Collier and Marx - same idea?

Two of our readings this week concerned themselves with the discussion of divisions in our civil societies. Paul Collier explored the way in which ethnicity divides us and Marx and Engels, in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” investigate class and economic separations. However, both writings end up at similar conclusions.

Marx and Engels write that the bourgeois have exploited the proletariat who does the labor for them; however, this has put the bourgeois in a dangerous position because they have essentially created a revolutionary class.

Collier demonstrates that a number of common perceptions about ethnic diversity are false. Ethnically diverse communities are not necessarily less cooperative and more war prone, nor do they generally have worse economic performance.

The way in which Collier analyzes issues of ethnic diversity is through economics, and examining the economic performance of diverse states versus homogenous ones. As an example of recent ethnic conflicts, Collier uses post-Cold War secessions, many of which have been violent. These recent examples, he argues, are the result of economic causes more often than ethnic causes. Is it not extremely telling that most of his explanations on the reasons for conflict and his conclusions on their causes are economic? Marx and Engels determined that money was the central troubling factor in their society, and it seems that Collier has concluded the same. Even with problems of ethnic diversity, the overarching problem is money. Perhaps these scholars from two different times are telling us the same thing: money is the key factor in conflict. Is it not frightening that a human creation may be the root of all our problems (excluding for the time being the argument that race is also a human creation – one cannot deny that there is an obvious physical difference that humans have put a name and stigma to)?