> That's a very "class conflict" approach in the Marxist sense. It's not clear this was what was argued in the post I was answering to. The topic under discuss

> That's a very "class conflict" approach in the Marxist sense. It's not clear this was what was argued in the post I was answering to. The topic under discussion is the changing of economic rules to benefit some at the expense of others. It's the heart of the linked paper (TFA), and may be assumed as context for a root-level comment's assertions. > In any case, that analysis is obviously highly political, and the least that can be said is that not everybody agrees with it. That certain economic rules benefit some and harm others seems pretty uncontroversial. That those who are harmed by changes to said rules should quit expecting to be "given" things and just work harder seems like an obvious double-standard. That coupling of economic power to political power makes ethical reasoning on this topic in particular a bit muddy also seems uncontroversial.