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.