Actually, that's really not true. A classless society refers to a society which lacks any distinctions of wealth, income, education, culture, or social network.
I have a little trouble conceiving of a completely classless society - at some point you have to acknowledge that, for example, some programmers are better than others, and that that's a positive thing. That acknowledgement alone creates a class. The important thing is upward mobility - we shouldn't define "better" as "knows the other people who are 'better'".
Who in the 21st century still thinks classless societies are even possible? I can't think of a single attempt in reality that succeeded, and it's been tried across cultures and via different methods.
It's always a good thing to strive towards (like achieving 100% or 0), but never possible. And class mobility (in both directions) is a great attribute to have - resists classes turning into castes.
I've got to wonder how much this phenomenon is because the US has eschewed social classes. Since there's no arbitrary "divine right" classes to occupy most people's apparent desire for hierarchy, people actively try to recreate such classes based on the available criteria.
Class distinction and hierarchy are precisely the sort of social mechanisms that convince people that there exists alternatives to certain modes of living (class aspiration).
Americans (I am one) have the fantasy of a classless society, but we're every bit as class-oriented a society as India or the UK. It took me years to fully realize this.
> "class" - we don't need a class-structured society, that's a leftover from a feudal past.
You got this one backwards though, the notion of “social classes” is a left-winged concept, while the conservatives are usually the one pretending they don't exist.
reply