Talk:Class struggle

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)

I disagree strongly. It would only be Eurocentric if it were somehow set up to prevent contributions from Chinese, Arab, etc. perspectives, which it is not. So far there have not been those contributions, but that does not mean the article is Eurocentric. It is an evolving document, open to addition, and could be added to signficantly.

As for what you said about primary sources, there is not really any historical interpretation of the ancient sources for most of the Greek and Roman sections, but rather simply paraphrasing of the text to bring the article in line with Wikipedia guidelines. After all, there are already extensive quotations in use and it would be no good to simply list endless quotations. Scallamander (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Opinion piece on fringe website

C.J. Griffin, this is meant to be an encyclopaedia article about class struggle everywhere not about the contemporary US. I understand that the reference to opinion pieces about US politics you restored is long standing, but this is a non-expert writing in a fringe publication. Due weight is supposed to be based on attention paid in reliable sources. What scholarly article or tertiary text about this topic suggests that this particular opinion is due? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

The material was originally located and subsequently restored in the sub-section on the United States, not the lead or some other inappropriate section. And Chris Hedges is a well known author, activist and commentator on this issue, so I don't see it as undue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Obviously this article is right to have a section on contemporary America, but only a short section. Of this was an article focused on class struggle in contemporary America, I’d let this slide. But, however well known he is, I don’t think he’s considered an expert on class struggle. (Maybe I’m wrong - perhaps you can show reliable sources describing him as such.) There are so many sociologists and historians writing on this topic, I just don’t believe that any serious tertiary source would consider this Scheerpost article noteworthy. Even if you’re right that this is what he’s known for, then presumably it’s his books and not an epidermal blogpost we should be mentioning. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I would agree that something from one of his books would be superior to an op ed piece. Although I don’t think there is anything wrong with including this quote, given the time I will seek out something from the former to replace it, unless someone else wants to. C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2026 (UTC)