>>2795900>the revolutionary class of the feudal MoP era, the landed gentry / bourgeoisieThere are not very comparable. Gentry were nobles, while the burghers were commoners. Their revolutionary capacities are also misaligned. We see the sharing of powers following Magna Carta, leading to parliament, but this does not advance feudalism, except in perhaps increasing exploitation by an increase in rulers. Only by the late 15th century do we see the rise of agricultural capital, which nominally retains the same relation of lord to serf.
>not equal to the free peasantryWell, while free peasantry and bourgeoisie were both commoners, the house of commons was still exclusive to wealth and status, yet still massively pertaining to bourgeois interests, which rebelled against the house of lords, ascending around the late 14th century in England. Marx writes that capitalism begins as an agricultural revolution, of privatising land from the Tudor period onwards (i.e. in the gentry), while the Yeoman farmer was still as yet a middle class ideal (i.e. the peasant), repeated in the fantasies of Thomas Jefferson (the rhetoric of the English revolutionaries largely concerned claims to land, since Charles had already enclosed much of the commons - the Diggers' movement thus placed the right to land in the labour which cultivates it, the same as Locke later on). Only by the rise of industrial power from the late 17th century onwards, does the bourgeoisie (read: urban middle class) come to colonise the socio-economic landscape. The industrial revolution was an urban movement, which contrasted from the earlier agricultural capital, and thus, value shifted from country to town, such as we see politically in the US Civil War, between north and south. Marx sees that the post-napoleonic period (1820-) is when the bourgeoisie became conservative in their new-found power, being substituted for the proletariat (with precedence in the Chartists, 1832-48). So, I would see that the bourgeoisie is really the revolutionary force of history by universalising its subject and object, which is why we still use these modern theories today.
>That's obviously in contradiction to the slaves or the proletarii of the slave MoP not being the revolutionary class.Of course, this is entirel
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.