reply to post by rich23
Originally posted by rich23
Originally posted by Xtraeme
I, too, was mortified at the thought that a class system is "by design." However once I reviewed the notion looking at every system man has ever
created, it seems like greed (psychological scarcity) coupled with physical scarcity (natural lack of resources) ultimately forces a scenario where
one person necessarily has more than another.
You've looked at every system man has ever created?
That sounds perhaps too good to be true (at least in any thorough sense. I can't make such a claim, but there are periods in history where, however
briefly, people have co-operated in difficult times. Reading Orwell and Chomsky on the Spanish Civil War will give you an idea of what I'm talking
My original approach to this was to ask, "Is the idea falsifiable if a classless society existed in our past?" Thinking about this I realized SH
accounts for both class-oriented and classless societies. If you notice in
at points (c
) and points (a
) we have 0 value to
be produced & reproduced
and 0 good to be consumed
. This means there's no good for either the group or the self and therefore each person
is contributing as much for themselves as they are for others. So the system is in equilibrium -- a classless society (similar to
early proto-communist societies
described by Marx and Engels).
So how to falsify the idea?
Since I'm inclined to think the idea encapsulates all things, one way that occurred to me that it could falsified, was by asking, "Does a class
system exist in nature outside biological-life?" Evaluating this I asked, "Is there a natural order to the universe?" The question may sound silly
because obviously, yes, there is a very definite hierarchy. Whether we look at galactic structures or how atoms bond there's always an order to how
objects revolve about each other. We even have a delicate food-pyramid in nature with decomposers/bacterium at the bottom and top-level consumers as
Now this might seem like comparing apples to oranges, but the way I'm viewing scarcity as related to human-exchanges is based on the notion that in
any given transaction someone gains more or less than another. It's the odd ball scenario where both people (physically not perceptually) receive
exactly the same amount. For instance if you purchase cereal that weighs exactly 312g, as specified on the box, but another person finds that their
purchase weights 312.9g; then they've obviously received more despite paying the same amount.
The same is true with nature on a small scale. With entropy we see that things radiate away and for systems to sustain themselves they require a
greater intake than outtake. No system we've ever observed can retake the outtake perfectly to then resupply the intake without loss. So again we see
inherently in reality, even in a completely deterministic universe without life, things are given unequally to different objects.
This suggests that the ontology behind this notion of scarcity is correct in that there is an order, or an implicit class system, which doesn't
preclude a classless society as a type
of class system.
Here's something that does get me. People always refer to things like the laws of thermodynamics as if they were real. They are observations,
consistent ones it's true, but we don't know if they apply 100% of the time everywhere in the universe. So that's a big "if" in the first
The second if-clause answers itself, at least for me: people working together can co-operate and make rational choices and plans, whereas, at least in
current scientific doctrine, the universe can't choose when and where to apply its "laws".
In no way am I saying that we can't balance things out.
Actually one of the core aspects of the idea is to say for the entire thing to be symmetric
we must be able to overcome
the 2nd law of thermodynamics
. If we can't then ultimately the universe
wins and the idea of a non-zero sum-game was just a nice, albeit, fanciful daydream because nature ultimately has the final-say.
I'm suggesting we have to overcome this somehow and the only way we're going to do that is if we start looking for infinity, as a physical-tangible
Sadly it can't, since nature has the final say, meaning inherently someone is gaining more than another (it's the recognition of this
that causes boom / bust cycles).
Sorry, got to call you on this: this is sloppy thinking. Firstly I disagree with your logic on getting to the "nature has the final say" part, as
adumbrated above. Secondly, more importantly, a reading of economic history makes me fairly sure that boom and bust cycles are artificially created in
order to profit a tiny clique.
If you haven't already seen The Money Masters it's full of interesting and ignored history. And it leaves one in no doubt that this recession, like
many others, is part of a gentle fleecing of the sheep.
I'm fully well aware that we're being taken for all we're worth. If I were to give details about the amount of wealth being siphoned out through
hedge funds like Renaissance technologies your head would explode.
However there are a number of good intentioned people in the world of economics and when they catch wind of the changing weather they react by moving
their resources to something that's more secure. Those who aren't manipulative scum trying to abuse their leverage, contribute to down-turns and
up-swings by moving their investments due to normal market pressure which helps to create booms and busts.
These changing market indicators are very much the result of realizing where growth exists and where the resources for that growth have flowed in from
(which is a pretty good indicator of what's doing poorly). This goes to my point that "inherently someone is gaining more than another."
Of course, that begs the question, at what point does profit become profiteering? I'm not going to try to answer that, but I'll acknowledge
the question's existence.
I've taken to using the expression, "We should define what's too much by what's too little." If there's even a single person who doesn't have
food, water, or shelter and someone else has an inequality greater than everyone else, then the money from that person would be taken and given to the
other to have enough to basically live.
Because really if a person can't survive and someone is at the top of the economic pyramid then clearly that person is in a position to help. By
putting economic pressure on the individual with excess money it encourages them to use their wealth to drive down shortage of water, food, and
shelter so they can keep more of their fortune. Money, as a tool, should be used to keep society advancing, functioning, and to help all people, not
to allow a very small group of people to have obscene and unlimited glut.
Note this sits alongside capitalism and a free-market system in a healthy way. It doesn't say "Marxism" or "Capitalism." It doesn't have to be
I'm sure someone will say, "but this would destroy incentive to create wealth!"
No, it wouldn't
Nice points as always, and it's always good to see people working things out. Hope I've helped in my haphazard way.
Just want to say again thanks so much for your thoughts and comments Rich!
[edit on 3-3-2010 by Xtraeme]