Conflict Theory Dismissed as a Conspiracy Theory

[Prinskaj]

Currently we are studying the rise of the welfare state in class.
While reading about conflict theory, i.e. the dialectical materialist perspective, the book had a short "criticism" of this view, which basically surmounted to calling it conspiratorial.
How would you respond to such a notion?

[Sea]

Honestly, I think your best bet would be not to defend conflict theory itself in this case but instead pick apart the conspiracy theory label. This way, you don't appear as defending a "conspiracy theory". As I don't have the book I don't know what falsities and fallacies were used, so I can't do this for you. Hope this helps.

Down with classes, power to the pupil, etc.

[ed miliband]

it would be a conspiracy if we imagined class was some mysical essence that runs through the bloodline (seriously, i've heard people make out that class war is the same as race war). rather, class concerns ones relation to the means of production and distribution. it's quite obvious, even to those who wish to deny it for ideological reasons, that the interests of those who work and the interests of those who employ are opposing: i want to work as little as possible for as much money as possible, my boss wants me to work as hard as possible for as little as possible. no conspiracy there.

[Prinskaj]

Yes of course, that is basic class struggle. I meant in relations to the rise of the welfare state, that government and the private capitalists would work together to insure the capitalist mode of production.

[ed miliband]

Yes of course, that is basic class struggle. I meant in relations to the rise of the welfare state, that government and the private capitalists would work together to insure the capitalist mode of production.

sorry, i didn't read your post properly.

well i mean i can only talk from a british perspective, but purely on an ideological level the writings of certain groups from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century make it clear that the bourgeoisie were petrified of revolution and sort to utilise the state to mediate the interests of the working class and capital. the writings of the fabian society, for example, or 'one nation conservatism' for a slightly earlier example. you see this thread right through the first and second world war, after which the british welfare state was established; the tory mp quintin hogg famously remarked: "we must give them reform or they will give us revolution".

if you think of the intesity of global class struggle in the early twentieth century, how else would the state respond (and i don't think the state and "private capitalists" can be seperated, as "private capitalists" require the state's protection to exist)?

that said, i think it's vaguely conspiratorial to imagine that the welfare state was simply established to crush proletarian revolution. again from a british perspective, the destruction of so much infrastructure during the second world war and the inability of british industry to rebuild meant that it made sense for the state to step in via nationalisations and so on.

[cb9's_unity]

The little I've seen about "conflict theory" makes it seem like it is a way for mainstream sociologists to hollow out all of the important parts of Marx in order to keep the most obvious stuff. Of course I don't believe my sociology textbook mentioned a single thing about dialectics.

When it comes to the rise of the welfare state most liberal thinkers obscure the nuance of Marx's "conflict theory." They don't admit the amount of competition between capitalists economically and ideologically that Marx recognized. Class conflict was at its height during the rise of the welfare state, but that doesn't mean the welfare state existed for interests of the working class. The welfare state arose because a liberal element of the capitalist class became conscious of the instability of the system and thus realized that to same themselves some material demands of the working class would need to be appeased. There is nothing conspiratorial about this, it is basic political-economy. Liberal theorists don't see this because they pretend formal democracy erases the class nature of the state, even if they recognize that all the major parties were composed for and by the rich.

To dismiss something as a conspiracy theory is basically a way of saying a theory is intellectually below you. Just look at how the 9/11 "truthers" are called conspiracy theorists. The same people who use the term pejoratively believe that 9/11 was the result of a plan set forth by a network radical Islamists (for the record I agree that this is probably what happened). In other words, they believe radical Islamists conspired to execute a terrorist attack. Both sides of the debate believe in a conspiracy. A theory which uses a conspiracy only becomes a "conspiracy theory" if the facts that are used aren't accepted by the liberal and conservative mainstream media and academia.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yes of course, that is basic class struggle. I meant in relations to the rise of the welfare state, that government and the private capitalists would work together to insure the capitalist mode of production.

Government and private capitalists have worked together, that's simply historical fact. Usually it's not in the sense of "mwahahaha, how will we keep the workers down and our coffers full!?", though. There are numerous examples of businessmen who contributed to what's known colloquially as the "welfare state", though. One good example is Gerard Swope, chairman of GE during the 1930's, who wrote the first draft of Franklin Roosevelt's "National Industrial Recovery Act", was an admirer of European fascism, and a pretty big proponent of the thorough interlocking of the state with business.

There were quite a few other people in business throughout American history who were critics of the anarchy of the market and wanted the state to be heavily involved in the centralization/cartelization of industry. Definitely a different picture than the picture some people (ie Ayn Rand and associated dummies) paint of the poor oppressed business community slaving away like serfs under the unbearable slavery of the state.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

sorry, i didn't read your post properly.

well i mean i can only talk from a british perspective, but purely on an ideological level the writings of certain groups from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century make it clear that the bourgeoisie were petrified of revolution and sort to utilise the state to mediate the interests of the working class and capital. the writings of the fabian society, for example, or 'one nation conservatism' for a slightly earlier example. you see this thread right through the first and second world war, after which the british welfare state was established; the tory mp quintin hogg famously remarked: "we must give them reform or they will give us revolution".

if you think of the intesity of global class struggle in the early twentieth century, how else would the state respond (and i don't think the state and "private capitalists" can be seperated, as "private capitalists" require the state's protection to exist)?

that said, i think it's vaguely conspiratorial to imagine that the welfare state was simply established to crush proletarian revolution. again from a british perspective, the destruction of so much infrastructure during the second world war and the inability of british industry to rebuild meant that it made sense for the state to step in via nationalisations and so on.
Emphasized text: This was precisely Otto von Bismarck's justification for his welfare state.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/from-the-president/marching-to-bismarcks-drummer-the-origins-of-the-modern-welfare-state/


The modern welfare state had its birthplace in late nineteenth-century Imperial Germany under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. In the 1870s the Social Democratic Party gained increasing support from the voters in elections to the parliament, the Reichstag. Fearful that the socialists might win a majority, Kaiser Wilhelm and the conservative parties resolved to thwart this dangerous challenge to their power and the existing order.

In the early 1880s the Kaiser agreed to support the first welfare-state legislation sponsored by Bismarck. A decade later, Bismarck explained to an American sympathizer the strategy behind these laws that guaranteed every German national health insurance, a pension, a minimum wage and workplace regulation, vacation, and unemployment insurance. “My idea was to bribe the working classes, or shall I say, to win them over, to regard the state as a social institution existing for their sake and interested in their welfare,” he said.
Though, it shouldn't be said that all welfare states were created for this reason.

[edit]
Yeah, it's from a "libertarian" site. I throw that link at right-wingers when they claim that the welfare state = socialism. "Even your buddies disagree with you"