5. I am a materialist, materialism is the idea that material conditions influence humanity and individuals.
5a. you can take bill gates give him black skin and have him be born into poverty, and he will be like anybody else who had the same upbringing. you can take a black child give him white skin, the name bill gates and give him bill gates' family upbring and connections and he will be a successful as the current bill gates, why? because we are our material conditions, everything we do, think and feel is based upon past experiences. Of course some poor people become rich, but that is due to something in their path maybe supportive family/school or being mentored by a rich person, or maybe just connections, but we are our material conditions you really can;t take credit for your intelligence looks or family, that is just luck of the draw.

on the idea you enter a contract willingly with an employer.

"The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke" - Noam Chomsky- I don't always agree with him but this quote rings true.

Welcome to being 13

Welcome to the party , comrade!

I'm a Technocrat myself , but any enemy of the Pyramid scheme is a friend of mine.

>>2632348
>implying Marx is a child
>Implying Mao was a child
>implying Che Guevara was a child
>implying edgy teenagers aren't "HURR DURR FUCKING COMMIE JEW" stormfags
>implying

>>2632328
>2012
>not an anarcho-communist
>still reading Marx and Engels
>still advocating a state

>>2632352
true,

what do you mean by technocrat?

>>2632348
actually all the people i know, who are either 13yo or think like 13yo. say the same
>get government off my back, government regulations are BS, legalize marijuana, give me my liberties, government is keeping me poor, gold standard makes sense (to a 13 yo)

they say that or
> I think that there needs to be a balance, the parties are way too extreme, i'm a centrist, both sides have good and bad ideas, legalize marijuana

>>2632784
whoa, jumping to conclusions.
I am an anarcho-communist.

Yes we can go from a employer "exploiting us" to the government really exploiting us while having no clue how to provide supplies for the masses. See: Soviet Union.

Here's my question then:

A common Communist tenet is "From Each According to Ability, to Each According to Need".

The way this was practised in several Communist nations was that if they believed you could work and didn't you were executed as being a traitor.

How would you deal with people who didn't work, OP?

And is your method for forcing them any better than the modern, capitalist method for forcing them?

>>2632328
>implying pyramid is not scalable with effort, ability, or organization.

>>2633136
yes, the pyramid is scalable, but only to those who had the right material conditions, also, is it morally right to exploit those left at the bottom?
>>2633110
people who don't want to work are kicked off the commune, all people will have the right to cultivate land and/or work in a factory to produce for themselves, if you don't want to, enjoy a slow suicide. no one should be forced to work in communism or capitalism, but if you work in communism, your work belongs to you, if you work in capitalism your work belongs to to someone else.

"From Each According to Ability, to Each According to Need"
only applies to a society, so advanced, that materials and products would be in abundance, with little to no physical labor.

>>2633422
>people who don't want to work are kicked off the commune, all people will have the right to cultivate land and/or work in a factory to produce for themselves, if you don't want to, enjoy a slow suicide.

So whereas in a capitalist society a factory has like a net profit margin to the owners of 10-20% before tax and there are liberal ways for people to pretend like they can't work or get welfare, in your society then the workers would get this profit margin instead and people who didn't work would starve?

Why is a capitalist society that demands 3 doctors and 5 independent psychological evaluations before handing out a dime in benefits to someone so brutal and harsh then?

>>2632328
the painting you posted with the pyramid shows socialism, not capitalism. in a socialist state, you have top-down economics, or pyramid-structure economy. in a capitalist society [or more specifically FREE-MARKET society] the infrastructure is grass-roots oriented, meaning the government doesn't own everything and you get to keep what you earned.

>>2633648
doesn't give workers what they earn, if it did there wouldn't be a profit margin.
>>2633712

where have posted that i advocate a socialist state? do you even know what communism is? do you honestly believe a corporation(vehicle for the rich capitalist class) owning everything and dominating infrastructure is any different than a state doing the same? i'm advocating for no rulers, economically or politically.
i think we are on the same side, except you think the capitalist class has the right to own the labor of others, or you think a "free-market" society will empower everyone equally and justly. the truth is a "free-market" (capitalist) society will always create individuals who will try to attain a monopoly on money and power which will degenerate into feudal/caste societies. in a society where the rich and greedy are the best at attaining money/power, it will be the rich and greedy who will dominate it.

can someone give me reasons as to why they are capitalist ?

>>2632328

> 1. unless it if a means of production

Stopped reading there.

huh

>>2635670
what? i don't understand.

>>2635837

1. I believe all individuals have the right to own what they produce -- unless it is a means of production

How does it feel following an ideology that has killed millions?

The problem with a planned economy is that they do not acknowledge the possibility of error in calculation. Their thinking is too "precise."

I like how modern communists assume that if communism was tried today it wouldn't inevitably lead to oppression.

Communism - why Russia lost the Cold War.

>>2632328
You're missing the number 4, Mr. Oh So Smart Marxist

>>2635881
Unlike captialism which is rosey

What's your take on all the totalist communist systems that existed? They weren't really communist right? They were some kind of communist but not the real communism but blabla

>>2632328
>we need to escape the implanted notions and see for ourselves what it really means

Been tried before, it doesn't work. How many times does history have to kick your ass before you pay attention?

>>2636040
Communism-why russian won World War 2

>>2633110
People who refused to contribute wouldn't get paid. Just like in any economic system. Now, if they were disabled in some serious way and couldn't work, then maybe exceptions could be made.

>>2636084
Pure laissez-faire capitalism is pretty bad
But capitalism with sensible and limited regulation has led to the modern world, which is the best period in human history

>>2636175
People would still work, but they wouldn't do their job well, because they wouldn't have any incentive to work hard.

>>2636118
>won World War 2

Must have been nice having a rifle every 5 soldiers.

>>2636118
Lend-lease act. American capitalism saved Russian communism.

>>2636203
Of course they would. If i work harder and produce more, i get to keep more of it.

What's the incentive to work harder under capitalism? In most jobs the workers are paid a flat wage or salary regardless of how hard they work or produce in any given day.

>>2635873
why shouldn't individuals own the means of production, communism is the abolishing of individuals own the means of production that employ other individuals, in communism the workers own the factory, in capitalism the non-producing capitalist own the means of production. I have no problem with steve job, building and working in an entire iphone factory by himself, but i do have issues with him owning the value produced by the workers.
>>2635881
alright, most ideologies have killed millions, religions, capitalism, slavery, anti-slavery, colonialism, wars of independence etc.
>>2635943
once read the definition of communism, a planned economy is never mentioned once in marx's writing, plus how are you going to plan an economy if there is no state(anarcho-communism)
>>2635998
why would communism lead to oppression?
>>2636040
you and i both know, that in the soviet union the workers did not own the means of production, the state did, the state also did not give the workers autonomy, the soviet state decided to make weapons, even if soviet workers didn't want to, this is why many communist refer to the soviet union as state capitalism.

Ok so if people that work get to keep what they've made, then why would anyone spend large amounts of money open up factories for OTHER people to work for OTHER people's benefit?

Also who gets to keep the finished product? it takes dozens of people to make a product in an industrial setting, so which one is lucky enough to get the product of the combined labor?

SOON...

>>2636177

As a social democrat I agree with that statement and am horrified by idea that faggots like teabaggers are willing to go back there and relive the whole cycle, perhaps thinking that they can make it "go better this time around"

>>2636401
>alright, most ideologies have killed millions, religions, capitalism, slavery, anti-slavery, colonialism, wars of independence etc.
But none of those have killed as many people has communism.

>why would communism lead to oppression?
For communism to work, EVERYONE has to be on board with it. You can't insure that happening without some kind of oppression. Also when take the factories and businesses away from the rich, you get a ton of pissed-off bourgeoisie that are a huge threat to the new communist society. So you are going to have to run massive campaigns to rid the country of those forces, which turns into oppression.

>>2636401
>So let's assume that there's this factory that came out of thin air
>And that nobody owns it, because thin air duh
>And we'll have these workers who are all working together to help each other out
>And they'll all split the money made equally and fairly in a direct proportion to the amount of work outputted with no bureaucratic oversight
>And nobody will ever oppress anyone
>And they'll be no government
>And we won't get invaded
>And the only thing we have to lose are our chains. UNITE!

Also

>>2636069

>>2636069
>>2636069
>>2636069
>>2636069
>>2636069
>>2636069
>>2636069
>>2636069
>>2636069
>>2636069
>>2636069
>>2636069
>>2636069
>>2636069

>>2632328

>I used to be into critical thinking. Then I got brain damage

let's replace the corporation with the government
that will make us more free!

Anarcho-communism is a retarded idea. Everyone needs to be on-board with communism, or else it will just turn back into capitalism. You need a government to make sure that everyone is on-board with it, or at least make sure it doesn't change back to capitalism.

Welcome to the party bro.

>>2636497
OP, do you care to refute this?

>>2636421
worker will organize to create new factories and change assembly lines
have you ever worked in a factory, you usually make more than one product in a shift, lets say you and your co-workers made 1200 products in a shift, you divide the products by the amount of workers.
>>2636496
seriously read this >>2633422

>>2636531
ANARCHO-communism

>>2636497
workers will manage resources and labor, if the workers need a new factory they will mobilize a workforce to build it and work in it.

>>2636520
woops

>>2636496
>But none of those have killed as many people has communism.
Source?

>For communism to work, EVERYONE has to be on board with it.
No, just the majority. Don't you know how democracy works?

>Also when take the factories and businesses away from the rich, you get a ton of pissed-off bourgeoisie that are a huge threat to the new communist society. So you are going to have to run massive campaigns to rid the country of those forces, which turns into oppression.
So we'll tell them to man up and deal with it. They're not owners anymore. We're not going to bring back exploitation just to satisfy a bunch of power-hungry man-children who want to run the show.

>>2636664

> >>2636496
> seriously read this >>2633422
How does that answer anything I said?

Communism is nice and all, but wouldn't you rather join me and become a singulatarian? Shiny cyborg supermen master race are who you want to be ruled by, not the proletariat; my family are proles, you don't want to be ruled by them.

>>2636558
the only way anarcho-communism can fail is if the lazy who refuse to work, were to be able to trick people into working for them and receive less than they produce(capitalism). hopefully this won't happen because the workers already control the means of production(unlike now) and have developed class consciousness.
those who refuse to work with the anarcho-communes will just starve, they pose no threat.

>>2632335
>5a. you can take bill gates give him black skin and have him be born into poverty, and he will be like anybody else who had the same upbringing. you can take a black child give him white skin, the name bill gates and give him bill gates' family upbring and connections and he will be a successful as the current bill gates, why? because we are our material conditions, everything we do, think and feel is based upon past experiences. Of course some poor people become rich, but that is due to something in their path maybe supportive family/school or being mentored by a rich person, or maybe just connections, but we are our material conditions you really can;t take credit for your intelligence looks or family, that is just luck of the draw.

LOL ...what a load of crap.I was with you up until this.

>>2636730
Its impossible for a group of people to truly control something equally. Someone will inevitably rise to the top and control the means of production. Then capitalism

>>2636747
Sounds pretty accurate to me. What's not to agree with?

>>2636730

Unfortunately this holds two issues:
In the long run we'll return to capitalism. All it takes is a few people to trick one community.
The concept of a revolutionary vanguard was a step to address this but is flawed.

It also doesn't promote human development. The expansion of our species domain and understanding of reality. Our species would die with this world.

OP what do you think about the slow or nonexistent technological progress that happens under communism?

Also how do you feel that now communism is no longer relevant in the west because most people are not employed in factories and are middle-class?

>Communism

A totalitarian system that oppressed and killed millions.

>Anarchism

A system that unnecessarily killed lots of innocent people during it's revolutions and after that forced everyone to give up their possessions and participate in their uncoordinated fuck-up.


Nice mix you got there bro

>>2636794

Most people in the USA are poor.

>>2636767
> All it takes is a few people to trick one community.
As opposed to what system where this can't happen? All of capitalism essentially relies on tricking the masses into thinking that working harder for their bosses will one day make them rich too.

>It also doesn't promote human development. The expansion of our species domain and understanding of reality. Our species would die with this world.
How so?

There are two Socialisms.

One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.

One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.

One is metaphysical, the other positive.

One is dogmatic, the other scientific.

One is emotional, the other reflective.

One is destructive, the other constructive.

Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.

One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.

The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed worse than others.

The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.

One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.

One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.

Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.

The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.

The first has faith in a cataclysm.

The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.

Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.

One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.

The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.

The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.

The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.

The one wishes to expropriate everybody.

The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.

>>2636808

Well that's the thing. Nobody has devised a real solution to the inevitability of it returning. Basic greed will permit it. Even widespread education and social pressure won't stop it unfortunately.

As for large projects. communism in its anarchist flavours has the issues of anarchy in that people won't have any reason to engage in these large projects. They rely on a small number of men dragging everyone else along with them.

The first says: ‘Do as the government wishes.’

The second says: ‘Do as you wish yourself.’

The former threatens with despotism.

The latter promises liberty.

The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.

The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.

One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.

The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.

The first has confidence in social war.

The other believes only in the works of peace.

One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.

The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.

One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.

The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.

The first will fail; the other will succeed.

Both desire equality.

One by lowering heads that are too high.

The other by raising heads that are too low.

One sees equality under a common yoke.

The other will secure equality in complete liberty.

One is intolerant, the other tolerant.

One frightens, the other reassures.

The first wishes to instruct everybody.

The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.

The first wishes to support everybody.

The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.

One says:

The land to the State.

The mine to the State.

The tool to the State.

The product to the State.

The other says:

The land to the cultivator.

The mine to the miner.

The tool to the laborer.

The product to the producer.

There are only these two Socialisms.

One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.

One is already the past; the other is the future.

One will give place to the other.

>>2636806
Depends on how you define poor. The poor in America are actually pretty well-off. I'm not going to say they have it easy, but compared to the poor in other countries, they are extremely rich. Also, if you want to be technical, less than 50% of America is below the poverty line. So in that sense, you are wrong.

>>2636808
>tricking the masses into thinking that working harder for their bosses will one day make them rich too

But people start new businesses all the time and do well for themselves. Everyone has equal opportunity to succeed, except where government regulation has hindered small business. Only lazy, uncompetitive betas would want a communist society.

>>2636841
> Assuming that people trying to create the second kind wont end up with the first kind

First word of Captcha: $191,812

>people who don't want to work are kicked off the commune, all people will have the right to cultivate land and/or work in a factory to produce for themselves, if you don't want to, enjoy a slow suicide. no one should be forced to work in communism or capitalism, but if you work in communism, your work belongs to you, if you work in capitalism your work belongs to to someone else

In capitalism your work never belongs to someone else. You are working under contract for part of the value of the finished product. The other part belongs to the employer. When the product is sold part goes to him and part goes to you in the form of a paycheck. You own part of the finished product the second you go on the clock.

>>2636881
>thinks libertarianism will lead to State Communism
lolwat

>>2636870
People should not be exploited because of the social situation they are born into. In a capitalistic society, the proleteriat are PREDOMINANTLY lower-class because they were born there. I don't support inequality from birth. Not OP btw.

Communism sure worked for these guys.

>>2636902
If its libertarian SOCIALISM, then yeah

>>2636919
Not Communism, just pretended to be

Does this really need to be repeated ad nauseum?

Not OP

>>2636931
You are very hung up on words.

Read the post. Rothbard could have penned that description of "libertarian socialism" as a description of "anarcho-capitalism".

Socialism meant a very different thing back in 1886.

>>2632328

No matter what type of economy you have, there will always be someone at the top buck fucking the less fortunate. In communism that would be pretty much everybody that's not high up in the military/government.

>>2636907
Lower class people are lower class because they are typically idiots. A person with average intelligence will work their way to middle class even if they are born lower class.

>Be born into a middle class family

"I now have the opportunity to succeed and if I play my cards right, become upper-middle class/ upper class and swim in money"

>Be born into lower/ working class

"I know have the opportunity, if I'm lucky and play my cards right and am extremely intelligent and don't get royally fucked over by my shitty situation, to make it into the middle class, where many other people are born. I have a .0000000000000001% chance of becoming upper-class"

Is that equality, being unequal from birth based on social class?

>>2636982
Exactly that. The working class is oppressed because they let themselves become oppressed, and thus deserve to stay that way.

>>2632328

Joe's parents paid for his college and left him a huge inheritance. And my parents were poor so they couldn't really help me. That's not fair!

Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

>>2636982

>People actually believe this

You know certain addresses are pretty much suicide if you put them on a job application.

>>2636870
>But people start new businesses all the time and do well for themselves.
First of all, you need money and connections to start a business. A bank or investors aren't going to give a loan to just anyone. If you're living paycheck to paycheck you're not going to get a loan from a bank to start a business. Even if you do manage to get a loan, they're going to expect large returns, or a portion of ownership of your company, or large amounts of equity in the vent that you fail. Speaking of failure, 95% of businesses fail within their first few years. Even a basic course in business would teach you this.

> Everyone has equal opportunity to succeed
Bitch, please. You're saying some kid born poor who has no savings, no family connections, and no money to go to college is going to have the same chance to succeed as some kid born to a rich family with connections and whose parents pay for an ivy league education? What planet do you live on?

>>2636980
>buck fucking

>>2637032
>>2636982
>poor people are at fault for being born into their material conditions

This is the single greatest lie that capitalism has ever successfully spread

>>2637023
Are you even American?

>>2637034
Then we'll make it fair. Deal with it.

While I suppose I share many of the ideals and goals of communists, I refuse to associate myself with that term and ideology because it seems like workers end up with less power than before.

I'm incredibly wary of any kind of central governance.

>>2637101
And how will you make it fair? Theft?

It's theft, isn't it, I bet it's theft.

>>2637097
Yes. What's your point? Are you telling me that a child born in Harlem into an impoverished family has the same opportunity to become upper class as someone born into the upper- middle class in Rhode Island?

>>2637115
There is no central governance is a true communist collective. Read some actual Marx. It isn't that fucking scary.

>>2632328
>5a. you can take bill gates give him black skin and have him be born into poverty, and he will be like anybody else who had the same upbringing. you can take a black child give him white skin, the name bill gates and give him bill gates' family upbring and connections and he will be a successful as the current bill gates, why? because we are our material conditions, everything we do, think and feel is based upon past experiences. Of course some poor people become rich, but that is due to something in their path maybe supportive family/school or being mentored by a rich person, or maybe just connections, but we are our material conditions you really can;t take credit for your intelligence looks or family, that is just luck of the draw

I disagree. Somethings are more due to nature than they are nurture. Bill Gates got where he was due to inherent genius. True, that might not have been as expressed or have gotten him as far if he was black and impverished but I refuse to believe that we are solely the products of our socio-economic class and upbringing. The one thing I always valued in American society was the emphasis on being "self-made", of rising up to better circumstances than you were born in. That's what my great-grandparents--poor immigrants from Europe--believed in and they achieved a life for their offspring that they could have never imagined back in their homelands. That's what I believe in too.

>>2636907
>I don't support inequality from birth

But equality of opportunity is a key part of any good capitalistic society. Everyone has the same chance to succeed, regardless of what they were born into.

Forcing equality of outcome destroys innovation, progress, any incentive to improve.

In a communist society, why aspire to be anything other than a laborer when increased skills and responsibilities have zero return?

>>2637156
In a communist society, hard work and ingenuity is directly proportional and the sole determinant of an individual's success. In a capitalistic society, while work ethic and intelligence are valued, connections and the social class you start in are MUCH too important.

>>2637152
Marx was an idiot. Proudhon ftw.

Accepting that not all humans are innately equal is not at odds with Marxism and communism.
From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

>>2637040
Bull shit. I own a business and never took that into consideration. In capitalism the amount that employee is going to make that employer is all that matters. A smart employer who is successful is going to know and understand that. You seem to have capitalism confused with discrimination.

>>2637150
And what's the alternative? Take all the money from the family in Rhode Island so that they are as poor as the family in Harlem?

>>2633712
Lol you stupid shit that "pyramid" painting is a classic example of criticism of CAPITALISM.

Fail.

>>2637023

>Be born into a middle class family

"I now have the opportunity to succeed and if I play my cards right, become upper-middle class/ upper class and swim in money"

>Be born into lower/ working class

"I can use the multitude of tools given to me by society (scholarships, free tutoring, grants, etc). I can work through college though it might take me longer to get done than my wealthier classmates. By having a good work ethic I will earn professional relationships while working my first few entry level possibly shit tier jobs. (this is called career building). These relationships will propel me to bigger and better things.

FTFY

"When Warren and Proudhon, in prosecuting their search for justice to labor, came face to face with the obstacle of class monopolies, they saw that these monopolies rested upon Authority, and concluded that the thing to be done was, not to strengthen this Authority and thus make monopoly universal, but to utterly uproot Authority and give full sway to the opposite principle, Liberty, by making competition, the antithesis of monopoly, universal. They saw in competition the great leveler of prices to the labor cost of production. In this they agreed with the political economists. The query then naturally presented itself why all prices do not fall to labor cost; where there is any room for incomes acquired otherwise than by labor; in a word, why the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent, and profit, exists. The answer was found in the present one-sidedness of competition. It was discovered that capital had so manipulated legislation that unlimited competition is allowed in supplying productive labor, thus keeping wages down to the starvation point, or as near it as practicable; that a great deal of competition is allowed in supplying distributive labor, or the labor of the mercantile classes, thus keeping, not the prices of goods, but the merchants’ actual profits on them down to a point somewhat approximating equitable wages for the merchants’ work; but that almost no competition at all is allowed in supplying capital, upon the aid of which both productive and distributive labor are dependent for their power of achievement, thus keeping the rate of interest on money and of house-rent and ground-rent at as high a point as the necessities of the people will bear."

>>2637190
As long as people are inherently inequal AND NEWS FLASH THEY ARE, class systems are inevitable.

Communism is a cynical scam by trying to pretend otherwise.

>>2637209
The lower class child still has to work harder for less reward. He is still at a disadvantage from birth

>>2637218
"On discovering this, Warren and Proudhon charged the political economists with being afraid of their own doctrine. The Manchester men were accused of being inconsistent. The believed in liberty to compete with the laborer in order to reduce his wages, but not in liberty to compete with the capitalist in order to reduce his usury. Laissez faire was very good sauce for the goose, labor, but was very poor sauce for the gander, capital. But how to correct this inconsistency, how to serve this gander with this sauce, how to put capital at the service of business men and laborers at cost, or free of usury,—that was the problem.

Marx, as we have seen, solved it by declaring capital to be a different thing from product, and maintaining that it belonged to society and should be seized by society and employed for the benefit of all alike. Proudhon scoffed at this distinction between capital and product. He maintained that capital and product are not different kinds of wealth, but simply alternate conditions or functions of the same wealth; that all wealth undergoes an incessant transformation from capital into product and from product back into capital, the process repeating itself interminably; that capital and product are purely social terms; that what is product to one man immediately becomes capital to another, and vice versa; that if there were but one person in the world, all wealth would be to him at once capital and product; that the fruit of A’s toil is his product, which, when sold to B, becomes B’s capital (unless B is an unproductive consumer, in which case it is merely wasted wealth, outside the view of social economy); that a steam-engine is just as much product as a coat, and that a coat is just as much capital as a steam-engine; and that the same laws of equity govern the possession of the one that govern the possession of the other."

>>2637057

fucking auto correct

So what makes anarcho-communism so much better than typical statist communism?

>>2637177
>In a communist society, hard work and ingenuity is directly proportional and the sole determinant of an individual's success. In a capitalistic society, while work ethic and intelligence are valued, connections and the social class you start in are MUCH too important.

Do you line in medieval times?