Regarding the idea of the "classless society"

[zarus tathra]

You do realize that I'm talking about equality in the fundamentalist, cultural/economic Marxist sense, don't you? "Equality before the law" is just so trivial that it doesn't really need to be talked about. Obviously if two people murder somebody they should get the same punishment, assuming both murders are under the same circumstance. I'm talking about this retarded idea that everybody should get paid the same, or that everybody's opinion matters to the same degree.

[Berati]

You leftists and your impotent sense of morality. It's like you're trying to in a contest with the conservatives over who can be the most useless.

LOL Since when is not wanting the government to decide how useful people are leftist? Not only that, you failed to even address the point.

[Berati]

You do realize that I'm talking about equality in the fundamentalist, cultural/economic Marxist sense, don't you? "Equality before the law" is just so trivial that it doesn't really need to be talked about. Obviously if two people murder somebody they should get the same punishment, assuming both murders are under the same circumstance. I'm talking about this retarded idea that everybody should get paid the same, or that everybody's opinion matters to the same degree.

Really? I don't see anyone here arguing that everybody should get paid the same but that hasn't stopped you from attempting to put people into convenient boxes for you to attack.

So far all I can see is that your too stupid to have an opinion. Is that right wing enough for you?

[zarus tathra]

I don't like the "right," either. Both "wings" are determined to be useless to everybody but themselves.

[Hydra009]

What? That makes very little sense to me. I could understand government being for national defense or maintaining order or coordinating large projects or helping in the creation of wealth or something, but equality? Seems kind of a like a non-sequitir. There are a billion other things that people can worry about, why should equality of all things be at the top of the list?

Ever read a history book?  That's why.

[zarus tathra]

Read Leftism Revisited by Erik von Kuenelt-Leddihn. You can ignore the crap about God and stuff, but every great war of the last couple hundred years was fought by "egalitarian" countries. Notice how European imperialism didn't get its legs until the rise of the middle classes and parliamentary government? And how all the great massacres were carried out by "egalitarian" countries? These cute little anomalies, along with a lot of other things, are covered in this book.

Some points from the book for those who are tl;dr:

"Democracy" as it is commonly used is a very imprecise, easily abused term that, under varying contexts, denotes a billion different things. As such, it is necessary to give it a precise, hardened definition. For the purposes of the book, he gives it the meaning "majority rule," since this is the meaning that arises most naturally from its roots "Demos," or "people," and "kratos," or power. It is also the form of government that naturally arises from the following 2 assumptions:

1. "The people" are a body that is solid, fairly static, and very easy to define

and

2. Every one of their opinions matters to precisely the same degree.

"Civil rights" and "property rights" and other things like that are often called "democratic," but under this definition, they are very undemocratic. Lynch mobs are cruel and un-Christian, but if the majority in an area supports a lynching, then the lynching is VERY democratic.

Also, the rise of large, impersonal, genocidal militaries coincided very conveniently with the rise of state-bureaucratic egalitarianism, which is the only form of egalitarianism that has ever taken hold on a large scale.

On top of all this, the idea that two people should be "equal" necessarily connotes a very strong sense of "connection" between those two people, which is something that is deeply impractical on a scale larger than like 200. Large countries have tried to create very tight, inextricable links between all their citizens, and this was what was widely known as fascism.

[stromboli]

Regardless of idealism or any other lofty intent, the reality is that some humans are going to be more successful than others. Even assuming a level playing field to start with, there will always be cases where individuals who gain advantage will want to give their friends and offspring a leg up, or advantage them in some way. Government should always try to provide equal opportunity in every possible way, but human ability will still at some point decide who succeeds and who doesn't.

[zarus tathra]

I don't think the problem is "equality" per se. I think the larger problem is ideological fanaticism. It just so happens that "equality" is the fanatic's battle cry of choice in this post-monarchist era.

[stromboli]

I don't think the problem is "equality" per se. I think the larger problem is ideological fanaticism. It just so happens that "equality" is the fanatic's battle cry of choice in this post-monarchist era.

Not disagreeing. What I was talking about was an ideal situation, which obviously doesn't exist.

[Mr.Obvious]

If we're going to argue semantics then a classless society can exist. Estates and castes, for example, aren't the same as classes.
But I get your point and I would agree that there will always be a sort of hiërarchy or stratification. And a true communist society in which everyone is 100% equal not only seems unlikely to me, but also scary. Don't get me wrong, everyone should get the same rights and (acces to) social security and such. We should all be 'equal', but we can't all be expected to be the same. And from this basic difference, greater changes will always grow.

[Berati]

I don't like the "right," either. Both "wings" are determined to be useless to everybody but themselves.

Well you seem to like to throw the terms out rather freely.
Personally I don't see myself in any particular camp. Give me the issue or problem and I'll tell you what I think the solution is. I often find myself arguing with either extreme depending on the topic at hand.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Zarus, perhaps you believe yourself to be Mr Middle of the Road perfect, but you fit quite well into the nitwit class.
Your view seems to want to minimize peoples heartfelt beliefs in equality while at the same time trying to minimize opposition to oligarchy.

[zarus tathra]

Zarus, perhaps you believe yourself to be Mr Middle of the Road perfect, but you fit quite well into the nitwit class.
Your view seems to want to minimize peoples heartfelt beliefs in equality while at the same time trying to minimize opposition to oligarchy.

No, I don't strive for that ideal. That's just bullshit status quo apologetics. What I'm more afraid of is that a group would attempt to "end history," that is, make further social developments impossible the way every leftist movement thus far has attempted. And when a group's ideology is as disruptive and narrow-minded as "redistribution of wealth," you can easily see why I become convinced that cultural and intellectual stagnation will necessarily follow.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

No, I don't strive for that ideal. That's just bullshit status quo apologetics. What I'm more afraid of is that a group would attempt to "end history," that is, make further social developments impossible the way every leftist movement thus far has attempted. And when a group's ideology is as disruptive and narrow-minded as "redistribution of wealth," you can easily see why I become convinced that cultural and intellectual stagnation will necessarily follow.

I get it. The stinking, filthy, rotten rich should own all and the rest of us should be ruled by them unconditionally. I don't suppose you see the flaw in that bullshit. They're called stinking, filthy, rotten for a reason.

[Elect]

Justice means giving equal measures to equals and unequal measures to unequals. The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. -- Aristotle


Government shouldn't be in the business of equality so much as equilibrium. Balancing competing interests and what not.