Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
‘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.
‘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 Bourgeoisie needed stability and allowed Charles II back provided he accepted a deal where, with the exception of the regicides, he would rule with parliament (hence his confirming the abolition of feudal tenure upon his return).
But this is unnecessary as an explanation of the English Revolution since nobody here denies that the bourgeoisie were in the forefront of it. The article from which the above quote comes also goes on to establish that an important element of the aristocracy who supported Charles were still dependent on feudal tenure.
TM where do you get such confidence? This debate has gone on among historians since the event itself. The idea that the king’s army was a band of ‘outlaws’ sounds absurd to me. The country was split down the middle and some historians estimate that 250,000 people died during the period making the French revolution look like a bar brawl. And this was all down to the king and his band of outlaws? I believe it to be the first of the great revolutions in Europe that eventually created global capitalism. Until I’m provided with evidence to the contrary I still believe it was primarily a struggle between the rising bourgeoisie and the decaying remains of feudalism incarnated in the king and his conservative land owners together with some renegade capitalists. If Mary Tudor hadn’t died prematurely we would have endured a counter reformation for which she enjoyed great support from the English ancien regime.
Robbo, of course the gradual evolution of capitalism within feudalism is the origin of the capitalist class – nobody here is denying that. What I do deny is that the events of 1642 represented a struggle between elements of the capitalist class which would deprive it of its revolutionary nature as the climax of a class struggle.
Feudal Tenure was abolished in 1645 and Charles II was obliged to confirm this in 1660. Perhaps this was an arrangement with the bourgeoisie to facilitate his return? The fact that socage represented a phase within decaying feudalism fits nicely with the events of 1642.
ALB your above link to a list of feudal tenures also includes this:
<b>Socage</b> (/ˈsɒkɪdʒ/)<sup id=”cite_ref-1″ class=”reference”>[1]</sup> was one of the feudal duties and hence land tenure forms in the feudal system. A farmer, for example, held the land in exchange for a clearly defined, fixed payment to be made at specified intervals to his feudal lord, who in turn had his own feudal obligations, to the farmer (principally those of protection) and to the Crown. In theory this might involve supplying the lord with produce but most usually it meant a straightforward payment of cash, i.e., rent.
Surely this means that your view of the payment of cash rents as being incompatible with feudal tenure is incorrect?
Thanks TM for correctly summarizing my thoughts on this subject. I can only think that Robbo has not been following the debate as closely as he might. ALB is commenting on the existence of different definitions of feudalism. Hill claims that his definition is the same as Marx’s – is this incorrect? Also the idea that Hill was influenced by Stalinism is rather far fetched. However it has been an ongoing disaster that the left have always been suckers for Bolshevik propaganda so it might be a possibility but if that were the case why does he continue to be respected by his peers – even by his enemies?. I still need to know the origin of the incomes of the conservative land owners who supported Charles I. ALB seems to think that the payment of money rents disqualifies them as feudal tenure and I’m not at all convinced by this.
TM – you don’t seem to be very selective in your quotes. Many seem to originate from anonymous sources. You must realize that there has been a long ideological struggle between historians concerning the matters under debate here. The priority of most reactionary historians is to destroy or at least undermine the Marxist theory of class struggle generating historical change. Your ‘gradualist’ theory of history is one of their favourite tactics and so you must forgive me for being suspicious of its credibility. None of us here are historians i.e. we don’t have access to original sources or the training to interpret their meaning. We have to rely on historians for our information and, as I’ve said, many have an ideological agenda.
‘ I don’t think that showing that some bourgeois sided with the absolutist state would disprove that the class struggle.’
‘I don’t think that the materialist conception of history says that every single member of a particular class has to support the objective interests of that class.’
Neither myself or C. Hill take that position. I just want some evidence that the income of those conservative landowners who supported Charles I did not come from feudal tenure as C. Hill maintains. Your point about the final abolition of feudal tenure taking place during the restoration may just indicate that Charles II recognized that his future depended on accommodating the economic needs of the bourgeoise.
