HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3/HaCKeRz_KrOnIcKLeZ.iso/anarchy/essays/schoolsucks/marx.txt

Text File | 1996-04-27 | 14KB | 211 lines

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.