Class, Revolution, and the Limits of Bourgeois Democracy: Cromwell, the Levellers, and the English Revolution
A Dissertation by
Keith Livesey Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Arts, Birkbeck Department of History
Preface
This dissertation is the product of a long engagement with
the English Revolution, the first great bourgeois revolution and the
foundational rupture of the modern world. Its central concern is not merely to
recount events but to understand the class forces that shaped them, the
ideological forms through which they became conscious, and the historical
limits that determined their outcome.
The Putney Debates of 1647, the suppression of the
Levellers, and the brief rise of the Digger communes are more than just
historical events. They embody the first clear signs of the core contradictions
in capitalist society. The questions posed at that Putney church—about power,
property, democracy, and equality— are still unanswered because they can't be
fully resolved within a capitalist system. This work holds that the English
Revolution is not merely a past event but a living contradiction in today's
world. Its legacy is still incomplete, its questions remain relevant, and its
lessons are still urgent.
Structure of the
Dissertation The dissertation proceeds as follows:
Chapter 1
establishes the theoretical and historiographical framework
Chapter 2
analyses the English Revolution as a bourgeois revolution
Chapter 3
examines the Putney Debates as a confrontation between property and
democracy
Chapter 4
explores Cromwell’s suppression of the Levellers
Chapter 5
analyses the Diggers as a pre-history of communism
Chapter 6
examines religion as the ideological form of revolutionary consciousness
Chapter 7
synthesises the theoretical implications for bourgeois revolution and permanent
revolution
Chapter 8
assesses the contemporary relevance of the revolution and the unresolved
questions of 1647
Introduction —
Revolution, Class, and the Making of the Modern World The English Revolution
and the Problem of Modernity
The English Revolution of the mid-seventeenth century marks
a pivotal point for the modern era. It was the first successful bourgeois
revolution, overthrowing the feudal monarchy by force of arms, asserting
parliamentary sovereignty, and challenging the democratic hopes of the lower
classes within the confines of capitalist property. This revolution introduced
political, economic, and ideological concepts that would shape the subsequent
three centuries, including the modern state, rule of law, inviolability of
property, rights language, and the idea of the individual as the core unit of
political life.
The revolution was also riddled with significant
contradictions. It called on the lower classes to overthrow feudalism but
suppressed them when their demands threatened bourgeois stability. While it
declared the people's sovereignty, political power remained limited to the
wealthy. It inspired radical democratic and communist ideas but used military
force to suppress them. The revolution spoke of divine providence while paving
the way for capitalist rationality. It was simultaneously emancipatory and repressive,
revolutionary and conservative, democratic in appearance but oligarchic in
substance.
This dissertation contends that these contradictions are
inherent to the English Revolution, not incidental. They highlight the
structural constraints of capitalist democracy and the historical factors
preventing the complete realisation of democratic ideals in a society founded
on private property.
This study's main argument is that the English Revolution is
the earliest and most explicit example of a recurring pattern in bourgeois
revolutions: the bourgeoisie cannot fully realise the democratic revolution it
initiates. The goals of political equality, social justice, and popular
sovereignty consistently clash with the demands of property, hierarchy, and
capital accumulation. The Levellers and Diggers are the first historical
expressions of this contradiction, and their suppression marks the initial
resolution of this conflict in favour of the bourgeoisie.
The Putney Debates as
the Theoretical Core of the Revolution
The Putney Debates of October–November 1647 serve as the
focal point of this dissertation. They represent the moments when the
revolution openly addressed its own contradictions with remarkable clarity.
Within the New Model Army — the most politically aware military of its time — vital
questions about political legitimacy were openly discussed: Who should govern?
On what authority?
Whose interests are prioritised? How are property and
political power connected? And what does it mean to consent to government?
The clash between the Leveller-influenced Agitators and the
Grandees was more than a constitutional debate; it represented a fierce
struggle between opposing class interests. The Levellers championed nearly
universal male suffrage, legal equality, and popular sovereignty. In contrast,
the Grandees argued that political authority should be limited to those with a
“fixed, local interest"—namely, property owners. These conflicting
positions reflected two fundamentally different visions of society: one
advocating for a democratic republic based on political equality, and the other
supporting a bourgeois state that prioritises property rights.
The Putney debates highlight the core contradiction of
bourgeois revolution: the bourgeoisie encourages the lower classes to overthrow
feudalism, but silences them when their demands endanger property. The
Levellers’ loss was not a betrayal but a necessary outcome of the
revolution.
The Diggers and the
Historical Limits of the Seventeenth Century
If the Levellers embodied the democratic hopes of the lower
classes, the Diggers were the first to systematically express a communist
critique of property. Led by Gerrard Winstanley, they aimed to create communal
land ownership, shared labour, and a society lacking masters and servants.
Their short-lived venture at St George’s Hill in 1649 is a notable chapter in
early modern history—a revolutionary idea for its time.
However, the Diggers were ahead of their time. The
conditions required for communism—such as industrial production, socialised
labour, and a proletariat— were not yet in place. Their failure highlights the
limitations of the seventeenth century, yet their ideas foreshadowed the
challenges of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The Diggers show that the democratic revolution creates
pressures extending beyond capitalism. Their suppression proves that the
bourgeois revolution cannot resolve the contradictions it triggers.
Religion as the
Ideological Form of Class Struggle
The English Revolution adopted the language of Puritan
theology, not because it was primarily a religious movement, but because
religion served as the ideological framework for awareness of class struggle.
The Bible offered a common language encompassing equality, tyranny, liberation,
and justice. The Levellers employed scripture to express democratic goals; the
Diggers used it for communist ideals; and the Grandees invoked it to justify
property rights and social order.
Building on Engels’ analysis of the German Peasant War, this
dissertation argues that religious ideology is not merely a distraction from
material conflicts but a necessary manifestation of them. The theological
conflicts of the era reflected underlying struggles over property, labour, and
political authority.
Theoretical
Framework: Historical Materialism and Permanent Revolution
This dissertation is based on historical materialism. It
explores the English Revolution as a key period of class struggle driven by the
contradictions of a society evolving from feudalism to capitalism. The analysis
incorporates perspectives from Marx, Engels, and Trotsky to examine: the social
roots of the revolution, the class forces at play, the ideological expressions
of their consciousness, the structural constraints of bourgeois democracy, and
the historical prerequisites for socialism.
Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution offers a historical
perspective on the seventeenth century. It clarifies why the bourgeoisie alone
cannot finish the democratic revolution and why the modern proletariat, a class
not linked to property, is capable of fully implementing democratic reforms.
The English Revolution serves as the earliest historical example supporting
this concept.
Historiographical
Context and Intervention
This dissertation engages with a longstanding
historiographical debate. It challenges Whig historiography, which depicts the
revolution as a progression toward constitutional monarchy; Revisionism, which
dismisses the revolution’s social aspects and reduces it to local conflicts and
elite factional struggles; and postmodernist perspectives, which see ideology
as separate from material conditions. The work builds on the Marxist tradition,
including figures like Christopher Hill and Brian Manning, while also
incorporating Trotskyist insights into the mechanisms of the bourgeois
revolution.
The main historiographical argument is that understanding
the English
Revolution requires acknowledging its class nature. The
Putney Debates, Leveller mutinies, and Digger communes serve as key evidence
against revisionist efforts to depoliticise the revolution.
CHAPTER 2 — THE
ENGLISH REVOLUTION AS A BOURGEOIS REVOLUTION
Introduction: The
Necessity of a Materialist Interpretation
To comprehend the Putney Debates, Cromwell’s political path,
or the suppression of the Levellers, it’s essential to first understand the
class nature of the English Revolution itself. The 1647 debates did not stem
from abstract constitutional theorising; instead, they expressed a profound
social transformation. The revolution was the political result of a lengthy
process in which feudal production relations were dismantled and replaced by
rising agrarian-capitalist structures.
The conflict—whether between King and Parliament, Court and
Country, Grandees and Agitators—was the political expression of deeper material
contradictions coming to the fore.
This chapter contends that the English Revolution should be
seen as a bourgeois revolution. Not in the simplistic sense of a conspiracy
involving merchants and lawyers, but in the accurate Marxist sense of a
revolutionary break where the emerging bourgeoisie, supported by parts of the
gentry and the “middling sort,” dismantled feudal political and legal systems,
paving the way for capitalist social relations. As noted in the uploaded
document, the upheavals of the 1640s represented “the violent overthrow of one
class system by another.” This perspective is fundamental for any in-depth
analysis.
The Crisis of
Feudalism and the Rise of Agrarian Capitalism
The Long Decline of
Feudal Relations
By the early 1600s, the English feudal system was highly
broken down. The manorial structure had weakened over centuries due to economic
shifts: labour services were replaced by cash rents, trade increased, and
social ties became more monetised. The Tudor rulers sped up this decline by
dissolving monasteries, selling crown lands, and expanding state authority.
However, the political framework—the monarchy, House of Lords, and church
hierarchy—still clung to feudal ideas about authority and property.
Enclosure, Market
Relations, and the Transformation of the Countryside
The most significant change took place in rural areas.
Enclosure—in which open fields and common lands were consolidated into private
property—led to the emergence of a new class of capitalist farmers and a
growing number of landless workers. The gentry, shifting toward market-oriented
production, invested in drainage systems, better breeds, and commercial farming
practices. Meanwhile, the yeomanry, the “middling sort,” and urban artisans
became increasingly involved in expanding networks of commodity exchange.
This was not a smooth transition but a period characterised
by riots, resistance, and social upheaval. The enclosure of the commons
eliminated traditional rights and led to the formation of a rural proletariat.
The expansion of wage labour weakened the paternalistic bonds of feudal
society. Meanwhile, the market emerged as the primary force regulating social
life.
The Bourgeoisie and
the Gentry: A Revolutionary Bloc
The English bourgeoisie was not solely an urban group. It
was a hybrid class consisting of merchants, financiers, lawyers, and notably,
the commercially minded gentry. The alliance among these groups established the
social foundation for the parliamentary opposition to the Crown. Their shared
interests centred on securing property rights, promoting free trade, limiting
arbitrary royal authority, expanding markets, and streamlining law and
administration.
In contrast, the monarchy embodied the remnants of feudal
absolutism, including prerogative courts, monopolies, arbitrary taxation, and
efforts to sustain a political order that grew progressively incompatible with
the demands of a capitalist economy.
The Political Crisis
of the 1640s
The Fiscal-Military
State and the Limits of Absolutism
The English monarchy was going through a structural crisis.
Unlike France or Spain, it didn't have the financial system to support a modern
standing army or bureaucracy. Charles I’s efforts to increase revenue using
prerogative measures—such as ship money, forced loans, and monopolies—met
strong opposition from a class that was becoming more aware of its economic
influence and political rights.
Parliament emerged as the institutional voice of bourgeois
and gentry interests. Its requests—such as holding regular sessions,
controlling taxation, and ending prerogative courts—weren't just abstract
constitutional ideas but the political means of a class struggle over property
and state authority. The initial reforms of the Long Parliament, including the
abolition of the Star Chamber, the execution of Strafford, and the Triennial
Act, marked the first stage of the bourgeois revolution.
The formation of the New Model Army in 1645 reshaped the
political scene. It
functioned not just as a military unit but, “in effect, a political party.” Its members mainly came from artisan and yeoman backgrounds, heavily influenced by Puritan radicalism, and grew more aware of their collective strength. The Army emerged as the key revolutionary force, capable of challenging both the monarchy and Parliament.
The Execution of
Charles I: Revolutionary Break
The trial and execution of Charles I in January 1649
symbolised a decisive break from feudal monarchy. When the people execute their
king after a formal trial and careful deliberation, it reflects a deep
revolutionary change rather than a mere misunderstanding.” This event was
historic: a monarch was tried, condemned as a “tyrant, traitor, murderer, and
public enemy” by his own subjects.
This was more than a symbolic act; it was a revolutionary
move that dismantled the ideological basis of feudal power—the divine right of
kings—and established the sovereignty of the people, though in a limited,
bourgeois manner. It paved the way for the Commonwealth and the Protectorate,
regimes that, despite their contradictions, signified the rise of the
bourgeoisie in politics.
The Limits of the
Bourgeois Revolution
Property as the
Boundary of Political Reform
The bourgeoisie aimed to eliminate feudal barriers to
advance itself, not to promote societal democratisation. Their idea of liberty
was closely tied to property rights. This explains why Ireton, at Putney,
argued that only individuals with a “fixed, local interest” should have the
right to vote—clearly reflecting bourgeois class interests.
The revolution relied on mobilising the lower classes — the
same groups that would later face suppression. The Levellers, Agitators, and
radical sects embodied the democratic hopes of those most affected by the war.
Their calls for manhood suffrage, legal equality, and religious freedom risked
pushing the revolution beyond what the bourgeoisie could tolerate.
Cromwell exemplified the dual nature of the bourgeois
revolution: bold in challenging the monarchy, yet brutal in suppressing the
Levellers. As the uploaded document states, “Cromwell did not merely argue
against the Levellers — he destroyed them.” His crushing of the Burford mutiny
in 1649 marked the crucial point at which the bourgeoisie established its
authority over the popular forces it had mobilised.
Conclusion: The
English Revolution in World-Historical Perspective
The English Revolution was the first major bourgeois
uprising. It overthrew the feudal monarchy, established Parliament's dominance,
and set the stage for capitalist growth. However, it also exposed the inherent
boundaries of bourgeois democracy. The defeat of the Levellers showed that
political equality cannot be achieved in a society rooted in private property.
Ultimately, the revolution’s democratic goals were limited by the very class
that had initiated it.
Therefore, the Putney Debates are not an anomaly but crucial
for understanding the entire revolution. They reveal the tension between the
universalist language of rights and the particularist interests of property — a
contradiction that would emerge again in every future bourgeois
revolution.
CHAPTER 3 — THE
PUTNEY DEBATES: DEMOCRACY, PROPERTY, AND CLASS
POWER
Introduction: The
Revolution Confronts Itself
The Putney Debates of October–November 1647 stand out as a
remarkable event in bourgeois revolutionary history. For the first time in
England—and possibly in modern Europe—key issues like political legitimacy,
sovereignty, and voting rights were openly discussed among armed troops who had
recently overthrown the monarchy. The New Model Army, known for its political
awareness, became the setting in which the revolution challenged its own
fundamental ideas.
The debates were not merely philosophical discussions but a
clash between opposing class forces within the revolutionary movement. The
Grandees — including Cromwell, Ireton, and senior officers — represented the
interests of the propertied classes, such as the gentry, the bourgeoisie, and
the wealthier middle strata. In contrast, the Agitators and their Leveller
allies expressed the democratic hopes of ordinary soldiers, artisans,
smallholders, and the urban poor. The debates clearly revealed the class
contradiction central to the bourgeois revolution. This chapter explores that
contradiction in detail.
The New Model Army as
a Political Organ
A Revolutionary Army
The New Model Army was neither a feudal levy nor a mercenary
force. It was a disciplined, ideologically driven, and socially diverse force,
primarily recruited from artisans and the yeomanry. Its soldiers were literate,
politically active, and deeply influenced by radical Puritanism, which served
as the ideological foundation for social unrest. The Army’s political awareness
was intentional, stemming from collective struggle, the breaking down of social
barriers within ranks, circulation of pamphlets and petitions, the election of
soldier-
representatives known as Agitators, and the belief that they
had defeated the King and earned a voice in shaping the new order. As the
document states, “both a military force and, in effect, a political
party.”
By mid-1647, the Army was on the verge of disbandment due to
unpaid wages, while Parliament—primarily controlled by Presbyterian
conservatives—aimed to reinstate a limited monarchy. The soldiers, who had
borne the greatest burden of the conflict, felt their sacrifices were being
dismissed. This fuelled their political radicalisation. The Army’s actions in
June 1647, when they took the King into custody, and their march on London in
August, were acts of revolution. These events demonstrated that the Army,
rather than Parliament, had become the key political power.
The Levellers and the
Agreement of the People
The Leveller
Programme
The Levellers stood out as the most unified democratic
movement during the revolution. Their platform, outlined in the Agreement of
the People (October 1647), called for: almost universal male suffrage, biennial
Parliaments, legal equality, freedom of conscience, abolition of conscription,
legal reforms, and Parliament's subordination to popular sovereignty. The
Agreement was considered "a document of breathtaking democratic radicalism
for its time.”
Colonel Thomas Rainsborough, the most eloquent Leveller
representative at
Putney, expressed the core democratic idea clearly: “The
poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he.” This was
more than just words; it challenged the idea that political legitimacy comes
from property. Rainsborough argued that political power should come from the
consent of everyone it affects—an idea that, if fully implemented, could have
made the revolution a true democratic movement.
The Levellers gained backing from rank-and-file soldiers,
London artisans, small traders, independent householders, and radical
congregations. These groups were most impacted by enclosure, wage labour, and
the upheavals of early capitalism. Their demands reflected the democratic hopes
of those who fought in the war but were denied political power.
The Grandees:
Property, Order, and the Limits of Revolution
Ireton’s Defence of
Property
Henry Ireton, Cromwell’s son-in-law and the leading
intellectual among the Grandees, clearly articulated the bourgeois perspective.
He argued that political power should be restricted to those with a “fixed,
local interest"—usually property owners. Ireton warned that granting universal
suffrage could enable the majority, who lacked property, to vote to abolish
private property. This was not hypocrisy but a sincere expression of bourgeois
class interests. "This was the bourgeoisie speaking with unusual candour.”
Cromwell’s position was more pragmatic but no less
class-bound. He feared that Leveller democracy would unleash social forces that
would destabilise property and undermine the revolution. His goal was to secure
a political settlement that preserved order, protected property, and prevented
the revolution from sliding into what he saw as anarchy.
The Debates
Themselves: The Clash of Two Revolutions
Sovereignty and the
Franchise
The main debate at Putney centred on the franchise. The
Levellers called for almost universal male suffrage, while the Grandees
maintained that property qualifications were necessary. At the heart of this
disagreement were two opposing views of sovereignty: the Levellers believed
sovereignty belonged to the people as a whole, whereas the Grandees thought it
resided with the propertied classes. This was not simply a matter of technical
details, but a fundamental debate over the class nature of the emerging state.
Rainsborough argued that individuals shouldn’t be governed
by laws they haven’t consented to. Ireton replied that consent was implicitly
given through property representation. The Levellers held that political rights
are rooted in personhood, while the Grandees believed they stem from property.
The Grandees feared Leveller democracy would threaten property rights, promote
social levelling, and dismantle hierarchical order. These concerns were
justified, as the Levellers’ demands, if fulfilled, could have paved the way
for significant social changes.
The Collapse of the
Debates and the Triumph of the Grandees
The Army Council
Intervenes
As debates grew more intense, Cromwell and Ireton moved to
suppress them, fearing that ongoing discussions might radicalise the Army
further and weaken their authority. The November 1647 escape of Charles I from
Hampton Court provided a convenient excuse to halt the debates. The Army
unified behind the Grandees, while the Levellers were pushed to the margins.
The events of 1649 — including the mutinies at Bishopsgate, Salisbury, and
Burford — marked the closure of this chapter. Cromwell decisively crushed the
Leveller soldiers and executed their leaders. Cromwell did not merely argue
against the Levellers — he destroyed them.” This marked the limit of the
bourgeois revolution.
Conclusion: The
Historical Significance of Putney
The Putney Debates highlight a key contradiction in
bourgeois revolutions: while the bourgeoisie mobilises the lower classes to
overthrow feudalism, it suppresses them once their demands threaten property
ownership. The defeat of the Levellers shows that political equality is
unachievable within a society rooted in private property. These debates remain
compelling because they reveal the unresolved tension at the core of capitalist
democracy. As the document notes, “Political democracy without economic
democracy is a mask for the rule of property.” The Levellers saw this truth;
the bourgeoisie silenced it.
The next chapter examines how this suppression was carried
out in practice and how Cromwell consolidated the bourgeoisie's class
power.
CHAPTER 4 — CROMWELL,
THE GRANDEES, AND THE SUPPRESSION OF RADICAL DEMOCRACY Introduction: The Counter-Revolution Within
the Revolution
Every bourgeois revolution contains within it a moment of
internal counter-revolution — a point at
which the class that has led the struggle against the old order turns against
the popular forces it has mobilised. In the English Revolution, this moment
occurred between 1647 and 1649, when Oliver Cromwell and the Grandees of the
New Model Army crushed the Levellers and extinguished the democratic
aspirations that had emerged from the ranks of the Army itself.
The suppression of the Levellers was neither a mistake nor a
personal flaw of Cromwell. Instead, it was a necessary outcome reflecting the
class interests of the emerging bourgeoisie. Cromwell “did not merely argue
against the Levellers — he destroyed them.” This chapter explores how and why
this destruction took place.
The Political Logic
of the Grandees The Grandees as the
Political Expression of Bourgeois Property
The Grandees—Cromwell, Ireton, Fairfax, and their allies—advocated
for the interests of the propertied classes, including the gentry involved in
commerce, merchants, lawyers, and the wealthier middle strata. Their main
political goal was clear: to protect property rights, prevent social equality,
stabilise the postfeudal social order, and create a state capable of supporting
capitalist growth. They saw themselves as revolutionaries only insofar as the
overthrow of feudal absolutism was necessary; beyond that, they acted as
counter-revolutionaries.
The Levellers’ demands—such as near-universal male suffrage,
legal equality, and Parliament's subordination to the people—were seen by the
Grandees as potentially destabilising forces. They believed these could lead to
land redistribution, attacks on large estates, the breakdown of hierarchical
order, the politicisation of rural workers, and the rise of a proto-communist
movement. Their fear was not irrational. The Diggers’ occupation of common land
at St George’s Hill in 1649 demonstrated that radical egalitarianism could take
material form.
Cromwell believed that liberty could only thrive within a
structured order, which depended on protecting property. He viewed the
Levellers as a danger not just to state stability but to society's very
functioning. Therefore, his suppression of the Levellers was not a
contradiction of his principles but a consistent extension of them.
The Crisis of 1648:
The Second Civil War and the Radicalisation of the Army The Second Civil War as a Turning Point
The outbreak of the Second Civil War in 1648 further
radicalised the Army. The rank-and-file soldiers, already politicised by the
Putney Debates, now viewed the King’s renewed treachery as evidence that the
revolution was incomplete. Many called for the abolition of the monarchy, the
trial of the King, and the adoption of the Agreement of the People. However,
the Grandees were concerned that the Army was beginning to escape their
control.
The Army’s triumph in the Second Civil War reinforced its
political independence. Soldiers, who had fought twice against the King, felt
they had earned the right to influence the new political system. The Grandees
saw the risk: a politicised army, inspired by Leveller ideas, might serve as a
tool for a more profound social upheaval.
In December 1648, Colonel Thomas Pride, following orders
from the Grandees, removed the Presbyterian majority from Parliament. Pride’s
Purge was a military coup—the first in English history—and resulted in the Rump
Parliament, which was reliant on the Army leadership. This purge was a
necessary step before the King's trial and execution, as well as the
suppression of the Levellers.
The Execution of
Charles I and the Limits of Revolutionary Radicalism The Trial as a Bourgeois
Revolutionary Act
Charles I's execution in January 1649 was the most radical
act of the revolution, breaking down the ideological foundations of feudal
monarchy and asserting the sovereignty of the people, albeit in a limited
manner. The document notes that this execution marked a major revolutionary
departure from the feudal tradition. The Levellers supported the execution but
emphasised the need for further changes, including abolishing the House of
Lords, dissolving the Rump
Parliament, enacting the Agreement of the People, and
establishing a democratic republic. They believed the revolution had now
entered a new phase, where the people, rather than Parliament or military
leaders, should shape the nation's future.
For the Grandees, the execution of the King was the
culmination of the revolution, not the beginning of a new stage. They sought to
stabilise the political order, not to democratise it. The Levellers’ demands
threatened to push the revolution beyond the limits acceptable to the
bourgeoisie.
The Leveller Mutinies
and the Crushing of Radical Democracy The Bishopsgate Mutiny (April 1649)
The first significant clash happened in April 1649, when
soldiers at Bishopsgate refused to leave London until their political demands
were fulfilled. Cromwell and Fairfax responded with force, arresting and
executing several mutineers. In May 1649, the Salisbury Mutiny broke out, with
soldiers supporting the Agreement of the People.
The mutiny quickly expanded as the rebels advanced to
Burford. The pivotal battle occurred in Oxfordshire at Burford, where Cromwell
launched a nighttime attack, capturing hundreds. In the churchyard, three
leaders—Cornet Thompson, Corporal Perkins, and Private Church—were executed.
Cromwell “crushed the
Burford mutiny decisively,” effectively ending the Leveller
movement. Following Burford, the Levellers lost their organised structure, with
their leaders imprisoned, pamphlets banned, and supporters scattered. The
Grandees had regained control of the Army and the revolution.
Cromwell’s
Protectorate: The Bourgeois State Consolidated
The Rump and the Commonwealth
The Rump Parliament, after removing its conservative
members, enacted reforms that favoured the bourgeoisie, including ending the
monarchy and the House of Lords, establishing a republic, and promoting trade
and commerce.
However, it refused to adopt democratic reforms. Cromwell’s
Protectorate (1653–1658) was a contradictory regime: it had an authoritarian
structure but bourgeois content. It protected property, fostered commerce,
expanded England’s imperial scope, and suppressed radical movements. This
regime was the political means by which the bourgeoisie solidified its
victory.
The Diggers, under Gerrard Winstanley's leadership, posed a
more radical challenge with a form of pre-proletarian communism rooted in
collective land ownership. Local landowners, backed implicitly by the state,
destroyed their communities. Their defeat marked the boundaries of the
revolutionary effort.
Conclusion: The
Bourgeois Revolution Completed — and Contained
The suppression of the Levellers marked the crucial point at
which the bourgeoisie solidified its control over the popular forces it had
mobilised. While the revolution had dismantled feudalism, it neither succeeded
in nor aimed to democratize society. The defeat of the Levellers showed that
political equality cannot coexist with a social system rooted in private
property.
The English Revolution highlights the core dynamic of
bourgeois revolution: it is revolutionary toward feudalism but counter-revolutionary
against the lower classes. The following chapter explores the Diggers, whose
short-lived communal experiment provided a rare vision of a post-capitalist
future—though the material conditions of the seventeenth century were not yet
advanced enough to support it.
CHAPTER 5 — THE
DIGGERS AND THE PRE-HISTORY OF COMMUNISM
Introduction: A Revolutionary Possibility Before Its Time
Among the many transformative movements sparked by the
English Revolution, the Diggers, or “True Levellers,” led by Gerrard
Winstanley, remain particularly captivating. Their short-lived communal farming
experiment at St George’s Hill in 1649 is a notable episode in early modern
European history: it marked a moment when revolutionary ideas challenged
traditional bourgeois property norms and envisioned a social structure that
would only become feasible. The Diggers’ programme embodied a pre-proletarian
ideal of communal ownership, which was impossible to achieve within the
material constraints of seventeenthcentury England. However, it notably
foreshadowed future developments. This chapter investigates that paradox
thoroughly.
The Social Origins of
the Digger Movement The Dispossessed in
a Transforming Countryside
The Diggers originated from the most affected groups by the
rise of agrarian capitalism: landless labourers, impoverished smallholders,
displaced tenants, and rural artisans — all victims of enclosure. Enclosure,
which involved consolidating common land into private property, was the key
method used to expand capitalist farming. It abolished traditional rights,
forced low-income people off the land, and led to the formation of a rural
proletariat. The Diggers symbolised the political response to this
dispossession.
The Levellers, although they held democratic radical ideas,
did not oppose private land ownership. Their policies mainly attracted
artisans, small traders, and independent householders—those invested in
property. For the landless poor, Leveller democracy provided political rights,
but it did not address economic hardship. The Diggers appeared exactly where
the Levellers’ approach could not go further.
Like other radical movements of the time, the Diggers
conveyed their ideas through scriptural language. However, their theology was
fundamentally materialist. Winstanley’s works are filled with biblical imagery,
but they promote a social philosophy grounded in labour, property, and class.
His main assertion— that the earth is “a common treasury for all”—serves as
both a theological statement and a critique of private property ownership.
Gerrard Winstanley:
The First Systematic Communist Thinker in English
Winstanley was neither a scholar nor a cleric. He failed as
a cloth merchant due to economic collapse, was forced into manual labour, and
was radicalised by poverty. His writings show a strong engagement with
scripture, a critique of property grounded in personal experience, an early
materialist view of social relations, and a firm belief that labour creates
value. His main idea was that land ownership leads to exploitation. He claimed
that the Earth is meant for everyone's benefit, that private property is a
human-made concept rather than a divine decree, and that labour, not ownership,
justifies a claim to land.
Those who depend on others' labour are called “taskmasters”
and “lords of bondage,” hinting at key themes in Marx’s later ideas. Although
Winstanley lacked the full theoretical tools to explain concepts of value or
class, his religious language masks a deeply materialistic argument. When he
mentions the “Spirit Reason” or the “Law of Righteousness,” he is actually
advocating for a society organised around the needs of labour rather than
property privileges. His theology serves as the ideological vehicle for a
materialist critique of class society.
On April 1, 1649, Winstanley and his small group began
digging and planting vegetables on St George’s Hill in Surrey. Their purpose
was to farm collectively and demonstrate that a society rooted in common
ownership could be both just and sustainable in practice. This act was
groundbreaking in three ways: it challenged private property rights, claimed
the land for low-income people, and provided a visible example of communal
labour.
The Digger community consisted of landless workers,
impoverished artisans, unemployed soldiers, women, and children. Led by the
dispossessed rather than the middle class, they aimed to abolish private land
ownership, cultivate collectively, eliminate wage labour, establish communal
decision-making, and create a society free of masters and servants. Their goals
were not utopian in a negative sense but were a practical response to the
economic realities faced by the rural poor.
The local gentry reacted with violence: destroying crops,
attacking Digger members, and initiating legal actions. They also mobilised
parish authorities. The state remained formally neutral, neither intervening
nor offering protection to the Diggers, effectively tacitly supporting the
landowners.
The Suppression of
the Diggers: The Limits of the Bourgeois Revolution The Material Impossibility of Communism in
1649
The Diggers’ experiment failed not due to incoherent ideas
but because the material conditions for communism were not yet in place.
England lacked a developed proletariat, industrial production, large-scale
socialised labour, and the economic abundance necessary for communal sharing.
The Diggers were ahead of their time. The bourgeoisie had no stake in communal
ownership, as their power depended on private property, market relations, wage
labour, and the commodification of land. The Diggers challenged the core foundations
of bourgeois society.
Cromwell himself did not directly command the suppression of
the Diggers, but his regime set the stage for their downfall. Through defeating
the Levellers and consolidating the post-feudal structure, the Grandees
prevented radical egalitarian ideas from taking hold. By late 1650, the Digger
communities were dismantled—members scattered, crops destroyed, and leaders
persecuted. This marked the boundaries of the bourgeois revolution.
The Historical
Significance of the Diggers A Glimpse of
a Future Beyond Capitalism
The Diggers mark the initial systematic effort to define and
implement communist principles in the English-speaking world. Their ideas
foresaw the abolition of private property, emphasised the importance of labour,
critiqued exploitation, and promoted the communal organisation of
production.
Marx and Engels identified the Diggers as early influences
on modern communism. Engels, in The Peasant War in Germany, stated that
revolutionary movements tend to articulate themselves through the dominant
ideological language of their era. The Diggers serve as a prime example: their
religious beliefs are essentially the outward expression of a material critique
of class.
The Diggers demonstrate that the democratic tasks of the
bourgeois revolution generate pressures that point beyond capitalism. Their
defeat confirms Trotsky’s insight that only the working class can complete the
democratic revolution by carrying it forward to socialist tasks. The Diggers
remain a symbol of the aspirations of the dispossessed, the possibility of a
society beyond property, and the unfinished character of democratic revolution.
Their defeat is a reminder that the bourgeois revolution, while historically
progressive, is structurally incapable of realising the principle of human
equality.
Conclusion: The
Diggers and the Dialectic of Revolution
The Diggers were both a product of their era and a movement
that went beyond it. They arose amid the social upheaval of early capitalism,
offered a critique of property that foreshadowed modern communism, and sought
to establish a society rooted in collective ownership. Their defeat highlights
the boundaries of the bourgeois revolution and the conditions needed for
socialism. The following chapter explores the ideological framework that shaped
these struggles: religion, which served as the language of revolution in the
seventeenth century.
CHAPTER 6 — RELIGION,
IDEOLOGY, AND THE LANGUAGE OF REVOLUTION
Introduction: Why the English Revolution Spoke in the Language of
God
Every revolutionary era uses the ideological language
accessible at that time. In the seventeenth century, this language was
primarily theological. Although the English Revolution was not solely focused
on religion, religion served as the framework that made underlying material
conflicts visible. The Bible provided a conceptual framework for addressing
issues related to power, property, labour, and justice.
Puritanism served as the ideological framework for class
conflict, offering various symbolic languages: equality (“the priesthood of all
believers”), tyranny (the Antichrist, Babylon), liberation (Exodus), and moral
autonomy (the inner light, conscience). This chapter explores how religious
ideology influenced the political struggles of the English Revolution and
explains why theology became the arena in which class interests clashed.
Puritanism gained backing from a wide coalition, including
the commercially driven gentry, urban bourgeoisie, artisans, small traders,
literate yeomen, radical congregations, and parts of the rural poor. Its
ideological variety mirrored the social diversity of its supporters.
Nonetheless, Puritanism served a unifying role by providing a moral and
intellectual foundation that enabled emerging social groups to voice their
grievances against the monarchy, the episcopacy, and the feudal system.
The Church of England was a fundamental part of the feudal
system, with its hierarchy mirroring the authoritarian, hierarchical, and
ceremonial qualities of the traditional order. Puritan opposition to episcopacy
was more than a theological disagreement; it posed a political challenge to
feudal authority. The Reformation's widespread distribution of the English
Bible transformed it into a political educational tool, offering a common
language, moral frameworks, stories of liberation, and critiques of tyranny.
For the lower classes, scripture became a way to interpret their suffering and
claims to agency.
Ideology as the Form
of Class Struggle Engels and the German
Peasant War
Engels’ analysis of the German Peasant War offers essential
insights into the ideological aspects of the English Revolution. He believed
that revolutionary movements communicate their ideas through the language of
their time — Lutheran theology in sixteenth-century Germany and Puritanism in
seventeenthcentury England. While the struggle's content is rooted in material
issues, its expression is fundamentally ideological.
During the English Revolution, theological disputes rarely
centred solely on doctrinal matters. Instead, they dealt with issues like
property, authority, labour, social hierarchy, and political power. These
concerns were expressed through religious frameworks. For instance,
predestination was used as a metaphor for moral equality, the priesthood of all
believers signified political equality, and the sovereignty of God was equated
with popular sovereignty. Additionally, the Antichrist symbolised tyranny.
As the revolution intensified, Puritan ideas became more
radical. Texts that once supported obedience to authority were now used to
justify rebellion. The Bible turned into a battleground for conflicting
interpretations. The Levellers based their democratic principles on biblical
themes: the equal worth of all souls before God, the right of individuals to
judge for themselves, opposition to tyranny, and personal moral independence.
Their political goals—such as nearly universal male suffrage, legal equality,
and religious freedom—were articulated through the language of Christian
liberty.
Rainsborough’s declaration — “the poorest he that is in
England hath a life to live as the greatest he” — was presented not only as a
political principle but also as a theological one. If all men are equal before
God, no man can be excluded from political power. The Levellers attacked
tithes, compulsory worship, stateenforced religion, and the authority of
ministers. Their critique of ecclesiastical power was inseparable from their
critique of political power.
The Diggers:
Communism in the Language of Scripture 1. Winstanley’s Materialist
Theology
Winstanley’s writings are rich with biblical imagery, yet
their message is fundamentally materialist. He claimed that the earth was a
“common treasury," and that private property equates to theft. He believed
labour justified rightful ownership, and exploitation broke divine law. His
theology reflects a communist critique of property, drawing on early Christian
communal practices as a model for collective ownership. This was not mere
nostalgia; it served as a moral foundation for a radical social agenda.
The Diggers viewed the Kingdom of God as a social change
rather than a supernatural event. Their eschatology was rooted in politics:
ending oppression, abolishing property, and restoring the earth to its true
owners.
The Fifth
Monarchists: Millenarianism and Class Anxiety The Social Base of
Millenarianism
The Fifth Monarchists gained backing from small traders,
artisans, lower-middleclass Puritans, and disillusioned soldiers. They saw
Charles I's execution as a sign that Christ’s kingdom on earth was soon to
come. Their millenarian beliefs reflected concerns about social chaos, fears of
economic instability, resentment at elite corruption, and hope for divine
justice. This ideology was a form of political awareness born from
insecurity.
The Fifth Monarchists held politically radical views but
remained socially conservative. They called for the abolition of tyranny, the
rule of the saints, and societal purification. However, they did not oppose
property rights. Their radical stance was rooted in morality rather than
economics.
Cromwell and the
Grandees: Religion as the Ideology of Order
Cromwell held that history was directed by God through
"providence," which justified actions like overthrowing the King,
suppressing the Levellers, conquering Ireland, and establishing the
Protectorate. Providentialism served as the ideological backbone of bourgeois
statecraft, with the Grandees using religious language to legitimise authority,
condemn radical movements, justify social hierarchy, and stabilise the social
order. Their theology reflected the ideological expression of property.
Puritanism could rationalise rebellion against the King, but
not against property.
Its ideological support was depleted once the bourgeois
revolution hit its limits.
Conclusion: Religion
as the Ideological Form of Bourgeois Revolution
During the English Revolution, religion was not merely a
distraction from class struggle; it actually served as the means through which
class conflicts were expressed. The theological debates of that time reflected
deeper ideological conflicts over property, labour, and political
authority.
The Levellers employed scripture to express democratic
demands, while the Diggers used it to advocate communist ideals. Conversely,
the Grandees invoked scripture to justify property rights and social
order.
The next chapter synthesises these insights into a
theoretical analysis of the bourgeois revolution and its limits.
CHAPTER 7 —
THEORETICAL SYNTHESIS: BOURGEOIS REVOLUTION AND ITS LIMITS Introduction: The
English Revolution in the Architecture of World History
The English Revolution occupies a foundational place in the
history of modernity. It was the first successful bourgeois revolution, the
first destruction of a feudal monarchy by armed force, the first assertion of
parliamentary sovereignty, and the first moment when the democratic aspirations
of the lower classes confronted the structural limits of capitalist property.
It is therefore the earliest historical laboratory in which the dynamics of
bourgeois revolution can be studied in their purest form.
The previous chapters explored the social origins of the
revolution, its political development, the Putney confrontation, the
suppression of the Levellers, and the radical communism of the Diggers. This
chapter consolidates those analyses into a theoretical framework of the
bourgeois revolution as a historical phenomenon — including its driving forces,
contradictions, limits, and legacy.
The Bourgeois
Revolution as a Historical Form The Destruction of Feudalism
The bourgeois revolution emerges from the conflict between
the increasingly capitalist forces of production and the still feudal relations
of production. In seventeenth-century England, this tension was evident in the
rise of agrarian capitalism, expanding market relations, growing wage labour,
land commercialisation, and the increasing political assertiveness of the
gentry and bourgeoisie.
The monarchy, episcopacy, and feudal legal system hindered
the development of capitalism. The revolution was the political expression of
this struggle. The bourgeoisie is revolutionary mainly against feudalism. It
aims for free trade, guaranteed property rights, rational laws, and a state
that facilitates capitalist growth. However, it does not pursue political
equality, social levelling, the abolition of property, or the empowerment of
the lower classes. These contradictions characterise the bourgeois
revolution.
The bourgeoisie cannot overthrow feudalism without
mobilising the lower classes. In England, these included: artisans,
smallholders, journeymen, landless labourers, radical soldiers, and the urban
poor. These groups brought to the revolution demands that went beyond the
bourgeois programme: political equality, economic justice, communal ownership,
democratic accountability. The bourgeois revolution thus contains within it a
dual revolution: • the bourgeois revolution against feudalism, • the popular
revolution against inequality. The second must be suppressed for the first to
succeed.
The Putney Debates as
the Theoretical Core of the Revolution
Property vs. Democracy
At Putney, the revolution faced a fundamental contradiction.
The Levellers called for nearly universal male suffrage, legal equality, and
popular sovereignty. In contrast, the Grandees insisted on property
requirements, limited voting rights, and the sovereignty of the wealthy. This
debate was not about constitutional structure but centred on which class held
power.
Ireton’s claim—that only those with a “fixed, local
interest” should have voting rights—embodied pure bourgeois ideology. It
exposed worries about the propertyless majority, the idea that political power
should defend property, and the belief that democracy could threaten
capitalism. The Levellers’ agenda was at odds with bourgeois class interests.
Suppressing the Levellers wasn't a betrayal but was instead seen as completing
the revolution. The bourgeoisie had secured its goals; the lower classes needed
to be controlled.
The Diggers and the
Historical Limits of the Seventeenth Century 1. Communism Before
Capitalism
The Diggers expressed a communist critique of property two
centuries before the rise of the modern proletariat. Their vision—communal
ownership, collective work, and the end of wage labour—was ahead of its time.
Communism, as a system, depends on industrial production, socialised labour, a
proletariat class, and abundance—all of which 17th-century England lacked. In
this sense, the Diggers served more as a prophecy than a feasible
movement.
The Diggers were suppressed not due to a lack of coherence
in their ideas, but because they challenged the core principles of bourgeois
society. Their defeat highlights the inherent constraints of the bourgeois
revolution.
The Bourgeois
Revolution and the Theory of Permanent Revolution The Bourgeoisie Cannot Complete the
Democratic Revolution
The defeat of the Levellers shows that the bourgeoisie
cannot achieve certain goals such as establishing universal suffrage,
eliminating economic inequality, democratising the state, or empowering the
lower classes. These objectives are incompatible with capitalist property
relations. Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution describes the pattern seen
between 1647 and 1649: the bourgeoisie begins the democratic revolution, the
lower classes push it further, then the bourgeoisie turns against them, leaving
the revolution incomplete. Trotsky contends that only the working class can
complete the democratic revolution by advancing it toward socialist objectives.
The English Revolution is the earliest historical
confirmation of permanent revolution. It reveals: the revolutionary role of the
lower classes, the counterrevolutionary role of the bourgeoisie, the structural
limits of capitalist democracy. It is the prototype of 1789, 1848, and
1917.
The Bourgeois State:
Consolidation and Contradiction The Protectorate as a Bourgeois
Dictatorship
Cromwell’s Protectorate was authoritarian in form, bourgeois
in content, hostile to radical democracy, committed to property, expansionist
and imperial. It was the political form through which the bourgeoisie
consolidated its victory. The Restoration of 1660 did not restore feudalism. It
stabilised the bourgeois order under monarchical form. The monarchy returned,
but on bourgeois terms.
The period 1688–89 finalised what 1649 had initiated:
parliamentary supremacy, secure property rights, the financial revolution, the
establishment of the Bank of England, the growth of the national debt, and the
development of the fiscalmilitary state. During this time, the bourgeoisie rose
to become the ruling class. The English Revolution resulted in the creation of
the modern state, capitalist property relations, parliamentary sovereignty, and
the ideological underpinnings of liberalism. 2. The Unfinished Democratic
Revolution.
The Levellers’ demands—such as universal political equality,
democratic accountability, and economic justice—remain unfulfilled. The
bourgeois revolution left these issues unfinished. The relevance of 1647
persists because the fundamental question from Putney remains unanswered: Who
should govern? On what grounds? For whose benefit? The conflict between
political equality and economic inequality continues.
Conclusion: The
Dialectic of Revolution and Counter-Revolution
The English Revolution reveals the essential dialectic of
bourgeois revolution: It destroys feudalism. It mobilises the lower classes. It
unleashes democratic aspirations. It suppresses those aspirations. It
establishes the capitalist order. The revolution is both progressive and
limited, emancipatory and repressive, democratic in form and oligarchic in
content.
The next and final chapter assesses the contemporary
significance of the English Revolution and the enduring relevance of the
questions raised at Putney.
CHAPTER 8 —
CONCLUSION: THE LEGACY OF 1647 I. Introduction: The Revolution That Never
Ended
The English Revolution did not end in 1649, nor in 1653, nor
in 1660, nor even in 1688. Its unresolved contradictions — between property and
democracy, between labour and capital, between the aspirations of the many and
the power of the few — continue to structure the political life of capitalist
society. The Putney Debates remain electrifying not because they belong to a
distant past, but because they articulate questions that bourgeois society has
never been able to answer.
The central argument of this dissertation has been that the
English Revolution is the earliest and clearest demonstration of a dynamic that
would recur in every subsequent bourgeois revolution: the bourgeoisie cannot
complete the democratic revolution it initiates.
The Levellers and Diggers are the earliest historical
expressions of this contradiction; their suppression marks the initial
resolution in favour of the bourgeoisie. The English Revolution was the first
successful bourgeois revolution in history. It led to the destruction of the
feudal monarchy, the establishment of parliamentary sovereignty, the securing
of property rights, the creation of conditions conducive to capitalist
development, and the beginning of the modern state.
It was the first instance in which the bourgeoisie, in
alliance with sections of the gentry and the middling sort, seized political
power and reshaped the state in its own image.
The revolution unveiled the core principle of bourgeois
revolution: overthrowing feudalism by mobilising the lower classes, who, once
organised, became terrified, leading to a crackdown on democratic aspirations.
It was stabilised by establishing a new state structure compatible with
capitalism. This pattern recurred in 1789, 1848, and 1917. The revolution also
laid the ideological groundwork for capitalist modernity, emphasising the rule
of law, property rights, parliamentary sovereignty, rights language, moral
labour, and the individual as the fundamental political unit. These ideas
continue to dominate bourgeois ideology.
The Levellers outlined a democratic agenda that still hasn't
been achieved: nearly universal suffrage, equality before the law,
accountability of leaders, subordination of Parliament to the people, and
freedom of conscience. Their defeat revealed that the bourgeoisie cannot fully
carry out the democratic revolution. The contradiction seen at Putney—the clash
between political equality and economic inequality—persists. While capitalist
society claims to uphold equal worth among individuals, it continues to
institutionalise property-based inequality. Although the right to vote has
expanded, political power remains concentrated among those who control capital.
The Diggers articulated a communist critique of property
centuries before the emergence of the modern proletariat. Their programme —
communal ownership, collective labour, abolition of wage labour — was
historically premature but conceptually prophetic.
The Diggers reveal the social costs of early capitalism, the
aspirations of the dispossessed, and the potential for a society beyond
property. They highlight the historical conditions needed for socialism. Their
defeat shows the limitations of the seventeenth century, while their ideas
foreshadow later struggles in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Diggers
demonstrate that communism stems from capitalism's contradictions, that the
critique of property is rooted in experiences of exploitation, and that the
early seeds of future social arrangements already existed in past epochs. They
serve as the prehistory of the modern socialist movement.
The English Revolution illustrates how ideology transforms
class struggle into conscious action. In the seventeenth century, this form was
rooted in theology, with the Bible offering a language of equality, a critique
of tyranny, a story of liberation, and a moral basis for rebellion. As history
progresses, the ideological shape of revolution shifts: from theology in the
seventeenth century to natural rights in the eighteenth, nationalism in the
nineteenth, and socialism in the twentieth. Despite these changing forms, the
core material conflicts persist.
Puritanism could justify rebellion against the King, but not
rebellion against property. Its ideological resources were exhausted once the
bourgeois revolution reached its limit.
The English Revolution confirms Trotsky’s insight that the
bourgeoisie cannot complete the democratic revolution. It cannot: abolish
economic inequality, democratise the state, empower the lower classes, or
resolve the contradiction between labour and capital. The Levellers and Diggers
demonstrate that the lower classes push the revolution beyond the limits
acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Their suppression reveals the
counter-revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie once its own aims have been
achieved.
The Contemporary
Relevance of 1647 The Persistence of the
Property Question
The main issue debated in the Putney Debates—the link
between property and political power—still hasn't been settled. Today’s
capitalism continues to concentrate wealth, distort democratic processes,
subordinate politics to capital, and reproduce inequality. The contradictions
within bourgeois democracy are becoming more apparent: decreasing trust in
institutions, rising inequality, political polarisation, shrinking social
rights, and the resurgence of authoritarianism. These crises mirror the
unresolved tensions from the seventeenth century.
The questions raised in 1647 persist today in different
forms: Who should govern? On what grounds? Whose interests are served? How are
property and power connected? What does democracy signify in a society marked
by inequality? These questions remain the core political issues of the modern
era.
Conclusion: The
Revolution Continues
The English Revolution was the earliest major bourgeois
revolution. It toppled feudalism, laid the groundwork for capitalist society,
and sparked democratic hopes that it could not fully realise. The Levellers and
Diggers symbolise two directions that emerged from the revolution: the pursuit
of bourgeois order and the quest for democratic and social equality. The former
prevailed, while the latter was suppressed. However, the ideals of the latter
did not vanish; they resurfaced in struggles throughout the eighteenth,
nineteenth, and twentieth centuries and continue to influence today's political
conflicts.
The legacy of 1647 is not just a historical milestone; it
remains a living contradiction within capitalist society. The questions raised
at Putney still lack answers because they lie beyond the limits of capitalism
itself. They point toward something beyond their framework. The English
Revolution is not only the start of bourgeois modernity but also the beginning
of the effort to go beyond it.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary
Sources
Aylmer, G. E., ed. The
Levellers in the English Revolution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1975.
Clarke, William, and Henry Ireton. The Clarke Papers: Selections from the Papers of William Clarke,
Secretary to the Council of the Army, 1647–1649. Edited by C. H. Firth. 4
vols. London: Camden Society, 1891–1901.
Cromwell, Oliver. The
Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell. Edited by Wilbur Cortez Abbott. 4
vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937– 47.
Gardiner, S. R., ed. The
Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, 1625–1660. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1906.
Lilburne, John. England’s
New Chains Discovered. London, 1649.
———. The Free-Man’s
Freedom Vindicated. London, 1646.
Overton, Richard. An
Arrow Against All Tyrants. London, 1646.
Rainsborough, Thomas. The
Putney Debates. In The Clarke Papers,
edited by C. H. Firth. London: Camden Society, 1891.
Winstanley, Gerrard. The
Law of Freedom and Other Writings. Edited by Christopher Hill.
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973.
———. The True
Levellers Standard Advanced. London, 1649.
Secondary
Sources
Aston, T. H., ed. Crisis
in Europe, 1560–1660: Essays from Past and Present. London: Routledge,
1965.
Brenner, Robert. Merchants
and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict, and London’s Overseas
Traders, 1550–1653. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.
———. “The Agrarian Roots of European Capitalism.” Past & Present 97 (1982):
16–113.
Capp, Bernard. The
Fifth Monarchy Men: A Study in Seventeenth-Century English Millenarianism.
London: Faber & Faber, 1972.
Coward, Barry. The
Cromwellian Protectorate. Manchester: Manchester University Press,
2002.
Davis, J. C. Fear,
Myth and History: The Ranters and the Historians. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1986.
Engels, Friedrich. The
Peasant War in Germany. 1850. Reprint, New York: International Publishers,
1966.
Hill, Christopher. The
World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution.
London: Penguin, 1972.
———. God’s Englishman:
Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution. London: Penguin, 1970.
———. The Century of
Revolution, 1603–1714. London: Routledge, 1961.
———. Puritanism and
Revolution: Studies in Interpretation of the English Revolution of the 17th
Century. London: Secker & Warburg, 1958.
Hobsbawm, Eric. The
Age of Revolution, 1789–1848. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1962.
Kishlansky, Mark. A
Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603–1714. London: Penguin, 1996.
———. The Rise of the
New Model Army. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Manning, Brian. The
English People and the English Revolution, 1640–1649. London: Bookmarks,
1991.
———. The Far Left in
the English Revolution, 1640–1660. London: Bookmarks, 2002.
Morrill, John. Revolt
in the Provinces: The People of England and the Tragedies of War, 1630–1648.
London: Longman, 1976.
Pocock, J. G. A. The
Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1957.
Reid, Christopher. The
Putney Debates of 1647: The Army, the Levellers and the English State.
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001.
Sharpe, Kevin. The
Personal Rule of Charles I. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1992.
Stone, Lawrence. The
Causes of the English Revolution, 1529–1642. London: Routledge, 1972.
Talbot, Ann. “Christopher Hill and the English Revolution.” World Socialist Web Site, 2003.
Trotsky, Leon. Where
Is Britain Going? 1925. Reprint, London: New Park Publications, 1973.
Underdown, David. Revel,
Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603–1660.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.
Wood, Ellen Meiksins. The
Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View. London: Verso, 2002.
———. Liberty and
Property: A Social History of Western Political Thought from Renaissance to
Enlightenment. London: Verso, 2012.
Woolrych, Austin. Soldiers
and Statesmen: The General Council of the Army and Its Debates, 1647–1648.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
