"The history of man is a history of class struggle." the opening line of the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels in 1848, by which they also meant that the prehistory of man is without class struggle. I say "is" in the present tense because "history", in this context, is not a period of time but a level of technology. The anthropological definition of a "civilization" is a culture that has developed written language. In order for a people to reach that stage it must necessarily be sedentary and agricultural, i.e., it is to have domesticated plants and animals. It is only then that they can record their history - in the modern Western understanding of that phrase.
It is a solid fact of anthropology - and thus, of political economics - that the prehistory of man, that is, the level of technology and production that does not enable the development of written language, was, in fact, without class struggle. Preagricultural society is without exception egalitarian, without hierarchy, private property or formal authority. The most conservative anthropologist would not deny that fact. They might say that subsequent civilization with its invariable succession of slave society to feudalism and eventually capitalism represent an improvement or some sort of evolutionary advance but none would ever deny that ALL people come from a culture of communal participatory democracy of, at least, their distant ancestors.
I've heard people bandy around different theories as to why social, political and economic structures change when agriculture and written language are developed. I've heard it was tomatoes in the diet, I've heard that written language wires the brain malevolently and I heard other provocative theories. I, however, think it's nothing nearly so esoteric. I think, quite simply, that when people domesticate plants and animals, from there it's a short step to domesticating other people. When a people first discovers and engages in the practices of agriculture and patrimony there are always a few clever opportunists among them who think it would be a sharp idea to apply the principle of domestication not only to plants and animals but to other people as well and thus begin various kinds of slavery, the subjugation of women, and that sort of thing. Thus the contemporary rightist (and leftist but the leftists don't pretend they don't, they are, in fact, calling out the rightists on their designs) ideology bifurcates society into two main categories or classes, that of the owners of businesses and that of those who work for someone else (namely, those owners of business), capital and labor, as it were. These are clearly categories of relative value of human beings in the rightist ideology with labor as the not fully human, beasts of burden, if you will. When they talk about freedom the rightists clearly are not thinking of workers. Freedom is a basic right and value but only for them. Their naturally deserved, God given freedoms include the freedom to enslave plants and animals as well as people of the other category, people who are not owners of business - or labor. Labor, the rightists believe, like women, (until relatively recently) other racial groups and other species of life were put on earth for their use and exploitation - as the patriarchal religions of civilization would have it. When those of a rightist persuasion talk about human rights in other parts of the world they are talking almost exclusively of private property rights. Thus, for purpose of their PR, Cuba is a greater human rights abuser than Guatemala for expropriating property - and flipping U.S. rightists the bird while doing it. That Guatemala, a U.S. rightist backed regime, is still committing a literal genocide against its people as it has been for 60 years doesn't affect that. It also doesn't matter if the private property rights they are so willing to defend to the last drop of your blood (and which many don't accept as basic human rights) violate other, greater, true human rights of those not of their ownership category.
Thus, know your enemy. It's not the foreign peoples, like the Arabs, for example. They've been under the Western business owners' boots for a long time and are only trying to be free. It's not Latin American immigrants. Their prospects in their own countries were ruined by the free trade agreements and they're only here trying to make it. It's not other racial groups, they're not different from us below the surface (did you know that you're more likely to have a friend or to marry someone in the U.S. who is of another racial group than someone of the Business Ownership Category - if you are not of that same category?)
Your enemy is the business owners (not the small time owners so much although they often get taken with the idea of ownership and sacrifice all other values to that purpose hoping to be big owners). There are nice people among the big owners as well but that's in spite of, not because of, their big ownership. Ownership has its set of vested interests - and every station in life has but those of ownership require dispensing with ethics (and if you don't believe me enroll in business school and see how they start by telling you to be "flexible with ethics". Then take an industrial engineering course - believe me, it's not what you think.) It's all too rare a person who sees beyond their own vested interests.
So don't believe the hype, they'll say anything to get what they want. "To Serve Humanity" is, in fact, their cook book and they wanna have you for lunch.