Reform or revolution in the feudal era

[Questionable]

I'm enrolled in a European History class currently, and after we discussed the supposed brutality of the French Revolution, we moved onto the liberal reforms won by England without a revolution, which my professor and several students agreed was "how it should be done."

I'm aware that I'm getting the ultra-condensed, bourgeoisified version of history, so can someone a little more enlightened explain to me the exact situation in England? Were the reforms really so successful? Was there violent struggle that was left out in a shortened history class? Or does the separate nature of feudalism mean that classes could succeed by reformism under it whereas the proletariat cannot accomplish this under capitalism?

[Drosophila]

The English Civil War happened nearly a century before the French Revolution, so I don't know what he's talking about.

[Questionable]

The English Civil War happened nearly a century before the French Revolution, so I don't know what he's talking about.

Yeah, we went over the Glorious Revolution, but my professor taught as about a period shortly after the French Revolution where a lot of trouble was brewing in England but the parliament ended up implementing reforms instead.

[Ostrinski]

The "trouble that was brewing in England" at the time wasn't analagous to the French Revolution, though. The civil war was. The only reason there was less blood letting in the troubles in England at the time of the French Revolution was because they didn't have a social revolution on their hands like French society did.

[CyM]

Exactly, Cromwell was Robespierre. The only reason they didn't need to do much then, is because Cromwell did most of it when he chopped the King's head off.

Sure, the political form fluctuated back and forth, but the property form of British society was already decided by the civil war.

[Invader Zim]

The Civil War was a very different kettle of fish to the French Revolution, with different intellectual and ideological underpinnings and motivations. They are not really analogous, except on the most basic of levels.

[Bronco]

Yes I'd be interested to see anyone articulate the similarities between the French revolution and the English civil wars further, and I would also be quite reluctant to equate Cromwell with Robespierre

[Rafiq]

Yeah, we went over the Glorious Revolution, but my professor taught as about a period shortly after the French Revolution where a lot of trouble was brewing in England but the parliament ended up implementing reforms instead.

The bourgeoisie in England already acquired political hegemony, by that time.

[Thirsty Crow]

The Civil War was a very different kettle of fish to the French Revolution, with different intellectual and ideological underpinnings and motivations. They are not really analogous, except on the most basic of levels.
What would that "most basic of levels" be?
And why are "intellectual and ideological underpinnings and motivations" here implicitly judged as relevant (the only relevant factors, as you don't state any other) in comparing the two, so much that they somehow become "not really analogous"?

[kashkin]

The bourgeoisie had begun to spread its political power in England by the mid-16th century. Land enclosures were a common fact of life by the early 17th century. It is no coincidence that Parliament had its base in the east and the south of England, i.e. the industrial and trading centres; the Royalists had their base in the more feudal north and west. The late 16th and early 17th centuries saw massive inflation coupled with huge industrial growth, especially in coal production.

Ideologically there was the rise in laissez-faire economics, especially among the Puritans, who pushed, in religious language, a more individualist, capitalistic ideology, as opposed to (in their minds) the old-corrupt church.

The Glorious Revolution happened after the bourgeoisie had taken complete political control, William III was invited to the throne by Parliament.

[Invader Zim]

What would that "most basic of levels" be?
And why are "intellectual and ideological underpinnings and motivations" here implicitly judged as relevant (the only relevant factors, as you don't state any other) in comparing the two, so much that they somehow become "not really analogous"?


The most 'basic' level, is that it was a conflict and it was fought over the power of a monarch.


And why are "intellectual and ideological underpinnings and motivations" here implicitly judged as relevant

And, how else do you suppose one might reasonably compare two 'revolutions', without considering their purpose and the motivations of the people participated in them?

[Geiseric]

The french revolution and napoleon's campaign were probably the point when the aristocracy knew their days were numbered, seeing that many people welcomed the french army at first. The bourgeois relied heavilly on the proto working class in America and France to fill up their armies, which at the time (untill about the end of the civil war) was a progressive thing

[Luís Henrique]

Yeah, we went over the Glorious Revolution, but my professor taught as about a period shortly after the French Revolution where a lot of trouble was brewing in England but the parliament ended up implementing reforms instead.

The English equivalent of the French revolution was Cromwell's Commonwealth, hardly an example of smooth political transition. Your professor is just being plainly dishonest.

Luís Henrique

[Geiseric]

The English equivalent of the French revolution was Cromwell's Commonwealth, hardly an example of smooth political transition. Your professor is just being plainly dishonest.

Luís Henrique

Not to mention the persecution working class catholics and irish endured at this time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Wasn't King John's era the first era of reform in the feudal era? The Magna Carta shouldn't be overlooked.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wasn't King John's era the first era of reform in the feudal era? The Magna Carta shouldn't be overlooked.

No. Generally speaking, the 14th and possibly the 13th centuries are the earliest eras in which capitalism is spoken of as being introduced.

There are some exceptions - generally towns acquired early by the Scandanavians tended to have a lot of free peasantry and some early surplus production, but this shouldn't be taken either as any form of commodity production, nor as anything like the general case.

In any case, constitutional political power was not wrested by the bourgeoisie until the 17th Century in England.

[kashkin]

No. Generally speaking, the 14th and possibly the 13th centuries are the earliest eras in which capitalism is spoken of as being introduced.

Indeed, Eugene F. Rice Jr. gives examples of strikes by masters (by this time journeyman had largely become a hereditary title, and masters were becoming more like wage-slaves than independent artisans) in souther/central Germany and by textile workers in Italy during the late 13th/14th centuries.

In regards to the Magna Carta, there was always reform during the medieval period, it wasn't as politically static as is popularly though. The main significance for the Magna Carta is that it created the first institution of (limited) democracy after the fall of the Roman Empire and that the bourgeoisie used it as its historical/legal base.