Enron's Social Conflict Theory

Prior to its demise, Enron, an American energy, commodities, and services company, was one of Wall Street’s highest rated conglomerate. Enron was regarded as one of the most powerful and successful corporations in the world. Unfortunately, as America would learn, their success did not come without a consequence. Enron participated in side partnerships with investment banks, and was involved in special purpose entities also known as off-the-books partnerships, in order to hide company losses. Enron also claimed twelve million dollars in revenue by pretending to sell its Nigerian barges to Merrill Lynch. The verbal agreement deal came with no risk or loss to Merrill Lynch. Meaning, Enron had a verbal agreement to “sell” barges to Merrill Lynch …show more content…
Social conflict theory posits that conflict is a result of struggle for power between groups fighting for limited or scarce resources. Marx argued that there are two general groups of people in society. The two groups are the bourgeoisie or the haves, and the proletariat or the have-nots (Marx & Engels, 1948). The bourgeoisie (the elite) are those in position of wealth and power and who own the means of production or control access to the means of production. The proletariats are those who are relatively powerless (the working class). They are the group that has to sell their labor to the capitalist in order to make a living. Marx theorized that the group in power must keep the powerless in a rather disadvantaged position in order to maintain the status quo and their privileged positions. Thus, regardless of hard work and pulling oneself by the bootstrap, if you were born in the lower or working class, you will end up in the lower or working class. The unequal distribution of wealth and power is especially transparent in our justice system. Those in power make and create laws that benefit themselves. They further decide who and what is deviant. This paper will argue that white-collar crime is indeed crime and it is more damaging in the grand scheme of things than common crime, and should be treated as such. Furthermore, this paper argues that the rich get richer and the poor …show more content…
This is so because it has been labeled as such by lawmakers. Social acceptability of white-collar crime then lends way for the social elite to divert attention from their lawlessness by shifting focus on street crimes and creating laws that punish crimes of the poor and not their own. In doing so, it gives the illusion that common or street crimes is more dangerous, problematic and more resources should be dedicated to catching and punishing these violent crimes. Consequently, common or street crimes are what come to mind when one thinks about crime. For most people, the fear of physical harm and pain is greater than that of financial scams. This is so because the damage caused by street crimes is noticeable and are easily detected compared to white-collar crimes (Barak, 2012). Furthermore, crimes of the poor are overrepresented in the mass media. Contrary to popular believe, white-collar crime is real crime and is worse than ordinary crime as it impose enormous financial, physical, and social harms on individuals, communities and society in general (Benson, 2009), leaving the already disadvantaged with enormous financial