Groucho Marxism

I recently attended a lively group discussion on the English revolution. I have to confess that prior to attending this discussion I wasn’t aware that England had even had a revolution. That’s because the English revolution is usually referred to by another name: the ‘English Civil War’. Of course I was aware that England had a civil war, but it had never occurred to me that it could also be considered a revolution. Yet it is well-known that the English civil war involved violent removal of the ruling class. The reason this historical event is rarely referred to as was it really was – a revolution – boils down to propaganda. If the masses in England became aware that a revolution happened in the past, they might realize that it could just as easily happen again.

A question naturally arises on re-framing the English civil war as a revolution: if England had a revolution then why does England still have a royal family? Subsequent revolutions in France and Russia both successfully removed the ruling royal families in these nations for good. In contrast, England was a republic for just 11 years, from 1649 to 1660. So why didn’t the revolution stick? The usual reason given for this reversal was the death of Oliver Cromwell in 1658 and the failure of his son and successor, Richard Cromwell, to provide stable leadership, which led to widespread political unrest and a popular desire to return to a more traditional system. Whilst this is true, it is a surface-level explanation that falls foul of the ‘great man’ fallacy.

A better explanation is that the revolution did not have popular support among the masses, a majority of whom never wanted to get rid of the monarchy completely. The lesson here is that for a revolution to succeed it needs widespread popular support. This explanation raises the question of why a majority of people in England did not want to remove the monarchy. It is a question that remains relevant today. A March 2024 poll found that 62% of respondents wanted to keep the monarchy, whilst just 26% preferred an elected head of state (the remaining 12% presumably don’t care). Attitudes are changing, with younger people significantly less likely to support the royals. Still, as a revolutionary socialist I find the continued support for the monarchy utterly bizarre.

Nonetheless, this is a question we socialists need to grapple with if we want to have any chance of bringing about a successful revolution. The obvious reason for the royals’ continued support is again propaganda. As a rule, the British press is pathetically obsequious towards members of the royal family. There are exceptions to this of course – notably princess Diana, who was famously hounded to her death by the press – but in general, the royals get a ridiculously easy ride from our sycophantic, supine media. It’s not just the media though. Take, for example, the risible decision by Transport for London to name London’s new tube line ‘the Elizabeth line’. Now think about how we would laugh if we heard that North Korea had named a new underground line ‘the King Jong-Il line’.

The propaganda would have taken a different form in the 1600s, but it would have been there just the same. Throughout history, ruling classes everywhere have relied on propaganda to manufacture consent for their existence and maintain the status quo. The propaganda of the 1600s would have had a much more religious tone, with the masses being told that a monarch’s authority comes directly from god and not from earthly subjects or institutions (this idea is often referred to as the ‘divine right of kings’). This points to the real reason why the English revolution failed. Cromwell was a devout Puritan whose religious beliefs were the driving force behind his political actions. He believed in a direct, personal relationship with God, as well as the need to cleanse society of sin and frivolity.

Thus, rather than sweeping away the religious propaganda structure that had enabled the English monarchy to remain in place for so long, Cromwell and his followers effectively reinforced it. In his 1871 work The Civil War in France, Marx gave a now famous quote  that was later highlighted by Lenin in his 1917 work The State and Revolution: ‘… the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes’. Marx was arguing that the existing state machine is an instrument of class oppression, developed to serve the interests of the ruling class, and that this machinery must be broken up by the working class. Although Marx was talking specifically about the French revolution, his argument applies to the English revolution that occurred over 100 years prior.

Ultimately, the English revolution failed because it did not break up existing power structures. This highlights that a revolution does not end once power has been seized; this is just the beginning. The existing state machine must then be abolished and replaced with an entirely new form of proletarian state or social organization, one which involves workers directly and democratically controlling the means of production and political power.