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

[sartre play]

Kamala Harris is MORE SOCIALIST than Bernie Sanders. And she is anti Police and Border Patrol and ICE. It's all documented in video evidence you just have to stop slurping up the Media crap and look for yourself.

You post, but actually know nothing about her, you just forward what ever tripe your leaders pass forward.
You never spoke her name till now.

 

[Robert Urbanek]

Kamala is a tofu politician; she absorbs the flavor of whatever crowd she is speaking to.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So what was the point of this entire exchange?

Words are subjective so, none.

 

[Curried Goats]

Words are subjective so, none.

Ok. I'll take you at your word that you had no point.

Good chat.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

More qualified and more deserving are subjective terms.

Oy vey...

I keep bringing up this fact because I'm pointing out that when we take this fact into account your statement is actually saying that we will inevitably kneecap someone you feel is more qualified and deserving. What do I care who you feel is more deserving?

Okay then, why should I care that blacks didn't have equal rights?

I'm also saying rights to property are incompatible with rights to life and liberty and that capitalism creates a system of inherent inequality.

Are you indulging in your own fantasy that it was ever meant to be equal?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Ok. I'll take you at your word that you had no point.

Good chat.

It wasn't a complete waste; I got to hear you vomit your subjectivism/objectivism crap again.

 

[Curried Goats]

Oy vey...

Okay then, why should I care that blacks didn't have equal rights?

I don't know why you should do anything. That's for you to sus out for yourself. I'm just pointing out your feelings don't make for a compelling argument.

Are you indulging in your own fantasy that it was ever meant to be equal?

Nope. I'm saying exactly what I said.

 

[Curried Goats]

It wasn't a complete waste; I got to hear you vomit your subjectivism/objectivism crap again.

There there.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I don't know why you should do anything. That's for you to sus out for yourself. I'm just pointing out your feelings don't make for a compelling argument.

Neither do yours.

Nope. I'm saying exactly what I said.

Okay, so capitalism creates a system of inherent inequality but you don't say it should be. So what's your point?

 

[Curried Goats]

Neither do yours.

I'm not arguing feelings.

Okay, so capitalism creates a system of inherent inequality but you don't say it should be. So what's your point?

That we don't have equality. My original comments that you are now piggy backing on were to dblack who said we can either have equality or equity but we don't have equality. We have a system imposed by force meant to create inequality.

 

[dblack]

I'm not arguing feelings.

That we don't have equality. My original comments that you are now piggy backing on were to dblack who said we can either have equality or equity

No. I said we can have equal rights or equity. Equality (defined as equal opportunity) isn't much different from equity in my view. Just an excuse for government to intervene.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I'm not arguing feelings.

Of course you are.

That we don't have equality.

That's it?

My original comments that you are now piggy backing on were to dblack who said we can either have equality or equity but we don't have equality. We have a system imposed by force meant to create inequality.

What kind of equality are you looking for?

 

[Curried Goats]

No. I said we can have equal rights or equity. Equality (defined as equal opportunity) isn't much different from equity in my view. Just an excuse for government to intervene.

What do equal rights actually mean though? I don't think capitalism can start from a position of equal rights. It has to start from a position of imposed inquality as it did. If we all had equal rights to the resources around us who among us would agree to give that up so that another could have sole ownership of it? Capitalism can't exist without property and property can exist without using force to deny others equal access to nature's resources.

 

[Curried Goats]

Of course you are.

Where?

That's it?

That's the gist.

What kind of equality are you looking for?

One that isn't a fairytale that you all only imagine to be real.

 

[Mac1958]

I may have missed it in the piece, but I don't know where she actually advocates for the "equal outcomes" the piece describes.

I do see the piece interpreting what she said as "equal outcomes". From their ideological perspective. And they chose to place it in the title of their piece.

So did I miss it? Did she actually say she wants "equal outcomes"? I'd certainly be against that.

So? Did she say it?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Where?

Every opinion you spout is based on feelings just like everyone else.

That's the gist.

So what's the problem?

One that isn't a fairytale that you all only imagine to be real.

That doesn't answer the question. My question had nothing to do with what I or anyone else deems to be equality. My question was: What kind of equality are YOU looking for?

 

[Curried Goats]

Every opinion you spout is based on feelings just like everyone else.

Which ones specifically? Do you have any examples?

So what's the problem?

What problem?

That doesn't answer the question. My question had nothing to do with what I or anyone else deems to be equality. My question was: What kind of equality are YOU looking for?

One decided on democratically.

 

[WEATHER53]

Your assertion that "people work, people get paid, owners are richer, just like it's supposed to be" justifies an unnecessary reality that inherently exploits the majority to benefit a select few who, like parasites, want to enrich themselves through other people's labor. This arrangement that you're so comfortable with is fundamentally unjust, inhumane, and unsustainable. Any wonder why so many people hate their 9 to 5 jobs? It's not that they're lazy, but rather that people intrinsically sense they're getting screwed, working in a totalitarian workplace, disempowered, and subject to the whims of a parasitic capitalist who lives off others' labor.

Under capitalism, workers are commodified and exploited. Their labor is treated as just another input in the production process, and their well-being is secondary to profit maximization. Workers do not own the fruits of their labor or the means of production. Instead, they sell their labor power (their lives, bodies, presence, time) to capitalists, who then extract surplus value from this labor to enrich themselves. This relationship reduces human beings to mere cogs in the capitalist machine, existing primarily to generate profit for others. It keeps people desperate for jobs, in order to increase the capitalist employer's leverage in negotiating the terms of employment.

The government could recognize and protect everyone's right to employment by ensuring full employment in the public sector, thereby empowering the working class to more effectively negotiate their terms of employment with wealthy, powerful capitalists. But it doesn't do that because capitalists control the government, undermining democracy, and turning it into a plutocratic oligarchy ruled by the wealthy. Capitalists want there to be a certain degree of unemployment and poverty because it increases their power when negotiating wages, decreasing the cost of human labor.

Capitalism privatizes profits but socializes losses, as seen in the repeated bailouts of failing industries and financial institutions with public funds. This cycle of boom and bust underscores the system's inherent instability and its reliance on public intervention to survive.

Moreover, with the advent of advanced automation and artificial intelligence, the capitalist model becomes even less viable. As machines and algorithms replace human labor, the traditional wage labor relationship upon which capitalism depends will erode. Without wages, capitalism cannot function, as it relies on the continuous exploitation of human labor.

In contrast, socialism offers a more just and sustainable alternative. It advocates for the abolition of private property that exploits people for profit, allowing only personal property for personal use. This distinction is crucial; while everyone should have the right to own their home, car, or personal belongings, no one should have the right to own property that enables them to exploit others.

Under socialism, the means of production are publicly owned and democratically managed by those who work them. This ensures that the benefits of production are more generously and abundantly shared and that decisions regarding production are made in the collective interest of society, rather than the narrow interest of a wealthy few capitalist parasites.

Workplace democracy is essential. Just as political democracy ensures that citizens have a voice in the governance of their country, economic democracy ensures that workers have a voice in the governance of their workplaces. This creates a more equitable and just society, where the exploitation of workers is eliminated, and everyone has the opportunity to contribute to and benefit from economic production.

In summary, capitalism commodifies and exploits human beings, reducing them to means of production for the benefit of a parasitic class of wealthy capitalists. Socialism seeks to end this exploitation by abolishing private property that enables such exploitation and replacing it with a system where the means of production are publicly owned and democratically managed. With the rise of automation and AI, the transition to socialism is not only desirable but necessary for a sustainable and just future.

You want the money first and the work second
Cart before horse is the entirety of your child like assertions
Are you over 20?

 

[dblack]

I may have missed it in the piece, but I don't know where she actually advocates for the "equal outcomes" the piece describes.

I do see the piece interpreting what she said as "equal outcomes". From their ideological perspective. And they chose to place it in the title of their piece.

So did I miss it? Did she actually say she wants "equal outcomes"? I'd certainly be against that.

So? Did she say it?

In the video, "equality" is everybody "getting" the same thing, same amount. "Equity", on the other hand recognizes that people didn't start with the same amount and tries to give them more to balance out the end results. That sounds like it's shooting for "equal outcomes".

Regardless, the entire debate hinges on the stealth premise that government is there to decide what people "get". Which socialists very much want people to accept without question.

As described in the OP, both "equality" and "equity" violate equal rights and abuse government power. The government isn't there to hand out goodies, regardless of whether they hand them out equally or not.