39 thoughts on “Why equality is unhelpful as a political goal

  1. Equality can only exist in a group of people with the same ethnicity, looks, and culture. In Nazi Germany, Germans treated each other good.

  2. a bit confused though: replacing Equality as goal with some other, more concrete goals/policies seems nice and rosy, but what's the guiding principle in establishing these other goals? aren't those means to an end? so what's the end, if not Equality?

  3. 1:18 But he isn't talking about absolute equality, and there by he's already done what you're asking, and taking it a step further; he's limited his discussion to equality of outcomes, and asking which ones are acceptable. I am curious as to what he is responding to, however. 2:12 and that's what Jordan Peterson as asking, what is that minimum that inequality must be kept to?
    2:32 I like that second better, I'm gonna have to save that for when people start throwing a bunch of different flavors of socialism at me.
    3:18 But when you're collectivizing the economy, it becomes harder to make those decisions individually. To use your hospital example, its like saying you want each patient to receive a level of care based on how sick they are, but all doctors will be allocated via a collective that isn't working with each patient.
    4:22 Equality of outcome doesn't mean that everybody becomes the same, it just means everybody gets the same. and you're ignoring the abstraction involved. The leftists I've heard defending it say the same thing you are, but they would explain that EoOutcome wouldn't be two groups getting the same money, it would a disenfranchised group getting more money than an accepted group to make up for the difference.
    4:42 But the problem isn't that, the problem is socializing these systems so the people with the needs are unable to act to get them.
    8:14 Maybe I've been misunderstanding Marxism for a very long time, and so has every single person who's ever tried to argue and/or explain the notions to me, but the maximization of the individual has never once come up until now, especially since that is a highly capitalist mindset. I've been under the impression that Marxism was about explaining the course of human history from classist and materialist perspectives in order to make an argument for a shift from individual control of capital to collective control of capital, a transition in which the maximization of the individual would be directly contrary to?

  4. What if I don't want equality? What if I want to improve, get better, build wealth and acquire more assets? I guess I'm just stuck in my capitalist position. Oh well.

  5. Are you f&%!$€ compering sticks with being white or black!? Or women or female? Fuck son. Read some more before you put something on the Internet. Humanity depends on you fucking stupid youtubers and fucking kids. Jordan fucking Peterson!? Jesus I'm going to bed angry thanks.

  6. I think those are fine questions to ask, hitting women/drafting women. The problem is if every man and woman is drafted to the military, who the fuck is raising their kids? You could make an exception that a woman without children are drafted, that would seem fair to me. I get that you are saying, "we shouldn't be hitting anybody or drafting anybody" but the reality is that we have no idea when an organized force for evil will take hold as it did in Nazi Germany. Seems like an isolated incident, which it may be, but to take that risk and not set up a draft seems like an unnecessary risk. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are saying.
    Also i believe you have the right to defend yourself no matter what. You obviously can't just hit people randomly, but it seems dumb to me that if a woman unprovoked punched you in the face you would have to take it because bs chivalry.

  7. Okay so the equality has to be addressed person by person? How could a society possibly run being that complex and individualized unless it was purely run town to town. Like i live it saint louis. That would only work if saint louis was the governing body and had the resources to assess each peoples needs for equality.

  8. The right is always ignorant or indifferent or malice incarnate
    Repeat until the Red Giant Sol eAtS tHe pLaNeT.

  9. But it is helpul, considering that women should be drafted too raises the awareness how unfair it is for men to be drafted, and may cause a revolution with no gender barrier.

  10. This is annoying because I like your video and I can understand the intent for left leaning audiences, but I am on the right and I believe you misread the simplification.

    it is not a case of "everyone being equal" that (we, us) the right is against. I'm sure everyone across the spectrum has the fantasy that we all wake up happy chappy and no one has pain or fear.

    The annoyance comes from me wanting to argue the actual marxist claim, which I know the video is for audiences that already accept marxism.

    3:13 "everyone should be judged individually in each scenario" – yes, it works in a hospital, because that is an open system, people flow into and out from hospitals. "society at large" is a closed system, what is there is there.

    The argument against Marxism is the question of WHO is the one who "judges in each scenario" – classical libertarian-ism, to play the devil's advocate, places the sole locus of control onto the individual. To give your own sovereign power to someone else is madness.

    If the Marxist doctrine is deployed, you are relying on someone else to judge who gets the equal treatment, just the same as any other boss. Do I get equal treatment? Under liberty: "If I am good enough" – under Marxism: "someone else decides for me" – what if I upset the wrong people? – or, as someone down below in the comments mentioned ( paraphrasing:) "judged solely as a worker and not for any other means" –

    I would prefer, myself, that If I had a poor family, that my boss would not look at me just as a worker like any one else, but as a father who has children. if we were to simplify everyone down to "worker" for X,Y,Z., then there would not be a mechanism to account for the fluctuation of life, which are always in flux.

    4:00 – "as Engels said inequality of opportunity can never be abolished"

    I grew up in a Marxist household, and currently I am the only one who is currently able to buy food for my younger sister so she can feed her children. I couldn't even imagine what it would be like if someone else gets to judge how much equal treatment I get.

  11. Joe rogan and jordan Peterson is a joke to most right wingers. I am a right winger.

    Marx wanted the abolishing of the state. Which modern communists ignore. I disagree with communism because it ignores human nature and doesn't base it's idea on nature but rather a concept opposed to human nature.

  12. What difference does it make what Marx said when the critique is aimed at Marxists, not Marx… A vast number of politicians that identify as marxists talk about their egalitarian ideals as marxism. I'm quite sure even Peterson understands this. Is all you have on some one like JBP really semantics? Is all your fan base has on JBP slurs? I'm deeply unimpressed.

  13. As a musician, I see the romanticization of the individual artistically, but I understand the composers desire to keep those prima donnas under control.

  14. I appreciate the insight of this video, although I feel like it is a bit of a strawman.
    I've never heard anyone claim that Marxism's goal is "absolute equality".
    I have heard people claim that Marxism's desired result (if not the stated goal) is equality of outcome, specifically as it pertains to quality of life.
    The information in this video supports this latter view of Marxism.

    Regarding the clip of Jordan Peterson explaining all the different metrics by which human equality can be measured.
    I feel like this was taken out of context a bit.
    Peterson wasn't pointing out these metrics to say "Marxism tries to make people equal by all of these metrics!"
    I think he pointed them out to say, "Marxism tries to compensate for the innumerable ways in which people are unequal by forcing their quality of life (outcomes) to be similar".

    The end result of a hypothetical "successful" implementation of Marxism is that a society's standard of living is brought into a narrow range, with no outliers of extreme wealth or destitute poverty. This result of this arrangement is, by definition, egalitarian– Even if that was not the stated goal.

    So, I find it a bit disingenuous to say, "No! Marx's goal wasn't to create an equal society! The goal is to remove class distinctions and raise the minimum standard of living while also eliminating extreme wealth!"

    It's a semantics game.

  15. This seems like a arbitrary distinction to me.

    The long-term desire of Marxism is the destruction of class distinctions, but this is done through the seizing of the means of production when the proletariat rise up from their so-called capitalist oppressors, therefore creating a society owned by the workers. This large-scale seizing of private property is effectively a large scale redistribution of wealth, and that's the main argument that people like Jordan and people on the right oppose, as they believe that such violent means would ultimately lead to a destruction of both order and the hierarchies required to maintain a succesfull society.
    Whether Marx intends it or not, his ideology neccesites large-scale wealth redistribution, making equality a goal of Marxism whether he wants it or not.

  16. Then why do Marxist so oppose the idea of equality of opportunity? Marx himself may have believed one thing, but the modern interpretation is fully another. Why would modern day Marxist oppose equality with respect to individual differences? Are most of the modern representatives bad actors?

  17. Communism and anarchism are the same thing. We need leaders who are unequal to us in intelligence and character as well as better relationships among people in the same social class. Prisons are necessary but our ways of running them are obsolete.

  18. This is one of the best YT videos on Marxism I've ever seen. You've enlightened a lot of people. Good job! 👍

  19. 1. Okay, but didn't Marx also say that he's not a Marxist?
    Like, who cares about what Marx thinks, how about you discuss what Marxists think? Because they most definitely want equality. And that's the point the critics of Marxism are making. They don't care about what words Marx said 200 years ago, they care about what Marxists today want and are trying to implement.

    2. Equality of outcome and equality of opportunity are not what you portray them as. Outcome is what you get from something, so equality of outcome is equality of what you get, not absolute equality. Equality of outcome may include things like getting the same pay as everyone else, having the same social status, being in the same "class" etc.
    Equality of opportunity doesn't have much to do with actually having anything in common with others. Equality of opportunity doesn't mean everyone has exactly the same statistical probability to end up in a certain position – that's equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity means noone is barred from any role in society based on arbitrary characteristics, therefore everyone has the opportunity to do everything.
    Both equalities do have functioning definitions, they're not just buzzwords.

    3. I broadly agree with your point.

  20. You express very detailed aspects of these philosophical domains and I love that. Just an argument in support of the definition used by Peterson, a significant amount of people who identify as Marxists may use that definition.

  21. I disagree with most everything you're saying but I do see your points. I still believe Marx's talking about a unachievable utopia but I see where you are coming from.

  22. What about instead of making women's prisons equally as bad as men's prisons, we made men's prisons as good as women's prisons? In that case, it's good to argue for equality.

  23. What is the difference in political practice(ie legislation) between advocating for full equality and Engel's greatly reduced eqauilty? If it is none surely arguing against one argues against the other? Also how is class(economic) meant to be abolished if equality cannot be achieved?

  24. Say there are five people and one chair. Following the equality line of thought, we would be torn between giving nobody a chair (to ensure equality), or letting one person sit on it to at least give someone a rest. Without the illusion of equality as an immediate goal, we would go get more chairs.

  25. As for Miller and prisons, isn't it just the perfect example to illustrate what is inherently sexist about feminism ? Even if some theorists are out of this path, the etymology itself is just inviting such behaviour and interpretation. Feminism is about looking at one side of oppression, and one side only ^^'.

  26. Very good video I agree with pretty much everything you said, though i want to add that ironically many of the contemporary marxists (Another name could be "college marxists" ) do not base marxism on Karl Marx anymore. I've seen many of these people call themselves marxists while campaigning for equality of outcome. While I'm in no way a Peterson fanatic I do see his point but it is obviously only a fair criticism of his when speaking of the aforementioned equality of outcome people, who in general identify as marxists.

  27. We need a society where the economic and material conditions of every citizen is good. We can’t have a rich because with a rich there is also a poor. We need national socialism.

  28. Basically Marxist and Anarchist ideas have roots in Enlightenment philosophy and classical liberalism. If you read Adam Smith you will find out that he was not so drastically different from Marx. It's interesting that Peterson considers himself as a classical liberal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *