CLASS CONFLICT THEORY OF KARL MARX

1.4 Political Science

Table of contents

Introduction
Research objectives
Research questions
Research methodology
Review of literature
Karl Marx
Social stratification
Conflict theory
Criticism of Marx’s theory
Conclusion
Introduction

We try to deduce Marx's theory of class by looking at how he uses the term, rather than
interpreting his most broad pronouncements on the issue, which is how most others have
approached the subject. "Class" is understood to refer to social and economic groups based
on a wide range of norms; the interrelationships of which Marx observes in the actual world.
"Class" in Marxism is intrinsically linked to the reality of Marx's own analysis through
envisioning a unity of seemingly diverse social connections. Its usefulness is determined on
the accuracy of this analysis. Conflict theories are sociological and psychological viewpoints
that emphasize a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical technique of analysis, a
critical attitude toward current social structures, and a revolutionary or reformist political
goal. Conflict theories highlight power imbalances, such as class conflict, and contrast
historically powerful ideologies in general. Karl Marx is considered as the founder of social
conflict theory, which is one of sociology's four fundamental paradigms. Certain conflict
theories aim to bring to light the ideological underpinnings of traditional thinking. While
many of these viewpoints are similar, conflict theory is not a single school of thought and
should not be mistaken with peace and conflict studies or any other specialized theory of
social conflict. Individuals and groups (social classes) within society interact via conflict
rather than consensus, according to social conflict theory, a Marxist-based social theory.
Groups will acquire varying quantities of material and non-material resources as a result of
various types of warfare (e.g., the wealthy vs. the poor). More strong groups will abuse less
powerful ones in order to maintain their influence. A collection of people is referred to be a
class when they have similar traits. They all share a similar socioeconomic position, which is
determined by their income and living conditions. Although Marx reasoned that race or
ethnicity was occasionally a role, status had nothing to do with racial or ethnic resemblance.
The ability or inability of a group to exert economic or political power was linked to their
commonality. The group in power would constantly want to preserve and extend that power
by putting those who didn't have it in a position of helplessness. Because they had no other
option, individuals who lacked power allowed themselves to be exploited by the powerful in
the form of predetermined salaries and conditions. It was, in essence, a contradiction.
Consider an ant colony that has been trampled by a human. Because it is helpless to stop the
giant foot from crashing down on top of the colony, it has no choice but to be stepped on.
Research objectives:

1. To learn about the class conflict theory.

2. to adequately portray the facets of class conflict theory

Research questions:

1. What are the classes that Marx divides the citizens of capitalist society into?
2. What are the arguments against the concept of social conflict theory of Karl Marx?

Research methodology: To achieve the study aims and answer the research questions, this
work employs a doctrinal research technique. As a means of locating pertinent information, it
relates to many articles, books, and other resources.

Review of Literature:

Communist Manifesto- Karl Marx first proposed conflict theory in his book "Communist
Manifesto" in 1848. According to conflict theory, society should be viewed as a competition
rather than a complicated system seeking for equilibrium. Individuals compete for a limited
number of resources in society. There are two primary social groupings in any society,
according to Karl Marx (1818–1883): a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class's
authority is derived from its ownership and control of the productive forces. The ruling class
takes advantage of and oppresses the oppressed (lower class). As a result, these two classes
have a fundamental conflict of interest.

Das Kapital- Das Kapital, Karl Marx's fundamental masterpiece, is the book that shaped the
twentieth century more than any other. Capital gave birth to the economic and political
institutions that once ruled half of the globe and kept the world on the verge of war for over a
century. More than a billion Chinese people live under a state that professes allegiance to
Marxist doctrine. Despite this, many readers have been turned off by Marx's tough language
and his concentration with nineteenth-century events that have no relevance to today's reader.

Capital- Capital, a classic of early modernism, blends rich historical detail with economic
logic to deliver a vehement indictment of mid-Victorian capitalism. Marx achieved for social
science what Darwin had done for biology, and it has proven to be the most significant work
in twentieth-century social science. This is the only abbreviated edition of Capital that
includes the whole book. It includes almost the whole first volume, which Marx published in
1867, as well as extracts from a fresh translation of The Result of the Immediate Process
Production and a selection of significant chapters from Volume 3, which Engels published in
1895.

Recent Marxian Theory: Class Formation and Social Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism-
This collection brings together some of the most important current Marxian views on the
subjects of class formation and social struggle in modern capitalism. It investigates the
controversial claims of analytical Marxists after exploring disputes over historical agency,
class structure, and electoral dynamics. Following these discussions, the author concludes
that, even if the diverse forces that contemporary capitalism structurally generates do not
promote the formation of a revolutionary proletariat, class relations remain important for
understanding the historical trajectory of, and challenges to, capitalism—albeit not in the way
that Marx imagined.
Karl Marx

Karl Marx (1818-83) was a radical, a freethinker, and a sceptic who lived by the phrase de
omnibus dubitandum (everything should be questioned). He shared an unwavering belief in
progress and logic, as well as man's ability to form a new civilization, with the
Enlightenment. But he also belonged to the Western thinking tradition that includes Hobbes,
Swift, and Machiavelli, and concentrates on the dark side of western civilization, exposing
the cruelties, deception, and corruption of human communities by stripping away the illusions
of human societies. Capital, his greatest work, is a wonderful product of the human
imagination, a brilliant literary masterpiece as well as an insightful analysis of political
economics, portraying both capitalism's immense human sacrifices and its gigantic triumphs.
"Everything appears pregnant with its antithesis," Marx famously said of the modern day. He
had a remarkable capacity to comprehend the ambiguous character of capitalism and foresaw
how it would evolve, writing about globalization 20 years before the phrase was coined1.

Social stratification

Marx never proposed a theory of stratification; rather, he proposed a theory of social class,
from which stratification and inequality in society are derived. The Marxist perspective on
the nature of social stratification offers a stark challenge to the functionalist interpretation.
Systems of stratification, according to Marx, are derived from the interactions between social
groupings and the forces of production. There are two primary social categories in all
stratified societies: a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class's authority stems from
its ownership and control of the productive forces. The ruling class takes advantage of the
subject class and oppresses it. As a result, the two classes have a fundamental conflict of
interest. Rather of focusing on social inequality as a whole, Marx focused on social layers. In
all stratum stratification systems, Marx used the term "class" to refer to the primary strata. A
social group whose members have the same connection to the forces of production is referred
to as a class. Class warfare occurs when a country's inequality has deteriorated to the point
that major demonstrations and riots have erupted between the affluent and the poor. Poverty
can also lead to the emergence of a class conflict. Class conflict enrages both the rich and the
poor, capitalists and conservatives, especially when it dramatically increases a country's

1
Gamble, Andrew. “Karl Marx.” RSA Journal 150, no. 5509 (2003): 58–58.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41379432.
violent crime rate. As more people demand equality and an end to the conflict, class struggle
boosts the number of socialists joining the party2.

Western societies, Marx believed, had developed through these main epochs- Communism in
its purest form, ancient civilization, The feudal system and We live in a capitalist society. The
subject class, i.e., slaves, serfs, and proletariat, provided the labor force necessary for
production during each period. The bulk of the population belongs to the subject class,
whereas the ruling class is a small minority. Mutual dependency and struggle characterize the
relationship between the major socioeconomic classes. During each time, the subject class,
i.e., slaves, serfs, and proletariat, provided the labor force required for production. The
subject class makes up the majority of the population, while the ruling class is a small
minority. The connection between the major socioeconomic classes is marked by mutual
reliance and conflict3.

To illustrate how various classes establish conflict among themselves, Marx provided a
number of variables.

a. a struggle between the classes for economic incentives.

b. the physical gathering of large groups of people.
c. easy communication amongst persons who are in the same class.
d. solidarity development
e. political structure
f. transformation

Conflict theory

Conflict theory, initially proposed by Karl Marx, holds that society is perpetually in conflict
due to struggle for finite resources. Dominance and power, rather than consensus and
compliance, are said to preserve social order in conflict theory. According to conflict theory,
people who have wealth and power attempt to keep it by whatever means necessary, most
notably through oppressing the poor and helpless. Individuals and organizations within
society will attempt to increase their own wealth and influence, according to conflict theory.
According to Marx's historical theory, class struggle is crucial in the history of economic

2
Class Warfare, Noam Chomsky, Pluto press, April 1996
3
Retrieved from: Microsoft PowerPoint - conflict theory.pptx (gcg11.ac.in)
systems organized by social class hierarchies, such as capitalism and feudalism4. The core
ideas of conflict theory may be used to explain a wide range of social disputes throughout
history. Some thinkers, like as Karl Marx, argue that societal strife is the driving factor
behind change and growth5. Each class is made up of a group of people who are linked by
common interests and a degree of property ownership. The bourgeoisie, as Marx defined it, is
a group of individuals who control the bulk of money and resources in society. The other
group is the proletariat, which comprises persons who are deemed working class or
impoverished. The struggle between two basic classes was the centerpiece of Marx's
interpretation of conflict theory.

He claims in 'Capital' that in a developed capitalist society, there are only two classes:
capitalists and proletarians6. The Communist Manifesto describes the former, often known as
the bourgeoisie, as "owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor7."
Despite his belief that European capitalism had advanced enough for a Communist revolution
to occur, Marx states elsewhere in Capital that three classes—capitalists, proletarians, and
landowners—"constitute the framework of contemporary society in its reciprocal struggle8."
The landowner class, according to Marx, is made up of people who control enormous swaths
of land and is usually invariably feudal in nature. Has Marx's criteria for judging class
membership changed? Even though the basis for class distinction appears to be a group's
relationship to the dominant mode of production, the question is not simply whether there are
two or three classes, because Marx uses the term to describe a variety of different economic
units. The minor bourgeoisie and peasants are two such examples. The former are little shops
who own no means of production or, in certain cases, a very small bit, and employ just a few
people; the latter are landowners who farm their own small plots of land. Their distinct
relationships to capitalism's dominant mode of production are not those of capitalists,
proletariats, or landowners. When Marx speaks of society being divided into three classes,
where does he locate small businesspeople and peasants? Furthermore, distinguishing
between these classes is difficult9.

4
The communist manifesto
5
Retrieved from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007
6
Karl Marx, Capital (Moscow, 1957), II, 348.
7
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, translated by Samuel Moore (Chicago, 1945), p.
12.
8
Marx, Capital (Moscow, 1959), III, 604
9
Marx's Use of "Class" Author(s): Bertell Ollman Source: American Journal of Sociology, Mar. 1968, Vol. 73,
No. 5 (Mar. 1968), pp. 573- 580
The most common example of class conflict is that which exists inside capitalism. This class
struggle is considered as largely occurring between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and
manifests itself in disputes over working hours, wage value, profit division, cost of consumer
products, workplace culture, influence over parliament or bureaucracy, and economic
inequality. Class conflict can arise through the implementation of government initiatives that
appear to be solely humanitarian, such as disaster assistance10. Though they are frequently
lumped in with the capitalist class, Marx does not rule out the possibility of assigning the
intellectuals a position that is more than merely a class. He refers to them as "ideological
classes" in Capital, Volume I, for example. When Marx places the intellectuals with the
capitalists at times and separates them at other times, he is clearly shifting his criteria for
determining what constitutes a class. Apart from referring to capitalists, proletariats,
landowners, petty bourgeoisie, and peasants, the term "class" is sometimes used to refer to
social groupings separated from society based on criteria other than their relationship to the
method of production. Members of such groupings typically come from two or more of the
above-mentioned economic classes. For example, Marx's "ideological class" appears to be
founded on the function these individuals perform in society as a whole, rather than on
production. Another social entity mentioned in Marx's works, the ruling classes, appears to
have been defined by the same criterion: those who participate in the administration of the
country or assist decide how it should be governed are its members11. Marx also mentions a
"lower middle class," which Marx defines as "little manufacturers, shopkeepers, artisans, and
peasants12." This class appears to have people from all of the previously listed economic
levels. What criteria does Marx use to define who belongs in the lower middle class? It might
be affluence, influence, or even distance from the extremes of engagement in the class
struggle, based on its membership.

Marx's use of a variety of criteria in classification is evocative of today's misunderstanding on

the topic. It's not enough to say, as some have, that Marx's concept of class evolves through
time, because many of the complexities we've highlighted may be found in the same book or
works from the same time period. Any attempt to clarify Marx's practice must begin with the
recognition that Marx uses the term "layer" interchangeably with "group," "faction," and
"layer." This was only in keeping with Rolf Dahrendorf's claim that the ambiguous usage of

10
Greg Palast, Burn baby burn "Burn Baby Burn". 26 October 2007
11
German Ideology, p. 39
12
Communist Manifesto, p. 2 7.
"class" was common of his day13. "Groups" might likewise be used in place of "classes" in
the phrasing "ideological classes," with no difference in meaning; and "class" could be
replaced with "layer" when Marx refers to the "dangerous class." With all due respect for
slang, Marx cannot escape the more serious charge of having a slew of class membership
rules that he changes without notice. The ramifications of this disorder for Marx's class
analysis of society should not be overstated, because Marx's tripartite classification of society
into capitalists, proletarians, and landowners is the most common, and it is also the most
consistent with his other ideas. As a result, we can call it the "Marxist system of classes."

"What makes a class?" Marx responds to his own question. "What makes wage labourers,
capitalists, and landowners the three big socioeconomic classes?" asks another. Only the first
portion of his response is preserved in the snippet he left behind: "The identification of
revenues and sources of revenue at first look. There are three large socioeconomic groupings
whose members live on salaries, profit, and ground rent, respectively, as a result of the
realization of their labor force, capital, and landed property." This criterion, according to
Marx, also allows physicians and bureaucrats to be referred to as "classes," because they
"belong to two separate groups obtaining their earnings from the same source." The limitless
fragmentations of interest and rank into which the division of social work divides labourers,
capitalists, and landlords-the latter-would be the same.

Criticism of Marx’s theory

1. Societies are not only economic systems that are reflected in them.
2. In societies, there exist interest groups that are unconnected to socioeconomic classes.
3. In a capitalist system, individuals who wield power are not usually those who have
the most income or own the most property.
4. In a vast contemporary community, conflict is rarely bipolarized.
5. Structural social change is not necessarily the result of social conflict.
6. Today's class structure is more complicated than the Bourgeois-Proletariat system.
7. There is a large middle class in most Western countries, and growing in developing
countries, who own stocks and shares in corporations governed by what Marxists
refer to as the "Capitalist Class." In addition, in the United Kingdom, 70% of people

13
Rolf Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, translated by the author (Lon- don, 1959), p.
4
 own their own homes and regard them as 'economic assets,' thus many of us are, in a
way, petit-capitalists.
8. Conflict theory considers social existence to be a competition, focusing on resource
distribution, power, and inequality. The failure of conflict theory to explain societal
stability and gradual change has been criticized. Karl Marx's theories are the
foundation of conflict theory14.

Conclusion

The conclusion remains that Marx divides society into as many different ways as possible for
various purposes, referring to the parts in each case as "classes." According to Marx, social
stratification splits society into two groups, and unequal income distribution causes
dissatisfaction and, eventually, revolution. Marx offered a dichotomous concept of class,
predicting that as the capitalist system develops, the middle class will vanish. When they are
unable to achieve their goals despite their efforts, they will join forces with the lower classes
(proletariats) to topple the ruling class (bourgeoisie). Many scholars have attempted to
explain social disparity; nevertheless, Marx is the only one who has offered a glimmer of
hope that this inequality would be eradicated in the post-capitalist capitalist society.

14
Retrieved from: What is a criticism of conflict theory? (findanyanswer.com)