Talk:New class

Proper term

"New class" is not a proper term; it is just an expression in a specific context. the article should be renamed. 07:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Certainly is a term, look at the adoption of Djilas by the other Eastern European marxists, Rakovski makes great use of it. Fifelfoo 21:31, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is not a term. "Class" is a term, "marxist" is a term, "new something" is just new "something" until it got an individual name. If "new marxists" insist that this is a "new term", then they are brain-damaged. What class will emerge tomorrow? "New 'new class'", "extra-new class"? Mikkalai 01:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While New Class is used, Nomenklatura is approxiamately the same, but shorne of its theoretical implications. Fred Bauder 22:36, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

What theoretical implications? An implication of thin-stretching to make up a theory? Lack of eductation in modern marxists that don't know Greek or Latin language to invent a new term if they feel it is necessary? Mikkalai 01:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As the additions to the article indicate there were a number of groups using this formulation.

1. Pre WWI technocratic "marxists" in the reformist tradition, who thought that by the management of information they'd improve everyone's lives. They had an interest in being "new", and weren't theoretically oriented. Their ideology was false-consciousness in the sense that they were imagining a world. This was a historical usage as reflected in the article.
2. Post 1917 anarchists who hadn't made up their mind about the specific historical materialist nature of the new soviet ruling class. Actual debate within anarchism centered on the "repressive state apparatus indicates their class interest, time for a revolution against this new class" rather than economic analysis. This was historical useage.
3. Djilas, and Eastern European marxists who followed in his steps. Djilas chose "new class" for a number of reasons: socialist realist's penchant for ordinary everyday language; attempts to avoid ossified Stalinist style theory (IV Stalin's Linguistics frex); and, as Djilas is at pains to point out, the "new class" is not part of a historically permanent mode of production. This was historical usage.

Mikkalai, while you may want to polemicise the use of "new class" as a term, historically "new class" has been used as a term. If you want to continue the polemic, find someone who has contributed a significant polemic against this usage and add a section on polemics against "new class" as a term within Marxism; or, do the original research yourself, get it published, and then refer to the significant original research in a new section on polemics against the use of "new class" as a term within Marxism. yours cordially, Fifelfoo 03:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please don't make guesses what I may and may not want to do. I only yesterday learned about the usage of this expression, and it struck me as ... er... lacking ingenuity, to say it softly. Thank you for significant contribution to the topic. If the term is indeed in serious use, then I feel pity for the fate of communist theory, that's all. Just imagine a biologist who discovered a new bug and gave it a fresh, original, memorizable name, "New Bug" (Bugus Novus)... "New Class"; who would have thought! Do they still call it "Scientific Communism"?Mikkalai 04:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Mikkalai, it just felt like polemic (I'm a little touchy today). On one hand you're right, its an appallingly vague term. You get people talking about the new class (technocrats), and then someone else talking about the new class (Djilas). Now Djilas' analysis is plenty scientific; I think he chose an "ordinary language" term to avoid execution, or even longer gaol sentences, and also to try and inspire something like the 1956 Hungarian Revolution but in Yugoslavia. Personally, much like Karl Marx turned the word capitalist from a vague adjective for owners of capital into a scientific definition, I think Djilas had the opportunity to turn nomenklatura into a scientific term. Perhaps for english: nomination|capital, nominationalist|capitalist, nominationalism|capitalism. Of couse, that still gets at the problem: capitalism sustains itself, reproducing a crisis due to its expansion. The Soviet-style societies (under Djilas) reproduce themselves in a contracted form, and their crisis, rather than being immanent, is continuous. Fifelfoo 04:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Galbraith's New Class

John Galbraith also advocated the formation of a "new class" in a western socialist/social democratic context. Classical liberal and libertarians tended to attack him on that. I would like to add a section on that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amcalabrese (talk • contribs) 02:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

star wars

I deleted the Star Wars reference at the beginning of the article, which led to a dead link of a not-yet-created Wikipedia article about "New class shipbuilding" in something related to Star Wars. An article this important, about one of the most important socio-economic results of the Stalinist communist system, and arguably one of the causes of its downfall, does not need to be demeaned with some movie reference that leads to nothing. Nathan Greenhalgh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.149.111 (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I think the immediately preceding "Star Wars" reference bolsters the case for the creation of a Disambiguation Page for the term "New Class". Already, there seems to be two distinct, mostly unrelated usages of the term (One pertaining to Communist societies; the other to Western societies, especially the United States). I myself first came across the term "New Class" in something published in the U.S. from the early 1970s, and it was used exclusively to describe a phenomenon in the United States that the liberal author (I can't remember the name) says began in the U.S. in the years following World War II. and consisted mostly of business middle management; hardly the same thing that most of this article revolves around (Eastern Bloc communism). I'd do it myself but I don't know how and any attempts by me to do so, with my online clumsiness, would most likely be swiftly deleted. Shanoman (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Paradox

I removed the paragraph describing the New Class as paradoxical -- the classless, stateless version of communism is the end goal, it's not what any communist country has achieved yet. The communist governments that have existed have all been socialist, which is the lower form of communism in the Marxist-Leninist sense. In this lower form the state still exists as well as potentially other classes, but the proletariat is now on top and in control of the means of production (i.e. state control of industry and collective farms) while working towards the ideal communist society. Sark6354201 (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No classes

I have changed some of the wording on the part I have trouble with.

Reading the citation, I see van Ree make an inference from Stalin's notes, and then proceed to list the notes van Ree made an inference from. Neither in Stalin's notes nor van Ree's inference can I see a cite for the past tense claims made here.

My first change I changed "is in contradiction to" to "can be considered against". I am not sure what exactly Đilas is contradicting.

My third change is "had resulted in the extinction of any ruling class" to "would result in the extinction of any ruling class". I see nowhere cited where Stalin had stated this had already happened, nor does van Ree say that Stalin had said this had already happened.

My second change is changing the word "claims" to "theories". The third change necessitates this as I'm changing the tense. Claims are for past history, theories are for future events.

There's a difference between Stalin saying a state can exist in a classless society and Stalin saying the USSR was a classless society. I don't see any citation of Stalin saying the USSR was a classless society.

All of van Ree's cites are 1937 and before. In 1938, Stalin wrote:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm

"The first side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country embraces the problem of the mutual relations between classes in our country. This concerns the sphere of internal relations.

Can the working class of our country overcome the contradictions with our peasantry and establish an alliance, collaboration with them?

Can the working class of our country, in alliance - with our peasantry, smash the bourgeoisie of our country, deprive it of the land, factories, mines, etc., and by its own efforts build a new, classless society, complete Socialist society?"

Clearly, Stalin, right after the citations made, was saying the USSR was NOT a classless society. In fact, he talks about how he wanted to "smash" one the classes he saw as still existing in the country - "the bourgeoisie of our country". I would infer the smashing would be done by the current ruling class, and as he states, he hopes another existing class - the peasantry - would join in on this effort. He talks about a classless society as something to be built in the future.

Even van Ree is not saying Stalin had stated the USSR was classless. He infers Stalin is saying that in theory a state could exist in a classless USSR. This is quite different then Stalin saying the USSR actually wasn't classless.

Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason Stalin thought "workers" and "peasants" were competing classes, but in this context the question is whether he thought those who governed, the party itself and its functionaries, the nomenklatura, constituted a ruling class. Plainly he didn't, considering the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to be the organized portion of the working class. If there was any "ruling class" it was the working class. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"we succeeded in liquidating our bourgeoisie". So no ruling class. The theory is that the new class is a new ruling class. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Your changes don't significantly modify the meaning of the text. However, two questions: Why is Stalin singled out as chief denier; It is only later when the working class is completely silenced and the Party rules by exercise of raw power that the relationship becomes apparent. Also I'm not sure Đilas called for revolution in either the Yugoslavian or Soviet contexts; our article says he proposed a new party. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Stalin saw workers and peasants as competitors. He considered the industrial proletariat as the backbone of the communist movement, the peasants were usually allies, although a kind of slower, dimmer one.

Yes, the theories were more or less what you state. The theory was that the proletariat, the working class organized into the communist party was the new ruling class. It ruled over the old aristocracy and bourgeoisie and suppressed them. It also ruled over the peasantry and was to lift the peasantry up by mechanizing farmwork, collectivizing farms and so forth.

I don't say Stalin is the most significant point. The quotes you put referred to Stalin, so that is why I quoted from Stalin.

I don't know what the opinion of Đilas was on this matter, I never read "The New Class". Đilas's 1957 publication was certainly not the first time in the previous four decades that someone accused the Russian nomenklatura of being a new class, many people had framed this proposal in many different ways in the previous four decades. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Something is odd here

A large paragraph was deleted from the top of the article at some point, so that it now starts with a continuation using "also". Context has been lost. 86.159.197.174 (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New class. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813115647/http://theclassofthenew.net/6.html to http://theclassofthenew.net/6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)