: : I disagree, class is an arbitrary construct, it is simply a way to group together similar components.
: Please see this post then this post.
Please see the follow up to Lark's post.
: : One example I can think of pertaining to class interests would relate to a farmer in the 4th century B.C. who keeps having his crops ransacked by nasty barbarians.
: But if the 'barbarian' is in fact the LANDLORD, then ransacking the crops is LEGAL. See, the specific mode of production WILL determine the rights of the farmer...
Laws aside. If the landlord has no claim whatsoever on the farmers crops (ex. he just showed up and took some corn) than I would agree that it is immoral. If, however, the landlord gave some desolate man a tract of land in which to start a farm in exchange for a certain percent of the crop yield, then I believe that it would be perfectly moral.
: : Yes, and that standard is life.
: Very vague...
Allow me to clarify. When life is your standard of values, then every action that perpetuates it is considered moral. If the action is adversely related to life and the continuation thereof, then it is immoral.
: : The standard applies to every class. A proletariat cannot survive if he is robbed every day...
: I would argue that the proletariat IS robbed every (working) day...
Hehehe, I knew you would do this. I cringed the entire time I wrote that just thinking about your response. I am of the belief that everyone has the right to free association and if they do not want to sell their labor at a certain price, they are not forced to.
Starvation is not a force instituted by the bourgeois, it is a consequence of not producing for yourself (specifically, food).