Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[Ostroeuropa]

Why is equality desirable?

Because it promotes meritocracy, competition, etc.

A peasant without an education is a resource that hasn't been tapped, etc.

I'm not full commie egalitarian. I support hierarchy, merely flexible hierarchy. Part of the means to prevent the elite from panicking about their offspring losing their status is to make being on the lower rung of the totem pole not so bad.

Ideally we'd see the elite earn about 7-10 times the lowest, rather than hundreds of thousands more. And in those cases, only 7-10 more than those who work in their companies.

I think the state workers should probably earn a national average, plus or minus 25% dependent on the job.

Through syndicalization, loyalty to your superiors can be fostered through emphasizing the duty of all to adhere to the results of the syndicate election.
In addition, it will ensure competent management.

[Alvecia]

Other than the obvious empathetic reasons?

I fail to see what empathy has to do with it. You do not have to support equality to support reduction of misery.

Empathy has everything to do with it. Empathy is the most equalising thing there is.

[The Parkus Empire]

Why is equality desirable?

Because it promotes meritocracy, competition, etc.

A peasant without an education is a resource that hasn't been tapped, etc.

Meritous hierarchy is not equality.

The aristocracy was largely illiterate in the middle ages as well.

[Ostroeuropa]

Because it promotes meritocracy, competition, etc.

A peasant without an education is a resource that hasn't been tapped, etc.

Meritous hierarchy is not equality.

The aristocracy was largely illiterate in the middle ages as well.

In that case I agree equality is not desirable, except in front of the law.

[Ostroeuropa]

I fail to see what empathy has to do with it. You do not have to support equality to support reduction of misery.

Empathy has everything to do with it. Empathy is the most equalising thing there is.

Organization is important, and hierarchies seem to be better at that, provided there are channels for communication, redress of grievances, and mechanisms to remove incompetent or corrupt leaders.

[The Parkus Empire]

I fail to see what empathy has to do with it. You do not have to support equality to support reduction of misery.

Empathy has everything to do with it. Empathy is the most equalising thing there is.

Wrong. One-nationism is very empathetic, for instance, yet anti equality. Vladimir the Great, an autocratic czar, was one of the most empathetic men of the Middle Ages, outlawing torture and the death penalty and helping the poor a lot.

[Alvecia]

Empathy has everything to do with it. Empathy is the most equalising thing there is.

Organization is important, and hierarchies seem to be better at that, provided there are channels for communication, redress of grievances, and mechanisms to remove incompetent or corrupt leaders.

Sounds like we’re thinking of different types of equality.

[Ostroeuropa]

Organization is important, and hierarchies seem to be better at that, provided there are channels for communication, redress of grievances, and mechanisms to remove incompetent or corrupt leaders.

Sounds like we’re thinking of different types of equality.

Equality before the law should be guaranteed, and the effect of demography on your treatment should be fought against.
But equality of wages, and social equality (excepting demography) are not things i'd support.

[The Parkus Empire]

Meritous hierarchy is not equality.

The aristocracy was largely illiterate in the middle ages as well.

In that case I agree equality is not desirable, except in front of the law.

But this is hardly leftist, even the king was held equal before the law in the UK since the 18th Century. Not that I am a monarchist.

[Mattopilos II]

In that case I agree equality is not desirable, except in front of the law.

But this is hardly leftist, even the king was held equal before the law in the UK since the 18th Century. Not that I am a monarchist.

You assume they are leftist...

[Ostroeuropa]

In that case I agree equality is not desirable, except in front of the law.

But this is hardly leftist, even the king was held equal before the law in the UK since the 18th Century. Not that I am a monarchist.

But this is hardly leftist, even the king was held equal before the law in the UK since the 18th Century. Not that I am a monarchist.

You assume they are leftist...

I am a syndicalist.
I'd argue that constitutes left wing economic reform.
I'm also fairly liberal on social issues, though in favor of assimilation and against male/white exclusive progressivism.
I also support reforming the house of lords to a demarchic house of jurors, to provide a check against the political class.
The corporate class currently are not held equal before the law in my opinion, and beyond that, neither are men and ethnic minorities. (One let off, the others punished too harsly.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkJ1R7Dd4fk

[The Parkus Empire]

But this is hardly leftist, even the king was held equal before the law in the UK since the 18th Century. Not that I am a monarchist.

I am a syndicalist.
I'd argue that constitutes left wing economic reform.
I'm also fairly liberal on social issues, though in favor of assimilation and against male/white exclusive progressivism.
I also support reforming the house of lords to a demarchic house of jurors, to provide a check against the political class.
The corporate class currently are not held equal before the law in my opinion, and beyond that, neither are men and ethnic minorities. (One let off, the others punished too harsly.)

I am saying that equality before the law is not, nor ever has been, a leftist idea, so it does not pertain to ny question, "Why is equality desirable?" I do not mean equality before the law.

[Ostroeuropa]

I am a syndicalist.
I'd argue that constitutes left wing economic reform.
I'm also fairly liberal on social issues, though in favor of assimilation and against male/white exclusive progressivism.
I also support reforming the house of lords to a demarchic house of jurors, to provide a check against the political class.
The corporate class currently are not held equal before the law in my opinion, and beyond that, neither are men and ethnic minorities. (One let off, the others punished too harsly.)

I am saying that equality before the law is not, nor ever has been, a leftist idea, so it does not pertain to ny question, "Why is equality desirable?" I do not mean equality before the law.

Can you be more specific with what kind of equality?

[Alvecia]

Empathy has everything to do with it. Empathy is the most equalising thing there is.

Wrong. One-nationism is very empathetic, for instance, yet anti equality. Vladimir the Great, an autocratic czar, was one of the most empathetic men of the Middle Ages, outlawing torture and the death penalty and helping the poor a lot.

Being able to be empathetic and autocratic does not mean there is no empathetic component to the desire for equality.

[The Parkus Empire]

I am saying that equality before the law is not, nor ever has been, a leftist idea, so it does not pertain to ny question, "Why is equality desirable?" I do not mean equality before the law.

Can you be more specific with what kind of equality?

I do not know, you tell me, since left vs. right is often defined as pro equality vs pro hierarchy.

[The Parkus Empire]

Wrong. One-nationism is very empathetic, for instance, yet anti equality. Vladimir the Great, an autocratic czar, was one of the most empathetic men of the Middle Ages, outlawing torture and the death penalty and helping the poor a lot.

Being able to be empathetic and autocratic does not mean there is no empathetic component to the desire for equality.

I fail to see it. In fact historically revolutions over equality involved mass murder.

[Alvecia]

Being able to be empathetic and autocratic does not mean there is no empathetic component to the desire for equality.

I fail to see it. In fact historically revolutions over equality involved mass murder.

So?

[Northern Davincia]

I fail to see it. In fact historically revolutions over equality involved mass murder.

So?

Mass murder is typically considered a bad thing.

[Alvecia]

So?

Mass murder is typically considered a bad thing.

Are they mass murdering the people who's equality they support?

[The Parkus Empire]

I fail to see it. In fact historically revolutions over equality involved mass murder.

So?

Mass murder shows a deficit in empathy.

[Taihei Tengoku]

kulaks equal in ditch and as fuel for tractor mines

[Alvecia]

So?

Mass murder shows a deficit in empathy.

Towards the one's being murdered, yes. But if they are, for example, murdering the people in power in order to provide equality to those not, then they haven't lost any empathy for those they're trying to provide equality for.

[The Parkus Empire]

Mass murder shows a deficit in empathy.

Towards the one's being murdered, yes. But if they are, for example, murdering the people in power in order to provide equality to those not, then they haven't lost any empathy for those they're trying to provide equality for.

What are you trying to make them equal with?

[Alvecia]

Towards the one's being murdered, yes. But if they are, for example, murdering the people in power in order to provide equality to those not, then they haven't lost any empathy for those they're trying to provide equality for.

What are you trying to make them equal with?

Presumably those in power. Bring the ups down and the downs up. It was just an off the cuff example, don't read too much into it.

We can break it down to a basic example.

You empathetically believe that person A, who is not equal to yourself and person B, should indeed be.
The only way to bring said person up, in this hypothetical, is to kill person B.
So you do so.

Now, I think we'd agree it's more than a bit of a dick move, but your killing of person B has not removed, reduced, or diminshed your empathetic belief in equality for Person A

[The Parkus Empire]

What are you trying to make them equal with?

Presumably those in power. Bring the ups down and the downs up. It was just an off the cuff example, don't read too much into it.

We can break it down to a basic example.

You empathetically believe that person A, who is not equal to yourself and person B, should indeed be.
The only way to bring said person up, in this hypothetical, is to kill person B.
So you do so.

Now, I think we'd agree it's more than a bit of a dick move, but your killing of person B has not removed, reduced, or diminshed your empathetic belief in equality for Person A

How is that more empathetic than hierarchy…?