4 ms·

"I've met around a few hundred socialists, actually, and none of them believed in a literal egalitarian society. " Then you kind of should improve on your comm

"I've met around a few hundred socialists, actually, and none of them believed in a literal egalitarian society. " Then you kind of should improve on your communication skills. I never heard of a big socialists group who do not want egalitarism to be true egalitarism in the end. And to quote Wikipedia about Pol Pot: "Pursuing complete egalitarianism, money was abolished and all citizens were made to wear the same black clothing." They were socialist who took the egalitarian aspect very literal and radical. EVERYONE should work the fields. ANYONE who opposed this, was a enemy of egalitarian and revolution. With the known outcome. Negating this by declaring them not socialist I call sophism again. But never mind: what about the cultural revolution in china? China had lots of support from western socialists. And to me it seems the great cultur revolution was just Pol Pot light. Just what happened anywhere, where socialist ideas of egalitarian were implemented by force: those who do not liked to be made equal, usual a lot of people, had to be put in gulags or shot directly. And it was a interesting quote from Marx. I was not aware of his position. "one will be richer than another" But anyway: he does not solve it. Because this is what we have today: people work harder than other people and become richer. And build something up. (not everyone stole or inherited stolen money). And do not want to give up on it all of a sudden for egalitarian - so they would oppose the socialist revolution - and would end up in a gulag.

sudosysgen 6y ago
I've literally never heard of a socialist calling for total egalitarianism. It's really completely absurd. You should bring sources for socialist theorists who clamour for total egalitarianism. The Chinese cultural revolution was a lot of very bad things, but it wasn't in order to make everyone the same either, not at all. I know that Pol Pot wasn't a communist because he himself said that he wasn't one. I haven't heard of himself saying he was of some other socialist legacy either, so I don't think this is sophism. Marx does formulate a framework where everything mentioned is fully consistent, that being said I don't have the time to give you a full introduction on Marxian economics. You could look up Richard D. Wolff if you want to see where these ideas come from, though. But the objection you make is misguided, because for Marx wealth only comes from labour, the instant you make wealth from something that is not labour then that wealth is not rightfully yours. This makes the whole thing where workers are inherently unequal in ability, but at the same time someone making wealth purely from ownership is a totally different kind of inequality that is not a reflection of their superior abilities, as we all know that you do not need superior ability to make vastly outsized earnings through pure ownership. Basically, if you want to be making some kind of takedown of socialist ideology, and there is for sure lots to be critiqued, I'd suggest reading the works beforehand so you don't say enormities like "I've never heard of big socialists group who do not want total egalitarianism in the end".
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "that being said I don't have the time to give you a full introduction on Marxian economics" Thanks, but not interested anyway. Read enough of him to dismiss it. And we seem to be in 2 different realities anyway. Anyway: "I've never heard of big socialists group who do not want total egalitarianism in the end". you may insert a radical Obviously there are also many soft version of socialism. Here in germany they are regulary part of the government. But not really socialist. When referring from the very radical leftwing socialists. And I thought those are the types we are speaking about, when refering to revolutionary spain. And of this group, the ones I met, were mainly literal egalitarian. Sometimes even without the concept of personal property etc., mostly with. But negating the concept of rich people was the unifying idea. So if you insist to never met a socialist like that, than I just keep on not taking you serious.
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    >Thanks, but not interested anyway. Read enough of him to dismiss it. I wonder how some economists, even Nobel prize winners, do not consider this to be the case. Even if they think Marx is wrong, they do not dismiss him because they think he is not worth consideration, but because (they say) he was wrong. Popper took the same approach.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    I've been asking you for four comments to mention a single socialist theorician that wants total egalitarianism in the end. Why don't you just provide one name? As for dismissing Marian economics, you may do it if you want, but I personally think it's better to consider it then deciding whether or not it is correct. I'm not an economist, so I'll defer to the PhDs and renowned economics professor that seem to think that there is value in there as a complement to other exonomic theories.

sudosysgen 6y ago

I've literally never heard of a socialist calling for total egalitarianism. It's really completely absurd. You should bring sources for socialist theorists who clamour for total egalitarianism. The Chinese cultural revolution was a lot of very bad things, but it wasn't in order to make everyone the same either, not at all. I know that Pol Pot wasn't a communist because he himself said that he wasn't one. I haven't heard of himself saying he was of some other socialist legacy either, so I don't think this is sophism. Marx does formulate a framework where everything mentioned is fully consistent, that being said I don't have the time to give you a full introduction on Marxian economics. You could look up Richard D. Wolff if you want to see where these ideas come from, though. But the objection you make is misguided, because for Marx wealth only comes from labour, the instant you make wealth from something that is not labour then that wealth is not rightfully yours. This makes the whole thing where workers are inherently unequal in ability, but at the same time someone making wealth purely from ownership is a totally different kind of inequality that is not a reflection of their superior abilities, as we all know that you do not need superior ability to make vastly outsized earnings through pure ownership. Basically, if you want to be making some kind of takedown of socialist ideology, and there is for sure lots to be critiqued, I'd suggest reading the works beforehand so you don't say enormities like "I've never heard of big socialists group who do not want total egalitarianism in the end".

hutzlibu 6y ago
"that being said I don't have the time to give you a full introduction on Marxian economics" Thanks, but not interested anyway. Read enough of him to dismiss it. And we seem to be in 2 different realities anyway. Anyway: "I've never heard of big socialists group who do not want total egalitarianism in the end". you may insert a radical Obviously there are also many soft version of socialism. Here in germany they are regulary part of the government. But not really socialist. When referring from the very radical leftwing socialists. And I thought those are the types we are speaking about, when refering to revolutionary spain. And of this group, the ones I met, were mainly literal egalitarian. Sometimes even without the concept of personal property etc., mostly with. But negating the concept of rich people was the unifying idea. So if you insist to never met a socialist like that, than I just keep on not taking you serious.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >Thanks, but not interested anyway. Read enough of him to dismiss it. I wonder how some economists, even Nobel prize winners, do not consider this to be the case. Even if they think Marx is wrong, they do not dismiss him because they think he is not worth consideration, but because (they say) he was wrong. Popper took the same approach.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  I've been asking you for four comments to mention a single socialist theorician that wants total egalitarianism in the end. Why don't you just provide one name? As for dismissing Marian economics, you may do it if you want, but I personally think it's better to consider it then deciding whether or not it is correct. I'm not an economist, so I'll defer to the PhDs and renowned economics professor that seem to think that there is value in there as a complement to other exonomic theories.