# Yes, Virginia, there is class struggle **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 1, 2011, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-virginia-there-is-class-struggle/566017 "2011-01-01T03:35:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 6
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2011, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-virginia-there-is-class-struggle/566017/6 "2011-01-01T05:14:56Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve already asked you posts things I’ve never said and attribute them to me in a thread that I’m not already posting in at least. Obviously, that should have read: I’ve already asked you not to post things I’ve never said and attribute them to me in a thread that I’m not already posting in at least. For example, just a few days ago, you recast how I’d repeatedly corrected you a repeated error that whereby you often call an armistice line a border, even when it had been explicitly established by treaty as something that was not a border, and would not prejudice negotiations to set a border in the future. Instead, you claimed, that the very act of correcting you on the facts (repeatedly) meant that that I’d stated, anywhere at all, that all the land to the east of the armistice line and to the west of a neighboring state’s border was, is the property of the state to the west of the armistice line. Be that as it may, as you seem to have such a shall we say, divergent reading of what I actually do post, I’d suggest that when you claim that I’ve said something, other people to check to see if I actually have. For example, here you claim that I “[denied] that such a thing as class struggle even exists, ever or anywhere”. What did I actually say? > [@Was Marx right?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-marx-right/565529/71): > > The base answer I’d give is that if we’re using “Class Horseplay” to mean whatever we want it to mean, then of course the French Revolution is an example of it, because we can definite it as “exactly what happened during the French Revolution.” internal-delineations consistent? Are there three (or two now, I suppose) classes in a society if that is what is required for an analysis, but seventeen classes if we need to divide things that way so that we can claim a conflict is class-based? The real test is whether or not it’s got a set of objective definitions that can then be applied to other, varied conflicts. And how often the definitions and goalposts need to be changed to make it work while we try to shoehorn other situations into a pre-determined framework. > > Because virtually every conflict in the history of humanity, and most likely every conflict to come, is and will be between groups that can be broken down on rough lines and/or grouped into many various categories. Group vs Group conflict is indeed a part of many upheavals, but which groups, how do you define them, how do you analyze the conflict? If, for instance, we have the nation of Hypothetica in which people of a low socioeconomic status are generally religious and people from higher socioeconomic classes are generally non-religious, and many people in society are demanding that religious law be the law of the land is that a religious conflict or a “Class Brawling”? > > And so on. As is very clear, I went to great pains to outline the fact that depending on how we defined it, “class struggle” might apply and/or be useful, or might not. It might be a valid thing to claim, or it might not. And that it was up to the person using it to define it in such a manner that it has a consistent, objective definition that had explanatory powers due to specificity and internal logical consistency. I can certainly understand your position. In response to “It’s the job of people trying to argue that ‘class struggle’ is a real phenomena and valid analytical tool, to define it with an operational definition and internally consistent delineations,” you actually (at first) tried to handwave it away entirely, saying that it was simply a [“fact”.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13298407&postcount=108) Just like you tried to actually claim that getting you to define your own terms was [“intellectually dishonest” and trying to “define [them] out of existence”.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13300427&postcount=128) Much of this makes sense, of course, as you “hold these truths to be as self-evident”. Hard to analyze “truths” that are “self evident”. For your argument, actually having to define your terms _into_ existence is an obvious burden. Being asked to provide an objective, logically consistent framework is a drag if your argument doesn’t contain it. And if the result of not being able to provide such a context is that your terms are discarded as imprecise and useless for analysis, then it must seem as if they’re fading from existence due to not having a definition. Of course, you should realize that if they don’t have that objective, logically consistent definition, then they didn’t necessarily exist as valid terms any more than “the greater good” or “proper Christian behavior” do. Instead, by trying to get you to define your own terms, you think I’m attacking them, with intellectual dishonesty to boot, since you’ve _already_ taken them a “self evident” “truths”. Just like you actually went on to claim[that sociology would one day become a science just like physics.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13300427&postcount=127) Seriously. Then of course[when I pointed out the numerous problems with your claim, and with the schema you put forward,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13300774&postcount=130), your only response was an ad hominem fallacy (amusing considered your basic error in comparing sociology to physics).[Despite having it pointed out to you that ‘nuh unh, u r dum!’ is not a particularly robust factual counter](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13300859&postcount=133) you maintained that[yah, you thought it was.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13303196&postcount=142) Just like I pointed out the essential differences between an objective analysis and your fiction of defining-junk-and-stuff-out-of-existence. > [@Was Marx right?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-marx-right/565529/130): > > Trying to get you to define your own terms in an objective, consistent manner, cogent, cohesive manner? I’m sure it seems awful, just awful to you. It’s no fair, you want to posit your gloss as something that’s just “fact” and doesn’t have to be supported, defined in objective terms, etc… But, nope. Trying to get you to actually provide a rational argument based on objective definitions is hardly defining anything out of existence. What’s actually happened is that you’re inventing things and, then when they evaporate under scrutiny, you’re complaining that it’s the fault of the person who pointed out that the emperor is nekkid, because they defined his damn fine raiment right out of existence. > > Funny, asking for cohesive, objective definitions doesn’t define alpha radiation out of existence. It doesn’t define a phospholipid bilayer out of existence. It doesn’t define oxidation or reduction out of existence. It doesn’t define meitosis out of existence. It doesn’t define a parabolic ballistic trajectory out of existence. It doesn’t define shifts in allelic frequency out of existence. it doesn’t… > > Does it not strike you as odd that for some phenomena, defining them gives an objective, consistent definition and framework and for others, it makes them evaporate? And you claim that the problem is that I ask you to try to define your terms, not that your terms evaporate like summer dew under the least little bit of sun. > That doesn’t suggest anything to you? And then, of course, you posted this thread to continue the same argument (while flaming my ever-so-non-eloquent-mind) and talked about how incomprehensible my words are to you. Miraculously, two people immediately respond to you and fully understand exactly what I was saying. Will wonders never cease? --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-virginia-there-is-class-struggle/566017)._