My Conflict with Dahrendorf.. with the little help from my friends

This is my attempt to post as sociological and intellectual of a post as possible. I guess by writing that I have already ruined the intellectual part, but nonetheless I feel this is important, significant, and urgent! Therefor there must be a post.
In Social Theory we are learning about Conflict Theory, and we focused particularly on a guy named Dahrendorf and his theory of group conflict, that focuses largely on conflict between and within groups, but also the unequal distribution of power. He believed that conflict was inherit and a basis to social life, and conflicts should be regulated rather than abolished. This is the notion that out of conflict comes social advancements and justice for groups that are otherwise marginalized.
For this I would like to take the example of the Civil Rights Movement. The conflict was created between the Blacks and Whites (I'm making this very broad, yes I know) that did not see eye to eye on treatment in society of Blacks. So MLK and the gang pretty much created conflict until the problem was addressed and laws were changed to (attempt to) resolve the problem of racial inequality. We're not there yet, but its coming along... sort of. How I see the situation was that MLK was trying, in fact, to reduce the conflict by creating agreement and overall social change in mentality. I understand Dahrendorf's perspective when he says that conflict must not be abolished, yet I also think that our of conflict comes the abolishment of conflict. Marx presented the idea of unification among the proliteriats to dismantle the bourgoiesie, and from there the people would all live unifed and in peace. So I believe that with the right type of conflict, like the civil rights activists fighting and continuing their opposition to racial inequality, the racial conflict will eventually die off. So the abolishment of conflict must neither be regulated nor abolished, because then it will give the issues that have enough momentum and meaning a chance for justice.
Second, I don't buy the whole notion that we are all inheritly different groups. I believe there was a time, long before we cared about aquiring land, power, women, money, whatever, that we eithera a) cared about our well-being as humans, regardless of appearance or b) we didn't care at all, so we left each other alone. Although the latter is more probable, I do believe there was a time in our history where we simply did not see difference in appearance and anything more than a superficial characteristic, if even that. I believe that we were made to see race and ethnicity by those who were in power and got in fights with each other. Now we've made it some sort of reality that we must both uphold and deconstruct. And we're all divided by it. So I don't think that groups, by nature, conflict with each other, but rather they've been socialized to do so.
So... all in all, Marx still wins. Its not about groups, its about those in power and taking them down. We must all unite, embrace our socialized differences, and fight the man!