Carl Marx and the Conflict Theory


The bourgeoisie and proletariet have both similarities and differences in their emergence and development as a class. They both emerged out of a separate society and developed their own. The bourgeoisie grew out of the feudal society and the need to develop a modern industry. The proletarians grew out of the bourgeoisie society and their need for change and stability. They both need to have centralized power in order for each society to grow. The bourgeoisie has centralized their means of production and has concentrated property in a few hands (p. 13). The proletariet has formed trade unions in order to gain more power. Both these initiatives have formed political parties. The differences among these two classes are great. The bourgeoisie people are always in need for growth and change. They are constantly revolutionizing their means of production (p.12). They are an independent society. With their development of a modern industry they have brought many different societies through out the nation to depend on them (p. 13). The proletarians are on the other hand very dependent on the bourgeoisie for survival. Without them they could not exist. The proletarian grew out of the bourgeoisie\'s exploitation of the working laborer. Without the constant development of modern industry the proletarian would not be able to work and their plight would be no more. With the development of modern industry the proletarian not only increases in number, it becomes concentrated in greater masses; it\'s strength grows (p. 17). The proletarians own no property while the bourgeoisie own industries (p. 20). All these struggles described in the Communist Manifesto are still going on today. The modern bourgeoisie are the Microsoft corporations of the world. The proletarians are the the working class unions. Not much has changed from 1848 till now.




The Ideas and thoughts of Karl Marx by: John Rosini The latter part of the nineteenth century was teeming with evolving social and economic ideas. Karl Marx(1818-1893) was a proponent of many of the radical ideas circulating at the time about class structure. The views of the social structure of society came about through the development of ideals taken from past revolutions and the ongoing clash of individuals and organized assemblies(Mckay, 1987: 234). As the Industrial Revolution moved forward, it paved the way for growing commerce, but also led to a the widening gap between the classes. The persecution of one class by another has historically allowed the advancement of mankind to continue. These clashes, whether ending with positive or negative results, allow Man to evolve as a species, defining himself within the social structure of nature(Haberman, 1987: 69). Man\'s competitive spirit allows for this evolution through the production of something which is different, not necessarily productive, but differing from the present norm and untried through previous generations. During the time of the Industrial Revolution, mankind was moving forward very rapidly, but at the price of the working-class. Wages were given sparsely, and when capital accumulation improved, the money paid for labor did not reflect this prosperity. This, therefore, accelerated the downfall of the proletariat and progressed towards a justifiable revolt against the oppressive bourgeoisie or middle class(Marx, 1848: 1-56). The conclusion of this revolt was envisioned to be a classless society, one which would seem to eliminate the existing economic disparities. Again Marx was at the forefront of this philosophy. Marx believed that the overthrow of capitalism would create a socialist society eventually flourishing into communism. He was the philosophical analyses who created communism and saw it as an achievable goal. This led him to being banished from both his native land of Germany and then France. Eventually he settled in England. (Compton\'s Encyclopedia, Karl Marx: 121) Through dialectical processing, Marx was able to synthesize a theory of a classless society. This society would be achievable by uniting the proletarians and overthrowing of the governing bourgeoisie. For the working-class man does not benefit from the labor for which he provides. His labor is external to himself and is not actually belonging to his essential being. Therefore in work, the proletarian denies himself and does not validate his worthiness as an individual.(Haberman,1987: 183) The worker has no existence except to work, which furthers the employer, but degrades the laborer and eventually results