Opinions of the New Deal
Given conflict theorists’ extreme distaste for capitalism, the majority of FDR’s New Deal would not appeal to their interests. In fact, the New Deal might have seemed like an effort to repair capitalism rather than destroy it. This is most evident in the New Deal’s emphasis on increasing the buying power of citizens. At first thought, this seems like a beneficial idea, but given that the foundation of the United States is defined by capitalism, increasing the buying power of citizens means their money will inevitably end up in the hands of capitalism to create corporate profits and repeat the vicious cycle again (Russell, 2014). The only way to combat capitalism is to reallocate goods and services through a system of need rather than purchasing power (Marx et al., 1976). …show more content…
While Marx’s idea of a social revolution does not start with massive government handouts or the repair of capitalism by any means, it does emphasize the importance of restructuring society to benefit the masses. The New Deal attempted to restructure society in small ways. Most notably, FDR cut the salaries of many government employees, freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars to use for the New Deal (Stern & Axinn, 2011). This “redistribution of wealth” might appeal to the conflict theorist, in the broadest sense. One of Marx’s propositions was to call upon the government to better utilize taxes and control revenue allocation to help redistribute commodities to those in need (Marx et al., 1976). Of course, in the case of the New Deal, the foundation of society is still defined by capitalism, meaning that any change—no matter how appealing on the surface—would be based on a faulty
Given conflict theorists’ extreme distaste for capitalism, the majority of FDR’s New Deal would not appeal to their interests. In fact, the New Deal might have seemed like an effort to repair capitalism rather than destroy it. This is most evident in the New Deal’s emphasis on increasing the buying power of citizens. At first thought, this seems like a beneficial idea, but given that the foundation of the United States is defined by capitalism, increasing the buying power of citizens means their money will inevitably end up in the hands of capitalism to create corporate profits and repeat the vicious cycle again (Russell, 2014). The only way to combat capitalism is to reallocate goods and services through a system of need rather than purchasing power (Marx et al., 1976). …show more content…
While Marx’s idea of a social revolution does not start with massive government handouts or the repair of capitalism by any means, it does emphasize the importance of restructuring society to benefit the masses. The New Deal attempted to restructure society in small ways. Most notably, FDR cut the salaries of many government employees, freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars to use for the New Deal (Stern & Axinn, 2011). This “redistribution of wealth” might appeal to the conflict theorist, in the broadest sense. One of Marx’s propositions was to call upon the government to better utilize taxes and control revenue allocation to help redistribute commodities to those in need (Marx et al., 1976). Of course, in the case of the New Deal, the foundation of society is still defined by capitalism, meaning that any change—no matter how appealing on the surface—would be based on a faulty