I think I can say confidently and definitively that 'economic status' would simply become obsolete and meaningless in a post-capitalist context. As an example of convenience I'll point to what happened to Yanukovich's mansions and private collections -- they've become 'collectivized' and turned into museums -- state / public property -- for anyone to see and experience.
If this example can be likened to the transition from feudal holdings to capitalism, then we can see that a *proletarian* revolution would turn over all *productive* implements (factories) to collective control, for the good of the public.
So this is all prelude to the point that, in a *post-capitalist* social order, anyone who would have the initiative enough to "amass" collections of mansions, grounds, zoos, decor, art, etc., would effectively be a 'point-person' for public / collectivist administration over the same -- certainly no one would 'own' anything that *requires labor* for upkeep and functioning. To put it another way, people would have their day-to-day personal possessions, and their habitual domicile(s), but anything a person could not actually use on a regular basis would be considered as part of the world's collectivist 'commons', for anyone to access and use, or to fall into disuse. I have this as part of the model I developed, which I advocate:
That said, about the annihilation of 'economic status', though, I happen to have an instrument of 'labor credits' as a part of this 'communist supply & demand' framework -- the premise is that since everything large-scale would be collectivized, with no more commodity production, the only economic 'variable' remaining would be that of (liberated) labor itself.
Again you're focusing on the *individual* scale -- while this *can be* a valid standpoint, I'd like to re-emphasize that a post-capitalist 'equality' would be about 'proportionate access to the means of mass production'. So the 'careerist' mentality that you're alluding to would be of secondary concern to the *overall* construction, of a fundamentally *collectivist* approach to how all implements are organized and put to use.
Yes, due to the prevailing humane ethos and full automation of mass production, for the common good. Here's a 'proof' for that:
I disagree here -- once everyone's basic needs can be guaranteed, from a liberated-labor mass production, that reality would free everyone to freely pursue interests of a personal nature, which may also have social / societal benefit as well.
You might at this point point-out that this is only 'begging the question': Who, exactly, would be willing to do the labor necessary to provide *everyone* with the necessities of life and living -- to be the initial 'engine' of a post-revolution gift economy that materially equips everyone else with the free time to individually pursue what they like -- ?
For this I would simply indicate that, currently, there are plenty of people who -- even within capitalism's competitive paradigm -- prefer to do volunteer-type work that has social impact. As long as there is a sufficient 'core' group of volunteer types who would see to a general basic social upkeep, that collective effort would be enough to leverage everything else.
I'll add that, besides the *professional* incentive of doing good meaningful work, there *could* be the more-material individualistic incentive of increasing one's own liberated-labor-organizing capacity, through the personal earning of labor credits, as mentioned above.
Sure -- in a *collectivist* context (as already mentioned) no one would privately 'own' *anything* -- there would be those with an uncoerced individual interest in certain projects, including maintenance and upkeep, and there would be those who like to *use* certain available infrastructure and resources.
(For any given infrastructure there may *not necessarily* be sufficient interested liberated labor to guarantee its availability indefinitely -- and that's okay. Much that currently exists today may very well simply fall into disuse, due to lack of interest in its upkeep in the future.)
I disagree -- I don't think that's a *given* and/or *problematic*, as you're making it out to be.
Firstly, consider that everyone has *finite* physical capabilities in realtime -- the archetypal 'kid at Disneyland' can only cover so much ground in one day, and the same goes for *everyone*. After some time beyond capitalist commodity-production, it could very well be the case that the world develops its infrastructure of leisure possibilities to the point where *no one* could possibly cover it all with one's own finite life-time -- it would be like what the Internet is today, for all of the physical / material world.
Also consider that a collectivist society would have a collective interest in collectivism, basically, meaning that more numbers with a shared interest in common would enable more to happen, thereby facilitating a kind of 'over-consumption' as a real possibility. (Perhaps something similar to the Bittorrent dynamic.)
Yeah, that pretty-much covers it. I'll copy from my model once again:
