Sociology 350A:
Classical Sociological Theory
Professor John Torpey
Paper:
Sociology and Revolution –
A Comparative Analysis of the writings of
Aristotle, de Tocqueville and Marx
By Jan Kercher (International)
SN: 11672037
Introduction and Research Question
Long before sociology became established as a distinct discipline of the social sciences, scholars have
studied the social causes of revolution. Aristotle dedicated one whole book of his Politics to the sources
and possible remedies of revolutions, Alexis de Tocqueville named one of the most famous chapters of his
Democracy in America “Why great revolutions will become rare”, and Karl Marx wrote nearly all his
works under the notion of an inevitable revolution of the proletariat. So what are the differences and
similarities in analyses of these three famous writers?
To answer this question, I will introduce the relevant theses of every writer and compare those theses
along different dimensions. The first and most basic variable is the group of people that is addressed by the
writer. This, in turn, has important consequences for another variable: How is revolution evaluated?
Should it be prevented? If yes, how? Answering these questions will help us to define the causes for
revolutions given by the three authors. As a last step, I will analyse how revolution and democracy relate
in these theories. I hope that, as a result, we will get a helpful insight in an important aspect of the writings
of these three great scholars of sociology.
Aristotle and Revolution
One of the striking features of Aristotle’s Politics is its clear dedication to lawgivers and statesmen. This is
especially true for Book V of this work, which is concerned with the “Causes of Factual Conflict and
Constitutional Change”. Most of this book reads like a handbook for good governance. It is also obvious
that Aristotle is genuinely averse to faction and revolution. Since the city-state resembles an organism
(Aristotle, I.2.1253a18), and its constitution is like its soul, revolution is synonymous to the death of this
organism (Aristotle, III.3.1276b1).
Aristotle gives us a long list of potential causes of “factional conflict” (in Book V). He divides them
into general causes of conflict in all political systems (V.1-4) and into causes of conflict for every
particular political system (Aristotle, V.1.5-7,10-11). I will mainly focus on the general causes here.
1
Those can be divided into “(1) the state of mind which leads to faction; (2) the objects which are at stake;
and (3) the causes which give rise to political disturbance and factional disputes” (Aristotle, V.2.1302a16).
The state of mind that leads to faction can be seen as the most general cause that Aristotle finds in a state.
Different interpretations of justice and equality lead to the making of different claims by different parties
(Aristotle, V.1.1301a25). Some who have less, but feel equal to those who have more, develop a “passion
for equality” (Aristotle, V.2.1302a22). Others who feel superior to others, but have the same, develop a
“passion for inequality” (Aristotle, V.2.1302a22). If the discontented party (whichever it is) is powerful
enough, these factional disputes can lead to a change in the constitution. Here, Aristotle makes an
interesting distinction between factions “directed against the existing constitution” and factions “not
directed against the existing constitution” (Aristotle, V.1.1301b4). Though Aristotle rarely uses these
words himself, this distinction can be seen as one between revolution and reform. Factional conflict can
thus lead to either of these constitutional changes. The problem, however, is that Aristotle mainly lists the
causes for factional conflicts in general and rarely distinguishes between causes that will lead to
revolutions and causes that will lead to reform. It would go beyond the scope of this paper to list and
explain all the causes for factional conflict that Aristotle specifies. This would also strongly complicate
our comparison. I will therefore try to generalize Aristotle’s arguments.
Aristotle’s general ideal is moderation. This ideal can be applied to constitutions, rulers, and the
population of a city-state. Therefore, the ideal society can be described as a homogenous group of people
with a large middle-class which possesses a moderate and adequate property, and that ideally outnumbers
the upper class (the rich) and the lower class (the poor). The ideal constitution should mirror this and vest
the main power in the middle class (Aristotle, IV.11.1295b34). Furthermore, it should not rely on only one
of the interpretations of justice but mix both of them so that it can neither be described as a democracy
(passion for equality dominant) nor an oligarchy (passion for inequality dominant): “A properly mixed
constitution should look as if it contained both democratic and oligarchic elements – and as if it contained
neither” (Aristotle, IV.10.1294b13). The same applies to the ideal ruler(s) of a state: they should not be
2
arrogant, demagogic, too mighty, too oppressive, or partial for one of the classes of society (ideally, they
come out of the middle-class). Furthermore, everyone who is able to hold an office properly should be able
to do so1. Only then the most stable form of political association can be reached: a polis with a just
constitution and just rulers, whose inhabitants – living in happy harmony with their constitution – do not
think of fighting each other or their rulers (Aristotle, V.9.1310a12). Everything that distinguishes an actual
society from this ideal of moderation (on either of the three levels mentioned) is a potential for conflict, or
even revolution. However, as Aristotle acknowledges that such an ideal society is not very realistic, he
sees democracy as the preferable political system among the feasible alternatives: “it must be admitted that
democracy is a form of government which is safer, and less vexed by faction, than oligarchy” (Aristotle,
V.2.1301b39). Regarding the class system, his second-best solution is a two-class system with the stronger
class in power: “for where either side has a clear preponderance, the other will be unwilling to risk a
struggle with the side which is obviously the stronger” (Aristotle, V.5.1304a38)2.
Tocqueville and Revolution (in comparison to Aristotle)
In contrast to Aristotle’s Politics, Tocqueville’s Democracy in America cannot be seen as clearly written
for one particular class of society. Though Tocqueville himself (like Aristotle) belonged to the upper class
in his home country, one of his main aims in writing his book was impartiality: “in the midst of the
contradictory opinions that divide us, I have tried to divest myself for the moment of sympathies in favor
of or instincts against each of them” (Tocqueville, p.418). However, he shares a very negative view of
revolutions with Aristotle, though his repudiation is not based on an abstract or theoretical notion (of the
state as a natural body), but on empirical observations: Tocqueville – throughout his whole work provides us with numerous arguments about the negative consequences of the French Revolution, the most
1
However, the obvious problem with this requirement, how to find out if someone is able to fill his position, is never
satisfyingly solved by Aristotle.
2
In this regard, Aristotle seems to be neutral towards the question which class should be in power. For him, the most
important question is stability, which can most likely be secured with the stronger class in power, regardless of which class
that is.
3
important of which are centralization of power, a general immorality, and the hampering of scientific
progress3.
There is another striking similarity to Aristotle in Tocqueville’s writing, regarding what Tocqueville
calls the “Tyranny of the Majority” (Tocqueville, pp. 250ff). Both of them share a very pessimistic view of
the consequences of majority rule. As Tocqueville asks: “Now, if you admit that a man vested with
omnipotence can abuse it against his adversaries, why not admit the same concerning a majority”
(Tocqueville, p. 251)? Nearly the same argument can be found in Aristotle who claims that normally there
is no difference in the rule of the majority (i.e. the poor) and the rule of the minority (i.e. the rich): “the
side, whichever it is, that wins the day, instead of establishing a constitution based on the common interest
and the principle of equality, exacts as the prize of victory a greater share in the constitution” (Aristotle,
IV.11.1296a22). They also share the pessimistic view towards the realization of a “mixed government” as
a solution to the problem. As Tocqueville remarks: “There is in truth no such a thing as a mixed
government… since in any society one finds in the end some principle of action that dominates all the
others” (Tocqueville, p. 251). In the same argument, however, we find another striking difference between
Aristotle and Tocqueville. Whereas Aristotle still sees a “mixed government” as an ideal (see above),
Tocqueville condemns such an approach: “When a society really does have a mixed government… either a
revolution breaks out or that society breaks up” (Tocqueville, p. 251). He concludes, therefore, that in
order to preserve liberty, a society has to place one social power superior to all others, but at the same time
has to restrain and moderate the course of this power by adequate institutional arrangements (Tocqueville,
pp.251-2).
As with Aristotle, an analysis of Tocqueville’s view of the causes of revolution can best be applied by
characterizing his description of a non-revolutionary political system. Again, we find a remarkable
similarity to Aristotle’s reasoning. In the chapter “Why Great Revolutions Will Become Rare” in the
second volume of Democracy in America, Tocqueville explains why he thinks that America is less likely
3
See Tocqueville, pp. 93, 460-1, 599, 680
4
to be afflicted by revolutions in the future. This picture almost exactly resembles Aristotle’s ideal of a
large middle-class with moderate but adequate property. As a revolution is always a threat to property,
Tocqueville exemplifies that, “the more widely personal property is distributed and increased and the
greater the number of those enjoying it, the less is a nation inclined to revolution” (Tocqueville, p.637).
Unlike Aristotle, however, Tocqueville states that this condition cannot only be realized in an unrealistic
“mixed government” ideal (Tocqueville, p. 636), but that it is already realized in the American democracy.
He also sees further reasons for a lesser likelihood of revolutions in democracies. They surprisingly
promote relative conservatism and conformity of opinion. Why? According to Tocqueville “there are few
men of leisure in democracies… men are so busy acting that they have little time to think” (Tocqueville, p.
642), i.e. to change their minds. Furthermore, as intellectual superiority is not believed in and everyone is
mainly relying on their own reasoning, it becomes increasingly difficult to convince men of new or
innovative ideas (Tocqueville, p. 641). Finally, the public opinion becomes so important in a democracy
that “to be out of harmony with the mass is… no life at all” (Tocqueville, p. 643). We can therefore
conclude that Tocqueville not only sees the lack of a broad middle-class as a supposition for revolutions
but also the relative receptivity and plurality of the actual citizens of a society. However, these latter
suppositions are, according to Tocqueville, not at all negative or undesirable. Therefore, in contrast to
Aristotle, revolution is no longer seen as the greatest danger for a democracy. Instead, what Tocqueville
fears the most, is the condition where the citizens “look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation
as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution” (Tocqueville, p. 645).
Marx and Revolution (in comparison to Aristotle and Tocqueville)
One of the most striking features of Marx’s writing is its peculiar partiality. Marx clearly addresses the
lower class of society, the so-called working class or proletariat. This sets him in sharp contrast to
Aristotle who addressed the elite of society, but also to Tocqueville who tried to stay impartial.
Impartiality is not Marx’s aim at all. He clearly sides with the proletariat and condemns the upper class,
5
the so-called “bourgeoisie”, or more precise, the “big bourgeoisie” (Marx in McIntosh, p. 32). For him, it
is a natural and inevitable fact that this bourgeoisie has to be overthrown by the proletariat at a certain
point in history (Marx in McIntosh, p. 47). Therefore, the connotation of the revolution in Marx’s writing
is far from being negative. It is the only, and therefore favoured way to free the proletariat from the
“shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” (Marx in McIntosh, p. 40) of the bourgeoisie. Marx, as opposed to
Aristotle and Tocqueville, is not concerned about ways to prevent revolution. Quite the contrary, most of
his writings read like a call for revolution on the proletariat4. Furthermore, Marx does not share the
mistrust towards the rule of the majority and its consequences for other groups of society with Aristotle
and Tocqueville. As the only minority in his analysis is an exploitative and evil bourgeoisie, the interests
of the majority – i.e. the proletariat - are nothing to worry about5.
But there are also some interesting parallels between the writers of this analysis. Though Tocqueville
sees the relationship between workers and employers as tending towards greater equality in democracies,
he makes an exception: “just while the mass of the nation is turning toward democracy, that particular
class which is engaged in industry becomes more aristocratic” (Tocqueville, p. 556). Obviously, this can
be read as an anticipation of Marx’s reasoning. For Tocqueville, however, this development is an “an
exception, a monstrosity, within the general social condition” (Tocqueville, p. 557). For Marx, who wrote
his first works only a few years later, this exception has already turned into a dominant feature of
capitalism, the “slavery of the workers” (Marx in McIntosh, p. 48). To understand the difference in the
evaluations of Tocqueville and Marx, one has to bear in mind that America, the country Tocqueville based
his reasoning on, and Western Europe, the region Marx observed, differed quite substantially in their
industrial development. Especially England, the “despot of the world market” (Marx in McIntosh, p. 48)
already showed a comparably high level of industrialization, whereas America was still mainly an
agricultural economy. Yet again, Tocqueville was himself a European and therefore in the position to see
4
Marx always saw agitation as one of his main tasks as a “practical thinker”. For example, the last of his eleven „Theses
on Feuerbach“ reads like a „call-to-arms“ for Marxists: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various
ways; the point is to change it” (Marx in McIntosh, p. 25).
5
“The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the
immense majority” (Marx in McIntosh, p. 46).
6
the consequences of an ongoing industrial development. Though he also saw this new aristocracy as a
threat to democracy, he characterized it as one of the “most restrained and least dangerous” (Tocqueville,
p. 558) aristocracies at the same time.
A further parallel in the writings of our analysis can be found in the assessments of the causes for
revolutions. Marx agrees that a revolution is caused by the division of society in two polar classes, the rich
and the poor6. Whereas Aristotle, however, sees the rule of the more powerful class as a possible
prevention of a revolution and Tocqueville maintains that a democracy will lead to a broad and wealthy
middle-class, Marx sees a two-class system as inherently linked to industrialization and inevitably leading
to revolution. As the rise of industry continually destroys the middle-class and increases the exploitation of
the workers, there comes a time when the “proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains” (Marx, 1998,
p. 62). Here, another and most fundamental contrast between Tocqueville and Marx becomes obvious. For
Tocqueville, the political system is prior to the structure of society and the economic system. A
democracy, therefore, will lead to a stable society with a large and prosperous middle-class: “great
revolutions will become rare”. For Marx, in contrast, the economic system is prior to the structure of
society and the political system7. As long as the economic system stays unequal and exploitative, the
structure of society and the political system can never really become stable. Furthermore, the political
system, for Marx, belongs to the “ideological forms in which men become conscious” (Marx in McIntosh,
p. 66) of a conflict. However important this might be, it is nevertheless detached from the real state of
society and can always be deceiving. What really matters in the analysis of the human state is the
“material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the
precision of natural science” (Marx in McIntosh, p. 66)8. Regarding Tocqueville’s prediction that
revolutions will become rare in a democracy, Marx would probably respond that this statement is mistaken
6
For Aristotle and Tocqueville see above, for Marx see McIntosh, pp. 39-47
In this regard, Marx also complies with Aristotle who sees class systems as a given supposition for a city-state
(IV.11.1296a7). However, although Marx sees the class system as prior to the political system, he still sees it as
changeable. Contrary to that, in Aristotle’s writing, class systems seem rather stationary.
8
Here, Marx expresses a point of view that characterizes him clearly as an materialist and naturally sets him against the
idealist views of Aristotle. Tocqueville, in my view, cannot be clearly labelled as an „idealist“. In contrast to Marx, whom
I see as an “economic materialist”, I would rather describe him as a “political materialist”.
7
7
in its very formulation. A purely political democracy, he would explain, can never prevent a revolution as
long as it stays in contradiction to the material conditions of society, i.e. the economic system (Marx in
McIntosh, p. 66). Consequently, Marx’s notion of an ideal and stable society does not include a three-class
system, as in Aristotle and Tocqueville, but the dissolution of any class system: “the communist
revolution… abolishes the rule of all classes with the classes themselves” (Marx in McIntosh, p. 38).
Conclusion
As I have demonstrated, the analysed writings on revolution can be compared along different variables.
Additional to the variables introduced in the beginning, I also found two further fruitful dimensions of
comparison during my analysis. First, how is the rule of the majority evaluated? And second, how do
political system and the structure of society relate to each other?
Depending on the variable one looks at, the three authors appear to be rather similar or rather different,
often even contrary. Clearly, Marx sticks out with his peculiar and very positive evaluation of revolution.
On the other hand, he seems to be more or less agreeing with Tocqueville in his assessment of the main
causes of revolution. If we ask, further on, how a society looks that prevents revolutionary impulses, we –
again - find Marx’s proposal opposed to a rather unanimous conclusion by Aristotle and Tocqueville.
Thus, a comprehensive analysis like this, in my opinion, will always stay one-sided if it focuses only
on the mere causes of revolutions in the different writings. To be useful and comprehensive, it also has to
include their “concomitants”. I hope this analysis has shown that.
8
Bibliography
Aristotle, 1995: Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tocqueville, Alexis de, 2000: Democracy in America. New York: HarperCollins Publishers (Perennial
Classics).
Marx, Karl / Engels, Friedrich, 1998: The Communist Manifesto. New York: Monthly Review Press.
McIntosh, Ian (Ed.), 1997: Classical Sociological Theory: A Reader. Washington Square, New York:
New York University Press.
Note regarding the citation of Aristotle:
In contrast to the other two writers, I have cited Aristotle not with reference to certain pages but to certain
paragraphs. This procedure has the clear advantage that the references can be used with all editions of
Aristotle’s work.
9