[JanisErdmanis]

The core issue seems that the social status is tightly coupled with currency and it can be optimized in destructive ways. Perhaps we need currency with multiple colours that could be earned in different ways and could be allowed to be spent to its sphere of influence as long as it could be enforced to not be interchanged. That way one could have higher social status in one sphere of influence and lower in another one.

[bumby]

William Storr has written about this and gives three different styles of social “currency”: dominance, virtue, and success.

Capitalism favors success and dominance over virtue, but some social subsets (eg clergy) get status through virtue.

[JanisErdmanis]

I may have a look on William Storr later on. The separation of social currency does however seem rather primitive one.

[bumby]

Primitive in what sense? Lacking nuance, or not reflective of modern society? I do think that the success category is easily mapped to money, which may be why it’s a primary heuristic for measuring success in a modern western society.

[JanisErdmanis]

I aggree that money or the ability to attain it is what modern society considers a success. However, the categories seem to be a reflection of the universal nature of the money that can buy any influence/right.

If we had a hyptothetical coloured currency where one kind could only be spent buying property, other necessities, some luxuries like travels. As long as the currencies could be enforced to not be interchangable the "dominance" becomes realative with respect to influence points one has collected.