Regarding the idea of the "classless society"

[zarus tathra]

There can be no such thing as a "classless" society. Any society that has anything to say about its people, which is ALL OF THEM, is going to judge people and therefore classify people. Even "egalitarian" societies will judge people based on whether or not they fit in or are "revolutionary."

[stromboli]

There can be no such thing as a "classless" society. Any society that has anything to say about its people, which is ALL OF THEM, is going to judge people and therefore classify people. Even "egalitarian" societies will judge people based on whether or not they fit in or are "revolutionary."

Agreed. there will always be some form of stratification, whether it be from beautiful to less beautiful, intellectually to less so, white collar to blue collar. The idea of a classless society wherein all are equal is a pipe dream.

[the_antithesis]

You sound like a hipster.

Get some regular frames for your glasses, hipster.

[Solitary]

There was a primitive tribe that was a classless society until the missionaries showed up. Solitary

[Jack89]

There was a primitive tribe that was a classless society until the missionaries showed up. Solitary

How big was the tribe?  I'm sure it makes a difference.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

There can be no such thing as a "classless" society. Any society that has anything to say about its people, which is ALL OF THEM, is going to judge people and therefore classify people. Even "egalitarian" societies will judge people based on whether or not they fit in or are "revolutionary."

Well yeah, it's human nature to judge and classify others. That doesn't mean we can't strive to be as egalitarian as possible though.

[zarus tathra]

Well yeah, it's human nature to judge and classify others. That doesn't mean we can't strive to be as egalitarian as possible though.

Why should we do that? Why shouldn't we strive for an accurate estimation of an individual's usefulness, intelligence, strength, etc?

[zarus tathra]

You sound like a hipster.

Get some regular frames for your glasses, hipster.

Is this what passes for an insult around here?

[Shiranu]

Meh, I think the concept isn't too flawed; I don't think a "classless" society necessarily means the people view each other as one homogeneous group but rather the state views all people as a homogeneous class and treats them all the same, from janitor to CEO, black gay atheist to white heterosexual Christian.

Economically this seems like a winning plan to me (everyone pays their fair share), though there are some issues I could see arising. Nevertheless I think it is the ideal way for the government to treat it's peoples.

That is how I have always interpreted it anyways, that it is more to do with the government's treatment of it's people rather than it's people's treatment of one another.

[zarus tathra]

Relying on the government to carry out a design as abstract and subjective as "equality" sounds like a really bad idea.

[Shiranu]

Relying on the government to carry out a design as abstract and subjective as "equality" sounds like a really bad idea.

It should be the ultimate goal of government; that is pretty far from a really bad idea.

There is nothing subjective about it, it is about as far from subjective as you can get. People making 1,200,000 a year have to follow the same laws as people making 12,000 a year. Minorities are given the same rights as majorities, be it ethnic, religious or otherwise.

Should the government actively promote difference between the classes? Do you want rampant inequality that cripples the economy? Because that's how you get rampant inequality that cripples the economy.

[zarus tathra]

It should be the ultimate goal of government; that is pretty far from a really bad idea.

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? The only kind of person who'd give it that high of a priority is the kind of person who doesn't feel as if they're worth anything, IMO.

Should the government actively promote difference between the classes?

Jesus Christ this is so obviously a logical fallacy that I don't really have to say anything. This is like internet 101.

[Berati]

Why should we do that? Why shouldn't we strive for an accurate estimation of an individual's usefulness, intelligence, strength, etc?

Because there should be only one set of laws that applies to everyone.
Do you really want the government estimating an individuals usefulness?

[zarus tathra]

Because there should be only one set of laws that applies to everyone.

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.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

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.

What the hell is so hard about the law applying to everyone equally (aside from the occasional mitigating factor)? You act like a smug asshole but you sound like a fucking moron. Get off of your fucking high horse, no one is impressed.