Equity is a Marxist agenda because it asserts a social Objective Value, the same way that Marx asserted Objective Value from the Labor Theory of Value.
Marx called profit "Surplus Value". The Equity advocates argue Surplus Value as a social value is "Privilege".
In order to return to the correct objective value, and reduce Surplus Value, that value must be redistributed by removing it from the Surplus Valued (bourgeoisie) and redistributed to the undervalued (proletariat).
The Social Value of the privilege must be redistributed to the oppressed for the same equity reason.
Kind of. It's recognition of the fundamental basis of Leftist narratives within the Marxist historical dialectic.
Or, basically, Marxism is an equation, and all the Left ever does is change the variable names.
I've said the latter more than the former, but they mean the same thing. Marxism relies heavily on the concept of Objective Value, by relying heavily on the Labour Theory of Value to construct it. That's actually where the whole concept of equality stems from. That the labor put into growing an apple is all the same, and as such no apple should be different. All the value of all things with equal labor get equal price. When you assert this objective value, that is where all things should be. Equity is restoring things to the asserted equal value.
Beyond that, the applications and modern vernacular might be different but the concept is still the same. Assert and objective value, force things to move to that value.
The flaws are also still the same. Objective value doesn't exist. Only subjective value exists. Nothing can be equally valuable, because no one values things equally. That's actually the whole point of trade. Neither party values the things they are exchanging equally. Both persons value the other thing more than the thing they are getting rid of, which is why a free exchange is mutually beneficial. According to objective value, someone must be getting screwed over, because it is either being over-valued or under-valued by someone who knows the objective price. Hence, it is why all profit is exploitation. The only reason you made money is because you convinced someone to over-value it. All trade is fraud by definition. If everyone understood the objective value of a thing, they would never give it up for less than that value.
But again, that's nonsense because you can't give something an objective value. Different people value the same things differently at different times. Value is a purely subjective concept.
Sorry, let me rephrase that. Equity is a Marxist agenda because it asserts the need to correct a social Objective Value for asserted categories of people (or "intertemporal abstractions" as Thomas Sowell would call it).
Labour isn't objectively valuable? Or is it in reference to Labour needing direction and skill to be valuable?
Labour isn't objectively valuable regardless of skill. Objective value simply doesn't exist. All value must be subjective, because it is valued by the person seeking to satisfy their demand.
You would have quite a bit of skill and talent to create an army of Warhammer miniatures, in accurate detail and color. But it's value to me is zero because I don't want it. It doesn't matter how much work or skill you put into it, it has no value to me. It may have lots of value to someone else, but that is why it is subjective.
Your labour could effect a thing's value to me only if it changed something about the final good or service as it effects me. If it satisfies more of what I want it may be more valuable. Hell, even if it isn't any more skilled or of higher quality, but is simply faster I may want it more. Or, maybe I want it to be done at a very specific time and or place, and then it's more valuable.
Fundamentally, it doesn't matter what amount of work you actually put into something that gives it value. It only matters if you are doing something that will benefit me.
In fact, if you don't ever sell the thing that you put all that work into... it doesn't have any value beyond sentimental value to you. It's value can't be truly established in reality without someone being willing to actually buy it.
The elites have become so arrogant that they think the system can run with the same output regardless of who works in that system. They think they can simply swap out the gears with no problems.
Either that or the Elites are so old and so wealthy that they don’t care what happens to the system as long as they have their money. With no concerns about material wealth, they are now endorsing this woke bullshit as a shallow way of making themselves feel like “good” people.
I've given this some thought and for me it boils down to the struggle between two psychological realities resulting in two separate hierarchical models. We exist either within a social strata built on a meritocratic hierarchy, or a popularity hierarchy.
While both types exist everywhere, the west has long been primarily a meritocratic society (rewards based on skill, experience, results, correct predictions, IQ, competence, mental resilience), while for instance most of Africa has been a popularity hierarchy (rewards based on who you know, your social status, closeness to the leader, nepotism, your looks, your charm, your ability to manipulate others, your EQ).
Identifying the hierarchy is however merely identifying a symptom. One doesn't choose one or the other to follow, rather one has evolved to percieve the world in such a way that only one form of the hierarchy narturally materializes as sensical.
This ontological experience is likely closely tied to evolutionary biology. Our experiences are hardcoded in our biology. And it's natural that these experiences shape us also on the macroscale.
Examining the models themselves, it's clear that one is more collectivist and the other is more individualistic. This fits well with that we know about gender differences, and in fact societies that tend towards popularity hierarchies are more matriarchal, as we see in Africa where women do most of the work, and are the upholders of tradition and thus rules. And vice versa, more marculin societies are meritocratic. Across the board.
So despite our observartions on the largest, cultural, scale being from different regions, it's more likely that these hierarchical models emerged from traits that are different between the genders rather than races, because the effects are similar across cultures, the results are recognizable instinctively across cultures, and both models exist in all cultures even if they're not the dominant one. And because the gender difference is the only other group difference that is significant enough and affects many enough people to be relevant.
The popularity heriarchy is thus likely a result of very high neuroticism (high value on social cohesion because the group is the protector, hyperawareness of social phenomena, hyperawareness of ones position in relation to others), high agreeableness (high value on staying attached to others, high value of caring and being cared for), and a high affinity for collectivism (a female trait as the result of evolutionary biology, high value on the need for collaboration to stay safe).
What does this look like in practice?
Boys are rewarded by their biology for merit. Friends will throw rocks and the ones that throw the farthest feel good about themselves, and the ones that "lose" the game feel bad.
Girls are rewarded by their biology for social status. Friends will stand around in a circle and the one who is the most popular gets to feel good about herself, and the least popular one feels bad.
Social status is measured in one primal way: when you speak who listens and agrees, and who doesn't or gives negative feedback. Standing in that circle, the least popular girl can say something factual - "the earth is over 80 times as massive as the moon", and she will be mocked and made to feel less worthy for being a nerd.
The least strong or smart boy would not - after all, what would be the point of that from a meritocratic perspective? He'd get at most "lol who cares" with a smile from his friends, or more likely a "cool". Noticeably there is no power play in this interaction between the boys, unless another boy decides to one-up with an even more amazing fact and a competition emerges.
The least popular girl can say something practical "I know, if we put the plank between those trunks, and the bucket on top of that thing, it could work" - and be riddiculed with something as nonsensical as "shut up Name, god you always have to yap yap yap". The point is simply to always pick on her, because it elevates the picker by signaling that they are higher on the social order.
The least competent boy can say the same, and will get praise and be rewarded with feeling good. "Oh shit, our little retard is right, haha, good job Name, let's try it".
One way to climb popularity hierarchies is to virtue signal. As agreeableness (compassion, nurturing, in-group empathy, tenderness) is high in girls, statements of this nature are the least likely to be mocked and put down, because that would reflect poorly on the person striking. So virtue signaling becomes a safe and effective strategy for being listened to and agreed with. And that feels really really good to people high on neurotisism and agreeableness.
So there are no real negatives to the virtue signal, and the more matriachal the society the stronger the positive.
Thus women often uphold the virtues of whatever is the leading ideology of a society in effect of this feedback loop. Today they are the most woke, but not long ago they were the most religiously pious, the most patriarchal even.
How does it work in practice?
Woman is hired in HR or Marketing or Administrator. She, nervous and wanting to be liked, makes virtuous observations and statements, the superiors nod. She comes up with an initiative - let's do this virtous thing, the superiors nod. She proposes change to the company based on some virtue correction, she's put in charge of implementing it. Repeat with each suceess fueling more deisre to climb using this strategy.
Across all industries. In a culture that's swiftly moving in this direction. With increasing social pressure to comply. Giving more and more power to virtue signallers.
As time passes this road to power becomes a highway. And once it's the most effective path to power; here comes the social climbers, the psychopaths, the sharks, the manipulators, the ruthless - and they are fierce and they will take over and all they will ever care about is feeding themselves.
Thus, the path to where we are today has not been a planned or nefarious one. Our reality is a consequence of a long series of butterfly effects, with the vast majority of intentions being benign or good.
This also explains the current longing towards black cultures. We're seeing our increasingly gynocentric western societies pull ever more towards shifting to be based on pupularity hierarchies. We're more than half way there already.
The longing for Africa is the woke feeling kinship with other cultures that are matriarchal. This is how we end up with hard work and competence and showing up on time being elements of whiteness.
When they say whiteness, they mean meritocratic, and when they oppose whiteness they are opposing everything that stands in the way of the great transformation from a patriarchal to a matriarchal society, with everything that entails, inc. a shift in our hierarchical structures.
Literally nothing the left claims is based in fact or reality. It takes a really special kind of stupid, corrupt, or uneducated to willingly fall for it.
That Black woman thing is a ticking time bomb. White Men stopped going, not just because they weren't welcome, but because they were the first to clue in to it's decreasing value. Lot of those Black women have useless degrees and a big sense of self worth. When it doesn't pan out in real life it's going to be those White guys's fault.
I think a lot of it comes from his absolute refusal to acknowledge Jewish origins in much of feminist ideology, combined with his hatred for half the population, and a logical conclusion of human extinction.
I like him, and generally don't downvote unless it's really dumb, but he rails against women and promotes Jewish CRISPR wombs as some sort of alternative. It's a bit strange. The robowaifu thing is a fun idea, but so is wizard magic.
He's a retard who spouts extremely childish, and easily debunked, conspiracy theories about women. It'd be like debating a homeless man on why he thinks aliens are hijacking his brain. He's already convinced himself of his nonsense and it'd be a waste of time to talk him out of it.
Except thats obvious pandering with nothing to back it up. Women are going to get screwed over just as much as men are. The only people who will benefit from the globalists plans is them.
Equity is a Marxist agenda because it asserts a social Objective Value, the same way that Marx asserted Objective Value from the Labor Theory of Value.
Marx called profit "Surplus Value". The Equity advocates argue Surplus Value as a social value is "Privilege".
In order to return to the correct objective value, and reduce Surplus Value, that value must be redistributed by removing it from the Surplus Valued (bourgeoisie) and redistributed to the undervalued (proletariat).
The Social Value of the privilege must be redistributed to the oppressed for the same equity reason.
Is this a new formulation on your part? I like it.
Kind of. It's recognition of the fundamental basis of Leftist narratives within the Marxist historical dialectic.
Or, basically, Marxism is an equation, and all the Left ever does is change the variable names.
I've said the latter more than the former, but they mean the same thing. Marxism relies heavily on the concept of Objective Value, by relying heavily on the Labour Theory of Value to construct it. That's actually where the whole concept of equality stems from. That the labor put into growing an apple is all the same, and as such no apple should be different. All the value of all things with equal labor get equal price. When you assert this objective value, that is where all things should be. Equity is restoring things to the asserted equal value.
Beyond that, the applications and modern vernacular might be different but the concept is still the same. Assert and objective value, force things to move to that value.
The flaws are also still the same. Objective value doesn't exist. Only subjective value exists. Nothing can be equally valuable, because no one values things equally. That's actually the whole point of trade. Neither party values the things they are exchanging equally. Both persons value the other thing more than the thing they are getting rid of, which is why a free exchange is mutually beneficial. According to objective value, someone must be getting screwed over, because it is either being over-valued or under-valued by someone who knows the objective price. Hence, it is why all profit is exploitation. The only reason you made money is because you convinced someone to over-value it. All trade is fraud by definition. If everyone understood the objective value of a thing, they would never give it up for less than that value.
But again, that's nonsense because you can't give something an objective value. Different people value the same things differently at different times. Value is a purely subjective concept.
Objective social value of what?
Labour isn't objectively valuable? Or is it in reference to Labour needing direction and skill to be valuable?
Sorry, let me rephrase that. Equity is a Marxist agenda because it asserts the need to correct a social Objective Value for asserted categories of people (or "intertemporal abstractions" as Thomas Sowell would call it).
Labour isn't objectively valuable regardless of skill. Objective value simply doesn't exist. All value must be subjective, because it is valued by the person seeking to satisfy their demand.
You would have quite a bit of skill and talent to create an army of Warhammer miniatures, in accurate detail and color. But it's value to me is zero because I don't want it. It doesn't matter how much work or skill you put into it, it has no value to me. It may have lots of value to someone else, but that is why it is subjective.
Your labour could effect a thing's value to me only if it changed something about the final good or service as it effects me. If it satisfies more of what I want it may be more valuable. Hell, even if it isn't any more skilled or of higher quality, but is simply faster I may want it more. Or, maybe I want it to be done at a very specific time and or place, and then it's more valuable.
Fundamentally, it doesn't matter what amount of work you actually put into something that gives it value. It only matters if you are doing something that will benefit me.
In fact, if you don't ever sell the thing that you put all that work into... it doesn't have any value beyond sentimental value to you. It's value can't be truly established in reality without someone being willing to actually buy it.
The elites have become so arrogant that they think the system can run with the same output regardless of who works in that system. They think they can simply swap out the gears with no problems. Either that or the Elites are so old and so wealthy that they don’t care what happens to the system as long as they have their money. With no concerns about material wealth, they are now endorsing this woke bullshit as a shallow way of making themselves feel like “good” people.
Why is this happening. It's a great question.
I've given this some thought and for me it boils down to the struggle between two psychological realities resulting in two separate hierarchical models. We exist either within a social strata built on a meritocratic hierarchy, or a popularity hierarchy.
While both types exist everywhere, the west has long been primarily a meritocratic society (rewards based on skill, experience, results, correct predictions, IQ, competence, mental resilience), while for instance most of Africa has been a popularity hierarchy (rewards based on who you know, your social status, closeness to the leader, nepotism, your looks, your charm, your ability to manipulate others, your EQ).
Identifying the hierarchy is however merely identifying a symptom. One doesn't choose one or the other to follow, rather one has evolved to percieve the world in such a way that only one form of the hierarchy narturally materializes as sensical.
This ontological experience is likely closely tied to evolutionary biology. Our experiences are hardcoded in our biology. And it's natural that these experiences shape us also on the macroscale.
Examining the models themselves, it's clear that one is more collectivist and the other is more individualistic. This fits well with that we know about gender differences, and in fact societies that tend towards popularity hierarchies are more matriarchal, as we see in Africa where women do most of the work, and are the upholders of tradition and thus rules. And vice versa, more marculin societies are meritocratic. Across the board.
So despite our observartions on the largest, cultural, scale being from different regions, it's more likely that these hierarchical models emerged from traits that are different between the genders rather than races, because the effects are similar across cultures, the results are recognizable instinctively across cultures, and both models exist in all cultures even if they're not the dominant one. And because the gender difference is the only other group difference that is significant enough and affects many enough people to be relevant.
The popularity heriarchy is thus likely a result of very high neuroticism (high value on social cohesion because the group is the protector, hyperawareness of social phenomena, hyperawareness of ones position in relation to others), high agreeableness (high value on staying attached to others, high value of caring and being cared for), and a high affinity for collectivism (a female trait as the result of evolutionary biology, high value on the need for collaboration to stay safe).
What does this look like in practice?
Boys are rewarded by their biology for merit. Friends will throw rocks and the ones that throw the farthest feel good about themselves, and the ones that "lose" the game feel bad.
Girls are rewarded by their biology for social status. Friends will stand around in a circle and the one who is the most popular gets to feel good about herself, and the least popular one feels bad.
Social status is measured in one primal way: when you speak who listens and agrees, and who doesn't or gives negative feedback. Standing in that circle, the least popular girl can say something factual - "the earth is over 80 times as massive as the moon", and she will be mocked and made to feel less worthy for being a nerd.
The least strong or smart boy would not - after all, what would be the point of that from a meritocratic perspective? He'd get at most "lol who cares" with a smile from his friends, or more likely a "cool". Noticeably there is no power play in this interaction between the boys, unless another boy decides to one-up with an even more amazing fact and a competition emerges.
The least popular girl can say something practical "I know, if we put the plank between those trunks, and the bucket on top of that thing, it could work" - and be riddiculed with something as nonsensical as "shut up Name, god you always have to yap yap yap". The point is simply to always pick on her, because it elevates the picker by signaling that they are higher on the social order.
The least competent boy can say the same, and will get praise and be rewarded with feeling good. "Oh shit, our little retard is right, haha, good job Name, let's try it".
One way to climb popularity hierarchies is to virtue signal. As agreeableness (compassion, nurturing, in-group empathy, tenderness) is high in girls, statements of this nature are the least likely to be mocked and put down, because that would reflect poorly on the person striking. So virtue signaling becomes a safe and effective strategy for being listened to and agreed with. And that feels really really good to people high on neurotisism and agreeableness.
So there are no real negatives to the virtue signal, and the more matriachal the society the stronger the positive.
Thus women often uphold the virtues of whatever is the leading ideology of a society in effect of this feedback loop. Today they are the most woke, but not long ago they were the most religiously pious, the most patriarchal even.
How does it work in practice?
Woman is hired in HR or Marketing or Administrator. She, nervous and wanting to be liked, makes virtuous observations and statements, the superiors nod. She comes up with an initiative - let's do this virtous thing, the superiors nod. She proposes change to the company based on some virtue correction, she's put in charge of implementing it. Repeat with each suceess fueling more deisre to climb using this strategy.
Across all industries. In a culture that's swiftly moving in this direction. With increasing social pressure to comply. Giving more and more power to virtue signallers.
As time passes this road to power becomes a highway. And once it's the most effective path to power; here comes the social climbers, the psychopaths, the sharks, the manipulators, the ruthless - and they are fierce and they will take over and all they will ever care about is feeding themselves.
Thus, the path to where we are today has not been a planned or nefarious one. Our reality is a consequence of a long series of butterfly effects, with the vast majority of intentions being benign or good.
This also explains the current longing towards black cultures. We're seeing our increasingly gynocentric western societies pull ever more towards shifting to be based on pupularity hierarchies. We're more than half way there already.
The longing for Africa is the woke feeling kinship with other cultures that are matriarchal. This is how we end up with hard work and competence and showing up on time being elements of whiteness.
When they say whiteness, they mean meritocratic, and when they oppose whiteness they are opposing everything that stands in the way of the great transformation from a patriarchal to a matriarchal society, with everything that entails, inc. a shift in our hierarchical structures.
Literally nothing the left claims is based in fact or reality. It takes a really special kind of stupid, corrupt, or uneducated to willingly fall for it.
No surprise
That Black woman thing is a ticking time bomb. White Men stopped going, not just because they weren't welcome, but because they were the first to clue in to it's decreasing value. Lot of those Black women have useless degrees and a big sense of self worth. When it doesn't pan out in real life it's going to be those White guys's fault.
Well of course. They are easily manipulated.
Hate Facts
I always wondered what kind of guy the movie would depict as crazy and socially out of touch. Turns out he's just a non-leftist.
You may be onto something- the gender gap in sentencing in the criminal justice system is larger than the race gap
I really wish the people who downvote you would at least take some effort to explain themselves.
Not that I'm interested in pissing contests, but I am curious about opposing viewpoints to some basic peculiarities that you point out.
More speech (especially with facts) is better than no speech.
I think a lot of it comes from his absolute refusal to acknowledge Jewish origins in much of feminist ideology, combined with his hatred for half the population, and a logical conclusion of human extinction.
I like him, and generally don't downvote unless it's really dumb, but he rails against women and promotes Jewish CRISPR wombs as some sort of alternative. It's a bit strange. The robowaifu thing is a fun idea, but so is wizard magic.
He's a retard who spouts extremely childish, and easily debunked, conspiracy theories about women. It'd be like debating a homeless man on why he thinks aliens are hijacking his brain. He's already convinced himself of his nonsense and it'd be a waste of time to talk him out of it.
Except thats obvious pandering with nothing to back it up. Women are going to get screwed over just as much as men are. The only people who will benefit from the globalists plans is them.