The interests of the owners (private capital or the State) of the means of production, and its operators (labour, employees, etc.) coincide as far as their viability depends on mutual dependence, but they differ as far as expectations of share in reward (or return on capital), and of benefits for risk and effort contributed. The primary phase of ownership which includes labour (as slaves or indentured servants) still persists, if only in the attitude that human beings can be hired or fired, replaced by machines and otherwise disposed of as a commodity, or cheated or denied political rights. Thus, extreme points-of-view taken by capital or ownership and its management representations evoke their counterparts, who wish to abolish the capital-labour dichotomy at the expense of capital, business for profit, and the free-market system, or state-controlled systems who wish to return to private-enterprise ways. The class conflict is evidenced by characteristics far beyond the simplistic concepts of nineteenth century thinkers.
Modern societies are fragmented in numerous categories of classes, of which the economic are accompanied by such other groupings as: party member, non-party member; bureaucrat, citizen; ethnic majority, minority; young, old, men, women, etc., all of whom have a political voice. The class conflict has extended to diplomatic levels where three or four blocs of nations participating in international organizations cannot adequately address the worlds' problems because of their disarray.
Underlying many manifestations of sexism and of racism is class domination based on economic exploitation and profit-motive, cultural captivity, colonialism and neo-colonialism.
The owners and controllers of capital monopolize the production of virtually everything enjoyable or useful. This monopolization creates two classes of people: capitalists and workers. Capitalists have to stay in business by keeping costs (including wages) down and maximizing profits. Workers have to stay alive by maximizing their wages to ensure adequate purchasing power as consumers. The result of a system based on these two all-inclusive sets of conflicting needs is an unending and often vicious struggle between the two classes, namely the class struggle.
Class war always advocates violence because there is no way that the ruling class will give up its power without such conflict. Historically this has always been the case. Violence is necessary to overthrow the state controlled by the ruling classes.
For the Marxist, the praxis, and the truth that comes from it, are partisan praxis and truth because the fundamental structure of history is characterized by class-struggle. There follows, then, the objective necessity to enter into the class struggle, which is the dialectical opposite of the relationship of exploitation, which is being condemned. For the Marxist, the truth is a truth of class: there is no truth but the truth in the struggle of the revolutionary class. The fundamental law of history, which is the law of class struggle, implies that society is founded on violence. To the violence which constitutes the relationship of the domination of the rich over the poor, there corresponds the counter-violence of the revolution, by means of which this domination will be reversed. The class struggle is presented as an objective, necessary law. Upon entering this process on behalf of the oppressed, one "makes" truth, one acts "scientifically". Consequently, the conception of the truth goes hand in hand with the affirmation of necessary violence, and so, of a political amorality. Within this perspective, any reference to ethical requirements calling for courageous and radical institutional and structural reforms makes no sense. The fundamental law of class struggle has a global and universal character. It is reflected in all the spheres of existence: religious, ethical, cultural, and institutional. As far as this law is concerned, none of these spheres is autonomous. In each of them this law constitutes the determining element. In particular, the very nature of ethics is radically called into question because of the borrowing of these theses from Marxism. In fact, it is the transcendent character of the distinction between good and evil, the principle of morality, which is implicitly denied in the perspective of the class struggle. (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1984).