Talk:Class conflict

Scope

I think this article needs a major reduction in scope. In my opinion, this article should focus on class struggle as an idea, rather than attempting to explain the history of class struggle in individual societies. Every agricultural society (with the debatable exception of certain socialist states) has been subject to class struggle. Trying to give a history of EVERY class struggle would make this article unbearably long. At the moment, it just focuses on class struggle in Greece, Rome, and modern capitalist societies. This is a pretty Eurocentric view of the history of class struggle. What about the peasant rebellions in China, or the Mazdakites in Sasanian Persia, or the Zomia region of southeast Asia? Rather than attempt to narrate all of these struggles in a single article, it would be better to focus on scholarly views of class conflict as a concept. SilverStar54 (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I might suggest that material be split up. We have a List of peasant revolts but I think it would be good to see a broader peasants rebellion article. I have also long been surprised that the Marxist concept of class struggle is not a distinct page from this. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I must say I wholeheartedly disagree with you. In my view the length is fine, the focus of the article is clear, and the material already there can be added to, rather than taken away from.

The article is actually not that long when you consider the breadth of the subject matter. In fact the page could literally be three thousand words longer and still be comfortable to read in one sitting.

Also I do think the article gives due focus to class struggle as a concept, not just in terms of historical facts but also as a component of social theory. Note that a lot of the subheadings indicate the thought of this or that philosopher, not the details of this or that event in the history of class struggle.

The classical and Enlightenment sections are to be built upon with examples of the contributions of Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Arab, etc. thinkers who have dwelt on the matter. In no way are the classical or Enlightenment sections to be taken as the be-all and end-all. It would be better to add to what there already is than to take away. Scallamander (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that this presents a very eurocentric view of class conflict. Furthermore, these sections on ancient Greece and ancient Rome are cited almost exclusively to ancient primary sources, so it seems there is a lot of original interpretation going on to make them fit in. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2025

Template:Category handler Template:Tmbox

Class conflict → Template:No redirect – It seems that "class struggle" is the common name for this term. A search on Google Scholar brings up 462,000 results for "class struggle", 232,000 results for "class conflict" and 54,000 results for "class war". Google Ngrams shows that "class struggle" has been the most widely used term consistently, and an order of magnitude ahead of the other terms. Furthermore, Google Search brings up more than 6 million results for "class struggle", about 1.5 million results for "class conflict" and 1.13 million results for "class war". Moving this from "class conflict" to "class struggle" would therefore be inline with its common usage throughout literature. As this is a potentially controversial move, I'm opening it up to discussion. Grnrchst (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Mostly support. At a minimum, the material on the Marxist usage of “class struggle” absolutely should be in an article so named. It is possible that there will be some objections to non-Marxist usage being moved because the language of “class conflict” may be more prevalent in those senses. My initial view is that the better view is still the whole page should move, but it may be necessary to address some specific objections JArthur1984 (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom Kowal2701 (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)