AAP Positioning on Formation of Delhi Governement: A Dangerous Political Obduracy

Moreover, it argues that economic exploitation causes political oppression and the powerful will then use their power to turn the state into a “servant of bourgeois economic” (Marx). For that reason, the only way to breakout of this conflict is through revolution, in which the working class people overthrows the owner of the capitalist system. Conflict theorists might argue, for instance, religion fulfills the bourgeois interests by appeasing the population by pacifying them. In essence, under this theory there will always be conflicts for scarce resources, and whenever one group gains control of the resources there will be an oppressed group. And according to Marx, this can be broken if we have a classless society where resources are allocated equally.

As civilization has evolved, economic inequality has existed since the feudal era and has made its place in modern society. It is a dilemma that examines the gap between the low wealth of the middle-class worker and the profitable earnings of the monopolizing upper-class business owner. It is a socio- economic issue that can best explored through the lens of the conflict theory; thoroughly explaining as to how the wealth gap came to exist and the consequences of such an economic state on the interaction between the middle-class worker and the wealthy businessman.

The French Revolution was a time of period where social and political was a disruption in France that lasted from 1789 until 1799. This time of period affected Social Structure of France prior to the French Revolution. The factors that caused this revolution was due to having a bad government system, weak superiority, and inequality of the classes of people in France during the war. In this research, I will define and explain how Social Structure contributed to the French Revolution Resentment of royal authoritarianism. The three estates that social structure consists of are first estate which are the clergies, second estate known as the Nobleman, and third estate which are the Bourgeoisie, peasants, and workers. The Revolution did not omit sharp distinctions among the social groups, neither did it alter the distribution of wealth. This caused them to divide into these three groups called as estates.

However, both the Country Profile (2005) and Business Asia (2010:10) highlight that although the fundamental political keeps stable, the efficiency of political is low. The cause of this existed problem is that the national parties weakened gradually while the regional parties which influenced by the coalition government strongly (Business Asia, 2010:10). Current President is Pratibha Patil. (BBC News, 2011). As a result, India began to conduct a relatively free liberal market reform. Nonetheless, because of the interests of coalition government members are dissimilar, the speed of market reform is limited (Business Asia, 2010:10).

The eighteenth century revolutions predate the Marxist framework which would ultimately changed the way in which revolutions are understood; as highly participatory mass-moments which sought to change some kind of social order. Gordon Wood acknowledges this as he states; “The social distinctions and economic deprivations that we today think of as the consequences of class divisions…were in the eighteenth century usually thought to be caused by abuses in government.” Skocpol also acknowledges the difference between modern and what the “liberal revolutions” of the eighteenth century. She writes that all revolutions that occur within the modern capitalist systems accomplish nothing but a more concentrated and centralized state bureaucracy. However Skocpol’s analysis takes a retrospective structuralist approach to understanding these eighteenth century social revolutions. Her analysis does not rely on the deprivation hypothesis nor any kind of ideology, but instead highlights the importance of the “revolutionary moment” where elites and peasants unite (through an “equal powers” negotiation) against the state (Stevens 10/16/17). By applying Skocpol’s model to the French, Haitian, and American Revolutions, we can see how well it holds up when applied to these various intertwined 18th century revolutions despite their drastically different outcomes.

Some common issues that political parties present can include problems with inequality, wrong education of the people, the spread of communal hatred, and the decrease of personal individuality. Issues with inequality originate from the thought that one political party doesn’t have the right to make decisions for the public and many citizens may not support everything that a specific Party supports. Educational issues with the political system are caused by political parties trying to obtain votes through false promises and propaganda, this type of advertisement creates misunderstandings among citizens. The spread of communal hatred is based on the fact that many people believe that religion based parties create hatred against other communities and cause conflict in our country. The decrease of personal individuality has also become an issue, this refers to how political parties expect people to follow them blindly and how these parties refuse to be criticized for their own shortcomings.

Political parties are critical structures in the modern society and universal phenomena in most democracies. In fact, they form major objects of intensive study as they are usually the centre of political and social power. They engage in most activities that are of significant consequence in the lives of citizens and link the common populace to the government. Therefore, it is important to understand political parties fully from every perspective of political systems so obtain their real importance in democracies. A political party is basically a group of citizens who converge as voters, activists, electoral candidates and office holders with a common party label and seek to elect party members into public offices. While modern political

“It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party.”

“Recalcitrant peasants [were] thrown into irons, they [were] forced to sit astride a sharp wooden horse, … they [were] given fifty strokes of the rod … [and] the serf who [arrived] late for his robot … [was] beaten to half-dead” (Document 4). This passage written in the perspective of the Bohemian government, exhibits the types of conditions that those peasants were forced to work under in 1769 after their rebellions. These cruel acts, and others, were in response to peasant rebellions against the unjust division of taxes, “the constant making of new laws” (1) that undermined the peasantry, and the beginning of enclosure by land holders. It is crucial to state that the acts of violence committed by the peasantry were not to contribute to a

During 1789 and decades prior, peasants toil in the fields and reap the diminishing wheat stalks. Bound by the law set by the king, they suffered paying the nobility’s and clergy’s expenses with whatever income they had. When not in desperate poverty, the Third Estate would muster any energy to exert disdain to their king, indifferent behind palace walls. With Voltaire's and Rousseau's conceptions, commoners imagined a government where the nation was in potency, not the monarch. Yet, King Louis XVI taunts this bubbling tension by claiming these privileges were well-deserved, insinuating that his people were literal breadwinners, obligated to pay tribute. With high tax rates, a radical government where the people were free of ridicule circulated

The French Revolution was a period of time from 1789 to 1799 in France where there was political instability. It officially began on the 14th of July, 1789, when the Bastille, which was a symbol of the King’s harsh policies, was stormed. The King, Louis XVI, the Queen, Marie-Antoinette and about 40,000 people were all brutally murdered. But there was also a positive side, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was formally adopted on August 1789 and feudalism was abolished. This essay will address the issues of the three estates system, food shortages and the fiscal crisis. It will also be argued that the most significant cause of the French Revolution was the social inequality that stemmed from the three estates system.

As the bourgeois advanced financially, they also gained political influence. They progressed from a once oppressed class to an independent urban republic. As their political influence increased, certain changes became clear. The bourgeois had “torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation (Marx).” This force eventually grew to the point that it was able to force other nations to conform to its values and methods or suffer extinction. As the bourgeois became richer, the proletarians began to suffer more. The balance of property began to shift even more rapidly than before leaving property “concentrated…in a few hands (Marx).” Eventually, the super-efficient production of the manufacturing economy began to take its toll on the bourgeois as well as the proletarians. More goods were produced due to the cheaper costs and ease of manufacture leading to an over-production of goods (Marxism). Over-production became a serious problem, resulting with widespread unemployment of the proletarians, and threats of a revolution on the horizons.

If party imbalance disorganizes dominant party minority party is pulverized. Minority doesn't fight. Young people gain dominant party, and second party goes national.

The increase in industrialization opens up the job market of labor which induces an increase in workforce. Through the fact that “Tokyo is bigger than Kumamoro,” industrialization is taking over rapidly (16). Coming from a traditional Japan, Sanshiro cannot keep up with the fast pace of industrialization. Industries increase the use of machinery which creates the demand of products at a higher pace. This creates conflict between the proletariats because more people are losing jobs. This leads people joining forces to create union groups to express their anger. “Some walked along looking at the sky, others at the ground. All wore shabby clothing. All lived in poverty. And all were serene” (62). The working classes who lose their job due to the increase of machinery are angered by these rich owners. Although Marx predicts that the workers do not have appropriating properties and that they will destroy the properties of bourgeois, this won’t happen is because they are destroying their assets.

By aggressive speech making during poll campaigning, Modi had endeared himself to the “Aam Aadmi’, particularly sections of the Middle Class, by raising “Great Expectations” and hopes among them by “Ache Din Aane Wale Hain” slogan. Modi’s high decibel campaign promises included: “Good Governance – Simple and Smart governance through transparency”; stemming the rot corruption, particularly in high places; controlling price rise and inflation; upholding dignity and self respect of women; countering LoC violations and terror acts firmly; and many others like “One Rank One Pension” etc., reduced to print in the BJPs 2014 Election manifesto. A brief review of happenings during the last two months of Modi’s governance provide clear signals on what to expect in posterity.