THE GREAT-GREAT-GREAT GRANDDADDY OF MODERN REVOLUTIONARIES- Honor Oliver Cromwell

BOOK REVIEW

GOD’S ENGLISHMAN-OLIVER CROMWELL AND THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION. Christopher Hill, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1970

The late eminent British Marxist historian Christopher Hill, more noted for studies (to be reviewed later, elsewhere) of the ‘underclass’ in the English Revolution of 1640-1660, has written a serviceable biography of the outstanding bourgeois leader of the English Revolution-Oliver Cromwell.  Professor Hill in his analysis displays Cromwell ‘warts and all’ in order to place him in proper historical perspective. Other biographers, particularly British biographers, seem to have never forgiven Cromwell his ‘indiscretion’ of beheading Charles I and therefore dismiss his importance in the fight for bourgeois democracy. Professor Hill has no such inhibition.

This writer’s sympathies lie more with the social program put forth by John Lilburne and the Levellers and the social actions of Gerard Winstanley and the True Levellers (or Diggers) on Saint George’s Hill. Hill’s studies of those movements and others, as expressed in the religious terms of the day, initially drew me to the study of the English Revolution. Nevertheless, those plebian-based programs in the England of the 1600’s were more a vision (a vision in many ways still in need of realization) than a practical reality. Even Cromwell’s achievements were a near and partially reversible thing. Such are the ways of humankind’s history. 

For leftists Cromwell therefore is not the natural hero of that Revolution. However, his role as military leader of the parliamentary armies when it counted, his fight for the political supremacy of the rising bourgeois class to which he belonged and his practical discrediting of the theory of the divine right of kings-by beheading the defeated king- Charles I place him in the Pantheon of our revolutionary forbears. For today’s leftists these are the ‘lessons’, so to speak, that we can learn from Cromwell’s struggle.

The English Revolution was by any definition a great revolution. It is therefore interesting to compare and contrast that revolution to the two other great revolutions of the modern era- the French and the Russian. The most notably thing all three have in common is once the old regime has been defeated it is necessary to reconstruct the governmental apparatus on a new basis, parliamentary rule, assembly rule or soviet role. The obvious contrast between revolutions is what class takes power- patricians or plebeians?  That has been the underlying strain of all modern social revolutionary movements. Who holds power in the end of the process is a different question.

Cromwell, unlike Napoleon or Stalin, was from the beginning both a key military and political leader on the parliamentary side. Moreover, in the final analysis it was his skill in organizing the New Model Army (the famous Ironsides) that was decisive for the parliamentary victories. Thus, the army played an unusually heavy role in the political struggles, especially among the plebian masses which formed the core of the army (through the ‘Agitators’). In an age when there were no parties, in the modern sense, the plebian base of the army is where the political fight to extend parliamentary democracy was waged. That it was defeated by military action led by Cromwell at Burford in 1649 represented a defeat for plebian democracy. In that sense Cromwell also represented the Thermidorian reaction (from the French Revolutionary period represented by the overthrow of Robespierre and Saint Just by more moderate Jacobins in 1794) that has been noted by historians as a condition that occurs when the revolutionary energies become exhausted. Thus, Cromwell is central to the rise of the revolutionary movement and its dissipation. For other examples, read this book.    

NOTE- The above review has not dealt with Oliver Cromwell and the Irish question. The central importance of Cromwell in his time was his role in the development of parliamentary supremacy, the revolutionary role of armed forces in the conflict with the old regime, and discrediting the theory of the divine right of kings. For those efforts his rightly holds a place in revolutionary history.  Cromwell’s Irish policy, if one can call the deliberate military subjugation of a whole people and indiscriminate slaughter a policy, was ugly. This writer makes no apologies for it.  Note well, however, that no British political leader up to and including Mr. Tony Blair has had a good policy on the Irish question. That is a question that British and Irish revolutionaries will have to deal with when they take power and finally make some retribution for the wretched history of Irish-English relations.            

In The Time Of The Great English Revolution- Professor Ivan Roots’ View- A Book Review

Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for the 17th Century English revolutionary Oliver Cromwell.

Book Review

The Great Rebellion-1642-1660. Professor Ivan Roots, Billing &Sons Ltd., London, 1966

There isno question that for those Western political activists today who look to past social movements as a guide to action that the French Revolution is the logical point of reference. That classical revolution, as more than one political commentator has pointed out, still two hundred plus years later has something to say to us. Moreover the main gains derived from that revolution are still in need of completion in many parts of the world. Not taking anything away from the importance of the French Revolution and its lessons, I would here like to argue for, since the book under review, The Great Rebellion-1642-1660, details the earlier English Revolution, a kind of “great rebellion” exception to the French example. And the basis for that exception is nothing more (although not less either) than having grown up in New England with its myriad historical references to the old mother country and the struggle of the Puritans and others to create some new social order so that I am keenly aware of the debt that the French Revolution (and the American as well) to the that earlier explosion of struggle to find a new way of organizing society.

After reading Professor Roots’, an acknowledged authority on the parliamentary struggles in mid-17th century England, now old time narration of the events (and others in the field from Trevor-Roper to Christopher Hill) I am more confirmed in my opinion. Professor Roots takes pains to explore the various tendencies from arch-monarchist to “fifth monarchists” who were contending for power during this period. Although by the cast of his narration Professor Roots appears more than a little shocked by the thought that the plebeian (meaning everybody from the emerging bourgeois urban types to the yeoman who defended the parliamentary order through it all) masses of that time could upend the king and the kingdom. But aside from his various off-hand remarks he presents a very well-written and fast moving narrative of the events that make up the period of the English Revolution proper. This is done by looking at the various contending power centers (royalist, great landowners, rising and declining, the Scots and the other nationalist movements, religious orders, urban bourgeois types, army cadre, etc.) their reaction to events and, in the end, the movements, while it was not pre-ordained that Charles II would reclaim the throne, that made that possible. The good Professor, other than in passing, does not like Professor Hill dwell on underbelly of the revolution, on those groupings like the Levellers, Diggers, Fifth Monarchists, shakers, quakers, ranters, ravers and what not who make this such a historically colorful time.

As Professor Roots noted Charles I made every possible mistake in the book in dealing with his political opponents, his religious opponents, and even some of his quasi-supporters. Of course this trait is common when revolution is in the air but probably more that later times Charles seemed to go out of his way to alienate anybody who did not buy into his version of “divine right of kings.” And in the end he paid for that fault with his head. Along the way there were various political, but more importantly military turning points, which spelled his demise. The most important was the parliamentary New Model Army which emerged when things were stalemated. That army in concentrated form expressed both the new “democratic” spirit that animated the plebes and put forth many new leaders who would also make their mark in civilian society, notably Oliver Cromwell who rise to Lord Protector was almost totally as a result of his military prowess in using that army and as a lever in the political struggles in the republican period.

The most interesting part of Professor Roots book is his study of the various pro-parliamentary groupings, military and civilian, in the republican period when everyone was trying to get some combination that would make governing in a non-monarchial society possible. That mighty task had many ups and downs from the bright days of the Levellers and army agitators to the very close to dictatorial rule by Cromwell. However, in the end, the republican project was not sustainable at that time. Nevertheless the issue of parliamentary primacy was decisively established. That is the major lesson we take from the English Revolution. To get a better idea of the ins and outs of that struggle at the governmental level read Professor Roots important basic book.

The Once And Future King- “The King’s Speech”-A Film Review

Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for the film The King’s Speech.

The King’s Speech, starring Colin Firth, Helen Bonham Carter, directed by Tom Hooper, 2010

No question Mr. Darcy (oops) Colin Firth deserved every accolade, including the coveted Oscar, for his performance as the stammering King George VI (the current monarch’s father). Anyone from king to kid (including this writer) who has had even a passing acquaintance with stammering can relate to the story line here, and the sheer talent necessary for an actor to convincingly produce such a realistic portrayal (especially that climatic pep talk speech to the empire). And hats off to Geoffrey Rush as the unorthodox tutor who sees the king through his travails. However, at the end of the day and as the good king himself was painfully aware, good republican that I am I was left with the gnawing feeling that the monarchy
(and the monarch) portrayed add nothing to our accumulated historical experience. Old Oliver Cromwell and his boys had it right in 1649-and it hasn’t been right since 1660.

At The Birth Of Modern Revolutions- Professor Ashton’s “Civil War In England: Conservatism and Revolution 1603-1649”

Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for the 17th century English Revolution as background for this review.

Book Review

The Civil War In England:Conservatism and Revolution-1603-1649, Robert Ashton, W.W. Norton&Co., 1978

No question for the modern radical movement the French Revolution of the 18th century is more important as a source of historical examples than the subject of the book, The Civil War In England:Conservatism and Revolution- 1603-1649, under review. However, equally true, and especially for those of us readers in America, particularly New England, the mid-17th century English holds many important examples and lessons. Those lessons center on the various plebeian movements, religious and secular, Levellers, Diggers, shakers, quakers, ranters and chanters, and the like. And the preeminent authority in the field on those matters was the valuable work of Professor Christopher Hill. Also kudos to Professors Brailsford, Tawney and, grudgingly to Professor Trevor-Roper.

Those movements, however, while historically important for later movements, were other than for a brief period, and under trying circumstances, not decisive to the events that drove the English revolution. And that premise, while probably not palatable to Professor Hill, as Professor Ashton acknowledged, is what drives the narrative here, the very fluent and smooth-running narrative of this book. Professor Ashton traces some general trends from the rise of the House of Stuart in England under James I in 1603 to the execution of his son, Charles I, in 1649. Some of those trends included the intensified struggle between Parliament and the royal line to control the political terrain. Other trends like the shifting relationship between “court and country,” the escalation of foreign entanglements (especially the continental wars and the relations with the Scots), the ever present issue of religious toleration and state church authority, the conflicting attempts to extend the authority of the central government (royal or parliamentary, as the case may be), and an analysis of the issues that divided English society up to the start of the civil war get full coverage.

For my money though the real value of Professor Ashton’s book is the period of actual civil conflict, arms in hand, from roughly 1642 to that fatal 1649 date. He does an excellent of analysis of the conflicts between the various social, parliamentary and religious factions (sometimes one and the same personnel), the shifting of the factions over time as new and thorny issues of governmental authority arose, the rise and fall of King Charles’ fortunes, and other details that make this a smooth flowing and informative narrative. The highlights are the various faction fights over how and when to treat with the king, his perfidious (and self-defeating) policies and the almost fatalistic drive to the execution. Moreover the section of the relationship between the various factions in the New Model Army (and their civilian Leveller supporters) provided some useful information not previously known to this reviewer.

As usual with an academic specialty book there are plenty of propositions presented that are subject to scholarly challenge as well as subjects, for example, the weight of New Model Army chaplains (many itinerant) and their followers in the political struggles from 1647 to the execution that can be expanded on. An extensive bibliography and many pages of useful footnotes will also aid in those efforts.

Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By- For The Frontline Fighters of The Occupy Movement- Gerrard Winstanley's "The Digger's Song"-From Your Forebears On Saint George's Hill(1649)- And a Cautionary Note

Click on the title to link to a YouTube film clip of The Digger's Song.

Markin comment:

No, today I am not going to beat you over the head with a screed about how music, in whatever form, is not the revolution. You know that already, and if not life itself should have disabused you of that notion long ago. Music, however, has always had an important place in the history of progressive movements as a way to rouse the troops and keep the faith. I think back to the days of Cromwell’s plebeian New Model Army, singing New Testament psalms, while going off to do battle against England’s King Charles I’s royalist forces that started the whole modern revolutionary movement. Or the songs of the French revolution. Or those of the modern labor movement like “The Internationale”. I could go on, but you get the point.

In this series, presented under the headline Songs To While Away The Class Struggle By, I will post some songs that I think will help us get through the “dog days” of the struggle for our communist future. I do not vouch for the political thrust of the songs; for the most part they are done by pacifists, social democrats, hell, even just plain old ordinary democrats. And, occasionally, a communist, although hard communist musicians have historically been scarce on the ground. Thus, here we have a regular "popular front" on the music scene. While this would not be acceptable for our political prospects, it will suffice for our purposes here.

Markin comment on this song:

This is one of the greatest hits of the '40s-the 1640s- Hats off to Gerrard Winstanley and his band of primative communists, the Diggers, up on St. George's Hill. We will never forget you.
********
You Noble Diggers All (The Diggers' Song)
[Words Gerrard Winstanley]

Gerrard Winstanley (1609 - September 10, 1676) was an English Protestant religious reformer and political activist during the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell. Winstanley was aligned with the group known as the True Levellers for their beliefs, based upon Christian communism, and as the Diggers for their actions because they took over public lands and dug them over to plant crops. [source: Wikipedia]

Winstanley's rallying song was sung by Leon Rosselson with Roy Bailey and Sue Harris, and accompanied by Martin Carthy on guitar, on Rosselson's 1979 album If I Knew Who the Enemy Was. Twenty years later, it was included in Harry's Gone Fishing.

In 2007, Chumbawamba sang the Diggers' Song on their live CD Get on With It.

Lyrics- The Digger's Song

You noble Diggers all, stand up now, stand up now,
You noble Diggers all, stand up now,
The waste land to maintain, seeing Cavaliers by name
Your digging do distain and your persons all defame
Stand up now, Diggers all.

Your houses they pull down, stand up now, stand up now,
Your houses they pull down, stand up now.
Your houses they pull down to fright poor men in town,
But the gentry must come down and the poor shall wear the crown.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

With spades and hoes and ploughs, stand up now, stand up now,
With spades and hoes and ploughs, stand up now.
Your freedom to uphold, seeing Cavaliers are bold
To kill you if they could and rights from you withhold.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

Their self-will is their law, stand up now, stand up now,
Their self-will is their law, stand up now.
Since tyranny came in they count it now no sin
To make a gaol a gin and to serve poor men therein.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

The gentry are all round, stand up now, stand up now,
The gentry are all round, stand up now.
The gentry are all round, on each side they are found,
Their wisdom's so profound to cheat us of the ground.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

The lawyers they conjoin, stand up now, stand up now,
The lawyers they conjoin, stand up now,
To arrest you they advise, such fury they devise,
But the devil in them lies, and hath blinded both their eyes.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

The clergy they come in, stand up now, stand up now,
The clergy they come in, stand up now.
The clergy they come in and say it is a sin
That we should now begin our freedom for to win.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

'Gainst lawyers and 'gainst priests, stand up now, stand up now,
'Gainst lawyers and 'gainst Priests, stand up now.
For tyrants are they both even flat against their oath,
To grant us they are loath free meat and drink and cloth.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

The club is all their law, stand up now, stand up now,
The club is all their law, stand up now.
The club is all their law to keep poor folk in awe,
Buth they no vision saw to maintain such a law.
Glory now, Diggers all.

In The Time Of The English Counter-Revolution- Professor Jones’ “Country and Court- England, 1658-1714"

Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for Charles II of England for a brief overview of the period in question in this review.
Book Review

Country and Court- England, 1658-1714, J.R. Jones, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma., 1978

I am writing this review of the counter-revolutionary period in the English Revolution, Country and Court-England, 1968-1714 on July 14, 2011 a date important in the world revolutionary calendar as the start 222 years ago of the great French Revolution. There are many similarities, although perhaps more differences, between those two revolutions but a common thread, and a generally common thread through most revolutions in that period after the flames of revolution have died down a bit and more conservative forces come to power, is some form of counter-revolutionary period. Although, with the recent exception of the Russian revolution, not going fully back to the ways of the previous old regime.

Of course, in the context of the English revolution in the mid-17th century the key battle was the struggle against monarchical absolutism and arbitrary rule by a just emerging bourgeois society. And the struggle for parliamentary supremacy and the rule of law, not unimportant developments in the course of human progress. The democratic republic under early the Cromwell regime, and I would argue even under the protectorate broke that divine right principle for a while in the face of European-wide fear, fear for the incumbent monarch's head. In that sense the period from 1658 to 1660 when, under General Monck’s momentary political and military leadership, monarchy returned with a vengeance following the return of Charles II represented a victory for the forces of counter-revolution as seen from a leftist perspective. Revolutionary poet and propagandist John Milton (and others) rightly feared the consequences of that return. Professor Jones does an excellent job of detailing those events and the period of the next twenty years or so as well when Charles and Parliament locked horns over money, how it was appropriated, and who foot the bill.

The period from about 1680 to the end of King William's reign is also well done although, as usual in British academic circles (and not just those circles either), much effort is spent on pumping up the notion of 1688-89 as the “Glorious Revolution.” While we of the left positively accept the limited democratic rights associated with that struggle(slightly extended franchise, the right to party formation, and slightly greater relgious freedom from persecution) as accruing to the gains in the democratic struggle in comparison with that earlier democratic republic it pales, pales sadly. The big issues here concerning the protestant-ness of the monarch, the consolidation of the early capitalist methods of production, the rights of religious dissidents, and the development of distinct (and rowdy) political parties (Whigs and Tories) get a full explanation.

The period of Queen Anne’s rule and the Hanoverian succession are less satisfying. Perhaps because the issues, the key issues of who reigns, where the money comes from, who decides where the money comes from, and who formed part of the political nation and hence civil society were pretty firmly entrenched by then. And the plebeian masses, active in the mid-century fights, that interest me were then clearly out of the picture. First read a book on the rise of the English Revolution (Christopher Hill and others have done tons of work in this area)for that "glorious revolution" and then read Professor Jones’ work about the period after the music was over. Well worth the time and effort.