You've already gone off the deep end by point 6, user. You're arguing against a position that nobody here holds. Go find a group of liberals to debate.
Argue against my position
Henry Hill
Brayden Bell
No, they're not using the value system you are criticizing, you've just invented a strawman in your head and think to yourself "equality BTFO!!!" We aren't talking about fairness or niceness, or metering out how much everyone gets and ensuring it must be equally apportioned for our philosophy to work. We prefer an equitable distribution of goods for reasons which should be self-evident. No one wants to be ripped off, certainly not because of some asshole's conceit that he is entitled to a mansion while thousands must toil in his field. It does not require any great logic to explain this. Marx and Engels explicitly reject any notion of equality of outcome or the belief that all people are equal in ability, so I don't know what you're trying to get at.
In practice a socialist society would distribute resources somewhat unequally to meet the differing needs of each person, for example someone who needs a wheelchair would be - surprise of surprise - given a wheelchair, or whatever implements he needs. I don't want a wheelchair, I have no use for a wheelchair. Additionally, many resources would be communal, for example a neighborhood swimming pool or library. I don't need a fraction of a swimming pool or library. Maybe I'd like one of those cheap plastic pools or a shelf of books, but I'm not under any delusion that my fraction of a swimming pool or library is functionally the same as a neighborhood resource and that everyone with a cheap plastic pool can just pool their plastic pools together and make an olympic swimming pool. Your logic is only looking at individual outcomes measured as money incomes, and disregards communal property altogether - and much of the resources and means of production in a socialist society would be communal, just as much of the wealth in capitalism is in corporations, factories, skyscrapers, etc. rather than individual persons.
I don't know why I'm seriously responding to this shit but there you go.
Michael Williams
You can't say I'm arguing against a strawman then argue from the exact perspective that I'm criticizing. You're an embarrassment.
You keep arguing against this strawman then going off about your as if I'm Sargon saying "equality of outcome is bad". I explicitly stated I was criticizing equality of opportunity as well as equality of outcome. You're so indoctrinated (again, I had to point this out in the OP) that you can't even perceive someone disagreeing with ideas like the guy with the mansion is an entitled, conceited asshole while the guy who thinks he should have equal rights isn't.
I may as well just start making points beyond the OP now because it's obvious nobody is ever going to directly challenge what I wrote.
I am saying you're worthless. I'm saying you're trash. I'm saying YOU are the entitled cunt for believing that you shouldn't be another animal on a farm. If royalty amassed wealth over thousands of years and now dominate over all others while you live in shit and starve, so what? This system of inheritance has been accepted for thousands of years but it's only modern indoctrination that tells us we are all entitled to a piece of the pie. It's nonsense. It's bullshit.
Jeremiah Allen
The thing is, user, only liberal pseudo-intellectuals think in terms of rights, entitlement and privileges and not in terms of political-economical structures. History is not written by laws or good intentions, it is written by the material conditions of men, which of course include legal and moral systems, but are not in any way limited to them.
Communism sees the working class as the revolutionary agent not because the worker is entitled to his piece of the pie, but because he has the strength to take it. Marx chose the worker not because it was the oppressed victim, but because he is the agent that has the ability to transform capitalist society. Just like the bourgeoise did with feudal society.
None here cares about equality of any kind. Yours is just an example of bourgeoise utilitarianist obsession. Utterly meaningless in its a-historical existence.
Jayden Gray
All of this to accomplish what?
Leo White
You have no idea how criticism works. The user whom you're replying to CAN criticise what you say you're arguing against. They're not using a moral valuation programme which is ultimately arbitrary and has no claim to supremacy over your own ideas.
But if you REALLY want to go down this route, we support 'equality of opportunity' because it allows for greater reorganisation of the world, democratically-so. We wish to reorganise the world to meet fluid and changing practical ends so that we can allow ourselves to expand the sphere of consumption and increase the scopes of the ends which we are able to achieve as a species. One person cannot think for everyone, though they are able to come to conclusions about others. No-one is a mind-reader and knowledge of the human social field which includes us ourselves is always incomplete, however scientifically-known, because when we learn about anything at all, we change ourselves and our own thoughts. We as rational subjects cannot be approximated as anything other than ourselves - not as biology, not as physical form but as DYNAMICS for which there is no evidence that there is any external causation from; there is no heteronymous control in the Kantian sense. Practically, we are self-causing and our thoughts upon their own self-reflections and self-approximations as we think about them are changed. We are not arguing for narrow moralities but rather what is central to them all. The ideological frameworks of such moralities are just the Ys of XY problems.
Adrian Perez
I'm afraid I don't understand the question.
Elijah Martinez
I didn't argue for "equality of opportunity", dumbfuck. Marx never argues for such a thing (and explicitly rejected the idea of equality in the liberal sense). No liberal argues for such a thing unless they're really incompetent. No one who is talking about equality in the political sense is arguing for such a thing. No system of morality that has currency is arguing for the strawman you've set up. It's a total non-argument.
So okay, now you think I'm an entitled cunt for, y'know, not wanting to starve and die, and you think that you've stumbled upon some edgy truth that I simply cannot comprehend because I'm too much a sheeple, etc. I shouldn't give you more rope to hang yourself, but if you're trying to argue for some absolute right to freedom or whatnot, you're going to get nowhere. There is no mystical force that guarantees freedom or rights. If you have any familiarity with political power, you'd know that organizing a state to enforce your dictates on subjects is - duh - hard, and the subjects of a ruler can and do break the law all the time. I'm free now not because some guys wrote the U.S Constitution and invented freedom, but because no ruler has bothered to kill me or imprison me yet. We can navel-gaze about whether I'm really free (and no, the deterministic nature of the universe is not what I'm talking about), but for the moment I'm free enough to write this, sit back and play vidya, and so on. I am not, at the moment, another animal on a farm, and I intend to stay that way for as long as I can. I had enough experience with that kind of stifling environment.
Jonathan Brooks
It's the one part of Marx I have started to doubt as of late.
Jonathan Bailey
Marxism does not aim at equality, only at human freedom. It's just that freedom as defined by bourgeois liberalism is materially meaningless.