How Social Conflict Can Explain The Emergence Of Capitalism

Introduction

The primary objective of this essay is to explain how social conflict could result in the emergence of capitalism. In sociology, the social conflict theory is a macro-oriented radicalism perspective, which assumes society as a subject of inequality that produces conflict and social change (Wieviorka, 2013). According to Wieviorka (2013), the key aspects in this paradigm are that a number of factors like gender, age, race/ethnicity, religion, and class are associated with inequality, and society is organised in such a way that benefits only few at the expense of the majority. Based on the classical proponents of conflict theorists, such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Thorstein Veblen, this essay argues that society is made up of individuals in various social classes who compete for material, social, and political resources, and social institutions like government reflect this competition and facilitate maintaining the unequal social structure, leading to capitalism.

Therefore, conflict can be harnessed and institutionalised and can provide a major dynamic for social change. This argument is further supported by the works of Lewis Coser’s conflct theory, which focuses on functions rather than the dysfunctions of social conflict. To validate this argument, this essay has made four assumptions: Karl Marx’s historical materialism can inhibit the forces and production and could result in revolution; Weber’s protestant work ethic and its secularisation give rise of modern capitalism; Veblen’s conspicuous consumption and the aspirational class drive the modern capitalism; and Coser’s social conflict and theory of social change occurs within the systems and of systems, contributing to the modern capitalism.

Discussion

There are two fundamental perspectives in social conflict thinking, such as radical and liberal. The radical perspective has roots with the works of Karl Marx and it emphasises on inequality wherein conflict has an economic base and must be resolved ultimately. In contrast, the liberal perspective has roots with works of Max Weber, and it assumes that conflict is a social life aspect that needs to be managed, as conflict has either positive or negative effects. To validate the argument that social conflict results in the emergence of capitalism, it is necessary to define three terms, such as capitalism, social classes, and class conflict.

Based on Isaac et al. (2008), this essay defines capitalism as a specific class-based system that organises the society wherein wealth and valued goods are produced through the subordination of human labour in relation to wage, while fundamentally everything can be converted into commodities that could be bought and sold. In social conflict theory, social class is viewed as antagonistic power relations, which are configured by and consecutively develop the social organisation of works, labour, production, movement, and distribution of values in a society (Isaac et al., 2008). In social class, the dominant class is the capitalist class that accumulates wealth through the expropriation of others’ labour. The final term is the class conflict, which has been defined by Isaac et al. (2008) as a broad set of social actions that are apparent among the social classes through direct and indirect, institutionalised and noninstitutionalised struggles.

The publication of The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels in 1848 introduces Marx’s theory of social conflict, as well as the materialist theory that develops an economic critique of profit or ‘exploitation’ (Marx and Engels, 1960). In relation to social conflict, Marx viewed that the relationship between people and the economy as technologically determinist. Throughout the history, according to Marx, society has turned into the capitalist society from the feudal society, and the capitalist society has two classes, such as the bourgeoisie or the ruling class, who owns the means of production, and the proletariats, who are exploited for their wage labour.

Therefore, the ruling class employs and uses the proletariats for producing goods and services, and the ruling class keeps the profits for themselves. This class oppression is common throughout the history, taking a disguised economic form under capitalism. Similarly, the materialist theory assumes that socio-economic relations can create political changes and revolutions, differentiating between the relations of production and the forces of production. Additionally, the materialist theory has an economic base, determining the superstructure through political institutions, legal institutions, and ideologies. Therefore, based on the materialist theory, it can be argued that production relations could inhibit the forces of production, resulting in changes and revolutions.

Marx’s theory of social conflict and the materialist theory is significant to understand the modern day capitalism and the division of labour in an industrialised and globalised world. For example, technological progress yields more products and not in more leisure under the capitalist system. Firms that enhance their efficiency do not shut down and send their employees early, implying employees work the same hours to produce more goods and the corporations will accumulate wealth, for example cash reserves of Apple and Microsoft are US$250bn and US$110bn respectively (Lausegger, 2017).

However, with the innovations and economies of scale, firms have developed technology ecosystems, mechanisations, and automations, which can disrupt the current modes of production and employment and create social conflict. For example, Lausegger (2017) noted that the globalisation and technological progress have resulted in widening wage gaps, and the OECD countries have been experiencing rising income inequalities for the last three decades. Despite this drawback, globalisation and technological advancements have also resulted in new job opportunities in the block chains, data analysis, cloud computing, Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, app developers, and social media influencers. Therefore, it can be argued that the capitalism will result in new social and economic consequences, transforming the modes of production, transformation of employment, and the structure of societies.

In contrast to Marx’s historical materialism, Max Weber focuses on subjective motivation for assessing the social and historical changes (Weber, 2003). According to Weber (2003), an ideal type of modern capitalism will have a number of aspects, such as accounting techniques to measure the profits, provisions of regular requirements for the enterprises, predictable and calculable laws, exempt from market’s irrational limitations, and the necessity for free labour. Consequently, Weber’s modern capitalism is based on the ethos of self-control related to the protestant reformation.

Consequently, for Weber, the protestant work ethic asks for calling, and it facilitates relieving the anxieties related to the predestination doctrine but it is secularised in the capitalism’s spirit. For Weber, the predestination is based on Calvin’s doctrine: God’s intentions are unknown; we all individuals are aware that some people will be saved and others would be blamed; and predestination results in profound anxieties and loneliness among the individual believers. Thus Calvinists’ belief that profits and material successes are the signs of God breaks down the conventional economic system and paves the way for modern capitalism.

Weber’s protestant ethic is significant to explain the rise of modern capitalism and its spirit. For example, the role of Confucianism has been employed for explaining the success of the East Asian ‘economic tigers’, such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea (Schmidt, 2011). Research suggests that the Confucian heritage along with specific cultural elements are considered as fundamental factors for these economic tigers’ rapid ascendancy. Confucianism is the region’s mainstream heritage and has been important factor – first in Japan, the most dramatic non-Western country that has successfully become modernised and industrialised country, and then the economic tigers in the East Asian region, which is followed by the Southeast Asia, wherein the Chinese minorities have been playing the significant economic role.

The research acknowledges that the heritage of Confucianism fosters values and behaviours that are significantly similar to the values and behaviours of the protestant ethic, such as showing strong interest in education, soberness, frugalities, and disciplined lifestyles. Therefore, it can be argued that the Confucianism culture and heritages are compatible with the industrialisation due to specific aspects that are observed in these countries like hard work, discipline, stability, and respect and loyalty to the authoritative figures. In addition to the role of Confucianism, the political and corporate institutions also play significant role for the rapid ascendancy of the Asian Tigers.

Capitalism can also be assessed in relation to institutional structures of the economy and society through the works of Veblen. Veblen’s theory of the leisure class (Veblen, 1912) views institutions as instincts, which form specific tensions in the society and economy, leading to the maximisation of profits for individuals and the creation of conflicts. According to Veblen, the vast majority of people in the modern capitalist society is subordinated by the leisure class, which primarily comprises the ‘business owners, the captain of industry, and politicians’ (Watson et al., 2015, p.2).

In pursuant of maximisation of profits and the leisure class generate a highly unequal society characterised by a pecuniary culture, wherein individuals persuade each other for working against one another for gaining exclusive rights that would facilitate them enjoying material privileges (Watson et al., 2015). The pecuniary culture also gives rise to the pecuniary emulation, wherein members of upper class, middle class, and working class compare themselves to and try to emulate the class above them, and in effect, upper class’s good tastes trickle down to the bottom of the class hierarchy.

As the social differentiations in the modern capitalist societies have become more obvious and complex, the leisure class demonstrates their freedom from the working class either by conspicuous consumption or by conspicuous leisure. According to Veblen, conspicuous consumption involves the consumption of luxuries that attracts attention of others, while the conspicuous leisure entails highly priced commodities that attract the attention of others. In the long-run, Veblen argued that, the patterns of conspicuous consumption and leisure, along with the pecuniary emulation, would spread out across the society and affect all members of the society, leading dissatisfaction and conflicts.

In relation to social conflict and modern day capitalism, Veblen’s theory of the leisure class is significant. For instance, due to the globalisation and technological innovations in the 20th and 21st centuries, the world has witnessed a new social class, which is known as ‘aspirational class’ (Currid-Halkett, 2017). These aspirational class has university education, which makes them more powerful through white collar jobs, providing significant social status. These white collar jobs are also concentrated in metropolitan areas, resulting in shared cultural identity and elitism like the cultures at Wall Street or in the City of London.

These aspirational class is health conscious and thus avoids conspicuous leisure; demonstrates concerns for environment, and uses social networks to stay on top of current affairs, which provide them elitism in the society. In addition to the emergence of the aspirational class, the world is also experiencing income equality. For instance, research from the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities (McNichol, 2016) found that income gains in the American economy for the last three and one-half decades have accrued mainly to the richest households over the low earning households (Figure 1), which has reduced the opportunities for the working class. Furthermore, TV programmes like Celebrity Big Brother, Keeping Up with the Kardashians, and The Only Way is Essex and celebrity magazines like ‘Hello!’ are affecting all classes in the societies through pecuniary comparisons and emulations, suggesting the profound presence of capitalism in the modern day societies.

Finally, being a ‘quasi-functionalist’ conflict theorist, Lewis Coser’s conflict functionalism argues that social conflicts surface social problems and thus clarify the social structure (Coser, 1957). Coser viewed conflict as form of socialisation and argued that conflict is universal and an integral element of social relations. According to Coser, conflicts create change within the systems and of systems, and some systems allow greater conflicts compared to other systems. Additionally, some conflicts result in frustration, while other conflicts can question the system’s legitimacy. Based on these views, Coser developed the image of a society that has various interrelated parts and these parts can demonstrate tensions, imbalances, and conflicts of interests.

In relation to capitalism and conflict theory, conflict emerges because of corporations’ competition over scarce goods (Coser, 1957). As ‘each social resource produces a potential conflict between those who have it and those who have not’ (Collins, 1993, p.290), corporations are sometimes forcefully eliminated from the market due to competition, or sometimes they have to differentiate themselves from others in the market, or they develop cooperation with other firms to fight against the enemies.

In relation to competition, the competition policies and laws related to antitrust and cartels facilitate firms not to eliminate from the market, while firms differentiate them either becoming the low-cost producers in the market or producing products based on superior quality, and firms develop cooperation with other firms through mergers and joint ventures. The use of these strategies are prevalent in modern business world, and thus firms have been able to manage the conflicts through channelling the competition into formalised, ritualised, and institutionalised forms, developing elastic systems in the liberal societies. These elastic systems are also observed in politics when parties compete over the formation of government, suggesting competition can give rise of capitalist society.

Conclusion

As of concluding, this essay has explained how social conflict could result in the emergence of capitalism based on the classical proponents of conflict theorists, such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Thorstein Veblen, and a quasi-functionalist conflict theorist Lewis Coser. These four perspectives have strongly argued that social conflict occurs at the various levels and it is supported by various institutions, leading to the universal system of the capitalist societies. Therefore, there is no escaping from capitalism, and there is no potential viable alternative that may emerge in the future.