I don't think hierarchies in general can ever be fully eliminated from society, for two reasons: 1. authority is necessary for things to run smoothly without anarchy taking hold, and 2. there must be a criteria for selecting that authority, and no matter what criteria you pick, some people will clear that barrier and others won't.
However, it's essential for those hierarchies to be regulated. Why? Because when hierarchies are too rigid, or too powerful, or not held accountable, they hurt society. If people are stuck in an inferior position no matter how competent or hard-working they are, their human potential is not being fully realised. If important decisions are being made by less competent people, we get less optimal results, and society as a whole loses. If those at the top can abuse their power and prevent it being diluted as long as they live, society loses, and whichever unfortunate individuals are in their way will lose most of all. So there has to be some level of fluidity, accountability and restraints on power.
We should ask ourselves whether each type of hierarchy needs to exist, and if so, what level of influence it should play.
Racial hierarchies - I don't believe there's any value whatsoever to having them, because race is irrelevant to what strengths a person can bring to society. The sooner they're eliminated, the better.
Wealth hierarchies - have to be tolerated to some extent, because we've seen that comfortable standards of living are most easily generated by some form of market economy featuring private property, which necessitates wealth inequality and some value being given to the power of money. But we've also seen that excessive wealth inequality leads to systemic, inherited disadvantages for many, stopping them from realising their full potential. And if the wealthy buy political power, it entrenches their position, it can prevent others from becoming wealthy, it can put them above the laws that govern us all, and it can put their needs and desires ahead of what's good for society as a whole.
I think it's clear that wealth hierarchies currently have too much power in Australia, because billionaires have used their money and control of the media to ensure that governments friendly to their interests have retained power since at least 2013. Fossil fuel barons in particular have white-anted the efforts to decarbonise the Australian economy. The pandemic has only made this worse, as the 31 billionaires in Australia collectively increased their wealth by $90 billion in that period, whereas the average person has been lucky to stay in a job, let alone see a pay increase.
Class hierarchies - will probably always exist to some extent, at least in the sense of a lower class existing. Most people want to be assured that those in positions of authority have some level of education on the subject they have authority over, and some groups will always value education more than others.
The key is that class groupings shouldn't be rigid. A kid from a low-class background should face no barriers to obtaining a high position in society, so long as they have the drive and the work ethic to succeed. Also, there's little advantage to society in having a landed gentry forming an entrenched upper class, and Australia has done well to leave that part of English culture behind.
In general I think the level of class hierarchy in Australia isn't a problem. People from low-class backgrounds like Anthony Albanese have risen to levels where they're indistinguishable from their counterparts who came from families of higher status. As much as people like to joke about bogans, there isn't any serious intolerance of them. The disadvantage is more wealth or race-based than class-based.
However, it's essential for those hierarchies to be regulated. Why? Because when hierarchies are too rigid, or too powerful, or not held accountable, they hurt society. If people are stuck in an inferior position no matter how competent or hard-working they are, their human potential is not being fully realised. If important decisions are being made by less competent people, we get less optimal results, and society as a whole loses. If those at the top can abuse their power and prevent it being diluted as long as they live, society loses, and whichever unfortunate individuals are in their way will lose most of all. So there has to be some level of fluidity, accountability and restraints on power.
We should ask ourselves whether each type of hierarchy needs to exist, and if so, what level of influence it should play.
Racial hierarchies - I don't believe there's any value whatsoever to having them, because race is irrelevant to what strengths a person can bring to society. The sooner they're eliminated, the better.
Wealth hierarchies - have to be tolerated to some extent, because we've seen that comfortable standards of living are most easily generated by some form of market economy featuring private property, which necessitates wealth inequality and some value being given to the power of money. But we've also seen that excessive wealth inequality leads to systemic, inherited disadvantages for many, stopping them from realising their full potential. And if the wealthy buy political power, it entrenches their position, it can prevent others from becoming wealthy, it can put them above the laws that govern us all, and it can put their needs and desires ahead of what's good for society as a whole.
I think it's clear that wealth hierarchies currently have too much power in Australia, because billionaires have used their money and control of the media to ensure that governments friendly to their interests have retained power since at least 2013. Fossil fuel barons in particular have white-anted the efforts to decarbonise the Australian economy. The pandemic has only made this worse, as the 31 billionaires in Australia collectively increased their wealth by $90 billion in that period, whereas the average person has been lucky to stay in a job, let alone see a pay increase.
Class hierarchies - will probably always exist to some extent, at least in the sense of a lower class existing. Most people want to be assured that those in positions of authority have some level of education on the subject they have authority over, and some groups will always value education more than others.
The key is that class groupings shouldn't be rigid. A kid from a low-class background should face no barriers to obtaining a high position in society, so long as they have the drive and the work ethic to succeed. Also, there's little advantage to society in having a landed gentry forming an entrenched upper class, and Australia has done well to leave that part of English culture behind.
In general I think the level of class hierarchy in Australia isn't a problem. People from low-class backgrounds like Anthony Albanese have risen to levels where they're indistinguishable from their counterparts who came from families of higher status. As much as people like to joke about bogans, there isn't any serious intolerance of them. The disadvantage is more wealth or race-based than class-based.