In the world according to Marx, you've got something called a mode of production. The mode of production is a fancy-dancy way of figuring out how a society puts food on the table. My society uses capitalism. Chavez's society is trying to use socialism. Marx's wet dreams were all about communism. FYI, the USSR wasn't communist. A mode of production is basically how a society uses its resources (stuff and labor) to get what it needs and wants (like munchies and the Super Bowl). Other modes of production are stuff like feudalism and tribalism. The Middle East is still a tribal structure. Anyway. Marx divvied up modes of production by identifying how people were all related to the means of production. The means of production is just a fancy-dancy term for resouces (stuff and labor). In communism, everyone has the same relationship, we all own the means of production. Marx only recognized two classes: the non-productive class aka the bourgeoisie or capitalists and the productive class aka the proletariat or workers. So, in capitalism, the capitalists own the means of production, which are administered through privately own businesses. In socialism, the workers own the means of production, which are administered through the state. There's another fun fancy-dancy term, the forces of production, which is just technology. You'd think he'd just say what he means, yanno? Except that he did, only he did it in German. The people who translated his stuff did it in this high-falutin' see-aren't-I-smart! English. Well. There's a purpose to "forces of production" that technology doesn't cover and technology means more then stuff.
Well. So, according to Marx, you've got these two groups of folks, the capitalists and the workers. Here in America, we sing My Country Tis of Thee (whatever that means), and toddle off to work. A fair day's pay for a fair day's work. And we're all happy. Go American dream! Here's the thing. Capitalists are in it for the money. The purpose of being in business is profit. Maximizing profit means increasing income while decreasing expenses. Workers are in it not for profit, but to make enough cash to have a decent life, however they individually define a decent life. That means good job, good pay, good benefits. These three goods are not conducive to decreasing expenses, particularly when labor is most expensive cost of doing business. The bad thing is that if you don't control the expenses, you go out of business and no one has a job.
It's why the thing is called conflict theory. Capitalists and workers are in conflict with each other, not because they're bad people, but because their interests conflict. That's why it's called conflict theory.
One of the most basic parts of Buddhism is ahimsa or to do no harm. It's why most buddhists are vegetarians. That's another discussion for another day. We get the starry-eyed Ghandi thing going on every once in a while. Nevermind that Ghandi was Hindu. There's a lot of confusion about Buddhism and the whole 'We Are the World' vibe. I think that, yeah, we'd be there, cheering on world peace along with everyone else. We'd be ahimsa all the way. However, we're not this new age Eastern mystic thing, either. Zen is about reality.
No, we can't all just get along. Marx was wrong about a lot of things. The biggie that comes to mind and destroys his entire conflict theory package is the "middle class." He doesn't have one in his theory. He assumes the working class is where the revolutionary action happens. However, Marx is right about a lot of things. It's why he's still here, he's still relevant, and we can't seem to get rid of him, even though it's the 21st century. Our social world is stratified and these social strata have different interests. These different interests are in conflict. It's not about "good" or "bad" people. It's about "different" people. Until these differences are resolved, there will be conflict. So, no, there's no grand "global oneness" in the Zen scheme of things. There can be, but to think there is, well, that's not Samma-Ditthi, whole or right view.
