Introduction
In this paper, the main topic of conflict theory will be thoroughly reviewed and explained. The paper shall contain specific parts: the theory itself and its history, including Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the criminological perspective and its applications, and real world case studies that include conflict theory. It is also extremely important to mention that this paper will mostly look at the works of Marx and other geniuses from the perspective of sociology, criminology, and economics, to an extent.
Theory and Historical Background
Historically speaking, conflict theory officially began in the 1840’s in Western Europe, with the publication of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848. The desire to release this article to the public was their response to the several failed revolutions across Europe. The mid-nineteenth century was the witness to serious social and economic change, which eventually inched towards various forms of conflict and upheaval amongst the people. New industry and technology was conceived and implemented, such as the introduction of European railways, textile mills, and coke-fired furnaces (Sperber, 1994).
Although, this new technology was mostly in the northern and western parts of the continent where high amounts of success were found, as opposed to the southern and eastern parts of the land. Receiving new industry and modern equipment was not the biggest influence on the times; economic trends from nearly a century prior were still evident: the growing dependency on natural resources as the area became incredibly industrialized (especially in England, as the island nation was naturally blessed with vast amounts of iron and coal), new farming instruments that improved the efficiency and productivity, and the expanding business of crafts and commodities (Sperber, 1994).
Social trends that encompassed hostility were also still being reinforced from the prior century, especially under feudalism regarding the relationship between lord and serf, business battles between artisans, and of course religious quarrels between Catholics and Protestants, and Jews (Sperber, 1994).
Surely, these are examples of social conflict, but they seemed to stagnate the idea of revolution during this timeframe, although they did indeed help fuel its engine, especially almost a century prior during the French Revolution of 1789. The French Revolution was one of the first examples of accelerated change in Europe in this window of history, thus creating new forms of government, political thought, and social interaction which included commerce, industry, and religion (Sperber, 1994). Therefore, with the social trends that had been around for decades still being valid from the French Revolution, both before and after, they would cause more eruption only a few years later.
Finally, the revolutions began, with an extremely potent emphasis from the economic and political realms. Shockingly similar to the French Revolution, the revolutions of the 1840’s broke out from hard times, from 1845 to 1847 the people were the victims of several years of terrible harvests, poor commerce, and through that, a recession because the banks were doing so poorly. The standard of living immediately went down, which reduced people to famine and food shortages, and inflated food prices. Naturally, people broke out in emotional fits of hysteria, and on the mass level: revolution. On the governmental side, things were equally as bad, if not worse. Opposition to the various entities of power through Europe grew immensely, both on the valid and invalid level. Factions won and lost naturally and elegantly in parliament, but the progress on both sides was destroyed by radicals. Some other examples, like in the Italian Papal States and in the Kingdom of Prussia, various parties yearned to liberalize their country towards a constitution in a meaningful and peaceful manner, a synthesis. Although, this did not happen, as the executive forms of government in these specified lands destroyed the will of the people and their dream of change, of course, sparking revolution. Multiple revolutions were started throughout Europe, most notably in Paris, Berlin, Munich, Milan, Venice, Vienna, Budapest, Krakow, Naples, and Palermo (Sperber, 1994).
After these dramatic failures, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were introduced. Marx, born in 1818 in Prussia, came from a prominent family of the middle class, as his father was a lawyer. Marx’s family had a strong Jewish heritage and upbringing, but his father had to convert to Christianity to pursue his legal career. His father, was especially rooted in the Enlightenment, which had an impact on his son, as well as the more popular forms of harassment in this time (specifically anti-semitism) which helped form Marx’s views on social conflict and change. As Marx matured and advanced through the educational system, he was exposed to the works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel when he was in his youth at university. At first opposed, but later completely taken by the works of the philosopher, Marx began to be more involved with his political and philosophical beliefs. With his faction, proudly calling themselves the Young Hegelians, they began to religiously indulge themselves with other works, most notably Ludwig Feuerbach. Together, with Feuerbach’s description of religion, and Hegel’s work, most notably his dialectic (thesis, antithesis, and synthesis; all things are always undergoing change), this helped mold Marx into the philosophical genius he later became (Feuer & McLellan, 2018).
On the other hand, Friedrich Engels, Marx’s lifelong companion, had a similar but different upbring. Engels, was also born in Prussia, although two years after Marx’s birth. His family was Protestant, and was very well off, as his father was the owner of a textile company both in his native area and abroad. Although, Engels was quite the mixed bag: a poet, a revolutionary youth, an athlete, and perhaps an eccentric, who was in and out of school in his early years, and had a tricky relationship with his father. When Engels left his secondary school, he became an apprentice within his father’s business, and excelled. Later as a young adult, the prominent Engels became well known in his town. In his own personal arena, he directly sought out some of the more radically liberal figures of the time: those being Karl Gutzkow, Heinrich Heine, and Max Stirner. Like Marx, he indulged himself in the works of these men, but threw them all away in favor of Hegel. Of course, Engels joined the Young Hegelians group, and eventually met Marx in the early to mid 1840’s, when Engels submitted various literary works he had written to the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, a local French and German journal, where Marx had been the editor. (Hammen, 2018). Only a few years later, would they join together to write the Communist Manifesto in 1848.
Finally, the Communist Manifesto was published. The opening page, titled “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” describes communism, Marx and Engel’s synthesis (Hemmen, 2018), as a “spectre,” which the “powers of old Europe” have formed “a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre; Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.” All of these factions recognize communism, and all call for its total annihilation (Moore, 1888).
The first chapter, which is the most important and the longest, is titled “Bourgeois and the Proletarians” and provides an historical analysis of conflict theory from the eighteenth century viewpoint. The authors begin describing in ancient Rome and the middle ages various social ranks, including “patricians, knights, plebians, [and] slaves;” and “feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, [and] serfs.” Marx and Engels also specifically mention these groups fell into “subordinate gradations,” (Moore, 1888) implying that each social group was either naturally in control, or were naturally included in the peasantry, so to speak. Each group had almost no social mobility, according to the authors. Marx and Engels also included in this chapter that the modern bourgeoisie (“modern” meaning an industrialized), those who control the means, or goals, of production descended from feudal society, and continued to harass the proletariat, the workers. The bourgeoisie, obviously fueled by capitalism, have literally flipped society upside down, as well as inverted it, as they have turned notable positions in society (physicians, lawyers, priests, poets, and scientists) into “paid wage laborers” (Moore, 1888). The bourgeoisie, continuing their reign of terror, kept industrializing, modernizing, and updating their industries. Within this chapter, Marx and Engels imply that the bourgeoisie through their monstrous growth create jobs for the proletariat, which is true, although as long as there is money to be made for them, to create capital. The bourgeoisie, the rich, become smaller in number but grow in power as they have more wealth, material, and property, but the proletariat become larger and poorer. Immediately, the workers are alienated by the bourgeoisie: conflict theory in action. Within the perspective of the workers, their trades no longer had any influence, as everything had been mechanized. The “cost of production” delays and inhibits the worker from social prosperity, to such menacing anecdotes where the workers could barely find any food and healthcare to provide themselves with. “In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases” (Moore, 1888). Essentially, the first chapter in the book describes how there has always been social stratification, which justifies the authors mentioning ancient Rome and the middle ages, and how this alienation had worsened on an apocalyptic level when Europe was modernized. Other accounts from Marx and Engels describe factories full of workers, “organized like soldiers.” The bourgeoisie are not just those who control the industry, they are also “the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.” (Moore, 1888).