Firstly, I find it interesting how you assume "classlessness" must mean an equality of outcome, and also your assumption that "a chance to rise in station" must mean holding power over others. I disagree with both. Classlessness does not inherently mean that everyone and everything must be completely equal, it merely means that all people have equal access to the same means of opportunity and decision-making (aka equality of opportunity). Two people who have different levels of "wealth" but equal levels of access to resources and decision-making power are not in different "classes", because "class" in a socio-economic context is about ownership over the means of production, not of how much money or "stuff" that you have/get. So no, I don't expect everyone in a classless society to inherently make the same amount of money regardless of work or skill, but I do expect every worker to share equal ownership over the profits they produce and equal decision-making power within their own workplaces and communities, because that's what it means to be a classless society.
Secondly, no, I also don't expect everyone to be empathetic or altruistic, nor is it even necessary. No one is arguing for a social utopia; it is only the structural means of organization that needs changing. For example, people who are empathetic and cooperative will likely struggle to succeed under our current system, which is designed for greedy and competitive behavior, whereas people who are greedy and competitive will have an advantage, and thus incentivizes that behavior; similarly, under an alternative system which is designed for empathetic and cooperative behavior, people who are empathetic and cooperative will have an advantage, and thus incentivizes that behavior, whereas people who are greedy and competitive will likely suffer to succeed at their goal of being superior over others. People's attitudes and behaviors are not only influenced by the system they exist within, but are largely subjected to it. After all, even if you believe some people are naturally greedy and others are naturally empathetic, then why on earth would we want to design our entire society's system to cater to those with negative characteristics, instead of positive ones? It simply doesn't make sense to argue that it is silly to design systems for good qualities, while you simultaneously argue in defense of the exact same thing but for bad qualities. People don't all need to be good and empathetic, we just need a systemRead more
Be the first to reply to this disagreement.