What is "Class Warfare"?

[Cutlass]

What's a "socioeconomic class", in this sense? I understand what the terms denotes in a very general sense, obviously, but you seem to be describing that as positive, at least very broadly coherent entities, rather than simply as sociological categories, which complicates it a bit.

I don't think that categories have hard and firmly defined lines, if that's what you mean. Unlike a nation that has an aristocracy that actually rules country and has real privilege and power, places like the US have both blurrier borders and more fluid ones. Now leaving the racial issues for another discussion, we have the dirt poor, those that are homeless, the welfare dependent, the working poor, an extremely broad and inclusive "middle class", the sorta rich, the rich, and the extremely rich.

Class warfare in the US in recent decades has been the top 3 groups at the expense of the rest. Class warfare in political rhetoric has been the top groups accusing anyone who wants to help the rest of warfare.

 

[Arwon]

What is interesting and kind of strange to me is that it's come to the forefront recently in its turned-about "ironic" form. That is, using it to describe attacks by the rich capitalists on everyone else.

This seems to be occuring without the usual form of the term being that widely used (ie, when it's used to deride any effort by the non-rich to advocate their interests too forcefully).

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think that categories have hard and firmly defined lines, if that's what you mean. Unlike a nation that has an aristocracy that actually rules country and has real privilege and power, places like the US have both blurrier borders and more fluid ones. Now leaving the racial issues for another discussion, we have the dirt poor, those that are homeless, the welfare dependent, the working poor, an extremely broad and inclusive "middle class", the sorta rich, the rich, and the extremely rich.

Class warfare in the US in recent decades has been the top 3 groups at the expense of the rest. Class warfare in political rhetoric has been the top groups accusing anyone who wants to help the rest of warfare.

So would you say that these are at least very roughly discrete groups, or are they just conceptual tools? If the former, then how are they distinguished from one another? If the latter, then how can they be discussed as acting in the coherent manner implied by "class warfare", rather than just pursuing individual interests in ways which happen to align?

What is interesting and kind of strange to me is that it's come to the forefront recently in its turned-about "ironic" form. That is, using it to describe attacks by the rich capitalists on everyone else.

This seems to be occuring without the usual form of the term being that widely used (ie, when it's used to deride any effort by the non-rich to advocate their interests too forcefully).

I've noticed that too, but I don't pay enough attention to American political discourse to know if I'm just getting a biased exposure. Anyone else have any thoughts on that?

 

[ParkCungHee]

That is, using it to describe attacks by the rich capitalists on everyone else.

Traitorfish can correct me on this, but traditionally isn't that the most common form of class warfare?
And point of the term was to get others to fight back?

 

[Cutlass]

So would you say that these are at least very roughly discrete groups, or are they just conceptual tools? If the former, then how are they distinguished from one another? If the latter, then how can they be discussed as acting in the coherent manner implied by "class warfare", rather than just pursuing individual interests in ways which happen to align?

I don't know that there is a simple answer to that. At least in the American political context. There is little to no organized class consciousness in the US except among the rich. And the social narrative is that class is something that can be overcome, and that weakens any class cohesion. And in fact it can be overcome, and that is simply the historical experience of the national consciousness.

Ironically the practical effect of class warfare is to make class more rigid, and to decrease the ability to overcome class origins.

So the very factors that decrease class consciousness are being undermined and eliminated by class warfare.

I would say that the classes are roughly discrete, but only roughly. Or, you could say that the borders are blurry and subject to dispute depending on point of view. The distinctions between them would be defined, circularly, as how you chose to define them. And that would vary a great deal depending on who you happened to be talking to. You could take the straight economic definitions used by economists, or the Census, but some will disagree with those boundaries, and some of those boundaries will be blurry.

The lack of class consciousness on the part of most people means that for the most part there is little organized class efforts. Only the rich are close enough to a coherent entity to take class action against the others. And even there it isn't universal.

An aristocracy might close ranks against all opposition. In the US that isn't really true. But it is close enough so that there is a real effect on the economic policy of the nation.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This is a term that Americans seem to have grown fond of in the last little while- uncharacteristically so, given that half of it is comprised of the word "class"- but I'm having a bit of a trouble figuring out what is actually meant by it. With the Tea Party types, it's straightforward enough: it's a term that they vaguely remember being associated with Soviet propaganda, and therefore must describe everything that is bad, naughty and wrong in the world. But I also see a lot of otherwise reasonable people, sometimes conservative but particularly liberal, using it to describe certain social phenomenon, namely, those which appear to express some economic or political tension between the very wealthy and the working (or "middle") class. I don't fully understand what they mean by it, what social dynamics they understand it as expressing, or how it functions as an historical process; at the very least, it doesn't seem entirely to overlap very heavily with the concept of "class struggle" that one might find in, for example, an IWW pamphlet. The word seems to have emerged spontaneously in the American political vocabulary, without ever actually having been given a formal definition.

So, let's talk about that. What is the social phenomenon that it describes? How does this phenomenon work? What is a "class" and how does it conduct "warfare"? Why is a term that, to a Briton, tends to suggest angry young men with facial piercings handing out poorly-printed anarchist newsletters c.1987, appearing so frequently in the mainstream American political discourse? All constructive answers will be appreciated.

Class warfare is when we fight back. It is when the working men and women of America (and those who desire work) don't let the rich have their complete way. When it happens the other way around, it's defending the Constitution and Creating Jobs.

 

[Singularity]

Class Warfare is when words like "Income Equality" starts to pop up on word clouds(allbeit in tiny font) from US election coverage. In other words, very rarely and with a lot of huffing and puffing from the affluent few about how the ideals of the founding fathers is getting shafted by socialism.

 

[Arwon]

Traitorfish can correct me on this, but traditionally isn't that the most common form of class warfare?
And point of the term was to get others to fight back?

Well, it's the most common form if we're being serious and thinking political words have literal meanings and correlate in some way with observable reality.

But, in anglo countries with Labour parties at least, it's usually heard being slung by the conservative anti-Labour side of politics at just about anything remotely redistributionist or egalitarian that they do (the Greens get it a bit too, which is a nice change from Left Labor types accusing us of having no class politics and being co-opted by liberalism).

Turning the word around and calling tory regressionism "class warfare" is mostly a way of pointing out how silly and hypocritical those Tories are when they say such things and using their own rhetoric against them.

So it's a little odd to hear the turned-about version being almost the default form in current American discourse.

 

[LucyDuke]

But, in anglo countries with Labour parties at least, it's usually heard being slung by the conservative anti-Labour side of politics at just about anything remotely redistributionist or egalitarian that they do ...

That's what it sounds like to me, in Americaland.

 

[innonimatu]

So it's a little odd to hear the turned-about version being almost the default form in current American discourse.

And that at least is encouraging! It means that the propaganda of the tories/conservatives has been recognized or what it was to an extent that they'll losing all effective tools. It is a sign of a sea shift to come: the loss of credibility by the established powers usually is followed after a few years, a generation change roughly, by fall from power. Who'll replace them, of course, is uncertain. Especially as in Anglo countries "Labour" parties are also conservative and included in that loss of credibility.

 

[Crezth]

Class warfare is when we fight back. It is when the working men and women of America (and those who desire work) don't let the rich have their complete way. When it happens the other way around, it's defending the Constitution and Creating Jobs.

I like it.

 

[Leoreth]

For the first time I noticed that Marx's term Klassenkampf ("class struggle") became "class warfare" in English instead. It's as if everything becomes a war in American political terminology.

 

[Ajidica]

Want can we say? We Americans are a naturaly violent people.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't know that there is a simple answer to that. At least in the American political context. There is little to no organized class consciousness in the US except among the rich. And the social narrative is that class is something that can be overcome, and that weakens any class cohesion. And in fact it can be overcome, and that is simply the historical experience of the national consciousness.

Ironically the practical effect of class warfare is to make class more rigid, and to decrease the ability to overcome class origins.

So the very factors that decrease class consciousness are being undermined and eliminated by class warfare.

I would say that the classes are roughly discrete, but only roughly. Or, you could say that the borders are blurry and subject to dispute depending on point of view. The distinctions between them would be defined, circularly, as how you chose to define them. And that would vary a great deal depending on who you happened to be talking to. You could take the straight economic definitions used by economists, or the Census, but some will disagree with those boundaries, and some of those boundaries will be blurry.

The lack of class consciousness on the part of most people means that for the most part there is little organized class efforts. Only the rich are close enough to a coherent entity to take class action against the others. And even there it isn't universal.

An aristocracy might close ranks against all opposition. In the US that isn't really true. But it is close enough so that there is a real effect on the economic policy of the nation.

Well, how would you define "class"? You talk about "class conciousness"- presumably that means that there must be something if not objective then at least solidly inter-subjective for individuals to be concious of?

 

[Cutlass]

Well, how would you define "class"? You talk about "class conciousness"- presumably that means that there must be something if not objective then at least solidly inter-subjective for individuals to be concious of?

For most Americans class is where they think they are. And for the most part don't spend much time thinking of it. Class is mostly the socioeconomic status. Except for some minorities who feel that they are still a segregated and discriminated class. But again, there isn't a lot of class consciousness. It is i minor part of how people usually think about themselves. And that is why there is so little class warfare except top down: The rest of the people do not spend a lot of time thinking about their class and its relationship to other classes.

Class warriors for the rich can get elected with the help of the middle and the poor because those voters do not think in terms of class.

Class matters in the public policies implemented. It does not matter in the general public consciousness to nearly the degree to which is did, say in Britain from WWI to the 1970s.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

"Class Warfare" is the latest manufactured catch phrase of the Republican party intended to distract from efforts at establishing a more equitable taxation policy and economic policy. The Republican party is in bed with the wealthy elite, to maintain their vast privileges, and strive to avoid increasing their tax burden through progressive taxation. Whenever discussions arise on raising the highest progressive tax rate, to raise revenue either to balance the national budget or pay for new social programs, such as national medical plans, the Republicans cite "class warfare" as a boogeyman. The term has the ring of infamy for Americans, probably due to its veiled association with communism. The vast heap of voters are easily demagogued and so will repeat this catch phrase as if it means anything.

 

[Leoreth]

It's also interesting that the term is treated as if it's the goal of communists to have class struggle. Which is odd considering it's an ideology striving for classless society.

 

[GoodGame]

So, let's talk about that. What is the social phenomenon that it describes? How does this phenomenon work? What is a "class" and how does it conduct "warfare"? Why is a term that, to a Briton, tends to suggest angry young men with facial piercings handing out poorly-printed anarchist newsletters c.1987, appearing so frequently in the mainstream American political discourse? All constructive answers will be appreciated.

It probably is totally based on IRS income brackets than anything else. And since it's not used in an academic notion---it is strictly used in political context---I hope you've noticed, then it is used to defame one's opponent while increasing one's popularity/fund-raising potential. Since it is not used academically, then terms are malleable, if you can get away with----burn the academic integrity!

Based on snippets of politicians ranting and raving, I'd say that "middle class" represents a two-income (probably mom and dad both holding down at least one full-time job and one part-time job total) of at least $40,000/year (maybe $35,000/year?). "Rich" is totally subjective, being maybe a household earning 6-figures per year (or holding the same in assets) to maybe one of the 'new' millionaires to maybe Warren Buffet/Bill Gates/Rupert Murdoch. Then there is also "poor" and "working poor", with poor probably being underemployed (maybe a part-time job) and making $20k/year to nothing.

All "class warfare" in the USA is based around income levels brackets, "welfare", tax breaks/shelters, when such go up to the Senate/President for a vote. All "class warfare" talk in the USA really is political demagoguery to try to win popularity/approval points in polls. Of course, some of it involves "moving the goal line" (i.e. redefining "middle class" during a debate), and some of it is based on idealism about taxation rates (progressive vs. flat tax), tax breaks for the rich leading to a "trickle down" effect on the economy, etc.. For the most part, I don't think I've heard much talk equating vetoing tax breaks for the rich as Marxist ideology. Although, here it is:
http://conservapedia.com/Class_warfare

And what Leoreth said. LOL