Christopher Thompson's recent writing offers a sober critique of Marxist views on the English Revolution. However, it essentially follows a familiar revisionist pattern: pulling away from structural analysis, refusing to consider the socio-economic changes of the 16th and 17th centuries, and portraying the Civil Wars as merely “un grand soulevement” instead of a crucial turning point in the shift from feudalism to capitalism. The author’s stance is not just anti-Marxist; it’s anti-historical, as it dismisses the long-term processes that contributed to the crisis of the 1640s. This counter-essay aims to outline the dialectical framework of the English Revolution and show why the revisionist view fails under close examination.
The Revisionist Premise: Politics Without Structure
Jonathan Healey’s main assertion is definitive: “There was no
‘bourgeois revolution’, no preceding ‘class conflict’, and certainly no
‘feudal/absolutist state’.” This statement is more of a negation than an
argument; it claims that there is no structural conflict by highlighting the
lack of explicit anti-commercial policies. However, Marxist historiography does
not rely on the idea that the Tudors or early Stuarts deliberately aimed to
suppress capitalism. The shift from feudalism to capitalism results from inherent
contradictions within the relations of production, rather than royal intent.
The revisionist position collapses because it equates
structure with policy. It assumes that if monarchs encouraged trade, then no
structural impediment existed. This is a category error. Absolutism was not
defined by hostility to commerce; it was defined by the attempt to preserve the
political supremacy of a landed ruling class in conditions where market
relations were expanding beneath them. The author’s argument is therefore
premised on a misunderstanding of what Marxists mean by “feudal” and
“absolutist.”
The Long Transition: Agrarian Capitalism and Class
Formation
During the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, significant socio-economic changes occurred: Enclosure
increased, leading to a landless rural proletariat. Tenant farming evolved
towards competitive leasing and market-driven production. London's rapid expansion
fostered a national market and a rise in commercial bourgeoisie. The gentry
grew, shifting from static feudal landlords to capitalist farmers and
investors. Meanwhile, the state’s fiscal crisis worsened as traditional feudal
revenues proved insufficient for a modernizing government.
These developments are
well-documented in manorial records, court rolls, probate inventories, and by
historians ranging from R.H. Tawney to Robert Brenner. However, the author of
the document overlooks all this evidence. Instead, they claim that population
growth up to 1630 happened “without major conflicts,” suggesting that the lack
of peasant revolts indicates social harmony. Yet, class conflict doesn't always
manifest as open rebellion. It can be seen in litigation over enclosure,
disputes over customary rights, wage struggles, religious polarization, and
political alliances driven by economic interests. A single spark did not cause
the English Revolution; it was the culmination of a century of structural
transformation.
The State as a Site of Contradiction
Thompson dismisses the idea of
a “feudal/absolutist state,” but in reality, the early Stuart monarchy embodied
that very form. It aimed to uphold the dominance of a landowning elite while
increasingly relying on capitalist economic activities. This created a sharp
contradiction: the Crown needed revenue, yet its traditional sources were
insufficient. Since Parliament controlled taxation, the monarchy tried to
impose extra-parliamentary levies such as ship money and monopolies. These
actions alienated both gentry and merchants. Additionally, religious conflicts
intensified political divides, and the issue of multiple kingdoms deepened the
crisis. This wasn’t just a random “great uprising”—it was the political
manifestation of systemic tensions in a society in transition. The author’s
refusal to recognize this isn’t humility but a form of theoretical blindness.
Supporters of King and Parliament were present at every
societal level. This fact is accurate but not relevant, as class is defined by
one’s relationship to the means of production, not political loyalty. The fact
that individuals with similar class backgrounds chose different sides shows
that class conflict persists, with ideology, religion, and political culture
acting as mediators. Marxists have never claimed the Civil Wars were fought by
purely self-aware bourgeois armies waving banners of capitalism. Instead, they
see the political crisis as revealing deeper socio-economic contradictions.
Revisionism fails because it insists on a simplistic, mechanistic class
alignment that no Marxist historian has ever endorsed.
Christopher Hill and the Straw Man
Thompson seeks to undermine
Marxist historiography by highlighting changes in Christopher Hill’s work.
However, Hill’s development was not a repudiation of Marxism; rather, it was an
evolution. His initial focus was on class conflict, while his later work
highlighted the bourgeois outcomes of the revolution. This shift is not
inconsistency but dialectical progress. Hill recognized that: the revolution
did not immediately establish capitalism but destroyed political barriers to
its development, created a state structure compatible with market relations,
and hastened the emergence of a bourgeois political culture. Therefore, the
author’s dismissive view of Hill is superficial, as it misinterprets both
Hill’s intellectual evolution and the Marxist approach.
The Restoration Was Not a Royalist Victory
“A great uprising … which
ended in a Royalist victory in and after 1660.” This characterization is
historically inaccurate. The Restoration was a negotiated compromise that
retained many of the revolution's gains: the monarchy was restored, but
absolutism was not. Parliament's dominance was maintained, the fiscal-military
state grew, agrarian capitalism advanced, and the bourgeoisie gained influence.
The Glorious Revolution finalized this process. If this is considered a
“Royalist victory,” it is a peculiar one—one that undermines the very
foundations of Royalist power. The author’s assertion appears rhetorical rather
than analytical.
The Necessity of Structural Explanation
The revisionist view outlined
in the document is not only incorrect but also insufficient. It fails to
account for key developments such as England's long-term socio-economic
changes, the state's fiscal crisis, political polarization in the 1630s and 1640s,
the ideological radicalization of the New Model Army, the abolition of the
monarchy and House of Lords, and the rise of a state aligned with capitalist
growth. Marxist historiography can explain these phenomena, as it doesn’t
reduce the revolution solely to class conflict but places political events
within societal contradictions during structural change. The English Revolution
was not merely a “great uprising"; it was a pivotal break in the shift
from feudalism to capitalism. Denying this is to deny the course of history
itself.
