The Great English Revolution

The Great English Revolution (William Joseph)

The English Revolution, which culminated in 1649 with the execution of King Charles 1, overthrew and destroyed the Tudor-Stuart feudal absolutist State, replacing it by the rule of capital, upon which the present British imperialist State has its foundation.

1.The revolution was long in preparation. Capitalist production was its mainspring. The struggle of the feudal lords against the exploited peasantry ended in the defeat of both at the hands of capital. Struggling against the oppression of the feudal lords, the peasantry was splintering into new classes, into capitalist farmers and agricultural wage-labourers. Capitalist profit was born. Where agriculture passed to capitalist organisation, the feudal lords became landlords. Instead of, or as well as wringing feudal tribute from subject peasants, they became the receivers of capitalist ground-rent. Thus part of the feudal lords split off from the old body and lived not on the surplus produced by the peasant, but on the surplus above the farming profit obtained by capitalist farmers through the employment of wage-labour. Profit, rent and interest were replacing feudal tribute.

This change in agricultural organisation was of far-reaching importance. It permitted the development of non-agricultural industries: mining, metallurgy, clothing, and so on. Nevertheless, England remained an agricultural nation. Agriculture was the main industry. Non-agricultural industries remained of secondary importance only. The passage of economy to capitalism was necessarily accompanied by important technical changes, not least in agriculture.

The birth and growth of capitalist production was accompanied by a trade boom. Capitalism developed its own home market. Overseas trade expanded and became concentrated in the Port of London. Between 1500 and 1640 London,s population increased tenfold.

The change from feudal to capitalist production altered the social position of the merchants. Under feudalism they had taken a share of the surplus production of the peasants and handicraftsmen. Now they began to share the surplus-value created by wage-labour. They became capitalist merchants.

The birth and growth of capitalist product, rent and interest was accompanied by inflation. Inflation, usury, mortgage – these all facilitated the growth of capital.

The development of capitalist production, of which the overwhelming part was in agriculture, gave rise to new social classes. First, capitalists mainly engaged in agriculture. Some of these capitalist farmers were gentlemen, some yeomen. But these titles explained nothing. They were all in essence agricultural capitalists. They all exploited wage-labour in agriculture. There were also non-agricultural industrial capitalists: brewers, clothiers, and so on. Economically, all these capitalists were a revolutionary class. They accumulated capital in a revolutionary way, by exploiting wage-labour.

Secondly, the bourgeois-landowner aristocracy.They were the receivers of capitalist ground-rent. They were interested in the promotion of capitalist production. The capitalist landlords were linked with the merchant and banking capital of the City of London. These two groupings formed the capitalist class.

Thirdly, the proletariat. This was mainly rural and agricultural, constantly recruited from the ranks of the crushed peasantry and handicraftsmen. Since it was scattered and dispersed in a sea of petty-bourgeois small producers, the proletariat was not a social power of the first importance.

But capitalist production developed inside a feudal society ruled by feudal lords and by the chief lord, the king. The development of capitalist production changed feudalism in State feudalism. Only the king and his State machine was now able to extract feudal tribute. Grouped round the king was his Catholic Church of England and his courtiers, parasitic feudal nobility. The feudal nobility hung round the court because it was the best place for putting their hands on the feudal tribute exacted by the king. Just as today only direct State intervention can exact capitalist profits from production organised socially, so then only State intervention could wring feudal tribute from capitalist production. A whole bureaucratic machine was built at the king,s court with no other purpose but the extraction of feudal dues. Nominally, these dues were to maintain the State: in practise, the State existed to maintain the dues. But feudal dues and tribute, upon which the feudal rulers depended, deprived the industrial capitalist of his profit and the capitalist landowner of his ground-rent. The feudal State not only impeded the development of capitalist production, it threatened its existence. Hence an embittered class struggle. The capitalists wanted to clear the monarchy and the feudal lords from their path.

The Crown and the feudal lords exploited not only the capitalists. They exploited all non-priviliged society. All the unprivileged in society were potential allies of the capitalists. In particular, the petty-bourgeoisie was the king,s enemy. The petty-bourgeois of the countryside, the middle peasant, neither a seller nor a buyer of labour-power, but a self-employed, independent small producer – in a word, a family farmer – was interested in the destruction of the oppressive feudal-absolutist State. Revolts of the family farmers had punctuated the whole history of the Tudor-Stuart monarchy, and had imperilled its existence. But the family farmer was also opposed to the big capitalist farmer. Agrarian capitalism was crushing the family farmer, it was proletarianising him.

The industrial capitalists and the capitalist landowners waged a political struggle against the Crown. Secure in their agrarian base, which they constantly expanded, they acquired along with their estates and manors the boroughs represented in Parliament. The capitalist landowher aristocracy nominated its representatives in the House of Commons. In this way, the capitalist landowners were able to secure a parliamentaty majority. The greater among them sat in the House of Lords and chose also many of the Commons members. Capitalist landowners captured the Commons from the Crown. They organised inside the House by means of parliamentary committees. They tried to control the king by refusing him money. The bourgeois landowners waged a constitutional struggle and placed a financial stranglehold on the Crown.

King Charles tried to break this stranglehold by dismissing Parliament. He ruled despotically and unleashed a reign of terror. The reign of terror did not overcome class contradictions, however. It sharpened them. During of reign the terror a front was formed between the bourgeois landowners, the industrial capitalists and the petty-bourgeoisie and family farmers. They united in resistance to the Crown. They led the nation in resistance. The end of the feudal State was marked by economic crisis, by famibe and plague, by unbridled feudal exploitation, and by revolt. The industrial capitalists joined the petty-bourgeois family farmers in revolts against the enclosure of land by the king and other feudal lords. Armed bands levelled these enclosures. After defeats in local rural revolts, Charles embarked on a military adventure in Scotland. The uniformed family day-labourers did not want to fight for Charles. They ensured his defeat. Charles was obliged to call Parliament and make concessions.

What had given the bourgeoisie political strength? How had they prepared for their revolutionary tasks? By sharpening, their ideological weapons and by organisation.

The ideology that united all sections of the bourgeoisie, and the population generally, against the Crown was Puritanism. The strength of Puritanism resided not only in its outlook and faith, but above all in its self-discipline and organisation. Puritanism cemented all the opponents of the Crown.