Absolutely. What's hard for people to accept is that as soon as the class struggle is "won", somebody's going to start struggling to be on "top" and pretty soon you've got another class struggle. It's going to be ongoing and dynamic, even when fairness seems to have been achieved.

I agree with skyblue1’s statement whole heartedly

….until I have to pay bills, grocery shop, or anti-up for the rent.

"the international Gini index, found U.S. income inequality at its highest level since the Census Bureau began tracking household income in 1967. The U.S. also has the greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations."

“The top-earning 20 percent of Americans -- those making more than $100,000 each year -- received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent earned by those below the poverty line, according to newly released census figures. That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968.“

“At the top, the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, census data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower.”

Unregulated greed is rampant and wrecking havoc among civilized people who are putting a lot into life, but are not centering their life around accumulation of wealth.

Both.

When communism fell apart I remember some saying that we would see a rise in unfettered capitalism and inequality in the West as the powers that be saw no further threat from communism.

I laughed at the idea. I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard.

I'm not laughing any more.

Hmm.  Well, I can certainly see an imperative for everyone with common sense to struggle for equality of opportunity, out of enlightened self interest, if not out of honest altruism.

Equality of outcome is more problematic though.  Given equality of opportunity, equivalent outcomes require either equality of ability (which is impossible) or a society so rigidly structured that all outcomes can be monitored and normalized.

I don't really want my life to be normalized.  Can you see what I mean?

Agree. In fact, hasn't history taught us that trying to get rid of a heirarchy more often creates a much worse heirarchy? A regulated heirarchical structure is perhaps better than the alternatives.

What we are seeing in many Western nations in recent years is a move away from a heirarchy that was slightly tending towards the benevolent in the direction of a heirarchy one that is strongly tending towards the exploitative."Market Fundamentalism" has a lot to do with that trend.

I think we need to regulate, not regiment, greed, environmental impact, and access to education and health.

It is not a question of either/or.  Civil societies are about balancing the role of both the state and the market relative to that of citizens.  Peope who demand no governmental interference and those who expect governement to do everything (welfare class) are opting out of an intelligent discussion of what balance is most civil.  In the US the constitution was formed with such checks and balances.  They need to be rechecked and rebalanced.

I personally feel that regulating against ear marks and lobbiests would be a good start, although it feels like a pretty remote possibility right now.

There is no benevolent hierarchy. Hierarchy is control. It is violence and coercion. It is ownership over another human being, to greater or lesser extent. Hierarchies *can* do nice things occasionally, but those nice things could also be done by a nonhierarchical system.

We aren't naturally wired for hierarchy just because some species have hierarchies. Other species have nonhierarchical societies (for example, bonobos). Some humans have nonhierarchical societies. Humans tend towards a resentment of hierarchy. Don't these make just as convincing statements that we are hardwired to reject hierarchy, as an observation about wolves? Just because something is found in other species doesn't mean it's the only method of organization, or the only one found in other species.

That's pretty much what I was thinking as well.  

I agree that blindly making inferences about one species based on the self-organization of another species is a mistake.  

I was thinking of the behavior of middle-school and high-school students, in particular.  The tendency to form cliques and pecking orders, for instance.

We may indeed tend toward resentment of hierarchy, but we (people in general) also seem to tend toward self-identification within group strata and social dominance games once a hierarchy is in place.

Would you say that that tendency is all based on conditioning?

Absolutely.

Perhaps we should hire lobbyists to lobby for restrictions on lobbyists.

That's certainly been my understanding of the way it's worked out so far.

We seem to have some deeply embedded patterns of self-organization, and they rarely shake out into a system that strives for "common good".

Good call.  I'll earmark some funds for that project immediately.

I see exactly what you mean.

Absolute equality of outcomes is not desirable. There needs to be incentive for people to work harder, study harder, achieve more. And that incentive is a combination of prestige/respect and cold hard ca$h.

Gross inequality of outcomes based on social class or personality type are not desirable. Where economic growth benefits only a few, this is a gross inequality of outcome (see stats quoted above by awiddershinlife). Where someone works 40 hours a week in a wealthy country but is still living in poverty, this is a gross inequality of outcome. Where someone who is prepared to work but cannot find a job in a wealthy country, and is reduced to begging or living on the streets as a result, that is a gross inequality of outcome. When someone who works 40 hours a week in a wealthy country cannot afford to take their family on a simple vacation, that is a gross inequality of outcome.

But, for all those unofficial hierarchies, which form in the context of an already hierarchical society, I can name nonhierarchical spontaneous structures of my own, including many high school cliques that function without hierarchies. So to claim that we are bound to it by nature is still false. We have a choice whether or not we want to live in hierarchies. Admitting that we can do without hierarchies, or that hierarchies aren't predestined for us, however, is a jarring and frightening act, because it demands that the person admitting it take action against hierarchies.

What examples are you thinking of?  I'm honestly curious, not just being argumentative.

To clarify, I'm not saying that we are inherently incapable of operating outside of hierarchies by nature, only that in my experience we tend to organize that way.  I can't think of any examples from my experience that represent a truly non-hierarchical human enterprise...that certainly doesn't mean that I would dismiss the possibility out of hand.

I can see how an individual can "hermit out" of the existing hierarchies, but I have great difficulty imagining any group of people forming a truly non-hierarchical group.  You mentioned earlier in the thread that you were aware of non-hierarchical human societies...can you cite an example that I can research further?  The possibility is intriguing.

You honestly lost me on this.  If one accepts that hierarchies are not the only way to organize human endeavor, what's the logical chain that requires one to subsequently attempt to dismantle said hierarchies?

I'm not sure it's possible to regulate greed.  Wouldn't that be like trying to regulate personal ambition?

As for awareness of environmental impact, I agree without reservation that it needs to become a significantly more important part of human culture and decision making processes.  I don't hold out much hope for that though.  We're notoriously poor at thinking outside the box of human experience, and very prone to the "out of sight, out of mind" paradigm.

Similarly, at least in the U.S., our education system is a wreck.  It seems like we're just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic these days.

On health care, I don't see how we can get from here to there.  Opportunity of outcome is clearly (to me) a pipe dream on this front.  There are just too many people, and too many vested interests.

I'm a pessimist by nature though, so I hope I'm wrong.

Any thoughts on how to push back against, or side step, said market fundamentalism?

I'm a pessimist by nature though, so I hope I'm wrong.

I am an optimist, and I fear you are right

Nonhierarchical human societies include Anarchist Catalonia and Aragon, tribal societies such as the Lepchas, Siriono, and others (though not all tribes are nonhierarchical), communes such as the Kibbutzim, and the Zapatistas. In addition, nonhierarchical organization is often used in day-to-day society, even if the larger part of society remains hierarchical. The radical democratic federalism of left-anarchism is in fact now one of the primary organizational structures of effective social movements, especially 'grassroots' ones. Switzerland, while not a nonhierarchical society, is one that demonstrates many of the promises of a federated, extremely grassroots style of organization through its nearly-direct-democracy political system.

I say that the knowledge that non-hierarchy is possible demands action because I find it hard to believe that any person, knowing that they could live in a nonhierarchical society, would choose instead a hierarchical one (unless they were on top). It's like saying you have the choice of getting your face punched once a day or not getting your face punched once a day. The knowledge that you can avoid face-punching without unintended groin-kicking demands, from most people, that you refuse to be punched in the face.

You need someone with the political will to say "you know what, more deregulation is not always a good thing". To make sensible regulations. To regulate against the enormous financial rewards given to those who take risks and seek short-term financial gain at the cost of long-term stability. To actually admit that market fundamentalism was a major factor in causing the global financial meltdown, and if it had not been for major government intervention it would have been a lot, lot worse.

The Tea Party and others seem to think that the problem was that market fundamentalism was not allowed to go far enough, and was not allowed to fix the crisis all by itself. Absolute belief in free markets has an almost religious fervour in some quarters.

Think of the left wing-right wing spectrum model; with pure communisim on the left and pure capitalism on the right.  Pure socialism is the mid-point.

Pure capitalism is not a good thing.  You'll have a society of a few elite "haves" and many "have nots".  It probably wouldn't sustain if the majority of the population did not have the ability to consume what the capitalists produced, never mind social instability.  Perhaps the middle class might consist of those in security related employment to protect the interests of the elite. In sum, the big fish would gobble up the small fish and at some point there would be no more small fish to support the big fish (a market made up of the general population).  Only the exceptionally cognitively elite could thrive in such a society.

Pure communism isn't a good thing either.  There is no reward for harder work, innovation, originality, etc.  Incentives to produce and take risks (develop an innovative new product) are totally lacking.  Such a society won't progress beyond mere sustanance of its populace.  Of course human nature being the way it is, there will be some elites.  Namely those that run the government-owned market.  They'll take whatever they want to reward themselves and justify it.

Socialism can be expensive to a society (high taxes) especially if there is a significant segment of the population that requires public economic assistance.

In my opinion, a moderately capitalistic society is a good thing.  Work, creativity and entrepreneurship should be rewardable.  There needs to be incentives.  There comes a point when marginal tax hikes become a deterrant.

Some government regulation is essential.  The financial industry is probably the most obvious one.  It is also important in other industries such as auto and food namely for universal safety reasons.  Any government regulation ought to be kept as simple as possible as to mitigate its hindrance on free enterprise activities.

That's always seemed obvious to me, and it's hard for me to understand how someone can argue otherwise.  Unregulated capitalism leads to exploitation first, and self-destruction second.  The firms that fared best were those that opted out of the dominant game being played, but few people looked ahead long enough to see the obvious crash coming.  Some of the newer players probably didn't even know there was another way to play--I've heard stories of people trying to get fixed rate mortgages, and having to deal with junior lenders who didn't know how to write up that type of contract.

Inevitably, what always seems to happen is everyone builds a single house of cards, then when one buckles under the weight everyone loses--even the people who aren't playing get caught in the avalanche.

Jayn, I totally agree.

The problem is that during a boom/bubble like the one that existed before the crisis, there often isn't another way to play.

Being a risk-averse fund manager or CEO during such a time, seeking more sustainable returns, is more than likely to see you replaced by someone who will get the returns that the market expects.

A risk-averse company which seeks more sustainable returns is rewarded with a lower share price by a market which expects higher returns. And that company becomes a takeover target for companies which are less risk-averse and thus have a stronger share price.

The market is not all-knowing and often operates under a herd mentality.

Pure socialism in not the midpoint, nor is it what you're describing it as: progressivism kicked up a notch. Socialism is one of any number of ideologies advocating worker control of the means of production, and is very specifically, in Marxist philosophy, the intermediate revolutionary stage between Capitalism and Communism in which a dictatorship of the proletariat (as in, the rule of the working class) is established, to protect the revolution from reactionary elements and provide the force to re-order society, so that (hypothetically) the state can be dissolved, and a non-exploitative, communist society can be established.

Pure unrestrained free-market dog-eat-dog capitalism.  They will call interference anything that strikes fear in the american heart.

It is not only republicans. Legislators work for lobbiests, and do not represent us at all.  All the recently elected, esp, are deeply in debt to oil, insurance, financial, etc corporations.