The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx in Political Science - Essay Example

Revolutions ‘Happen’ Or ‘Made’ Since the advent of mankind, revolutions are taking place in the society. According to Hegelian, a revolution can be explained as an irresistible idea of instant change that makes its way in the society. There are many theories about the causes of revolutions and either the revolutions just happen or are made. Many theorists and experts have presented their theories about the dynamics of revolution. This paper will analyze different theories from the historical perspective and try to find out that what the actual causes of a revolution are. The most common theory about revolution that is supported and advocated by many experts in the field of political science and social studies, also known as theory of cognitive psychology and frustration-aggression theory, indicates that revolutions are not made by certain conspiracy theorists or it is not just game of throne rather they have some pre defined causes (Fiske, 2010). A revolution is known to be a change that is a metamorphosis for the outbreak of the whole political, social and economic system of a certain area. The whole setup is not just crashed because of some unknown reason of just by a group of people who are seeking their vested interest rather there is some lack and seepage in the system which in turn give rise to the revolution. The primary advocates of this theory include Aristotle. He says that causes of every revolution lies in mass spread inequalities, rejection of the working class by elite class of the society and oppressive behavior of the rich. The rejectionist behavior that is faced by majority of the masses cause them to set their foot out for a change that will bring them eventually some honor, pride, power and money. Abuse of standards of legal frameworks and misuse of power by the privileged class is also the main causes of revolution. These empowering behaviors give rise to negative reactions in the society and people want to change the setup that is exploiting them without giving them their basic needs of daily life. Wealth, majority and merits are the main motivations for the people who go out for the revolution and chant for their tights. If the internal setup is working right, there will be no external force that will try to oscillate the running system because the majority is happy with the system and any attempt from outside to throw away the current regime will not be entertained by the environment or the people. According to this theory, the revolutions is triggered by the events caused by the running class and then these events can be manipulated by other parties who have their own interests in the coming revolution but this does not mean that revolutions are made up by some powers initially. The idea is that each revolution is started internally on some causes that are very much anticipated in the books of revolution. Aristotle said that under corrupt regimes, people are tired to rule over by fear and brutal behaviors. As a result of this the ambitious people get their emotions beefed up and they set out some movements to change the tyrant and oppressive ruling class. This is the stage when other powers can show interest but the starting of the revolutions has already taken place long ago. Karl Marx was in support of the same theory as he said potential working class and lower middle class is often offended by the upper class or the rich class because they regard themselves as some kind of privileged people than others . They think that means of the production in society is earned by them and this gives them every right to harm or humiliate the lower classes and they can also hurt their feelings because they are gentiles in their view. As a result, the consequences are in the form of revolution and the working class uses their numerical edge and power of numbers against the ruling class because the suffered class has always been in majority and exploitative classes are always in minority. When there is an open battle between minority and majority, the end result goes in favor of majority and revolution is surfaced bringing a mass change (Callinicos, 2011). The tyrant regimes always become victims of revolution some day later or sooner because the regimes are bound to change with the passage of time according to principals of society and evolution. Internal entourage or external pressures can weaken them up and later on they fall apart which results in a revolution. Espionages, spying, killing, mass murders and apparent rewards to the buttering parties are only temporary means to linger on the time period of revolutions but not a legal or permanent way. Taxations and illegal money making are the main causes of economic bankruptcy of a regime and it lower working class. The working class is the backbone of any country’s economy when this class will show rebellion; the system will eventually fall apart. The French Revolution is the classic example of this theory. After the exigent and despotic regime in France touched the heights of ignorant behaviors and ruined the economy, when the poor didn’t have dry bread to eat and when they were crushed under the illegal taxes and the queens and princes were enjoying in their castles, the working class started a rebellion with a slogan of liberty, equality and fraternity. So much bloodshed took place that it is reported in history that the working class men used to check the hands of people and if they found them to be soft they used to chop off his head as he was imagined to be of the privileged class. The French revolution also had the same causes as proposed in Aristotelian theory of revolution. Similarly in 1917, the autocratic rulers of Russia named as Czars were at their peak of oppression and treachery. As a result of their dictatorship and oppression, there was a massive rebellion against them, the army was ordered to shoot the rebellions and everyone who is supporting them in any form but the army men refused to do so as they were also from the suffering class. As a result, the poor people and peasants made an alliance with some brigades of the army and the kind had to abrogate the throne and flee from Russia. As a result Lenin came in power and there was a communist revolution as a result and a government was formed that serve the poor also. Similarly, the great charter which also formed the basis of English revolution was a result of the rebellion and mass pressure politics that erupted out as a result of great oppression by the king against the clergy and general public. The king had to sign of a treaty that eventually proved to be his grave mistake because he had to give away his throne after some time. The basis of this treaty was also some causes that enraged the masses against the king and the current system which was full of oppression. (Johnston, 1917) There is another group of theorist normally classified as under third generation theorists who include Charles Tilly, Peter Ammann, Stinchcombe and Samuel P. Huntington. They argued that revolutions are generally the result of power struggle and the general opinion making processes are manipulated by the rivals of the ruling class in order to snatch the privilege and honor. The system is shaken to the core by properly crafting a rebellion which in turn serves their vested interests. This theory is strong attorney and expounder that revolutions are made. This theory was found to be in accordance with some famous political theories like pluralist theory and interest group conflict theory (Goldstone, 1980). According to these theories, to every regime, there is always a rivalry that is acting in parallel. From the time of coming into power, the ruling class is constantly countered by the rival parties commonly known as opposition parties in modern political science. From elite pluralism to neo pluralism, every ruling class has some powers and honors that are bound to go into other hands at some time but this time line is made short by the efforts of other parties. Interest group conflict theory also supported this idea. Charles Tilly said that a “campaign” that eventually results in a evolution is always started by the party whose desire is to get the power. The revolution is incited and made by making public opinion towards a certain direction so that the number of rebellions may increase. The masses are forced to believe that this revolution is in their favor and it will mend the life style of the poor and bring peace, harmony and equality in the society whereas the reality is against this. Every revolution comes with initial good but it ends with bad consequences for the poor because the intentions of the ruling class were bad. The examples for this theory are the current change of regime or somewhat “revolution” in Libya. Qaddafi was ruling this main part of Africa for more than three decades. He brings much good to the society and made up economic growth but there were some rivals in Libya from start. This was exploited by America and her allies and the world say that how NATO helped the rebels and trained them in Ben Ghazi, people were viewing this as a strong rebellion and they were happy upon this but the system remained same and the new regime also proved to be the puppet of the west. There was no social, political and economic change in Libya on the contrary the oil was exported to America and Italy on very cheap prices. Gaddafi was charging much more money than the current regime and there were many conditions put by him. So, the game of power came into play and the theory proposed by third generations’ experts was proved to be true. Similar things were happening in Tunisia, Yemen and many areas of Middle East (Friedman, 2006). The Aristotelian theory has seems like more strong than the other theories which emerged in the third generation. The revolutions are made up not in the literary sense. There is nothing out of scratch that takes down a system. There is always some reactionary spark that takes place as a result of some wrong doings from the upper or rich class of the running system. The third generation theorists cannot deny this factor. For example in Tunisia, the revolution was hijacked by the western counties but they were not the sole responsible nations and power for this. If we track back the events that took place in Tunisia, the police did some oppression in a market and destroyed a shop of student who has been searching for a respectable job to earn his bread. Not having success in doing so, he finally managed to get a minor shop of vegetables in the market but this was uprooted by the police forces. This was the triggering event which became the baseline for a rebellion and then the western power came into play. So the theories of Aristotle, Plato, Karl Marx and many other first generation gurus of political scientist are proving themselves right in one way or other. The most famous revolutions that took place in the world for example the French revolution, Russian revolution, American revolution, Haitian revolution, Chinese revolution, modern revolution of middle east are giving glimpse of the fact that revolution happens and they happen due to some articulated reasons. There is no hard and fast rule actually when we regard both of the theories in practical terms. In other words every revolution is triggered by some events that are caused by internal oppression on the lower and working class. The rebellion taking place deep inside the masses is then exploited by the power players in that region or region beyond boundaries. The theories supporting different schools of thoughts have arguments with certain examples but the first generation theories have their strong roots in modern time’s political science as well. References Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form CALLINICOS, A. (2011). The revolutionary ideas of Karl Marx. Chicago, Ill, Haymarket Books. FISKE, S. T. (2010). Social beings: a core motives approach to social psychology. Hoboken, NJ, J. Wiley.p415 FRIEDMAN, S. S. (2006). A history of the Middle East. Jefferson, N.C. [u.a.], McFarland.p302 GOLDSTONE, J. A. (1980). Theories of revolution: The third generation. World Politics, 32(03), 425-453. JOHNSTON, C. (1917). Russia and the Revolution. The North American Review, 715-723. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Read More