Talk:Conflict theory

	This sociology related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

...a syncretic attempt to shoehorn every moonbat's pet peeve into one grand unified front[1] Man, you really don't like sociology, do you ListenerX. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sociology and sociological research per se I have no problem with. That the methods of some sociologists are predicated on the central tenets of a bullshit political philosophy that had a major hand in the 20th century being something of a slaughterhouse, slight problem there. That the theorizing of these sociologists has a symbiotic relationship with pinkos' rather unscientific squabbles, slight problem there. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Footnote #2

I'd dispute the point that pure communist societies are purely theoretical; the catch is that the real-world examples are all groups of social insects, and not humans. Jwebb13 (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Uh, pure communist societies have existed and, in fact, still do exist. In recent history, several have existed on a large scale. Many still exist today, albeit as smaller communes. In ancient history, matriarchal communes existed that could be referred to as a kind of "pure" or anarcho- communism. There is scholarship out there on the subject if you are interested in learning about how these societies function in the real world. Hint: no real-world communism ever existed by way of a dictatorship. It was always immediate or just how things had always been in that society. It's very interesting stuff. I suggest starting with Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread, Engel's Family, Private Property and the State, Makhno's account of the Ukrainian revolution, and Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. There are better (and more current) resources and thinkers than this, but these are excellent introductions to histories rarely told.

well, pure communist societies cannot be made on a large scale, since you cannot get millions or billions of people to cooperate in such a way.^{— Unsigned, by: 107.77.202.172 / talk / contribs}

Most of human history has been in a more-or-less Communist mode of production. Even today, it would be possible. Communism is, in the Marxist sence, likely hundreds of years away. Wisconcom (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Communism also doesn't require that the entire world lives in one massive commune to which everyone is required to cooperate. It an be a vast network of communes, various municipalities connected by unions, confederal organization, etc. Provided there is no state, currency, or class -- it can be said to be communist. A communist society does not require all actors to co-operate with every other actor. Communism doesn't expect an absence of social conflict or no need for mediating factors/institutions. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is bad and you should feel bad.

Intersectionality is a moonbat thing? Racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, white supremacism, male supremacism, economic supremacism, cultural supremacism, homophobia, and ableism are snarl words? This was obviously written by a white male libertarian. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense.

The funny thing is to want to assign to Marxism a sociological model that originated with Ibn Khaldun and French classical liberalism. --190.174.21.198 (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)