my god

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

spit it out

ah

So you believe in a nanny state

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

@Enigmatic★Chromatic would you mind watching a video

3min long

Uh, sure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFKnUlb4NQY

watch it <:Dude:459545653031469068>

😩

@Enigmatic★Chromatic Your argument is very strange. Just because you cannot achieve equality, does not mean Marxists do not make it as a goal. Your argument is that Marx was ok with some inequality. That is like saying that capitalists are not completely capitalists because they think human labour has value too.

_"The secret of the expression of value, namely, that all kinds of labour are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they are human labour in general, cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice. This, however, is possible only in a society in which the great mass of the produce of labour takes the form of commodities, in which, consequently, the dominant relation between man and man, is that of owners of commodities."_

_"The necessity for a generalisation of the Factory Acts, for transforming them from an exceptional
law relating to mechanical spinning and weaving – those first creations of machinery – into a law
affecting social production as a whole, arose, as we have seen, from the mode in which modern
industry was historically developed. In the rear of that industry, the traditional form of
manufacture, of handicraft, and of domestic industry, is entirely revolutionised; manufactures are
constantly passing into the factory system, and handicrafts into manufactures; and lastly, the
spheres of handicraft and of the domestic industries become, in a, comparatively speaking,
wonderfully short time, dens of misery in which capitalistic exploitation obtains free play for the
wildest excesses. There are two circumstances that finally turn the scale: first, the constantly
recurring experience that capital, so soon as it finds itself subject to legal control at one point,
compensates itself all the more recklessly at other points;233 secondly, the cry of the capitalists for
equality in the conditions of competition, i.e., for equal restrain on all exploitation of labour.234"_

just watch it brah

Both these quotes are by Marx, wherein he declares equality to be his goal

Also, I think you are seeing too much of Cuck Philosophy. lol

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

That is Marx's "third thing" argument

_"until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice"_

did you watch the video

gay

no u

Marx lauds this notion and calls it precursor to Communist Revolution

The Labour Theory of Value is an extension of equality to Economics

In the second comment, he says how Industrial Revolution would bring in Communism

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

Not in the sense of making everyone "equal"

You are just saying that because Marx was not very egalitarian, he was not egalitarian. By that logic, no one supports free speech because everyone thinks threats are not ok

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

Ok. Do you think if someone thinks manspreading is ok, he cannot be egalitarian/

Sorry what?

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

Lol, the point I am alluding to is that egalitarians do not believe everyone should be equal in all senses, either. So, Marxists have made their own definition of egalitarianism to claim that Marx and Engels were not egalitarian.