The History of Class Warfare

[Murky]

Aristotle, Niccolò Machiavelli, Alexis de Tocqueville, Adam Smith and Karl Marx all began from the premise there is a natural antagonism between the rich and the masses. “Those who have too much of the goods of fortune, strength, wealth, friends, and the like, are neither willing nor able to submit to authority,” Aristotle wrote in “Politics.” “The evil begins at home; for when they are boys, by reason of the luxury in which they are brought up, they never learn, even at school, the habit of obedience.” Oligarchs, these philosophers knew, are schooled in the mechanisms of manipulation, subtle and overt repression and exploitation to protect their wealth and power at our expense. Foremost among their mechanisms of control is the control of ideas. Ruling elites ensure that the established intellectual class is subservient to an ideology—in this case free market capitalism and globalization—that justifies their greed. “The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships,” Marx wrote, “the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/lets_get_this_class_war_started_20131020

This is excerpt from an article. Is this a true statement? How far back in history does class warfare actually go?

 

[Antilogic]

Warfare is probably a bit of American hyperbole that isn't appropriate for all eras, but general antagonism between people living in the same group has probably existed since the tribal days.

 

[Murky]

It's still a pretty harsh indictment of the ruling elite no matter which ruling party you belong to because you're still supporting the same unjust system. Some are more overtly anti-poor than others but they are all essentially pro ruling class.

 

[Traitorfish]

This article is conflating like six different theories of political power, and the result is gibberish.

 

[Murky]

This article is conflating like six different theories of political power, and the result is gibberish.

I think that I understand that difference well enough.

This whole theory of class warfare suggest those in power have a stake in oppressing the masses else risk losing their control over the population. So even though a politician may give lip service to populism, unless they want to risk losing power they have to also cozy up to the wealthy elite. By doing so they at some point they have to give into the demands of the wealthy elite. If the wealth elite follow the typical selfish pattern they are going to demand to pay lower taxes and have less regulations placed on them to be fair and share the wealth with the working class. So then don't expect too much in the way of sorting out wealth inequality from any successful governing party anytime soon.

 

[Pangur Bán]

'Class warfare' as a concept doesn't really translate well as a historical concept, back into the pre-modern era. Early medieval European social divisions for instance tend to be within households rather than between them, with a free warrior at the head of a household and junior relatives and slaves living within or adjacent to the same living complex.
Genealogical warfare makes more sense. If you think about it 'class warfare' is really just a kind of genealogical warfare where certain families, structurally, are incentivised to ally their interests against weaker families with access to fewer resources.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think that I understand that difference well enough.

This whole theory of class warfare suggest those in power have a stake in oppressing the masses else risk losing their control over the population. So even though a politician may give lip service to populism, unless they want to risk losing power they have to also cozy up to the wealthy elite. By doing so they at some point they have to give into the demands of the wealthy elite. If the wealth elite follow the typical selfish pattern they are going to demand to pay lower taxes and have less regulations placed on them to be fair and share the wealth with the working class. So then don't expect too much in the way of sorting out wealth inequality from any successful governing party anytime soon.

No, see, that's exactly the sort of Frankstein-argument I'm talking about. The "elite", here, appears a plutocracy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy and a capitalist class, without clearly possessing the traits of any. It's grand as populist chest-thumping, I'm sure, but it's theoretically vacuous.

 

[Murky]

No, see, that's exactly the sort of Frankstein-argument I'm talking about. The "elite", here, appears a plutocracy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy and a capitalist class, without clearly possessing the traits of any. It's grand as populist chest-thumping, I'm sure, but it's theoretically vacuous.

Just call it oligarchy then if you prefer.

 

[Traitorfish]

If it's an oligarchy, then why the repeated references to "class warfare", and the framing in terms of "natural antagonism between the rich and the masses"? Again, these are all very different theories being jammed together without much care for their actual content.

 

[timtofly]

So the clash of ideas has captured and eradicated the need for a clash of classes? Perhaps ideals are to blame, instead? If there is one group who is ideologically holding another one at a different level, there is always a struggle. Call it whatever you want.

 

[Murky]

If it's an oligarchy, then why the repeated references to "class warfare", and the framing in terms of "natural antagonism between the rich and the masses"? Again, these are all very different theories being jammed together without much care for their actual content.

It may help to read the full article. I didn't write it. I'm just trying to understand the implications from a historical perspective.

 

[Traitorfish]

It may help to read the full article. I didn't write it. I'm just trying to understand the implications from a historical perspective.

I did read the full article. As I said, it is gibberish.

So the clash of ideas has captured and eradicated the need for a clash of classes? Perhaps ideals are to blame, instead? If there is one group who is ideologically holding another one at a different level, there is always a struggle. Call it whatever you want.

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I despise the term "class warfare." I prefer the far more descriptive and apt term "class struggle."

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm given to understand that "class warfare" is really just an inept translation of "klassenkampf" to begin with. At any rate, the only people I've ever seen using it are anarcho-punks and senile fascistoids, both of whom are more interested in its rhetorical weight than actual semantic content.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I can understand those being its origins. I'm just saying I don't like that choice of translation, because it implies that it's a set-piece battle that can be won or lost, and that it's an even relationship with equal sides and equal standards. But class struggle continues so long as there is social inequality. It is inevitable, as humans are human. We hardly even have a choice in the matter. Merely existing in a society is part of class struggle.

FWIW, the phrase has become a regular part of American political discourse in the last few years. Conservatives, liberals, and leftists all use the term. It annoys me greatly, as most aspects of my country's political arena do.

 

[Traitorfish]

Actually, I meant to agree that it's an objectionable term. I was just pointing out that, as a muddled translation of "klassenkampf", it's not only awkward and inaccurate, but also redundant.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ah. Jolly good then. Consider my elucidation aimed at other people.

 

[Murky]

Maybe I should rename the thread "The History of Class Struggle" and go from there.

 

[Traitorfish]

The article uses "class war", so you're probably fine leaving it as is.

 

[Murky]

Since you(Traitorfish) think the article is gibberish can you point out something better that is still palatable to a politically broad group of history buffs?