What significance did Marx attach to class conflict and class struggle?

Question

In terms of reforming the economic system. Thanks!

Answer 1

Marx worked within the framework of industrialized Europe (mostly the conditions in Germany, England and France). He divided society into two classes: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This last one was further subdivided into two: the petite bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie proper.
The workers formed the proletariat; the owners of the means of production (or factories) were the bourgeoisie; everyone else: professionals & small businessmen (what we would call the middle classes) were the petit bourgeoisie.
Class conflict, according to Marx, is the only conflict in society. In his time, he never had to deal with ethnic migrant workers in Europe, which have been the product of decolonization, so he never really took racial conflict into consideration.
He proposed a classless society, where the proletariat (the workers) should own the means of production, through state or government ownership, therefore eliminating private property.
It's the total opposite of capitalism.

Answer 2

I am afraid you are trying to find sense in a madman's tale. Marx designed a "scientific" method of creating an economy and society. As it happens he never worked a single day in his life, let alone managed any business- so his ideas are completely off the moon.
They are very attractive though. The main idea is that workers have a "right" to the means of production. Meaning that being hired as an employee should give the worker property rights. Which brings an automatic conflict with the "previous" owner - a.k.a. "evil capitalist".
Marx's idea is that profit is evil- therefore the capitalist who builds a factory in order to earn money is evil. Marx forgot that without this "greed" there would have been no factory in the first place.
Of course the ownership cannot be transfered to the "proletariat" (BTW Marx refers to the workers as "lumpen" which is extremely derogatory). In his mind the power of the workers is simply a tool to be used to disposess the "evil capitalists". Then the property is to be managed by "experts" for "the good of all". He "forgets" to say who appoints the experts...
The reality is that "conflict" was essential in order to take over power. "Class struggle" was essential in order to keep the masses occupied. And a "Marxist" oligarchy of "experts" (who just "accidentally" happen to be cousins and family) would "manage" the goods "for the common good"- while wallowing in luxuries earned by other people's hands.

Marxism is a way of enslaving people, by persuading them to put the chains onto their own necks. After the lock snaps shut, it is too late.

If you need an example how it works, look up North Korea. Iran too- there the "Marx" is replaced by "will of god" but the rest of the mechanism is identical

Answer 3

pretty broad question. class conflict & class struggle are inevitable and necessary to marx if anything is to be changed in the capitalist system because remember, marx's study of capital was grounded in a philosophy that is both dialectical and materialist.

By dialectical & materialist it means that changes are brought about through contradicting forces, not in terms of ideas (hegel) but in terms of actual activities embeded in social relations. thats not to say marx ignored ideas just that his attention wasn't focused on them as much as hegel did.

correct me if i am wrong, i don't think he ever considered 'reforming' the economics system through class conflict and / or struggle, he simply think that ultimately its better not to have any than to have one. He was a radical not a reformist.

Answer 4

Marx saw the world as a historical struggle between the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie or workers vs. owners. Under the capitalist mode of production, workers were alienated & oppressed because they work for menial wages while the owners profit. The only way to change this oppressive system is to unite with other proletariats in a worldwide struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie and take ownership of the mode of production, meaning to be the boss of your labor and working to support the general public. In Marxist lingo, change can only come about if you change the base (the mode of production) to change the superstructure (new ideas, structures, and relationships). A fatal flaw in this system is that it consolidates power into the hands of the state and can lead to rule by an oppressive state mechanism.

Answer 5

Marx believed the economically wealthier or "well to do" classes dominated the society and culture and had more privelaged advantages. This undermined true democracy because the important decisions were left up to those of a specific economic status, not by everyone in society.