Should we have social classes?

theinfectedmaster

Argument Topic: Nope. Not at all.

I think social classes are an unnecessary evil that degrades society and creates mental health problems.

jack

theinfectedmaster said: 

Should we have social classes?

Hello the:

Nahh...  But, trying to make everybody equal smacks of communism..

excon

theinfectedmaster

@jack Not all types of communism are authoritarian though.

jack

theinfectedmaster said:

@jack Not all types of communism are authoritarian though.

Hello again, the:

I said nothing about authoritarianism. People can certainly choose communism without an authoritarian leader..  Nonetheless, it's still communism.  You asked "should" we have it, and I said no.  I'm sticking with that.

excon

Bogan

Every human society above 200 people has always had social classes       This is because skill specialisation which involves different levels of IQ and different types of IQ has always manifested itself.     The idea of a class blind society was the brainchild of Marxist academics, who lived in cloistered worlds far removed from everyday reality.    That communist countries themselves were very class ridden is proof of that assertion. 

   All that communists achieved was to re establish the old pyramidal type of totalitarian society with a chairman, President for life, king, Queen, or emperor, at the very top, a very few senior committee members or barons below him or her, a greater number of trusted functionaries below them, and the mass of the people making up the rest of the pyramid.  .     Sort of the kind of society that Democrats are trying to re create in the USA today.

 Modern free market western democratic societies are more egg shaped, with more people at the very top through separation of powers.      The bottom of society is not the most numerous, and it is the working class which has that honour, which makes up the of the bottom of the egg. 

Anyone who thinks that you can create a class blind society is the sort of ninny who thinks that you can create a race blind society, or that  a man can magically change his sex by simply putting on a dress.     

Barnardot

@theinfectedmaster I think we should. I go to a night class to learn remedial language skills because I have dyslexic and word diss association issues. And our class goes under the baner of social skills and there are other classes you can take there to like learning how to deal with people and in the old days I remember in the old days before girls were allowed to come out they had to go to ettiquit classes to learn social skills like walking with a book on there heads and how to cook meals properly. Even down to how to put the perfect creeses in shirts. 

Ampersand

As someone from England, the most broken-brained class obsessed society in the Western world, class is and it sucks.

Bogan

@Ampersand ;  As someone from England, the most broken-brained class obsessed society in the Western world, class is and it sucks.

It may "suck", but every society above 200 people has a class system where people are graded by class.     Some societies perhaps more than others?      My own country, Australia, has often been touted as a "classless society" and the Australian term "mate" can be equated to "comrade".     But European Australian society is, and always has been, as class class riven as every other comparable society.    

What is happening in the western world today, is the rise of a new class of people, who are the educated elitists.      University trained people have always existed and other than the eggheads in the Humanities departments,, they were all part of the establishment.      University educated, working age people in 1900 were only 5% of the population, but in western countries today, it can be up to 50%.     The values and attitude's of this very influential and growing demographic is usually "social progressive", which is why there is so much clamour for change in the western world today.   Who decides what is "socially progressive" is in the hands of conniving and dishonest people who know how easy it is to manipulate the members of this demographic, who are obsessed with their class image and their class identity.        Just present any kooky idea as 'socially progressive" and the members of this emerging educated elitist class will adopt it as a political fashion which demonstrates their class affiliation, as surely as driving a Tesla or wearing Doc Martin shoes.   

MayCaesar

If by "social class" you mean a system in which people are put into groups with different sets of rights based on characteristics outside of their control - such as the caste system in India, or the class system in Feudal Europe - then it is hard to make a compelling case for it that would not be perceived by the vast majority of people in the developed world as barbaric. "Sanctity of the individual" is the cornerstone of the modern approach to structurization of society, and it is clearly incompatible with the idea that different individuals should be treated differently by the legal institutions regardless of their actions.

If, on the other hand, by "social class" you mean a system in which people take different positions in the society, gain different amounts of influence, respect and wealth - then it seems to be an inevitable consequence of the fact that human organisms have differences. If you are have incredible "running genes", then you can become one of the top runners in the world and enjoy all the boons that come with it - and if you do not, then you will, at best, be a decent runner nobody knows about. The only way to prevent it from happening is to artificially cripple people with incredible "running genes", which sounds unbelievably dystopian. And any other forceful equalization of people's outcomes is same kind of crippling, just in different applications and degrees.

Certain segmentation of society inevitably occurs as people tend to gravitate towards those they have something in common with. So in my social circle the vast majority of people have PhDs, and every single person has Bachelor's. It is not because I live in a bubble in which only PhDs and a few Bachelor's holders can trespass, but because we have similar backgrounds and can relate to each other really well. It is hard for me to relate, say, to a farmer who has not done anything but farming after high school: it would be interesting to listen to his story, but I doubt I will have much to talk to him about once the initial curiosity has faded away. I can have a polite chat with a cashier, but unless said cashier is working in order to pay off her college tuition, it is unlikely that I will be interested in hanging out with her often.
That, however, does not make me into a member of the "PhD class". There is no such thing, and we do not enjoy any legal privileges that people without PhDs do. Sure, we have a serious advantage when applying for most jobs - but that is because of the ability our PhDs attest to, not because there is a law somewhere that says that people without PhDs cannot be hired by companies of particular profiles. Were such a law in place, in my view it would be extremely retrograde and inappropriate.