Conflict theory
This theory holds that conflict is the factor of change in society. The supporters of this theory are Karl Marx, Ralph Dahrendorf, Georg-Simmel and Lewis Coser etc.
The biggest proponent of conflictist theory is Karl Marx. According to Marx, there was a condition of economic communism in the society in the beginning i.e. in this period there was no concept of private property and there was no concept of class. So there was no trace of exploitation in the society. But as the population increased, the concept of savings developed among the people. As a result, two classes arose in the society. First bourgeois (Haves) and second proletarian (Haves not).
According to Marx, the economy of any society is its basic structure which is made up of the mode of production and the relations of production. On this basic structure all other systems of society, religion, philosophy, thought, science, morality etc., which Marx called ‘superstructure’ depend. Clearly, according to Marx, a change in the economy leads to a change in the society.
According to Marx, this change can be understood from the levels of historical materialism, based on dialectical materialism.
materialistic interpretation of history
Karl Marx has given a materialistic interpretation of history on the basis of dialectical materialism. According to Marx, whatever has been written in history till date only has the saga of kings and maharajas or mentions some special dates, whereas the reality is that until we understand the history of the common man, the process of social development It is impossible to understand. Clarification: Marx has advocated for Dalits, backward and proletariat. In the famous book ‘Communist Manifesto’, he has mentioned that human history till now is the history of class struggle, since the evolutionary ideology prevailed at the time of Marx, hence it could not remain unaffected by evolutionaryism. This is the reason that in the materialistic interpretation of history, Marx has shown the entire history of society by dividing it into five stages in evolutionary order. However, the root cause of moving from one stage to another is conflict.
According to Marx, the initial stage of human society was a primitive-collective-economic system. During this period man lived like animals in the forest. They had no weapons or equipment to survive. He used to fulfill his stomach by picking fruits and flowers in the forests. In this way his life was completely dependent on nature. So there was no trace of class or exploitation in the society. But as the population increased, the needs of the people increased. Gradually, with the help of these weapons, the powerful people started exploiting the pure people. In this context, Marx says that weapons are the first capital of man in the field of exploitation. The increasing population and increasing needs gave birth to the concept of savings and in this stage the power of the means of production with some people in the form of weapons became centralized. Later on, it started being opposed in the society, as a result of which the society entered the second stage.
In his historical analysis, Mavers referred to the slave condition as the second stage. has accepted. In this stage two classes arose – the masters and the slaves. Marx says that in the primitive communist era, when man started animal husbandry instead of killing animals, since then the concept of private property developed in the society. Agriculture and animal husbandry. For this gradually man left his nomadic life and started living permanently. Thus the slave era started on the basis of changes in the means of production. In this age, powerful people used other weak people for animal husbandry and food collection. Started making slaves. Therefore, one class in society was those who had slaves as a means of production and the other class was the slaves, who were the property of their master. According to marks. In this stage, instead of wooden and stone tools, iron tools started being made. Irrigation was started for agriculture. There was division of labor in the society. Weaving cloth, making pottery etc. started, but in this whole process the master had complete control over his slaves. Slaves, which were the means of production, were given so much that they could survive physically. The number of slaves was an indicator of the social status of the owners and the owners could buy slaves of their own free will. could be sold or destroyed. clearly. . . For complete control over the slaves, the owners made rules that nurtured private property and exploitation. But, as the population increased, more production was needed. The owners started pushing for more production on the slaves, but on the other hand the slaves were not interested in production, because there was no change in their condition. As a result, the dissatisfaction between the master and the slave increased. As the tyranny and exploitation of the owners increased, the background of the struggle was prepared. Eventually the galams revolted but the owners won the battle in this struggle. Society has entered a different stage. Even in this stage, the class remained two, but the class character changed. Marx also says that the beginning of the slave-era started almost simultaneously in the world and started with agriculture.
The forests of Ralah started expanding, due to which, along with being in the field of agriculture, feudalism (feudalism) started to emerge.
The third stage, according to Marx, has been the feudal socio-economic. According to the number in this period, the third stage being feudalistic socio-economic and there were two classes in the society – land-feudal and semi-peasant. The society was completely based on agriculture and there were two classes in the society – landowners and in this period all the weapons and tools of man started to be made of iron, due to which agriculture developed rapidly. Fire in the society – The condition of the farmers also changed, just as they used to buy and sell, but their condition is not like that of slaves. The way slaves were bought and sold, the practice of killing the caste ended in this period.
At the same time, slaves were nothing to their masters, while the phi – the land owned by the peasants – were mat dupas on which they worked for themselves after working in the owners’ fields. These black land feudatories (Fudol Hordes) established feudal states and arranged an army for its protection. Many adventurous sailors and explorers were discovered in the world during this period, which not only expanded the waterways but also became the international market.
The fulfillment of the demands of these international islands could not be possible through the handicraft industry, as a result of which big industries were set up in which thousands of workers came and started working together. In this way, the establishment of industries paved the way for capitalism, but production required free labor for production, whereas the feudal system-bandi – tied the peasants to the land. The fixed method of work, cash payment, housing facilities and the glitz of the cities attracted many farmers. As a result, they started migrating from farm to field. As a result, the atrocities and exploitation of the land feudatories on the crop farmers started increasing. There was a struggle between the two, but the victory was of the land-feudal. The society entered a second stage where again the classes remained the same but their class character changed. Those two classes are known as the bourgeoisie and the proletariat respectively.
The fourth stage in the Marxist interpretation is the capitalist stage. In this stage, production started on a large scale by mass production. Along with this, a definite system of distribution and consumption was also made. But the full ownership of the property belonged to the capitalists i.e. the Wuzuya class. The workers or the proletariat had no capital other than their own labour. But the numbers say that for the first time in human history such a large number of workers have gathered together, as a result of which they will awaken and organize their class consciousness. In the struggle that will now take place, for the first time in human history, the victory will be of the proletariat and the defeat of the bourgeoisie. The reason for this is that there were slave and financial peasant classes but there was no organization in them due to lack of class consciousness. He called the slave and financial farmer a “class in itself”. According to the numbers, in this struggle the proletariat will lose nothing but the chain of its slavery while the bourgeoisie will lose everything. While discussing the causes of conflict, Marx says that in the capitalist society, capitalists have started to centralize capital in their hands, due to which impoverishment, polarization and separatism etc. As a result, the growing discontent between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat will lead to conflict.
Marx has told in the course of his analysis that after this struggle there will be socialism in the society for a while. That is, the property will be controlled by the state and everyone will get money according to their need. But this stage will be short-lived because gradually all the people in the society will become equal. Therefore, the name of the state will automatically disappear and the society will reach the communist stage. According to Marx, to establish the communist era, the working class will destroy the capitalist class with the same weapon with which the capitalists destroyed feudalism. Therefore Marx has envisioned a communist society in which there will be neither class nor contradiction. There will be neither state nor exploitation, but all people will be equal.
Although Marx has given a consistent materialist interpretation of history on the basis of his theory of dialectical materialism, his theory is not free from criticism. While Marx has shown the explanation of society by dividing it into five stages, scholars say that it has no scientific basis in relation to these stages. August Kost has mentioned three, Darshim two and Morgan three states. The order of social development given by Marx in his discussion of dialectical and materialism is not universal. According to Marx, on the basis of the industrial revolution, capitalist society was discussed, according to him, the first revolution by workers should have taken place in England and on the basis of the power of the proletariat, communism should be established. Therefore, historical facts show that there is no need for capitalism to come after feudalism.
There are many contradictions in Marx’s theory of dialectical materialism. If every issue has a protest, how can it be assumed that communism will have no opposition? From this it appears that either kill
did not make a thorough study of these facts as to under what circumstances a protest to any cause arises or he is wrong to say that there will be no counter to communism. As far as class struggle is concerned, Marx has discussed the existence of only two classes in the society whereas Sorokin says that the largest section of the society is of middle class. Denying the role of the middle class in the explanation of social change is the biggest drawback of Marxist theory.
Ralf Dahrendorf has criticized Marx’s theory, saying that Marx’s theory, however true for traditional societies, is completely ineffective in modern industrial society. They say that in the modern industrial society there has never been a situation of direct conflict between the capitalist class and the working class. Because there is a managerial class as a link between the two. Therefore, the B manager of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat acts as a safety valve. Secondly, Detrendorf has said that the working class is divided into several levels, whose wages and facilities are different. Therefore, there is no possibility of union of workers.
In spite of all these criticisms, it is true that Marxism is a trending ideology of today’s era. This gives us a new perspective of looking at history and society. It is true that on the basis of Marxist ideology, no society in the world has changed till date, but from the point of view of theoretical analysis, it is definitely a perfect ideology.