The Tudor revolution
- This topic has 313 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
‘or doesn’t the Earl of Essex or the Earl of Manchester count?’
Interesting that TM should refer to these two renegade aristocrats since Cromwell replaced both of them accusing them of not wholly believing in the parliamentary cause and so preventing the conclusion of the revolution until the Battle of Naseby in 1645.
The landowners were non-bourgeois capitalists then. A war between capitalists!
The revolution wasn’t complete until 1688.
I agree with Marcos.
Agree with DJP too.
Then, ALB, the revolution took over from the evolution with Henry’s victory in 1485.
The owners of a mobile home ( manufactured home ) renting land from landlords are capitalists too according to this analysis. The problem in this discussion is that the class struggle is being placed under the carpet
Fairfax was an aristocrat, and the actual parliamentary commander in chief.
No, but the landlords are. There were no feudal nobles left.
“The owners of a mobile home ( manufactured home ) renting land from landlords are capitalists too according to this analysis”
You misunderstand. “This analysis” isn’t that whoever pays ground rent is a capitalist, but that tenant farmers aren’t really “bourgeois” – they’re not urban merchants.
The fact that farmers in England had to pay competitive rents on the market meant that they had to keep finding ways to increase the productivity of labour, otherwise, become uncompetitive and not able to continue in the rental market – it was this that set the whole dynamic of capitalism going – according to Brenner and Meiksins Wood.
‘The landowners were non-bourgeois capitalists then.’
You are truly a master of the non sequitur TM. That statement is so nonsensical I wouldn’t know how to answer it.
‘The revolution wasn’t complete until 1688.’
It was simply the bourgeoisie’s response to James II’s attempted counter revolution.
I’ve been told that the American War of Independence was a bourgeois revolution yet the colonies had no feudalism but many of the rebels had the land-owning status of colonial aristocrats and were chattel slave owners to boot but the wealthy mercantile traders were often the Loyalists – opposed to this “bourgeois” revolution… confused?….so am i.
I am not referring to your analysis
The USA since the very beginning was not a feudal society. As Dr General Horne has said it was a counter-revolution of slaveholders against another slaveholder to continue slavery, and slavery was not only the plantation, it covers many aspects of the society including transportation, textile production, whisky production, banking, wholesaler, retailers, territorials, economic expansion and merchants. The slaves were collaterals or lien for bank loans
No, 1688 was the consolidation of bourgeois victory and the British state: the climax of the political revolution.
As far as I’m aware every Marxist I’ve ever read or met uses the term bourgeois and capitalist interchangeably. Certainly in the context of this debate they are since we’re discussing the traditional Marxist term, and its applicability or otherwise, for the events in England of 1642 as a bourgeois revolution. Many capitalist landowners and city merchants made common cause against Charles I.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.