Class system.

[sirtom93]

Would our world not be better of if we got rid of this and worked togethor as one.

[Drakim]

At 5/15/08 04:16 PM, sirtom93 wrote: Would our world not be better of if we got rid of this and worked togethor as one.

Sorry, there will always be bad topic and good topics on newgrounds, thus, the classes "leet" and "noob".

[Al6200]

So that people who work for the system and people who do nothing get the same things?

It's an interesting idea but it's not plausible at all. If you did get rid of the class system in the US, your white collar elite (bankers, mathematicians, engineers, scientists) would be reluctant to live with no special status, prestige, or purchasing power. Most of them would end up leaving the US and going to other countries.

In fact, if you look at relatively practical Communist countries like the Soviet Union, the class system was kept in place and highly educated people were given a competitive standard of living. The government was practical to enough to realize that giving a physicist a peasant's wages would lead to a mass exodus of talent from the nation.

Also, how would we have doctors or professors without a class system? Why would someone go to school for ten years to get the same income as the person who went to school for 0 years?

[Sajberhippien]

At 5/15/08 04:53 PM, Al6200 wrote: So that people who work for the system and people who do nothing get the same things?

Because right now, all people that work have higher standard than all who don't.

[Al6200]

At 5/15/08 06:52 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 5/15/08 04:53 PM, Al6200 wrote: So that people who work for the system and people who do nothing get the same things?

Because right now, all people that work have higher standard than all who don't.

Those pictures don't support your position at all. I said that those who work and are productive make more money than those who do nothing (nothing is a hyperbole, but the point stands).

Even if the guy who mops the floors is working hard, he isn't doing a lot of productive work for the system. If he did his job exceptionally well, nothing would really change, and there would be no extra generated capital for the company. His job only has to be done satisfactorily, and practically anyone can do that work. In light of that, the pay doesn't go very far above subsistence. (I'm not bashing people who clean floors. For some people it can be satisfying work, but it doesn't do a great deal of work for the system so the pay is pretty low).

On the other hand, Paris Hilton appears on TV shows and gets money from her Dad. Even though she doesn't work very hard, she gets a lot done and therefore makes a lot of money. The fact that everyone knows who she is is a testament to how well she does her job of being infamously well known.

I didn't say the amount of effort expended, I said the amount of "work for the system". The two concepts are quite different, although for people of roughly equal innate ability they can be somewhat equivalent.

[ForkRobotik]

If you want to know whether or not social anarchism can actually work, maybe you should try talking to the arawaks.

[Sajberhippien]

At 5/15/08 07:36 PM, Al6200 wrote:

Those pictures don't support your position at all. I said that those who work and are productive make more money than those who do nothing (nothing is a hyperbole, but the point stands).

Well, if that's what's gonna count, and being a stuipid spoiled whore is of more worth to the system than keeping a city sanitary, then I'm all in favor of them getting as much pay.

[butsbutsbutsbutsbuts]

Read "Animal farm" by George Orwell.

Every time a society attempts to get rid of classes suddenly the people at the forefront of the war on class become a new elite and pick up where the old elite left off. The class system isn't entirely a self fulfilling prophecy, it is caused by 100s of other factors. I'm sorry reality is not as simple as Karl Marx laid out, but if you are convinced the world revolves around the class system and it is the absolute worst thing ever then you have no choice but to kill yourself because the class system will never really go away. Declaring that there is no longer a class system will not get rid of it, a new one will crop up under a different name and you will inevitably fool yourself into thinking you are some sort of intellectual who always knows best because you are an idiot.

All that can be done is to limit the power of the upper classes, whether they are aristocrats or social liberal intellectuals. Limit the power of the state to the essentials needed to preserve freedom and justice and have a libertarianism instead. Allow unfettered free trade, free speech, the right to bear arms, infallible property rights and create a thriving virtually tax free economy so that people obtain the full fruits of their work. Ensure that everyone knows their rights and create simple blanket laws that apply to everyone so there are no loopholes that will allow state socialists or crony capitalists to become rich beyond their market value.

[RedCoin]

Every culture to ever exist has always had some form of hierarchy and probably always will.
It's human nature I suppose.

At 5/16/08 09:22 AM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote: Read "Animal farm" by George Orwell.

Fantastic book.

[MickTheChampion]

Any society will always have some form of stratification; even during "Primitive Communism" there would still have been females who were more attractive and males who were better at hunting.

[Al6200]

At 5/16/08 12:18 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 5/15/08 07:36 PM, Al6200 wrote:

Those pictures don't support your position at all. I said that those who work and are productive make more money than those who do nothing (nothing is a hyperbole, but the point stands).

Well, if that's what's gonna count, and being a stuipid spoiled whore is of more worth to the system than keeping a city sanitary, then I'm all in favor of them getting as much pay.

But:

1. There's a wide degree in variance in how well one can be a stupid spoiled whore. Therefore the most popular and widely known ones earn greater compensation. In contrast, there's almost no variance in how well one can keep a city sanitary.

2. The system does benefit from entertainers. If it didn't, then no one would've heard of Paris Hilton.

[sirtom93]

You dont need a defined class system that is set in stone though, We also need the same education of a high class for all so as to not segregate from a young age. Having a hireachy is different from a class system as its not to say someone who is extremely rich and educated has any more power over the law than someone who is poor and less educated.

[SmilezRoyale]

Class systems tend to spring up on their own, Even in Utopian Indian tribes you WILL have individuals in the tribe valued more than others.

Class systems should never be deliberately established or stratified, but trying to break them apart is a fruitless endevour, because the kinds of class systems that exist in modern america, for example, are created out of choice, not force.

[Christopherr]

Our economy is stimulated by a drive to make more money.

Why would someone strive to make more money if they still have to give it up in the name of equality?

[Hermitology101]

The reason that communism is'nt working right now is that our society is based upon greed, and monetary advancement as well as the need to strive for greater things. If every person in a society was striving to advance the whole, then everybody would be in perfect harmony. Any dissenters would excommunicated. I'm talking about a modern utopia. Class system is ablosihed. There would be no need for leaders for everyone would vote at the same time via tiny comupters, given at birth. though what i talk about is surely extrimist it is my true veiw.

[Al6200]

At 5/18/08 08:01 AM, Hermitology101 wrote: The reason that communism is'nt working right now is that our society is based upon greed

Not necessarily. If I am willing to go to an extra 5 years of school to become a doctor, and expect extra money for all of that grueling work - am I really being greedy?

If every person in a society was striving to advance the whole, then everybody would be in perfect harmony.

In a capitalist system people earn money by supporting others (that's how you get money, other people give it to you for doing work). So if everyone strives to make money, then work is done for the system.

Any dissenters would excommunicated. I'm talking about a modern utopia. Class system is ablosihed.

Okay but what if someone does something only moderately bad? Like what if they do the work, but just half-ass it and never achieve their true potential. Surely you can't excommunicate everyone except the absolute hardest workers? In a non-monetary economic system there's no way to deal with people who don't work their hardest, but also don't deserve to be excommunicated.

everyone would vote at the same time via tiny comupters, given at birth. though what i talk about is surely extrimist it is my true veiw.

How is a layperson qualified to vote on what tactics the military should use, or what type of fuel a reactor should be running?

All this would lead to would be people being constantly bombarded with questions that they have no hope of understanding - since one person cannot be educated enough to do everything.

[Hermitology101]

i must consent to AI's point. An idea of a modern utopia is a most unlikely one. However, ideas from such a system can be implimented in a "democatic" govt. And before anyone hits me for "flip flopping" im not. Im just consenting to an unlikely. Think of a bee hive, or a cell in a body. Each induvidual has its own functions but is a part of a whole "organism". I'm not saying that people should be as mindless as bees i'm suggesting we look at nature for examples.

[Al6200]

At 5/18/08 10:34 AM, Hermitology101 wrote:

An idea of a modern utopia is a most unlikely one. However, ideas from such a system can be implimented in a "democatic" govt.

Certainly. Referendum (everyone voting on stuff) is a good idea on some issues which don't really require a specialized education. For example, gun control is really just a trade-off between the personal liberty to own guns and the security of not allowing others to have guns.

It's really just a tradeoff between freedom and security - one that all of the American people should decide on, since it effects everyone and isn't an issue of science.

Conversely, a decision of whether we should run nuclear breeder reactors or not would require a great deal of knowledge about future energy supplies, terrorist capabilities, and reactor security. Leaving it to the average American who knows nothing about any of those things would be foolhardy. The only team that could successfully tackle that question would be composed of nuclear engineers, intelligence experts, and geologists (to know about natural energy supplies).

And before anyone hits me for "flip flopping" im not. Im just consenting to an unlikely. Think of a bee hive, or a cell in a body.

It's not like every cell plays a part in the decision making process in the body. In fact, the process is quite undemocratic. The neurons tell all the other cells what to do, and most cells play no role in the decision making process.

Each induvidual has its own functions but is a part of a whole "organism". I'm not saying that people should be as mindless as bees i'm suggesting we look at nature for examples.

Actually some cells are quite greedy. A good example is cancer, which is essentially just one cell deciding that it will reproduce out of control and do nothing to help any of the other cells out.

Also, some genes in your DNA do nothing, and just try to copy themselves.

[sirtom93]

But I believe that unless the job doesnt add to the countrys economy as a whole (doctors and military etc... are exceptions) then they shouldn't be allowed as they add nothing to changing country and are all self, self, self.

[Christopherr]

At 5/18/08 08:01 AM, Hermitology101 wrote: The reason that communism is'nt working right now is that our society is based upon greed, and monetary advancement as well as the need to strive for greater things. If every person in a society was striving to advance the whole, then everybody would be in perfect harmony. Any dissenters would excommunicated. I'm talking about a modern utopia. Class system is ablosihed. There would be no need for leaders for everyone would vote at the same time via tiny comupters, given at birth. though what i talk about is surely extrimist it is my true veiw.

There is a difference between greed and drive.

I wanted to do something that I loved, but it cost a lot of money to go through schooling. Naturally, I will get paid more than some lazy idiot who now works at 7-11 because I am contributing more to the US economy.

[Sajberhippien]

At 5/18/08 10:20 AM, Al6200 wrote:

At 5/18/08 08:01 AM, Hermitology101 wrote: The reason that communism is'nt working right now is that our society is based upon greed

Not necessarily. If I am willing to go to an extra 5 years of school to become a doctor, and expect extra money for all of that grueling work - am I really being greedy?

No, but you could do that in a socialist state too. If you do it BECAUSE you want to get the extra money, then it's greed.

If every person in a society was striving to advance the whole, then everybody would be in perfect harmony.

In a capitalist system people earn money by supporting others (that's how you get money, other people give it to you for doing work). So if everyone strives to make money, then work is done for the system.

Not necessarily by supporting others, but also by tricking them into giving it to you. Even if we don't count crimes (since those are kind of special cases), you still have the whole advertising business which has the point of tricking people into buying stuff they don't really need.

[KeithHybrid]

At 5/15/08 04:16 PM, sirtom93 wrote: Would our world not be better of if we got rid of this and worked togethor as one.

Congratulations, you invented communism.

[sirtom93]

At 5/18/08 05:49 PM, KeithHybrid wrote:

At 5/15/08 04:16 PM, sirtom93 wrote: Would our world not be better of if we got rid of this and worked togethor as one.

Congratulations, you invented communism.

No shit sherlock.

[butsbutsbutsbutsbuts]

At 5/19/08 11:58 AM, sirtom93 wrote:

At 5/18/08 05:49 PM, KeithHybrid wrote:

At 5/15/08 04:16 PM, sirtom93 wrote: Would our world not be better of if we got rid of this and worked togethor as one.

Congratulations, you invented communism.

No shit sherlock

AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN GET RID OF THE CLASS SYSTEM IS THROUGH A DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT AMIRITE!

[RedSkunk]

At 5/15/08 07:36 PM, Al6200 wrote: On the other hand, Paris Hilton appears on TV shows and gets money from her Dad. Even though she doesn't work very hard, she gets a lot done and therefore makes a lot of money. The fact that everyone knows who she is is a testament to how well she does her job of being infamously well known.

"Being famous" isn't an occupation.

At 5/16/08 09:50 AM, RedCoin wrote: Every culture to ever exist has always had some form of hierarchy and probably always will.
It's human nature I suppose.

It's not human nature but a natural consequence of a stratified economy. Hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian. Before the existance of agriculture, where specialization began.

At 5/16/08 06:35 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Class systems tend to spring up on their own, Even in Utopian Indian tribes you WILL have individuals in the tribe valued more than others.

A tribe is a class system by definition, bud.

[Imperator]

I think class systems suck, but our brains are geared towards memorizing and recalling categories, so unless we evolve quicker we're gonna have them for a while.

[Dante-Son-Of-Sparda]

At 5/16/08 09:22 AM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote: Read "Animal farm" by George Orwell.

lol im reading that book in English at school right now

[Al6200]

At 5/19/08 06:42 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 5/15/08 07:36 PM, Al6200 wrote: On the other hand, Paris Hilton appears on TV shows and gets money from her Dad. Even though she doesn't work very hard, she gets a lot done and therefore makes a lot of money. The fact that everyone knows who she is is a testament to how well she does her job of being infamously well known.

"Being famous" isn't an occupation.

Yes, yes it is. What do you think Brittany Spears did? Obviously, she has no unique musical capabilities or background - her only trait that allows her to sell records and get into tabloids is her fame and bad reputation.

What about William Hung? Sure, he didn't make a lot of money - but for a brief period of time he was able to earn funds simply by virtue of being famous and getting attention.

If you can be famous, and use that to get advertisement slots, interviews, or the ability to endorse - you have an occupation that is essentially just you peddling your fame. I don't see why you have such a hard time seeing it. Obviously it's a very rare and generally fruitless occupation, but people can succeed merely by virtue of being well known.

[butsbutsbutsbutsbuts]

At 5/16/08 09:50 AM, RedCoin wrote: Every culture to ever exist has always had some form of hierarchy and probably always will.
It's human nature I suppose.

It's not human nature but a natural consequence of a stratified economy. Hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian. Before the existence of agriculture, where specialization began.

I reject that. The idea that native Americans were peace loving hippies before the evil white man came is racist, racist against native americans. Can you name some Indian tribes? Apache, Iroquois, Huron... They are remembered because of their fighting prowess even though they gave the white man the most trouble, they were trained from infancy to be warriors like the Spartans, used the most ancient weapons and gave germs, guns and steel wielding whites a run for their money. Suddenly turning around and saying "lol they were weak and effeminate and literally tripped over themselves to die when the white man came" is bullshit and racist.

[Al6200]

At 5/19/08 10:44 PM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote:

At 5/16/08 09:50 AM, RedCoin wrote: Every culture to ever exist has always had some form of hierarchy and probably always will.
It's human nature I suppose.

It's not human nature but a natural consequence of a stratified economy. Hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian. Before the existence of agriculture, where specialization began.

I reject that. The idea that native Americans were peace loving hippies before the evil white man came is racist, racist against native americans. Can you name some Indian tribes? Apache, Iroquois, Huron... They are remembered because of their fighting prowess even though they gave the white man the most trouble, they were trained from infancy to be warriors like the Spartans, used the most ancient weapons and gave germs, guns and steel wielding whites a run for their money. Suddenly turning around and saying "lol they were weak and effeminate and literally tripped over themselves to die when the white man came" is bullshit and racist.

He never said that they were peaceful. He said that they were egalitarian. There's a huge difference.

But he's right - people in hunter gatherer societies were quite equal - I mean, it's not like there were toys, specialized labor, luxury products, or anything that went beyond the necessities - so it's difficult to imagine any way that they could be unequal.