Karl Marx, Conflict Theory, and the Coming Battle Between Libertarians and Socialists
[Originally published in The Voluntaryist, Libertarian Sociology 101 Column, By Richard G. Ellefritz, PhD]
As an introduction to what will hopefully be a regular column by the Libertarian Sociologist (me), what follows are a few of my observations, opinions, assessments, and criticisms of a recent attempt to revive interest in an ideological system responsible for conditions antithetical to its stated goals, i.e. peace, prosperity, and equality for all. Let me first apologize for the length of this essay, and for its erudite and pedantic nature (see what I did there?). I believe these features are necessary, though, for an introductory essay, and I use several devices throughout to indicate that I have much more to say on each topic (and this is done through the use of parentheticals and the phrase, “more on that later”). And, finally, in the spirit of Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist and other forms of communism, I must apologize for I am going to make a great sacrifice for the greater good, and I do this by citing at length the words of Colorado socialist, Emma Redman.
Published in issue number two, May of 2017, in the nascent periodical, Rocky Mountain Revolution by the group Colorado Springs Socialists, Redman’s article, “Small Batch Theory - locally sourced and easily digestible bits of socialism [sic],” begins as follows:
“In our last issue, we discussed the very broad term
“socialism.” In this month’s issue, we’ll dive further
into leftist ideology and discuss the political, philosophical,
and economic philosophy of Karl Marx, perhaps the world’s
greatest contributor to socialist thought.”
I will have more to say on this in later columns, but I suspect that the reference to “socialism” as a “very broad term” implies Redman’s understanding that socialism has been theorized and implemented in various ways, which is one reason why the argument, “Well, true socialism/communism has never really been tried,” is not altogether false. Though, I do question which theoretical version is the true version, and to that end my understanding is that even devout Marxists and Marxian thinkers (possibly a difference without distinction) do not (and cannot) agree on the best or proper way to interpret Marx (in that regard, one might be reminded of debates and schisms over the proper interpretation of religious texts, but more on that later).
Getting back to Redman’s passage above, I see that I not only have deep seated ideological disagreements but stylistic differences as well. Typically, I capitalize “leftist,” because it seems to me to be a proper noun; though not a proper, i.e. desirable social philosophy, the Left, Leftists, and Leftism seem to me to represent a somewhat coherent group of people who adhere, however loosely or tightly, to the ideas and writings of Karl Marx (and, in so doing, to Marx’s material and intellectual benefactor, Friedrich Engels, but more on that later). So, I already sense an unresolvable conflict with Redman (and, yes, sometimes this becomes as petty as to which letters should or should not be capitalized, but I can be a stickler for details and nuance). However, at least she (assuming that is zir gender – more on that later) recognizes and states her philosophy (Leftism) and properly labels it as an “ideology.” In polite society, terms like propaganda, Marxist, socialist, and communist, like the term ideology, typically carry negative connotations, but Redman’s Marxist propaganda seems to be designed to re-educate society on the “truth” of Marx and the “true” meaning of Marxism. Thus, the goal of Colorado Springs Socialists, like the goals of socialists and communists generally, is to spark a material and ideological revolution to the point where socialism and communism are not only considered as rational, justifiable, and preferable social systems, but are instituted as such. To tell the story of how her ideology came about, Redman takes the route of David Copperfield, going all the way back to Marx the baby to tell the story of Marx the man (I question why either is necessary, but more on that later):
“Marx was born in Germany in 1818. As a young man,
he became involved with the communist party and
eventually had to flee to the country of his birth. Marx
settled in London as the Industrial Revolution shifted
much of the world into a capitalist economy, driving
workers into cities in search of jobs and forcing them
to work for pitifully low salaries and in unsafe conditions.
Marx quickly became one of capitalism’s loudest critics,
and began to build his own philosophy.”
The passage above is Redman’s second paragraph, and the next cited passage below is her third. I have several questions for both: Why did Marx have “to flee the country of his birth?” Did he ever have to “flee” any other places? And, why? You will have to (and should) seek the answers yourself, for one reason because Redman does not say, and that is a pattern I have noticed of Marxians and the Left in general, sometimes they present certain facts and details while ignoring or obfuscating others (but more on that later). It will be apparent in future essays and below why I say this now, but after having earned Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in sociology I had heard only seldom criticism and condemnation of Marx the man – let alone Marxian theory, and were it not for reading texts contrary to what I was assigned by my sociology professors, such as a starkly revealing account of Karl Marx in Paul Johnson’s book, Intellectuals, I might never have learned of his despicable, loathsome character or the fatal flaws in his thinking and works (e.g., see Requiem for Marx, edited by Yuri Maltsev).
Further questions one might ask after reading the above passage are how, exactly, did Marx “build his own philosophy,” and why was he such a loud critic of capitalism? (I will, hopefully, have more to say on those subjects in later essays.) I would guess that the average person has no idea what the answers are, but for those poor, unsuspecting victims of mainstream education by contemporary sociology instructors, the answers (probably) lie in Marx’s general outlook, perspective, paradigm, or worldview, which is known in the field today as “conflict theory” or the conflict perspective. With that in mind, Redman continues her essay from the passage above with the following:
“The basis of conflict theory refers to a society at
conflict with itself. This conflict, in a capitalist society,
refers to the divide between the classes. The factory
owners whom Marx referred to as the ‘bourgeoisie,’
and the working class, called the ‘proletariat.’ Marx
further argued that capitalism was designed to ensure
that the poor remain poor, and the rich become richer.”
About Redman’s assumptions, I have to assume one of two things (though possibly both): Either Redman knows or has good reason to believe that her readers share an implicit understanding of the relationship between what sociologists refer to as “conflict theory,” or she is a bad writer, for why would one jump from discussing Marx the man right into a discussion of a mainstream sociological perspective propagated in mainstream sociological textbooks to undergraduate college students? Would you, the reader, have known about this relationship had I not shed light on it? (Do you even care? You should, but more on that later.) The majority of college students enter higher education straight out of high school, and most are mandated to take introductory level general education courses in the social sciences and humanities, which include courses in the fields of philosophy, history, geography, political science, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. Having taught Introductory Sociology since 2007, my experiences (and research, but more on that later) tell me that most young adults in Introductory Sociology do not question the assertion in their textbooks (which they don’t read) and espoused by their instructors (not all, but many) that Karl Marx developed conflict theory, which is patently false.
Often listed as a philosopher, historian, political scientist, and sociologist, Karl Marx was actually a professional journalist who, most notably, published articles in the New York Tribune before his services were no longer needed or provided after his requests for a raise in pay were denied. He then largely relied on Friedrich Engels for material support (and, more importantly, intellectual support, but more on that later) while he wrote and revised Capital: Critique of Political Economy. In doing so, and in his various other collected writings, Marx did not develop conflict theory proper, i.e. he was not explicitly nor intentionally setting out to develop framework for sociological thinking.
In his propaganda booklet, Manifesto of the Communist Party, it is easy to see that Marx and Engels were concerned with promoting their vision of the past, present (theirs), and future (ours and our progeny), which entailed a vision of two great competing camps of people, the poor yet vast underclass and the powerful yet small ruling class. To note, a modern (though long deceased) the century conflict theorist, C. Wright Mills, preferred the term “ruling elite” over “ruling class” to avoid the Marxian bias toward a class analysis of power structures (but more on that later).
Modern Marxian conflict theorists view society as more complex than that of merely two competing groups, but society’s competing groups are currently theorized as being differentiated along class lines nonetheless (though, they don’t agree on what “class” means nor where or how to draw the lines between them, but more on that later). Other types of conflict theorists (e.g., feminists, critical race scholars, queer theorists – their term) view society as composed of other types of competing groups, such as groups defined by gender, race, sexuality, etc., and these can be and are combined in various ways (this is known as intersectionality, but more on that later). So, conflict theory, or the conflict perspective(s) rest(s) on the assumption that society (should we define that term, for how can, as Redman asserts, society be at conflict with itself?) is composed of various interests groups competing over scarce resources, and I question whether or not Leftists, Redman, and/or Redman’s readers (limited, though, as they may be – but look who’s talking) understand the nature and functions of scarcity. (If you didn’t know, to speak of “functions” in the field of sociology is to reveal one’s self as a backward thinker stuck and lost in the prevailing thought of the 1950’s, but more on that later.)
Before moving on to the final paragraph I would like to address, which is incidentally the final paragraph in Redman’s essay, I will note that she caught my attention with reference to the idea that “the poor remain poor, and the rich become richer.” Certainly, average wages have been stagnant for the middle and lower classes for nearly four decades, with the most gains in income (and wealth) going to the top 5% and 1%, but inequality is even more sharply defined in the upper echelons of the class system (which does exist) with most gains going to the top 0.1% and 0.01% (but more on that later). Following Marx and Engels’ celebration (yes, celebration) in their Communist Manifesto of the explosive effects of capitalism on the growth of wealth in and throughout society, it should be noted that though wages have been stagnant, the growth, advancement, and prevalence of information-communication, transportation, medical, and other technologies is an effect of capitalism not possible under socialism or celebrated by modern socialists (but, again, more on that later). What might Redman have to say about this? We are given insight at the end of an essay that lionizes a detestable man and that runs roughshod over the effects of his ideas (conservatively, 100 million state-sanctioned murders under socialist/communist States of various sorts – but, yes, more on that later), where Redman asserts the following:
“Therefore, one of the biggest dangers of capitalism
is not that those at the top are inherently evil; this can
be said for any sort of human hierarchical system.
Instead, the danger lies in the subliminal messages
and thought patterns through which our actions are
influenced. These thoughts patterns teach us to be
anxious, competitive, and greedy. We are also taught
to be conformists and politically apathetic. In this way,
the capitalist economy and the state ensure that the
workers are kept complacent and removed from any
type of radical thinking or action.”
When Redman refers to “those at the top,” the assumption is based upon a class structure upon which capitalists rule, but who else rules? That is a question picked up by contemporary Millsian (yes, that would be C. Wright Mills) and Marxian scholar, G. William Domhoff, in his book, Who Rules? Like any Millsian scholar, Domhoff locates power in the State, economy, and military, and like a good Marxian, Domhoff comes down squarely on the corporate class as the predominant ruling class. But like most Marxians, Domhoff overlooks and underestimates a dimension of stratification and inequality that Marx was squarely and roundly criticized for by an actual sociologist, Max Weber, who conceptualized society’s interest groups as being composed of those competing over power, property, and prestige (but more on that later).
There is an internet meme going around that depicts the difference between Marxian and Weberian thinkers fairly well: Marxian thinkers look to “the top,” where sit a class of people who are vastly more wealthy and who experience the highest income payments and gains as compared to the 95-99.99% of people below. Weberian thinkers look to the left (Left) and right (Right) sides of the structure to where those with political authority sit (at the top, i.e. the ruling elite), but who are supported by a column of people below who subscribe to ideologies that legitimate the authority used to justify why it is that some people in society can make and enforce laws that differentially affect the majority of society. If society is composed of competing interest groups, a Weberian would say that we are better off questioning political and authority structures that lead to fines, brutalization, incarceration, and/or death rather than an economic structure that, yes, benefits a minority economically but which enrichens society totally. (Of course, there are plenty of problems with capitalism as it is currently practiced by, for example, profiting from prisons and war, as well as ecological degradation, but once again, more on that later).
So, with all that said, I will end with a point of agreement between myself and Redman: I agree that “the capitalist system and the state” are problematic, but I must emphasize the conjunction, for under the conditions of State authority, capitalism cannot, by definition, perform its function as a free market system where prices, interest rates, services, and products are all based upon supply and demand, not cronyism and arbitrary laws and regulations (but, I will have much more to say on that later). And now I have finally revealed my own ideology, i.e. laissez faire capitalism, and this is a fundamentally problematic term for sociologists and society writ large (but, one last time, more on that later).