Nov 18, 2023·edited Jan 16Liked by Lawrence Krubner
Both libertarian and authoritarian communism run counter to many of the things discussed on this blog. Not all, but many. I believe that the means of production in a democratic society need to be publicly owned to prevent the accumulation of wealth, but marxism, with its narrow emphasis on conflict, needs to be integrated into a larger theory of social cohesion that supports the institutions that maintain democracy, such as government, religion, and the family. Marxism is good at explaining revolutionary change and the 19th century descriptive social theory called “structural functionalism” is good at explaining the conditions that bring social stability. Many marxists explain crime and deviance as a symptom of capitalism, which is partly true, but a bigger factor is the loss family and community. If capitalism were the only culprit, then the rates of crime across countries would be more similar. Maybe these two theories should be combined along with other theories into a new perspective called “conflict functionalism”, which describes how different parts of society have at times hindered, and at other times contributed to, democracy.
"Maybe these two theories should be combined along with other theories into a new perspective called “conflict functionalism”"
This is true. In a small way, I aim towards that here on this Substack. I have the ambition, as time goes by, to attempt a synthesis of these different lines of research. I think you are correct that the simpler interpretations fail to explain the variance that we see. As you wrote, "If capitalism were the only culprit, then the rates of crime across countries would be more similar." So I think you are correct that a broad integration of different paradigms will be necessary.
Both libertarian and authoritarian communism run counter to many of the things discussed on this blog. Not all, but many. I believe that the means of production in a democratic society need to be publicly owned to prevent the accumulation of wealth, but marxism, with its narrow emphasis on conflict, needs to be integrated into a larger theory of social cohesion that supports the institutions that maintain democracy, such as government, religion, and the family. Marxism is good at explaining revolutionary change and the 19th century descriptive social theory called “structural functionalism” is good at explaining the conditions that bring social stability. Many marxists explain crime and deviance as a symptom of capitalism, which is partly true, but a bigger factor is the loss family and community. If capitalism were the only culprit, then the rates of crime across countries would be more similar. Maybe these two theories should be combined along with other theories into a new perspective called “conflict functionalism”, which describes how different parts of society have at times hindered, and at other times contributed to, democracy.
"Maybe these two theories should be combined along with other theories into a new perspective called “conflict functionalism”"
This is true. In a small way, I aim towards that here on this Substack. I have the ambition, as time goes by, to attempt a synthesis of these different lines of research. I think you are correct that the simpler interpretations fail to explain the variance that we see. As you wrote, "If capitalism were the only culprit, then the rates of crime across countries would be more similar." So I think you are correct that a broad integration of different paradigms will be necessary.