Misperception, Cognitive Dissonance, Righteousness, and Conflict.
For Marx, it is people distributed on the bases of differentiated property ownership and sources of income; for Dahrendorf, it is differential power, norms, and roles. My notion of social space incorporates power and norms and formal roles, while making explicit the function of cultural meanings and values.
Cross-Pressures, Overpopulation, Anomie, and Conflict.
The VAST fucking majority of it was useless, overly specific, pointless crap that nobody wanted, and the last 1% was about .5% okayish, and .5% overpowered as fuck.
Property relations define social space; the conditions of ownership of capital, land, or one's labor constitute dichotomous components distributing individuals in their social relations.
Class thus is determined by property, not by income or status.
A culture in which slave labor is generally believed right, proper, and sanctioned by the gods, as in classical Greece, will have little associated class conflict.
Out of similar , individuals come to act similarly.
In the helix, the social space is transformed into a structure of conflict insofar as differential locations in the space define opposing attitudes.
Increasingly class conflict is manifested at the societal level.
Attitudes form a switchboard between needs and active interests; the connections are wired through acculturation, socialization, and personal learning, and experience.
Classes become political forces.
The structure of conflict defines latent conflict groups, in the sense that people who have opposing attitudes are reservoirs for opposing interests groups.
Overall, there are six elements in Marx's view of class conflict.
The conflict helix begins analytically with a conception of the social space as a field of meanings, values, norms, statuses, and class, where status has the joint meaning of formal positions (as in authoritative roles) and the informal statuses of wealth, power, and prestige.
Capitalist ownership and control of production have been separated.
There are two classes, those with authoritative roles and those without, and these classes define opposing attitudes (i.e., a particular structure of conflict).
The spirit, if not the substance, of his theory is worth developing.
Other structures of conflict are not associated with classes, but this is the main one manifested in societal or collective conflict and political struggle.