How does marxists explain the civil war since the idea it was between burgeoning buorgonise and declining aristocracy is now defunct?
muh marxists
>>16536831>How does marxists explain the civil warIll financial and political situation made already existing tensions explode.
>>16536831Revision of preexisting terminology and redirects from anything problematic to their religion.
>>16536957that seems vague on purpose
>>16536831how is it defunct
>>16537365didn't follow class lines, like Cromwell himself was a well do aristocrat
>>16537378the Cromwells were new money who got rich off the back of the dissolution of the monasteries rather than through entrenched land ownership. Relatively new aristocrats have the same interests as rich commoners
>>16537477a few generations before william , at some point families stop being nova rich
>>16536831Perry Anderson would probably the Marxist to ask about that.>The Civil War of 1640–49 remains the most obscure and controversial of all the great upheavals which lead to the creation of a modern, capitalist Europe. Never was the ultimate effect of revolution more transparent, and its immediate agents more enigmatic. The view that the conflict of the 1640s was a simple struggle between a rising bourgeoisie and a declining aristocracy is clearly untenable. The current alternatives—that the Civil War was the work of a fronde of discontented squires or that it was a sudden, transcendant condensation of ‘faith and freedom’ (puritan and constitutional) in the clear air of Stuart England—are still less convincing; the one is trivial, the other naive. Who made the Revolution? What kind of a Revolution was it? It can, perhaps, be said that it was a clash between two segments of a landowning class, neither of which were direct crystallizations of opposed economic interests, but rather were partially contingent but predominantly intelligible lenses into which wider, more radically antagonistic social forces came into temporary and distorted focus.
>>16537584>Furthermore the ideological terms in which the struggle was conducted were largely religious, and hence still more dissociated from economic aspirations than political idioms normally are. Thus, although its outcome was a typically bourgeois rationalization of state and economy, and its major direct beneficiary was a true bourgeoisie, it was a ‘bourgeois revolution’ only by proxy. The main protagonists on both sides were a rural, not an urban class. The conflict between them revolved round the economic, political, and religious role of the monarchy. It is clear that the inefficient, would-be feudal Stuart monarchy was threatening by its economic exactions to cripple the expansion of the rationalized agrarian and commercial capitalism which had been maturing in England for century before 1640. It is probably, but not proved that a majority of those landowners who were dynamic and investment-oriented sided with Parliament, and that a majority of routine and rentier landlords sided with the King; it is, however, certain that the most economically progressive regions of England were Parliamentarian, and the most backward Royalist. At the same time, the nature of the allies flanking each side magnified and clarified the logic of the division between them. Taking extremes—on the one side, the archaic clan society of northern Scotland, on the other mercantile capital, particularly in the City of London; this last formed a crucial component in the bloc which finally won the Civil War, providing the indispensable financial reserves for the victory.
>>16537590>It is probably, but not proved
>>16537584>neither of which were direct crystallizations of opposed economic interests, but rather were partially contingent but predominantly intelligible lenses into which wider, more radically antagonistic social forces came into temporary and distorted focus.am i retarded? I've read this five times and I cannot decipher what he is trying to say. Use simple words, dammit!!!! Short form content addiction and its consequences...
>>16537567even today there's a noticeable stratification in England between families that came across the Channel with William the Conqueror and families that got rich afterwards. Even if you get rich you'll never be part of the Old Boys Club
