I.    Introduction
II.  Marxism    
        A. Definition & Explanation
        B. Example: Economic Evolution          
III.  Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT)
        A. Definition & Explanation
        B. Example: The Parliament versus the Crown                     
        
IV.  Institutional Theory
        A. Definition & Explanation
        B. Example: Social Change
V.   Conclusion         


        Human relationships  have always been dynamic.  Change and 
adaptability have gone hand in hand with the passage of time for human 
society.   Systems have been developed to regulate, direct and control 
the  resources of this society.  The systems are referred to as 
governments and the resources as the populace or inhabitants and forces 
of production. A government must be dynamic in its nature reflecting the 
change in society.   At times these systems have resisted the necessity 
to adapt with its components (Society) creating a deficit between the 
system and those it regulates.  As the deficits develop, they cause 
instability, and could lead to revolution.1
        Theories have been developed to explain the systemic phenomenon 
called revolution.  This paper will discuss three modern theories and 
apply them to the English revolution of 1640.  The first theory, 
developed by Carl Marx (Marxism), will address the economic evolution in 
English society.  This theory will emphasize and explain how the shift  
from a feudal/mercantile system to capitalism affected English society. 
 The second, called the Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT) developed by 
Charles Tilly, will explain how the English organizations (the Crown and 
the Parliament) effectively obtained, amassed and managed resources.  
Samuel Huntington's, "Institutional Theory",  will argue that the 
existing government at that time was unable to incorporate the demands 
and personnel  that the socio-economic changes created.
        Marxism was formulated in the 19th century.  Carl Marx and his 
associate Frederick Engels observed the socio-economic changes that were 
transpiring in Britain.  England was the dominant world power and had 
the largest industrialized economy during the 1800's.  The development 
of the factory and the institution of the assembly line created a large 
demand for workers.  This demand was satiated by migrating peasant from 
the rural areas in England and Ireland to developing urban centers.  As 
these urban centers or cities evolved using industry as the economic 
backbone for the population, a large number of factory workers were 
accumulated  to operate the machinery in horrid conditions.  These 
workers, which would be termed as the peasantry under a feudal system, 
were now the working class or proletariat.  They entered cities with 
hopes of bettering their lives and survival.  Though revolution never 
took place in England during this period, it allowed Marx to study 
industrialization, urbanization and imperialism. 
        The theory of Marxism has three basic concepts: historic 
materialism, forces of production and relations of production.  Historic 
materialism is defined as a society's past performance and present 
capabilities of satisfying the basic  means of life.  Humankind's basic 
needs of eating, drinking and shelter need to be met properly.  The 
forces of production (technology, capital, the infrastructure of 
society, etc.) are important for the simple fact of who ever controls 
them controls the society.  The last aspect of Marxism, the relations of 
production, deals directly with the relationships between classes of 
people (the aristocracy, the middle-class and the working class).2  
        Marxism includes a predictive analysis of socio-economic 
structures.  Using history, logic and the dynamic nature of humankind as 
guidelines, Carl Marx attempts to map out a sequence of events which 
will eventually lead to utopia (anarchy).  In his work, Das Capital, 
Marx details the six steps.  These steps are primitive socialism, 
feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism and then anarchy. 
        The evolution of the English economic system during the 16th and 
17th centuries points to a shift from feudalism to capitalism.  This 
shift is exemplified by the enclosures.  The landlords began to fence 
their property in the common land areas.  The "commons" were large plots 
of grazing and farmable lands that were used by both farmers and 
artisans.  When the land-owners and manorial  lords began to partition 
these lands the concept of private ownership of property was introduced 
to the socio-economic system.3
        During the time period of the 16th and 17th centuries the 
crown's economic base began a gradual decline.  This economic shrinkage 
came to a spearhead during the reign of Charles I.  The monarchy favored 
a monopoly market system over a competitive one.  The purpose for this 
position was for taxation and control of the profits.  As the artisan 
and merchant populations increased, the policy of the crown began 
conflicting with economic growth.  This created instability in three 
areas. First, the English monarchy needed money to support its army 
which insures social compliance.  The second area of contention was the 
restraints and interference the Crown initiated on the rising 
middle-class.  Thirdly, the rise of the bourgeoisie created competition 
for the state sanctioned monopolies, reducing its profit.
        Howard Erskine-Hill refutes Marxism.  He states that neither . . 
.
         "the 'rise of the gentry' . . . ideas concerning resistance to 
rulers . . . nor even   the narrowing financial base of the Tudor and 
Stuart monarchy . . .determined the     outbreak of the Civil War . . . 
They are circumstances . . . contributing to an outcome         which 
was not inevitable."4 
         Jack A. Goldstone, in his work Revolutions, argues that once 
historical data is carefully examined Marxism falls short.  The Marxist 
reasons for the revolution are factors, but its scope of analysis is to 
narrow.
        ". . .the neo-Marxist view. . . with its focus on elite politics 
and the failings of     Charles I run into difficulties when confronted 
with evidence."5 
An example of this "evidence" that Goldstone refers to, are the 
enclosures.  The land owners had support from the farmers who resided on 
the land.  The parties that were affected by enclosure movement were the 
artisans and merchants.  These merchant and artisan, or rather Marxism 
rising bouroeisie, were the unfortunate targets of this policy.  The 
rising English Bourgeoisie used the land to satisfy there needs for 
resources (i.e. wood for fire and craftsmanship).  Thus, a new theory 
must be introduced to explain the factors leading to and the Revolution 
itself.   
        Charles Tilly, in his work, Political Conflict Theory, introduce 
the theory of "Resource Mobilization"(RMT).  The two aspects of RMT are 
government  and those who contend with the government for power.  Power 
is defined as  control of the resources.  The resources are capital, 
means of production and personnel. 6 
        There are three characteristics to the RMT7 that help further 
explain the revolution.  First, two or more organizations (government 
included) must claim the right to rule and control government.  The 
conflict between the Crown and the Parliament during the 1640's meet 
this criteria.  King Charles I during his rule attempted to close the 
rift between Catholics and Protestants.  This policy was disturbing to 
the English populace.  However, the brunt of this new policy was felt in 
Scotland and perceived was a direct assault on their religious 
organizations.  The Scots rebelled and amassed a  army to invade England 
an emancipate themselves from Charles I's authority.   The King needed 
to acquire funds to raise an army so he called Parliament into session. 
 After 6 years of silence, Parliament was aggressive against the crown. 
 Instead of strong support for the King, they came with a list of 
grievances which needed to be addressed.8  It is this aggression which 
characterizes an organization contending for power in  the government.  
        The second characteristic, is the commitment of a significant 
amount of the population to each organization.  In January 1642, the 
King  attempted to arrest five MP's (Members of Parliament).  Having 
failed, the King traveled north to an important port which was also a 
military stronghold, as well.  Parliament denied him access.  This was a 
definite sign of the waning power of the King.   Charles I traveled to 
Nottingham to raise his standard.  People began to rally behind the 
King.  Parliament severely underestimated the influence of the Charles I 
and the idea of the monarchy.  A significant amount of people rallied 
behind the King and the Civil War soon followed9.
        The third, and the most applicable, is the incapacity of and/or 
the unwillingness of the government to suppress the challenges for 
power.  The King was desirous to put down the Scots, and eventually 
Parliament, after it was called into session (long Parliament).  He was 
incapable in raising an army earlier without Parliament's appropriation 
of the necessary funds to pay an army.10  Therefore, the opponents of 
the Crown were given space to develop and acquire  resources.
        Resource Mobilization Theory  focuses on the leadership of both 
the revolutionary organization and the government in power.  The three 
above stated characteristics of England in the 1640's, only emphasizes 
the short term factors for the revolution  The fact that Parliament is 
actually part of the government provides a complication in the 
application of RMT.  However, Parliament was struggling against the King 
 to acquire more control over resources.   The King showed himself as a 
bungling statesman in dealing with parliaments demands and grab for 
power.  This is a classic example that shows what happens when "carrot 
ideas"11 are implemented without discretion and supervision.  It could 
be argued that Charles I lack of sensitivity to the people was the cause 
for this lack of discretion.
        Even with the application of two theories, a satisfactory 
explanation of both the factors leading to the uprising and the 
revolution itself are lacking.  A third theory must be brought to this 
case study.  Samuel Huntington's, "Institutional theory", argues that 
there are inherent tensions between political and economic developments. 
 If there are large economic changes in society then there must be  
political change to guide the modifications which are taking place, as 
well as, incorporating  new social developments.12
        England's Crown during the 17th century was lacking in ability 
to be dynamic.  Trade and production began to increase so did the 
population.  This increase created a middle-class in England.  The 
middle-class consisted of artisans, merchants, land owners and landlords 
(these classifications are not all inclusive).  Competition between the 
middle-class and state encouraged monopolies became evident during this 
time.  There was a definite power shift away from property to the 
people. 13 
        Another long term factor lies within the King's policy toward 
the Catholics.  This relaxing of tensions between the Protestants and 
Catholics was not viewed as favorable by the rising gentry 
(Middle-class).  A form of Protestantism referred to as Puritanism was 
the main belief system of the gentry.  This was an extremely 
conservative sect of protestantism, religious toleration was not 
acceptable to them14.  This was another social development which Charles 
I "over-looked".
        Institutionalization was never a reality in British politics 
during this period in history.  The organizations that existed in the 
English monarchy during the early 1600's were unable to promote value 
and stability.  The system became rigid and unadapting to the demands 
for change made by new socio-economic factors.  The constant attempts by 
both the Crown and the Parliament to subordinate one another removed 
their ability to reach a compromise.
        Thus, there is not one theory that can be used to satisfy all of 
the causal factors, institutional developments and socio-economic 
changes of the English revolution of 1640.  Marxism addressed the 
changes the English economy made creating capitalist markets and free 
trade.  It maps out the general factors which helped lead to capture and 
execution of the King of England, Charles I.    Resource Mobilization 
Theory argued in more specific terms, defining that the organization 
which controls the resources has the power.  It clarifies the power 
struggle between the Crown and the Parliament.   Short term factors, 
present before and during the revolution, were emphasized by RMT.  The 
last theory presented by this paper was Institutional Theory.  It 
explained, in long term factors, the causes leading to the revolution by 
discussing the rise of the gentry, economics and religious intolerance. 
         There is no single theory to explain every relevant factor 
present in  revolution.  However, the application of a select number or 
combination of theoretical approaches, helps to establish a proper 
framework for analysis of revolutions.  Despite all of the ground 
breaking research and theorizing being done on revolution, it still 
remains a phenomenon and can not be predicted.