Why equality of outcome > equality of opportunity

[Caesercel]

I was thinking about "On The Jewish Question" by Marx (which I do daily now because it's an eye opening text and def not because I'm mental). The thesis is that liberalism can only offer partial freedom and equality because it only achieves both in ideology. And hence it can only free us from ideologies that are unequal or unfree. But it does not tackle the non-ideological aspect of either, that persists in structures of society

What we call "equality of opportunity" is fundamentally a failure of the liberal project to offer what it promised . Complete Emancipation. Because formal rights offered by liberalism can only emancipate the man as an atomised individual limited to his private caprices (codified as the "rights of MAN") , still subject to alien forces. And not man as a member of the community.

 

[cathuluelitist]

Marx was a low life thug who in spite of having an good education and the ability to get a very stable job was too lazy to sustain one and litterally let his kids starve to death while he was having sex with his housekeeper. Schmitt and Maurras have superior critiques of this same thing.

 

[Caesercel]

In the Christian God's heaven all souls are equal in the eyes of God. But on God's earth, he has created both Kings and Paupers. Similarly in the ideological heaven of liberalism that exists in its state constitution and law books, all men are equal and have the same rights and freedom. But in the real world, we have a labourer who makes $8 a day while his employer goes on another Euro trip.

Liberalism offers the labourer the freedom to chose his employer and work on a wage he agrees upon. Thus essentially freeing him from slavery. But it cannot offer him the freedom to control his own work. He can choose who will control him but he cannot free himself from the reality of control itself. Again partial freedom.


Liberalism offers the labourer equality before law. By offering him the same right as everyone else to take matters to court. But the good lawyers are still costly (themselves having the right to set their price and chose their client) and the judge could be bribed. Thus making a mockery of "equality before law".

Liberalism offers the labourer the formal right to run for political office and I don't even need to mention why that's not a level playing ground.

 

[Caesercel]

Liberalism offers the labourer equality before law. By offering him the same right as everyone else to take matters to court. But the good lawyers are still costly (themselves having the right to set their price and chose their client) and the judge could be bribed. Thus making a mockery of "equality before law".

Liberalism offers the labourer the formal right to run for political office but I don't even need to mention why that's not a level playing ground.

But coming to the topic of this thread, liberalism offers the labourer the freedom and opportunity to become wealthy via his right to private property and it's application, but it does not free society from the condition of poverty itself.

 

[Caesercel]

Marx was a low life thug who in spite of having an good education and the ability to get a very stable job was too lazy to sustain one and litterally let his kids starve to death while he was having sex with his housekeeper. Schmitt and Maurras have superior critiques of this same thing.

I was gonna post about how character assassination is not criticism, but then I saw those two names and just laughed.

 

[cathuluelitist]

I was gonna post about how character assassination is not criticism, but then I saw those two names and just laughed.

OK McClane.

 

[cathuluelitist]

Maurras (high moxie revolutionary) > Marx (low moxie degenerate hick)

 

[Caesercel]

Maurras (high moxie revolutionary) > Marx (low moxie degenerate hick)

While raised Roman Catholic, Maurras went deaf and became an agnostic in his youth, but remained anti-secularist and supported the Catholic Church solely for political reasons

Lol. Even his private life story is a vindication of On The Jewish Question's thesis. That abolition of theology is not true abolition of religion. It's only a partial ideological one. Religion still persists in the absence of theology.

In his final days he reverted to Catholicism and received the last rites shortly before his death.

Lmao even

 

[cathuluelitist]

Lol. Even his private life story is a vindication of On The Jewish Question's thesis. That abolition of theology is not true abolition of religion. It's only a partial ideological one. Freedom of religion does not achieve freedom from religion.


Lmao even

Not at all since he eventually converted.

 

[Caesercel]

Not at all since he eventually converted.

Yeah that just proves Marx right even further. The State can exorcise religious theology from itself but it cannot truly exorcise religion in it's non-theological secular form. So it's no wonder the Secular State ends up upholding and reaffirming religion in the civil society.

Similarly the Liberal State can exorcise inequality in it's ideological forms but fails to exorcise inequality in non-ideological and material forms.

Maurras never converted because he never TRULY left catholicism to begin with.

 

[cathuluelitist]

Yeah that just proves Marx right even further. The State can exorcise religious theology from itself but it cannot truly exorcise religion in it's non-theological secular form. So it's no wonder the Secular State ends up upholding and reaffirming religion in the civil society.

Similarly the Liberal State can exorcise inequality in it's ideological forms but fails to exorcise inequality in non-ideological and material forms.

Maurras never converted because he never TRULY left catholicism to begin with.

He was a comte and formed his own nationalist secular religion.

 

[IWWorkER]

If by "equality of outcome" you mean mass murder of unproductive parasites then I'm for it, but if you meant stealing my labor and money to give it to lazy parasites niggers then fuck off.