this was a failed revolution. the left in general dont take this into account when approaching the current political situation, but it actually makes quite a difference, because whilst the people of france and the usa have the concept of viable, lasting revolution in the air as it were, britain doesnt. a rather interesting programme last night went into some detail about the creation by the establishment of a whole anti- radical ideology for the british people during the wars with napoleon, mostly courtesy of edmund burke.
the british people have remained UNEMANCIPATED. for all the flim-flam about ethics, the fact has been covered up that nowhere in the tedious piles of documents which pass for our constitiution will you find ANY commitment to "liberty, equality, and fraternity". now, this brings me back to the complaint i made yesterday about the SWP, and its relevant, so bear with me. the point is, the SWP makes no attempt to redress this lack of emancipation, and by supporting the labour party so closely, actually helps to re-inforce the extremely stratified society we have been struggling under for centuries. any concept of "universalism" has been forgotten by the SWP, and indeed they're quite happy to perpetuate their party precisely from the bourgeois strands of society, hence the peculiar globalise resistance. as for the SWP politburo itself, its mostly drawn from those with connections to the lesser establishment, certainly not the proletariat. for centuries now, the british style of UNrevolutionary capitalism has been happy to keep the british people in precise strata whilst recruiting entire ruling classes from overseas; im aware of the danger in this analysis and approach, but unfortunately its true...

two works come to mind on the theme of the english revolution;

Perry anderson : "Origins of the Present Crisis" New Left review No 23, 1964. My own ideas are influenced by this work.

Maclachlan: The Rise and fall of Revolutionary England", considering various theories including the one above.