Marxism Essay, Research Paper

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.