Fucking hell, further down the thread they claim that the chartists were an English cause and not a protest movement happening all over the UK.
Like as if the Newport rising wasn't important to winning the working class the vote.
Edit: literal next comment they try to claim that the miners' strike was an achievement of ENGLISH workers. :knifecat: where were the majority of these mines you fucking coward?
So you understand why that account saying, "Britain’s Communist movement and the Miners Strike are just a few pieces of working class English heritage." is bullshit then?
That whole thread is listing off a bunch of historical workers movements (and a bourgeois revolution) and claiming all of them were the work of English workers alone.
they are English heritage as it is an event that happened in England the black death similarly is a piece of English heritage
St George's day is not an event celebrated in the rest of the UK it is only an English holiday thus only focusing on the English aspects of historical events on the day isn't a slight to the rest of the UK
But these lot are supposed to be communist and stripping away the prevailing material conditions of these historical movements in favour of nationalistic self praise flies in the face of Marxist historical analysis.
It's this antimaterialist nationalist ideology that gets the English revolution (a theocratic coup by some members of the English Bourgeoisie against a different group of English Bourgeoisie) listed in the same breath as Wat Tyler's peasant rebellion as struggles of the working class because they both happened in England.
The English revolution was a very complicated time and explaining it as a conflict between just the bourgeoise is as reductive as it is to do so with the French revolution
The theocratic coup you described was also the introduction of the political notion of fundamental human dignity regardless of position in the class heirarchy into English public life. The anarchist movement has it's origins in the puritan theology of the time. These were complicated historical events with a great deal of nuance and far reaching effects. Including the lifting of the ban on Jewish people living in England and the introduction of the right to not have the police cut body parts off of you.
Wat Tylers revolution with it's notion that if man is decended only from Adam and Eve then there is no natural distinction between lord and peasant could also and is attirbuted with contributing to the philosophical rejections of the aristocracy the bourgeoise used in their rebellion
The theocratic coup you described was also the introduction of the political notion of fundamental human dignity regardless of position in the class hierarchy into English public
Hard disagree here considering the suppression of the levellers and diggers, and the confiscation of land from Catholics carried out by the Puritans.
the introduction of the right to not have the police cut body parts off of you.
the levelers were literally one of the factions in the parlimentarian army and were themselves puritans.
Also it is worth noting that the wars with Ireland and Scotland that followed were in no way breaks from the continual level of violence on those fronts before or after and that those wars were results of the Irish and Scots attempting to restore the Stuarts to power in England. The very same Charles the 2nd who went on to grant a charter to the transatlantic slave trade
They fought with the parliamentarians yes, but then under Cromwell their demands were ignored and those that continued to aggravate for them were either imprisoned or executed.
And napoleon brought back slavery and declared himself emperor yet people still glorify the french revolution. It all came to nothing and we had the Stuarts back soon enough continuing their bloodyminded repression but it was also one of the few times in English history where the human dignity of the everyday person came even slightly into the forefront of political sphere as a legitimate and worthwhile thing
Fucking hell, further down the thread they claim that the chartists were an English cause and not a protest movement happening all over the UK.
Like as if the Newport rising wasn't important to winning the working class the vote.
Edit: literal next comment they try to claim that the miners' strike was an achievement of ENGLISH workers. :knifecat: where were the majority of these mines you fucking coward?
the miners strike was all accross the UK and many of the most famous events happened in Birmingham
So you understand why that account saying, "Britain’s Communist movement and the Miners Strike are just a few pieces of working class English heritage." is bullshit then?
That whole thread is listing off a bunch of historical workers movements (and a bourgeois revolution) and claiming all of them were the work of English workers alone.
they are English heritage as it is an event that happened in England the black death similarly is a piece of English heritage
St George's day is not an event celebrated in the rest of the UK it is only an English holiday thus only focusing on the English aspects of historical events on the day isn't a slight to the rest of the UK
But these lot are supposed to be communist and stripping away the prevailing material conditions of these historical movements in favour of nationalistic self praise flies in the face of Marxist historical analysis.
It's this antimaterialist nationalist ideology that gets the English revolution (a theocratic coup by some members of the English Bourgeoisie against a different group of English Bourgeoisie) listed in the same breath as Wat Tyler's peasant rebellion as struggles of the working class because they both happened in England.
The English revolution was a very complicated time and explaining it as a conflict between just the bourgeoise is as reductive as it is to do so with the French revolution
The theocratic coup you described was also the introduction of the political notion of fundamental human dignity regardless of position in the class heirarchy into English public life. The anarchist movement has it's origins in the puritan theology of the time. These were complicated historical events with a great deal of nuance and far reaching effects. Including the lifting of the ban on Jewish people living in England and the introduction of the right to not have the police cut body parts off of you.
Wat Tylers revolution with it's notion that if man is decended only from Adam and Eve then there is no natural distinction between lord and peasant could also and is attirbuted with contributing to the philosophical rejections of the aristocracy the bourgeoise used in their rebellion
Hard disagree here considering the suppression of the levellers and diggers, and the confiscation of land from Catholics carried out by the Puritans.
Except if you're Scottish or Irish.
the levelers were literally one of the factions in the parlimentarian army and were themselves puritans.
Also it is worth noting that the wars with Ireland and Scotland that followed were in no way breaks from the continual level of violence on those fronts before or after and that those wars were results of the Irish and Scots attempting to restore the Stuarts to power in England. The very same Charles the 2nd who went on to grant a charter to the transatlantic slave trade
They fought with the parliamentarians yes, but then under Cromwell their demands were ignored and those that continued to aggravate for them were either imprisoned or executed.
And napoleon brought back slavery and declared himself emperor yet people still glorify the french revolution. It all came to nothing and we had the Stuarts back soon enough continuing their bloodyminded repression but it was also one of the few times in English history where the human dignity of the everyday person came even slightly into the forefront of political sphere as a legitimate and worthwhile thing
Funny you should bring up the French revolution considering that Marx viewed it as a bourgeois revolution.
yeah they both were but there were other social factors going on in both revolutions as well as the conflict between aristocrat and bourgeoise
that is not a gotcha, marx considered the bourgeois revolutions a necessary and progressive step in historical development
When Adam delved
And Eve span
Who was then a gentleman?