Antiprophet
28th December 2007, 13:24
If you spend any time arguing with the cappies youll know that a popular argument against any ideology that wishes to do away with social class goes something like:
Itll never work because its natural to want to compete and be better than your fellow man, some people will always be better than others.
And I actually somewhat agree (except the Itll never work part). Even in primitive communism you had leaders and some were more respected than others. Pretty much every social mammal species compete against one another for a higher position. The way I usually respond to this argument is that what is being described is social status and not social class. Status maybe dependent on class in capitalism and class societies but it doesn't mean they are always linked together. Yes people will always compete for a higher social status but that doesnt go against economic cooperation between people. The abolition of social class doesnt mean the abolition of social status and after communism/socialism/anarchism is established there will still be different social statuses (i think...). For example a future Shakespeare or Newton will have a higher social status that most simply because they will be looked up to by others for their contribution civilization. And theres the competition, competition could be for how much a person contributes which would lead to that persons social status.
But Im not sure if this is just my position or a Marxist/anarchist position since Ive never read anything on social status, or a similar concept, written by any widely accepted Marxist or anarchist. Theres a good possibility that Im completely wrong about this and most of those ideologies also want to also do away with social status.
Itll never work because its natural to want to compete and be better than your fellow man, some people will always be better than others.
And I actually somewhat agree (except the Itll never work part). Even in primitive communism you had leaders and some were more respected than others. Pretty much every social mammal species compete against one another for a higher position. The way I usually respond to this argument is that what is being described is social status and not social class. Status maybe dependent on class in capitalism and class societies but it doesn't mean they are always linked together. Yes people will always compete for a higher social status but that doesnt go against economic cooperation between people. The abolition of social class doesnt mean the abolition of social status and after communism/socialism/anarchism is established there will still be different social statuses (i think...). For example a future Shakespeare or Newton will have a higher social status that most simply because they will be looked up to by others for their contribution civilization. And theres the competition, competition could be for how much a person contributes which would lead to that persons social status.
But Im not sure if this is just my position or a Marxist/anarchist position since Ive never read anything on social status, or a similar concept, written by any widely accepted Marxist or anarchist. Theres a good possibility that Im completely wrong about this and most of those ideologies also want to also do away with social status.