Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[d0gbreath]

Twisting language is Marxism 101.
It is sad that so many people bought into this nonsense.

I'm not allowed to have fun anymore?

 

[SeaMajor7]

I'm not allowed to have fun anymore?

Not the case at all! You actually pointed it out.
Gooooood boooooooy!

 

[Mac-7]

They aren't just tax breaks, so obviously, you're the one being dishonest. Anyone can click on the links and see how it covers much more than tax breaks. You have no problem with socialism for the rich, it's when the government helps working-class people that you complain. What's crazy is that you're most likely a working-class person, with a job. But unfortunately, you've been brainwashed so thoroughly by your capitalist masters that you defend their financial interests at your own expense if not peril.

What else besides tax breaks?

Give some examples

 

[Rawley]

Bull hockey. Do you believe a person born into an upper-middle-class family or a family with millions, or even billions of dollars, gets the best outcome due to "hard work"? They were born with access to resources that most other people don't have.

The smartest and wisest are often unconcerned with becoming rich and just want to dedicate themselves to their academic research and field, their work, whatever that might be. Many of the smartest people depend upon government grants or a salary to eat.

The working class takes the real risk, by being present and laboring in the workplace, often under hazardous conditions. Employees risk their health, and lives, working in a dictatorial environment, without much say on how their workplace is run. They're often reduced to just a cog, a piece of machinery, that can be discarded at any moment's notice, "Don't come back on money, you're fired". That's all risky and dehumanizing. That's why most people hate their jobs. Working in capitalism is often nothing more than drudgery. It numbs the soul.

you sound terribly bitter

 

[Soupnazi630]

People in our society should be afforded the basics as a human right. No one should starve, be homeless, without healthcare, an education, or gainful employment. People should be given the basics as a foundation, upon which to build upon and improve their lives. We have more than enough resources in this country to invest in people in this way and it would make us more prosperous as a nation.

No one has the basic right to the product of another. When you claim what another works for as a right you are advocating slavery.

But you ARE a communist which by definiton IS universal slavery so it is no surprise you support it

Public works such as what you describe fail what we need it more free market and less government

 

[Curried Goats]

Nope. An employer is not paying you for your value, he/she is paying you for the value of your knowledge and skill.

Still sounds like the same thing to me. The employer is paying a person at the end of all this yes?

I'm not confused, dumbass, I'm disagreeing with you. Are you confused about what confusion means?

I'm confused about what you're disagreeing with.

 

[TruthNotBS]

No one has the basic right to the product of another. When you claim what another works for as a right you are advocating slavery.

But you ARE a communist which by definiton IS universal slavery so it is no surprise you support it

Public works such as what you describe fail what we need it more free market and less government

No one has the basic right to the product of another.

Everyone can have, depending on the society that they live in, a right to certain resources. Without resources no one can produce anything, so we all contribute to each other's survival and success. No one lives in a vacuum or is isolated on an Island, all by themselves. When you live in a society with other human beings, you have certain obligations towards others. Only the wicked ask "Am I My Brother's Keeper"..the answer to that evasive question is YES. A society and its economy can't function, without workers/consumers having the basics to live.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Everyone can have, depending on the society that they live in, a right to certain resources. Without resources no one can produce anything, so we all contribute to each other's survival and success. No one lives in a vacuum or is isolated on an Island, all by themselves. When you live in a society with other human beings, you have certain obligations towards others. Only the wicked ask "Am I My Brother's Keeper"..the answer to that evasive question is YES. A society and its economy can't function, without workers/consumers having the basics to live.

hhen you live in a society with other humans you have only a negative obligation. In other words do not take another persons stuff or initiate force against another person and honor your contracts..

Other than that you owe nothing to others. The answer to the question is NO. I am not my brothers keeper. The wicked actually iuse such sentiments as compassion and empathy as a means of using force to rob or enslave others. Or even worse using such platitude to demand govermment enslave and use force on others as you are doing.

No one has the right to rersources or the basics to live. The maintenance of your life is on you not on others.




.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Your employer/exploiter master owns every product and service that you produce and deliver. The fact that if you have the capital, you could become a capitalist, is completely irrelevant and has no bearing on what I said. If you're an employee/exploitee, purchased/hired by an employer, he or she owns your labor and everything it produces. You're quite confused and ignorant if you believe otherwise.

Wrong

An employer does not own the labor of others he rents it.

You are the confused and ignorant one here.

 

[TruthNotBS]

hhen you live in a society with other humans you have only a negative obligation. In other words do not take another persons stuff or initiate force against another person and honor your contracts..

Other than that you owe nothing to others. The answer to the question is NO. I am not my brothers keeper. The wicked actually iuse such sentiments as compassion and empathy as a means of using force to rob or enslave others. Or even worse using such platitude to demand govermment enslave and use force on others as you are doing.

No one has the right to rersources or the basics to live. The maintenance of your life is on you not on others.




.

hhen you live in a society with other humans you have only a negative obligation. In other words do not take another persons stuff or initiate force against another person and honor your contracts..

Your view of society is fundamentally flawed, SoupNazi. In reality, our obligations extend beyond merely refraining from harming others or taking their property. Living in a society means we are interconnected and interdependent. Let's break down why your perspective is both impractical and morally deficient.

First, consider the hypothetical scenario of seeing someone drowning in a pool. In any functioning society, there's an expectation that you would at least call for help. Failing to do so could result in legal consequences because we recognize that neglecting to assist others in danger is inherently wrong. This principle underlines the fact that we have positive obligations to each other—obligations that extend beyond not harming or stealing.

Now, addressing your claim that no one has the right to resources or the basics to live: this is a myopic view. Societies thrive on cooperation and mutual support. Historically, communal resource-sharing has been fundamental to human survival. In modern societies, the concept of ensuring basic resources for all is not just a moral imperative but an economic necessity. Without access to resources like education, healthcare, and housing, individuals cannot contribute effectively to the economy.

You mention that advocating for communal resources equates to advocating for slavery. This hyperbolic rhetoric ignores the fact that modern capitalist societies already depend heavily on collective resources and government intervention. The infrastructure that supports commerce, from roads and bridges to internet access and power grids, is largely funded by public money.

Contrary to your claim, the government’s role in ensuring basic needs is not a form of enslavement but a safeguard against the very kind of exploitation and inequality that unregulated capitalism perpetuates. In fact, scholars like Karl Polanyi in "The Great Transformation" have illustrated how markets, left to their own devices, can lead to significant social and economic upheavals, necessitating government intervention to restore stability and protect citizens.

Moreover, your belief that individuals owe nothing to their community ignores the concept of social contracts and civic duties that are essential for any society to function. Jury duty, paying taxes, and following laws are all part of the implicit agreement we have as members of a society. Ignoring these responsibilities leads to chaos and undermines the very fabric of community life.

Capitalism, as you describe it, operates within the framework established and maintained by government. Without regulations, protections, and public services, capitalism would not function.

In summary, the idea that we owe nothing to each other and that the free market can solve all problems is a dangerous fallacy. Our obligations to one another extend beyond mere non-interference; they include positive actions to help and support each other. Government intervention is not only necessary to correct market failures and provide public goods but also to ensure a just and equitable society where everyone has the basics needed to succeed. Ignoring these realities leads to a society that is unjust, unstable, and ultimately unsustainable.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Wrong

An employer does not own the labor of others he rents it.

You are the confused and ignorant one here.

He rents the person's life and takes the produce. What that person produces with his or her life (energy, presence, time, their body and mind), belongs to their capitalist master. The person is paid the lowest wage the employer i.e. exploiter can get away paying. Whatever the employer can pay in wages, to possess and sell the products of their employee's labor, is what is paid. Capitalism is based on wages, without it there's no market or paying consumer. Keep that in mind. With the advent of advanced automation and artificial intelligence, socialism becomes a necessity.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Your view of society is fundamentally flawed, SoupNazi. In reality, our obligations extend beyond merely refraining from harming others or taking their property. Living in a society means we are interconnected and interdependent. Let's break down why your perspective is both impractical and morally deficient.

First, consider the hypothetical scenario of seeing someone drowning in a pool. In any functioning society, there's an expectation that you would at least call for help. Failing to do so could result in legal consequences because we recognize that neglecting to assist others in danger is inherently wrong. This principle underlines the fact that we have positive obligations to each other—obligations that extend beyond not harming or stealing.

Now, addressing your claim that no one has the right to resources or the basics to live: this is a myopic view. Societies thrive on cooperation and mutual support. Historically, communal resource-sharing has been fundamental to human survival. In modern societies, the concept of ensuring basic resources for all is not just a moral imperative but an economic necessity. Without access to resources like education, healthcare, and housing, individuals cannot contribute effectively to the economy.

You mention that advocating for communal resources equates to advocating for slavery. This hyperbolic rhetoric ignores the fact that modern capitalist societies already depend heavily on collective resources and government intervention. The infrastructure that supports commerce, from roads and bridges to internet access and power grids, is largely funded by public money.

Contrary to your claim, the government’s role in ensuring basic needs is not a form of enslavement but a safeguard against the very kind of exploitation and inequality that unregulated capitalism perpetuates. In fact, scholars like Karl Polanyi in "The Great Transformation" have illustrated how markets, left to their own devices, can lead to significant social and economic upheavals, necessitating government intervention to restore stability and protect citizens.

Moreover, your belief that individuals owe nothing to their community ignores the concept of social contracts and civic duties that are essential for any society to function. Jury duty, paying taxes, and following laws are all part of the implicit agreement we have as members of a society. Ignoring these responsibilities leads to chaos and undermines the very fabric of community life.

Capitalism, as you describe it, operates within the framework established and maintained by government. Without regulations, protections, and public services, capitalism would not function.

In summary, the idea that we owe nothing to each other and that the free market can solve all problems is a dangerous fallacy. Our obligations to one another extend beyond mere non-interference; they include positive actions to help and support each other. Government intervention is not only necessary to correct market failures and provide public goods but also to ensure a just and equitable society where everyone has the basics needed to succeed. Ignoring these realities leads to a society that is unjust, unstable, and ultimately unsustainable.

Wrong

You confuse normal behavior with an obligation. It is normal behavior to try and help others in need but that is volunatry it is not an obligation. Nor does this imply an obligation beyond a negative one.

So you first point is debunked

your second point does not even address any of my statements it is merely a rehash of the flase claims you originally made. Yes cooperation allows people to thrive. But cooperation by definition is volunarty not forced nor does it come from obligation. It comes from regonition of mutual benefit. So your second point is debunked.

Claiming that infrastructure comes from public moeny does not prove that it HAS to be funded by public money,

Social contracts are imasginary they are notr some sort of foundational truth. they are ambiguous and used in your case as nothing more than an excuse to force others to act think and behave as you wish.

Your is the dangerous fallacy. You post long winded hyperpbole and rheotric to justify force and violence. As all marxists do,

We have no obligation beyond non interference. everyone is capable of providing their own basics in a captialist society and succeeding beyond that

No one has the right to the product of another. Your claim to the contrary is defense of true exploitation which is what amrxism is about

 

[Soupnazi630]

He rents the person's life and takes the produce. What that person produces with his or her life (energy, presence, time, their body and mind), belongs to their capitalist master. The person is paid the lowest wage the employer i.e. exploiter can get away paying. Whatever the employer can pay in wages, to possess and sell the products of their employee's labor, is what is paid. Capitalism is based on wages, without it there's no market or paying consumer. Keep that in mind. With the advent of advanced automation and artificial intelligence, socialism becomes a necessity.

Wrong

he only rents some of the employees labor while the emoloyee exploits the employer for a better living standard for less work.

Capitalism is based on free trade whether of goods and services for money or trad eof labor for compensation.

with the advent of advanced automation and AI socvialism becaomse even mroe obseeletye and unnecessary

It does not matter how many furturistic paintings and images you post. The vuture is captialism or poverty

 

[Hum Dinger]

'Equity' is hideous, and should not be tolerated in a free capitalistic society!!

We all should be on board for 'equality'. We know, that has not been the case in the past, but the goal starting today, is that everyone should have an equal opportunity.

'Equity' on the other hand, is a whole different animal, and is very un-American!

Not surprisingly, a Marxist will always be for 'equity', where you take and give depending on their needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Sound familliar? This is the world that Kamalla Harris wants for America.

"The government cannot deny rights to certain people because they are black, female, Muslim, etc.—this would be unequal treatment. A mandate to foster equity, though, would give the government power to violate these rights in order to achieve identical social results for all people. In accordance with this thinking, the authorities might be justified in giving some people more rights than others."

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy​

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."​

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

reason.com

I've always been disgusted by the response of Conservatives to the phrase:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

It seems that Conservatives only pay attention to the second half of the statement: "to each according to his needs". That idea is absolutely unacceptable to them. They thrive on the suffering of others - to make themselves feel superior.

What Conservatives tend to ignore is the first half of that statement: "From each according to his ability"

If everyone produced "according to his ability", we would have abundance that would exponentially surpass what was needed to provide for everyone's needs.

But that's also what Conservative fear - they would be forced to be productive.

In the minds of Conservatives, the modern "American Dream" is to be super wealthy without making any productive contribution to society. They want to own everything and control everything without so much as lifting a finger to produce anything.

 

[WEATHER53]

Then why were you giving all your supposed credentials?

You got that right!!!

 

[dblack]

But that's also what Conservative fear - they would be forced to be productive.

Yeah? I fear that too. You don't?

Do you really want to be forced to be "productive"? How is that different than slavery?

 

[WEATHER53]

The gist of 90% of this is that the “haves” should be mandated to give to the have nots so everyone can meet in the middle 50/50

 

[Kilroy2]

You’re an idiot. It means everyone is a loser. You can’t have equity without making sure the best are not paid anymore than the worst. Equity means keeping the best down to the level only the worst can achieve.

You do sound like a loser. Does it keep you up at night worrying about losing. Equity does not keep the best down because it is not about being the best. Best is just a word. It is about understanding that all men and women are created equal.

But you believe your better than everyone else that why you will do anything to win even cheat.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Wrong

he only rents some of the employees labor while the emoloyee exploits the employer for a better living standard for less work.

Capitalism is based on free trade whether of goods and services for money or trad eof labor for compensation.

with the advent of advanced automation and AI socvialism becaomse even mroe obseeletye and unnecessary

It does not matter how many furturistic paintings and images you post. The vuture is captialism or poverty

Your argument fundamentally misunderstands the dynamics of capitalism and labor exploitation. Let's break down why the exploitation of workers by capitalist employers is inherently different from any perceived exploitation by workers.

In a capitalist system, the employer owns the means of production—factories, machinery, technology, and capital. The workers, lacking these resources, are compelled to sell their labor power to survive. This labor power is rented by the employer at the lowest possible wage to maximize profit. The products of the worker's labor—created using their time, energy, and skills—belong to the employer, who then sells these products for profit. This is the essence of exploitation: the surplus value generated by the workers' labor is appropriated by the employer.

On the other hand, workers are not exploiting the employer; they are simply trading their labor for compensation. This is often done under conditions that are heavily skewed in favor of the employer, who holds more power and resources. The notion that workers exploit employers is a distortion of reality, as workers do not gain wealth or capital from this arrangement—they more often than not, merely earn a subsistence wage to cover their basic needs. Today millions of Americans are working two full-time jobs just to stay afloat, and pay their bills.

Your claim that capitalism is based on free trade ignores the inherent power imbalances. The so-called "free trade" is only free for those who own capital; for workers, it is a forced trade born out of necessity (WORK OR DIE! - Wealthy employers rely on other people's labor to live, while they amass capital without lifting a finger). When workers don't earn sufficient wages, they can't participate as consumers in the marketplace, which is why wage labor is central to the functioning of capitalism. Without wage-labor capitalists cease to exist, along with capitalism.

As for automation and AI, your argument fails to account for the transformative impact these technologies will have on labor and production. Advanced automation and AI will render many traditional jobs obsolete, significantly reducing the need for human labor in production processes. When wage labor diminishes, the market for consumers shrinks because people no longer have incomes to spend. This results in economic contraction and increased social unrest as masses of unemployed workers face poverty and hardship.

Never in capitalism's history or even human history, have we had the advanced automation and autonomous, intelligent machinery that we have today. So saying that in the past technology advanced and jobs still remained intact, fails to account for the unique level of autonomy that technology has today, no longer needing a human being to operate it, as always was the case before.

The argument that automation will create new jobs and replace the millions of jobs lost is also false. Yes, advanced automation, robotics, and AI may indeed create new jobs and industries, but they won't replace all or even most of the jobs lost. This will leave tens of millions of people unemployed. Most people will be rendered jobless, without wages or income. This is why socialism is needed.

The idea that socialism will become obsolete with automation is paradoxical. In fact, the opposite is true. As production becomes increasingly automated, the traditional capitalist model, which relies on wage labor, becomes unsustainable. Without wages, there are no consumers to drive demand, leading to market collapse. This necessitates a shift towards a system where the means of production—and the wealth generated by automation—are collectively owned and managed to ensure equitable distribution of resources.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is being considered by some capitalists as a stopgap measure to address the inevitable fallout from mass unemployment due to automation. However, UBI alone does not address the fundamental issues of power and resource distribution inherent in capitalism. It is merely a band-aid on a system that is failing to adapt to technological advancements.

Your false dichotomy of "capitalism or poverty" ignores the historical progression of economic systems. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, socialism can and will replace capitalism when it becomes necessary to address the shortcomings of the latter. Socialism, with its focus on collective ownership and democratic control of the means of production, offers a viable alternative that can ensure everyone benefits from the advancements in technology.

Regarding the pictures and sci-fi images of space colonies and sea colonies, they are meant to illustrate the different options people will have in the future when automation replaces wage labor and produces all the consumer goods we rely on. We will live in cities that are cybernetically connected and automated.

In summary, your argument overlooks the inherent exploitation in capitalism, the impending crisis due to automation, and the necessity of transitioning to a more equitable economic system. Socialism is not just a theoretical alternative; it is an inevitable progression as we face the limitations and failings of capitalism in the age of automation. No wages mean no capitalism. When human labor is no longer needed for production, we must adopt a system that ensures the welfare of all, not just the wealthy elite.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I don't believe any of you following along with the OP, and the pied piper senior editor from Reason, understand the meaning of the word, "equity". The sad part, that editor damn sure knows the meaning of "equity".

Pay attention to the video. It is about everyone starting out at the same place, with the same opportunities. That is not happening now.

The most damning statistic about the United States, and the reason we keep finding ourselves falling further and further behind the rest of the world. Here, in the United States a student raised in the highest income quintile, but showing up in the lowest quintile of standardized test scores, has a better chance of graduating from college than a student, raised in the lowest quintile in income, but scoring in the highest quintile on standardized test. That is FUBARED. It robs all of us. Robs us of potential, robs us of innovation and progress.

In counties throughout this country there are vast differences in school districts. Eliminating the Department of Education is a terrible idea. The federal government is the only entity with the capability to help "level the playing field".

In the wealthy suburban area of the county, around the lake, among the golf courses, within the Country Club, there are school districts with plush facilities, astroturf on the football field, Latin classes in high school, first graders are presented a laptop on their first day of school. Textbooks are replaced after three or four years, the library has everything from the old classics to modern literature. They have real working labs, gas-jets on lap tables for science classes. In the inner-city students are showing up in classes where the roof leaks, mold is building up in the bathroom, textbooks came from the last century and are worn and torn. They don't have a lab, they don't know what Latin is, and they have one choice for a foreign language, Spanish. Laptops? LMAO, you people went batshit crazy when the poor were given access to cell phones.

You know another word for "equity"? JUSTICE. Someone, anyone, tell me how it is "just" that two students, attending two different schools, have such a difference in accommodations and opportunities? Is it their fault?

Harris is talking about leveling the playing field, period. And no, she ain't going to get there, it will take three or four generations to get us to that point. And from what I have seen with the most recent generations, it is going to happen, like it or not. First, all the self-absorbed asshat Boomers have to die off.

To them, and to many of you, you believe you are playing a football game. Problem is, there is no change of the field at halftime. And the wealthy, and even much of the upper-middleclass, are trying to score a touchdown on about a 30% decline. And worse, when they do score, they hoot and holler and act like they just bought Jesus back.

Meanwhile, the poor, and actually much of the middleclass, they are on the opposing team and looking at a goalpost that is at the end of a 30% incline. And here is the thing, both teams can see the damn field. Harris might want to move it to a flat ground, she can't get there. But even her attempts at lowering the grade are met with bullshit, like the OP's linked article. Can you blame those that are facing that hill for getting mad, lashing out? I can't. I won't. I reserve my anger for the pussies that are scoring touchdowns downhill.

The key to understanding the MAGA cult, is that they are Mussolini fascists.

Mussolini was anti-Liberal, Anti-Progressive & Anti-Socialist. His goal was to preserve the Feudal Socio-economic order that had been left after the King of Italy abdicated.

The majority of the people elected to the new Italian Parliament were liberals, progressives and Socialists who had started making major changes to the existing feudal socio-economic order.

Mussolini convinced Italian WWI vets that changing the feudal socio-economic order was Anti-Italian and used them to overthrow the Democratically elected government.

The same thing happened in Spain with Franco - Franco succeeded. Spain remained an economic & cultural shit hole until Franco died 40 years later.

Now the MAGA movement is trying to permanently instantiate a rigid socio-economic order whereby everyone's status is determined by their birth right instead of by personal achievement.

The wealthy are born wealthy, and they deserve to be wealthy for that reason. The poor are born poor, and they deserve to be poor for the same.

We are a very, very long way from being a country where either equality or equity are a reality. But those are goals that every American should believe in. The goals of the fascist MAGA movement are antithetical to American values.

The MAGA cult is trying to stop personal achievement from determining people's status in life- they've mostly been born into a privileged class - they desperately want to keep the socio-economic status the way it is or return things to the way they were.