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

🤔

This is why Cuck Philosophy says equality but then makes it about absolute equality. Because it is clear from Marx's writings that he was more egalitarian than most people at that time

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

communism theory is just a cover up to get people to help them out with revolutions so they can set up genocidal dictatorships

which has been the case 99% of the time

Lol, it is strange you'd say that because if you read Marxist Literature, you see hundreds of mention of equality. So, if this was a bastardization, why were Marxists so quiet about it for years until egalitarianism became unpopular

only thing commies spit out is theory and "what could be"

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

And what I am trying to tell you is that Marxism is about equality. This is necessary because that is what makes it different from Right. You asked what Right is. Didn't you?

_A number of other passages in Capital illustrate that Marx held a much more nuanced view of the position of women in the workforce than most feminists acknowledge. For example, as women entered the workforce, he writes, they potentially gained power in their private lives since they now contributed monetarily to the family’s welfare, and were no longer under the direct control of their husbands or fathers for a large portion of the day. This had a significant effect on the family. Here, Marx shows both sides of this development. On one hand, long hours and night-work tended to undermine traditional family structures, as women were to a certain extent “masculinized” by their work and were often unable to care for their children to the same extent that they had been able to do in the past. On the other, in a later passage, Marx notes that this seeming “deterioration of character” led in the opposite direction—towards “a higher form of the family” in which women would be the true equals of men._

This is another passage wherein Marx applauds women becoming men as a net positive

jews have outdone themselfs with communim, i dont think any man ever could come up with anything worse

So, Marx believed that masculinized women are net positive

Which even Sargon and other "Egalitarians" do not believe