In the widest sense, all theoretical approaches that stress the importance of any type of conflict or conflicts in society can be considered conflict theories. In the later half of the 20th century new type of conflict theory approach arose, that is wide in scope of types of conflicts that are studied and considered important, but at the same time, are less encompassing because they exclude other types of conflict approaches that only study one type of conflict in society. In this stricter sense conflict theory is different from classical Marxism, as it only considers class conflict as important, or, at least, most important, in a society. Conflict theory, in this view, also excludes theories that are mostly focused on conflicts based on a single factor, usually personal identity: race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc. Conflict theory takes into account all of these types of conflicts – class, ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality – but they put them in the wider context of all different conflicts that exist in a society.

Modern conflict theory springs up as a reaction to functionalism, which put focus on solidarity, cohesion, cooperation, and interdependence of people, organizations, and structures in society. Precursors of conflict theory are Ralf Dahrendorf and Lewis Coser, while the first true example of modern conflict theory is Randall Conllins' book Conflict Sociology (1975). He and others used the theories of Weber, Marx, Simmel, and Durkheim to construct synthetic theories of conflict. Basic theoretical presuppositions of conflict theory are: 1) conflicts between individuals and groups over resources are essential and always present in society; 2) all types of resources can be the basis of conflict, but struggle over economic resources and power are the most important; 3) conflicts usually end in long term patterns of domination and subordination; 4) dominant group in society will have most of the control over all resources. The biggest difference between conflict theory and classical Marxism is that conflict theory doesn't see class conflicts as being most important and that conflicts will always be present, despite Marxist hope that, once humanity achieves a classless society, all conflicts will disappear.

Different conflict theories can be grouped into four subsets: 1) precursors theories, 2) neo-Marxist theories, 3) neo-Weberian, and  4) historical-comparative conflict theories.

                                Precursor Conflict Theories

Ralf Dahrendorf, from the beginning of his career, studied social conflicts, classes, and relations of authority and power. In his book Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (1959, in German 1957), he concludes that the manual working class was going through the process of increased stratification. The differences in wages, prestige, and job security between unskilled and semi-skilled, on the one hand, and skilled manual workers, on the other, were constantly increasing. This stratification led to a decrease in solidarity within the working class and the emergence of different interests, as skilled workers struggle to maintain their better position. The stratification of the working class and the increase in intergenerational mobility lead to a decline in class solidarity and a reduction in class conflicts in society. He believed that the development of trade unions and negotiating and arbitration bodies between workers and employers would lead to the development of industrial democracy and the reduction of class conflicts.

In the same book, Dahrendorf argues that in modern society the main source of conflict is the  relationship between power and authority. Every society always has both a static and a dynamic component and what unites both components are the forces of integration and conflict. Both forces are equally important for every society. A dynamic component can have its source inside or outside the social system. The key assumption is that the relations of power and authority have a decisive influence on social dynamics and changes, as well as on social conflicts. Authority, for Dahrendorf, is one of the key concepts of sociology. Authority is associated with legitimate Authority, primarily with the formal position in the hierarchy itself, while power is the relationship of a particular person who occupies a position of authority with those who are subordinate to him.

Positions of authority are those that are expected and obliged to carry out forced subordination. Such positions are located within various institutions: the state, schools, companies, churches, etc. Positions of authority serve to achieve integration because they ensure compliance with and respect for social norms. However, the same positions of authority that should ensure integration can be the starting point for conflict. There are different interests within organizations, and if those in positions of authority work in the interest of their partial interests, then the conflict can arise. When different interests are manifested, an interest group can be created, and when an interest group starts fighting for its interests, then it becomes a conflict group.

Lewis Coser, in his book The Functions of Social Conflict (1956), views conflict as a struggle over values ​​and scarce resources of status, power, and wealth. Rivals can be neutralized, damaged, or eliminated from combat. The causes of conflict can be: economic, the consequence of social roles, family, etc. He wants to understand how structural factors affect the emotional motives of conflict. Conflict can be the cause of change in the whole society, and the most important consequences are social innovation and increased centralization of power. Coser, therefore, studies the functions of social conflicts and singles out several. The first function is violence as a goal in itself, when individuals, due to the inability to succeed by other means, commit violence to change something. Another function of conflict is to serve as an alarm that there are problems in society that need to be resolved. The third function is catalytic - violence can act as a motive to start solving a social problem, and it can also cause a counter-effect, causing even higher levels of violence in society. In this sense, the functions of social conflicts can be both positive and negative.

                             Neo-Marxist Conflict Theories

Erik Olin Wright introduced his neo-Marxist theory of class and class struggle in books Class, Crisis and the State (1978) and Class Structure and Income Determination (1979). He believes that three related processes took place during the development of modern capitalism: the reduction of control over the labor process by direct producers; the establishment of complex hierarchies within capitalist enterprises and bureaucracy; and the differentiation of functions previously performed by capitalists. The last process concerns the separation of three aspects of ownership: possession (control over the production process), economic ownership (control over investments and what is produced), and legal ownership. The consequence of this trend is an increase in the importance of management, but also an increase in the influence of large shareholders over small shareholders.

From the analysis of all three processes, Wright derives three dimensions in the relations of production that affect one's class position: control over the means of production; control over other people's labor force, and control over investments and resource allocation. By combining the three dimensions of control in production with the three dimensions of the legal status of production (legal ownership of production, legal status of employer, and legal status of employee), Wright constructs his class scheme with 10 classes. Wright believes that there are other contradictory locations in practice, but they are not of major importance for class analysis.

Wright places members of the political and ideological apparatus in three classes: 1) bourgeois positions - those who create politics and ideology in the highest positions in the state, churches, universities, etc; 2) contradictory locations - those who implement political decisions and spread ideology (eg street police officers and high school teachers); 3) proletarian positions - individuals who are completely excluded from the creation and implementation of politics and ideology (e.g. a cleaner in a police station).

Wright continues with a theoretical analysis of the relationship between class structure and class struggle and introduces the notion of "class capacity" - the capacity of a class to pursue its interests. He distinguishes between the structural capacities of the class, which depend on the structural development of capitalist societies, and the organizational capacities of the class, which represent the conscious organization of individuals to achieve their class interests, through, more or less, formal forms of organization (unions, labor collectives, strike committees).

In the early 1970s, Immanuel Wallerstein began studying the history of economic and political relations between colonial powers and their colonies, and the results of this research are presented in The Modern World-System, vol. I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century (1974). In this book, he presents a new scientific paradigm that he calls "world system theory". This theory combines the theoretical positions of the dependency theory developed by Andre Frank and Samir Amin and the historical approach of Fernand Braudel. From the dependency theory, Wallerstein adopted the hypothesis that it is extremely important to study the relations of unequal exchange between the countries of the center and the periphery, while from Braudel's approach, he adopted the principle that the unit of analysis should be the world economy, and that it should be studied with an interdisciplinary approach.

Wallerstein sees the world systems approach more as an epistemological perspective than as a macro theory. He rejects universalist theoretical explanations and promotes the historicity of all social sciences. Wallerstein also rejects, according to him, the erroneous opposition of nomothetic aistorism, on the one hand, and ideographic historicism, on the other. Both of these epistemological approaches need to be combined into a perspective he calls the "historical system" in order to advance science.

Wallerstein's basic theoretical starting point is that throughout history, individual societies have always been economically, but also in other ways, connected with surrounding societies, so it is necessary to study the systems of connected societies and their interactions to understand the causes and dynamics of social change. He calls all such systems of a large number of connected societies "world-systems". Wallerstein defines the "world-system" as a group of different societies united by a differentiated system of unified division of labor. Such a system must be able to meet the basic needs of most people, by production and exchange within the system itself. Societies that make up the world system do not have to be politically united, moreover, they can have very different political systems and cultures. What unites them is the unique division of labor within the system itself. Throughout history, there have been three different types of social systems with a common division of labor.

The third type of world system is the "world-economies", which consists of a large number of politically independent units that are all economically integrated through trade and division of labor. All the products necessary for the survival of the world-economy are produced within it, but since different political units of the world-economy produce different products, which is the basis of the division of labor, it is necessary to redistribute these products through trade. World economies in the past were short-lived, as they were usually disintegrated or integrated into world-empires.

The current world-economy, which has survived to this day, emerged at the end of the Middle Ages in Europe. At that time, a complex trade network of agricultural products was created, and the most important role in that trade was played by trade cities, among them those in the Netherlands, and the Hanseatic League were especially important. The world-economy, which existed in Europe at that time, was surrounded by world empires, which gradually, as they lost power, became integrated into the world-economy. The centers of development of the world-economy in the modern era were England, the Netherlands, and France. The development that took place in these countries created the basis for capitalist industrialization. By the end of the nineteenth century, this world economy, through colonialism and imperialism, had spread to the entire planet, and the engine of its expansion was the constant need for the accumulation of capital.

The world-economy is characterized by three different sectors, which Wallerstein calls the periphery, the semi-periphery, and the center. Each of these sectors contains several different states. The center consists of the most technologically developed and richest countries, which appropriate the greatest benefit from the way the whole system is organized. The countries of the center shape the world system itself and the patterns of investment and trade. There is always a struggle between the states of the center for power and the accumulation of capital. The states and colonies located on the periphery are exploited, through trade relations, by the countries of the center, and this exchange produces the subordination of the states of the periphery.

Both development and underdevelopment are interdependent processes because the development of the countries of the center necessarily depends on the underdevelopment of the countries on the periphery. The states of the semi-periphery, by their characteristics and position, are located between the center and the periphery and may include former countries of the center, whose position has declined or countries originating from the periphery, but whose position has improved, so they moved to the semi-periphery. While the countries of the center often advocate a free world market, the countries of the semi-periphery prefer the tactics of protectionism. Belonging to a sector affects many characteristics of a certain state or territorial unit: average life expectancy, living standard, position and control over the labor force, type of products intended for foreign trade, type of political regime, etc. The position of the labor force and the control over it are directly related to the type of production intended for foreign trade. The periphery produces and trades mainly with raw materials, and the labor force is poorly paid and subject to great control (whether the labor force has a formal-legal position of slaves, serfs, or free workers, it does not change its essentially extremely bad position of workers in the periphery), while the countries of the center produce and export finished products, and the wages of the labor force are higher, while the control over it is less strict.

The growth of capitalism depends on the potential to constantly increase the accumulation of capital, and such accumulation necessarily depends on the possibility of incorporating new territories into the world-system. It is this fact that led to the creation of the world-economy. Capitalism also tends to subjugate the policies of all states to its interests, so most capitalist profits come through quasi-monopolies guaranteed by states. The world-economy is dynamic, and long-term economic cycles (of which the Kondratieff's cycle is the most important), geopolitical relations, as well as internal economic dynamics, are the most important factors influencing the decline or progress of a country from one sector to another.

The dynamics of the world system are also influenced by the resistance of the periphery and semi-periphery, anti-systemic movements (anti-colonial, socialist, for minority rights, etc.), class relations, but also race and gender relations. The modern world-system possesses what Wallerstein calls "geoculture," a value system that covers the entire planet. The main feature of this geoculture is "centrist liberalism" which emphasizes the values ​​of universalism, equality, and meritocracy. On the other hand, the very structure of the system promotes particularism. Conflicts between states and ethnic conflicts within states promote nationalism, division into center and periphery encourages racial divisions, while the economic survival of poor households around the world depends on the sexist exploitation of unpaid women's labor.

                              Neo-Weberian Conflict Theory

Randall Collins was the first to introduce neo-Weberian conflict theory in his book Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science (1972). In this book, Collins advocates for the development of generalized explanatory theories. By explanatory theories, he means theories that give deterministic predictions that can be confirmed or refuted. According to Collins, general theories would be those that can be applied to all areas of sociology. Collins presents one such theory, based on the theories of Durkheim and Goffman. From Durkheim, he takes over the ritual theory of social solidarity, as well as the theory of the everyday life of individuals. Starting from Goffman's theoretical concept of "encounter", Collins concludes that situations are the ones that should be the basic unit of sociological analysis of micro-interactions.

He believes that in different situations, in which people enter into direct personal contacts and go through the same emotional states together, "interaction rituals" are created. These interaction rituals create a sense of belonging to a group, and that leads to individual experiences that achieves a higher level of "emotional energy." Higher levels of emotional energy are manifested in a sense of satisfaction and trust in the members of the group. The more intense the interaction rituals, and the stronger the shared emotional connection between the participants, the more emotional energy an individual will feel. The emotional energy that an individual experiences during an interaction ritual is instilled in the individual's mind on a subconscious level in the form of symbols. This symbol acquires the characteristics of the sacred, or sacral, and thus becomes a symbol that represents the whole group. Interaction rituals happen constantly during everyday life, in different situations. People tend to participate in interactional rituals that provide them with higher levels of emotional energy while trying to avoid those in which they lose emotional energy. In order for an individual to receive emotional energy from an interaction ritual, that person must possess knowledge of shared symbols. However, these symbols must be experienced in person to provoke an emotional reaction. Collins calls the entire repertoire of symbols "cultural capital".

Between the micro level at which the interaction rituals take place and the macro structure, there are the mediating middle levels that are made of networks. The main networks are social stratification and organizations. When interactional rituals occur regularly, then they form chains of interactional rituals. In organizations, chains of interaction rituals are structured around dimensions of power and status. In rituals of power, those who have more power, achieve greater emotional energy, and therefore identify more with the symbols of the organization, compared to those who do not have power. A similar thing happens within the chains of status interaction rituals, where similar effects occur. Within each organization, different coalitions are formed that fight for power and status, and individuals are constantly trying to improve their position within the coalition and the entire organization through interactional rituals. Rituals of power and status are what make the differences in power and status, within organizations, stable and lasting. The essence is that individuals can change their own position, but that differences in power and status remain constant at the level of the entire organization. Macro-structural changes occur when there is a gradual concentration of change in three types of micro-resources: the introduction of new means of communication and new activities in which symbols are created; the introduction of new "technologies" of emotion production; and the creation of new particular cultures due to dramatic, often conflicting events.

In the article "Situational Stratification: A Micro-Macro Theory of Inequality" (2000), Collins examines how interactive rituals of power and status create stratification layers. Although Collins accepts the fact that there are growing economic differences in the United States, he believes that this does not reflect an increase in hierarchical differences. Given the epistemological and methodological primacy of situations and rituals, in relation to the study of aggregate data in the form of statistics on the distribution of wealth, Collins claims that: "Nothing has reality unless it is manifested in a situation somewhere" He believes that differences in wealth are not reflected in everyday situations. Different classes earn, invest, and spend their money within their own situations and rituals. Status groups are losing their significance because everyday life has become less formalized, so the symbols and rituals that form the basis of status groups are becoming less and less recognizable. Power relations are not projected on an everyday level, because in meetings of representatives of different classes, a subordinate position (deference) is formally expressed less and less.

In Weberian Social Theory (1986) Collins turns to geopolitics and develops a theory that aims to explain the expansions and collapses of empires. Empires, initially, have advantages in economic resources, military technology, and geography, and that allows them to expand through military conquest, but soon those advantages are lost, due to increased spending of resources on controlling bigger territory, creating new enemies, while the technological advantage is lost because technology is being copied by neighbors and other enemies.  

 John Rex, in the book Key Problems in Sociological Theory (1961), presents the Weberian theory of action to explain the importance of social conflicts in modern society. He believed that social conflicts are not always bad, and sometimes they can also be very important because they help to eliminate structural inequalities. Unlike Marxists, he believed that in modern society there are several structural inequalities, other than class inequalities, which can be equally negative. Racial inequalities are one of the most significant inequalities, and Rex has devoted several studies to this topic. Rex believes that the characteristic of racism is that it is always a value system that explains the differences between ethnic groups in a deterministic way and presents those differences as positive or negative. One of his most significant studies on racism is the book Race, Community and Conflict (1967), which he co-authored with Robert Moore. In this book, the authors explore how the process of rising real estate prices has influenced the creation of "housing classes". Housing classes denote a situation in which racial and ethnic minorities live in isolated urban areas where there are inadequate housing conditions. Such housing isolation only increases racial discrimination and the poor economic situation of ethnic and racial minorities.

In his early works, Jonathan Turner studied social stratification, ethnic relations, and conflict. As a result of this research, the book Societal Stratification: A Theoretical Analysis (1984) was written, in which the author singles out several dimensions of stratification that exist in societies. In addition to the standard dimensions of power, wealth, and reputation (status), Turner singled out the dimension of subpopulation - the formation of homogeneous subpopulations that occupy different hierarchical positions in society. For each of these dimensions, he formulated mathematical laws.

                       Historical-Comparative Conflict Theories

Barrington Jr. Moore conducted a major socio-historical study, which is presented in the book Social Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship (1966). He explored how historical and social conditions, and above all, the dominant type of economy and class system and class relations, in six countries (Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, China, and India) influenced the path to democracy or dictatorship, which each of these countries took in the twentieth century. Although Moore accepted some Marxist categories and the general view of deterministic relations between economics and society, he did not accept Marx's universal patterns of historical periods. Moore believed that achieving democracy in some countries mostly depends on the readiness of the bourgeoisie and landowners to accept the commercialization of agriculture. The commercialization of agriculture leads to the formation of an alliance between the bourgeoisie and the landowners, which leads to the collapse of the traditional peasant-agricultural community. If there is no collapse of peasant communities, then there are peasant-agricultural revolutions, such as those in Russia and China. As peasants tend to support undemocratic ideologues, such leaders come to power after revolutions and establish dictatorships. Japan, where the commercialization of agriculture was not carried out, managed to avoid the peasant revolution by including peasant communities in the wider economic and social order.

In the book From Mobilization to Revolution (1978), Charles Tilly studies the process of formation and transformation of collective action and creates a theoretical and methodological model for studying social movements and social change. He named this approach “Resource Mobilization Theory”. He believes that it is necessary to study the specific context of each collective action so that it can be understood. There are external and internal conditions that influence the success of revolutionary action. External factors are: multiple group actors that contend with state power, large or elite segments of the population that are willing to support those who contend with power, and the state's inability and/or unwillingness to use repressive measures. Successful revolutionary outcome decrease when the state can mobilize coercive resources, when states make strategic concessions to potential contenders, and when the state can fiscally afford to employ coercive measures and make key concessions.

The most important aspects of the internal context are the existence of common interests of different actors so that they can be mobilized into a common front. The movements changed their demands over time, while they previously fought against certain measures or policies, later became proactive and began to emphasize completely new demands. The main factors influencing the operation of social movements are interests, organization, and opportunities. Interests affect the organization of the movement, and both of these factors then affect the mobilization of resources for collective action. He introduced the notion of the "action repertoire of the movement", which refers to the strategic re-examination of the relationship between gains and losses that occurs in conflict with the authorities. Tilly believes that collective action is rational and goal-oriented, rather than random and chaotic, so collective actors always question whether their activity will lead to greater benefit or harm to their interests. This collective rationality is not based on individual rationality or individual aspirations but arises from the social relations that rebellious individuals enter into.

In the book As Sociology Meets History (1981), Tilly concludes that collective action is always connected with the established ways in which people, in a particular society and age, express protest, which further affects the form and content of collective action. In the book The Contentious French (1986), he divides the types of collective protests in France by historical age. In the period from 1650 to 1850, the protests were local. The development of capitalism, urbanization, the proletarianization of labor, the increase of police and army, the development of official statistics, and the emergence of political parties and interest groups are the factors that led to collective protests becoming increasingly national and autonomous after 1850. The development of modern political and economic institutions and actors has led to an increase in the possibilities for the national organization of protests, but they have also led to the emergence of completely new collective interests.

Tilly studies revolutions in the book European Revolutions: 1492–1992 (1993) and concludes that his theory of the relationship of interests, organization, and possibilities for the emergence and development of collective action applies to European revolutions, as well as explaining their course and their success and consequences. In Roads from Past to Future (1997), he emphasizes the importance of successful revolutions for the creation of modern states and modern capitalism. The author shifts the focus of his study from institutional and other factors that influence the emergence and development of collective action, to the importance of successful collective action for the emergence of completely new institutional frameworks.

In Contention and Democracy in Europe: 1650-2000 (2004), Tilly studies the processes of democratization and the disintegration of democracy in Europe. Democratization was often the result of struggles, where collective actors, who fought those in power, did not have a direct desire to achieve democratic progress, but democratization was an unintended product of collective action. The non-linear course of the democratization process is influenced by many factors: the dynamics of relations at the local level, slow changes in the political sphere, and the complicated intertwining of social and political relations. The effects of internal disintegration, external conquests, economic crises, and similar processes led to a decline in trust in the government, which opened space for the expression of collective dissatisfaction.

Michael Mann became very popular in sociological circles thanks to the book The Sources of Social Power (1986). Over the next thirty years, he wrote three more volumes of this book (1993, 2012a, 2012b). Each of the four volumes of The Sources of Social Power deals with a different historical period. There is a significant theoretical difference between Mann's approach in relation to other sociological directions, and this difference is reflected in the fact that Mann believes that the concept of "societies" as isolated and unitary entities is wrong because there are always relations and processes (cultural, political and economic) that connect different territories and societies. Thus he argues that “Societies are constituted of multiple overlapping and intersecting sociospatial networks of power” (Man, 1986).

The concept of power is most important for Mann's theoretical approach, where he sees power as the ability to achieve goals through mastery of the environment. He agrees with Parsons that power is a ''generalized means" for achieving one's goals. He believes that it is necessary to study how people enter into social ties and power relations. Mann distinguishes two main types of expression of power: “distributive power” - the ability to persuade other people to act in achieving the goals of those who have power; “collective power” - the ability of one group to control another group. He introduces two more pairs of ideal types by which the types of power are distinguished. The first pair refers to the way power is used, so there is “extensive power” - control over a large population and a large territory and “intensive power” - creating a strong organization and achieving great mobilization and support of subordinates. The second pair refers to the existence of authoritative and diffuse power, where “authoritative power” is reflected in giving direct commands that must be respected, while “diffused power” is exercised in indirect ways.

The first volume, which was and remains the most influential, gives a history of power from prehistory until 1760 AD. In this book, Mann examines how the four basic sources of power in society - ideological, economic, military, and political - have evolved and changed throughout history, from the Neolithic to the Industrial Revolution. Mann believes that each of these sources of power can be independent, so he studies why some sources of power became dominant at certain moments, that is, for example, why was an ideological source of power dominant in the period of the emergence of the world religions. He believes that the ruling group is never able to fully control all power. As an example, he cites the demise of feudalism, which occurred due to the increase in the military, ideological, and economic power of the citizenry in the fourteenth century. The author offers a theoretical explanation of the emergence of the state and social stratification, as well as the role that classes and class struggles have played in history. Mann introduces the key concept of organizational “caging”. This term means the tendency of those who are ruled over to obey more often than to rebel. Lack of organizational resources leads to collective action becoming the only effective resistance of subordinates. The collective organization of subordinate strata (classes) may be able to take advantage of tensions and divisions among the ruling strata.

The second volume is dedicated to the emergence of modern classes and nation-states, from the beginning of the industrial revolution to the outbreak of the First World War. Mann believes that the emergence of true nation-states comes only with the industrial revolution, because, although "proto-nationalism" existed before, it was not separated from the dynastic and religious principles of political legitimacy. At the end of the eighteenth century, centralized states arose and political opposition was created in them, and both of these forces influenced the creation of nationalist rhetoric and the idea of ​​the sovereignty of the "people". With the emergence of nation-states comes the creation of new types of political participation, but also the creation of a unified national culture. The third volume of the book studies colonial empires and revolutions in the period from the end of the nineteenth century until the Second World War, while the fourth volume deals with the process of globalization after the Second World War.

Theda Skocpol is best known for her comparative and historical study of states and revolutions. In the book States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (1979), Skocpol examines how the activities of the state, as an independent actor, influenced the revolutions in France (1788), China (1911), and Russia (1917). Skocpol is very critical of earlier Marxist theories of revolutions, because they overemphasized the importance of class conflict, and neglected the activities and role of the state in revolutions. All three states she studied, before the outbreak of the revolutions, were absolute monarchies with administrative and military hierarchies that maintained centralized control. All three states were agrarian states with large peasant populations, were economically stagnant and had fiscal problems, suffered external military threats or defeats, and had inadequate administration and centralized management. The large peasant population, which was very poor in all three states and was very dissatisfied and such a situation, really was a source of class conflict, as earlier Marxists stated. Economic stagnation only increased the dissatisfaction of the peasant population. External military threats and defeats caused great negative social and economic consequences and deepened the crisis. Although the state, led by an absolutist monarch, exercised its power over the population in a centralized and repressive manner, its real control over society was weak. The inability of the state and its administration to reform, in line with unfavorable external and internal circumstances, inevitably led to the success of the revolutions in all three states. In her analysis, Skocpol doesn’t pay attention to the activities of concrete individual actors, when she studies the success of revolutions. She even diminishes the importance of class conflict and peasant dissatisfaction, because these factors always exist in every agrarian state, it is only a question of how each state organizes its actions, in order to control those conflicts and dissatisfaction.

Skocpol continued to develop her theory of the autonomous action of the state in the book Bringing the State Back In (1985). She believes that states always have significant autonomy and the ability to achieve their own political goals, which may be different from the interests and goals of individual classes or society as a whole. The goal of every state is to increase its own power and influence. They achieve this by increasing the power and sphere of influence of the state administration and other state institutions. To achieve this, states must establish stable budget revenues through taxes and other revenue streams. States often increase their own power by recruiting the most capable and educated individuals as their cadres. A large and strong army is also a source of state power. Skocpol believes that the state structure can significantly influence the ability of different classes, even the most economically powerful ones, to pursue their own interests. Not all states have the same power to act autonomously, and that power depends on several factors: the military and economic power of the state; the level of sovereign control over its own territory; the existence of regular sources of high budget revenues; the level of external debt (lower the debt is, more power state has).

Authors: Collins, Randall; Lewis, Coser; Dahrendorf, Ralf; Mann, Michael; Moore, Barrington Jr.; Rex, John; Skocpol, Theda; Tilly, Charls; Turner, H. Jonathan; Wallerstein, Immanuel; Wright, Erik Olin. Goldstone, Jack; Paige, Jeffrey.

Books:

Collins. Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science (1972);

     -     The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification (1979);

     -     Weberian Sociological Theory (1986);

Coser. The Functions of Social Conflict (1956);

Dahrendorf. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (1959, in German 1957);

Goldstone, Jack. Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World (1991);

Mann. The Sources of Social Power, 4 vols. (1986-2012).

Moore. Social Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship (1966);  

Paige, Jeffrey. Agrarian Revolution: Social Movements and Export Agriculture in the Underdeveloped World (1975);

Skocpol. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (1979);

     -     Social Revolutions in the Modern World (1994);

 Tilly. From Mobilization to Revolution (1978);

     -     As Sociology Meets History (1981);

     -     The Contentious French (1986);

     -     Coercion, Capital, and European States: A.D. 990–1990 (1990);

     -     European Revolutions: 1492–1992 (1993);

     -     Popular Contention in Great Britain: 1758–1834 (1995);

     -     From Contention to Democracy (1998);

     -     Contention and Democracy in Europe: 1650–2000 (2004a);

Turner, J. “A Strategy for Reformulating the Dialectical and Functional Theories of Conflict.” Social Forces (1975);

     -     Societal Stratification: A Theoretical Analysis (1984);

Wallerstein. The Modern World System, 4 vols. (1974-2011);

Wright. Class, Crisis, and the State (1978);

     -     Class Structure and Income Determination (1979);

     -     Classes (1985);

     -     Class Counts: Comparative Studies in Class Analysis (1997).