Talk:Class struggle

Missing mention of communist class
The communist class is defined in the communist manifesto. Why do people keep removing the communist class from the list of "minor classes". Clearly this class is neither proletariat nor bourgeoisie, and it has been extremely important in shaping every communist society. Why can't this class even be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.8 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Even more frustrating is that the communist class is defined in no other document than the communist manifesto itself: there is the "10-point plan" and "relation of communists to others". Yet these idiots keep wanting "more references". What better reference is there than the communist manifesto itself?
 * The communist manifesto talks about communists, but it doesn't say anything about a communist class.VoluntarySlave (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It DOES describe the communist class. See 10-point plan and description of those empowered to implement it. A class is any social group with unique privileges, including control of production, the power to define class struggles and to write academic papers about it. Therefore this group is definitely a class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.8 (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please quote where the Communist Manifesto describes communists as a class. The discussion of these ten measures doesn't mention communists at all, and says that these measures will be carried out by the proletariat, not by some separate class of communists.VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A substantive issue
The thread above can be found repeated elsewhere, talk:communism, etc. where it has been addressed. "Class struggle" is not the active expression of a Marxist concept. Rather, that concept is an abstraction from the real world relations, past, present, and future, of groups of persons defined by their political economic relations. There are other perspectives on the real world thing that is the subject of the article and these are inadequately expressed in the current text. Adding appropriate tagging to the relevant §, but the article overall confuses the concrete thing, not only with an abstraction, but with an abstraction from a particular school of thought. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, Marxist theory does not divide society into the workers and those that exploit them in the simple fashion stated. Rather it divides society into those dependent on wage income and those who are not by virtue of their possession of sufficient capital. It's true that the capital (in Marxist phenomenology) is nothing more than congealed labor power abstracted from living labor of the current and past time that is brought to market to realize its underlying real value. But within the bourgeois class there is a wide spectrum of relations between that capital and the ownership of it. The case of the simple earned income of the proletarian is recognized, for example in US Tax law as straightforward as is its immediate dependence on wages. However the bourgeois class grades from professional petty bourgeois, to high earning producers of various real goods and services, to actual rentiers, speculators, and various classic wielders of the power of capital who may or may not have a role in actual production (other than as financial actors). The case of pensioners and those on various forms of welfare could be placed in either class and is a further complication as is the fact that the bourgeois classes receive various state subsidies in the modern mixed economy, i.e. in modern highly socialized production and globalized capitalism. Thus the stated division is somewhere between a gross oversimplification and an outright false dichotomy. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing Anarchist and Socialist Portal Boxes
I found similar Portal claims on the class conflict article. They were placed there by a now suspended sock-puppet account, in an attempt to stigmatize the current conflict in the USA as "Bad" or "Counter culture". — Preceding unsigned comment added by XB70Valyrie (talk • contribs) 07:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This Article is set to self destruct in....
I'll be decommissioning this article. It was redundant to the article on Class conflict, as even pointed out by senior editors running the Help Desk. I've migrated most of the relevant text and lit and citations over there. If you think there's anything I missed, discuss it in. This article was mostly a Marxist perspective and outline of the topic in his Manifesto. It was not comprehensive to Class Conflict, Class Struggle or Class Warfare. Almost all the relevant material was moved. The editors previously did an excellent job. The Expanded article on Class conflict encompasses that all. I even created a section on modern Western turmoil and capitalist Class Warfare, etc. I'll be creating a redirect from this article to the article on Class conflict. And, you'll have to put up a good argument if you want to carry over the Socialist and Anarchist banners on the article over there. If you want to start your own sub-article on Marxist/Socialist Class Conflict, please do. Sub-articles like that are done all the time. Look at Fox News Channel, it even has its own Fox News Channel controversies article.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)