Communism/Marxism & equality of outcome

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,180
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#2
The newer interpretations starting in the 60s in France, which shifted their attention from class struggle to opressing vs opressed identity groups, probably more so than older ones. Those would seek equality of outcome in a very materialistic way - how much you own, how much you earn etc, while the "neo-Marxists" try to expand equality of outcome to other aspects such as privilege (whatever that means) and all sorts of nonsense.

You can aim for equality of outcome in pretty much everything, it gets terribly absurt rather quickly though (should I cut off my hand because you only have one?). I think this is the essential flaw of Marxism. It doesn't take into account that unequal distribution, be it of wealth, popularity or anything really is natural and is probably impossible to avoid. People aren't equal, they have different personalities, different interests and different skills. Thus one will be more successful at one thing and the other at something else while the third could simply suck at everything and all without some terrible unjustice or opression. Once you have something you can create more with it and the more you have, the more you can create - the rise can be exponential. Someone else can be worse off in creating some content, product or service as good as you and won't experience this expnential rise, perhaps just a stagnation or even lose the initial means he started with. And once you really excel at one thing, it is very likely that you will start doing well at another thing as well. And then another and another and so on. The ones with nothing though will have a damn hard time to move up from zero. Giving them the initial means, even if very little, can make a big difference to them, but it is no guarantee whatsoever. Taking those means by force (ie revolution) from the ones who have more and redistributing them among those with less is plain theft imo. Noone likes the big wiggs who got their wealth or influence by manipulating and scheming the commoners, but the revolution doesn't take into account people who rose to the top with honest hard work and/or are very good at what they do. I think it was proven that equality of outcome decreases the quality of whatever it is applied to and that's certainly not something one should aim towards.
 
Likes: Lalli

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,278
#3
The newer interpretations starting in the 60s in France, which shifted their attention from class struggle to opressing vs opressed identity groups, probably more so than older ones. Those would seek equality of outcome in a very materialistic way - how much you own, how much you earn etc, while the "neo-Marxists" try to expand equality of outcome to other aspects such as privilege (whatever that means) and all sorts of nonsense.

You can aim for equality of outcome in pretty much everything, it gets terribly absurt rather quickly though (should I cut off my hand because you only have one?). I think this is the essential flaw of Marxism. It doesn't take into account that unequal distribution, be it of wealth, popularity or anything really is natural and is probably impossible to avoid. People aren't equal, they have different personalities, different interests and different skills. Thus one will be more successful at one thing and the other at something else while the third could simply suck at everything and all without some terrible unjustice or opression. Once you have something you can create more with it and the more you have, the more you can create - the rise can be exponential. Someone else can be worse off in creating some content, product or service as good as you and won't experience this expnential rise, perhaps just a stagnation or even lose the initial means he started with. And once you really excel at one thing, it is very likely that you will start doing well at another thing as well. And then another and another and so on. The ones with nothing though will have a damn hard time to move up from zero. Giving them the initial means, even if very little, can make a big difference to them, but it is no guarantee whatsoever. Taking those means by force (ie revolution) from the ones who have more and redistributing them among those with less is plain theft imo. Noone likes the big wiggs who got their wealth or influence by manipulating and scheming the commoners, but the revolution doesn't take into account people who rose to the top with honest hard work and/or are very good at what they do. I think it was proven that equality of outcome decreases the quality of whatever it is applied to and that's certainly not something one should aim towards.
I'll just add to that that certain things are naturally available in limited supply... For example the "best spots" on the french riviera (or pick a trendy place of your choice) are only so many and there are not enough of them to satisfy the whole population of France , and certainly not the whole population of the world... So how would one guarantee access to the best spots to everyone ????
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
4,866
US
#4
And how does one ensure equality of outcome? If there are a few who excel, do we restrict them? If so, goodbye innovations and progress. Can you imagine if a classroom, be it high school or university, taught at the pace of the student who is having the most difficulty learning? Or if a coach set the pace of practice at that of the least talented? Or if those who protect - police, fire, EMT, etc., was based upon the least capable and that was the level or pace for all responders? Is that why today they don't keep score in youth sporting activities and grades are no longer given ( marke are exceeding/meeting/needing progress, whatever that means quantitatively)? I guess everyone and no one is a winner.
 
Likes: Lalli
May 2017
96
Monterrey
#5
I equate equality of outcome with capitalism, specifically low-level employees and assembly-line sort of jobs. You get paid the same as everyone else no matter who does what. At least in communism/socialism it's theory only.
 
May 2008
1,283
Bangkok
#6
Thanks for the responses.

Please note that the shortcomings of equality of outcome are not questioned or contested.

I'd like to know to what extent Marx (or even if you'd prefer to point to Lenin, or Trotsky, or Mao) can be ID'd as the source of this plainly flawed concept.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,278
#7
And how does one ensure equality of outcome? If there are a few who excel, do we restrict them? If so, goodbye innovations and progress. Can you imagine if a classroom, be it high school or university, taught at the pace of the student who is having the most difficulty learning? .
In accordance with redistribution theory the best students grades should be lowered and the excess points given to those who have poor grades... So in a 100 point system with passing grade 50, students who score between 55 and 60 should give up 2 points those who score between 60 and 70 should give up 5 points , those who score between 70 and 80 should give up 15 points, those who score between 80 and 95 should give up 20 points and the evil 1% who scores above 95 should give up 30 points or more.... These points (at least those which are not lost through bureaucracy) will then be redistributed among the poorer grades according to a complex algorithm which will take into account gender, minority status, disabilities and other factors ... since there wont be enough points to get everyone above 50, some tough decisions will need to be made ..... As time goes by and the number of points decreases due to the better students working less hard, there will be less points for distribution, the better students will be asked to give up more points.... However through a set of ever more complex rules, some of points of the better students can be protected from redistribution if certain complex conditions are met.. It will appear that the evil 1% are adept at protecting their points from redistribution and never actually give up the expected 30 points prompting protests from other students and calls to revise the system.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,278
#8
Thanks for the responses.

Please note that the shortcomings of equality of outcome are not questioned or contested.

I'd like to know to what extent Marx (or even if you'd prefer to point to Lenin, or Trotsky, or Mao) can be ID'd as the source of this plainly flawed concept.
I'd say this concept is much older... Is that not how some tribal societies worked ?
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,180
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#9
I equate equality of outcome with capitalism, specifically low-level employees and assembly-line sort of jobs. You get paid the same as everyone else no matter who does what. At least in communism/socialism it's theory only.
Not true. In Yugoslavia and other "socialist" states workers got paid the same for either doing anything or doing jack sh*t as they had huge social security and couldn't lose their job easily a lot of them didn't care and basically went to work to scratch their gonades. Soon the hardworking ones thought why the heck should I work my arse off and get the same money as he, who does nothing. Then quality of products declined and couldn't keep up with Western production as noone would bloody buy that trash. Why do you think Yugo couldn't sell their cars in America? Look at pretty much any East Bloc car. Hardly two are ok. But at least the commy states had a market for each other. Then democratisation came, big countries fell appart, western stuff became more easily available and noone would buy that commy junk anymore, so a lot of firms went bankrupt. It was quite a bit more than just theory.
 
Oct 2012
339
#10
I'd say this concept is much older... Is that not how some tribal societies worked ?
I think that is just a common misconception. I don`t think there is or has been a society, tribal or any other that worked like that.
I am willing to be corrected though, if someone can do that.