What's so great about classes?

[MarxSchmarx]

Calling all capitalists.

Can you explain to me what is so swell about a greatly unequal distribution of wealth, economic classes, and people's lives consigned to making already rich people richer even if they aren't able to "get ahead" themselves?

I'm genuinely curious. On some level I can understand why cultural reactionaries hold the views that they do, and I can even understand why market economies have their appeal to certain people (although when you get right down to it they have serious moral flaws). But I am utterly stumped as to why a society with social classes is at all desirable.

To the extent that you view economic classes as a necessary outcome of market economy, then how much effort have you put into trying to figure out why this connection results? And how would you explain relatively egalitarian but nevertheless market-based economies of the past?

[trivas7]

There is nothing inherently great about a unequal distribution of wealth, economic classes and people's lives consigned to making rich people richer, but -- to answer your last question -- since the dawn of an agricultural surplus in human society the division of labor has implied class division.

The wish for the abolition of class antagonism in modern industrial society is merely the wish for people not to be people, i.e., the wish for people to be rational, unbiased, selfless and mutually concurring. But people understand now that conflict is inherent in human affairs and that economic classes (whatever that means to you, you don't tell us) are fluid and that the state can be used for the good of all members of society. In modern societies class affiliation is not hereditary, as in a caste system and class conflicts are not present in a society in which all citizens are equal before the law. The Marxist program for the transformation of human beings by the abolition of class antagonism historically has proved itself to be illusory: a full, free democracy has never been the result of a worker-managed society. OTC, a worker-managed society has never come about. Communist-inspired societies have always degenerated into tyrannies over the masses and nothing so far comes near to generating economic power for the masses as has the fractured system we call capitalism.

[Proukunin]

nothing. capitalists are always going to end up on the greedy side of things. Never siding with the working people.

[Rafiq]

nothing so far comes near to generating economic power for the masses as has the fractured system we call capitalism.

I know I'll get in trouble for saying this, but hell, it's worth it.

Bull. Fucking. Bull. Shit.

You piss me off, and I don't like you,

Because, you fucking asshole, how many times do we have to say this:

Pre Mao China. Mao's China. Pick which one you'd rather live in.

Stalinist Russia. Tzarist Russia. Pick one.

Pre Hoxha Albania. Albania under Hoxha. Pick one.

I say fuck you, because it pisses me off when people try to defend Capitalism by comparing 'socialist' nations with nations like the united States, ect.

But the really fucking sad reality, is that the only reasons those wonderful capitalist nations ahve any success is through either:

1. Recources.

2. Imperialism, Mass Murder.

And guess what you fucking prick, the US is still a shit hole for 60% of its population.

Shove that down your mouth.

[ComradeMan]

I know I'll get in trouble for saying this, but hell, it's worth it.

Bull. Fucking. Bull. Shit.

You piss me off, and I don't like you,

Because, you fucking asshole, how many times do we have to say this:

Pre Mao China. Mao's China. Pick which one you'd rather live in.

Stalinist Russia. Tzarist Russia. Pick one.

Pre Hoxha Albania. Albania under Hoxha. Pick one.

I say fuck you, because it pisses me off when people try to defend Capitalism by comparing 'socialist' nations with nations like the united States, ect.

But the really fucking sad reality, is that the only reasons those wonderful capitalist nations ahve any success is through either:

1. Recources.

2. Imperialism, Mass Murder.

And guess what you fucking prick, the US is still a shit hole for 60% of its population.

Shove that down your mouth.


Calm down.;)

The problem is that, for example, pre-Mao China was great for capitalists and if you are capitalist I am afraid that argument will fall on deaf ears.;)

This is why I get so frustrated with any discussion that mentions Cuba...

[Rafiq]

I didn't get a lot of sleep today though, so that might be why I'm pissed, or it's just that I had such an ultra super great Facepalm from his post, I smacked my head so hard that I became angry.

[Omsk]

Now comrades,the creator of this thread wanted to hear out the capitalists answer,dont jump and attack him straight away,although i know that that bogus probably raised your blood pressure. :)

And i wan..


Communist-inspired societies have always degenerated into tyrannies over the masses and nothing so far comes near to generating economic power for the masses as has the fractured system we call capitalism.

Oh wait..
Nah attack him..:)

[Rafiq]

The Marxist program for the transformation of human beings by the abolition of class antagonism historically has proved itself to be illusory .

Abolishing class doesn't mean getting rid of social constructs that people may make, for example, the most talented sports player could be in a group that is more 'popular' than others, but that's not the Marxian class definition.

Radicals Abolishing class means abolishing the economic classes. And it doesn't mean abolishing rich and poor, it means abolishing the root, or radica of all of those things, ownership of private property, or the means of production.



: a full, free democracy has never been the result of a worker-managed society. OTC, a worker-managed society has never come about. Communist-inspired societies have always degenerated into tyrannies .

First off, yes it has, it's called Anarchist Catolina in spain, or the Paris Commune.

Why don't they exist anymore though?

because they were crushed by Fascists and Reactionary's. They worked well.

The only 'socialist' societies that became 'tyrannies' were the Leninist-Inspired and Statist inspired societies, and even those were a lot more democratic and workers had more rights than what they had before.

I love how Cappies always dissmiss Marxism as bullshit because of the flaws of Leninism.

It's like, Yeah, Luxemburg who? Makhno who? Durruti who? Real Karl Marx who?

Read them before you post such idiotic posts. Because they will give you a logical explanation for why those societies plunged into tyrannies.

Wha? No, all them commies are the same and worship Stalin.

Stop grouping us all together, stop shoving the flaws of Leninism down the throughts of Non Leninist Communism.

I'll take responsibility for the flaws of Leninism, when you take responsibility for the flaws of the reaction to class struggle: Fascism.

[Tim Finnegan]

...a full, free democracy has never been the result of a worker-managed society. OTC, a worker-managed society has never come about.
Doesn't the second sentence contradict the first? :confused:


...nothing so far comes near to generating economic power for the masses as has the fractured system we call capitalism.
In what sense does capitalism lend the masses economic power? Surely, capitalism by definition economically disenfranchises the majority.


Stop grouping us all together, stop shoving the flaws of Leninism down the throughts of Non Leninist Communism.
And, equally, stop shoving the flaws of Stalinism down the throats of non-Stalinist Leninists. Just because Leninism is popularly despised, rather than simply ignored, doesn't give you a license to treat it with the same broad brush that you object to from non-socialists.

[Proukunin]

Or take responsibility for the imperialism that capitalism brings. Look at fucking Iraq, is that democracy? is that capitalist heaven? the US isnt even democracy, The US is only free for business. We've never been below natural unemployment. We've never had good healthcare. We do have shit tons of homeless. We do have most of our wealth situated in a small percent. We do have corporations funding political parties. Why the fuck is this good?

[Rafiq]

Minus to corporatism, and the ruling of the rich, the US is still not a democracy, it's a polyarchy anyway, and that's without all the corruption and corporations.

[ComradeMan]

Minus to corporatism, and the ruling of the rich, the US is still not a democracy, it's a polyarchy anyway, and that's without all the corruption and corporations.

Plutarchy... ;)

[Dr Mindbender]

Calling all capitalists.

Can you explain to me what is so swell about a greatly unequal distribution of wealth, economic classes, and people's lives consigned to making already rich people richer even if they aren't able to "get ahead" themselves?

I'm genuinely curious. On some level I can understand why cultural reactionaries hold the views that they do, and I can even understand why market economies have their appeal to certain people (although when you get right down to it they have serious moral flaws). But I am utterly stumped as to why a society with social classes is at all desirable.

To the extent that you view economic classes as a necessary outcome of market economy, then how much effort have you put into trying to figure out why this connection results? And how would you explain relatively egalitarian but nevertheless market-based economies of the past?

I am becoming increasingly convinced that the really nasty capitalists... the bankers, the corporocrats, the ones who weild the real economic influence actually derive sadistic pleasure from the misery of others.

I mean, who really gets a hard on from banking and other yawnsome intangible industries.

Its like that episode of family guy when Chris goes to the posh school

Mr Peterschmidtt- Now youre part of our club Chris, you have to go through our initiation ceremony

Chris Griffin- Oh boy! What do i do!

Mr Peterschmidtt- you need to sign some release papers for an orphan down at the orphanage and go there in a car full of toys, food and puppy. Then as hes about to open the door we drive away!

I actually believe Mr Peterschmidtt is your archetypical capitalist.

[MarxSchmarx]

There is nothing inherently great about a unequal distribution of wealth, economic classes and people's lives consigned to making rich people richer,

Hmm but is this the previaling view of supporters of capitalism?


but -- to answer your last question -- since the dawn of an agricultural surplus in human society the division of labor has implied class division.


Yes but then how do you explain how Brazil has a gini coefficient 3 times the gini coefficient of Sweden when both are very heavily market-based societies?

[RATM-Eubie]

Classes are just way to divide people up...

[Die Rote Fahne]

Wealthy capitalist: Because that's how you stay rich

Worker capitalist: Because i can be rich too!

[RGacky3]

I am becoming increasingly convinced that the really nasty capitalists... the bankers, the corporocrats, the ones who weild the real economic influence actually derive sadistic pleasure from the misery of others.

I call it the Rush Right wing, who actually get some sort of self worth and self satisfaction from seeing people get pushed down and get exploited, because it makes them feel big and superior, its the same thing as a weak little coward that got bullied in school that suddenly gets some power.

The way the Capitalist system is set up, where hte only thing that gets you ahead is maximising profits, it rewards that type of person that has no empathy and acts tyrannical.

[Dean]

There is nothing inherently great about a unequal distribution of wealth, economic classes and people's lives consigned to making rich people richer, but -- to answer your last question -- since the dawn of an agricultural surplus in human society the division of labor has implied class division.

The wish for the abolition of class antagonism in modern industrial society is merely the wish for people not to be people, i.e., the wish for people to be rational, unbiased, selfless and mutually concurring.
No, its the wish to reach a post-scarcity economy when it comes to commonly demanded goods.

I love that you're so "objective" to the point that you don't even proclaim pop-psychological theories and project them onto people - oh wait.


But people understand now that conflict is inherent in human affairs and that economic classes (whatever that means to you, you don't tell us) are fluid and that the state can be used for the good of all members of society. In modern societies class affiliation is not hereditary, as in a caste system and class conflicts are not present in a society in which all citizens are equal before the law.
This is absolutely untrue. There are plenty of oligarchical families which have thrived for generations.

Besides, who gives a fuck if it is family relations that determine the transfer of wealth? The net effect is the same: to have a few people owning a controlling factor over the lives of masses of other people. That you are offended by familial trusts more than the real economic power relations shows just how detached you are on this issue.


The Marxist program for the transformation of human beings by the abolition of class antagonism historically has proved itself to be illusory: a full, free democracy has never been the result of a worker-managed society.
A full, free society has never existed. But wherever workers controlled the means of production (as often happens in upheavals, notably in the Middle East / N. Africa recently) democracy has been at its fullest.


OTC, a worker-managed society has never come about. Communist-inspired societies have always degenerated into tyrannies over the masses and nothing so far comes near to generating economic power for the masses as has the fractured system we call capitalism.
And we are to to take this argument seriously, why? It is onld news that marxists consider capitalism to be better than fedual relations - and all of the "communist inspired states" did not meet Marx's criteria for productive socialist revolution.

Attempts to structure society on communist lines have been the only examples which actually transferred power to the masses, though it has been brief since civil society had hardly developed in the first place in those regions. Propertarian societies easily crushed these dangerous examples of democracy, by graft with the leaders of the regimes. On the other hand, your capitalist societies have only ever transferred wealth upwards or maintained the status quo. Socialist societies have a modicum of value dispersed to the exploited masses - capitalist ones do just the opposite, deliberately, with absolutely no attempt to provide for the common wealth of human beings.

You should quit it with your pseudo-economic propertarian philosophy. It's pathetic.

[Per Albin Hansson]

There has to be different divisions of work, all can't be working on the same level, so to speak.

In order for a company to function properly there has to be workers, common people who does not need a very advanced education.

When we have supervisors, who need a slightly better education, more experience and so on.

After that there are their supervisors, and so on.


If a worker, who has studied, say 11 years(just to say a number), only deal with his assignment, and can go home from work at 16:00, how unfair isn't it that he or she should earn the same amount of money as his or her supervisor, who has studied 15 years, need to make sure a several workers do their job, and in necessary do the sad job of getting rid of them, have longer days, and in general more work to do?

If a worker and supervisor would have so different educational needs, as well as different tasks at job, why would anybody become a supervisor(who are indeed needed for a company, country, or just about anything to function!) if they could get the exact same amount of power, financial or otherwise, doing a simpler job, that takes less education, which means they can start earlier?

It's simply not reasonable. However, that is not an excuse to why some family, as my girlfriend's, barely can afford internet, while others have a several expensive cars, houses and boats, like my family.

[Plagueround]

- since the dawn of an agricultural surplus in human society the division of labor has implied class division.


Except in the societies where it didn't and had to be forcefully broken down by outside forces.

[Revolution starts with U]

There has to be different divisions of work, all can't be working on the same level, so to speak.

Why?


In order for a company to function properly there has to be workers, common people who does not need a very advanced education.

So?


When we have supervisors, who need a slightly better education, more experience and so on.

Do they? I have found people who've worked their longer make better supervisors than those merely educated.
You don't need a 4 year education to learn how to supervise people.


After that there are their supervisors, and so on.

Eternal reggression.




If a worker, who has studied, say 11 years(just to say a number), only deal with his assignment, and can go home from work at 16:00, how unfair isn't it that he or she should earn the same amount of money as his or her supervisor, who has studied 15 years, need to make sure a several workers do their job, and in necessary do the sad job of getting rid of them, have longer days, and in general more work to do?

Hiring and firing would be a vastly different process in a democratic workplace (so we can just throw that "has to do the sad job of firing someone" out the window).
You don't need a 4 year education to learn how to supervise people.

If a worker and supervisor would have so different educational needs,
Many/most managers' degrees are not in business management. They have some other degree, and just used it to get a supervisor position.

as well as different tasks at job, why would anybody become a supervisor(who are indeed needed for a company, country, or just about anything to function!)
Are they necessary? Why?



It's simply not reasonable. However, that is not an excuse to why some family, as my girlfriend's, barely can afford internet, while others have a several expensive cars, houses and boats, like my family.

Now you're getting it :thumbup1:
Take yourself and family out of the equation... do you still feel management, in its' current sense, is necessary?

[RGacky3]

When we have supervisors, who need a slightly better education, more experience and so on.

After that there are their supervisors, and so on.


Thats not how it works, many times (I work in the engineering feild), the supervisers are not the ones that have the most technical knowledge, its the ones that are buisinessmen, because sometimes the smartest decisions from an engineering perspective are not the smartest buisiness decisions.


If a worker, who has studied, say 11 years(just to say a number), only deal with his assignment, and can go home from work at 16:00, how unfair isn't it that he or she should earn the same amount of money as his or her supervisor, who has studied 15 years, need to make sure a several workers do their job, and in necessary do the sad job of getting rid of them, have longer days, and in general more work to do?

If a worker and supervisor would have so different educational needs, as well as different tasks at job, why would anybody become a supervisor(who are indeed needed for a company, country, or just about anything to function!) if they could get the exact same amount of power, financial or otherwise, doing a simpler job, that takes less education, which means they can start earlier?

It's simply not reasonable. However, that is not an excuse to why some family, as my girlfriend's, barely can afford internet, while others have a several expensive cars, houses and boats, like my family.

Fine .... But why should who gets paid what be left up to essencially one person in the company? How hte hell is that fair? Under Capitalism compensation has NOTHING to do with your education, or what your production is, its the boss paying as little as he can to everyone else and as much as he can to him and his board.

Capitalism compensation is not a system of merit at all, I'd love a system of merit, but thats not what we have.

[jake williams]

Can you explain to me what is so swell about a greatly unequal distribution of wealth, economic classes, and people's lives consigned to making already rich people richer even if they aren't able to "get ahead" themselves?
The answer's pretty obvious:

Being a billionaire is fucking awesome.

Being really rich actually is really great. The rich aren't actually unhappy with their wealth. They've created a world where their money can buy almost anything they could want.

The rich don't generally actually want poor people to be poor, both for selfish reasons (riots are bad), as well as for sentimentalist reasons, which is part of the appeal of philanthropy - only a small minority of whackos actually derive pleasure from the suffering of others, and few of them are sufficiently high-functioning to get or stay wealthy.

But they also don't really care much, at the end of the day. The very ultra rich have more than enough money to hide themselves from the poor, physically and mentally. There are a lot of self-serving ideologies about how not everyone can be wealthy, because not enough is produced to give everyone some particular lifestyle, but that capitalism apportions wealth to the just, talented, creative (or in earlier societies, the divinely-willed).


Really though, it's not that complicated. Being really rich is awesome.

[inyourhouse]

Can you explain to me what is so swell about a greatly unequal distribution of wealth, economic classes,

I'm coming to this thread a bit late, but my view is that there is nothing "swell" about the things you listed, per se. However, they are to a certain extent necessary under capitalism. Nevertheless, I favour capitalism along with some degree of redistribution because I believe that maximizes social welfare. In other words, on balance, I think the gains in the form of greater output are worth some degree of inequality. Of course, the precise amount of redistribution necessary to maximize social welfare under capitalism depends on the preferences of the population. Specifically, it depends on how willing people are to sacrifice gains in average incomes for greater equality (the "equity-efficiency tradeoff"). This will depend on people's ethical views, etc., so there is really no "correct" answer.


and people's lives consigned to making already rich people richer even if they aren't able to "get ahead" themselves?

I don't think this is necessarily the case under capitalism, however. If it is, though, I think it can be better addressed through greater redistribution rather than the abolition of private ownership of the means of production.


To the extent that you view economic classes as a necessary outcome of market economy, then how much effort have you put into trying to figure out why this connection results?

An unequal distribution of income is necessary for incentives to be sufficient for higher output growth, hence the existence of the equity-efficiency tradeoff.


And how would you explain relatively egalitarian but nevertheless market-based economies of the past?

I think this can be explained through different levels of income redistribution, be it governmental or voluntary (charity, etc.).

[Fulanito de Tal]

To the extent that you view economic classes as a necessary outcome of market economy


This stems from a utilitarian ethical value which is Eurocentric in nature. The utility/usefulness of a behavior is what judges whether an action is moral or not. This value tends to come from the top down as the people on the bottom are the ones that suffer the unwanted consequences and those at the top receive the benefits.

For example, many people say that slavery was a necessary evil for th US to become great. Yea, that may be true, but the people that say that were not the slaves working the fields. Typically, they're the ones on their air conditioned cars, drinking a 5 dollars coffee and throwing away their left overs.