Pathways to Settlement | Political economics

0

Karl Marx argues that history unfolds through a series of stages like the Asian mode of production, ancient feudalism, and the modern bourgeoisie. Each stage is characterized by the prevailing conditions under which wealth is produced. The driving force of step-by-step development is the ever-present class struggle or class war.

Thus, history is human society in dialectical movement. “The history of any hitherto existing society,” said The communist manifesto, “it is the history of the class struggle”. Ultimately, conflict, as dialectical materialism says, is what galvanizes the course of history.

Some serious practitioners of history look askance at such a reductive, if not overly simplistic, interpretation of a multi-layered and hugely complex phenomenon that defies even definition. Although the description has been called facile and unconvincing, the fact remains that conflict, war, rebellion, mutiny, and militant insurgency fill human history to the brim.

The inequitable distribution of wealth causes conflict, but so does the acquisition of power. A careful reading of historical milestones reveals that countless times equals have fought against each other for power. The Mughal princes are an avid example of the fratricidal struggle for power. Failing to catch it, they were more than willing to embrace death.

The phrase takht ya takhta describes this tendency of mind typical of the descendants of Mughal royalty. The point worth emphasizing is that the victors were mostly those supported by the establishment of the time. A more frequent feature was rebellion, mutiny, or insurrection of the dispossessed against the rich and powerful.

The slave rebellion led by Spartacus against the Romans signified such a struggle. In early modern history, the largest and most significant slave rebellion in the British North American colonies, Stono’s Rebellion (1739), revealed tensions that continued in the slave states throughout throughout the 19e Century. Slaves were oppressed by a brutal system of forced labor and sometimes rebelled violently.

The ways of settlement

One of the functions of the establishment during the Cold War era was to stem revolutionary ideology. In its modern sense, the term was popularized by the British journalist, Henry Fairlie.

In the United States, three of the best-known revolts of the 19th century were led by Gabriel Prosser in Virginia in 1800, Denmark Vesey in Charleston, South Carolina in 1822, and Nat Turner in Southampton County, Virginia, in 1831. These revolts and rebellions did not immediately yield the expected results.

The fate of peasant revolts that occurred in Indian history was similar. These revolts challenged the status quo that suited the interests of groups and individuals, constituting the proto establishment of the time.

The establishment represents conservatism and generally acts to deny people’s rights. Historically, it has served itself (the elites and the dominant). While the phrase “establishment” entered the political lexicon in 1955, an amorphous (but powerful) structure had existed since the beginning of political history.

The establishment connotes a dominant band Where elite who controls a political regime or an organization. It may include a closed social group which selects its own members or elite structures anchored in specific institutions. We can refer to any relatively small number to classify or a group of people who can exercise control The set up.

Conversely, in the jargon of sociologyanyone not belonging to The set up can be labeled a outsider. This includes those who rise up in revolt or rebellions (as opposed to a ‘initiated‘). Anti-authoritarian/ anti-establishment ideologies question the legitimacy of institutions, seeing their influence on society as undemocratic.

One of the functions of the establishment during the Cold War era had been to stem revolutionary ideology. In its modern sense, the term was popularized by the British journalist, Henry Fairliewho in September 1955 in the London magazine The viewer defined the network of prominent, well-connected people as “the establishment”. He writes: “By ‘Establishment’ I mean not just the centers of official power – although they certainly are part of it – but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised. The exercise of power in Britain (more precisely in England) can only be understood if it is recognized that it is exercised socially.


Source link

Share.

Comments are closed.