Anti-Egalitarian Critics Slam Anti-Egalitarian Harris For Latest Remarks About ‘Equity’

They're using every argument they can come up with to defend class inequality

Read the full article above here. I’ll be taking excerpts from it.

We’ve got a raging ruling-class-orchestrated bar fight here between anti-egalitarians on one side against an anti-egalitarian (Vice President Kamala Harris) on the other side. The purpose of this phony fight is to prevent the have-nots from ever knowing what egalitarian equality is all about. The reason this fight is happening is because our rulers fear that when the have-nots learn that they are the vast majority in wanting an egalitarian revolution to make our society equal in the egalitarian meaning of that word, then the ruling billionaire plutocracy will have a BIG problem on its hands. So let’s examine the absurd arguments shouted in this phony fight.

The first thing to realize is that the vast majority of people (as I prove here) want to remove the rich from power to have real, not fake, democracy with no rich and no poor—the goal of egalitarian revolution.

The way an egalitarian economy has no rich and no poor is by being based on the egalitarian principle of “From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to need or reasonable desire with scarce things equitably rationed according to need.” In an economy based on this principle people have plenty of good motives for working hard and in fact the half of Spain that was egalitarian in 1936-9 out-produced the capitalist economy it replaced; read all about this here and (regarding Spain) here. This egalitarian principle is in FACT the principle that most people would LOVE for our society to be based on.

Most people, but not all people.

In This Corner, Weighing in At Many Pounds of Selfish Sh*t, Is the Anti-Harris Anti-egalitarian

There is a minority of people, however, who hate the egalitarian idea and are portrayed by both sides in this phony fight as if they were the vast majority of people. The thinking of this minority of anti-egalitarians is illustrated by one of them quoted by the anti-Harris side of the fight as saying:

“If everyone ends up in the same place, then what’s the point of life?” asked entrepreneur Lark Davis. “Why would you strive for greatness? Why would you work hard? Why would you want to be independent?”

By “everyone ends up in the same place” this anti-egalitarian means nobody being richer than most people, which means nobody being able to hog socially-produced wealth (Yes, socially-produced: Come on! This anti-egalitarian doesn’t expect to get rich by working harder and longer than most people, right?)

For this jerk, hogging more than one’s fair share is “the point of life”!

For this jerk, getting richer than others is the very definition of “greatness” and the only reason for working hard (as if rich people get rich by working harder than others, which if true would mean the people who picked cotton in the South would be the richest people on earth; and Alice Walton—who collects art, bless her soul—would be destitute!)

“Why would you want to be independent?” translates simply to this: “Oh my God! If there were no rich and no poor then I’d have to relate to other people as an equal and engage in mutual aid as the way of making my life better. The horror! The horror! I want to be rich and I want other people to be so poor that I can just pay poor people to be my servants or hired hands and order them around like slaves.” Speaking of which, I’m sure this anti-egalitarian, had he/she lived back in the days of slavery, would have been horrified at the idea of abolishing slavery.

In This Corner, Kamala Harris, Who Wants Everybody to “End Up in the Same Place” with Some Rich and Some Poor, Weighing in At Many Pounds of Word Salad, Is the (“shhhh, please don’t tell anyone”) Anti-Egalitarian

Here’s what the above-linked article says about Vice President Harris’s “thinking” in this fight:

This ideology, commonly referred to as “equity,” has been repeatedly endorsed by Vice President Kamala Harris, whose definition of the term involves the belief that “everybody should end up in the same place.”

She rejected the notion of “equality,” which she complained “suggests often everybody should get the same thing” but “assumes everybody started out in the same place.”

Equity, on the other hand, takes into consideration that “not everybody started out in the same place,” Harris gushed, concluding that “some people need more so we all end up in the same place.”

A video of her remarks was shared on social media this week, prompting a flurry of criticism.

Harris received similar backlash after narrating a video released just prior to the 2020 presidential election in which she used an imagined scenario of two men — one White and one Black — attempting to climb a mountain to make the argument that the Black man needed additional resources not given to the White man. 

The vice president has also argued that even emergency aid should be distributed according to “equity” following a natural disaster.

“We have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity, understanding that we fight for equality but we also need to fight for equity,” she said in the wake of Hurricane Ian in 2022. “If we want people to be in an equal place, sometimes we need to take into account those disparities and do that work.”

In this fight Vice President Harris avoids like the plague saying that she has no problem with some people being rich and others poor. But the truth is that Harris has never, for example, said that she thinks it is wrong for a few American billionaires to own more wealth than the total owned by the bottom half of the U.S. population. She has never even hinted that Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk do not rightfully own their hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth, nor will she ever do so. Harris’s Move On “vote Democratic no matter what!” comrade in arms is Robert Reich. Reich is famous for talking about equality—"equality of opportunity,” of course, meaning opportunity to get obscenely rich like the Koch brothers did. Here’s what Robert “equality of opportunity” Reich said about those Koch brothers:

“Charles and David Koch should not be blamed for having more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans put together. Nor should they be condemned for their petrochemical empire. As far as I know, they’ve played by the rules and obeyed the laws.” [source here]

Please, somebody, wake me up when Kamala Harris scolds Robert Reich for not supporting “equity” in the sense of having no rich and no poor. It will never happen, because for Harris “equity” and “ending up in the same place” never meant no rich and no poor; it only means what even the selfish jerk quoted above would assent to, such as providing people who live farther from safety than others during a hurricane more transportation than others to get them to safety.

Harris uses hurricane-type examples like this to emit a word salad that sounds—sort of—like being for no-rich-and-no-poor equality (the same way that Robert Reich uses the phrase “equal opportunity” for that same purpose) but Harris is not at all for no-rich-and-no-poor equality. It’s the classic Democratic Party “bait and switch” to garner the support of the vast majority of people who really DO want no-rich-and-no-poor equality. It is the way that politicians who would never dream of seriously challenging the wealth and power of the billionaire ruling plutocracy get votes by making it seem as if that’s what they are about.

A Phony Fight Between Two Sides That Agree With Each Other

This phony fight is between one side that wants there to be some rich and some poor versus the other side that ALSO wants there to be some rich and some poor. The only difference is that one side proudly and shamelessly boasts that it wants this class inequality, while the other side hides the fact that it wants it. The side that boasts of its support for class inequality accuses the other side of being “Marxist” and “Communist” for using the word “equity” to talk about things such as providing people whatever amount of transportation they may need during a hurricane to get to safety. Thus the article I’m commenting on provides this picture of an X post:

By the way, speaking of Marxism, egalitarianism is ANTI-Marxism, as discussed here.

How can we make society be egalitarian?

I have some suggestions for what YOU can do towards that end here.