A. Marxist Theory
In order to understand the evolution of USSR and what is taking place today, it is necessary to first of all understand the Karl Marx’s theories and how its influence in raising the spirit of the working class to fight for the domination of the employer.
Firstly, Marxism is not the same as communism that majority people assume it. Communism is political parties and movement which ran in great revolt on 1917, under WI Lenin in which the power of international politic and ideology laid. The term of communism is also used for communism teaching or called Marxist-Leninism officially appointed the ideology of communists system. In fact communism often claims the monopoly of Marx teaching upon their interpretation. However Communism is not purely the application of Marx’s thought rather a bias or implication of a theory brought into practice.
Marx’s thought and theory is called Marxism, a term used firstly by his Close friend Fredrick Engel whom the theory is formulated. The variety of Marx Theory collected and formulated by Engel in Official Theory of Carl Marx and Scientific Socialism theory which dogmatized by Lenin in a theory called Marxism-Leninism, the ideology of Communists.
1. Marx’s View of Socialism
Marx called his socialism theory as scientific socialism, that make it different from other socialism theory. His view of socialism is grounded to the observation of objective provisions of social development. Marx opposed any socialism that take the moral and heart-moving as the consideration on its discussions. According to Marx socialism will never created because of the assumption whether right or wrong, but of the completion of objective provisions of the elimination of private property and means of production.
In German Ideology Marx wrote “communism is not the condition suggested to be created, ambition to be followed by the reality we mention communism as the reality of movement can be concluded from present supposition (Suseno, 2004:137). Marx stated that his claim is based on his belief that he has found objective law of social development. The Basic law according to Marx is the production of human’s necessity has been directing the form and the development of the society.
Engel stated Marx found the simple facts which up to the present covered by the ideology that human’s needs to eat, drink, and inhabited on some place have being closer activities rather taking part in politic, outside activities, science art, religion, etc. therefore the implication of life necessity production is direct, thus the scale of economic development of society or its time has become the basis foundation of government, law view , art even religion point of view of the related people (Suseno,2004:138)
In other words Marx claimed that his socialism view is scientific because it is based on knowledge of the objective law of social development. The knowledge then called materialistic historical view.
2. Marx theory of social class and revolution
The whole content of Marx thought is based on an assumption that the main actor in a society is the social classes. Marginalization is caused by the domination of a class upon another therefore emancipation of the dominated class can only be derived from class struggle.
Marx’s Theory of class is the root of his other theories such as history development, capitalism, and socialism. According to Marx the first agent in social changes is not individual involvement but social classes. Hence will exist the two opposite classes that is powerful class and powerless class, the conqueror and conquered, the dominator and dominated, and the high and low class.
Marx went to explain the capitalism as the reflection of class distinction. In capitalist society, society is divided into three classes, the capital owner, the land owner and the proletariat or working class, but in further discussion land owner included as the capital owner. (Suseno 2004:139)
The separation in work place exists because of the involvement of two classes, the employer as the master class and the employee or working class. The employer is the owner of the means of production such as machineries, manufacturers, and other infrastructures in work places, whereas the workers have nothing but his energy contribution to the running of productions process. The workers have no right of production property, therefore the activity of work is owned by the employer.
In capitalist production system, these two opposed classes are actually dependent each other, but the cooperation is not mutual and merely an exploitation. The working class as the weak is often marginalized their right by the employer. Their weaknesses caused by the absence of control of the productions, and their dependant growth caused by the provisions of the employee which have to be obeyed, unless they will lose their job, since then they will unable to earn a living. The basic need of survival is the only reason to obey all the employee’s order and provisions. In employees’ side, it is an advantage to manage the workers in order to serve their interest that is gain the highest profit. From this point Marx views the right to private property will open the gap in society and create class stratification.
The characteristic of capitalist society is the division of classes, the upper and the lower class. The upper is positioned by the owner of the means of production and the lower class is the working class. The upper class takes a hold of productions, and workers must obey them. The workers are given a job if they can make profit. Consequently there will be exploitation.
According to Marx the conflict between these two classes is not raised by their feeling act or morality but caused by the conflict of interest. Marx Stated “the problem is not what being imaginated as the aim of the proletar or proletariat, but what is proletariat and what they will do, historically had been a guideline and can not be prevented either in their own situation of life or in the whole of bourgeois society organization at present. (Suseno 2004 : 116 )
He maintain that growing tension between two main classes would become to great that the proletarian masses would rise up and overthrow their bourgeois oppresses, this would continue a socialist revolution in just one country would result in that country’s isolation and possibly even invasion from bourgeois country claiming to be threatened by such radically new type of system (Holmes, 1997:65)
That is why Marx opposed any effort to extinguish this conflict that will make the employer be more conservative to secure their interest and against any changes in the structure of the productions. In other hand the workers will be more progressive and revolutionary to make changes and reconstruct the existed structure of productions. In selected work of Marx and Angel Marx stated that “a revolution is possible as an end of a crisis , however the certainty of the revolution is the same as the crisis’s (Gidden, 1986:243)
Marx claimed that any efforts to make peace agreement between two classes will give benefit to the upper class in blocking the struggle of the low class to get their freedom. Consequently the only way to end the conflict is by revolution, the great change has to be made by the working class to abolish private property ownership, hence it will create classless society. (Suseno 2004 : 118).
The social revolution would lead to the establishment of a new type of power structure, although there would be a state operating in the interest of ruling class, the new one would differ from all its predecessor in that the ruling class would now constitute the majority of population not a small minority.
3. Class of State
According to Marx every economic system is marked with the existence of lower and upper class, this authority structure in economy also happen in politic. One of the fundamental theories of Marx is that state is naturally class of state. It indicates that state is directly or indirectly under control of the class which mastering economic sector. Thus a state is not an institution securing the rights of classes, but rather a tool to secure upper class’s interest. State will never be a fair judge in mediating the conflict rise between two classes, and tend to stand for one side. As stated by Fredrik Engel “a state aimed to defend life provisions and the power of conqueror class upon a class conquered by force. (Suseno 2004 : 120).
The perspective of class state explained why the grassroots society often victimized by the development of a state, why the thief will be punished heavier than the corruptors. Because state is the expansion of upper class’s power, therefore any policies made will be in line with upper class interest.
Because of this perspective Marx argue that state is “enemy” not “friend”, state is representative of the upper class to exploit the lower class. Marx Stated it is possible to defend private interest of the upper class as if it is public interest. (Suseno 2004 : 121).
Thus, Marx’s analysis of state based on his observation of western country but indicate once industrialist country turn to capitalism before the condition would be ripe for socialist revolution. Marx stated only the brief point of socialist state and society look like. He never finished planned major analysis of state, his writing focus on capitalist state than socialist (Holmes, 1997:66)
4. Ideology
Ideology is a thought explaining a condition, the present authority structure, thus people legalized, whereas it is illegal. (Suseno 2004:122). Ideology criticism gives essential contribution on Marx’s theory of authority structure analysis in society. Marx assumed that the demand to obeying the law is ideological in regard of the truthfulness of the law justice, while law itself serves for upper class interest. Marx ideology criticism expands to religion.
According to Mark religion is like addictive essence for society, which gives artificial satisfaction, as it will not change the bad condition of the lower class, religion promises reward in the life after death for those who well receive their destiny, therefore they will not struggling for the better life, and let the domination of others.
B. The Theory of Society
In discussing social changes it will be a part discussion of sociology. Sociology is a knowledge or science studying about society characteristics and its influences toward human living. As a part of science sociology firstly found by, August Comte who is known as the father of sociology. However history notifies Emil Durkeim France scientist, had made success in bringing this knowledge into academic discipline. Sociology also developed by Max Weber and Karl Marx .
According to Max Weber Sociology is a science concerning itself with the interpretative understanding of social action and thereby with a causal explanation of its course and consequences, we shall speak of action in so far the acting individual attaches a subjective meaning to his behavior be it overt or covert omission or acquiescence action is social in so far its subjective meaning take account of the behavior of others and is thereby oriented in its source (www.faculty.rsu.edu )
1. Social Action
Weber in his book Society and Economy states that social action is an action or behavior which involved subjectivity which has relation to others or environment which stimulate it. This “environment” can be defined as the structural properties that is the roles of every aspect of social environment. “the fact that such structural properties are ultimately reversible by human action is not an issue, the point is that they exert constraints until they can be changed” (Archer,1968:77)
Social relation will exist if there is mutual relationship between two or individuals, and each individual relates his actions to other individuals’ action. Weber classification of action provides a basis for investigation of the social evolutionary process in which behavior had come to be increasingly dominated by goal-oriented rationally (zweckrational); less and less by tradition, values or emotions. Weber’s typology is intended as an advocate of multiple causation of human behavior, Weber was well aware the mix of these motivations causes the most behavior.
Weber distinguishes between four types of social action. The first, zweckrational. Max Weber defined it quoted by Elwell Frank as an action in which the means to attain a particular goal are rationally chosen (www.faculty.rsu.edu ).
The action taken is already assumed rationally and proven commonly by people it is also can be said as practice way to reach goal. The second type is wetrational or value-oriented. Rationally, it is characterized by striving for a goal which in itself may not rational, but which is pursued through rational means. The third is Affective action according to Coser affective action based on the emotional state of person rather than in the rational weighing of means and ends. (www.faculty.rsu.edu ). Sentiments are powerful forces in motivating human behavior. The forth is traditional action. The action which is guided by custom or habit. People engage in this type of action often unthinkingly because it is simply “always done”.
1. Social changes
Anthropologists have accordingly distinguished between two kinds of social conflicts, and so between two kinds of social change. First, there are conflicts and changes which are provided for in the existing social structure. Obviously changes in personal are a feature of every society as people grow old and die and are replaced by others. But so long as the roles themselves continue more or less unchanged, these conflict and replacement do not affect the structure of the social system itself. They operate within its existing normative frame work are resoluble. In term of systems of values and offer no challenge to the existing institutions.
The second kind of changes is more radical. It is a change in the character of the social system itself, some of its constituent institutions are altered so that they no longer match others to existing values of the society. They are new kinds of conflict and tradition provides neither precedents nor cures for them. Hence they are specially disturbing, and involve confusion and strain. If the social system is to persist, sooner or later further radical modifications will have to be made in it and so that the society will become something other than different from what it originally was.
2. Domination and authority
According to Weber the most stable form of social relationship in the forms which subjective behavior of the participant, is directed to the trust of the society to the legal orde. The empirical correlation between custom, convention, and law is intimate and close. Custom and habit in many cases make a continuously habitual actions to be such of law. On the other hand sometimes a new law will create a new behavior both directly or indirectly.
Weber makes guideline of a power as a possibility that the doer or the power holder will be able to guard his interest even though opposed by others with whom he or she get involve in interaction. It means that any social relationship in a certain condition is a power relationship while the concept of domination according to Weber is a concept which refers to any power oppression cases, where the doer follows the specific order directed by others. (Weber 1968:62)
Weber in Economy and Society states that the acceptance of the domination can be caused by various motives, ranging from the habits to the fulfillment of self interest. However the possibility to reach material rewards and social respect are the two motives which is absorbed much in the relationship between the leader and the follower, but the main pillar of this domination is the trust of the follower or subordinates to the their legal position as the subordinates. (1958:80).
Weber divides three ideal types of authority which can be a foundation of the domination relationship pattern, those are traditional, charismatic and rational legal authority. The ideal type involves determining the feature of a social institution that would be present if the institution where a logically consistent whole, not affected by other institutions, concern and interests. “General type are tools with which Weber prepares the descriptive material of the world history for comparative analysis”.(www.faculty.rsu.edu ).
Rational legal authority is anchored in impersonal rules that have been legally established. This type of authority which parallel the growth of zweckrational has come to characterize social relations in modern societies, it is based on the believe in the society of traditional authority often dominates pre-modern society of tradition of ‘eternal yesterday’, because of the shift human motivation it is often difficult for modern student to conceive of the hold that tradition has in pre-modern societies.
Unlike rational legal authority, traditional authority is codified in impersonal rules but usually invested in a hereditary line or invested in particular office by a higher power, and finally charismatic authority rests on the appeal of the leader who claim allegiance because of the force of their extraordinary personalities. (www.faculty.rsu.edu )
Aron and Closer also clarify that Weber’s discussion of social action is an example of the use of ideal type which provides the basic method for historical comparative study It is not meant to refer to the “best” or to some moral ideal, but rather to typical or “logically consistent” features of social institutions or behavior. There can be an ideal type whore house or a religious sect, or ideal type dictatorship or an ideal democracy, an ideal type is an analytical construct that series as measuring rod for social observers to determine the extent to whish concrete social institutions are similar and how they differ from some defined measure (www.faculty.rsu.edu ). The ideal type never correspondents to concrete reality but is a description to which we can compare reality, for example “ideal socialist according to ideal type socialism consist of several basic features, such as classless society, no private property, from each according to ability and to each according to their need, democratic worker’s state, etc. in reality, all socialism system deviate from the theoretical construct called Ideal Socialism’
Russia before 1917 was still monarch under Czar Nicolas II, social changes which happened in Russia is caused by the change of complete social system. The change was started by revolution to overthrown the totalitarian regime of Czar Nicolas. After the revolution all system and constitution are altered to be the new system called socialist country with communism ideology. The social change in Russia was radical changes as the result of social action.
Revolution is defined more often by their combination of extraordinary means and end, drastic social and political transformation that occur during in the wake of vast mobilizations of mass forces. Revolution matter by locating the great revolution within a historically broader , yet theoretically more precise study of the elite conflict and mass mobilization. Mass mobilization occurs most often during periods of unusually intense elite conflict. Mass action has structural consequences only to the extent that non elite are able to affect in otherwise, unpredictable ways the outcome of elite conflicts.
Mass action also can have ideological consequences which are not measurable from before and after pictures of social structure failed as well as successful mass mobilization can be introduce new methods of collective action which may facilitate later more consequential elite and mass mobilizations. Elite as a group of rules with the capacity to appropriate resources from non-elites who inhabit a district organizational apparatus, a society is ruled by a single elite, elites have two vital interests to preserve their organizational autonomy and power against rival elite and to reproduce their exploited relationship with non elite or producing class.
C. The Causes of Russian Revolution
The Russian revolution is one of the most important events in modern world history. Its impact was evidencing both Europe and America. Although the revolution did not directly spread communism, it did give various other struggling third world countries an enticing example to follow. Decades later, the philosophy or governmental model would gain new notoriety as Russia, a full communist state at the time of cold war, squared off with the United States.
In any cases in 1917, people saw two distinct revolutions in Russia, the overthrow of the czarist regime(February revolution) and the coup by which the Bolsheviks took power (October revolution). The causes of these two revolutions encompass Russia’s political, social, and economic situation. Politically, the people Russia resented the autocracy of the Czar Nicholas II. The losses that the Russians suffered during the World War I further weakened Russia’s view of Nicholas. Socially czarist Russia stood well behind the rest of Europe in its industry and farming, resulting in new opportunities for fair advancement on the part of peasants and industrial workers economically, widespread inflation and famine in Russia contributed to revolution.
1. Economic Cause
The economic causes of the Russian revolution largely originated in the Russia’s outdated economy still resembled that of medieval Europe, with peasants bound to an inefficiently managed village commune, and using outdated farming methods. Suffering from a naturally climate, Russia’s growing season was only 4-6 months, compared to 8-9 in western Europe, and so the rural agrarian economy struggled to produce enough food to feed the cities each year. Further hampering food production was Russia’s lack of modern infrastructure or transport. Despite vast expansions under Sergey Witte a railway system, Russia still lacked the ability to effectively transport food to the cities. During World War I, that became a massive problem as haphazard conscription removed skilled workers from the railways and food related industries, effectively aggravating poor harvest and causing famine.
Factory workers also suffered due to Russia’s young industry that sought to catch up with the rest of Europe. They had to endure terrible working conditions including twelve to fourteen hour days and low wages. Riot and strike for the better condition and higher wage broke out. Although some factories agreed to the request for the higher wages, wartime inflation nullified the increase. There was one protest to which Nicholas responded with violence in response, industrial workers went to strike and effectively paralyzed the railway and transportation networks. What few supplies were available could be effectively transported. As good became more and scarcer, prize skyrocketed. By 1917, famine threatened many of the larger cities. Nicholas failure to solve his country’s economic suffering and communism’s to do just that comprised the core of the revolution.
2. Social cause
The social causes of the Russian revolution mainly come from centuries of oppression towards the lower classes by the tsarist regime and Nicholas’s failure in World War I. While rural agrarian peasant had been emancipated from serfdom in 1861, they still resented paying redemption payments to noble land-owners and demanded self ownership of the land they worked. Increasing peasant disturbances and sometimes-full revolt occurred with the goal of securing ownership of their land.
The rapid industrialization of Russia also resulted in urban overcrowding and poor conditions for urban industrial workers. Between 1890 and 1910 the population of the capital St Petersburg swelled from 1,033,600 to 1,905,600, with Moscow experiencing similar growth. In one 1904 survey, it as found that an average of sixteen people shared each apartment in St Petersburg, with six people per room. There was also no running water, and piles of human manure which was a threat to the health of the workers. (www.faculty.rsu.edu )
World War I then only caused more chaos. Conscription swept up the unwilling in all parts of Russia. The vast demand for factory production of war supplies and workers caused many more labor riots and strikes. Conscription stripped skilled workers from the cities, who had to replaced with unskilled peasants, and then, when famine began to hit, workers abandoned the cities in droves to look for food. Finally, the soldier themselves, who suffered from alack of equipment and protection from the elements were discontent with Russia’s poor accounting in water (www.faculty.rsu.edu )
3. Political cause
Politically, most areas of Russia society had reason to be dissatisfied with the existing autocratic system. They had no representation in government. And the Czar remained out of touch with the people’s problems. Dissatisfaction with Russia autocracy culminated in the bloody Sunday. Massacre, in whish Russia workers saw their pleas for justice rejected as the protestors were shot by the Czar’s troops. The response to the massacre crippled the nation with strikes and Nicholas his October Manifesto, promising a democratic parliament (the State Duma) to appease the people. However, the Czar effectively nullified his promises of democracy with the 1906 Fundamental State Laws, and the subsequently dismissed the first two Dumas they proofed uncooperative. These unfulfilled hopes of democracy fuelled revolutionary ideas and violence targeted at the Czarist regime.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar