The Tudor revolution
- This topic has 313 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Therefore, Russia, China, Cuba and North Korea were matured for a proletarian revolution instead of carrying over a bourgeoise/nationalist revolution. The SPGB should erase all the articles written about this process and teach something different to the sympathizers and new members. Bernstein is not the only Marx revisionist
I cant make any sense of this. The preconditions of a socialist revolution are very different to those of a capitalist revolution. Who are these members who have suggested Russia et al was ready for the former? No one has said this. You cant have socialism without a conscious socialist majority and in Russia – by Lenin’s own admission – the number of socialists were miniscule relative to the population
Thanks. I rest.
their lands were not feudal but bourgeois property.
Ite missa est. Pax vobiscum.
Our main concern as a socialist/communist organization is the socialist proletarian revolution, it is not the fucking feudalist/ capitalist revolution Something is wrong with the spgb when they are accepting applicants who do not follow the materialist conception of history and we are accepting a bunch of bourgeoise conception , conspiracists and virus deniers are we going thru an ideological decline? The main social topics of our time are being placed as a second priority and being replaced with petty bourgeoise cafeteria discussions
Our main concern as a socialist/communist organization is the socialist proletarian revolution, it is not the fucking feudalist/ capitalist revolution
That’s exactly what I said so I am still puzzled as what exactly it is you are complaining about
Something is wrong with the spgb when they are accepting applicants who do not follow the materialist conception of history
Who is not following the materialist conception of history? You seem to be just making wild unsubstantiated charges here. The debate has to do with when did capitalist relations of production emerge in the UK. The Marx quote that ALB provided is quite useful here – notably this:
“The English class of great landowners, allied with the bourgeoisie — which, incidentally, had already developed under Henry VIII — did not find itself in opposition — as did the French feudal landowners in 1789 — but rather in complete harmony with the vital requirements of the bourgeoisie. In fact, their lands were not feudal but bourgeois property.”
If you are criticising TM then you are also criticising Marx’s view – in which case when do YOU think bourgeois property relations emerged in England?
He thinks with the civil war.
You seem, TM, to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, you point out (correctly) that the landowning class created by Henry VIII were not feudal barons but ordinary “bourgeois” property owners (in the sense that their property rights were no different from owners of other property than land). On the other hand, you point to them (despite being painted by Van Dyck) as supporters of Parliament as evidence that the overthrow of the king was not a bourgeois revolution.
Marx was writing about the Glorious Revolution of 1688 but the course of events since the 1640s was the same as that of other political revolutions. The revolutionists win political power and the moderates are satisfied; another section wants to go further and does but are themselves overthrown, and the result is that the moderates get their way. As Marx pointed out, the landowning class had no more interest in there being an absolutist state than had the bourgeoisie and so supported a political revolution to overthrow it. Later, a conflict of interest developed between them and the factory owning capitalist class but that’s another history.
Bear in mind that the difference in time between the execution of the king in 1649 and 1688 is the same as the difference between 1981 and today with the English Republic being overthrow in 1992.
Time to overthrow feudalism?
The point is that large landowners were also with parliament. You have been making out that the landowners were feudals, essentially no different from the beneficiaries of 1066, who were o erthrown by the parliamentarians of 1642, who thus ended feudal rule and established capitalism.
In other words, the massive social upheaval of the Tudor enclosures never happened and the old feudal barons remained in control of the land.
I don’t want it both ways. According to you, the “feudal” landlords should have all been on the king’s side.
The Counter Reformation was in fact the Reformation in Catholic countries which had no sizeable protestant presence. It established a new Roman Catholic Church suitable for the capitalist nation-state and suitable for bourgeois national interests. Protestantism was not essential for the bourgeoisie in the countries that stayed Catholic and thus adopted the new Tridentine credentials.
Protestantism was just as much across the board, adopted by the princes of Germany, Scandinavia and the Kings of England.
I do not think that capitalism started in the agricultural society, that is petty bourgeoise production, if that is the case, I lived most of my life in a capitalist society where agriculture was the prevailing mode of production, and I was able to see the change when it became a real capitalist society, the whole society changed drastically including the thoughts of the peoples. If that is the Cuban revolution, and the Russian revolution of 1905 and 1917 was not a bourgeoise revolution, therefore the SPGB/WSM , and Georgi Plekhanov have been wrong all the time, and Castroists and the leftist are totally correct. Lenin book known as the Development of capitalism in Russia is a well-written book backed up by statistic which shows the economic reality of Russia before 1917
It looks that you have not lived or visited a society where catholicism prevails, I did, catholicism did not have the basis, ideological or economical elements to produce a jump into a capitalist society, it was Protestantism who established the ideological basis for a capitalist society. Catholicism held back the capitalist and scientific development of Spain, and several countries in Latin America, despite the fact that it was a very cultured empire difference to the uncultured USA empire
Dunayevskaya used to say all the time: When they move, they move ( the working class ) when they move, are you going to be ready? That is the main question, I have been ready for several decades, waiting for a proletarian revolution, and many theoreticians are going to be under the bed because the choice is going to be the ballot or the bullet, and in some places, the bourgeoisie is going to make resistance and the working would be forced to remove them at all cost
Thomas_More wrote:
He thinks with the civil war.
No, I think about the proletarian revolution, and that is my only concern, I am not stuck in the past, I look at the present and at the future, and at the present time, the working class is going thru a lot of issues and problems. A person with an empty stomach does not care about Feudalism, princes, or kings, they want to resolve their problems, I have worked with peasants and I know what they want, they only want land reforms, and I have worked with factories workers and they want a revolution and drastic changes, They do not want coffee and milk discussions. The socialist party must be a school of socialist education, and their members should thinkers and doers
“You have been making out that the landowners were feudals”
“According to you, the “feudal” landlords should have all been on the king’s side.“
I don’t know who this is addressed to but it can’t be me as I have never said that. In fact I have argued here the exact opposite— that the landlords created by the dissolution of the monasteries were not feudal barons.
My argument has been that they were a landowning class who lived off the ground rent paid by their tenants who were producing for the market for profit (as noted by Adam Smith in the 18th century). In other words, that they were not bourgeois in the sense of a capitalist living off profits. Even so, they were just as opposed to an absolutist state as the bourgeois and made common cause with them against it.
In fact they benefitted as much from 1688 as the bourgeoisie, especially as they got to fill the top posts in the government for the next two hundred years.
More broadly, I have agreed with you that capitalism existed before the bourgeoisie won political control. Of course it did, otherwise they would have had no economic basis and in fact would not have existed. I can even agree with you that capitalism developed after feudalism under the absolutist state. However, that state had to be overthrown because in the end it became a barrier to the further development of capitalism. Hence the English Civil War and English Revolution considered in 1688.
- My argument has been that they were a landowning
class who lived off the ground rent paid by their
tenants who were producing for the market for
profit (as noted by Adam Smith in the 18th
century). In other words, they were not
bourgeois in the sense of a capitalist living off
profits. Even so, they were just as opposed to an
absolutist state as the bourgeois and made common
cause with them against it
2) More broadly, I have agreed with you that capitalism existed before the bourgeoisie won political control. Of course, it did, otherwise, they would have had no economic basis and in fact, would not have existed. I can even agree with you that capitalism developed after feudalism under the absolutist state. However, that state had to be overthrown because in the end, it became a barrier to the further development of capitalism. Hence the English Civil War and English Revolution considered in 1688.
=================================================================
These two extracts are written by Adam Buick, they confirm everything. Without a bourgeoise revolution, the bourgeoisie class could not have been established. As Engels wrote: The Role of Force in history. I rest my case
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/war/index.htm
- My argument has been that they were a landowning
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.