Are the English a revolutionary people? They threw off the king under Cromwell, but he acted much as a king and society did not fundamentally change. England was also very important in the development of socialism, yet the influence of the far left has is much weaker than on the continent.
What accounts for this?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Bump
>England was also very important in the development of socialism, yet the influence of the far left has is much weaker than on the continent.
I never really got this either. I read the other day that England is the world leader in right-wing and conservative movements, yet it seems like a receptive country for immingrants and good on social policies. Also, it's one of the few countries in the world to have a strong and active labour party,
Can somebody explain this, please?
homosexuality, without a doubt.
The Labour party isn't really socialist. I mean right now Corbyn's trying to make it full on communist, but the only time its ever won support to rule was when it was practically a right-wing party. Its why thanks to Corbyn you won't see Labour in power for maybe the next decade.
far right homosexuals?
Natural Aristocrats
here's an example of attempted revolutionary action in England
en.wikipedia.org
>In England
That's Wales and Welsh people bud
My old history teacher used to to say we tried the whole revolution thing once with Cromwell, and decided it wasn't really our cup of tea and went back to the monarchy and have been perfectly happy ever since.
Firstly Cromwell did not act like a king and his power was in conjunction with that of the parliament and the Privy Council.
Secondly you are forgetting the Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution, which drastically changed the relationship between the King and parliament and the government and its people.
I'd guess that its because English had strong parliamentary tradition, so absolutism and monarch never had anyhow as huge influence as lets say Russia or France, so there wasn't need for any reactionary force against him. Due to the democratic system, most of issues were solved in a peaceful manner. Also English were doing great for the last three hundred years, they didn't really have a reason to revolt.
Ridiculously dumb thing to say, since Parliament's role in government changed findamentally after the Puritan revolution.
Even the English Revolution, with the exception of radical movements like the Diggers and Levelers, wasn't so much a "revolution" in the modern sense, it was more like a reaction to the absolutism of Charles I. It was a Fronde that succeeded, more than a precursor to the French Revolution.
Indeed, Cromwell was in many ways, more absolute than Charles I was and an even bigger zealot, which is why when he died parliament invited his son to take the throne and they pretended the whole thing never happened.
Had a european parliament chopped a kings head off?
The english revolution was the most radical event of the 17th century
The English Civil War inspired the American Revolution which in turn influenced the French Revolution.
Without the ECW we would still be living under absolute kings.
Edward II was killed by the insertion of a red-hot iron or poker into his anus and Richard II was starved to death in captivity. Being an English monarch was a dangerous job.
The English Revolution was not radical, it was part of an European-wide struggle against absolutism that included the Fronde in France, the Portuguese Restoration War and the Catalan Revolt in Spain, the Bohemian Revolt and later the Thirty Years War in German lands, etc
Its later interpretation as a radical, revolutionary (in the modern sense) movement is a trick by Marxist historians to give their own revolutionary movement some credibility by tying it to a seminal moment in English history.
>The English Revolution was not radical
The Putney Debates were radical as fuck. The Levellers were a mainstream social movement and to a lesser extent the ranters and diggers.
I mentioned the Levellers and Diggers as an exception. They latched upon what was a reactionary movement (not an uncommon historical phenomenom) but where marginalized anyway.
Those earlier kings were killed by other nobles, Charles was executed by the commons of parliament,this was unprecedented
Also the monarchy was abolished
>The English Civil War inspired the American Revolution
Not in the way you mean.
Remember the waves of Cavaliers who settled in Virginia after the war (not a myth)?
youtube.com
>Without the ECW we would still be living under absolute kings.
Shame that the tyrant parliament won out.
>British revolutionary: "long live the revolu-"
>looks at continent
>"nvm"