This is a duty which, in this most great Revelation, hath been prescribed unto every one, and is accounted in the sight of God as a goodly deed. Whoso observeth this duty, the help of the invisible One shall most certainly aid him.
We must find equitable ways to moderate the extreme riches and terrible, grinding poverty that now exist in the world. What could be better before God than thinking of the poor? For the poor are beloved by our heavenly Father. When His Holiness Christ came upon the earth those who believed in him and followed him were the poor and lowly, showing the poor were near to God. When a rich man believes and follows the Manifestation of God it is a proof that his wealth is not an obstacle and does not prevent him from attaining the pathway of salvation.
After he has been tested and tried it will be seen whether his possessions are a hindrance in his religious life. But the poor are especially beloved of God. Their lives are full of difficulties, their trials continual, their hopes are in God alone. Therefore you must assist the poor as much as possible, even by sacrifice of yourself.
No deed of man is greater before God than helping the poor. Spiritual conditions are not dependent upon the possession of worldly treasures or the absence of them. When physically destitute, spiritual thoughts are more likely.
Poverty is stimulus toward God. Each one of you must have great consideration for the poor and render them assistance. Organize in an effort to help them and prevent increase of poverty.
The greatest means for prevention is that whereby the laws of the community will be so framed and enacted that it will not be possible for a few to be millionaires and many destitute. Under this adjustment there can be no extremes in human conditions as regards wealth and sustenance. For the community needs financier, farmer merchant and laborer just as an army must be composed of commander, officers and privates.
According to Karl Marx —83 , the primary function of the state is to repress the lower classes of society in the interests of the ruling class. Marxist socialism provided a vision of an ideal society that inspired large numbers of people in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The socialist vision proclaimed the ideal of a classless society, a society without a privileged class of people. Additionally, Marx saw conflict in society as the primary means of change.
Economically, he saw conflict existing between the owners of the means of production—the bourgeoisie—and the laborers, called the proletariat. A Classless society is not practically possible. But the perception of classes as low or high or the significance given to the difference in classes can be reduced greatly.
How did Karl Marx think we would arrive at a classless society? Workers would gain prestige and power through hard work. The oppressed would rise up against the oppressor. People in power will use their power to obtain more power and to stay in power. The idea of a classless society is impossible to achieve because a society needs class structure which allows for people to better themselves.
People needto realize that even if they were get rid of class structure regardless of how hard they try classes will still emerge. The term classless society refers to a society in which no one is born into a social class. Distinctions of wealth, income, education, culture, or social network might arise and would only be determined by individual experience and achievement in such a society. For the opposite see class society. Answer: The abolition of social classes and the establishment of a classless society is the primary goal of anarchism, communism and libertarian socialism.
Classlessness also refers to the state of mind required in order to operate effectively as a social anthropologist. Social classes provide their members with distinctive sub-cultures that prepare them for specialised functions in society. It is said that the social class is useful as an efficient means of role allocation in the society. Through role allocation, a society fixes social responsibilities of persons. Because members of high social classes tend to be better educated and have higher incomes, they are able to offer greater educational advantages, such as private schooling, to their children as well.
In , the President of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere , introduced a system intended to blend socialism with traditional tribal government. He called it "Ujamaa" - Swahili for familyhood, and the principles were equality of opportunity and self-help. Today, Tanzania is no longer a socialist country, but there are still over Ujamaas. Emma visits a village near Dar-es-Salaam where local leaders tell her they see no class divisions.
But, they grant, absolute equality is impossible to achieve. So is the very idea of classlessness against human nature? Oliver Curry , an evolutionary theorist at the London School of Economics says he believes a society without distinct socio-economic classes - working class, middle class and upper class - is clearly possible.
But that does not guarantee absolute equality, he says, humans are like all other social animals, they compete for status and are naturally hierarchical. And half the human population is more competitive than the other, "One half can turn pretty much everything into a competition. The male sex. We invite you to discuss this subject, but remember this is a public forum. Please be polite, and avoid your passions turning into contempt for others.
We may delete posts that are rude or aggressive, or edit posts containing contact details or links to other websites. If you enjoyed this, why not follow a feed to find out when we have new things like it? Choose an RSS feed from the list below. I am equally optimistic about the second—equality of opportunity.
I plead guilty at once to wishful thinking. Furthermore, I admit cheerfully that I propose to indulge in dangerous prophecy. But can anyone discuss the future with a neutral mind? Until fairly recently it was taken for granted that the American republic could be described as classless. For a century and a half Americans have been saying with pride, 'This is a free country.
There are no classes in the United States. Were they ever an approximately accurate description of typical American society? My answer would be yes. Have they today sufficient vitality and validity to be the basis for a continuation of Jefferson's educational program? A crystal gazer alone could tell. But I think the chance is good enough to demand our careful consideration of the possibility.
For my own part, I risk with enthusiasm an affirmative answer and stand on the hope of our reconstituting a free and classless nation. Phrases descriptive of a free, casteless, or classless society have not only represented an American belief of great potency in the past, but have described actual conditions in many sections of this republic.
As compared with the situation in even such free countries as England and France, this country was unique in being without hereditary classes. The importance of this fact, I believe, has not been fully emphasized. But, I hasten to add, the social changes which have altered the situation during the last fifty years have all too often been ignored. American society in some localities has always been organized on definite class lines; money and power have been passed on from father to son.
The different strata have been relatively rigid and impenetrable But until recently such situations were the exception rather than the rule. Now we see in progress the rapid extension of such stratification over the whole land. We see throughout the country the development of a hereditary aristocracy of wealth. The coming of modern industrialism and the passing of the frontier with cheap lands mark the change. Ruthless and greedy exploitation of both natural and human resources by a small privileged class founded on recently acquired ownership of property has hardened the social strata and threatens to provide explosive material beneath.
Let us not shut our eyes to the realities. The vanishing of free lands, the spread of large-scale manufacturing units, the growth of cities and their slums, the multiplication of tenant farmers and despairing migratory laborers, are signs of the passage from one type of social order to another. The existence of vast unemployment only emphasizes the evil significance of an unwelcome change. Have we reached a point where the ideal of a peculiar American society, classless and free, must be regarded as of only historical significance?
Our friends on the Left will, I imagine, say yes. A class struggle is inevitable, they declare. Forget the dreams of a pioneer civilization, the early American town or farm, and face the modern capitalistic world, they urge. From their viewpoint no discussion of present problems which refuses to fit every fact into the framework of a class struggle can be realistic.
The extremists will add, at least to themselves, that the outcome of the struggle is also inevitable—a classless society, not of the early American type, but on the Russian model. On the extreme Right we may find an equally clear renunciation of the ideal—equally clear, but not, as a rule, equally outspoken, for the underlying assumptions here are often entirely unconscious. Throughout the history of this republic there has been among a small group undue admiration for the educational system of England, a system built largely on class lines.
Among such people Jefferson's idea of careers open to all the talented has evoked little enthusiasm. There has been little concern with recruiting the professions from every economic level. The ideal has been education of a ruling caste rather than a selective system of training leaders. Yet the unique character of the American way of life has been repeatedly emphasized since Jefferson's time. Lincoln in his first message to Congress declared that 'the leading object of the Government for those whose existence we contend' is 'to elevate the condition of men; to lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.
Turner, writing at the beginning of the present century, summed up the case as follows: 'Western democracy through the whole of its earlier period tended to the production of a society of which the most distinctive fact was freedom of the individual to rise under conditions of social mobility Let me pause a moment to examine the phrase 'social mobility,' for this is the heart of my argument.
A high degree of social mobility is the essence of the American ideal of a classless society. If large numbers of young people can develop their own capacities irrespective of the economic status of their parents, then social mobility is high. If, on the other hand, the future of a young man or woman is determined almost entirely by inherited privilege or the lack of it, social mobility is nonexistent. You are all familiar with the old American adage, 'Three generations from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves.
It implies that sons and daughters must and can seek their own level, obtain their own economic rewards, engage in any occupation irrespective of what their parents might have done. Contrast this adage with a statement of the aristocratic tradition—namely, that it takes three generations to educate a gentleman.
Fifty years ago the contrast between these two statements would have been proclaimed by many intelligent Americans as the epitome of the difference between the New World and the Old. The possibility that each generation may start life afresh and that hard work and ability would find their just rewards was once an exciting new doctrine. Is it outworn? In short, has the second component of the Jeffersonian tradition in education still vitality?
Can a relatively high degree of social mobility be realized in this modern world? The distinction between a stratified class system and one with a high degree of social mobility is apparent only when at least two generations are passed in review.
A class, as I am using the word, is perpetuated by virtue of inherited position. For one generation, at least and perhaps two, considerable differences in economic status as well as extreme differentiation of employment may exist without the formation of classes.
Uniform distribution of the world's goods is not necessary for a classless society. If anyone doubts this statement, let him examine the social situation of many small communities in different parts of this country during the early stages of their development. Continuous perpetuation from generation to generation of even small differences, however, soon produces class consciousness. Extremes of wealth or poverty accelerate the process. It is not within my province to consider what political measures should be taken if we reject the idea of an inevitable stratification of society.
It is not for me to say what legislation is in order if we desire to implement the ideal of a free classless society. My unwillingness to discuss this important aspect of the problem is not to be taken as a measure of my dissatisfaction with the rapidly growing social and economic differentiation of the United States. On the contrary, if the American ideal is not to be an illusion, the citizens of this republic must not shrink from drastic action.
The requirement, however, is not a radical equalization of wealth at any given moment; it is rather a continuous process by which power and privilege may be automatically redistributed at the end of each generation.
The aim is a more equitable distribution of opportunity for all the children of the land. The reality of our national life must be made a sufficiently close approximation to our ideal to vitalize a belief in the possibility of the envisaged goal. I am wary of definitions—even in expounding the exact sciences to an elementary class.
It is often more profitable to explain the nature of a concept by illustration than to attempt a definition. Both the words 'free' and 'classless,' as I am employing them, have a relative, not an absolute, meaning.
0コメント