma that is commonly brought up among right winger circles is probably the most hilarious example of right wing doublethink getting the better of them, the mere fact they usually state that they want "equality of opportunity" already dismantles completely their idea that capitalism is worth sustaining and implies poverty should be erradicated (hence, communism).

  14. wtf i just saw the cuck philosophy video about this from a while ago, it even included that jordan peterson clip from the beginning

  15. It's so funny when reactionaries think they're dropping a truth-bomb or something but the argument has been dead for a century already. It happens quite often.

    If only they had any idea whatsoever about what socialism actually is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *