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.

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a phase of development, but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been discovered.”```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

He says he will supersede equality not that he is anti-equality

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

I know that quote

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

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

One of the goals of Communism is Equality. It is not the only goal.

Perhaps this is the miscommunication

Equality in what respect exactly?

Equality in all respects as a standard egalitarian today believes.

This is objectively untrue

Can we stop with these huge messages?

Why?

I want to read them but I fucking can't

Sorry?

This is true. Can you find me one statement from Marx wherein he differed from a concept of equality, an egalitarian proposes today?

(((Egalitarianism)))

~~Heil Marx.~~

<:autism:487682053144313867> <:brainlet:487682295889920016>

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.```

This is how Marxists shift goal posts. Nobody in this world has ever proposed absolute equality. They say that because we are not for absolute equality, we are not for equality. By that logic, no one would be anything except if he is a fundamentalist. Have you watched Cuck Philosophy?

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

This is what a standard egalitarian believes. I have never seen an egalitarian say that different wealth is against equality.
The difference is that a normal egalitarian still believes that boss is boss, while a Marxists even denies the difference there. So, he is more egalitarian than egalitarian

🤔