EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IF EVERYONE CANNOT BE HELPED, THEN NO ONE SHOULD.
comunism is for fags
That isn't communism, communism is based on the ideals of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, in which there should be one "common class", in which the proletariat will rise up and create a class conflict, and in which the bourgousie (sp?) will eventually have to submit to the demands of the proletariat, and the proletariat will emerge as the victor. It does not necessarily mean equal opportunity for all, it simply means the merger of classes into one, in which each person is given equal worth, and thus ending the resentment of the proletariat against the bourgousie (sp?).
You may be thinking of "complete democracy" (as it can be more specifically defined as) in which each person is treated equally, and thus creating the idea of a Utopian society. We can see an example of this in which Robert Owen, a somewhat well-off aristocrat from Great Britain in the early 1800's attempted to make a Utopian society in which each person was treated equally
and without an favor in the United States. Every person pooled into a plethora of work in which sustinence was granted equally among the living. It was thought that after complete equality was granted, harmony would prevail. Alas, it did not, and therefore it can be said that the paradox of complete equality
can actually never exist, in which we must relate ourselves to the ideas of Charles Darwin and his works on the theory of evolution.
In the early to late 1700's, when the Scientific Revolution had peaked, Charles Darwin had boarded a ship in which he traveled to several islands, earning his way by being the ship's naturalist. He began to emphasize his work in the observation of birds, in which he noticed the significant differences and eerie similarties between them. Eventually, out of the theory of evolution, he created the idea of social darwinism
, where it applied to European political thought. It also contributed to the early 1900 imperialism, but that is clearly beside the point. Social darwinism, misinterpretedly by the politicians, including Austria's Metternich, and the Prussian Bismarck, states that the strong must win over the weak, in which the weak must be consumed for the benefit of all.
Therefore, there must be a clear distinction between strong and weak, which contributes to the fact that equality cannot exist, because there will ineveitably and consistently be those who are strong and those who are weak creating an everlasting faction between the two, similar to the Marxist and communist theory of a class war.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR FUCKING QUESTION
you didnt ask a question
now im tired