Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[IM2]

I believe there's a distinction between racism which prefers one's people or culture, without contempt for other races or seeking to denigrate and destroy them. I prefer my White people and European culture, but that's not necessarily, or hardly ever, to the detriment of other races and their cultures. I believe Black Americans, just like Native Americans, deserve reparations, and a "hand up", to help them get on their feet and succeed along with us Whites.

Too many Whites are insensitive and nasty, completely indifferent to the challenges, obstacles, inhumanities, and horrid abuse that Black people have suffered at the hands of our White European ancestors. Here's just one example of what Black Americans can accomplish:

​

Isn't that beautiful? Look what they achieved, only to lose it all, to a bunch of ignorant, murderous White bigots. How disgusting, and then we claim that Blacks can't make it? They can make it, we just need to stop sabotaging them. Let's help them out because they're the children of the slaves who were crucial for the rise of our nation into a world power. Look what we did to undermine Black people's success in this country:

​

As a White man, who admits he's a racist, I defend the Black man's right to be free and successful. I feel joy in my heart, seeing Black people, the progeny of slaves, who through their hard labor and many sacrifices, were vital in the development of our country, being successful and empowering themselves and their community. Inspiring other Black people to do the same.

Can you imagine being a Black man, whose enslaved and yet has a wife and children to protect and care for? Your White master can sell your wife and children, he can even have sexual relations with your wife right in front of you, while you're tied to a stake, being whipped by another White man or some "Uncle Tom". That crap happened to thousands of Black men throughout those 400 years of slavery in the Americas. The inhumanity that Black people suffered being slaves of our White ancestors. If we have a conscience, we must help Black people make it. Provide them with the resources that they need to MAKE IT. Don't get in their way.

The social ills that Black people are experiencing are at the very least, partly due to bad laws, that undermine Black lives. We also need to allow law-abiding, hard-working Black people to own firearms and defend their property and lives against street criminals. It's insane that in Black urban communities, only the criminals are armed and good people are left to defend themselves with a plastic knife from McDonald's or pepper spray.

We need laws that force drug addicts into rehab or mental institutions until they recover. Drug dealers and smugglers need to be charged with a capital crime and placed in front of a firing squad (whoever is selling and distributing poison in the community is a terrorist and should be dealt with accordingly). Black people need a safe environment, that allows them to flourish and MAKE IT. They need educational grants, job training, and employment opportunities, loan guarantees to purchase their homes. etc. There are too many good Black people who are being thrown under the bus.

Native Americans and African Americans, have a right to reparations and our country will be much better for it. If you're racist, don't be a hateful racist, or KKK racist, be a racist to preserve your people, without hurting others. At the end of the day, we're all human beings. We share a common humanity, so we should always respect that and never denigrate and dehumanize each other.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

I think having pride in ones culture, heritage and history is not racism. Whites have a right to that. So does everyone else. But as you described, trying to tear down others and deny them the same right has been the problem in this country.

 

[Plagerist]

I think having pride in ones culture, heritage and history is not racism. Whites have a right to that. So does everyone else. But as you described, trying to tear down others and deny them the same right has been the problem in this country.

nope

 

[Plagerist]

There are two kinds of people who promote "equity."

1. losers
2. politicians wanting the loser vote

 

[Curried Goats]

"...capitalism creates a system of inherent inequality."

That's not a subjective opinion you moron. That's an objective fact.

As you are a devoted follower of the Subjectivism/Objectivism cult, I figured you would understand that this is a subjective opinion and therefore, based on feelings.

Jesus Christ you're stupid.....

You tell me, you're the one bleating about capitalism being unequal.

You're the one who asked me the question guy. You don't know what problem you're talking about? I don't have any problems, I'm just discussing the incongruity of property and equal rights.

That's pretty vague. It really doesn't say what type of equality you're looking for, only that it should be democratically chosen.

Well let's consider for a moment that we operate under the notion that property is some sort of inalienable right that exists in nature and that government exists to protect. That's silly. That's a fairytale. The reality is property is created by law and government and ultimately society and we should democratically decide the limits of it. Should we allow a few people to own a majority of our natural resources? I don't think so.

 

[Curried Goats]

Unless you are shacked to your machine, you can take your skills and compete with your employer. Anybody can start a successful company in the USA. It just takes the will, sacrifice and hard work.

Yep. That's all.

 

[CowboyTed]

'Equity' is hideous, and should not be tolerated in a free capitalistic society!!

We all should be on board for 'equality'. We know, that has not been the case in the past, but the goal starting today, is that everyone should have an equal opportunity.

'Equity' on the other hand, is a whole different animal, and is very un-American!

Not surprisingly, a Marxist will always be for 'equity', where you take and give depending on their needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Sound familliar? This is the world that Kamalla Harris wants for America.

"The government cannot deny rights to certain people because they are black, female, Muslim, etc.—this would be unequal treatment. A mandate to foster equity, though, would give the government power to violate these rights in order to achieve identical social results for all people. In accordance with this thinking, the authorities might be justified in giving some people more rights than others."

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy​

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."​

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy

Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris provided narration for a short animated clip that appeared on her Twitter feed Sunday. In the clip,

reason.com

Lets start America is not 'free capitalistic society'

This is free capitalistic society below:

US support in a regulated capitalist society...

That was your first sentence, that basically makes everything after that null and void.

 

[CowboyTed]

"...capitalism creates a system of inherent inequality."

As you are a devoted follower of the Subjectivism/Objectivism cult, I figured you would understand that this is a subjective opinion and therefore, based on feelings.


You tell me, you're the one bleating about capitalism being unequal.

That's pretty vague. It really doesn't say what type of equality you're looking for, only that it should be democratically chosen.

Even the Trickle down peddlers agree that Capitalism is unequal.

US is ranked to the lower end of first world countries in Social Mobility

Global Social Mobility Index - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This shows in US it is harder to climb economically and socially if you are born poor and it is easier for the rich to continue even if they do nothing. The system is gamed more for the rich than other first world countries,,

 

[TruthNotBS]

I think having pride in ones culture, heritage and history is not racism. Whites have a right to that. So does everyone else. But as you described, trying to tear down others and deny them the same right has been the problem in this country.

I want Europe to remain European. I have a preference for living, working, socializing, and being around, Whites, than with other people. I want my children and grandchildren to be White (to be like me). I've been called a racist for that, to the point that I just said fuck it, OK, I'm a racist. But I'm not a bigot, who hates Black people and wants to hurt, dominate, undermine, take your shit..etc. That's not my type of racism. I can cooperate, work with, even be friends, friendly, and kind, to people who aren't of my race or ethnicity. Like I said, we're all human beings, and I have a sense of solidarity and respect, I value, your humanity and of course, your human rights.

Too many White racists are just ignorant and stupid. They hate, denigrate, dehumanize Black people, and I'm completely against that shit. What Whites did to Black people in Tulsa was disgusting, not to speak of Jim Crow and all of the other injustices (the war on drugs as vengeance against Black people for winning their civil rights). Giving Black people the short end of the stick, the "crumbs", low quality "equivalents" of whatever Whites had. That's injustice, and unfair, and I'm against that.

I believe the worst problem in our country and the Western world in general is Jewish power and supremacy. Zionists, both Jewish and non-Jewish, are the greatest threat to our sovereignty and security. White and Black people have a common interest in addressing this problem together.

 

[Hollie]

Again, whites really need to stop talking about this, because the rules were made to exclude non whites for all but 60 years of this country. And even with the CRA, whites have worked to circumvent those policies. Things have been artificialy engineered to provide whites with the best OUTCOMES and most OPPORTUNITIES

Take your begging for reparations elsewhere.

 

[TruthNotBS]

You’re an idiot.

Elaborate, and provide reasons as to why you think I'm an idiot. Maybe I'll learn something, go ahead.

 

[TruthNotBS]

WRONG

There is no history of CAPITALISM being bailed out. An example of a bank or industry being bailed out is NOT capitalism being bailed out.

Slatin was an internationalist and a marxist communist to the core. He was a brutal tryant which Marx demanded and called for
My assertion misses NOTHING

A person is more than their abor ergo when one rents out ones labog they are onlhy renting a small piece of themselevs and their lives.

Furthermore they are paid exactly what the fruits of their labor are worth. Not enough people support socialism to make it work. It is opposed by most hence always forced,

Socialsim NEVER seeks to fix or eremive exploitation it ONLY seeks to replace voluntary exploitation with INVOLUNTARY exploitation which means slavery

Ai increasesthe need for paid labor

Your understanding of the issues is fundamentally flawed, and your assertions are misleading and uninformed.

Capitalism and Bailouts: The notion that capitalism has never been bailed out is absurd. Here are just a few examples:

Federal Bailouts​

1. 2008 Financial Crisis (Troubled Asset Relief Program - TARP)
   
   • Banks: $250 billion
   • Automobile Industry: General Motors and Chrysler received $80 billion
   • Insurance Companies: AIG received $182 billion
   • Total Cost: Over $700 billion
2. COVID-19 Pandemic (CARES Act)
   
   • Airline Industry: $25 billion in grants and loans
   • Small Businesses: Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) - $349 billion initially, extended with additional funds
   • Healthcare Providers: $100 billion
   • Large Corporations: $500 billion fund for large companies, including Boeing
   • Total Cost: Over $2.2 trillion
3. 2001 Airline Bailout Post-9/11
   
   • Airline Industry: $15 billion in direct aid and loan guarantees

State Bailouts​

1. New York State
   
   • Financial Assistance to Banks and Wall Street Firms: Billions in tax incentives and subsidies, including the Empire State Development Corporation’s various programs.
2. California
   
   • Energy Companies during the 2000-2001 Energy Crisis: Over $20 billion in various forms of aid and credit support to companies like PG&E and SCE.
3. Texas
   
   • Tax Incentives for Oil and Gas Companies: Hundreds of millions annually in property tax abatements and other incentives through programs like the Texas Economic Development Act (Chapter 313).
4. Michigan
   
   • Automobile Industry Bailout: State support complementing the federal TARP funds, including tax breaks and credits.

Specific Examples of Corporate Welfare and Subsidies​

1. Amazon
   
   • HQ2 Incentives: Over $2 billion in tax incentives and subsidies from various states and cities vying for the location of Amazon's second headquarters.
2. Walmart
   
   • Various States: Millions in subsidies for new store openings, often including tax breaks, infrastructure improvements, and direct financial aid.
3. Boeing
   
   • Washington State: $8.7 billion in tax breaks over several years.
4. Tesla
   
   • Nevada: $1.3 billion in tax incentives and subsidies for the Gigafactory.

Other Significant Federal Programs Supporting Capitalists​

1. Agricultural Subsidies
   
   • Farm Bill: Billions annually in direct payments, crop insurance, and other supports predominantly benefiting large agribusinesses.
2. Tax Breaks and Incentives
   
   • Oil and Gas Industry: Billions in various tax incentives, including the depletion allowance and domestic manufacturing deduction.
   • Real Estate Industry: Significant benefits from tax provisions like the mortgage interest deduction and the 1031 exchange.
3. Export-Import Bank Subsidies
   
   • Support for Exporting Companies: Billions in loans, loan guarantees, and insurance to benefit large corporations like Boeing and General Electric.

Public Assistance for Employees of Low-Wage Employers​

1. Walmart Employees
   
   • Food Stamps and Medicaid: Significant numbers of Walmart employees rely on food stamps and Medicaid, indirectly subsidizing Walmart's low wages.
2. Fast-Food Industry Employees
   
   • Public Assistance: Many employees of companies like McDonald's rely on public assistance programs, effectively subsidizing the low wages paid by these corporations.​

Here is a list of Fortune 500 companies, that receive regular subsidies from Uncle Sam:

Rank	Parent	Subsidy Value	Number of Awards
1	Boeing	$15,496,865,703	958
2	Intel	$8,421,707,656	135
3	Ford Motor	$7,742,056,086	703
4	General Motors	$7,524,714,800	792
5	Micron Technology	$6,790,131,915	21
6	Amazon.com	$5,823,705,434	460
7	Alcoa	$5,727,691,764	134
8	Cheniere Energy	$5,617,152,523	43
9	Foxconn Technology Group (Hon Hai Precision Industry Company)	$4,820,110,112	74
10	Venture Global LNG	$4,338,702,441	8
11	Texas Instruments	$4,286,328,869	69
12	Volkswagen	$3,977,630,513	217
13	Sempra Energy	$3,828,022,782	51
14	NRG Energy	$3,415,751,518	266
15	NextEra Energy	$3,008,691,129	116
16	Sasol	$2,836,049,845	72
17	Tesla Inc.	$2,829,855,494	114
18	Stellantis	$2,795,436,436	213
19	Walt Disney	$2,543,219,673	265
20	Nucor	$2,538,761,123	176
21	Iberdrola	$2,380,558,984	110
22	Rivian Automotive Inc.	$2,364,054,012	7
23	Hyundai Motor	$2,349,743,470	18
24	Oracle	$2,272,418,288	96
25	Shell PLC	$2,211,676,001	132
26	Mubadala Investment Company	$2,124,035,097	62
27	Nike	$2,104,917,829	153
28	Meta Platforms Inc.	$2,098,261,272	82
29	Toyota	$2,071,010,689	239
30	Alphabet Inc.	$2,054,325,527	125
31	Brookfield Corporation	$1,979,408,388	288
32	Paramount Global	$1,974,249,897	342
33	Comcast	$1,927,402,844	405
34	Exxon Mobil	$1,917,119,478	241
35	Samsung Electronics	$1,891,136,597	41
36	Apple Inc.	$1,845,004,670	63
37	Nissan	$1,842,814,165	98
38	Berkshire Hathaway	$1,830,986,253	1,200
39	Summit Power	$1,783,593,414	6
40	JPMorgan Chase	$1,740,972,699	1,151
41	Energy Transfer	$1,736,836,843	175
42	Cleveland-Cliffs	$1,705,497,604	129
43	Southern Company	$1,694,958,172	45
44	General Electric	$1,645,135,367	958
45	Vornado Realty Trust	$1,623,857,336	33
46	Duke Energy	$1,580,421,869	86
47	Wolfspeed Inc.	$1,563,595,610	64
48	General Atomics	$1,510,875,891	112
49	IBM Corp.	$1,497,901,697	368
50	Lockheed Martin	$1,462,674,082	325
51	OGE Energy	$1,427,570,182	15
52	SCS Energy	$1,419,011,796	5
53	Corning Inc.	$1,391,603,359	401
54	Panasonic	$1,384,147,584	61
55	Microsoft	$1,366,243,159	113
56	Sagamore Development	$1,320,000,000	2
57	Northrop Grumman	$1,284,014,883	285
58	Vingroup	$1,254,000,000	1
59	Continental AG	$1,244,875,478	111
60	RTX Corporation	$1,193,950,954	797
61	CF Industries	$1,134,394,215	131
62	Valero Energy	$1,053,812,692	207
63	Dow Inc.	$1,049,354,213	640
64	AES Corp.	$1,039,510,135	136
65	Air Products & Chemicals	$1,025,557,482	88
66	Exelon	$986,892,877	98
67	Pyramid Companies	$973,565,278	93
68	SK Holdings	$960,550,283	8
69	SkyWest	$944,296,654	339
70	Centene	$916,607,054	60
71	Mazda Toyota Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc.	$900,000,000	1
72	Apollo Global Management	$897,750,089	594
73	Delta Air Lines	$871,485,833	13
74	Jefferies Financial Group	$871,137,335	16
75	SK Hynix	$866,700,000	2
76	Bayer	$852,475,226	217
77	Honda	$849,832,301	93
78	Shin-Etsu Chemical	$828,683,936	106
79	Enterprise Products Partners	$826,988,371	89
80	SunEdison	$817,425,725	115
81	Goldman Sachs	$800,873,386	253
82	Bank of America	$798,426,128	956
83	E.ON	$786,865,473	40
84	Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.	$786,835,708	219
85	EDF-Electricite de France	$774,590,441	36
86	Triple Five Worldwide	$748,000,000	4
87	EDP-Energias de Portugal	$733,674,868	14
88	Related Companies	$714,675,504	8
89	Koch Industries	$683,066,388	510
90	Caithness Energy	$672,688,888	30
91	Dell Technologies	$658,417,951	185
92	Wells Fargo	$657,333,216	542
93	FedEx	$647,035,546	633
94	Entergy	$638,533,387	235
95	OCI N.V.	$627,879,406	5
96	Eli Lilly	$623,326,368	79
97	Chevron Phillips Chemical	$619,839,444	20
98	Bedrock Detroit	$618,000,000	1
99	Dominion Energy	$615,436,089	79

IT'S SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH AND PICK YOURSELVES UP BY YOUR BOOTSTRAPS FOR THE WORKING CLASS. ​

You right-wing neoliberals, always make a stink when the working class receives any services or assistance from the government (Federal, State, or Local) but when multibillion-dollar companies get government subsidies (essentially welfare), you don't care. How convenient.

Stalin and Marxism: Your claim that Stalin was a pure Marxist is inaccurate. Stalin was a nationalist, unlike Marx, who was an internationalist. Stalin's policies focused on the national and cultural independence of Russia, rejecting the internationalist agenda of the Comintern and promoting Russian traditions and identity. Stalin's dissolution of the Comintern and his focus on Russian nationalism over international socialism underscores this divergence. For those who are interested, I've attached an ebook to this post, that presents the evidence.

Renting Labor vs. Selling Oneself: Your argument that renting labor is only renting a small piece of oneself is disingenuous. When a person sells their labor power to a capitalist, they are indeed selling themselves—their body, time, and life energy. Unlike renting a car, where the owner remains separate from the vehicle, selling your labor power means selling yourself for a certain period of time, and subjecting yourself to a totalitarian regime, which is essentially what the privately owned business enterprise is.

If the car that you rented out, crashes, you're unaffected; still healthy and alive. However, when a worker sells their labor power (life force, physical and mental strength/power) and is exploited, it directly affects their well-being and autonomy. Under capitalism, workers do not own the fruits of their labor or the means of production, reducing them to wage slaves. They are paid less than the value they produce, with the surplus value extracted by capitalists as profit. You're being exploited by people who rely upon the labor of others to enrich themselves.

It's ironic, that you right-wing Republicans, who are always portraying yourselves as champions of freedom are completely indifferent to the fact that working class people, most Americans (94% of the population), spends most of their waking hours, in an absolute dictatorship, being exploited by a parasitical, predatorial, greedy class of ruling elites who own everything you produce and your life for eight, ten, twelve hours plus daily. Do you really only want democracy or elections in politics, but not your workplace, where you spend most of your waking hours? Odd, weird.

The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, identified capitalist-employers as masters:

"What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, and the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor.
It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen."

You right-wing Republicans and many Democrats as well, love your masters, don't you? You're wage slaves, with masters. OK, well I guess that's where you are psychologically and socially, you're essentially a slave, with masters (i.e. bosses), who are for all intents and purposes, unaccountable. You didn't elect them, they're not in any way obligated to even give you an explanation as to why they fired you "Don't come back on Monday, you're fired", after working there for 15 years.

The two CNC machines in the factory release dangerous fumes into the air, and the best filters cost $300, hence it would cost your master $2400 monthly to use those good filters (because they're replaced weekly), but he chooses to go on the cheap and buy crappy filters for $40. People are breathing those fumes and complain, but since they're not unionized workers, with any real power, or leverage, they're dismissed and told to STFU or get another job. If they were unionized or collectively owned the company, their elected managers/bosses would have to take their concerns seriously and get the best filters. The company makes millions of dollars in profits, it can afford the good filters.

You don't get it, because you're deluded, thinking that if you're a compliant slave, you're somehow pleasing your God or you're in line to become a little rich dictator like your master-employer (exploiter). You're selling your labor power (yourself) to a master, but you're not of the working class. Right? You're a billionaire who is an employee (exploitee-wage slave), just temporarily. You are a self-hating working-class person. Is that why you lick your master's boots and hold your fellow workers with contempt, because you're just a temporary worker, en route to a 6-room mansion on the bay with a boat slip and a 60ft yacht? You're more likely to have that with modern, high-tech socialism than with capitalism.

Is this why you vote against your class interests and elect billionaires to office who don't give a shit about you? You're a brainwashed bootlicker, groveling at the feet of your capitalist-masters.

​

Socialism and Popular Support: Your claim that socialism is always forced ignores the reality that many people genuinely support socialist policies due to the failures and inequities of capitalism. Rising inequality, lack of access to healthcare, education, and housing, and the exploitation inherent in capitalist systems drive popular support for socialist alternatives. Socialism seeks to address these issues by promoting economic democracy, where workers have a say in the governance of their workplaces, ensuring that the benefits of production are shared rather than hoarded by capitalist parasites.

Exploitation and Voluntary Labor: The assertion that socialism replaces voluntary exploitation with involuntary exploitation is nonsensical. Socialism aims to eliminate exploitation by abolishing private property that enables such exploitation and replacing it with a system where the means of production are publicly owned and democratically managed. This ensures that the benefits of production are equitably shared, and workers have control over their labor and the conditions under which they work. Socialism seeks to remove the involuntary exploitation that capitalism perpetuates.

AI and the Future of Work: Your claim that AI increases the need for paid labor is completely out of touch with reality. Automation and AI are increasingly displacing human labor, making traditional wage labor obsolete. Without a shift to socialism, where the benefits of increased productivity from automation and AI are shared by all, we will see even greater inequality and social unrest. Capitalism is ill-equipped to handle this transition because it relies on the continuous exploitation of human labor.

With advanced automation and artificial intelligence, there is no more need for wage labor or market capitalism:

​

Germany in the 1930s: Germany in the 1930s, despite not being a Marxist socialist state, implemented a form of socialism where the state had significant control over the major centers of economic power. The National Socialists lifted Germany from economic disaster to become one of the most powerful nations in Europe, applying universal socialist principles rather than free-market laissez-faire neoliberal capitalism. This period demonstrates how state intervention and socialist principles can lead to rapid economic growth and stability.

Socialism and Global Trade: Socialism does not mean isolation or the inability to engage in world trade. Socialism means that the means of production are in the hands of the working class or the people. The democratic socialist state manages the publicly owned commonwealth, including the means of production. Private property is outlawed in a fully socialist economy because it is used to exploit human labor for profit. However, personal property, such as a person's house, car, or computer, is allowed for personal use. A socialist country can still engage in global trade, importing and exporting goods as needed, but without the exploitative practices of capitalism.

Plutocracy and Cronyism in Capitalism: The U.S. government is under the heel of plutocrats, and plutocracy or cronyism is endemic to capitalism. Capitalists often rely on government assistance, paid directly to them or their employees. As shown earlier, many companies receive substantial subsidies from the government, effectively welfare for the rich.

In summary, your understanding of socialism is shallow and based on anti-Communist, Cold War capitalist rhetoric. Socialism has proven successful under numerous circumstances, and its principles are already improving lives in many industrialized nations. The transition to socialism is not only desirable but necessary for a fairer, more just, and sustainable society.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That's not a subjective opinion you moron. That's an objective fact.

No, it's not.

You don't define or prove how capitalism is inherently unequal and when asked if you think it should be, you only reiterate that it's not. So unless or until you can prove it is unequal and prove how it should be, it is a subjective opinion.

Jesus Christ you're stupid.....

Hey, it's your religion, not mine. You're the one flouting the principle for your own purposes and using it to avoid taking ownership of your own subjective assertions.

You're the one who asked me the question guy. You don't know what problem you're talking about?

If I knew, I wouldn't have asked, dumbass.

I don't have any problems, I'm just discussing the incongruity of property and equal rights.

Which suggests you have a problem with it.

Well let's consider for a moment that we operate under the notion that property is some sort of inalienable right that exists in nature and that government exists to protect. That's silly. That's a fairytale.

If there is no inalienable right to property then there is no inalienable mandate, truth or imperative that the system should be different than what it is.

The reality is property is created by law and government and ultimately society and we should democratically decide the limits of it. Should we allow a few people to own a majority of our natural resources? I don't think so.

In other words, you want equal outcomes.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Even the Trickle down peddlers agree that Capitalism is unequal.

US is ranked to the lower end of first world countries in Social Mobility

Global Social Mobility Index - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This shows in US it is harder to climb economically and socially if you are born poor and it is easier for the rich to continue even if they do nothing. The system is gamed more for the rich than other first world countries,,

The universe is gamed more for those who have the will and drive to achieve or survive. We see it in nature every day.

Human beings are not equal in ability, strength, desire, ambition or intelligence and no amount of tweaking the system to attain equal outcomes will change that.

 

[Curried Goats]

No, it's not.

It is.

You don't define or prove how capitalism is inherently unequal and when asked if you think it should be, you only reiterate that it's not. So unless or until you can prove it is unequal and prove how it should be, it is a subjective opinion.

Capitalism is a system where those with capital, i.e, property and resources, control the means of production while laborers, who don't have capital, have to exchange their labor for wages. In order to even have capitalism you have to have people with capital and people without capital.

Hey, it's your religion, not mine. You're the one flouting the principle for your own purposes and using it to avoid taking ownership of your own subjective assertions.

I'm agnostic.

If I knew, I wouldn't have asked, dumbass.


Which suggests you have a problem with it.

Does it? I don't even know what the it is here.

What are you trying to ask me?

If there is no inalienable right to property then there is no inalienable mandate, truth or imperative that the system should be different than what it is.

What? What truth or imperative that the system should be different than it is? I don't know what that means.

I'm not against rights, I just think we should recognize them for what they actually are, which are creations of society and law and government, rather than these magical things that exist in nature.

In other words, you want equal outcomes.

Wrong.

 

[Curried Goats]

The universe is gamed more for those who have the will and drive to achieve or survive. We see it in nature every day.

Human beings are not equal in ability, strength, desire, ambition or intelligence and no amount of tweaking the system to attain equal outcomes will change that.

That's exactly what society is created to do. Unless you think it's okay for a stronger, better armed person to come by and murder you and take your stuff.

 

[TruthNotBS]

That's not a subjective opinion you moron. That's an objective fact.

Jesus Christ you're stupid.....

You're the one who asked me the question guy. You don't know what problem you're talking about? I don't have any problems, I'm just discussing the incongruity of property and equal rights.

Well let's consider for a moment that we operate under the notion that property is some sort of inalienable right that exists in nature and that government exists to protect. That's silly. That's a fairytale. The reality is property is created by law and government and ultimately society and we should democratically decide the limits of it. Should we allow a few people to own a majority of our natural resources? I don't think so.

It's human beings living together in a community that decides what people's rights are. One might argue that there's an inherent ability to recognize patterns of thought and behavior conducive to life, or that we have the natural ability to form community rules that contribute to our survival and success. I can accept that even as an agnostic atheist, because evolution, through natural selection, can produce innate propensities and abilities, which allow us to create social contracts and rules that contribute to our survival and prosperity. I agree with you Curried Goats.

I do believe in the paranormal because I've personally experienced it. Still, I also recognize that it's practically impossible to prove, that we are being guided or influenced by a metaphysical world. I believe we are, but there's no way to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Human beings are responsible for identifying and establishing the patterns of thinking and behavior that best contribute to our survival as individuals and as a community.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

'Equity' is hideous, and should not be tolerated in a free capitalistic society!!

We all should be on board for 'equality'. We know, that has not been the case in the past, but the goal starting today, is that everyone should have an equal opportunity.

'Equity' on the other hand, is a whole different animal, and is very un-American!

Not surprisingly, a Marxist will always be for 'equity', where you take and give depending on their needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Sound familliar? This is the world that Kamalla Harris wants for America.

"The government cannot deny rights to certain people because they are black, female, Muslim, etc.—this would be unequal treatment. A mandate to foster equity, though, would give the government power to violate these rights in order to achieve identical social results for all people. In accordance with this thinking, the authorities might be justified in giving some people more rights than others."

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy​

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."​

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy

Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris provided narration for a short animated clip that appeared on her Twitter feed Sunday. In the clip,

reason.com

The absurdity and dishonesty of equating the concept of equity with Marxism

Lets start with a clear definition of equity as opposed to equality:

Equity vs Equality and How They Are Different

According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, equality is the “quality or state of being equal,” where equal is defined as having the same measurement in quality, nature or status.

When applying this definition to social structures — like education, politics, and government — equality means that all segments of society have the same level of support and opportunity. This means that regardless of one’s gender, race, sex, religion, etc., opportunities remain the same. It ensures that people in different social statuses or groups will not be discriminated against.

All well and good thus far. So what is equity?

The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines equity as, “something that is equitable,” where equitable is defined as, “dealing fairly and equally with all concerned.”

In education and social structures, equity refers to the fact that different people have varying needs of support and assistance. Therefore, systems exist to be able to support individuals based on their specific needs.

The goal of equity is to help achieve fairness in treatment and outcomes. It’s a way in which equality is achieved.

OK, equity, unlike equality emphasizes the concept of equality of outcome. This as opposed to equality of opportunity where everyone is treated the same may or may not have a favorable outcome.

It appears- in part- that the manufactured nexus between equity and totalitarianism is rooted in the idea that equity actually does result in universal equality- rendering us all the same and erasing our individuality. That in turn, the theory holds, is the hallmark of a totalitarian society The fact is, anyone with a functioning brain should be able to understand that the concept of equality of outcome is not government mandated, and moreover will never actually be the case. What people achieve in life is the result of a complex assortment of innate abilities, opportunities and sometimes just plain luck. Not all people who are given special consideration to compensate for a disadvantage will succeed . Some people who are born with the proverbial golden spoon in their mouth will fail.

So that brings us to Karl Marx, Marx , as far as we know did not speak specifically about equity, but he had lots to say about equality.

marxism and equaity - Google Search

Karl Marx's views on equality were complex, and changed over time. He often described equality as a political value that was bourgeois in nature, and not a way to end class oppression. However, he also believed that equality was a necessary condition for building a communist society, where classes are abolished and wealth is distributed equally. Marx believed that true equality could only be achieved when the means of production were socialized, and private property and class exploitation were eliminated. In this way, everyone would have an equal opportunity for work, and salaries would be based on the value of each person's production. Marx believed that if all property was owned in common, and each person had an equal share, society would no longer be divided into two classes: those who produce and those who profit from the sale of their products.

So Marx was an advocate of equality where everyone is treated the same. One could also argue, that like those advocating equity , equality of outcome is the goal. Marx also advocated equality of outcome as a means of building a communist society . However, there is some question as to whether or not Marx actually did support equality of outcome, further calling into question the relationship between equity and Marxism



Moreover, Marx did not advocate for special consideration for those who are disadvantaged -leveling the playing field. And those promoting equity with the goal of equality of outcome, are not promoting the idea of a classless society where the means of production are socialized and private property and class exploitation were eliminated. .

Lastly, Marxism is popularly portrayed as a totalitarian philosophy as the result of his promotion of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat

However:

The 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' refers to the concept of the working class organizing and holding power at the state level during the transition from capitalism to communism. It involves the exercise of unlimited power by the working class to repress enemies and ensure the realization of the socialist revolution.

A dictatorship of the proletariat to Marx was actually democracy that subjugated the state, the oppressor, to the working class. Having said that, I will point out that those promoting equity today, are neither advocating a dictatorship of workers or the end result of a stateless utopia which is the end game of pure Marxism .

In conclusion , The attempt to equate equity with Marxism is a non sequitur logical fallacy. The premise -that equity promotes equality of outcome does not support the conclusion that equity is the new Marxism

Regardless of whether or not Marxist philosophy promotes equality of outcome, those promoting equity do not advocate any form of dictatorship, do not have the expectation of absolute equality, or envision the withering away of the state as did Marx. On the other hand, the MAGA movement is far more concerning than either the concept of equity, or Marxism in that the goal of MAGA is to destroy the administrative state as we know it and install a hybrid oligarchy-theocracy in its place.

Lastly, it has been said that the Marxist philosophy of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Is un-American . That seems to be a faulty conclusion drawn more from the fact that Marx said it, the reality of American history -rooted in the progressive movement of the early 20th century when it was first recognized that government can and should be an instrument for making people’s lives better, rather than an end in itself. The alternative is a survival of the fittest society, where those who have wealth acquire more at the expense of those who have little. THAT is not only anti American, but also unsustainable in human society

 

[TruthNotBS]

The absurdity and dishonesty of equating the concept of equity with Marxism

Lets start with a clear definition of equity as opposed to equality:

Equity vs Equality and How They Are Different



All well and good thus far. So what is equity?



OK, equity, unlike equality emphasizes the concept of equality of outcome. This as opposed to equality of opportunity where everyone is treated the same may or may not have a favorable outcome.

It appears- in part- that the manufactured nexus between equity and totalitarianism is rooted in the idea that equity actually does result in universal equality- rendering us all the same and erasing our individuality. That in turn, the theory holds, is the hallmark of a totalitarian society The fact is, anyone with a functioning brain should be able to understand that the concept of equality of outcome is not government mandated, and moreover will never actually be the case. What people achieve in life is the result of a complex assortment of innate abilities, opportunities and sometimes just plain luck. Not all people who are given special consideration to compensate for a disadvantage will succeed . Some people who are born with the proverbial golden spoon in their mouth will fail.

So that brings us to Karl Marx, Marx , as far as we know did not speak specifically about equity, but he had lots to say about equality.

marxism and equaity - Google Search



So Marx was an advocate of equality where everyone is treated the same. One could also argue, that like those advocating equity , equality of outcome is the goal. Marx also advocated equality of outcome as a means of building a communist society . However, there is some question as to whether or not Marx actually did support equality of outcome, further calling into question the relationship between equity and Marxism



Moreover, Marx did not advocate for special consideration for those who are disadvantaged -leveling the playing field. And those promoting equity with the goal of equality of outcome, are not promoting the idea of a classless society where the means of production are socialized and private property and class exploitation were eliminated. .

Lastly, Marxism is popularly portrayed as a totalitarian philosophy as the result of his promotion of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat

However:



A dictatorship of the proletariat to Marx was actually democracy that subjugated the state, the oppressor, to the working class. Having said that, I will point out that those promoting equity today, are neither advocating a dictatorship of workers or the end result of a stateless utopia which is the end game of pure Marxism .

In conclusion , The attempt to equate equity with Marxism is a non sequitur logical fallacy. The premise -that equity promotes equality of outcome does not support the conclusion that equity is the new Marxism

Regardless of whether or not Marxist philosophy promotes equality of outcome, those promoting equity do not advocate any form of dictatorship, do not have the expectation of absolute equality, or envision the withering away of the state as did Marx. On the other hand, the MAGA movement is far more concerning than either the concept of equity, or Marxism in that the goal of MAGA is to destroy the administrative state as we know it and install a hybrid oligarchy-theocracy in its place.

Lastly, it has been said that the Marxist philosophy of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Is un-American . That seems to be a faulty conclusion drawn more from the fact that Marx said it, the reality of American history -rooted in the progressive movement of the early 20th century when it was first recognized that government can and should be an instrument for making people’s lives better, rather than an end in itself. The alternative is a survival of the fittest society, where those who have wealth acquire more at the expense of those who have little. THAT is not only anti American, but also unsustainable in human society

Socialists aren't "utopian", but we do believe socialism is better than capitalism. We're for BETTER not for "UTOPIA". We're also for equality before the law and our basic rights, not in the sense of everyone owning the same personal property or getting paid the same. The janitorial staff gets paid exactly the same as the cardiac surgical team. No no, that's not Marxism, or National Socialism, which is the type of socialism I subscribe to.

There's equality in access to food, housing, healthcare, education, employment..etc (No one is starving, homeless or unemployed), but that doesn't imply that everyone lives under the exact same conditions or gets paid exactly the same regardless of what they do. That's not market socialism or even communism. That's a false, cheap caricature of socialism propagated by Cold War capitalist propaganda. It's just 1950s, red-scare rhetoric. The commies are coming for your house and your stamp collection. Whether you clean toilets or perform cardiac surgery, you get paid the same. No, that doesn't represent our beliefs.

 

[dblack]

The absurdity and dishonesty of equating the concept of equity with Marxism

Lets start with a clear definition of equity as opposed to equality:

Equity vs Equality and How They Are Different



All well and good thus far. So what is equity?



OK, equity, unlike equality emphasizes the concept of equality of outcome. This as opposed to equality of opportunity where everyone is treated the same may or may not have a favorable outcome.

It appears- in part- that the manufactured nexus between equity and totalitarianism is rooted in the idea that equity actually does result in universal equality- rendering us all the same and erasing our individuality. That in turn, the theory holds, is the hallmark of a totalitarian society The fact is, anyone with a functioning brain should be able to understand that the concept of equality of outcome is not government mandated, and moreover will never actually be the case. What people achieve in life is the result of a complex assortment of innate abilities, opportunities and sometimes just plain luck. Not all people who are given special consideration to compensate for a disadvantage will succeed . Some people who are born with the proverbial golden spoon in their mouth will fail.

So that brings us to Karl Marx, Marx , as far as we know did not speak specifically about equity, but he had lots to say about equality.

marxism and equaity - Google Search



So Marx was an advocate of equality where everyone is treated the same. One could also argue, that like those advocating equity , equality of outcome is the goal. Marx also advocated equality of outcome as a means of building a communist society . However, there is some question as to whether or not Marx actually did support equality of outcome, further calling into question the relationship between equity and Marxism



Moreover, Marx did not advocate for special consideration for those who are disadvantaged -leveling the playing field. And those promoting equity with the goal of equality of outcome, are not promoting the idea of a classless society where the means of production are socialized and private property and class exploitation were eliminated. .

Lastly, Marxism is popularly portrayed as a totalitarian philosophy as the result of his promotion of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat

However:



A dictatorship of the proletariat to Marx was actually democracy that subjugated the state, the oppressor, to the working class. Having said that, I will point out that those promoting equity today, are neither advocating a dictatorship of workers or the end result of a stateless utopia which is the end game of pure Marxism .

In conclusion , The attempt to equate equity with Marxism is a non sequitur logical fallacy. The premise -that equity promotes equality of outcome does not support the conclusion that equity is the new Marxism

Regardless of whether or not Marxist philosophy promotes equality of outcome, those promoting equity do not advocate any form of dictatorship, do not have the expectation of absolute equality, or envision the withering away of the state as did Marx. On the other hand, the MAGA movement is far more concerning than either the concept of equity, or Marxism in that the goal of MAGA is to destroy the administrative state as we know it and install a hybrid oligarchy-theocracy in its place.

Lastly, it has been said that the Marxist philosophy of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Is un-American . That seems to be a faulty conclusion drawn more from the fact that Marx said it, the reality of American history -rooted in the progressive movement of the early 20th century when it was first recognized that government can and should be an instrument for making people’s lives better, rather than an end in itself. The alternative is a survival of the fittest society, where those who have wealth acquire more at the expense of those who have little. THAT is not only anti American, but also unsustainable in human society

Our Constitution promises us neither equality nor equity. It promises us equal rights under the law. Tasking government with either equality or equity as a goal, demands that it violate equal rights. That's a problem. We're trading in equal rights for "equity" and it will come back to haunt us.

 

[dblack]

The absurdity and dishonesty of equating the concept of equity with Marxism

Lets start with a clear definition of equity as opposed to equality:

Equity vs Equality and How They Are Different



All well and good thus far. So what is equity?



OK, equity, unlike equality emphasizes the concept of equality of outcome. This as opposed to equality of opportunity where everyone is treated the same may or may not have a favorable outcome.

It appears- in part- that the manufactured nexus between equity and totalitarianism is rooted in the idea that equity actually does result in universal equality- rendering us all the same and erasing our individuality. That in turn, the theory holds, is the hallmark of a totalitarian society The fact is, anyone with a functioning brain should be able to understand that the concept of equality of outcome is not government mandated, and moreover will never actually be the case. What people achieve in life is the result of a complex assortment of innate abilities, opportunities and sometimes just plain luck. Not all people who are given special consideration to compensate for a disadvantage will succeed . Some people who are born with the proverbial golden spoon in their mouth will fail.

So that brings us to Karl Marx, Marx , as far as we know did not speak specifically about equity, but he had lots to say about equality.

marxism and equaity - Google Search



So Marx was an advocate of equality where everyone is treated the same. One could also argue, that like those advocating equity , equality of outcome is the goal. Marx also advocated equality of outcome as a means of building a communist society . However, there is some question as to whether or not Marx actually did support equality of outcome, further calling into question the relationship between equity and Marxism



Moreover, Marx did not advocate for special consideration for those who are disadvantaged -leveling the playing field. And those promoting equity with the goal of equality of outcome, are not promoting the idea of a classless society where the means of production are socialized and private property and class exploitation were eliminated. .

Lastly, Marxism is popularly portrayed as a totalitarian philosophy as the result of his promotion of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat

However:



A dictatorship of the proletariat to Marx was actually democracy that subjugated the state, the oppressor, to the working class. Having said that, I will point out that those promoting equity today, are neither advocating a dictatorship of workers or the end result of a stateless utopia which is the end game of pure Marxism .

In conclusion , The attempt to equate equity with Marxism is a non sequitur logical fallacy. The premise -that equity promotes equality of outcome does not support the conclusion that equity is the new Marxism

Regardless of whether or not Marxist philosophy promotes equality of outcome, those promoting equity do not advocate any form of dictatorship, do not have the expectation of absolute equality, or envision the withering away of the state as did Marx. On the other hand, the MAGA movement is far more concerning than either the concept of equity, or Marxism in that the goal of MAGA is to destroy the administrative state as we know it and install a hybrid oligarchy-theocracy in its place.

Lastly, it has been said that the Marxist philosophy of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Is un-American . That seems to be a faulty conclusion drawn more from the fact that Marx said it, the reality of American history -rooted in the progressive movement of the early 20th century when it was first recognized that government can and should be an instrument for making people’s lives better, rather than an end in itself. The alternative is a survival of the fittest society, where those who have wealth acquire more at the expense of those who have little. THAT is not only anti American, but also unsustainable in human society

I think the reason "equity" gets associated with socialism or marxism is that all of these require government to interfere in economic matters, effectively overruling the decisions of society as express via the market. (eg, society decides that flipping burgers isn't worth much, but government demands that burger flippers be paid more). Marxism might not be concerned with equity, but both approaches require government control of our economic decisions.