Cavaliers more capitalist than Roundheads?

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

To begin, let us consider for one moment the events English Civil War.

Now Capitalists might not agree with me here, which is ok, but when I think of the Parliamentary forces which won - I think communism :o . That's right people. They were a bunch of commies!

"BUT SURELY!?" You might say, "Look at the Bill of Rights!" "Was This not a bourgeoise document?!" Well, yes it was. Can't argue there. There was a capitalist outcome... of sorts.

So why do the parliamentary roundheads remind me so much of the damn communist party?

The Cavaliers were the epitome of individual decisiveness. They all dressed slightly differently - and excelled in their fashion sense. They behaved according to the dictates of individually derived tactics in warfare and were on the whole a rather disorganised and motley bunch. Their views were, one would consider, economically conservative. They didn't care about pleasing the collective, (a socialist idea), as the parliament did.

The Roundheads by contrast all dressed in the same ridiculous attire. They looked like a bunch of fascists if you ask me. They were not even allowed to use the word 'roundhead' on pain of a flogging. Is this capitalism? ...I think not. The wikipedia article on the subject states the parliamentarians were aghast at how the Cavaliers seemed more interested in their own personal vanity than the welfare of the nation.

Time out! What did I just paraphrase? ..."Welfare of the nation?" = a clearcut case of socialism. = I'm gonna puke.

But come now thisguyisatotaljerk! Surely that's not reason enough defame the memory of the Roundheads? Well, maybe it isn't. But consider also the view of Parliament on Religion! The Roundhead Parliament never instituted freedom of religon and the reign of Cromwell was something akin to a spiritual cleansing by the Taliban if you ask me.

To conclude, I believe I have demonstrated that even though they may not have stated such to be their purpose, the Cavaliers were a force of moral capitalistic individuality; and the Roundheads were the running dogs of the forces of communism.

Cavaliers! I salute your memory!

[Whitten]

Cromwell a commie? that Theocrat?

[VonClausewitz]

Aye, you do miss out that the Parliamentarians were puritan protestants. I'd say they were republican-fascistic, as opposed to the monarchists of the royalist side. But I wouldn't call them reds, they're so far from what's commonly called communist it's funny. They weren't even close to Soviet-redness.

The royalists had nicer hats though, and King Charles was quite awesomley crazy.

[Demogorgon]

Broadly speaking the Roundheads were capitalists and the cavaliers Feudalists. Though oibviously that mostly applies to the leadership.

[RedAnarchist]

TGIATJ, didn't you, in another post, just say that the English Bill of Rights was very much capitalist?

[loveme4whoiam]

So why do the parliamentary roundheads remind me so much of the damn communist party?
Because you're a moron?

As Demogorgon said, the Roundhead leadership was, broadly, what we would identify as bourgeois capitalists and the Calaviers were feudalists. You can't draw a parallel between the roundheads and any kind of communist group because it was the leaders who held the ideology and power - the soldiers were just paid to fight, regardless of political opinion.

[t_wolves_fan]

The real question is whether they can get past the Pistons and Heat in next year's playoffs.

[Patchd]

Originally posted by patton+October 24, 2006 04:28 pm--> (patton @ October 24, 2006 04:28 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2006 04:09 pm

So why do the parliamentary roundheads remind me so much of the damn communist party?
Because you're a moron?


Edited for truth. [/b]
That really didn&#39;t work <_<

[Patchd]

DELETED

[MKS]

Capitalism didnt really exist during the time of the English Civil War. Therefore noone of the parties were capitalist or communist. You could say one was more liberal than the other, but neither was Capitalist or communist.

Something to think about: Capitalism was considered, and still is by some, to be a liberal concept. When it was created it was done so by Liberal econmists and thinkers in order to progress from Mercantilism, and feudalism.

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 08:03 pm
Capitalism didnt really exist during the time of the English Civil War. Therefore noone of the parties were capitalist or communist. You could say one was more liberal than the other, but neither was Capitalist or communist.

Something to think about: Capitalism was considered, and still is by some, to be a liberal concept. When it was created it was done so by Liberal econmists and thinkers in order to progress from Mercantilism, and feudalism.
Yes, I think you&#39;ve hit the nail on the head. Neither party was representative of capitalism.

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 11:18 am
Aye, you do miss out that the Parliamentarians were puritan protestants. I&#39;d say they were republican-fascistic, as opposed to the monarchists of the royalist side. But I wouldn&#39;t call them reds, they&#39;re so far from what&#39;s commonly called communist it&#39;s funny. They weren&#39;t even close to Soviet-redness.

The royalists had nicer hats though, and King Charles was quite awesomley crazy.
Yes, I agree. I don&#39;t consider the Parliamentarians true communists, its just i&#39;m so far to the right they may as well be.

And I do agree the Royalists had awesome hats.