Criminological Theory

Criminal Science

Conflict Theory:

Marx, NAFTA, and the Populations of the United States, Canada, and Mexico

Our world is made up of many different groups of individuals. In nation-states such as the United States, Canada, and Mexico, various classes vie for power, status, influence, and control.

The contending faction may be economic, social, or cultural in origin, or else be defined by gender, race, or religion. As one group seeks to consolidate its hold over society, it formulates an ideology; the group in power establishing the dominant or normative view of social relations and cultural thinking. Less powerful groups challenge these modes of thought, and creating their own philosophies that are often labeled deviant or maladaptive by those in power. Change, gradual or sudden, peaceful or violent, is frequently the result of these battles between the ruling group and its rivals. Conflict theory is an attempt to understand and study these patters of group identity and often revolutionary change. Karl Marx, in particular, helped to establish the foundations of conflict theory, his ideas focusing on the society's inherent potential for class warfare. Indeed, his master work, Das Kapital, is a veritable primer of the concept. Marx firmly believed in the necessity of social conflict as a means of fulfilling the promises of history. Through its operation, the oppressed lower classes would eventually receive their due, recapturing the economic power and well-being that was theirs by right. The modern day drive toward the ever greater expansion and reach of business appears to be pushing the peoples of the world together into one great global community. The philosophy of globalism demands that national governments give way to supranational organizations that support the interests of multinational corporations in a kind of worldwide "business without borders." The North American Free Trade Association, or NAFTA, is one of these multinational organizations. What would Karl Marx think of NAFTA's high-sounding promises of prosperity and equality for each and every inhabitant of the United States, Canada, and Mexico?

Marx's theory of social conflict is based preeminently on the Hegelian dialect. German philosopher, Georg Hegel, postulated a situation in which an original idea, or thesis, was opposed by an alternative idea, its antithesis. When the two came into conflict they eventually produced an entirely new idea, or synthesis. Marx's contribution to this concept was his substitution of Hegel's notion of a world that was motivated primarily by the power of ideas with one that operated almost exclusively along economic lines, thereby "demystifying" the earlier thinker's more abstruse and objective outlook (Wood, 2004, p. 215). The founder of communism believed that the different economic classes within society were locked in combat with one another, the bourgeoisie, or capitalist class temporarily dominant over the masses of workers, or proletariat. Finally, the proletariat would revolt, overthrow the rapacious bourgeoisie, take control of the means of production, and establish a utopia in which all individuals were equal and everything was owned in common. The distinctions of wealth and status that lay at the root of social conflict would be forever abolished (Bronner, 2001, p. 14).

The basic ideas of Marx contain the fundamental principles of modern concepts of conflict theory. Class conflict leads to stratification with the ruling class developing patterns of behavior to which all other classes of society must aspire and adhere. An example of this that pertains to a modern free market society would be that society's emphasis on the creation an acquisition of wealth, a motive that even gained religious sanction in the thinking of John Calvin and other Protestant theologians (Nollmann & Strasser, 2007).

Two centuries ago, Adam Smith, and today, economists like Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan, could be secular theorists along the same lines. All believe firmly in the continued importance of markets, and the creation and control of money, as roads to maximizing material prosperity. In this view, maximum material success accords with maximum human happiness. Ideally, all other viewpoints are marginalized or suppressed.

Globalism; therefore, represents an attempt to maximize the benefits of free market capitalism by permitting privately-owned business the widest possible latitude for its operation. Much as Marx tried to educate the masses about their real rights in a world that was otherwise dominated by the owners of the methods of industrial production, proponents of globalization strive to teach today's men and women about the benefits of unfettered capitalism. The consumer must learn to appreciate that he or she lives in a global society, a society where all benefit from the economic decisions made by multinational corporations. Perhaps the most powerful argument in favor of globalization is the idea that interaction among peoples - even economic interactions - leads ultimately to a sharing of all that is best in different cultures. The lives of individuals everywhere are improved through exposure to new ideas, to different paradigms, and to the variety of resources that the global environment provides. As Jagdish Bhagwati points out in his, in Defense of Globalization, the Nineteenth Century economist and social philosopher, John Stuart Mill observed,

T]he economical advantages of commerce are surpassed in importance by those of its effects, which are intellectual and moral. It is hardly possible to overrate the value, in the present low state of human improvement, of placing human beings in contact with persons dissimilar to themselves, and with modes of thought and action unlike those with which they are familiar. Commerce is now, what war once was, the principal source of this contact.... There is no nation which does not need to borrow from others, not merely particular arts or practices, but essential points of character in which its own type is inferior. (Bhagwati, 2004, p. 30)

According to this view, globalization benefits not just the pocketbooks of stockholders in multinational corporations, but also the ordinary citizens of every nation in the world. The more genuinely global, the international economy can be made, the freer will be the movement of goods and ideas. Opening up access to markets, resources, and personnel will ultimately lead to all the people of planet Earth sharing in the good fortune and high living standards currently enjoyed by only a fraction of the global population.

Multiple jurisdictions and conflicting regulations can cause considerable hardship for multinational corporations. Modern technology jumps national boundaries, while national laws serve to reinforce these same boundaries. Multinational corporations gain considerably by using their enormous financial resources to invest wherever it is profitable and legal to invest. They arrange their operations to take advantage of optimal conditions, even if those conditions are not to be found within the borders of their home countries. (Eden & Lenway, 2001, p. 383) as well, certain governments are more restrictive than others when it comes to offering opportunities for investment and development. Some nations have laws banning full ownership of corporate assets, land, factories, and so forth, by foreign nationals. Clearly, such restrictions hinder movement of capital and resources. Similarly, restrictive immigration policies can affect the free movement of labor from one location to another. Immigration from Mexico and other developing nations is a contentious issue in the United States precisely because a large influx of workers from these countries lowers wages for all Americans. Accustomed to much lower standards of living, citizens of developing nations are willing to work for considerably less than their counterparts in more developed regions. They will also perform jobs many Americans, Canadians, and Europeans are unwilling to take on. Frequently, these immigrants are also willing to accept inferior working conditions - even to the point of laboring in genuinely hazardous environments, and with substandard medical care, and other benefits. Nevertheless,

Executives at I.B.M. And many other companies argue that creating more jobs in lower cost locations overseas keeps their industries competitive, holds costs down for American consumers, helps to develop poorer nations while supporting overall employment in the United States by improving productivity and the nation's global reach. (Greenhouse, 22 July 2004)

By relaxing the restrictions on investment and immigration, the multinational corporations believe they can benefit populations in both the developing, and the developed worlds. To this end, these large corporations have worked toward setting up various free-trade zones, and cross-border agreements in regard to intellectual property rights.

One of the most significant of the free-trade agreements was the North American Free Trade Association, or NAFTA, as it is commonly known. NAFTA establishes, in effect, free movement of fiscal resources, natural resources, goods, and people across the American, Canadian, and Mexican borders. The belief that such an agreement would bring vast societal benefits was particularly strong in Mexico, where NAFTA was seen as a way of bringing the country up to the economic levels of the other two partners in the agreement. (Poitras, 2001, p. 18)

An influx of, mostly American, capital would bring large scale development and full employment to Mexico. The maquiladores - American-owned factories producing good for the American market, but located in Mexico - are a notable feature of post-NAFTA North America. While offer better-paying, higher-skilled jobs to Mexican workers, NAFTA gives American and Canadian companies access to a huge pool of relatively low-cost labor. The idea is that, eventually, as standards of living rise in Mexico, Mexican consumers will be able to buy all of the same kinds of goods now regularly purchased by their neighbors to the north. In the meantime, in addition to lower labor costs, the agreement also gives American and Canadian concerns access to cheaper raw materials, and an additional, migrant or resident, labor force of Mexicans, upon which to draw in their own countries. Mexico, as well, tends have to fewer, and more laxly enforced environmental and labor regulations; lower healthcare costs, etc., that make the cost of doing business in Mexico a winning proposition for multinational corporations. (Buckley & Ghauri, 2004) Flexibility is seen as key in these multinational enterprises. Programs must be able to be implemented in a manner consistent with the demands of a constantly changing and growing global marketplace. The system employed must be adaptable to many different technologies. To lock in a single technology is to limit future opportunities. To be confined to a single market, or labor source, is to constrain opportunities for growth. One's options need to be kept open.

Yet, NAFTA has had its critics. The agreement has not been the boon for individual Mexicans that it was made out to be. Also, many Americans activists, and Non-Governmental Organization, or NGO's, are certain that hundreds of thousands of American jobs have been lost to competition South of the Border. America is bleeding manufacturing jobs at a truly alarming rate. The "virtual economy" of the multinationals, by allowing those with money to invest anywhere they are permitted to do so, and by permitting them to shift their resources as warranted, and so to make money by playing the market, has caused dramatic changes in the American domestic outlook, "As quicker and higher profits become the general expectation, management can use that expectation to justify further cuts in wages and worker benefits." (Peterson, 2003, p. 38) the effect of NAFTA, and of globalization in general, has thus been to the detriment of many American workers. The solid, lifelong jobs once available to so many have now largely disappeared. Workers must also cope with skyrocketing healthcare costs, and the difficulties of financial constraints in retirement. Karl Marx would not be particularly pleased with the developments that have occurred in the modern world. While many of the problems he associated with the system of exploitation of workers by the few have indeed been alleviated, they have not been alleviated everywhere, and continue to plague even the citizens of advanced nations like the United States and Canada. Canadians, for example, enjoy the benefits of a universal free public healthcare system, while Americans do not. In the United States, medicine remains a privatized commodity controlled by mostly by large corporations and, to many, exorbitantly expensive private physicians and the physician-controlled American Medical Association and similar organizations. Rebecca Todd Peters introduces a theory that might have some appeal to Marx, a "developmental perspective" that emphasizes the "necessity of involving national and international governmental agencies in devising social and economic programs to better the conditions of the people in the less fortunate parts of the world" (Morris, 2005). By emphasizing the importance of helping those less fortunate in developing nations - in terms of NAFTA this would apply especially to Mexico - Peters is implicitly raising the specter of class warfare that is so continually underscored by Marx.

By seeing NAFTA as a potential source of conflict, of Marxian class warfare in the affected states, Marx's argument becomes clearer. In order to impose the global system that brings increased profits and prosperity to the small class of individuals that own the large multinational corporations, it is necessary to convince the public at large that NAFTA is universally beneficial. The various gains and losses must be seen as trade-offs. For this to be accomplished, the entire population of the three countries must come to view itself as a single population, to the effect that what adversely affects one area and benefits another is in fact beneficial to the whole. This leads naturally to the proposals for a North American Union that have been quietly discussed at the highest levels of government in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Intended to harmonize the laws of the three countries and merge together the various administrative, economic, and political structures, the plan would represent the ultimate in cultural realignment on capitalist free market terms (Jasper, 2007).

Cultural reorganization is assuredly essential if the commercial interests that Marx inveighed against are to possess the means to further expand their influence and control. The companies become more powerful by employing workers in all three countries, their policies and goals being the shared goals of the single, unified ruling establishment. The ruling class grows yet more powerful not merely through unity but also through its greatly expanded ability to control the means of production, exploit resources, and in general create economies of scale. A single set of environmental and labor practices, together with unified currencies, systems of weights and measures, and a host of other regulations, make it cheaper to do business across vast territories and among formerly diverse populations. Immigration ceases to be an issue. The story becomes, instead, one of workers migrating from place to place in search of the best paying jobs. Whatever burdens must be shared are shared by all.

Of course, the supreme coming together that is the natural outcome of NAFTA and of proposals like the North American Union, work as well in consonance with Marx. For Marx saw the relentless international expansion of capitalism as an example of the bourgeois owners sowing the seeds of their own destruction. The more powerful the corporations became, the more they would be required to exploit and oppress the working classes, thus the reason "Karl Marx loved 'the Free Trade system' because of its 'destructive' capacity to 'break up old nationalities... And [hasten] the Social Revolution'" (Bentley, 2006, p. 44). Under such a regime, the conflicts that he predicted would grow more intense. The American media is filled with stories of the increasing gap between rich and poor. Undocumented Mexican workers are a common source of political controversy as liberals and conservatives, immigration and anti-immigration, forces argue over the best means of "immigration reform." Meanwhile, advocates for the downtrodden point out the poor living conditions of many of these men, women, and children; their lack of access to decent educational and health facilities, and the substandard housing in which many must live. On the home front, Americans face increasing disparities between what they hope to achieve and what appears actually achievable: