What in the world

Oh good thing they're gone

Pedos get the bullet

Méiyǒu Gòngchǎndǎng jiù méiyǒu xīn Zhōngguó.
Méiyǒu Gòngchǎndǎng jiù méiyǒu xīn Zhōngguó.

You have a very ill informed understanding of this I would say. First Marx, and Marxists, do not advocate for "equality" that is an impossible and vague goal. The thing we advocate for is the abolition of class distinctions. Which in Marxist terms mean the relationship between workers and capitalists, or serfs and landlords. It doesn't mean authority and leaders disappear. The point in history that communism existed in a primitive form was during tribal society and in said society we can see leaders and organization existed. Marxism is neutral to 'hierarchy'

You're also pushing liberal identity politics onto Marxists. When Marxists argue in favor of class interest, not victimhood attitudes. We say, as a worker you deserve the fruits of your labor and such.

There is a lot of propaganda surrounding the USSR as the capitalists have a lot to gain from smearing it's name and claiming it was a dictatorship. Firstly much of the early USSR was dedicated to class struggle and building socialism, it was only when Stalin died and Knrushchev was voted as general secretary that what Marxists called "revisionism" happened, which was the process towards revising class struggle out of Marxism, say it was no longer necessary, and focusing on building up the forces of production as primary and all other considerations secondary. This is what lead to Deng Xiaoping's market reforms in China

Also again you need to put forth a tangible reason banker would benefit form communism was communism abolishes the bank, often bankers are... Let say... Liquidated. If you catch my drift

```“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signified a phase of development, but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been discovered.”```

This is a quote from Engles on the notion of equality

This is something from the transition from Utopian Socialism, that of Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, Étienne Cabet and Robert Owen. In response to the failure of these ideas Scientific Socialism was developed, namely by Marx, however other people such as Georges Sorel also developed socialism along practical and scientific terms

This is actually a very common thing, that people don't know just how much of a philosophical science Marxism is

That's nonsense

People will work different hours and thus get different pays. Even with the concept of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Inherently implies a difference in need. My needs and your needs are different and an equality will inherently exist

Classes in team Fortress 2 are not class in the economic sense

For example scientists, doctors, engineers and such will still exists. So will factory workers, janitors and artists

Class is the dynamic between a ruling class and a subjugated class

In capitalism this is the capitalist and worker, in Feudalism this was the Landlord and Serf

Slavery, master and slave

Better than what?

Some people own the industry in Capitalism, in communism the means of production would be held in common by everyone

This being brought under the state is one way you can attempt to achieve public ownership, but it is by no means the only way

Actually this is false

Collective farms for example we're collective, not public, property

They were owned by collectives, not the state

There were also co-operatives in the USSR

Three different kinds of property

State, Collectives and Co-Operatives, and during certain periods even private property existed

The entirety of who works the place makes decisions on how it will be run and such

In this case they still worked under commodity production so how the money they received from their products would be used was decided by meetings and such, if they were too large, likely by vote

Yeah I guess o was basically saying that

In the case of state own industries they would election one of their co-workers to the soviets, actually I think all work places would election representatives to the soviets to represent them

Not really, considering the GDP nearly rivalled the USA on a number of occasions

Usually managers are elected as well

So it's not like bosses don't exist, it's that everyone have power in the work place and your boss is accountable to you

As a Marxist the existence of authority or a boss is not my concern

Better in what respect?

I wouldn't consider the disgusting amounts of over production by Capitalism "better"

Technically neither did the USSR

Oh the USSR wasn't a dictatorship either

Both are Authoritarian however

No it was dissolved by Yeltsin

In fact a vote to keep the USSR had people vote in iver whelming numbers across all the SSRs and the RSFSR to maintain it

However the bureaucracy couldn't profit from the organization of the USSR and needed to open up the markets such that they could benefit

So the USSR was forcefully dissolved

Effective in what regard?

I didn't get into how Capitalism collapses every ten years

Nonsense

You're missing the point

Like I get it, Capitalism has created a culture which prioritizes consumption and the glorification of buying a lot of stuff

My concern is not with getting people luxuries

Let's look at the USSR again, it started as a backwards semi-feudal country under the Tsarist regime which has chronic famine, like all pre-industrial societies. Through the development of industry famine was eventually eliminated, literacy went up to near perfect numbers, everyone was employed

It wasn't a luxurious life, but those people who would have been living under a capitalist system at the bottom, those who would be starving, homeless and illiterate we're educated, fed and housed. That's what I care about. I don't care about someone's ability to have fancy cars, gold watches or other meaningless and superfluous nonsense, I care about what happens to the people on the bottom

The people worked

It wasn't *welfare*

In fact I would say welfare is entirely unnecessary if you have socialism

If people earned in full what they produced, if people had a say in their working lives, then welfare is not necessary

Welfare is a band-aid for Capitalism when it fails, or when communists get uppity

FDR in order to do the new deal said, "if we don't give them this much, they'll take everything you have"

As the threat or communist revolution was a very real thing during the great depression

Uh, sure

😩

The first quote I can tell you now is about the Law of Value not communism

That is Marx's "third thing" argument

Again this isn't about equality, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion

Not in the sense of making everyone "equal"

Actually I don't believe in freespeech because not everyone can have freespeech

But yes, Marx was not an egalitarian and that's what I am talking about

Perhaps there is a miscommunication somewhere

Sorry what?

I'm not sure what this has to do with egalitarianism, and to be honest I don't really care about egalitarianism

Marx and Engles actively denounced the idea, I'll retrieve the quote I used earlier

```“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.”```

This quote is from Engles

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

I didn't say anything about "anti-equality"

I said Marxism is not about equality, the goal of communism is not equality

Perhaps this is the miscommunication

Equality in what respect exactly?

This is objectively untrue

Why?

Sorry?

Anyways, for example if you pay someone the same for every hour, and two people work different hours, their total pay will be unequal, of you pay someone the same amount no matter the hours, then they will be unequal in regards to their pay per hour. Absolute equality is not the goal or any goal, it is not even a possibility

I'll get a statement from critique of the gotha program which shows why I used that example

This is Marx, *Critique of Gotha Chapter 1:

```But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor 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 unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. 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 unequal) are measurable only by an equal 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 labor, 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.```

Yes I have

But read the above thing

In communism some people will be richer than others, it's a fact

People being rich is not the issue

If equality in some respects is a result form communism, so be it, but it'll be just that, a side effect

🤔

I feel like this is a bastardization of the term in order to fit Marx into it, more than a genuine investigation into the issue

Hm? I have never said that using equality as a political slogan was bad, and to be honest I think the SJW types have made the idea of equality very popular. I was just trying to explain the Marxist position in an honest and open manner, not debate what "egalitarian" means

I don't understand how entering the work force changes what gametes your body produces

Since a woman is an adult human female, females being he biological sex which produces eggs from their ovum

Sure, why not

Oh the point of feminism is not equality either Cathrine MacKinnon said as much

Like wise in the "The Dialectic of Sex" by Shulamith Firestone the purpose is to end sex distinction

😩

Oh I disagree with "non binary" and all that genderist nonsense

Feminism isn't a monolith, thankfully

Well there are Jews and billionaires funding transactivism

Which I don't support

That's a nice thing, but it's not a reflection of theory