Editing English Revolution (section)

== Marxist theory ==
{{Further|English Civil War}}
{{multiple image
| header = 
| direction = horizontal
| width1 = 110
| image1 = Félix Nadar 1820-1910 portraits François Guizot.jpg
| caption1 = {{center|[[François Guizot]]}}
| width2 = 120
| image2 = Karl Marx.png
| caption2 = {{center|[[Karl Marx]]}}
}}
The [[Marxist]] view of the English Revolution suggests that the events of 1640 to 1660 in Britain were a [[bourgeois revolution]]<ref name="Eisenstein, 2010">{{harvp|Eisenstein|2010|p=64}}, quoted in {{cite book |last=Davidson |first=Neil |author-link=Neil Davidson (historian) |title=How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois Revolutions? |publisher=[[Haymarket Books]] |location=Chicago |date=2012 |isbn=978-1-60846-067-0 |chapter=From Society to Politics; From Event to Process |pages=381–382}}</ref> in which the final section of English [[feudalism]] (the state) was destroyed by a [[bourgeois]] class (and its supporters) and replaced with a state (and society), which reflected the wider establishment of [[agrarianism|agrarian]] (and later industrial) capitalism. Such an analysis sees the English Revolution as pivotal in the transition from [[feudalism]] to [[capitalism]] and from a feudal state to a capitalist state in Britain.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Callinicos |first=Alex |author-link=Alex Callinicos |title=Bourgeois Revolutions and Historical Materialism |url=https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/callinicos/1989/xx/bourrev.html |date=Summer 1989 |journal=International Socialism |volume=2 |number=43 |pages=113–171 |via=[[Marxists Internet Archive]]}}</ref><ref name="Davidson, 2012">{{cite magazine |last=Davidson |first=Neil |author-link=Neil Davidson (historian) |title=Bourgeois Revolution and the US Civil War |url=https://isreview.org/issue/83/bourgeois-revolution-and-us-civil-war/index.html |magazine=International Socialist Review |issue=83 |date=May 2012 |publisher=Center For Economic Research and Social Change}}</ref>

The phrase "English Revolution" was first used by Marx in the short text "England's 17th Century Revolution", a response to a pamphlet on the Glorious Revolution of 1688 by [[François Guizot]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/02/english-revolution.htm |title=England's 17th Century Revolution: A Review of Francois Guizot's 1850 pamphlet ''Pourquoi la revolution d'Angleterre a-t-elle reussi?'' |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |author1-link=Karl Marx |last2=Engels |first2=Friedrich |author2-link=Friedrich Engels |work=[[Neue Rheinische Zeitung]] Politisch-ökonomische Revue |date=1850 |via=[[Marxists Internet Archive]]}}</ref> [[Oliver Cromwell]] and the English Civil War are also referred to multiple times in the work ''[[The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte]]'', but the event is not directly referred to by the name.<ref>{{cite book |chapter=Index |chapter-url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/index.htm |title=[[The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte]] |first=Karl |last=Marx |author-link=Karl Marx |via=[[Marxists Internet Archive]]}}</ref> By 1892, Engels was using the term "The Great Rebellion" for the conflict, and, while still recognising it as part of the same revolutionary event, dismissed the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as "comparatively puny".<ref name="marxists.org"/>

According to the Marxist historian [[Christopher Hill (historian)|Christopher Hill]]:

{{quote|The Civil War was a class war, in which the [[despotism]] of Charles I was defended by the reactionary forces of the [[established Church]] and conservative landlords, and on the other side stood the trading and industrial classes in town and countryside&nbsp;... the yeomen and progressive gentry, and&nbsp;... wider masses of the population whenever they were able by free discussion to understand what the struggle was really about.<ref>{{cite book |url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/hill-christopher/english-revolution/ |title=The English Revolution 1640 |first=Christopher |last=Hill |author-link=Christopher Hill (historian) |year=2002 |via=[[Marxists Internet Archive]] |orig-year=1940}}</ref>}}

Later developments of the Marxist view moved on from the theory of bourgeois revolution to suggest that the English Revolution anticipated the [[French Revolution]] and later revolutions in the field of popular administrative and economic gains.{{citation needed|date=February 2023}} Along with the expansion of parliamentary power, the English Revolution broke down many of the old power relations in both rural and urban English society.{{citation needed|date=February 2023}} The guild democracy movement of the period won its greatest successes among London's transport workers, most notably the [[Watermen|Thames Watermen]], who democratized their company in 1641–1643.{{citation needed|date=February 2023}} With the outbreak of civil war in 1642, rural communities began to seize timber and other resources on the estates of royalists, Catholics, the royal family and the church hierarchy. Some communities improved their conditions of tenure on such estates.{{citation needed|date=February 2023}}

The old status quo began a retrenchment after the end of the main civil war in 1646, and more especially after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, but some gains endured in the long term. The democratic element introduced in the watermen's company in 1642, for example, survived, with vicissitudes, until 1827.<ref name="O'Riordan, 1992"/><ref name="popular"/>

[[File:Levellers declaration and standard (cropped).gif|thumb|Illustration from the 1649 title page of ''The Declaration and Standard of the Levellers of England'' by [[William Everard (Digger)|William Everard]]]]
The Marxist view also developed a concept of a "Revolution within the Revolution" (pursued by Hill, [[Brian Manning (historian)|Brian Manning]] and others), which placed a greater deal of emphasis on the radical movements of the period (such as the agitator [[Levellers]], mutineers in the [[New Model Army]] and the [[Diggers]]), who attempted to go further than Parliament in the aftermath of the Civil War.

{{quote|There were, we may oversimplify, two revolutions in mid-seventeenth-century England. The one which succeeded established the sacred rights of property (abolition of feudal tenures, no arbitrary taxation), gave political power to the propertied (sovereignty of Parliament and common law, abolition of prerogative courts), and removed all impediments to the triumph of the ideology of the men of property – the protestant ethic. There was, however, another revolution that never happened, though from time to time it threatened. This might have established communal property, a far wider democracy in political and legal institutions, might have disestablished the state church, and rejected the Protestant ethic.<ref>{{Cite book |first=Christopher |last=Hill |author-link=Christopher Hill (historian) |title=The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas in the English Revolution |publisher=[[Penguin Books|Penguin]] |edition=New |date=1991}}</ref>}}

Brian Manning claimed:

{{quote|The old ruling class came back with new ideas and new outlooks which were attuned to economic growth and expansion and facilitated, in the long run, the development of a fully capitalist economy. It would all have been very different if Charles I had not been obliged to summon that Parliament to meet at Westminster on November 3rd, 1640.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Brian |last=Manning |author-link=Brian Manning (historian) |title=What Was the English Revolution |journal=[[History Today]] |volume=34 |date=1984}}</ref>}}

=== Criticism ===
The idea, while popular among Marxist historians, has been criticised by many historians of more liberal schools,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/civilwar/overview/great-rebellion/ |title=Great rebellion, English Revolution or War of Religion? |website=[[UK Parliament]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210613142138/https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/civilwar/overview/great-rebellion/ |archive-date=13 June 2021}}</ref> and of revisionist schools.<ref>{{cite book |first=Lawrence |last=Stone |author-link=Lawrence Stone |title=The Causes of the English Revolution 1529–1642 |chapter=Foreword (by [[Clare Jackson]]) |publisher=[[Routledge]] |pages=xiv–xv |isbn=978-1-315-18492-0 |date=2017 |orig-date=1972 |edition=Routledge Classics}}</ref>

The notion that the events of 1640 to 1660 constitute an English Revolution has been criticized by historians such as [[Austin Woolrych]], who pointed out that

{{quote|painstaking research in the county after county, in local record offices, and family archives, has revealed that the changes in the ownership of the real estate, and hence in the composition of the governing class, were nothing like as great as used to be thought.<ref>{{cite book |first=Austin |last=Woolrych |author-link=Austin Woolrych |date=2002 |title=Britain in Revolution, 1625–1660 |location=Oxford |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |page=794}}</ref>}}

Woolrych argues that the notion that the period constitutes an "English Revolution" not only ignores the lack of significant social change contained within the period but also ignores the long-term trends of the early modern period which extend beyond this narrow time frame. 

Neither [[Karl Marx]] nor [[Friedrich Engels]] ever ignored the further development of the bourgeois state beyond that point, however, as is clear from their writings on the [[Industrial Revolution]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/england/condition-workers.htm |title=Marx and Engels: On the Industrial Revolution: Primitive Accumulation and The Condition of the Working Class |website=[[Marxists Internet Archive]] |last1=Marx |first1=Karl |author1-link=Karl Marx |last2=Engels |first2=Friedrich |author2-link=Friedrich Engels}}</ref>