Karl Marx as Conflict Theory: A Sociological Standpoint - Essay Example

? KARL MARX Karl Marx as “Conflict Theory A Sociological Standpoint Almost everyone is familiar with the concept of rich vs. poor. Why does one person own a big house and a swimming pool while someone else lives under a bridge? The simple answer is that sometimes that is the way the economic cookie crumbles. Certain people just have more than others. The flip side of that coin, however, is the idea that society strengthens these types of stereotypes in hopes of making them real. Social conflict theory, or the idea that there is a class struggle between rich and poor, is not a new idea. However, this was first presented as an official theory by Karl Marx—who laid the groundwork for a number of social movements that would redefine history. From a sociological standpoint, what is meant when Karl Marx’s theory is referred to as a “conflict theory”? Usually, when one thinks of Karl Marx, he automatically conjures up thoughts of conflict theory. Why is this so? The reason is that—in some circles—Marx is thought to be “…the founder of conflict theory…” (Henslin, 2007, pp. 28). Social conflict theory, is, in a nutshell, that in society, there are the rich and the poor—and that the rich are the powerful who usurp many of the resources and exploit the poor in order to gain more wealth. Marx’s theory was a wake-up call to the masses. For Marx, capitalism did not mean progress; rather, it was a scourge on the conscience of modern man, a man who was detached from the community and the communal struggles surrounding him. Marx “…often saw social conflict as rooted in private ownership…” (Bartos and Wehr, 2002, pp. 40). The difference between the haves and the have-nots has always been a pressing social issue, becoming even more so when capitalism was the governing system. This is the kind of dominance that social theory rails against. Marx’s main idea was that the community should struggle together. The community should suffer together. Additionally, it was thought that the community should not be selfish, but rather share everything. With these ideas, various types of movements then emerged from Marx’s conflict theory has roots in various social movements that focus on non-ownership. The social movements that arose from Marx’s conflict theory are: communism (being the most famous); socialism; and anarchism. Communist ideology gained popularity throughout the Cold War. Vladimir Lenin adopted the ideology as his own strategy to not only have the people contribute to the estate communally, but also to empower the economy of the Russian state. “Leninism was presented as the correct theory and practice of Marxism and as the theory of scientific communism, incorporating the dictatorship of the proletariat…Marx’s critique[s] were also reformulated as societal laws of development that fed into the study of class relations [and] production…” (Lowes, 2006, pp. 158). The notion that the working class was the one in control was the main staple of Communism. The people were the ones in control. “The working class had to ‘conquer’ its freedom under the flag of the Communist party” (Weitz, 1997, pp. 250). People did not own any possessions. No religious expression was allowed, and very strict laws of ethics were followed. Communism was an experiment that failed—badly. Mann (2002) states, “Communist governments — many of them led by men trained in Moscow — are in command of nations ruling almost 800 million people” (pp. 115). There are still Communist countries existing today. “There remain at least some common features among the five remaining Communist states—China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam—although the differences between, for example, China and North Korea are enormous” (Brown, 2009, pp. 3). Many of the people in these countries subsist in squalor and have little economic or collective bargaining power. This is where socialism becomes an alternative option. Even though people may not like the idea of a Communist government, socialism offers its adherents the option to still have ownership of property—but with the idea in mind that everyone should give back to their communities. One major point that must be made is that socialism must be seen as an avenue to social justice. “It can well be said that cooperatives are the most successful form of socialism” (Busky, 2003, pp. 76). Cooperatives, such as textiles formed by indigenous women all over the world who sell their work—would not make the profits or social advancement that they do if it were not for the concept of socialism, and the added benefit of collective bargaining. One may not be a socialist or believe in socialist ideals, but one has to answer the question: how can poverty can be solved. “[One doesn’t] have to give socialist answers, but [one does] have to press socialist questions” (Resner, 2003, pp. 47). Socialism’s pinnacle is justice delivered to the people. Socialism is a political structure which is solely based off of the idea that everyone is equal in power and ability to manage themselves. The ability to make decisions, coupled with less or no hierarchy, exists. In addition, forms of governing that are in any way seen as bureaucratic are also similarly either reduced or eliminated. Of course, depending on the type of socialism which one is talking about, the extents to which each of these elements are present vary. For example, economical structures in socialism encourage collective bargaining and cooperative operations—favoring the notion of free association. Economically speaking, socialism utilizes a means of production and product-placement based on trying to overtly meet the goals of the economy’s demand. Income distribution is based upon each person’s contribution to the system—which is very similar to the democratic notion of capitalism. Socialism is a political movement which includes a wide-ranging plethora of philosophies, which includes social reform. There is a debate between state control and nationalism when it comes to who should control what resources. There are certain socialists, including anarchists—who will be discussed in the net section—that do not want the state to foment the socialist agenda, saying that socialist policies must occur organically. That being said, it is thought by these groups that socialism should arise naturally, not because of anything the state or nation itself might proffer. Workers maintain ownership of the manner of production in socialism. Socialism as one knows it today came from a political movement in the 18th-century that focused on the working class. This political movement critically analyzed the aftermath of industrialization and the effects on society of the ability to own one’s own property. Socialism definitely provides a platform for those who wish to see social justice demonstrated in their lives. It allows for the workers to have control over the ability to manage their own lives, and eliminate or reduce bureaucratic systems which have traditionally oppressed the people. Without socialism, there would definitely be less opportunities for those who wanted to manage their own sector of the economy. Another—much less viable solution—is that of anarchism. Anarchy provides a contrast to socialism, as its tenets preclude an all-out revolt against capitalism. By its very nature, Anarchism is anti-disestablishmentarian, and it is in the next section that this social-historical movement will be discussed. Anarchy stems from the idea that it is essential to somehow resist the established government in order to establish a new world order. Formerly, “[A]narchist outrages [from Germany, Italy, France, and Japan], inspired by Third World leaders like Mao Zedong and Che Guevara, reflected the frustration of fanatics with the seemingly accomodationist course vis-a-vis the capitalist West adopted by the post-Stalinist Soviet leadership” (Pipes, 2001, pp. 111). Anarchists are criticized by Communists because they usually want more for their lives than just living communally and not being able to own possessions. “…[Communists] have a seemingly contradictory criticism of Anarchists, namely, ‘they are pretty bourgeois’” (Meltzer, 2000, pp. 64). Anarchists are anti-capitalist and opposed to the propagandism of capitalism. “Propagandism is not, as some suppose, a ‘trade,’ because nobody will follow a ‘trade’ at which you may work with the industry of a slave and die with the reputation of a mendicant” (Goldman, 2009, pp. i). Forms of revolt—which are anarchical in nature--are basically what one sees happening daily in underdeveloped countries in which their leaders play the roles of despotic dictators. Perhaps obviously, anarchism is not a viable solution for anyone. It is in governments’ best interests in order to live up to their obligations to the people in order to pacify them, providing opportunities for their people in order so that they can maintain their livelihood. Although an anarchist coup might be the plot of desperate militarists, it is not a realistic option for most social movements. It is not known whether Karl Marx knew what effect his conflict theory would have on social-historical movements. Communism, as it can be seen, was obviously one of the largest social experiments derived from Marxist theory. Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and Castro are now household names nowadays attributed with Communist thought. After the fall of Communist Russia a rise in socialist ideology was noticed. A transition from communal management to cooperative management emerged—beginning to encourage property ownership while at the same time facilitating capitalist economic philosophy. However, at its core, socialists sought not to capitalize upon the economic gains by themselves as managers—but believed in a “share-the-wealth” philosophy whereby philanthropic engagement and a social justice for the poor were encouraged to be proffered by all. In some countries where democratic socialism is not taking place—Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, Iraq, and Thailand—there are revolutions, which may seem like they are anarchist movements, taking place. The endgame of these revolts are to overthrow the governments. Indeed, Marx’s powerful theory of social conflict touches upon a subject that is deeply imbedded upon the American psyche: it is the age-old problem of the rich versus the poor. Marx was convinced that the only way revolution could happen was if the bourgeoisie was overcome and the protelariat, or average worker, could have control of the outcomes. Although this resulted in the unbalanced social project of Communism, somewhere between the extremes of communalist, non-ownership Communism and radical, extremist Anarchy, lies the provocatively attractive option of socialism—especially the highly-promising Democratic socialism. In essence, socialism attempts to do what neither Communism nor anarchism sought to do—share the wealth. While Communism is trying to pool the wealth for the greater good or utilitarian purposes, and anarchy is attempting to undermine the current governmental infrastructure in order to create chaos and general anti-capitalist disorder—socialism allows all different forms of society to co-exist peacefully together in pursuit of a collectively-managed, economically upward-bound society. Whether one agrees or disagrees with any of the three above-mentioned theories—Communism, socialism, or anarchism—it is argued that each social conflict theory presented here has inextricably changed the way Marx’s theories are remembered. Without social conflict theory there would be no abridgment of social conflict, and these theories demonstrate just that. It is hoped that with the knowledge gained from social conflict theories, one may be able to better improve upon one’s own perspectives as they relate to various issues. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bartos, O.J., & Wehr, P.E. (2002). Using conflict theory. UK: Cambridge University Press. Brown, A. (2009). The rise and fall of Communism. USA: Ecco. Busky, D.F. (2003). Democratic socialism: a global survey. USA: Greenwood Publishing Group. Dorrien, G. (2010). Social ethics in the making: interpreting an American tradition. USA: Wiley. Goldman, E. (2009). Anarchism and other essays. Henslin, J. (2007). Sociology: a down-to-earth approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Lowes, D.E. (2006). The anti-capitalist dictionary: movements, histories, and motivations. USA: Zed Books. Mann, R. (2002). The complete idiot’s guide to the Cold War. USA: Penguin. Meltzer, A. (2000). Anarchism: arguments for and against. USA: AK Press. Pipes, R. (2001). Communism: a history. New York: Random House, Inc. Resner, A. (2003). Just preaching: prophetic voices for economic justice. USA: Weitz, E.D. (1997). Creating German Communism, 1890-1990: from popular protests to socialist state. N.J.: Princeton University Press. Read More