Communism strives for a classless society. Why? What's the reason? &, how do you build a classless society? :shrug:
Last edited:
Classless Society
- Thread starter okayillgonow
- Start date
Trying to subvert Human nature, IMO. They tried the same with religion, in the most religious/superstitious country in the whole world--didn't work, did it? Look at them now--American evangelists in Russia trying to convert the heathens, Islamists and secularists trying to convert Central Asia, pagan Slavic religion sarting up again, Russian Orthodox rebuilding old cathedrals everywhere. As for class, that will always be part of society, PMC. You'll never get rid of people's idea that they are better/smarter/richer/more deserving than their neighbour.
Equality
Equalty of what ?
Income or wealth ...... not fair. Just ask any teacher if all students deserve the same grade based on effort and intelligence.
Opportunity ..... that is what is fair and just.
Not completey attainable as some children have much better parents and get a head start in life from their childhood environment of values and education.
Communism just picked the wrong goal.
Equalty of what ?
Income or wealth ...... not fair. Just ask any teacher if all students deserve the same grade based on effort and intelligence.
Opportunity ..... that is what is fair and just.
Not completey attainable as some children have much better parents and get a head start in life from their childhood environment of values and education.
Communism just picked the wrong goal.
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
What is human nature do you know? Can you separate human nature from the society it was shaped by? I bet had you been born and raised in a cellar with artificial lights, you would think it's the only possible state of things. Humans are like rats, they adjust to everything and, more than that, they consider their present state as the only natural one. Classless societies existed for way longer than class divided societies. Were they against human nature? As always, at some point in time class divided tribe turned out to be military superior to the less "advanced" neighbors. Accumulation of goods and property is not written into baby's mind by nature, the idea about lower and higher classes is not there, the idea about superiority of white skin is not there, it's all environmental ideas.
It worked just fine, some people predisposed to engage into the organized religion. Majority, however, is far less fervent is securing this and that world advantages bye appealing to the higher powers. Former soviet republics are home for the largest chunk of atheist and agnostic on Earth. In the last 15 years, the pendulum turned into the opposite direction for the obvious reason. However, it's started going back again.
Their "yield" is less and less, they are rather despised (and the message they bring) then listen to, they are permanent objects of jokes and snide comments.
Gee, boxes of churches are built on every corner, it must mean something else than Church being again in bed with state. Hint, rare church is build by congregation.
That's rather unfounded comment. Remember, there were classless times.
How is that related to class? I bet lots of surviving tribesmen in Amazonia have their ideas about their neighbors, however, they are not in the rush to have a local Bill Gaits. OK, you are smarter, more deserving man, fine go into the wild and cry aloud about that. You don't want? Sure, you don't want that because without us, stupid, all that self-glorification is just hot air. Class differences don't automatically come out of the people's desire to be different.
Evidence?
Evidence you want ?
Absolute Monarchies.
The king and few barons had all the wealth [rights and power] and everyone else was a member of the same class, the poor.
It was even worse in the Feudal systems prior to that.
Stalin, PolPot, Mao and Castro. to name a few, have tried to reproduce such conditions in the name of Communism.
Absolute Monarchies.
The king and few barons had all the wealth [rights and power] and everyone else was a member of the same class, the poor.
It was even worse in the Feudal systems prior to that.
Stalin, PolPot, Mao and Castro. to name a few, have tried to reproduce such conditions in the name of Communism.
I don't think the concept of classes will ever be gone from society. There will always be superior and inferior people economically, skillwise, or in any other facet that differentiates the individual. Even in the animal kingdom, among group animals there is a heirarchy. Alpha males and females aren't unique to the human race. Even societies that claim to have everyone represented equally still have a heirarchy. Someone has to call the shots, even if it's a committee of concerned citizens. Whether elected or appointed, they have placed themselves on a level higher than the others.
Personally, I have no problem with classes as long as there's some degree of mobility.
Personally, I have no problem with classes as long as there's some degree of mobility.
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
There are still some evidences left in Amazon river basin and New Guinea. By classless I don't mean societies of clones without some kind of leadership. However, in those societies leadership was not heridetary and one could not "cash on" much on it. Piling up personal wealth (not necessities) as meaning and the goal of life is relatively recent human invention. This is not to say that I don't want myself to "pile up" some things above necessities, but I think "piling up" went to far, it's as dangerous as warming or resource depletion. Actually, it's the main cause of those things.
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
Feudal society cannot be classless. There were nobles (some dirt poor), town dwellers, craftsmen, merchants, soldiers, rich (and free) peasant, clergy, serves. One could not easily jump from one caste to another (except at the times of Dark ages), all those castes had different potential for the wealth accumulation. Feudal society is class, rather caste, society.
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
You mixed up individual differences with classes. We are different, but "rules of the game" decide who is going to be who much more than our differences. The status quo is carefully maintained.
Classes aren't particularly bad for our society. The problem with our society is that it's an aristocracy as opposed to a meritocracy.
If classes were built on merit, effort, and intelligence, the world would be better than it is now. Our society promotes aristocracy, where having more money is more important than merit. Thus, a dumb person with a lot more money seems to have more power than a smart person with no money (for the most part).
Look at all the dumb Hollywood stars. Look at all the dumb politicians that gain power due to their family name or family fortune. Look at all the dummies that get high positions due to who they know instead of what they know.
If classes were built on merit, effort, and intelligence, the world would be better than it is now. Our society promotes aristocracy, where having more money is more important than merit. Thus, a dumb person with a lot more money seems to have more power than a smart person with no money (for the most part).
Look at all the dumb Hollywood stars. Look at all the dumb politicians that gain power due to their family name or family fortune. Look at all the dummies that get high positions due to who they know instead of what they know.
It is a symbiotic relationship. Each needs the other.