So far I know that the players in the civil war were the gentry, the land and urban capitalists forming the bourgeois revolutionaries, the commoners and the peasantry were usually against the king but I guess they could be anywhere.

Since I'm doing an historical study I'll look at the factors that lead to civil war. What are formative in making the factors for civil war are vested interests and ideology/mythology. The factors which made the vested interests, ideologies and mythologies are political, economic, and religious.

1.  Politically, there was dissatisfaction of the bourgeoisie with the State for economic reasons.  The gentry were dissatisfied with James I for in underestimating them as a powerful actor in English politics, didn't give them favours such as jobs and positions or much land.  The commoners and peasantry were dissatisfied with James I because he never made many public appearances with them.  He was a stranger to them, which must have increased their anxiety in him being a foreigner.


2. Economically, England was undergoing a depression.  There was also a boom in industry and industrial production, and the urban bourgeoisie was on a rise.  Charles I kept asking for money to pay for unpopular wars.  The bourgeoisie couldn't fully develop with the taxation of Charles I and the feudal restrictions.


3. Religiously, Puritans, seeing the Anglican church as too Catholic and not trying to achieve salvation, began to organise politically.  Anglicanism and Puritanism where somewhat contradictory.  Puritanism was the religion where "regeneration" was a personal process without involvement with a church, whereas Anglicanism, like Catholicism, depended on a church and, in Anglicanism, a monarch for salvation.  This could spur some religious conflict.  What will be certain is that since Puritans were organising themselves into classes and parties in Parliament, the religious conflicts would be present in the zones of political intrigue and economic transition (domination of certain system) or "dialectics" (historical dialectics or Marxist historical determinism).

Brainstorm made 19th-20th November 2011.

Initially small agricultural feudal society, production was oriented toward the isolated village community.  This was starting to change.  There were bourgeois changes that were happening.  The urban centres were experiencing them, and in the South and the East of England farming practises were changing.  Courgeois techniques were being instituted in farming, and a land capitalist class was growing.  Though, to avoid confusion it is necessary to state that the actual practises of production remained the same, no innovations.  The only change was that the production was increased and the aims for production had changed, no longer maintianing social and military status, but the sole classic capitalist incentive, profit.

The feudal aims of social and military power (domestically) changed into the finacial, profit-driven capiotalist aims.  This shift, however restrained it was by feudalism, was harmful to the commoners, who were threatened with even greater insecurity during a time of economic decline and stagnation, a depression. 

Capitalism and its effects on the people was also disturbing to a culture based on human relations (Chomsky) and protections through the feudal contract.  The capitalism ethic was shocking to the people unindoctrinated to this system's mytholody and ideology.  As "the Puritan moralist, Stubbes" says, “Is not he a greater thief that robbeth a man of his good name for ever, that taketh a man’s house over his head, before his yea be expired, that wresteth from a man his goods, his lands and livings . . . than he that stealeth a sheep, a cow, or an ox, for necessity’s sake only, having not otherwise to relieve his need?"   This attack makes the capitalists what they really are to people who were never indoctrinated in the ideology of capitalism, criminals greater than common criminals, because they commit crimes for profit rather than survival.

The land capitlaists turned the feudal copyholds into leaseholds, helping make the tenants into insecure positions, easy to evict.  During The depression, [somewhat due to the ludicrous affairs of the monarchs (Kenyon, Ch 1 & 2)], the land capitalists exacted a high rent from their tenants, ruthlessly evicting them to become vagabonds or rogues.

This insecurity of tenant farmers, whom made up sugnificant portions of the population, not to mention the barbaric treatment of "vagabonds and rogues" must have contributed to a great outrage to both the changes taking place and the monarch, James I, [who didn't care for the commoners and didn't really do anything with their affairs.  He was very much a stranger to them (Kenyon ch 1)].  These factors contributed to the outrage of the commoners.

The capitalists weren't able to fully develop themselves without the dismantling of the feudal restrictions.  This want of the capitalists for capitalist land reform contributed to their outrage and incentive for a rebellion and bourgeois revolution.

If things stayed feudal, England wasn't going to develop and could face retrogression.  "State power was being used to prevent the growth of a national market."  Thus, the conflict between Monarch and bourgeoisie, who very much desired the national market.  '(TALK ABOUT REACTIONARY!)'

The part where Simpson says that Christopher Hill was saying that the Bourgeoisie were Puritans (Simpson, Alan. Puritanism in Old and New England. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1972. Print. 11, ft. nt. 12) comes from "the opposition which faced Charles was organised and worked up to serve their own purposes by those business men who identified their interests with the House of Commons in politics and Puritanism in religion." (Hill, Christopher. The English Revolution 1640. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1940.  EPUB manufactured from Marxists.org.  Ref: 3.23).  He's just saying that the bourgeoisie were Puritan, which Simpson later validates citing people who say that those with liesure time had the chance to 'have salvation' in Puritanism.  The working people, the peasantry and farm and city labourers were not able to have that possibility because they were over-worked.  ...

At pg. 44 in The Stuarts,  Kenyon describes how the monarchy lost control of the House of Commons, and how, in the earlier chapter, the monarchy didn't control much of England anyway.  Does this factor of not controlling the institutions of the State and society have sometyhing to do with the chances for revolution?  Does the State not having control over its institutions and organisation give the outrage experienced by the people the air to ferment into a widespread revolution?

In the fall of the USSR, Gorbavech had to institute Perestroika before the Berlin Wall collapsed; In the Russian Revolution, WWI had to destroy stability by psuedo-modern warfare; and in the Spanish Revolution, the fascists had to upset the Republic for revolutionary measures to be instituted.

What does a lack of absolute control have in fomenting Revolution?  Is it that the State's institutions are failing/declining that naturally prompts Revolution?  Or is it just that declining control gives outrage the chance needed to ferment into rebellion?

The specificity is, of course, always necessary when considering these questions.  At least in the English Revolution, The monarchy had lost control of local provinces and was mostly centralised (where the gentry, having this local power, were mostly decentralised and could not easily become centralised), the gentry, mistreated by the monarchy, had the chance to disobey the king's commands and foment revolt among the suffering people.  The monarchy losing control of the House of Commons gave more autonomy to the gentry, allowing the gentry to make gains and pursue their own interests.  Not quite like the chaos of 1917 in Russia, although, 40 years leater in the crazy time of the late 40's and early 50's, there would be more spontaneity in the vacuum of a monarchy on hiatus, like the Diggers or the Levellers.