class struggle
 

is it possible to have a society in which there are no conflicts between the classes or no class system at all?

Possible yes... likely, that's a whole 'nother class of question.

It seems very unlikely because whatever people do will always be a combination of good and bad..someone will always want some power over the others. There will always be people who are greedy..

<---- Not greedy... I just want my shit.

I doubt it will happen anytime soon or ever.

the primary social division is between a ?ruling class? and a laboring class. The upper class tends to be business owners who hire the ?lower class? to work for them, thus exploiting them which is the source of all conflict.

It is always however possible for one class to either rise or fall to another class through motivation or lack thereof... so hope and despair can be found by all. :thumbsup

Sure .... it's called a classless society.

Have a look at this guy:
http://www.egs.edu/resources/marx.html

Also, you may want to have a read through:
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/cl...manifesto.html

Or just use your question as a pickup line in a University bar trying to pick up a first year chick who wants to feel smart ;)

Conflict is synonymous politics, and politics can be found everywhere and on every society.

The majority of people are indians and a handful chiefs. That is the way we are coded so that we function well as a communal species, which in turn means that in all groups, small and large, we naturally tend towards a pyramidal hierarchy: a "class" structure if you like.

The kibbutz system in Israel is perhaps the closest we can get to a classless society which functions well, but that way of life succeeds largely because of the committment of those involved. I doubt if it could be extended to whole countries, since it seems also to be part of our nature for most people to be apathetic about anything but their short-term needs. Wherever that apathy exists, the scene is set for more forceful individuals to pursue their own interests at the expense of others.

No and anyone saying yes is has clearly not read history.

7. In our day the power which has replaced that of the rulers who were liberal is the power of Gold. Time was when Faith ruled. The idea of freedom is impossible of realization because no one knows how to use it with moderation. It is enough to hand over a people to self-government for a certain length of time for that people to be turned into a disorganized mob. From that moment on we get internecine strife which soon develops into battles between classes, in the midst of which States burn down and their importance is reduced to that of a heap of ashes.

http://aztlan.net/protocols.htm#protocol1

Is it possible for any sound logical mind to hope with any success to guide crowds by the aid of reasonable counsels and arguments, when any objection or contradiction, senseless though it may be, can be made and when such objection may find more favor with the people, whose powers of reasoning are superficial? Men in masses and the men of the masses, being guided solely by petty passions, paltry beliefs, traditions and sentimental theorems, fall a prey to party dissension, which hinders any kind of agreement even on the basis of a perfectly reasonable argument. Every resolution of a crowd depends upon a chance or packed majority, which, in its ignorance of political secrets, puts forth some ridiculous resolution that lays in the administration a seed of anarchy.

http://aztlan.net/protocols.htm#protocol1

not really possible unless some are willing to give more then others

It is also impossible to have capitalism without class difference to back it up.

Someone will always have to work for someone else.

In broad discussions of this nature, political-economic labels are largely irrelevant. The only real difference between capitalism and communism in this context is who rises to the top and what attributes they need to get there.

Two trains of thought have kept recurring in my mind over the years. The first is that even if I made exactly the same money as a guy hauling garbage, I would still much rather be running a business. I suspect that even if inequalities of income were removed, we would be just as competitive in chasing the careers of our choice. We could even end up with better people in jobs such as teaching, which many would like to do, but avoid because as things are they can earn more in other professions. In short, I don't believe that financial incentives have to be on offer.

My other recurring thought has been that no political-economic system is fundamentally flawed per se, regardless of whether it is democratic or not, left or right wing. Rather, history is littered with upheavals because of the flaw that is always introduced by people, namely when those in power fail to exercise restraint and take too much for themselves, mindless of the cost to others and how many people pay the price for their excesses.

We do not live most of the time in largely peaceful, functioning societies because of the power exercised by the police and military, but because that is the way we prefer to live, even when our lot is at the bottom of the economic pile. And so long as our societies offer even a small prospect of improvement to most of the people, pretty much any system can roll along indefinitely. But because those at the top always seem to think that because they can take more and more for themselves it is okay to do so, we keep arriving at the point when enough people see no purpose in continuing to support the status quo and turn on it.