Marxism and Economic Theory


     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.          