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.

The Age Of Andrew Jackson-A Plebeian VIew

BOOK REVIEW

LIBERTY AND POWER, HARRY L. WATSON, THE NOON DIAL PRESS, NEW YORK, 1990

The central story line of the Jacksonian period economically, socially and politically was the fight over the establishment, continuation and rechartering of the Bank of the United States which despite its name was a privately owned corporation headed by the notorious Nicholas Biddle. In short the story was, as almost always under capitalism, about the money. Hard money, paper money, metallic money, federal money, state money, no money. It is all there. As confusing and, frankly, somewhat trivial as the issues may seem to the 21st century mind the various fights determined the path of capitalist formation for the rest of the 19th century. One does not have to be a partisan of any particular monetary policy to know that if the Biddle-led forces had won then capital formation in the United States would have taken a very different turn. Thus, the essential Jacksonian victory on the bank question is one that militants today can give a retroactive endorsement. This is the story the author tries to bring to life. I believe that Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s Age of Jackson is still the definitive general work on the period but if you need a shorter overview this book will suffice.

Although control of the money was the underlying premise for the political fights of the day they also represented some very different appreciations of what American society should look like. Watson goes to great pains to highlight the various factions within each of the coalescing parties that would come to form the Democratic and Republican two-party system that we are familiar with today. Watson does a better job on the formation of the party system than Schlesinger. The fights outlined had different implications for differing sections of the country. In that regard the names Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay and their various congressional devotees can generally stand to represent the various sectional interests. One might also note that names that became familiar in the immediate pre-Civil War period, like Abraham Lincoln, James Buchanan, John Bell, Gideon Welles, William Seward, etc. started to receive political notice as secondary figures during this period.

One should also note that this was a period of political realignment and that the political situation was fluid enough that with changing political winds the various leading personalities were as likely to change sides as not. Readers should pick up the trail that is only alluded to here on the importance on the third party Liberty and Free Soil Parties. Despite that lapse dealing with the various political manifestations of the period is the strongest part of Mr. Watson's book.

THE GOOD OL' BOYS OF THE GOP-OUCH!

COMMENTARY

WHERE ARE THE WHIGS WHEN YOU NEED THEM?

FORGET REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND GREENS! BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!


Forgive me, dear reader, for not stopping everything to immediately comment on the recent Republican presidential ‘debate’ in South Carolina. Frankly this cattle call production of Republican hopefuls was even more dismal than that of their Democratic counterparts earlier, if that is possible. Fortunately I have been spending my time not commenting on the debate reading a book on the Age of Jackson. Interestingly, all the essentials of the party (two party, that is) system were established during this period. Although the historic interest of this period for militants today centers on the Liberty and Free Soil parties the Whigs, the forerunners of today’s Republican Party, look positively revolutionary in comparison with their pale progeny down south last week. When the deal went down in the 1850’s over the question of the expansion of slavery into the territories and other questions the Whigs went ‘belly up’ but for a while they expressed a rational political program in a period of progressive capitalist expansion in America. Today’s Republicans apparently live in a bubble. And here is why.

On the central question of the day-Iraq, Iraq and again Iraq- with the exception of libertarian Congressman Paul from Texas all the Republicans are going down the line, one way or the other, with the Bush Administration strategy for ‘victory’ and the indefinite American occupation in Iraq. If the 2008 presidential campaign and election hinges on this question, as I believe it will, these guys are doomed. And no tears will be shed in these quarters over it. Even a cursory glance at the daily newspaper confronts one with the reality that things continue to deteriorate in that benighted country. And, Republican hopefuls please note, they ain’t getting better.

Particularly interesting is Senator McCain’s slow death rattle attempt to ‘revive’ his campaign by being more Bush than Bush on this question. Know this- whichever bourgeois candidate ‘wins’ the presidency he or she will have the albatross on Iraq hanging around their necks. McCain’s plight may be explained by his “Manchurian Candidate” term as a POW in Vietnam. But what excuse do the draft-dodgers like Guiliani and Romney have for their toadyism.

More generally on the question of the ‘war on terrorism’ former Massachusetts Governor Mitt “Flip-Flop” Romney has really outdone himself with his support for ‘doubling’ the torture chambers at Guantanamo. They say that every real presidential candidate has to have ‘fire in the belly’ in order to debase him or herself enough to win this ‘prize’. Apparently Mr. Romney is in such ‘heat’ to get the nomination that he is willing to say anything, anywhere, anytime in order to appease the hard-core conservative base of the Republican Party that takes such pronouncements as red meat.

Old Mitt makes his weak-kneed father George seem like the height of rationality in contrast. While even moderate conservatives are cringing over the treatment at “Gitmo”, if for no other reason than to protect America’s image in the world, he is blithely calling for more torture. I would not want to be a member of his political staff if this sadistic fool ever gets within a few hundred delegates of the nomination. Presumably then the Mittster will come out in defense of drawing and quartering.

As if to add insult to injury, with the somewhat honorable exception of Rudy Guiliani, the Republican field fell all over itself on the ‘family values’ issues that in reality comes down to the question of abortion. The deal is already in the process of being done in the Supreme Court against a women’s right to choose (to speak nothing of our historic demand for free abortion on demand) but the candidates just wanted to let the base know that a return to the days of back alley abortions (for those who are unconnected or poor, that is) is just fine with them.

Overall the tenor of the ‘debate’ was what one expected from men who genuinely do not have a clue about what is going on for the average American worker or the average international one either. That is par for the course. As most commentators have mentioned the 2008 Presidential election is the Democrats’ to lose. This Republican field does nothing to negate that prediction. One would almost (a very long almost) wish the Democrats fair weather except that when the deal really goes down there is no essential difference between the parties. They almost all vote early and often, if they are a position to, for the Iraq war budgets. What else is new? Damn, those long forgotten Whigs look pretty good today.

THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!