7 ms·

When you try to abolish class, you're really trying to make everyone middle class. No one wants to make everyone working class, and upper class can only exist i

• ericd 9y ago
  The upper class wants the fruits of being wealthy, they're generally not in it for the "subjugation" aspect. With sufficient automation and efficiency/recycling, everyone could be what we call "upper class".
  • bencollier49 9y ago
    That is, by definition, impossible: """the social group that has the highest status in society, especially the aristocracy. "it is important that the children of the upper class attend the ‘right’ school" """ I could have the same goods as you, but we'll find a way of distinguishing ourselves based on accent, assuredly. Speaking as a Brit.
    • dmix 9y ago
      This is under the fallacious basis that one only becomes wealthy by appeasing the wealthy... by getting into their social group. Which is hardly how modern economies work (although politicians has made great strides in shifting economies back towards that under the guise of a well-intentioned 'helping hand'). If anything we should be striving to limit the power of artisotricacy type groups (whether in dynastical political families, special interest group form, oligopolistic industry cartels with political pull, etc, etc).
      • bencollier49 9y ago
        No it's not. It's on the basis that wealth has little to do with social class, especially if you make everyone equally wealthy. People will find new ways to distinguish between one another. It's intrinsic to humanity.
        • deleted 9y ago
          [deleted]
        • freeflight 9y ago
          > People will find new ways to distinguish between one another. I don't see anything especially wrong with that as long as said distinction isn't built on some kind of vertical hierarchy which involves downwards oppression/discrimination. People can be vastly different yet still consider each other as equals. The only reason we think of this as a contraction is that for the longest time humans have solely organized themselves in vertical hierarchies where the "top" is supposed "the best" going down to the "bottom" with the supposed "worst". That's why so many people are conditioned to always strife for the top, for them it's the goal of the game, but a games goal can be changed, just like its rules.
        • ericd 9y ago
          Sure, people will always try to make a social hierarchy, even when there's no difference in material wealth. Trying to feel better than others and climbing the social ladder is not "subjugation of the lower classes", though.
        • ForHackernews 9y ago
          That's fine, though. Subcultures can invent their own hierarchies and enjoy feeling superior to one another without harming each other. Maybe you look down on me because I don't even have a HAM radio license, maybe somebody else considers himself superior because he knows a lot about wines, maybe other person thinks she's cooler because she knows everything about 80s punk bands...
    • DougN7 9y ago
      See Dr Seuss and Sneetches - he's spot on.
    • ericd 9y ago
      Fair enough, I should have specified that I was thinking of the American upper class, which I think is typically based primarily on wealth, rather than a parallel social hierarchy.
  • jessaustin 9y ago
    This is what we'd like to imagine the upper class thinking, but meeting them can be disillusioning.
    • classwarsteve 9y ago
      regardless of intent, the upper classes have material conditions that condition their behavior. Regardless of how they come off upon meeting, they still would rather have subjugation and hold their position than work to create an egalitarian society.
      • ericd 9y ago
        Looking at your username, did you make an account on HN just to discuss class issues? If so, why?
        • classwarsteve 9y ago
          I live for the discourse
          • Rescis 9y ago
            Generally it's suggested to keep a consistent identity on HN as it suggests more reasonable discourse when people understand their actions follow them. Discourse is fun, rational discourse with consistency is what makes this site amazing.
            • classwarsteve 9y ago
              The only account I had before this had about 3 posts and I lost the password. I'm not looking to make unreasonable discourse.
  • barrkel 9y ago
    Speak for yourself! I'm in the wealth game so I can get other people to do things for me. Machines performing the labour isn't authentic, doesn't have the same meaning.
    • ericd 9y ago
      Haha my apologies. Good luck with your quest for domination.
  • ACow_Adonis 9y ago
    You need to expand your social circle :P Obviously, a generalisation about an entire class is one generalisation on top of another, but i've had discussions with people who have explicitly told me they don't really care how good/bad things are, as long as they are better than others. Ditto with skills, tests. Don't care, just as long as i'm above others. A lot of people don't REALLY want to abolish slavery or heirachies. What really want is to ensure they're considered the masters.
    • adventured 9y ago
      > but i've had discussions with people who have explicitly told me they don't really care how good/bad things are, as long as they are better than others. No question that mentality exists, I'll argue that it's a very small minority of eg millionaires in any society that hold such a view. There are around 11 to 13 million (not including primary residence) millionaires in the US; or around 4.5% to 5% of the adult population. The typical millionaire in the US is worth about $3 to $4 million. While it's a very large group of people spread across the country, they do have a few things in common. The majority acquired that status from working extremely hard for a very long time, usually either operating and or selling relatively small businesses with no more than between a few dozen up to a hundred employees, or slogging away for decades piling up invested wealth slowly over their lifetime. The millionaire class in the US is numerically overwhelmingly dominated by those types of outcomes and has been since the industrial revolution. Extreme wealth on the other hand obviously is concentrated in a few thousand persons with unusual outlier situations, usually around very large business concerns. My suspicion is that group is dramatically more likely to have a master of the universe mentality.
      • richardwhiuk 9y ago
        Most millionaires acquired it, largely, via inheritance, not hard work.
        • obscurantist 9y ago
          That's true for most European countries, but not America.
  • adrianN 9y ago
    Unfortunately humans tend to measure their wealth relative to others ("keeping up with the Joneses"), so making everyone equally wealthy probable doesn't improve average or maximum happiness in the population. In developed countries even the poorest are infinitely better off than the upper class in medieval times, safe for the aspect that they're not richer than their peers. That seems to be a very important factor for happiness.
• int_19h 9y ago
  If you only have one class, there's no point in talking about classes.
• qbaqbaqba 9y ago
  Middle class without working class? Doesn't that sound silly? In communism/real socialism everyone is supposed to live by their own labor and means of production may not be owned by individuals. Middle class, including minor entrepreneurs(like cafe owners), merchants(shop owners), craftsmen(shoemakers), little farmers are the first victims.