With the lack of power, one major cause of war is conflict theory. Conflict theory made by Karl Max is a theory that claims that society is in a situation where perpetual conflict emerges due to the unequally divided resources triggered by competition. Conflict theory has been used in many ways to explain a range of social problems such as war, poverty, human trafficking and much more. Marx also defines conflict theory as the focus point between different classes specifically two (the wealthy and the poor). This theory (conflict theory) brought capitalism alienates humans that came from their species being and the true human potential.
Karl Marx and Max Weber each have disparate views about the factors that contribute to the change in modern societies. From Marx’s point of view, change occurs because of the rapid progression of human needs and the revolution of production by social groups in order to elevate their social status and increase their wealth. His materialistic notion is often known as ‘class conflict’. However, Weber strikes a discordant note as he attributed the social change to the ‘capitalist spirit’ that is inculcated into individuals. (Simon, p.3) First of all, it is pivotal to distinguish how Marx and Weber defined “modern societies.” Marx elucidated class conflict as the stimulus for change and it was prevalent throughout the transition of production.
In his novel Bleeding Edge, Pynchon also tries to establish a relation between humans and the Internet. Actually, he tries to do more than that by imposing on the Internet urging matters in society such as capitalism and paranoia. The first element I want to discuss is Pynchon’s definition of Luddism in which he makes a distinction between the dystopian and utopian world view, especially in relation to technology. This means that there is no clear delineation when it comes to loving or hating technology as a capitalist system. To put it bluntly, Pattel states that “Pynchon’s novels view freedom as an endangered value on the verge of extinction in a complex modern world driven by exigencies of economic gain and technological process” (xviii).
Schumpeter discovered these personality traits of certain groups of people when he discovered the source of economic change. Schumpeter’s theory of innovation was based on the notion that if a certain group of people with certain personality traits (entrepreneurs) were eliminated from society, then the forces driving change would cease to exist (Sweezy,
Durkheim identified this change through the division of labour which he believed would lead to anomie -the breakdown of morality in society- (Barbaris and Jones: 2011). Durkheim (1893: 276) argued that “the division of labour unites at the same time that it opposes” because though the concept of a division of labour rids society of simple mechanic solidarity, thus opposing the simple way of life that was found in a pre-industrialised society, by having industrialisation, it allows for the build-up of a new way of collective conscience. In a similar vein, according to his manifesto (Marxists.org), Marx also believed in the division of labour, thinking that industrialization made the dichotomy between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie much more apparent. Like Durkheim’s concept of anomie and the breakdown of norms, Marx argued that the division of labour encourages alienation leading to a feeling of disassociation among the labourers with the product of their labour, due to it all being monopolised by the bourgeoisie. Yet, unlike Durkheim, Marx thought that the division of labour would promote less autonomy and minimise their collective conscience, therefore leading them to think they need the support of their employer rather than their
Schumpeter (1942) describes a process of “creative destruction” where wealth creation occurs through disruption of existing market structures due to introduction of new goods and/or services that cause resources to move away from existing firms to new ones thus allowing the growth of the new firms. Accordingly, Schumpeter calls innovation the specific tool of entrepreneurs, the means by which entrepreneurs exploit change as an opportunity for a different business or a different service. Schumpeter (1942) stressed the role of entrepreneurs as primary agents effecting creative destruction, and emphasized to the entrepreneurs the need to search purposefully for the sources of innovation, the changes and their symptoms that indicate opportunities for successful innovation; as well as their need to know and to apply the principles of successful innovation. This Schumpeterian vein of thinking has been carried forward by successive scholars and researchers (Drucker, 1985; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Shane, Covered and Westhead, 1991). On his part, Drucker (1985) held out the entrepreneur always searching for change, responding to it, and exploiting it as an opportunity, and engaging by this means in purposeful innovation.
He has shown that as long as capitalism is there, the threat of fascism is always there. The crisis in capitalism which leads to the economic misery of the masses produces fascism. Thus, the ultimate cure of fascism is to uproot capitalism itself. However, it must be prevented whenever and wherever the fascist party rises. One of the reasons for the failure to prevent the Nazi party was lack of united opposition to it.
In order to be an entrepreneur, an individual must create something new and different from the existing products/services or of transmuted value. The success of any Innovation is built on the strengths and work of the entrepreneur executing it. In terms of (Schumpeter and Clemence, 1989) an entrepreneur plays a major role in the ‘Creative destruction’ process, by constantly assimilating unused knowledge in order to set up improved production functions and forms for the production and marketing the new products. Thus for any entrepreneur to demonstrate innovation as its key strength, it must execute the concept of the idea into practical usage by infusing sufficient resources such as capital and undivided support of the institutional leadership. (Bessant and Tidd, 2007) discuss in book Innovation and entrepreneurship talk about how Entrepreneurship and innovation can’t be assumed to be all about a bright idea.
Globalisation can be visualised as one of the most prominent force influencing the economy of a country. It is viewed as a “whirlwind of relentless and disruptive change which leaves governments helpless and leaves a trail of economic, social cultural and environmental problems in its wake.” The phenomenon of globalisation has given rise to greater competition towards markets and investments. Changes that are sweeping spontaneously across the corporate world have forced businesses and nations to adapt by striving to change old economic practices and traditional behaviours. Industrial development has become a key recourse for underdeveloped economies, in which it must be seen as an essential component of their development process. The task of the industrial sector in the newly industrialising nations has further aggravated the appeal and the driving urge for industrialisation for the third world nations.