Eguity versus Equality is a preaching point of Lenin's vanguards.

I must admit to some astonishment to hear a senior US politician from a major party advocating for the communist principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."  I see that this is from 2020.  But still . . . 

Double click to enlarge.

To be fair, she only is explicit about the "to each according to their need" part of the Karl Marx slogan.  She is committing to give everyone all that they might need to achieve identical outcomes regardless of capabilities, will or starting conditions.  

The "from each according to their abilities" is unstated but is the necessary corollary in a pluralistic society.  In order to equalize outcomes, you must coercively extract from some to give to others.  

I have seen very little commentary, really almost none, on this astonishing commitment.  I don't know whether that is because it is packaged as DEI feel-good ideology or some other reason.  None-the-less, it is pretty explicitly Marxist and no one is talking about it as far as I can tell.  

Is the Harris-Biden campaign indeed committed to this position?  The Democratic Party?  Is this a trial balloon?  

I posted years ago about Thomas Sowell's book The Quest for Cosmic Justice.  Long before this video.  In fact, 12 years ago when Marxism was still reasonably confined to the elite universities.  But the entirety of the post is pertinent to Harris's video.  The empty-headed nomenklatura are still seeking authoritarian power to achieve the Marxian paradise of equal outcomes.  Despite a hundred year trail of failure, blood, gore, and poverty every time the self-anointed impose policy against the wishes of the citizenry.

From the old post.

His core argument, about which the book is an elaboration, is that there are three irreconcilable positions we can take regarding justice. Our traditional Western Enlightenment view is that one of the critical responsibilities of any organized group of people is the creation of the rule of law.

The rule of law - "a government of laws and not of men" - implies rules known in advance, applied generally, and constraining the rulers as well as the ruled.

Under this approach, justice is served when all are treated equally before the process of law. It is indubitably the case that under this approach, equal process, the individual outcomes attained will vary widely depending on individual talents, circumstances, behaviors and decisions.

The second approach to justice is that tried by many dozens of countries in the 20th century and that is to focus on ensuring the equality of outcomes. This approach has been disastrously unsuccessful.

The third approach attempts to tackle the issue of disparate outcomes by assuming that disparate outcomes are generated by disparate starting points. Consequently under this approach, the effort is to ensure that all have an equal starting position. This approach, under which some third party attempts to take from some to give to others in order to achieve some "fairness" to make up for different initial starting points, Sowell refers to as a search for "cosmic justice."

As Sowell summarizes it,

What is crucial at this point is not whether we agree or disagree with one or the other of these conceptions but that we clearly understand that they are mutually incompatible, that their fundamental contradictions cannot be blended or finessed.

 Mutually incompatible puts it mildly.  

There is a short essay by Thomas Sowell that lays out the elements of his argument in a 12 minute essay rather than a book length treatment.  The key issue remains the same.  Forcing equal outcomes is incompatible with individual freedom, rights and choice.  It has to be coercively implemented and no government has ever successfully achieved equality of outcomes without a complete collapse of morals, economic prosperity, health and peace.   

It will be interesting to see the fate of this video.  Will it be buried, renounced, or used as a launch platform.  It ought to be buried but there is no explicability of the idiocy of the willful Leninist vanguards.