Social class/caste system...

[izmeister]

Do you think its right for society to place us in classes?

My class is having a debate on it and I would like to know your viewpoints on the subject.

[chesticles]

no but thats life. even if someone says they dont judge ppl they still do subconsciously (spelling)

[Barotix]

How does free society place us in social classes/caste systems?

[chesticles]

How does free society place us in social classes/caste systems?

If you really think we live in a free society then your mistaken. Just look at how the poor live and how the rich live...

[tedtwilliger]

Even when we "place" someone into a label we still must take into account that every person has a unique individuality. On a pure aesthetics or base level people can be segregated into groups. Though once you get to know someone more the groups disappear and you rate them as who they are, appreciate their individuality.

Judge me, hate me, group me, love me. Its all the same in the end.. i know who i am.

[Barotix]

How does free society place us in social classes/caste systems?

If you really think we live in a free society then your mistaken. Just look at how the poor live and how the rich live...

We don't live in a free society. The question he asked is unusual. "Do you think it's right for society to place us in social classes/caste." Society and right. First, what gives society the right to do such a thing, and are societies natural or artificial entities? Are societies fairly new constructs or old? Could one say an Israeli from Bethlehem at the time of Roman occupation was part of Roman society; was he part of Israeli society; or maybe the more local society in Bethlehem. Society does not put one in a caste or class system. One does of one's own will once one accepts and believes the labels put on him by individuals, not society. The myth of Society is a construct of the fairly recent nation-state. It is artificial, self-destructive, and absurd.

[Reise]

Barotix don't bring this society bullshit back from your corpse of a thread. We already discussed this.

[Barotix]

Reise, Society and Government are two entirely different things.

[l05tfr33k7]

The question he asked is unusual. "Do you think it's right for society to place us in social classes/caste."

i think he meant, "Is it correct for society to place us in social classes/case." Not their right to do so.

And there are always classes/castes everywhere you go. Official ones and unofficial ones. People just have to overcome them. But they can never be destroyed completely.

Judge me, hate me, group me, love me. Its all the same in the end.. i know who i am.

yup.

[XemnasXD]

When asked that the first thing i thought of was "Brave New World"...i still haven't decided if they had the right idea...

[Barotix]

I would say because of the nature of society placing people in classes is something that arises out of necessity. Is it right, proper, or good? Well, it depends on who you ask. Good for society, bad for the individuals within society.

[Reise]

Reise, Society and Government are two entirely different things.

Show me one instance where society has existed in any recognizable form without government.

[XemnasXD]

deja vu....

[Barotix]

Reise, Society and Government are two entirely different things.

Show me one instance where society has existed in any recognizable form without government.

The myth of Society is a construct of the fairly recent nation-state. It is artificial, self-destructive, and absurd.

Your statement assumes that society and the nation-state develop independently of one another. There is a large difference between what can be called a free society and a society that results from coercion. We could sit here and discuss the motives of governments, how the modern nation-state has formed, and whether modern government is natural or artificial. We can go further and conclude that society is a result of the nation-state. Your idea of government is to general.

Take for example 16th century Europe. Most European Monarchs did not have absolute power until the 17th/18th century, and even after they managed to silence and oppress the many subcultures that existed within their so called society they had to contend with the powerful Church and the many nobles. Of course nobles weren't their only worry, they also had to deal with unruly dukes and lords, and then there was the resilient merchant class and growing middle class that had no ties to the feudal lords and lands. Society and government, as we know it, is a recent occurrence in Human History. Your attempt to generalize and claim that all government functions in the same manner is absurd. Like our previous argument I argued against the Nation-State. I argued against a manipulative coercive monopoly. What of 16th century European society? Lets go a step further and talk about French Society before Louis XIV proclaimed, "I am the State." What society was there? There was no France or England. These are merely labels, but did the people of these "societies" adhere to these labels? Did they all speak a common language before the nation-state sought to impose conformity? Looking at history one sees that the nation-state, in it's present form, did not exist in the west until the French Monarchs sought to expand their power. A society is a group of people that share a common language, culture, and ethnic background. Most Western Nations did not have a common tongue, culture, or ethnic background. You had Normans, Southern French, you had French of Spanish descent, you had French that paid no allegiance to king or country, and you had some that knew no country or society but only knew the church and Christ. Modern Society and the Modern State are intertwined, different but intertwined. One is the tool of the other. Today we try to impose our modern views on people that lived in the past and find it difficult.

A leader that has to ask for troops and money from the people he leads? A State that is not absolute? A country that lacks a common language, culture, and background? What of 11th-12th Century England? Before the Norman invasion and the introduction of feudalism? Of course, one could claim that all these smaller groups were societies in their own right. That is why I raised the question of the Israeli from Bethlehem during Roman occupation. To which society, if any at all, does he owe his allegiance to? Was there even a society that he owed allegiance to?

Anyhoo, the topic ask: Is it good or bad for society to put people into social classes/caste. If you want to argue about the conception of the Nation-State and modern society in general feel free to make a thread.

[Love]

How does free society place us in social classes/caste systems?

If you really think we live in a free society then your mistaken. Just look at how the poor live and how the rich live...

there is rich and there is poor just like there is light and there is darkness point is for the most part no1 placed the rich where they are or the poor and btw you are also part of society ....

[bakafish]

Thread derailed...

[devilti]

Do you think its right for society to place us in classes?

My class is having a debate on it and I would like to know your viewpoints on the subject.

you should study india. the whole country is caste

[Grandpa]

Derailed, yes. But I agree with Reise, it's fun to troll for Barotix.

There was a Jew (they didn't call themselves "Israeli" then) who appealed by his rights of Roman Citizenship to not be bound to trial except under Roman law. He was previously a Jewish Pharisee and became a Christian Apostle. To what "society" did he belong? You've confused society with cultures, religion and government. Look up the definition of equivocation, please.

A "society" is a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially an organized group working together because of common interests, beliefs, or profession. Consider a "Literary Society" or a "Ladies Society". Societies (and all groups for that matter) are defined by whom they exclude. A society is simply a social circle that has a clearly marked identity. Just because the Caveman Society of BeatYourWomanWithYourClub couldn't write doesn't mean they didn't meet as regularly as any other society. They still exist to this day and you know it! Their enemies, The Woman's Society to Control their Reproductive Functions, fought back and established the "World's Oldest Profession". They didn't take notes at their meetings but they too exist even today.

The OP most probably meant "society at large" in the broadest sense. The question was: "Do you think it's right for society to place us in classes", -NOT- "Do you think Society has the right to make class distinctions?" I would tend to agree that the question is biased against classes because it implicitly includes "us" in an "us" vs. "them" situation when "we" are asked for "our" thoughts. "Do you think it's right for society to place us in classes?"

Can you imagine the student who tries to summon the courage to defend concepts about the Ruling Class or takes a stand about the benefits of Slavery? My best attempt (because I like being the underdog) would start by giving a definition of a Republic and showing that most governments who call themselves a Democracy aren't. Who isn't a slave to their credit card? -- I guess I'm not the only one easily sidetracked

Oh, and by the way - Corporations are artificial entities and if by "artificial entities" you mean "not individuals" -- governments are "artificial" too. There is no end to the can of worms called 'Equivocation', once opened.

More on topic: Do I think it's okay to establish class distinctions? I would think that it's impossible not to. There will always exist the "Haves" and the "Have-Nots", right? If the term "society" means a clearly defined group - the concept of "class" is implicit. Societies by their very definition are an attempt to determine class. Consider the Daughters of the American Revolution. Only those who can learn to raise their pinkie-fingers when drinking tea, only those of the "highest class", only those who can utter, "Mumsey forgot to wake me for my piano lesson, life is such a pain...", may join. Oh, and they also have to have their family's arrival in America predating 1776. But then, even though my wife and daughters are formally eligible to join the D.A.R. through both my mother and father -- my personal identity is more closely tied to Potato Irish, not "Lace". I've established my protest by siring only boys and encourage my sons to do the same. Take that, D.A.R.

~Granps

[iGod]

Everyone has a chance to prove themselves in a capitalist society like this.

[Barotix]

Granps, I was talking about Modern National Societies as a result of coercion through the aggressive mechanisms of the Modern Nation-State.

"It can be argued that these smaller groups were societies in their own right," but did societies in the broadest term arrive naturally or artificially? Oh, and I'm not trolling, and the people of western Europe that had no ties to the land, lord, king, or society. The adventurers, freelancers, roaming monks, wanderers, vagabonds, traveling philosophers, and the like. Are they part of "the society of adventurers?" Before the rise of Statism, in the West, Large National Societies like that of Napoleonic France were inexistent. I do agree though; the Modern Nation-State and corporations are artificial entities. One creates the other and then the created takes over the creator. Also, Reise speaks of great National Societies and you speak of stateless societies. Again, the first question I raised is also relevant: I know his question, but what gives National Societies the right to put us in caste and why do national societies put us into caste?

Do you think it's right for society to place us in social classes/caste.

You see, I never changed his question. For the sake of discussion I raised the how, where, when, and how. Is it right? For society, yes. For individuals, no. The answer is simple but what of the origin? The topic was never hijacked or derailed.

ONT: The caste arise out of necessity.

[Priam]

@op.

No, but it's inevitable. People will always set eachother apart one way or another.

[Grandpa]

Granps, I was talking about Modern National Societies as a result of coercion through the aggressive mechanisms of the Modern Nation-State.

"It can be argued that these smaller groups were societies in their own right," but did societies in the broadest term arrive naturally or artificially? Oh, and I'm not trolling...

Do you think it's right for society to place us in social classes/caste.

You see, I never changed his question.

You changed the question to, "How does free society place us in social classes/caste systems?"
In your comment (while answering yourself) your internal dialog changed the question again.
This time it became, "Do you think it's right for society to place us in social classes/caste."
Then you addressed the rights of society and contrasted this to individuals:

"One does of one's own will once one accepts and believes the labels put on him by individuals, not society.
[Emphasis yours]

You then labeled society at large a MYTH and called the very concept absurd.

To your challenge, "Show me one instance where society has existed in any recognizable form without government," my tongue-in-cheek response cited two examples, "Caveman Society of BeatYourWomanWithYourClub, and The Woman's Society to Control their Reproductive Functions. You've objected to my response saying, "Granps, I was talking about Modern National Societies as a result of coercion through the aggressive mechanisms of the Modern Nation-State."

If that were the case you should have said so. Because your question indeed becomes even more absurd.
Again, you asked for one example where any society existed without government.
If you were speaking about Modern National Societies (as you state) and if you define them as "mechanisms of a Modern Nation-State" - my only reaction is
Your circular reasoning is like a whirlwind, friend. Beware: Confusion lies there.

In essence you've tried to state by definition that societies exist solely by their relationships to governments. I simply disagree and have given several examples of this not being the case. Literary Societies, Ladies Societies, Primitive Societies. My point to you is that your assumptions contain an ethnocentric view and within that view a certain bias. Your hidden opinions and value judgments are equivocations based on your assumptions that societies can be defined by what they lack. That all primitive societies are missing something -- THE STATE -- and that it is essential to them as it is to any other societies (our own, for instance). Consequently, by your belief, those societies are incomplete; they are not quite true societies--they are not civilized--their existence continues to suffer the painful experience of a lack--the lack of a State.

Whether you state this clearly or not, it is evident. In effect, each one of us carries within himself, internalized like the believer's faith, the certitude that society exists for the State. You've arbitrarily tied the state of civilization to the civilization of the State, and designate the latter as the necessary end result assigned to all societies. One may ask what has kept the last of the primitive peoples as they are.

~Granps

[Barotix]

Granps, Reise asked for one example, not I.

Show me one instance where society has existed in any recognizable form without government.

I was contrasting large national societies to smaller stateless societies within these so called national societies. That much is evident. I did not rephrase his question; I raised my own questions in hope of spurring a good discussion.

The following are several quotes from myself to clarify the situation as it seems you are mistaking me for Reise:

"It can be argued that these smaller groups were societies in their own right"

It can be argued, it is argued, and that is what I was implicating with the example of the Jew* (thank you for the correction) under Roman Occupation.

The myth of Society is a construct of the fairly recent nation-state. It is artificial, self-destructive, and absurd.

Yes, it is absurd to assert the natural existence of a large National Society in the Absence of the Modern Nation State. On the other hand small societies, not unlike the ones you mentioned, are typical.

[Grandpa]

lol - you're kidding me.
I wish I could learn to read. May I join the Literary Society? Noooooooooo....

I stand corrected.

[Doron]

call me shallow but I quite fancy the Classes system...

[izmeister]

call me shallow but I quite fancy the Classes system...

Care to explain why?