Well, you have to know how I would answer this, since I'm the resident commie pinko. :P I think society would not only survive and flourish as a classless society, but I really believe that doing away with class distinctions would eliminate a lot (if not most) of the social ills that we see now in our society. It's pretty well known that most crime is associated with poverty and lack of education (and lack of education is ALSO associated with poverty). I've pondered it for years and years and I have yet to come up with a positive aspect of having a class system in a society. In addition, the more I learn about the heart of buddhism, the more I believe this as well. There are hierarchies in many buddhist communities, but they're usually based on wisdom rather than money, since most buddhists are *supposed to* renounce materialism. (Of course, there's Richard Baker of I think the zen center in Colorado, who is reputed to be driving around in luxury cars while his disciples live well below poverty level, but that's supposed to be an exception and I'm getting on a tangent LOL).

While I agree with everything you said, I'm conflicted as to whether or not our species could survive in a classless society. As you mentioned, in nearly every "grouping" of humans there is some sort of hierarchy, identification process, etc. To have a classless society, we'd have to have a moneyless society too which means works would be done by everyone for the good of the people but there are always going to be those that don't do their share... what happens to them? What happens to people that "break the rules" of an established classless society (rape or murder)? I'm wondering how human nature would play into it.

Personally, I think a class or hierarchy system is natural and hardwired into our social behavior. As much as I would like to try an equalize the society as much as possible - I do think our society thrives on limits and to enforce them we need an authority...

I think that's an interesting point...I'm not necessarily an anarchist, but I don't like the idea of class systems being based on money as they are in the current US society. I do tend to agree that class systems or hierarchies are probably natural, and as such I don't have problems with ones that are based on criteria that seem a little more just to me. I don't mind if the people at the top of the hierarchies are in their positions because they're more intelligent, or better educated, or more spiritually aware, etc. I think having money be the source of power in this country makes the class system so full of abuses and social injustices in this country - in my opinion it's a lot easier to respect someone who has personal qualities that have had to be cultivated through discipline, than someone who may have been able to attain their power in unethical means. Does that make any sense?

I agree Holly and I think in a classless society - if we define that not being financially drven - *individuals* can determine WHAT is worthy of being an authority for them, for some it might be a spiritual guru, for others another kind of teacher. When basic needs and personal safety aren't tied to an authority figure people have a lot more room for genuine choice y'know?

but do you think that regardless of what is determined to be the "authority" that it will be unequal. For example, let's say we determine that spiritual wisdom defines the hierarchy of society. Do you think that the guru at the top of the totem pole is going to be eating better than the spiritual peddler at the bottom? It seems like perhaps whatever the one thing was that determined the hierarchy would simply replace money.

No I think, that if everyone's basic needs are met (a full belly, shelter, education, etc) then as individuals we can determine what else is important to us - for some that might be different food, for others books, others art supplies, etc, etc, etc)

Also in a classless society it wouldn't be a substitution of one value as authority for another - so there wouldn't be a consensus that spiritual authority defined the heirarchy. For *some* spiritual authority would be important (maybe not even for a lifetime) for others it would be a trade and masters in that trade, for others it would be teachers of ...well whatever they deemed worthy of imitation. For a classless society to work you need to eliminate the externally driven fear-desire loop that advertising of goods, services, etc that capitalistic society is driven by. For it to work *needs* need to be taken care of without any strings attached and then wants need to be internally motivated.

Yes, I agree that if we were creating a classless society this is what would happen and it would, ideally, work. What I am getting at more, however, is if our SPECIES would actually survive in this manner. I think it is partly human nature to strive to be "better than" and to strive for more power but I'm not sure. So, I guess the question, to me is, if we created that idealistic society would there be people who still hoarded, gloated and basically used their given talent(s) to promote themselves and their lifestyles over others and convince them to do unto them, given their power and their wealth (be it financial or otherwise) over to them? Is it part of human nature to create a society that is NOT classless (no matter how you define the classes)?

I think the things you give as examples of human nature like hoarding and self promotion over others are symptoms of unexplored trauma - hoarding after being starved of food, love, affection, acceptance, etc, the same with power OVER others situations - the bullied becomes the bully. This is one of the reasons I've been so taken with the continuum concept and theories around non coercion (and I'm realizing that the most important element of non coercion in this society is the elimination of advertising from our lives). I don't think the fear-desire loop is a product of evolution.

Mhmm...what do you make then of past societies where there was no media, no global culture but there was still definitely classes. I'm thinking back to prehistoric days where documentation is little but I can't remember reading that there were class societies, moving onto Celtic times where there were not necessarily classes but definitely different levels of society and those in the "upper crust" were definitely given the tastiest morsels of food, the best lodging (be it tent or tree), etc. Usually those were the druid chiefs or priestess... Moving into medieval times where classes definitely were in place and most definitely had everything to do with availability of human necessities. I'm not as aware of eastern histories as western but I'm guessing that the same basic structure holds true from prehistoric to medieval societies. It is this evolution of humans that makes me wonder. I guess, however, that there is some truth to the prehistoric-kill-it-find-it-and-eat-it-or-starve thing too and maybe the evolution of classes stemmed from that..those that were most able in body and mind being those that became the upper crust of classes.

I think there is a difference between *successful* societies and those that don't manage to succeed, and I don't think there's ANY evidence that in class societies that those in the upper classes are more *capable* than those in the lower classes - often times those subjegated are much more capable - look at the way the romans treated the greeks. The medieval class structure had nothing to do with availability of resources and everything to do with the Church. But if you look at Algonquian culture - those who would in our society be considered...I dunno - *drains* based on physical or mental disabilities were treated with the same respect as the hunters. I think our concepts of class are going to be what kills us as a species - capitalism requires a huge underclass to support the few gluttons at the top and that leads not to need based consumption of resources but the wanton destruction og the environment. It is a violent assertion of class rule every time someone eats at McDonalds and through that act of privilege contributes to the destruction of the rainforest - our primary source of oxygen, I think to *flourish* we need to do the spiritual work to get past cvlass based society - lots more to say bt its 100 degrees here asnd we're going to go swimming!

Hmmmm....interesting thread. I've always thought class was deeply regrettable but fairly inevitable. Like Marka, I think we (in the West at least) are to a certain extent hardwired into a class system, but the size of the group is also an important factor here. If a class system arises in any way from ability or leadership,it's more likely there will be consensus in a small group where the priorities are survival and the ties are tribal/blood. In a large society/nation, the class system is gooing to be entrenched through privilege rather than renewed by choosing those who are most capable of meeting the group's needs. I guess in a small group, we're talking about leadership, while in a bigger society it slides into an entrenched class system.Both of those are huge generalisations and there are obviously lots of exceptions.

But as Kerr's pointed out, globalisation has created a world wide class structure that has *nothing* to do with ability and everything to do with cash and is in itself inherently destructive. On a global level, the demise of the "superpower" structure would result in a far more equitable world for us all, IMO (and I'll just throw in an aside here about the US threatening to pull out of peace-keeping activities for the UN if their soldiers are liable to face war crimes proceedings in the new International Criminal Court - can we say "if you don't play my way, I'll take my ball and go home???)

I guess what a large scale class system does (either in the traditional or new globalised manifestation) is to completely validate the negative attitudes Julie mentioned earlier. Selfish, hoarding attitudes that might be destructive and therefore forwned upon by a smaller group are celebrated by a larger group where money = power

In a small scale, traditional way, I'm not opposed to the way class systems operate. In places where social structures have remained intact, the "lord of the manor" or the "chief" often still plays an important role in knitting together the group's social fabric and nurturing a sense of common identity. I have seen this in action. Dave's cousin is married to a Scottish clan chief (yes, really!) north of Inverness. It's not a wealthy area and Judith and Andrew are *very* actively involved in social welfare and leadership roles in their community, just as his family have always been. It's not based on money - Judith and Andrew are comfortable but not really wealthy. But their presence at the big house, their place at the centre of very old traditions, their ongoing commitment to their community is deeply valued by them and those around them.

I agree that when the basis of the class structure becomes nothing more than money, all that falls apart. But part of American's culture is to celebrate and empower the individual above the group - so I think that while the two can co-exist (and there's such a wonderful tradition of philanthropy in the States) it's easier for the social commitment factor to fall away when the community/tradition thing doesn't exist at the same time.

YES! YES! everything that Genj said! What I wanted to add was that globalization and the resulting class issues are easy for individuals to ignore - the "poor" person in north america who shops at walmart and buys clothes made in sweat shops in developing countries has been trained by thisa society to see themselves as *wanting* not to ever recognize their privilege. That kind of distancing isn't possible in a smaller society you know?