Talk:Class warfare

Untitled
I'm somewhat concerned about these edits made by 12.233.98.161 - the previous version of the article has been completely deleted, and replaced with something which seems very difficult to understand to me. Sentences like "Furthermore, since the mechanisms by which wealthy peoples will increase or maintain their financial status are related and similar to another, they tend to develop similar political needs, and act in concert as a political group to those ends" are not exactly as clear as crystal. It also seems to have a dintinctly anti-something bias - anti-corporation at least - and appears to have some statements that seem to me to require justification ("there is little difference between the class warfare that existed between the Victorian era monarchy and the common public, and a modern Corporation and its workers"). I'm not knowledgable enough about this sort of thing to straighten it out myself, but I thought I'd mention that there appears to be a problem here. --Camembert


 * The new article sounds like a rant. That is, I'm not convinced the new text justifies deletion of the old. Mrwojo 03:11 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)

I'm on this, but not right now. I have been thinking most of it might be moved to class conflict, as class conflict is always with us while overt class warfare is seldom seen. "Class struggle" has a Marxist tinge, but perhaps we could go with that as an alternative. I find the new writing difficult to understand although the ideas are sound enough if somewhat original. So anyway, the upshot is we need a simple rewrite and maybe a move to a new name (or two). Feel free if you understand this topic. User:Fredbauder

Everybody, when you create links from common words, please CHECK WHERE THEY GO. The article you're linking to doesn't always have anything to do with the subject you're talking about. Thanks.

Heh, but what common word are you talking about? Fredbauder 13:59 Oct 16, 2002 (UTC)


 * He was probably referring to power, for one. Mrwojo

Yes, for one, but also just in general. I see this problem a lot.

---

"Unions are a modern incarnation of public will in class warfare. Representing a political group..." -- I'd call this highly controversial and/or non-NPOV


 * Depends what union. My union has mostly middle class members and is not affiliated to any political party.

Well, trying to move that notion over to class conflict. I think class warfare is still viable and does not require a redirect, but it needs to be limited to rebellions and such not orinary union activity. Fredbauder 13:59 Oct 16, 2002 (UTC)

I was only referrring to the phrasing re unions that I quoted.

--

The article previously was very vague and talked about money, and then at the end mentioned "the working class who live in service of the upper class if we define the upper class meaning those with the means of production and the working class as those who work for the upper class". Here they finally nail down what class is instead of talking about money. Theoretically someone could take their money and bury all of it, and they wouldn't be involved in these class relationships, thus it takes owning capital, or not owning capital and having to work for a wage, to be in a class. -- Lancemurdoch 06:22, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The added material on class warfare in Marxist-Leninist dictatorships is from Milovan Djilas and other, although I'm not sure he actually used the term class warfare or characterized state capitalism as displaying class warfare. Regarding Lancemurdoch's comment, it is definitely about power and its use to aggressively maintain power, money and management status may or may not represent power, consider the current situation in Russia where the owner of the largest oil company can put put into prison by those who hold actual power. Fred Bauder 15:31, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Noting that some people perceive in Marxist-Leninist socialist states a new class among the bureaucrats is fine. Some of these sentences are way over the top though like "All others including Communist party members and other supporters of the regime are subservient to them." Can you imagine if I was allowed to put a line like that in capitalism? "Non-capitalists are subservient to the capitalists in capitalism". Give me a break. That language is way too heavy-handed and non-NPOV, although I left in the notion of a new class creation of bureaucrats in Marxist-Leninist socialist states. -- Lancemurdoch 01:27, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Two months ago, the NPOV dispite header was added to this article without explanation and since that time there hasn't been any discussion or editing done. Unless someone explains what's NPOV here, I'm going to remove the dispute header (I'm assuming that Lancemurdoch doesn't have any remaining problems with the article, since he edited the lines he objected to and nobody's contested those changes). Bryan 00:54, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The article still looks way biased to me (for example the paragraph that begins "This is of course, is in direct contradiction to the wants..." ) However, I'll let it slide Lefty 14:44, 2004 Apr 17 (UTC)

This article is POV. The whole article is very pro-socialist and anti-capitalist.


 * I don't think you understand the concept of POV. The article, by the very nature of its subject, presents a pro-socialist and anti-capitalist concept. That's what class warfare is. But the article does not endorse this view. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu
 * I disagree, the article does in fact endorse this view.

This should be made more neutral:

''Thus a socio-political imbalance exists between individuals of extreme wealth or power and those with little or no wealth. The interests of the wealthy will often dramatically conflict with the interests and needs of classes without power.''

This statement is made without any evidence provided to back up the claim:

Fundamentally, there is little difference between the class warfare that existed between the Victorian era monarchy and the common public, and a modern corporation and its workers, even when they own part of the corporation.

This implies that coroprations are immoral:

''Corporations are companies that exist as perpetual entities. Their function is as a vehicle for business enterprise, while transcending the bounds of mortality and liability that accompany an individual-owned enterprise.''

The general tone of the article makes it look like it is written by someone who fully agrees that capitalists are evil and only exploits the working class, to be NPOV it also needs to look more at the arguments from the other side and how this related to the different schools of economic thought. User:Passw0rd (sig added after by Sam [Spade] 19:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC))


 * I agree 100%. I suggest you look into the activities, POV's of paramilitaries, Protest warriors, and the class/politics conflict within/between skinheads and other subcultures. Sam [Spade] 19:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * This entry requires a total rewrite. The concept of class-warfare must be explained from both a capitalist and Communist POV, without the entry itself "choosing" which is correct or stating opinion as fact.
 * MSTCrow 12:02, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, but go further to say we need to focus on conflict not associated w communist politics, and pay attention to ordinary class conflict also. See Chav for one example, subculture for others. As I suggested above, skinheads are very agressively "working class", but are almost never communist. In summary, I agree w a rewrite, but from many, not one, perspective. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 13:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect
I didn't understand that this article was separate from Class conflict. I think anything salvagable on this paged shoulf be moved there, w this page made a redirect. That article is a better one, w a broader (less POV) focus, and besides it will make both the rewrite easier, and things easier for the reader. Thoughts, etc.., if you will :) Sam [Spade] 13:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Redirected to Class conflict, please use Talk:Class conflict. Sam [Spade] 15:56, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Class war
This page should probably redirect to the more logical disambiguation page at Class war. (Emperor (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC))