Class Conflict And Class Conflicts

Moreover, it argues that economic exploitation causes political oppression and the powerful will then use their power to turn the state into a “servant of bourgeois economic” (Marx). For that reason, the only way to breakout of this conflict is through revolution, in which the working class people overthrows the owner of the capitalist system. Conflict theorists might argue, for instance, religion fulfills the bourgeois interests by appeasing the population by pacifying them. In essence, under this theory there will always be conflicts for scarce resources, and whenever one group gains control of the resources there will be an oppressed group. And according to Marx, this can be broken if we have a classless society where resources are allocated equally.

Roman slavery must be approached as a social institution in which the economic aspect, though important, was subsidiary, in order to appreciate the vast degree of significance which Romans themselves attributed to the presence of slavery among them, as well as its distinct cultural impact (Bradley 1998, p.18). The large presence of slaves and renewable population of skilled freedmen allowed the Roman Empire to achieve the economic and infrastructural achievements for which they are remembered, the degree of their contributions rendering Roman Italy, a ‘slave society.’ It has been estimated that, during the reign of Augustus, the servile population of Italy could have been as high as thirty-five percent (1998, pp.12-13). This high reliance on and large population of slaves was reflected throughout the empire, rendering society one in which the status of individuals - free, freedman or slave, was exceedingly salient and consequential. The strict societal hierarchy of the Roman Empire was built upon and directly contributed to the deep social divides between classes which defined social experience in the Roman Empire. Manumission, increased presence of freedmen and substantial base of slave population factored strongly into the increased significance levied upon social status, division between social groups and definition of position in society.

In Athens, people became slaves through captivity on occasion, but most commonly through blood line. For instance, if a slave gives birth, that child will then, also, become a slave. William Westermann describes the ownership of slavery in Athens as being owned by families and individuals, not by the city-state as a whole. People in Sparta on the other hand became slaves primarily through being captured following battle. Spartan slaves, also known as helots, were, in contrast to Athenian slaves, held captive by

In 600 BCE-600 CE, the early domestication of animals, war, patriarchy, and privately owned property were all contributing factors to the establishment and growth of slavery in civilizations. Imperial Rome and and Han China were socially similar in that they both had inequalities amongst the different classes. In contrast, slavery in Imperial Rome was the basis for society, while in Han China slavery was neither widespread nor was it a major source of labor. Imperial Rome and Han China were socially similar because vast social inequalities led to rebellion. In 73 BCE Rome, a revolt for freedom broke out among gladiators that was named for its leader, Spartacus.

The Roman Empire was a slave owning society, one fourth of their population was made up of slaves. The Romans accrued slaves through piracy, trade, and warfare. Accounting for most of the labor force, slaves performed household tasks, and the grueling and tiresome work of mining and farming. Slavery in Rome was a way for them to assimilate new people into their society. Individuals could be released from slavery by either being bought out or after paying their debt to their owner (Ivanovitch, 1957: 26).

Slavery in the Ancient Rome played a major role in the society and in the economy. Besides manual labor, slaves performed many domestic services, and might be employed at highly skilled jobs and professions. Slavery in the United States was a legal institution in the United States in the 18th and the 19th centuries and it was still legal until the Civil War which began in April 12, 1861 and it ended May 9, 1865. The Slavery in the ancient Rome was way different than the United States because in the ancient Rome let some slaves own some land if it was alright with their masters. Skilled or educated slaves were able to earn their own money and hope that they can save up enough that they could buy their freedom. And such slaves were set free by their masters. A male slave who had belonged to a Roman citizen was allowed to vote. The United States slavery was mostly African Americans or just Africans. In all if I was a slave I would want to be a slave in the ancient Rome basically because the United States didn’t have as much freedom as ancient Rome

Owning slaves was not just used for work, it was seen as a sign of social status.

poor” tension all the time.Karl Marx’s depiction of class conflict illustrates that the masses are the ones who should wage an armed struggle against the ruling class (or the rich), but The Purge ironically boasts a perversion of his idea. Instead, we see how the ruling class eliminates everyone under their wing with bullets and blades. In comparison, it is like witnessing an elite protest where conflicting interests are pitted against each other. Even in a state of normlessness, we see that anarchy remains at the mercy of the elites.

Conflict theory is a term that was first advocated by the German philosopher and sociologist Karl Marx (1818-1883). First and foremost, it is important for us to understand how conflict within society can arise. Marx’s methodology or another phrase; ‘Marxism’, applies mainly to the rise of capitalism (i.e. advanced industrialised societies in which certain people came to own the means of production and exploited workers in order to enrich themselves). Marx saw this as resulting in class struggle and the eventual overthrow of the capitalist class. This is an emphasis on power and the control of people and land leading to oppression; in the context of this essay; oppression being the exercise of an authoritative figure of some kind acting in a cruel or unjust manner, note; this is more likely to apply to an already advanced society.

"Slaves are living tools" this is Aristotle defining what slaves are, and this is what they were used as by everyone, inside the house and out of it. Almost everyone in the ancient world had a slave or two, the only exception was with the poorest families. There was even slaves that owned their own slaves, usually only one of the opposite sex though so that they could have some semblance of a family. Pliny, a governor of a Roman province wrote to emperor Trajan asking if he should use the slaves as guards in a local prison or use soldiers or to mix them both in there. Pliny obviously trusted his slaves enough if he was willing

All human societies have been class based in some way, shape or form and, interpreting this in the most basic way, it can be said that in every known human society there has been a fundamental division between two broad social groups, the buorgeoisie that own and control the means of production, and the proletariat who own nothing but their ability to sell their labour power (that is, their ability to work) in return for wages. The anger and dissent over the differences in social classes has never wavered

The economic system of this era is termed feudalism. Feudalism is defined by conditioned holding of land by lords on some kind of service-tenure to the monarch. The lords were a noble class who supplied military service and council to the monarch. The lords' social status was determined by their land holdings. The lords' estates were farmed by compulsory labor, known as serfs. The lords maintained a great deal of control over the serfs. They dictated what, where and when to plant. They also operated as a judiciary force over the serfs (Hilton, pp. 34-36).

Though Marx views the communist revolution as an unavoidable outcome of capitalism, his theory stipulates that the proletariat must first develop class consciousness, or an understanding of its place within the economic superstructure. If this universal character of the proletariat does not take shape, then the revolution cannot be accomplished (1846: 192). This necessary condition does not pose a problem within Marx’s theoretical framework, as the formation of class consciousness is inevitable in Marx’s model of society. His writings focus on the idea that economic production determines the social and political structure (1846, 1859). For Marx, social class represents a person’s relation to the means of production, a relation that he believes is independent of

As theory cannot escape the social, economic and political of the time in which it was developed, one cannot truly consider critiquing Aristotle’s natural theory of slavery without some knowledge of slavery in Aristotle’s world. First and foremost, slavery was ubiquitous. Furthermore, they were employed not only as household servants and stewards, but in Aristotle’s Athens, they are worked in the fields, the mines, as craftsman, traders, secretaries, accountants, teachers, doctors, public servants, and participated in the arts. Hence they were indispensable for satisfying the needs of Athenians of even modest affluence. The perfect household was one that had slaves (Politics 1253b 4). Without their exploitation, the middle and upper classes’ good life would cease to exist. Moreover, the Aristotelian, ideal citizen would not be free to engage in the rational activities prescribed. While Aristotle’s defense of slavery can be considered morally repugnant to

Karl Marx believed that struggle or conflict among classes was an inevitable feature of capitalism based on the argument that various groups in a society or social classes perpetually fight and compete for resources and power, hence the groups remains polarized against each other. The Karl Marx’s conflict theory views behavior from the perspective of conflict or tension among two or more groups. The conflict does not necessarily translate to violence but rather takes the form of struggle within political negotiations, business, philosophical ideologies or personal attitudes. A critical analysis of Karl Marx conflict theory’s point of view reveals that the conflict of social classes is the major aspect of societal conflict, and is mostly propagated by the differences in economic statuses and inequalities in distribution.