This paper applies Karl Marx's conflict theory to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), analyzing its social and economic effects on the populations of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Drawing on Marx's Hegelian-derived framework of class struggle and the bourgeoisie–proletariat dynamic, the paper evaluates NAFTA as an instrument of multinational corporate expansion that concentrates wealth among a ruling class while marginalizing workers. The paper also examines proposals for a North American Union, the role of globalization ideology, and whether Marxian predictions of intensifying class conflict are being borne out in contemporary North America.
The paper exemplifies theoretical application: it takes an established intellectual framework (Marxian conflict theory) and systematically applies it to a specific, real-world policy case (NAFTA). Each section tests whether Marx's predictions — class stratification, ruling-class consolidation, intensifying conflict — are observable in the post-NAFTA North American context, making the argument cumulative and cohesive.
The paper opens by situating conflict theory within broader sociological concepts of group competition, then introduces Marx's Hegelian dialectic. It moves through free-market ideology and globalization theory before focusing on NAFTA's stated aims and actual outcomes. The final sections examine immigration tensions, the North American Union proposal, and the widening wealth gap as evidence of Marxian dynamics, closing with a measured, open-ended conclusion about whether reform can forestall the class conflict Marx predicted.
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 factions 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 establishes the dominant or normative view of social relations and cultural thinking. Less powerful groups challenge these modes of thought, 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 patterns of group identity and often revolutionary change. Karl Marx, in particular, helped to establish the foundations of conflict theory, with his ideas focusing on society's inherent potential for class warfare. 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 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 Agreement, 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 dialectic. 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 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 abstract 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, being temporarily dominant over the masses of workers, or proletariat. Eventually, 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 in a modern free-market society would be that society's emphasis on the creation and 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 regarded as secular theorists along similar lines. All believe firmly in the continued importance of markets, and in the creation and control of money, as roads to maximizing material prosperity. In this view, maximum material success accords with maximum human happiness, and 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 businesses the widest possible latitude for their operation. Much as Marx tried to educate the masses about their real rights in a world dominated by the owners 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 — one 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 — ultimately leads to a sharing of all that is best in different cultures. The lives of individuals everywhere are improved through exposure to new ideas, different paradigms, and the variety of resources that the global environment provides. As Jagdish Bhagwati points out in 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 the planet 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 do so, arranging their operations to take advantage of optimal conditions even if those conditions are not found within the borders of their home countries (Eden & Lenway, 2001, p. 383). Certain governments are more restrictive than others when it comes to offering opportunities for investment and development. Some nations have laws banning full foreign ownership of corporate assets, land, and factories, clearly hindering the 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 that many Americans, Canadians, and Europeans are unwilling to take on, and frequently accept inferior working conditions — even to the point of laboring in genuinely hazardous environments with substandard medical care and other benefits. Nevertheless, as executives at IBM and many other companies argue, creating more jobs in lower-cost locations overseas keeps their industries competitive, holds costs down for American consumers, helps develop poorer nations, and supports overall employment in the United States by improving productivity and the nation's global reach (Greenhouse, July 22, 2004).
By relaxing restrictions on investment and immigration, multinational corporations believe they can benefit populations in both the developing and developed worlds. To this end, these large corporations have worked toward establishing various free-trade zones and cross-border agreements regarding intellectual property rights.
The conflict theory expounded so clearly by Marx seems applicable to today's conditions. Karl Marx posited that the different economic classes of society were engaged in a form of class warfare between those who owned the means of production and the vast majority who labored for their benefit. Business enterprises naturally seek to expand. Corporations eventually become multinational corporations. These corporations become so large that they begin to rival the nation-states themselves. They demand that adjustments be made to rules and social systems in order to increase their profits, and multinational organizations replace state organizations as the bodies that set standards and norms.
You’re 45% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.