Dr Raza Naqvi 03 CNM

MARX CONFLICT THEORY (1875)

One of the most powerful sociological explanations of social conflict is that of Karl Marx, who
posited a class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie intrinsic to capitalist, industrial
society. This notion is powerful in being dynamic, intuitively persuasive, and appearing to fit
well with history. It is powerful in providing in one package a description, an explanation, and a
prediction of contemporary problems, and a remedy.

MARX AND CLASS CONFLICT

It is important to recognize that Marx viewed the structure of society in relation to its major
classes, and the struggle between them as the engine of change in this structure. His was no
equilibrium or consensus theory. Conflict was not deviational within society's structure, nor were
classes functional elements maintaining the system. The structure itself was a derivative of and
ingredient in the struggle of classes. His was a conflict view of modem (nineteenth century)
society.

The key to understanding Marx is his class definition. A class is defined by the ownership of
property. Such ownership vests a person with the power to exclude others from the property and
to use it for personal purposes. In relation to property there are three great classes of society:

The bourgeoisie (who own the means of production such as machinery and factory buildings,
and whose source of income is profit),
The landowners (whose income is rent), and
The proletariat (who own their labor and sell it for a wage).

Class thus is determined by property, not by income or status. These are determined by
distribution and consumption, which itself ultimately reflects the production and power relations
of classes. The social conditions of bourgeoisie production are defined by bourgeois property.
Class is therefore a theoretical and formal relationship among individuals.

The force transforming latent class membership into a struggle of classes is class interest. Out of
similar class situations, individuals come to act similarly. They develop a mutual dependence, a
community, a shared interest interrelated with a common income of profit or of wages. From this
common interest classes are formed, and for Marx, individuals form classes to the extent that
their interests engage them in a struggle with the opposite class.

At first, the interests associated with land ownership and rent are different from those of the
bourgeoisie. But as society matures, capital (i.e., the property of production) and land ownership
merge, as do the interests of landowners and bourgeoisie. Finally the relation of production, the
natural opposition between proletariat and bourgeoisie, determines all other activities.

As Marx saw the development of class conflict, the struggle between classes was initially
confined to individual factories. Eventually, given the maturing of capitalism, the growing
disparity between life conditions of bourgeoisie and proletariat, and the increasing
homogenization within each class, individual struggles become generalized to coalitions across
Dr Raza Naqvi 03 CNM

factories. Increasingly class conflict is manifested at the societal level. Class consciousness is
increased, common interests and policies are organized, and the use of and struggle for political
power occurs. Classes become political forces.

The distribution of political power is determined by power over production (i.e., capital).
Capital confers political power, which the bourgeois class uses to legitimatize and protect their
property and consequent social relations. Class relations are political, and in the mature capitalist
society, the state's business is that of the bourgeoisie. Moreover, the intellectual basis of state
rule, the ideas justifying the use of state power and its distribution, are those of the ruling class.
The intellectual-social culture is merely a superstructure resting on the relation of production, on
ownership of the means of production.

Finally, the division between classes will widen and the condition of the exploited worker will
deteriorate so badly that social structure collapses: the class struggle is transformed into a
proletarian revolution. The workers' triumph will eliminate the basis of class division in
property through public ownership of the means of production. With the basis of classes thus
wiped away, a classless society will ensue (by definition), and since political power to protect the
bourgeoisie against the workers is unnecessary, political authority and the state will wither away.

Overall, there are six elements in Marx's view of class conflict.

 Classes are authority relationships based on property ownership.

Marx's emphasis on class conflict as constituting the dynamics of social change, his
awareness that change was not random but the outcome of a conflict of interests, and his
view of social relations as based on power were contributions of the first magnitude. However,
time and history have invalidated many of his assumptions and predictions. Capitalist ownership
and control of production have been separated. Joint stock companies forming most of the
industrial sector are now almost wholly operated by non-capital-owning managers. Workers have
not grown homogeneous but are divided and subdivided into different skill groups. Class
stability has been undercut by the development of a large middle class and considerable social
mobility. Rather than increasing extremes of wealth and poverty, there has been a social leveling
and an increasing emphasis on social justice. And finally, bourgeois political power has
progressively weakened with growth in worker oriented legislation and of labor-oriented parties,
and with a narrowing of the rights and privileges of capital ownership. Most important, the
severest manifestation of conflict between workers and capitalist--the strike--has been
institutionalized through collective bargaining legislation and the legalization of strikes.
Dr Raza Naqvi 03 CNM

These historical events and trends notwithstanding, the sociological outlines of Marx's approach
have much value. His emphasis on conflict, on classes, on their relations to the state, and on
social change was a powerful perspective that should not be discarded. The spirit, if not the
substance, of his theory is worth developing.

RALF DAHRENDORF'S CLASS AND CLASS CONFLICT

The ideas of Marx spawned a rich literature; much of it is polemical and political, but some
authors have tried to avoid the historical or empirical errors Marx committed, to learn from
changes since his time, and to apply the spirit of his sociology to contemporary industrial
society. The best of these efforts is Ralf Dahrendorf's Class and Class Conflict in Industrial
Society (1959).

Dahrendorf recognizes two approaches to society, which he calls the Utopian and the
Rationalist. The first emphasizes equilibrium of values, consensus, and stability; the second
revolves around dissension and conflict, the latter being the mover of structural change. Both are
social perspectives; neither is completely false, but each views a separate face of society.
Unfortunately, he feels, the consensus view has dominated contemporary sociology, especially in
the United States, and he sets out to create some balance between the two views by developing
and illustrating the theoretical power of a class-conflict perspective.

He begins as he must with a review of Marx's writings, a clarification of his model, a discussion
of the sociopolitical changes since Marx. A review of subsequent theoretical works bearing on
class is followed by a sociological critique of Marx. These necessary scholarly chores completed,
Dahrendorf presents his own view of class.

He sees Marx's defining characteristic of class (as property ownership) as a special case of a
more general authoritative relationship. Society grants the holders of social positions power to
exercise coercive control over others. And property ownership, the legitimate right to coercively
exclude others from one's property, is such power. This control is a matter of authority, which
Dahrendorf defines, according to Weber, as the probability that a command with specific content
will be obeyed by certain people. Authority is associated with a role or position and differs from
power, which Dahrendorf claims is individual. Authority is a matter of formal legitimacy backed
by sanctions. It is a relation existing between people in imperatively coordinated groups, thus
originating in social structure.

Authority, however, is dichotomous; there is always an authoritative hierarchy on one side and
those who are excluded on the other. Within any imperative group are those who are
superordinate and those who are subordinate. There is an arrangement of social roles comprising
expectations of domination or subjugation.

Those who assume opposing roles have structurally generated contradictory interests, to preserve
or to change the status quo. Incumbents of authoritative roles benefit from the status-quo,
which grants them their power. Those toward whom this authoritative power is exercised, and
who suffer from it, however, are naturally opposed to this state of affairs.
Dr Raza Naqvi 03 CNM

Super-ordinates and subordinates thus form separate quasi-groups of shared latent interests. On
the surface, members of these groups and their behavior may vary considerably, but they form a
pool from which conflict groups can recruit members. With leadership, ideology, and the
political (freedom) and social conditions of organization being present, latent interests become
manifested through political organizations and conflict.

How does Dahrendorf define social classes? They are latent or manifest conflict groups arising
from the authority structure of imperative coordinated organizations. Class conflict then arises
from and is related to this structure. The structural source of group conflict lies in authoritative
domination and subjugation; the object of such conflict is the status quo; and the consequence is
to change (not necessarily through revolution) social structure.

It should be stressed that Dahrendorf's theory is not limited to "capitalist" societies. Since
authoritative roles are the differentia between classes, classes and class conflict also exist in
communist or socialist societies. Classes exist insofar as there are those who dominate by virtue
of legitimate positions (such as the Soviet factory manager, party chief, commune head, or army
general) and those who are habitually in subordinate positions (the citizen, worker, peasant).