We definitely need something to replace it, but our current state of affairs isn't meritocracy, it's creditocracy.

Almighty Mammon, make me rich
Make me rich quickly, with never a hitch
In my fine prosperity. Kick those in the ditch
Who hinder me, Mammon, great son of a bitch!

Gambling and loosing on the market is nothing new; only its accessibility is a development.

Class solidarity has never appealed. It’s often led to blind factionalism and needless division. Heaven knows how many perfectly worthwhile ideas have been dismissed with nothing more weighty than a charge of bourgeoisie. The old Know Your Place mindset is just as pernicious as Cool Britannia debt-culture.

Whatever form it takes, you'll always have a class system: whether your aristocracy is decided by birth, ability, or bum-licking the Politbureau, it remains an aristocracy. If the question is "Were the blue-bloods better?" I say of course not. (Take one look at Prince "Hewitt" Harry for your reason why.) Genuine meritocracy would reward talent and achievement in a range of fields, not just the number of zeroes in a bank account. For much of his life Einstein was poor as shite.

Recognising flaws in the present is well and good, but we shouldn't fall into the trap of idealising the past. The Swiss army used to consider nostalgia a sickness. Reckon they were onto something.

OK. I did say I would be .. more thoughful .. less aggressive .. in my posts. Especially discussion ones. Mustn't say things that sound like I don't take someone else's view (or worse still the person themself) seriously. I mean, everyone has a right to their own opinion, right? And there's no one here I don't respect...

So why do I have an overwhelming urge to say 'This is a joke, right?'?

[Apologies for any genuine offence caused, I geniunely am being light-hearted here. Well, before here. I'm being serious as .. of .. ]

Class structure means reward for being born (and subsistance for the same reason...). It means ability is not as important as genetics. It also means an absence of hope if you're at the bottom.

And while we may decry the rampant materialism of the modern age (a by-product of capitalism, not of the socialist policies that have eaten away at the class structure), do you really want to swap that for the rampant redicalism of the last but one century, where those at the bottom felt the only hope they had was violent revolution?

Wait a minute .. did I just say .. hmmm, maybe this idea has merit after all...

On a side note, the class system hasn't gone, just got a little blurred at the edges. The children of those with the most toys are always going to have more opportunities than those with none. As long as there is capitalism, there is going to be some semblence of class. The only truly class-free society is a flat one, one without hierarchies .. oh, hang on, that'll be Anarchy then, right?

---

by Jayjay
The only truly class-free society is a flat one, one without hierarchies .. oh, hang on, that'll be Anarchy then, right?

---

Wrong, our instinct to form hierarchies will always defeat Anarchy. Nature made us that way. We can't remove hierarchies, and nor should we try, but we can make them fair by giving equal access to equal ability.

Commodity-culture doesn't really concern me (I don’t loose sleep over fools being parted from their money) but it's too simplistic to blame capitalism for its excesses. Capitalism fuels it under the right circumstances, but has to be given something to burn. The loss of restraining factors like religion combined with Thatcher's "shareholder culture" are prime suspects.

We've survived eras of excess before. Right now we're nothing compared to the Hanoverians. (Think Derry’s wallpaper was bad? In 1725 the Lord Chancellor was convicted of embezzling £80,000.) The Victorians reacted to that decadence, and no doubt we’ll experience our own response before too long.

But I don't think a revolution's in the offing. And sorry, but you'll need a permit for that barricade sir.

The class system is still here as it never went it just evolved over time as it's a genetic part of us. Just look all the animals that operate in groups. Due to social pressure the class systems just represent themselves differently.

Instead of the obvious "class structures" we had a couple of hundred years ago, we now also have obvious structures by which our society is "divided". The boundaries are indeed somewhat vagued up which gives people the impression that they could possibly "rise to a higher level" but in reality this is something that only happens rarely.

No matter how you wish you "divide" the society it always boils down to one thing: The haves vs have nots. Some of you might say that in modern society you aren't born into a certain class, but for a large part of the population this is just not true. The kids born to "haves" parents are infinitly more likely to end up as haves too. Be it because of financial means for a decent education, social pressure, nurture, travel in the right social circles or whatever, on average end up better because they are given the chances, role models and ambitions. (Funny example). And we don't even take into account that things like intelligence are largely inherented. Not to mention that when you fokes die and they were haves you stand a good chance to also become an automatic have.

There is of course always the exception that exceeds all expectations and can climb from a not have to be a have or even an uber have (The Bill Gates / Steve Jobs / Google founders of the world). Through the centuries the haves have learned that by blurring the boundaries enough and not making excessive use of their "haves abilities" like the uber haves in the 15 - 18th century did tend to do they keep the large majority happy with the status quo.

Credit card companies etc have however played into the whole "haves" and "have nots" by giving the have nots the means to look like the haves while in reality (in the long run) making themselves bigger have nots and the haves bigger haves.

The basic concepts haven't changed through all those centuries just the extend to which the have nots will tolerate the haves has decreased and therefore the direct visible power the haves could have over them. And although the direct visible power diminished the haves have always found a way to make up for this difference by indirect power.

Much of that is true Chamb. Definitely agree about credit cards.

But it wasn't always haves and have-nots. Titles and the "right blood" used to matter more than mere money. A broke Lord was worth more than a rich merchant.

Of course title and bulging wallet often went hand in hand.

---

by Byron
But it wasn't always haves and have-nots. Titles and the "right blood" used to matter more than mere money. A broke Lord was worth more than a rich merchant.

---

Resources == power and power == title. However through the years they forgot about the first bit. Which was the downfall of the system as the means of "right blood" obviously had some major flaws as way of designating status, combined with the excessive use of thier "power" this caused the collapse of the system as they couldn't maintain the status quo. The lines were too clear and the power abuse to excessive which caused friction.

---

by Chambler
There is of course always the exception that exceeds all expectations and can climb from a not have to be a have or even an uber have (The Bill Gates / Steve Jobs / Google founders of the world).

---

im pretty sure they all came from fairly affluent backgrounds - i know for sure that william gates II (bills dad) was distinctly middle class...

---

by mad
im pretty sure they all came from fairly affluent backgrounds - i know for sure that william gates II (bills dad) was distinctly middle class...

---

Steve Jobs, born to an American mother and a Syrian father (Joanne Carole Schieble and Abdulfattah John Jandali) and one week after birth he was put up for adoption by his unmarried mother. He was adopted by Paul R. (a machinist at Spectra Physics) and Clara Jobs (a payroll clerk at Varian). Although they probably didn't do badly it wasn't really a very affluent background I would say.