Oliver Cromwell:hero or villian?

[reddevil]

Oliver Cromwell is probably the most controversial figure in English history. Some see him as a champion of liberty while to others he's a cruel and petty tyrant.
His importance to us lies in his key role in the English civil war: the first bourgeouis revolution of its kind. The abolition of both monarchy and church was a highly revolutionary act for its time. Not to mention the resettlement of the jews.
The question is whether the revolution should be applauded by socialists. While we detest the values such revolutions are built upon, generally we are happy at the triumph of capitalism over feudalism, which laid the ground for the triumph of socialism over capitalism.
But then of course there's his infamous conquest. Being of Irish catholic ancestory I'm perhaps biased in this regard but i'd say it was genocide, plain and simple.
What's the verdict of people here: was his revolution a positive thing for human advancement?

[Bitter Ashes]

Ouch! Now here is a controversial figure and I've considered him before and never been able to reach a conclusion.

While he was challenging the ruling class, which did need challenging, it was in the name of turning England into a Prespeterian state, which although less corupt than Catholism, was very harsh on civil rights. I mean, the guy banned people from giving gifts on Christmas Day! Even The Grinch never managed that!

I think the most positive thing that came out of the whole affair was that it taught the ruling class never to underestimate the power of revolution and paved the way for some much needed reforms that we continue to benefit from today. Reformism obviously wont change things drasticly, but it puts the groundwork in for socialist revolution, so we should be thankful of that even if it wasnt Cromwell's intention.

[Revy]

Villain, no doubt.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Oliver Cromwell is probably the most controversial figure in English history. Some see him as a champion of liberty while to others he's a cruel and petty tyrant.
His importance to us lies in his key role in the English civil war: the first bourgeouis revolution of its kind. The abolition of both monarchy and church was a highly revolutionary act for its time. Not to mention the resettlement of the jews.
The question is whether the revolution should be applauded by socialists. While we detest the values such revolutions are built upon, generally we are happy at the triumph of capitalism over feudalism, which laid the ground for the triumph of socialism over capitalism.
But then of course there's his infamous conquest. Being of Irish catholic ancestory I'm perhaps biased in this regard but i'd say it was genocide, plain and simple.
What's the verdict of people here: was his revolution a positive thing for human advancement?

I guess this is the thing...Do you believe that capitalism was ever progressive?

Certainly it destroyed and continues to destroy the last remanents of primordial community. It makes the world a much vicouser and cheaper place.

Marx saw this as progressive because it destroyed all that had been picked up in humanity's wanderings and so created a clean slate from which communism could emerge from.

Marx even speculated that Russia could jump from its present condition into Communism without passing through capitalism which nearly happened but was not to be thanks to Trotsky who brutally took back the land from the community and placed it in the hands of state suppressing all resistance...Stalin of course finished off the job but in a rather more humane manner.

When I think of Cromwell I always think of the Bolsheviks.

[thejambo1]

villian for me,not much better than the regime he deposed. he also came down heavy on the levellers and diggers and we all know the record in ireland. you have to reconcile this with the times as well,we are talking over 400 years ago. still i will go for bad bastard.

[Vendetta]

Um..villain? Defnitely villain? How could he not be?

[Revy]

the real English hero is Guy Fawkes....also known as "Guido" Fawkes :)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Fawkes_Political_Poster.jpg

[ZeroNowhere]

the real English hero is Guy Fawkes....also known as "Guido" Fawkes :)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Fawkes_Political_Poster.jpg
In the same way Mussolini is a hero, no doubt.

[Il Medico]

1. Guy Fawkes was a hero, who was fighting oppression!
2. Oliver Cromwell was no better than any other totalitarian dictator. People who idolize him are fools in the same way people who idolize Andrew Jackson are.

[Bitter Ashes]

Whoa. Hang on a minute.
Guy Fawkes was fighting a percieved oppression against Catholics
Oliver Cromwell was fighting a percieved opprssion against Protestants
They both were religous fanatics who wanted Catholic/Protestant states and were prepared to overthrow the ruling class for it. How is one supposed to be better/worse than the other? Just because one of them remembered that gunpowder has a sell-by date on and the other forgot?

[Il Medico]

Whoa. Hang on a minute.
Guy Fawkes was fighting a percieved oppression against Catholics
Oliver Cromwell was fighting a percieved opprssion against Protestants
They both were religous fanatics who wanted Catholic/Protestant states and were prepared to overthrow the ruling class for it. How is one supposed to be better/worse than the other? Just because one of them remembered that gunpowder has a sell-by date on and the other forgot?
My friend the oppression of Catholics was not "perceived". In England under the protestants, you could be burned at the stake for being catholic. That is like saying the Jews in world war two were no better that the Germans!

[reddevil]

My friend the oppression of Catholics was not "perceived". In England under the protestants, you could be burned at the stake for being catholic. That is like saying the Jews in world war two were no better that the Germans!
That is true but it's important to remember that the Catholic powers of this period were often just as fanatical and intolerant if not more so than their rivals. There were no heroes.

[reddevil]

[QUOTE=Ranma42;1439439]Whoa. Hang on a minute.
Guy Fawkes was fighting a percieved oppression against Catholics
Oliver Cromwell was fighting a percieved opprssion against Protestants
QUOTE]
Cromwell's regime was not only rigidly anti-Catholic but also anti-Anglican.

[Il Medico]

That is true but it's important to remember that the Catholic powers of this period were often just as fanatical and intolerant if not more so than their rivals. There were no heroes.
I agree rd but the discussion was about England and Oliver Cromwell. Not other nations at the time.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

While he was challenging the ruling class, which did need challenging, it was in the name of turning England into a Prespeterian state, which although less corupt than Catholism, was very harsh on civil rights. I mean, the guy banned people from giving gifts on Christmas Day! Even The Grinch never managed that!


Our squaddie lass doesnt even know much about the history of her country and yet she wants to lecture us on Irish history.

Cromwell was rebelling against ANGLICANISM which at the time was seen by Roman Catholics and Lutherans as firmly within the PROTESTANT camp...which of course it saw itself as part of until the Oxford movement began to change certain perceptions.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

2. Oliver Cromwell was no better than any other totalitarian dictator. People who idolize him are fools in the same way people who idolize Andrew Jackson are.

Oliver Cromwell was one of the first bourgious (I cant spell that word) revolutionaries.

He is an extremely interesting figure whatever you may think of him.

[Il Medico]

Oliver Cromwell was one of the first bourgious (I cant spell that word) revolutionaries.

He is an extremely interesting figure whatever you may think of him.

Indeed, he is interesting, but so is Hitler, Stalin, and Nero. They may be interesting but that does not make them a hero. As for your assertion that Cromwell was a bourgeois revolutionary, I can see how you came to the conclusion, however, I disagree, the true Bourgeois revolutions did not come till later. He was more of a religious revolutionary.

[Communist Theory]

Didn't the English people bring the King back to power after Cromwell's rule?

[reddevil]

Didn't the English people bring the King back to power after Cromwell's rule?
yep, and then they dug Cromwell up, cut off his head and then ripped his bowels out!

[Communist Theory]

yep, and then they dug Cromwell up, cut off his head and then ripped his bowels out!
Well then in that case I'm going with villain.

[Il Medico]

Well then in that case I'm going with villain.
LOL Comrade. Not so popular it seems.

[Andropov]

I read about the siege at Drogheda and there was no actual massacre.
No women and children were slaughtered intentionally when it was taken off the Castle Catholics.
How ever soldiers were slaughtered and that is where the rumour started about Cromwell sluaghtering every man woman and child in Drogheda.
After such rumours spread then other towns instantly folded and surrendered to Cromwells will.

[pastradamus]

I cannot believe for the life of me that some people here are posing the question "was oliver cromwell a revolutionary?"

Well I will say to them this: "was hitler a revolutionary, Was the grand inquisitor in Toledo a revolutionary or are the 9/11 hijackers revolutionary??"

Of Course they are not and Neither is Cromwell.

Oliver Cromwell is responsible for murders throughout Ireland and the UK as well as Forcing people off their rightfully-owned land ,either forcing them to move to Connaught (Ireland's agriculturally poorer region) with the saying "To Hell or to Connaught" or Forcing them to work in plantations in Bermuda and Barbados as "indentured workers" - Effectively Slaves.

This is a revolutionary? A God-loving maniac who murdered people based on racial and religious beliefs. Stop reading the bullcrap contained in Bullshit English school textbooks.

If anyone here honestly believes cromwell is a revolutionary than hand in your chips and get off this site.

[pastradamus]

I read about the siege at Drogheda and there was no actual massacre.
No women and children were slaughtered intentionally when it was taken off the Castle Catholics.
How ever soldiers were slaughtered and that is where the rumour started about Cromwell sluaghtering every man woman and child in Drogheda.
After such rumours spread then other towns instantly folded and surrendered to Cromwells will.

Ah yes, the gengus khan tactic. I thought the rumors were spread by people in the 1900's. Even still Drogheda was a Royalist town when it was attacked so it was coming.

[Gracchvs]

I am not going to be popular here, I know it.

Oliver Cromwell is most certainly a hero. He played the part of Robespierre and Napoleon in one: First the most resolute in advancing the British bourgeois revolution, and then the bonapartist who cemented the social dictatorship of the English bourgeiosie by denying them their political dictatorship.

Yes, most certainly a hero.

The Diggers and Levellers, while awesome, were above all BACKWARD. The equality the proposed to introduce would have set the country back centuries, necessitating the rise of a completely new bourgeoisie.

Also, I am rather shocked to read that some don't consider bourgeois revolutions progressive. They are progressive, beyond a shadow of a doubt They are progressive not because they destroy feudal notions, but because they secure the social dominance of the bourgeoisie and let it develop the economy. The destruction of feudal and other pre-capitalist notions happens due to the advancement of capitalism.

But then I guess now people are going to complain about Robespierre?

[reddevil]

I cannot believe for the life of me that some people here are posing the question "was oliver cromwell a revolutionary?"

Well I will say to them this: "was hitler a revolutionary, Was the grand inquisitor in Toledo a revolutionary or are the 9/11 hijackers revolutionary??"

Of Course they are not and Neither is Cromwell.

Oliver Cromwell is responsible for murders throughout Ireland and the UK as well as Forcing people off their rightfully-owned land ,either forcing them to move to Connaught (Ireland's agriculturally poorer region) with the saying "To Hell or to Connaught" or Forcing them to work in plantations in Bermuda and Barbados as "indentured workers" - Effectively Slaves.

This is a revolutionary? A God-loving maniac who murdered people based on racial and religious beliefs. Stop reading the bullcrap contained in Bullshit English school textbooks.

If anyone here honestly believes cromwell is a revolutionary than hand in your chips and get off this site.

Perhaps i should have rephrased the question. It is not really important to me how virtuous or otherwise Cromwell was. What i am interested in is whether his revolution should be viewed in a progressive light. And yes he was a revolutionary. The parliamentary victory in the English civil war paved the way for the rise of the merchant class over the landed aristocracy and so the beginning of bourgeouis rule. Like the French and American revolutions, we need not admire the ideals the men fought for but we can be greateful they won as their advancement leads to ours.
I have as much right to be on this site as you do and bullying tactics will not make me change my mind. Cromwell is a very interesting historical figure and he deserves alot deeper analysis than the one dimensional "monster" label you want to give him.

[Dimentio]

Did Oliver Cromwell really fight for the majority of the people, or merely the upcoming southern English bourgeoisie?

[Dr Mindbender]

Mass murdering fucker.

Contrary to what some have said, I was taught the drogheda massacre did happen - He sacked the town, every third man woman and child was put to the sword and the survivors sent to the west indies as slaves.

[pastradamus]

Perhaps i should have rephrased the question. It is not really important to me how virtuous or otherwise Cromwell was. What i am interested in is whether his revolution should be viewed in a progressive light. And yes he was a revolutionary. The parliamentary victory in the English civil war paved the way for the rise of the merchant class over the landed aristocracy and so the beginning of bourgeouis rule. Like the French and American revolutions, we need not admire the ideals the men fought for but we can be greateful they won as their advancement leads to ours.
I have as much right to be on this site as you do and bullying tactics will not make me change my mind. Cromwell is a very interesting historical figure and he deserves alot deeper analysis than the one dimensional "monster" label you want to give him.

So let me get this straight... Your Justifying a person who created Genocidal conditions in Ireland as a "revolutionary" because he created a bourgeois parliament for aristocrats and the upper classes?

A note, I am not ignoring the history of Cromwell and I am not Bullying you.

[Dimentio]

So let me get this straight... Your Justifying a person who created Genocidal conditions in Ireland as a "revolutionary" because he created a bourgeois parliament for aristocrats and the upper classes?

A note, I am not ignoring the history of Cromwell and I am not Bullying you.

Well, was'nt Sargon of Akkad a "revolutionary"?

If the side of development is to move towards more brutality...

[pastradamus]

Well, was'nt Sargon of Akkad a "revolutionary"?

If the side of development is to move towards more brutality...

What do you mean? I dont understand how Sargon the Great is a revolutionary.

[Dimentio]

What do you mean? I dont understand how Sargon the Great is a revolutionary.

Created an authoritarian kingdom out of nomadic tribes and a united economy from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean.

[pastradamus]

Created an authoritarian kingdom out of nomadic tribes and a united economy from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean.

Typical of any great ancient ruler. I dont believe this is revolutionary in any leftist sense. Also this is going off topic lets stick with cromwell.

[Killfacer]

He did a lot of wrong, but you have to remember that this was before anything like the French revolution. Monarchs were in complete control of everything. He defended democracy and in that sense much of the western world in indebted to him.

However, like i said, he did a lot of really bad things. Obviously there's what he did in ireland, but also what happened to the Diggers and the Levellers.

He was murderer yes, but to deny he had any positive effects is just incorrect.

[pastradamus]

He did a lot of wrong, but you have to remember that this was before anything like the French revolution. Monarchs were in complete control of everything. He defended democracy and in that sense much of the western world in indebted to him.

However, like i said, he did a lot of really bad things. Obviously there's what he did in ireland, but also what happened to the Diggers and the Levellers.

He was murderer yes, but to deny he had any positive effects is just incorrect.

Yes but it wasnt a democracy. The system of Universal Suffrage did not exist in Britain until 1928. From 1688-1832, less than 10% of the adult male population had the right to vote. Guess who those 10% were?

[Killfacer]

Yes but it wasnt a democracy. The system of Universal Suffrage did not exist in Britain until 1928. From 1688-1832, less than 10% of the adult male population had the right to vote. Guess who those 10% were?

The rich, but it's a hell of a lot more than most major powers had.

He was no saint, but the English civil war was a hugely important step against monarchies.

[reddevil]

So let me get this straight... Your Justifying a person who created Genocidal conditions in Ireland as a "revolutionary" because he created a bourgeois parliament for aristocrats and the upper classes?

I am justifying the revolution he led, not the man himself. Do i need to explain why the victory of capitalism over feudalism is a good thing?
The founding fathers of the United States were guilty of
slavery and genocide aswell, that does not mean that their victory over the crown was not an asset for future class warfare.

A note, I am not ignoring the history of Cromwell and I am not Bullying you.
You are ignoring his relevance to the Marxist analysis of history and instead constructing a one dimensional image of him as a mere opressor, despite him having taken up arms against the established church and monarchy, two of history's most opressive institutions.
I have never justified his actions towards Irish Catholics and indeed i mentioned in my original post that i was disgusted by it. But I am not inclined to judge him as fully evil because I do not believe such a thing exists. Men can commit noble acts and at the same time wicked ones. My question was whether the positive accomplishemnts of his reign outweigh the negative ones. I have not yet come to a conclusion myself but it would seem that most on this site are of the opinion that it did not.
Telling those who disagree with your position that they should, as a result, be rejected as a member of this forum is a bullying tactic.

[Gracchvs]

Created an authoritarian kingdom out of nomadic tribes and a united economy from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean.
Was he a revolutionary? Not at all. Was this accomplishment progress? Yes.

Marxism, for those here that claim to it, sees as its ultimate end the mastery of nature by humanity.

EVERY step toward that end is progressive. And destroying the last remnants of feudalism, the revolution led by Cromwell was progressive.

But I guess there is much impressionism here. Anyone who cannot tell the difference between the revolution and the degenerated revolution, between the early Cromwell, Robespierre and Lenin from the late Cromwell, Napoleon and Stalin understands nothing of what a revolution is, and why they succeed or fail.

I would like to ask those who look unfavourably on Cromwell this:
Do you identify the October Revolution with Stalin?


Telling those who disagree with your position that they should, as a result, be rejected as a member of this forum is a bullying tactic.
^This is true.^

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I have family members who's parents emigrated here from Ireland 120 years ago and have never actually been there. And yet hatred of that motherfucker runs from generation to generation. I think it was taught to every kid in sunday school :lol:

Villain.

[Il Medico]

I have family members who's parents emigrated here from Ireland 120 years ago and have never actually been there. And yet hatred of that motherfucker runs from generation to generation. I think it was taught to every kid in sunday school :lol:

Villain.
Same. I have never been to Ireland, however, I have Irish family and friends and the Irish collectively hate the bastard. As do I knowing the history behind him. It should be thought in Sunday school!:lol:

[Cumannach]

Was he a revolutionary? Not at all. Was this accomplishment progress? Yes.

Marxism, for those here that claim to it, sees as its ultimate end the mastery of nature by humanity.

EVERY step toward that end is progressive. And destroying the last remnants of feudalism, the revolution led by Cromwell was progressive.
Destroying feudalism is progressive but mass murder and ethnic cleansing is not. So, Cromwell, who had no conscious intention of bringing society closer to the point at which the overthrow of all minority ruling classes would be possible, nevertheless unconsciously committed certain deeds which actually had the said result. On the other hand he consciously and intentionally engaged in genocide and ethnic cleansing.

This is why there is nothing to admire about Cromwell as a man, but only unintentional consequences of some of his actions which happened to have a progressive character.




I would like to ask those who look unfavourably on Cromwell this:
Do you identify the October Revolution with Stalin?
Of course. It probably would never have happened without Stalin and the other Bolsheviks.

[redSHARP]

he was a terrible person. his polices in Ireland were reactionary at best! he enslaved England and made it a militant religious state under his control.

[Andropov]

Telling those who disagree with your position that they should, as a result, be rejected as a member of this forum is a bullying tactic.
I dont think there is any poster here who would say Pastradamus is a bully.
You must remember that you are dealing with a man who did commit ethnic cleansing and genocide so calling him a Revolutionary is a bit far fetched and will provoke a heated debate.

[Pogue]

Cromwell was a genocidal murderer who pillaged Ireland. I don't see how anyone outside of loony English nationalists could find such a man a hero.

[Killfacer]

Cromwell was a genocidal murderer who pillaged Ireland. I don't see how anyone outside of loony English nationalists could find such a man a hero.

Hero no, but whether he meant to or not, he did a lot for democracy in England.

I can't emphasise enough how much of a bastard i think the man is.

[reddevil]

I dont think there is any poster here who would say Pastradamus is a bully.
You must remember that you are dealing with a man who did commit ethnic cleansing and genocide so calling him a Revolutionary is a bit far fetched and will provoke a heated debate.
I never said he or she was. Only that the method of debate used resembled that of a bully.
I am well aware that this is a controversial topic but i would like to discuss it calmly and rationally without anybody getting overly emotional.

[Killfacer]

Ireland aside, what he did to the more progressive groups involved in the civil war like the levelers was unforgivable.

[Bitter Ashes]

I certainly wouldnt even attempt to condone the tactics used by Cromwell, or his motives for that matter, but the Monarchy did need putting in its place by somebody. Pity it took such a bastard to do it.

[PRC-UTE]

I grew up thinking he was basically Satan. now that I know more I think he was in some respects a hero.

though he was to an extent guilty of the famous 'to hell or connaught' policy, he didn't fully carry it out. his atrocities were probably greatly exaggerated by his enemies the monarchists. monarchists are probably the biggest liars in all of history.

as was already mentioned, one of his biggest crimes was destroying the proto-communist levellers movement. here's something on the Levellers from the irsm site:


In the words of the Leveller leader Walwyn, "the cause of the Irish natives in seeking their just freedoms...was the very same with our cause here in endevouring our own rescue and freedom from the power of oppressors."

source: http://www.irsm.org/history/levellers.html

[Bitter Ashes]

My friend the oppression of Catholics was not "perceived". In England under the protestants, you could be burned at the stake for being catholic. That is like saying the Jews in world war two were no better that the Germans!

And under the Catholics the same thing happened to protestants, along with all the witchunts, at least they were kicked out of England before they were allowed an Inquistion here too. There is no way that England would have been a more tollerant place under Catholic rule than it was under Protestant rule.


Our squaddie lass doesnt even know much about the history of her country and yet she wants to lecture us on Irish history.

Cromwell was rebelling against ANGLICANISM which at the time was seen by Roman Catholics and Lutherans as firmly within the PROTESTANT camp...which of course it saw itself as part of until the Oxford movement began to change certain perceptions.
If you're reffering to Cromwell's civil war against the King, that wasnt much to do with religion, but more of the politcs involved in the King demanding that Parliment behaved exactly as he dictated.

What I was talking about was his invasion of Ireland. Cromwell HATED Catholics and that was half the reason he invaded Ireland the second he took control of England. Guy Fawkes hated Protestants and went out to attack them, while Cromwell hated Catholics and went out to attack them. They're both the same kind of fanatical fundie, all that seperates them is that one was more succesful in thier butchery than the other.

Honestly, what does it matter if they're Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, whatever? They're all as bad as each other at using thier religions as an excuse to persecute anyone who disagrees with them.

[Gracchvs]

Wow... Noone realises that prior to the French Revolution, every revolution necessarily took on a religious guise.

SO! Who here has an opinion on Thomas Munzer, then? Religious fanatic who should be shot, or ambitious proto-communist fighting in a bourgeois revolution?

I think it would be good for everyone here, who claims to Marxism at least, to read Kautsky's Foundations of Christianity and Engels' Peasant War in Germany.

[pastradamus]

I grew up thinking he was basically Satan. now that I know more I think he was in some respects a hero.

In some respects yes. He did pull down the monarchy - which is in theory a good thing. Though what came out of this? All he did was replace the monarchy with a group of Nobels, Businessmen and even still monarchists where present.



though he was to an extent guilty of the famous 'to hell or connaught' policy, he didn't fully carry it out. his atrocities were probably greatly exaggerated by his enemies the monarchists. monarchists are probably the biggest liars in all of history. Yes I agree with this. Even Most Irish historians agree that the Drogheda massacre was not half as bad as what people might have said of it. This was a 19th century myth - though there was a massacre at drogheda its not certain whether it was cromwells men or the monarchists.


as was already mentioned, one of his biggest crimes was destroying the proto-communist levellers movement. here's something on the Levellers from the irsm site:



source: http://www.irsm.org/history/levellers.htmlExcellent piece there PRC. I know this is somewhat of a "jump off" comparison but I like to think of the levellers as somewhat like the Coal miners under scargill who supported the plight of the H-block protestors. Who knows? maybe in another 400 years time people working class people will be defending Thatcher? ;)

[pastradamus]

You are ignoring his relevance to the Marxist analysis of history and instead constructing a one dimensional image of him as a mere opressor, despite him having taken up arms against the established church and monarchy, two of history's most opressive institutions.
I have never justified his actions towards Irish Catholics and indeed i mentioned in my original post that i was disgusted by it. But I am not inclined to judge him as fully evil because I do not believe such a thing exists. Men can commit noble acts and at the same time wicked ones. My question was whether the positive accomplishemnts of his reign outweigh the negative ones. I have not yet come to a conclusion myself but it would seem that most on this site are of the opinion that it did not.
Telling those who disagree with your position that they should, as a result, be rejected as a member of this forum is a bullying tactic.

Making the suggestion that I am a bully by saying I use bullying tactics is something I totally reject. I admit I may have gotten over-emotional on the issue and for that I apologise as I like to keep a level-head on anysuch matter, but than again I reject that cromwell was a revolutionary. To answer your question then - No. The negatives far outweight the positives. Murder and forced enslavement, the levellers issue and the mass exile of irish men and women is something as an Irishman that I find attrotious. Though bringing down the monarchy and showing that, Yes, an uprising against the Crown was possible was a good thing - but look at the people who replaced the Crown forces? Thats my issue here and I dont believe its one dimensional.

I think if this guy were alive today we would all reject him as being in any way revolutionary. His religious bigotry is something that reminds me of Ian Paisley and his elitist attitudes are something that as a leftist I find deplorable, again though I apologise for the comment - It was heavy-handed and emotional which are two realm's I have not really entered on this site up until then.

[pastradamus]

Wow... Noone realises that prior to the French Revolution, every revolution necessarily took on a religious guise.

.

Yes and that what made the French Revolution a lot more remarkable than Cromwells Rebellion. Marx made clear notifications and comparisons between the two. One Instigated by Nobles, the other Instigated by the Workers. He drew clear parallels between the Workers in the Bastille and those on the barricades during the Paris commune.

[Gracchvs]

The English Revolution was not instigated by the Nobility.
As one Marxist account puts it:
During his reign, Charles I connived with the Catholic absolutist monarchies of Europe, including through his queen, Henrietta Maria of France. The grip of the Crown and Church on the populace in England would be difficult to overstate: the king ruled by “Divine Right”; both Church and Crown operated their own courts; non-attendance at one’s local parish church was punishable by law and church taxes were levied in the amount of one-tenth (a tithe) of one’s produce or profit. The dominant force on the Parliamentary side was the rising Presbyterian bourgeoisie based on the City of London and the merchant capitalists who had been accumulating vast amounts of capital. This class dominated the House of Commons, which had become three times as rich as the House of Lords. But the feudal system was an enormous barrier to the expansion of trade and industry and thus the merchant capitalists were compelled to remove these fetters on their profit accumulation. Parallel with the rise of capitalism went developments in science, and the capitalists needed science, which gave them added impetus to rebel against the Established Church.
In the countryside, the encroachment of capitalist economic relations meant higher rents for tenants. Lower sections of the landed gentry—from which Cromwell hailed—were being squeezed by the big feudal landowners. Also pitted against the feudal nobility were the yeomen—a stratum of independent farmers—who became the backbone of Cromwell’s army, as well as petty-bourgeois layers—small producers and craftsmen. The majority of wage-earners in England at the time were domestic servants and there was no industrial working class to speak of. The radical wing of the Parliamentary side, known as the “Independents,” came into conflict with the conservative Presbyterians, while Cromwell occupied an intermediate position between these two wings.
To quote the marxists.org encyclopedia: Puritan revolutionary of the English civil war of the 1640s. Defeated the Royalists of Charles I (and decapitating same) and established the English parliamentary system on stronger ground than any previous generation. While seeking to expand English trade and further develop English capitalism, under the guise of being opposed to the Roman Catholic Church he launched vicious wars of domination against mostly Roman Catholic Ireland, murdering thousands of Irish and establishing oppressive English colonial rule there.

On another note, dependent on this question, but not part of it:
I remember a story about when Trotsky was in England, and he was being given a tour by some liberal type. So they come to stand before a statue of Cromwell and the liberal says: "Truly a great man Cromwell was. See the bible he holds" To which Trotsky replied "Yes, a great man: Look at the sword!"
When I first heard that story I lol'd so hard.

Trotsky on Cromwell: “Cromwell was a great revolutionary of his time, who knew how to uphold the interests of the new, bourgeois social system against the old aristocratic one without holding back at anything. This must be learnt from him, and the dead lion of the seventeenth century is in this sense immeasurably greater than many living dogs.”

Also, in trying to show a great and fundamental difference between the two revolutions, you ignore the similarities!
In June 1647 Parliament tried to disperse the army regiments, ordering them to enlist for Ireland or face immediate dismissal. The ranks mutinied, the Agitators seized the King, held him captive and led a march on London. This led to the ultimate nightmare scenario for every fat-headed Parliamentarian: the revolutionary army purged Parliament of its main conciliators, causing all the Presbyterians to flee from “the House.”
Does this not sound like a certain event in Paris? With insurgents surrounding the Convention and demanding the removal of the Girondins?

The fact is, the religious groupings were not merely religious: They were political parties in a VERY modern sense. They represented specific class interests, with more or less wavering and conciliation.
Trotsky again: “It would seem that the conditions are now created for the single rule of the Presbyterian bourgeoisie. But before the Royal power could be broken, the parliamentary army has converted itself into an independent political force. It has concentrated in its ranks the Independents, the pious and resolute petit bourgeoisie, the craftsmen and farmers. This army powerfully interferes in social life, not merely as an armed force, but as a Praetorian Guard, and as the political representative of a new class opposing the prosperous and rich bourgeoisie. Correspondingly the army creates a new state organ rising above the military command: a council of soldiers’ and officers’ deputies (‘agitators’). A new period of ‘double sovereignty’ has thus arrived: that of the Presbyterian Parliament and the Independents’ army. This leads to open conflicts. The bourgeoisie proves powerless to oppose with its own army the ‘model army’ of Cromwell—that is, the armed plebeians. The conflict ends with a purgation of the Presbyterian Parliament by the sword of the Independents. There remains but the rump of a parliament; the dictatorship of Cromwell is established.”

About Ireland: "The fact that Cromwell’s army had brought progress and liberation from the yoke of absolutism to England, yet offered nothing but brutal colonisation to Ireland, seems contradictory at first. But the same phenomenon can be seen for example when we look at the impact of the French revolutionary regime in Haiti, a French colony. The French Revolution itself had inspired a slave rebellion in Haiti that struck fear into the slavemasters and property-owning classes. However, the class that came to power in France under the banner of “liberty, equality and fraternity” was the bourgeoisie and the new rulers were horrified at the prospect of abolishing slavery in Haiti, because the wealth of the leading capitalists in France depended on the enormous profits that flowed out of the Antilles. For the same reason, the relationship of Cromwellian England to Ireland would necessarily be oppressive because the determining factor was the profit the English capitalists raked in from its Irish colony, where the London-Derry Company had been established before Cromwell’s reign."

So yeah. Whinge about the fact that he did what capitalist rulers do. But never forget the fact that the development of capitalism was a necessary step toward communism.

Whinge about the fact that he was religious, as almost all were at that time. But to do so ignores the very earthly content of that religion.
Engels on the subject:“The great international centre of feudalism was the Roman Catholic Church. It united the whole of feudalized Western Europe, in spite of all internal wars, into one grand political system, opposed as much to the schismatic Greeks as to the Mohammedan countries. It surrounded feudal institutions with the halo of divine consecration. It had organised its own hierarchy on the feudal model, and, lastly, it was itself by far the most powerful feudal lord, holding, as it did, fully one-third of the soil of the Catholic world. Before profane feudalism could be successfully attacked in each country and in detail, this, its sacred central organization, had to be destroyed.”

Christopher Hill on this religious issue: “Cromwell, [by] stabling in cathedrals the horses of the most disciplined and most democratic cavalry the world had yet seen, won a victory which for ever stopped men being flogged and branded for having unorthodox views about the Communion service”
Not separation of church and state, but certainly a great deal more religious toleration than previously.

I could probably go on for quiet some time, but if I haven't made my point, nothing will. Those who will agree with this did before I started typing, and those impressionists who can only cringe at the violence and barbarism of the capitalist regime will continue to call him a monster as they did prior to this post.

[Dimentio]

Cromwell is probably the English equivalent to Ayatollah Khomenei in some senses. The revolutions were made for similar reasons. The question is if Iranian parliamentarism will survive the theocracy.

[Cumannach]

Look, nobody has denied that the movement Cromwell led was progressive in the (marxist) historical sense. And he was obviously a 'great man' and military leader or he wouldn't have been able to do the things he did. But that's a different thing entirely from considering him as an individual, and forming an opinion of him as a man, as anybody is entitled to who wants to. In that way I think it's impossible to appraise him as a hero.

[Nosotros]

Oliver Cromwell is probably the most controversial figure in English history. Some see him as a champion of liberty while to others he's a cruel and petty tyrant.
His importance to us lies in his key role in the English civil war: the first bourgeouis revolution of its kind. The abolition of both monarchy and church was a highly revolutionary act for its time. Not to mention the resettlement of the jews.
The question is whether the revolution should be applauded by socialists. While we detest the values such revolutions are built upon, generally we are happy at the triumph of capitalism over feudalism, which laid the ground for the triumph of socialism over capitalism.
But then of course there's his infamous conquest. Being of Irish catholic ancestory I'm perhaps biased in this regard but i'd say it was genocide, plain and simple.
What's the verdict of people here: was his revolution a positive thing for human advancement?Noway, the man was a tyrant and no different than a king, also he was deeply prejudice by the sound of it.

[pastradamus]

The English Revolution was not instigated by the Nobility.
As one Marxist account puts it:
During his reign, Charles I connived with the Catholic absolutist monarchies of Europe, including through his queen, Henrietta Maria of France. The grip of the Crown and Church on the populace in England would be difficult to overstate: the king ruled by “Divine Right”; both Church and Crown operated their own courts; non-attendance at one’s local parish church was punishable by law and church taxes were levied in the amount of one-tenth (a tithe) of one’s produce or profit. The dominant force on the Parliamentary side was the rising Presbyterian bourgeoisie based on the City of London and the merchant capitalists who had been accumulating vast amounts of capital. This class dominated the House of Commons, which had become three times as rich as the House of Lords. But the feudal system was an enormous barrier to the expansion of trade and industry and thus the merchant capitalists were compelled to remove these fetters on their profit accumulation. Parallel with the rise of capitalism went developments in science, and the capitalists needed science, which gave them added impetus to rebel against the Established Church.
In the countryside, the encroachment of capitalist economic relations meant higher rents for tenants. Lower sections of the landed gentry—from which Cromwell hailed—were being squeezed by the big feudal landowners. Also pitted against the feudal nobility were the yeomen—a stratum of independent farmers—who became the backbone of Cromwell’s army, as well as petty-bourgeois layers—small producers and craftsmen. The majority of wage-earners in England at the time were domestic servants and there was no industrial working class to speak of. The radical wing of the Parliamentary side, known as the “Independents,” came into conflict with the conservative Presbyterians, while Cromwell occupied an intermediate position between these two wings.
To quote the marxists.org encyclopedia: Puritan revolutionary of the English civil war of the 1640s. Defeated the Royalists of Charles I (and decapitating same) and established the English parliamentary system on stronger ground than any previous generation. While seeking to expand English trade and further develop English capitalism, under the guise of being opposed to the Roman Catholic Church he launched vicious wars of domination against mostly Roman Catholic Ireland, murdering thousands of Irish and establishing oppressive English colonial rule there.

On another note, dependent on this question, but not part of it:
I remember a story about when Trotsky was in England, and he was being given a tour by some liberal type. So they come to stand before a statue of Cromwell and the liberal says: "Truly a great man Cromwell was. See the bible he holds" To which Trotsky replied "Yes, a great man: Look at the sword!"
When I first heard that story I lol'd so hard.

Trotsky on Cromwell: “Cromwell was a great revolutionary of his time, who knew how to uphold the interests of the new, bourgeois social system against the old aristocratic one without holding back at anything. This must be learnt from him, and the dead lion of the seventeenth century is in this sense immeasurably greater than many living dogs.”

Also, in trying to show a great and fundamental difference between the two revolutions, you ignore the similarities!
In June 1647 Parliament tried to disperse the army regiments, ordering them to enlist for Ireland or face immediate dismissal. The ranks mutinied, the Agitators seized the King, held him captive and led a march on London. This led to the ultimate nightmare scenario for every fat-headed Parliamentarian: the revolutionary army purged Parliament of its main conciliators, causing all the Presbyterians to flee from “the House.”
Does this not sound like a certain event in Paris? With insurgents surrounding the Convention and demanding the removal of the Girondins?

The fact is, the religious groupings were not merely religious: They were political parties in a VERY modern sense. They represented specific class interests, with more or less wavering and conciliation.
Trotsky again: “It would seem that the conditions are now created for the single rule of the Presbyterian bourgeoisie. But before the Royal power could be broken, the parliamentary army has converted itself into an independent political force. It has concentrated in its ranks the Independents, the pious and resolute petit bourgeoisie, the craftsmen and farmers. This army powerfully interferes in social life, not merely as an armed force, but as a Praetorian Guard, and as the political representative of a new class opposing the prosperous and rich bourgeoisie. Correspondingly the army creates a new state organ rising above the military command: a council of soldiers’ and officers’ deputies (‘agitators’). A new period of ‘double sovereignty’ has thus arrived: that of the Presbyterian Parliament and the Independents’ army. This leads to open conflicts. The bourgeoisie proves powerless to oppose with its own army the ‘model army’ of Cromwell—that is, the armed plebeians. The conflict ends with a purgation of the Presbyterian Parliament by the sword of the Independents. There remains but the rump of a parliament; the dictatorship of Cromwell is established.”

About Ireland: "The fact that Cromwell’s army had brought progress and liberation from the yoke of absolutism to England, yet offered nothing but brutal colonisation to Ireland, seems contradictory at first. But the same phenomenon can be seen for example when we look at the impact of the French revolutionary regime in Haiti, a French colony. The French Revolution itself had inspired a slave rebellion in Haiti that struck fear into the slavemasters and property-owning classes. However, the class that came to power in France under the banner of “liberty, equality and fraternity” was the bourgeoisie and the new rulers were horrified at the prospect of abolishing slavery in Haiti, because the wealth of the leading capitalists in France depended on the enormous profits that flowed out of the Antilles. For the same reason, the relationship of Cromwellian England to Ireland would necessarily be oppressive because the determining factor was the profit the English capitalists raked in from its Irish colony, where the London-Derry Company had been established before Cromwell’s reign."

So yeah. Whinge about the fact that he did what capitalist rulers do. But never forget the fact that the development of capitalism was a necessary step toward communism.

Whinge about the fact that he was religious, as almost all were at that time. But to do so ignores the very earthly content of that religion.
Engels on the subject:“The great international centre of feudalism was the Roman Catholic Church. It united the whole of feudalized Western Europe, in spite of all internal wars, into one grand political system, opposed as much to the schismatic Greeks as to the Mohammedan countries. It surrounded feudal institutions with the halo of divine consecration. It had organised its own hierarchy on the feudal model, and, lastly, it was itself by far the most powerful feudal lord, holding, as it did, fully one-third of the soil of the Catholic world. Before profane feudalism could be successfully attacked in each country and in detail, this, its sacred central organization, had to be destroyed.”

Christopher Hill on this religious issue: “Cromwell, [by] stabling in cathedrals the horses of the most disciplined and most democratic cavalry the world had yet seen, won a victory which for ever stopped men being flogged and branded for having unorthodox views about the Communion service”
Not separation of church and state, but certainly a great deal more religious toleration than previously.

I could probably go on for quiet some time, but if I haven't made my point, nothing will. Those who will agree with this did before I started typing, and those impressionists who can only cringe at the violence and barbarism of the capitalist regime will continue to call him a monster as they did prior to this post.

So by using all these various quotes, what is your point? I think any leftist would find Cromwells barbarism cringworthy - everyone here seems to think so. In relation to quotes made concerning Marx, Trotsky etc... I read your quote from trotsky, So what if he said and done such things? I dont believe this makes trotsky's argument correct. I dont believe that it is "the word of god" or anything of the like and I have often attacked Trotsky's arguments particularly with relation to the Spanish civil war and Andreu Nin.

[Gracchvs]

So by using all these various quotes, what is your point? I think any leftist would find Cromwells barbarism cringworthy - everyone here seems to think so. In relation to quotes made concerning Marx, Trotsky etc... I read your quote from trotsky, So what if he said and done such things? I dont believe this makes trotsky's argument correct. I dont believe that it is "the word of god" or anything of the like and I have often attacked Trotsky's arguments particularly with relation to the Spanish civil war and Andreu Nin.
My point in using these quotes is to say that which others have saaid more eloquently or coherently than I.
You, and most (certainly not all. I have been 'thanked' for most of my posts in this thread, and I would take that to mean that those people agree with the posts in question) others here conflate the revolutionary character of the civil war with the imperialist nature of the conquest of Ireland, and yet I am sure everyone would recognise that only a reactionary ideologue would conflate Robespierre with the Directory and Napoleon.

When confronted with this post that shows the nature of the civil war, and how it was different to the events in Ire, you can do nothing but whinge about my quoting!

This is shame-faced evasion. Just as the assertion above that those who recognise the THOROUGHLY revolutionary character of the civil war are some how supporters, or analogous to supporters, of Thatcher which seeks to declare us rightists and enemies of the working class.

You clearly cannot separate the actions of a revolutionary and a bonapartist. And will try to reflect on those who can, some sort of rightism.

Contrary to what Red Rev said above, this clearly is the behaviour of a bully.

[Agrippa]

The fact that there are self-described "Marxists" that are not only Bonapartist apologists but also retroactively support Cromwell's genocidal re-colonization the Celtic people, AND his brutal supression of the historical period's true communists, the Diggers and Levelers, under the pretense that they were "backwards", is proof enough that merely claiming to be "Marxist" is insubstantial compared to actually following Marx's premises to their liberatory conclusions

[Gracchvs]

The fact that there are self-described "Marxists" that are not only Bonapartist apologists but also retroactively support Cromwell's genocidal re-colonization the Celtic people, AND his brutal supression of the historical period's true communists, the Diggers and Levelers, under the pretense that they were "backwards", is proof enough that merely claiming to be "Marxist" is insubstantial compared to actually following Marx's premises to their liberatory conclusions
So this is what it comes down too then? I point out that you cannot conflate the revolutionary and the bonapartist and I am an apologist for Bonapartism?

At every turn you seek to drown the Lenin in the crimes of Stalin (for what are we talking about, if not the Lenin and Stalin of the English Bourgeois revolution combined into one person?).

But this is what it comes down to. Through impressionistic outrage you refuse to see the progress made. The outrage is just but to deny the historic importance and the fundamentally progressive nature of the Civil War is, dare I say it, Counter-Revolutionary.

If I may be so bold as to presume, I would that those who support the idea of Villain!Cromwell refused to call for defence of the stalinized SU against 'democratic' imperialist invasion or internal capitalist 'democratic' counter-revolution?

At the same time, I wonder how many of those who revile Cromwell defend Robspierre and the Jacobins? They suppressed the more radical revolutionaries in the form of the Hebertistes and waged a great war against the population of the Vendee.

Fact is, the Civil War was the first Bourgeois Revolution, and the haters here need to learn to differentiate between Cromwell the Revolutionary and Cromwell-Napoleon.

In short, you need to re-learn that history is a process, and despite what other here say, a DIALECTICAL one. Things don't happen in straigt lines.


Historical note: The Diggers and levelers were radical democrats, not communists.
But that wont happen, and people will continue to call me a rightist or some other such nonsense...

[Dimentio]

My point in using these quotes is to say that which others have saaid more eloquently or coherently than I.
You, and most (certainly not all. I have been 'thanked' for most of my posts in this thread, and I would take that to mean that those people agree with the posts in question) others here conflate the revolutionary character of the civil war with the imperialist nature of the conquest of Ireland, and yet I am sure everyone would recognise that only a reactionary ideologue would conflate Robespierre with the Directory and Napoleon.

When confronted with this post that shows the nature of the civil war, and how it was different to the events in Ire, you can do nothing but whinge about my quoting!

This is shame-faced evasion. Just as the assertion above that those who recognise the THOROUGHLY revolutionary character of the civil war are some how supporters, or analogous to supporters, of Thatcher which seeks to declare us rightists and enemies of the working class.

You clearly cannot separate the actions of a revolutionary and a bonapartist. And will try to reflect on those who can, some sort of rightism.

Contrary to what Red Rev said above, this clearly is the behaviour of a bully.

The difference is that Robespierre and Napoleon was two different persons. Cromwell the national "liberator" was the same as Cromwell the conqueror.

But for the 17th century, Cromwell was a part of a progressive current. But the current of establishment of a national state would have rolled over England and Scotland, whether or not the country had been protestant or catholic.

The establishment of industrial capitalism though, might have occurred in another part of Europe. Only puritanism/calvinism had an ideological/theological response of how to handle wealth in order to maximise it during that era.

[Agrippa]

At every turn you seek to drown the Lenin in the crimes of Stalin (for what are we talking about, if not the Lenin and Stalin of the English Bourgeois revolution combined into one person?).

Lenin and Stalin were both criminals. (in the ethical sense) How does combining them into one person make a hero?


But this is what it comes down to. Through impressionistic outrage you refuse to see the progress made.

I'm not outraged. Just bored and posting on a message board for fun.

I see the "progress" made by every democratic revolution - "progress" towards the further material conquest by capital.


If I may be so bold as to presume, I would that those who support the idea of Villain!Cromwell refused to call for defence of the stalinized SU against 'democratic' imperialist invasion or internal capitalist 'democratic' counter-revolution?

Such a scenario would be an inter-imperialist conflict and would only be of interest to revolutionaries in terms of something to take tactical advantage of.


At the same time, I wonder how many of those who revile Cromwell defend Robspierre and the Jacobins?

Perhaps. Not me, though.


They suppressed the more radical revolutionaries in the form of the Hebertistes and waged a great war against the population of the Vendee.

Exactly. They were shit-heads, like Cromwell...


Fact is, the Civil War was the first Bourgeois Revolution

Exactly. Unlike Marxist-Leninists, I am a real communist and am thus (retroactively) opposed to the emergence of the bourgeoisie, even if it disposes a feudal oppressor.


In short, you need to re-learn that history is a process, and despite what other here say, a DIALECTICAL one. Things don't happen in straigt lines.

From my perspective, thinking of characters such as Bonaparte, Cromwell, Robspierre as "progressive" is anti-dialectical and overly linear.


Historical note: The Diggers and levelers were radical democrats, not communists.

They were not "democrats" in the Athenian, Jacobian, Jeffersonian sense, no. They were not bourgeois democrats, they were communists.


But that wont happen, and people will continue to call me a rightist or some other such nonsense...

No, you're a garden-variety progressivist Jacobian Leftist....

[Comrade Anarchist]

hes a hero if you look at it from the fact that he helped make england more of a "republic" but the his genocidal tactics used against the catholics and he was pretty dictatorial

[Red Dreadnought]

A very interesting question. He was probably a "son of a *****", by he's represion over the levelers, irish people etc. Nevertheless, he's role in English burgess Revolution its objectivally progresive, and it is remarcable for marxist analysis.

[Hit The North]

Exactly. Unlike Marxist-Leninists, I am a real communist and am thus (retroactively) opposed to the emergence of the bourgeoisie, even if it disposes a feudal oppressor.


Apart from the obvious fact that this position is historically defunct, do you mean you're some kind of agrarian communist who believes communism can be created out of the rural commune?



From my perspective, thinking of characters such as Bonaparte, Cromwell, Robspierre as "progressive" is anti-dialectical and overly linear.


It's undialectical to see these characters as only progressive.

With historical materialism it is best to see individuals as bearers of their social relations. The fact that Cromwell acted in a contradictory fashion should be seen as symptomatic of the contradictory position of the bourgeoisie to the rest of the society it claimed to be liberating.

[Agrippa]

Apart from the obvious fact that this position is historically defunct, do you mean you're some kind of agrarian communist who believes communism can be created out of the rural commune?

To me it seems reasonable to believe "Communism can be created out of the [...] commune", rural or otherwise.


It's undialectical to see these characters as only progressive.

With historical materialism it is best to see individuals as bearers of their social relations. The fact that Cromwell acted in a contradictory fashion should be seen as symptomatic of the contradictory position of the bourgeoisie to the rest of the society it claimed to be liberating.Fine, but you could just as easily say the same thing about any capitalist such as Hitler, Theodore Roosevelt, J.P. Morgan, etc. They are still enemies, however

[Glenn Beck]

Fine, but you could just as easily say the same thing about any capitalist such as Hitler, Theodore Roosevelt, J.P. Morgan, etc. They are still enemies, however

Yes you could say the same thing in that they were all infamous people representing certain tendencies prevalent during certain phases of capitalist development. The major difference between them and Oliver Cromwell however is that Oliver Cromwell was a figure of the bourgeois revolution whilst the others you named were simply more famous figures after bourgeois rule had already established itself and outlived its usefulness for humanity. Furthermore there is no sense in retroactively 'supporting' Cromwell just as there is no sense supporting any of those figures eve if they happened to have done anything that was in itself necessary to the progress of humanity itself (an extremely doubtful proposition to me but whatever).

Certainly it is quite possible that Cromwell and the actions he took were not essential for the development of capitalism and some of the same tasks could have been achieved in another manner, but they weren't, and that period of history is gone and will never return. Cromwell was indisputably a villain, but things occurred under his rule that were historically progressive. Don't confuse 'historically progressive' with 'morally good'.

[Klaatu]

"...generally we are happy at the triumph of capitalism over feudalism..."

Forgive me for being ignorant, but how much different are capitalism and feudalism?
Personally, I don't think there is very much difference at all. (Subtle differences at most.)

[Invader Zim]

Yes and that what made the French Revolution a lot more remarkable than Cromwells Rebellion. Marx made clear notifications and comparisons between the two. One Instigated by Nobles, the other Instigated by the Workers. He drew clear parallels between the Workers in the Bastille and those on the barricades during the Paris commune.

Describing one revolution to be more remarkable than another because one was imbibed with religion strikes me as nonsense. There was nothing more remarkable about the French Revolution' secular characteristics than the religious characteristics of earlier revolutions. Revolutions are a product of their time and environment. The French and American revolutions had secular leanings because the period in which they occured had become far more secular.

[Tseka]

Oliver Cromwell was a Racist, xenophobic, ignorant idiot.

All of those traits must be despised by all Communists.

[Demogorgon]

Exactly. Unlike Marxist-Leninists, I am a real communist and am thus (retroactively) opposed to the emergence of the bourgeoisie, even if it disposes a feudal oppressor.

That isn't Communist at all. You cannot take todays values and paste them onto the seventeenth century and claim that they somehow fit. The reality was that there was a conflict between the old order and a new rising centre of economic power-the bourgeoisie.

The working class-the class that has to be at the centre of any move towards Communism-didn't even exist in the modern sense, it was an agricultural society. To be sure there were plenty of farmers and the like whose position remained very poor but they did not have the capacity to mount any challenge to the aristocracy and indeed could not gain the opportunity to gain that kind of leverage while the aristocracy remained in power.

At that period, the aristocracy needed to lose its pre-eminent position and be replaced by the bourgeoisie as the dominant class for progress to be made. There was no key period when this happened. The power fot he old feudal Lords declined over a period of centuries in England, starting maybe with Wat Tyler's uprising and the social change necessitated by the Plague through to the Glorious Revolution and the subsequent advent of the Hanoverian monarchy. Nonetheless the period around the English Civil War was a very important period in moving things onwards. Whether Cromwell was a good man or not is irrelevant (for the record he wasn't, but these kind of people rarely are) but he was at the centre of events that led to important progress.

[pastradamus]

Describing one revolution to be more remarkable than another because one was imbibed with religion strikes me as nonsense. There was nothing more remarkable about the French Revolution' secular characteristics than the religious characteristics of earlier revolutions. Revolutions are a product of their time and environment. The French and American revolutions had secular leanings because the period in which they occured had become far more secular.

I was talking in relation to Marx. He clearly identified the difference and the evolved use of the working and peasent class in this rebellion. Read my post correctly.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

He led an anti-royalist uprising and destroyed the Britsh monarchy, at least for a while.
That is very good.

But he was also a puritan extremist who led the bourgeoisie to power and forbade "heathen" and "heretic" elements, such as theatre.

He did some good things, but he wasn't a hero at all. He is more of a villain than of a hero.

[Zazaban]

He outlawed dancing. End of story.

[Klaatu]

I'll bet the women just loved that...

[bolshevik butcher]

I think that to start a thread with the line hero or villain is profoundly at odds with an attempts at a Marxist analysis of any individual in history; we should look at the role they played in the development of social relations and the means of production, what class interest did they represent etc.

I think that PRC-UTE has made most of the points I wanted to. Cromwell represented the interests of the aspiring bourgeois class in England and was actually forced to go beyond the more conservative elements of the big capitalists and land lords who wanted to arrive at a compromise with the monarchy. This forced him to lean on the more radical elements of the English revolution such as the levelers before he ultimately became a Bonapartist dictator dependent on the power of the new model army.

Under Cromwell's leadership the English Revolution cleared the way for the emergence of capitalism in England. However the English bourgeoisie having used revolutionary means to take power sought to differentiate themselves from them once in power as shown by the attitude towards Cromwell and the restoration of the monarchy. However, the restored monarchy was not the same as the pre-revolutionary one and it was accommodated to ensure that power was maintiained by the bourgeoisie.

How should we therefore approach this as Marxists? Cromwell unleashed the forces of the bourgeois revolution, warts and all, and inevitably this led to the atrocities in Ireland and the crushing of the far left of the English Revolution who represented the germs of socialism in an age before there was a proletariat and therefore before it could possibly succeed. Cromwell did play a progressive role, in the same sense that say Bismark did. Marx supported Bismark in unifying Germany in light of the failure of the 1848 revolutions however most of all Marx and Engels were the theoreticians of and supporters of the emerging German Social Democrats.

[New Tet]

Oliver Cromwell is probably the most controversial figure in English history. Some see him as a champion of liberty while to others he's a cruel and petty tyrant...

Isaac Deustcher, in The Prophet Armed, cites Thomas Carlyle as having commented that in order to write about Cromwell, he first had to dig him out from underneath a pile of dead dogs. IOW, that so much bad had been said about Cromwell by historians that at first glance it was impossible to recognize the real man.

We should always keep that observation in mind when reading about any controversial historical figure.