FREE ESSAY ON KARL MARX AND ECONOMICS

KARL MARX AND ECONOMICS

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
ideas11 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.12England'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.