The scene on Rutland Gate—a homeless man sleeping outside a £210 million empty mansion—is not just eccentric London lore. It represents the entire social system: a society in which the wealth of the global elite is fiercely guarded. At the same time, the basic needs of millions of people are viewed as an unacceptable burden on the “market.”
The Guardian’s report on 2–8A Rutland Gate unintentionally reveals what the ruling class and its media often try to hide: the housing crisis is not simply a technical issue or the result of a lack of construction. Instead, it is a consequence of capitalism turning housing into a speculative asset for the world’s wealthiest.[1]
The article highlights the stark contrast: “a homeless man with no money sleeping on the doorstep of a £200m house with 45 rooms that has been empty for years.” This is not an anomaly; it reflects the system’s inherent logic.
The Mansion as Financial Instrument: London’s Role in the Global Oligarchy
Rutland Gate is more than just a residence; it’s a vault, a safety deposit box, and a tradable asset within the portfolios of billionaires whose wealth stems from corruption, exploitation, and financial speculation. The ownership lineage—comprising Saudi royalty, Lebanese oligarchs, and Chinese property magnates—resembles a who’s who of global capitalist misconduct. The mansion’s acquisition was carried out via shell companies in the British Virgin Islands, a common method for laundering money and avoiding scrutiny. As noted, “Often, companies in tax or secrecy havens are used as the vehicle for these investments.”
London is the epicentre of this global network, known as the Alpha City, attracting the ultra-wealthy who regard it as both a playground and a refuge. Every British government, whether Tory or Labour, actively courts their presence. Yet the city’s housing stock is not primarily for residents; instead, it serves mainly as a speculative asset for international elites.
The numbers are striking: 47,000 homes owned by foreigners in London, over 300,000 long-term empty homes across England, and 268,000 second homes taken out of residential use. In Kensington & Chelsea, one in nine homes is unoccupied. This isn’t a mistake but the deliberate result of a system in which societal needs are subordinated to the pursuit of profit.
The Human Being on the Porch: A Life Made Precarious by Capitalist Disintegration
The story of Anders Fernstedt, the man living on the porch, serves not just as a personal misfortune but also as a reflection of the systemic dismantling of social supports, the erosion of the welfare state, and the harshening of the working class.
Fernstedt’s experience—marked by unstable jobs, no-fault evictions, unsafe temporary housing, and rough sleeping—mirrors that of hundreds of thousands. His homelessness isn’t due to addiction or mental health problems; he insists he is “healthy… physically and mentally, with no addictions.”
His descent into homelessness was driven by the collapse of stable employment, the commodification of housing, the reduction of social services, and the violence and insecurity of Britain’s privatised rental market. His presence on the porch isn’t just symbolic—it’s diagnostic, exposing a society where the working class is pushed to the edge while the oligarchy enjoys luxury in empty mansions.
The Political Economy of Emptiness
The Guardian quotes a housing expert calling the situation “bizarre and perverse.” However, nothing about it is truly strange. It reflects a logical consequence of a system in which: housing is treated as a commodity rather than a right; the government prioritises capital over society; the wealthy are protected from scrutiny and taxes; local authorities lack sufficient funds and powers; and the market determines who has a home and who ends up homeless.
The article points out that “the places building the most housing have mysteriously managed to produce the highest level of vacancy.” This is not puzzling—developers tend to build what is profitable, not what is needed. Luxury towers are constructed because they serve as channels for global capital flows, not because Londoners need penthouses.
The ruling class claims that taxing or regulating the super-rich would “scare them away.” This argument has been repeatedly used to justify every form of social vandalism since the 1980s. It reflects an ideological stance of a political system entirely dominated by finance capital.
The State’s Role: Enabler, Not Regulator
The British government is not a neutral mediator; instead, it actively facilitates the accumulation of oligarchic wealth. It offers a legal system that maintains secrecy jurisdictions, a deregulated property market, police protection for elite enclaves, austerity measures that erode social housing, and political rhetoric that blames the poor for their poverty. The Levelling Up Act’s “empty homes premiums” are superficial solutions, as councils lack both the authority and funds to seize vacant properties. Meanwhile, billions of dollars’ worth of public land have been sold to private developers, who construct luxury flats that remain unoccupied. Overall, the government’s priorities are evident: safeguarding capital and penalizing low-income individuals.
A Social Order in Decay
The image of Rutland Gate is not just obscene; it is historically provocative. It brings to mind the final phases of collapsing social systems: aristocrats of the ancien régime, robber barons of the Gilded Age, and oligarchs of late Tsarist Russia. In each scenario, the ruling classes isolated themselves from the people’s hardships, retreating into luxury while society fell apart. This process led not to stability but to revolution.
The Socialist Perspective: Housing as a Social Right
The housing crisis cannot be addressed within a capitalist framework. Essential actions involve expropriating luxury properties left empty, abolishing offshore ownership arrangements, making substantial public investments in high-quality social housing, ensuring democratic control of urban planning by the working class, and reorganizing the economy along socialist lines focused on human needs.
Rutland Gate should not be a palace for billionaires. It should serve as a public asset, transformed into housing, community spaces, or social infrastructure. The resources are available, but what is missing is the political strength of the working class, organized independently from capitalist parties and advocating for a socialist agenda.
Conclusion: A System That Cannot Be Reformed
The Guardian article states the mansion will never become social housing, which is accurate—under capitalism. However, the stark inequality it illustrates is the key reason to challenge and overthrow the system that creates such disparities. The man on the porch and the mansion in the background are interconnected; they represent different facets of the same social structure. Addressing one without resolving the other is impossible.
[1] It was Britain’s most expensive house. Why is its only resident a homeless man who lives on the porch? Sam Wollaston-www theguardian.com
Part I: The Historical Premises of the Present Crisis
I. Introduction: Trump as the Expression of a System in Terminal Decline
The rise of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency should not be seen as a personal anomaly, a bizarre accident, or merely due to the quirks of the American electoral process. Instead, it reflects the core political expression of a social order that has exhausted its legitimate authority. The book highlights this clearly, describing Trump as a “real estate huckster and casino con-artist” who was elevated to the highest position by an oligarchy intent on preserving its global dominance through force. “Donald Trump and his henchmen, backed by the oligarchy that placed him in power, aim to overcome the decline of American capitalism through force…”
This formulation is conclusive. It dismisses the liberal view that Trump is a departure from American norms. Instead, it places him within the natural course of American capitalism following the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. Once freed from Cold War geopolitical limits, the ruling class launched 30 years of unchecked militarism. The tactics developed abroad—such as coups, assassinations, economic blockades, and blatant disrespect for international law—have now been integrated into domestic politics. Therefore, the crisis in American democracy is not due to Trump’s personality but is an inevitable result of imperialist decline.
II. 1991 and the Illusion of Unipolar Omnipotence
David North’s book *Oligarchy: Trump and the Breakdown of American Democracy* points to 1991 as a pivotal moment. Following the USSR’s collapse, the American ruling class believed history had confirmed its global dominance. The quote—“Force works”—serves not just as a comment on foreign policy but also as a reflection of the ideological fervour that seized the bourgeoisie.
The Gulf War, Yugoslavia’s bombing, Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, drone conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, Latin American coups, and the encirclement of Russia and China aren’t isolated events. They collectively aim for a single strategic objective: achieving enduring global dominance via military power. However, imperialism isn’t just a policy choice; it’s an inevitable outcome of capitalism’s monopoly phase. As the US faces diminishing economic competitiveness, it increasingly relies on military force to sustain its dominance. The tension between economic decline and military strength fostered a political culture where legality, diplomacy, and democratic norms are seen as mere obstacles. The ruling class that has formed since this era is not only aggressive but also criminal.
III. The Internalisation of Imperialist Methods
Imperialist tactics once used abroad are now evident domestically: “In a society ruled by billionaires, corporate predators, military-intelligence operatives, and political swindlers… the criminal and anti-democratic methods of imperialism are used both at home and abroad.” This reflects a core Marxist idea: the violence of the capitalist state is not separate. The same ruling class that destroys schools in Iran, supports burying Palestinian children under rubble, or captures Venezuelan officials and oilfields, will not hesitate to use similar methods against its own people.
The police’s militarisation, increased surveillance, criminalisation of protests, and bipartisan backing for mass deportations and border militarisation all reflect the same imperialist logic. The American government has become a tool for oligarchic control, operating outside constitutional and democratic boundaries.
IV. Bipartisan Complicity and the Collapse of Liberalism
A key point in the document is its emphasis that the crisis cannot be solely blamed on the Republican Party or Trump. It highlights that the Democratic Party, just like the Republicans, has played a role in enabling the oligarchy’s growth. The text states: “No official opposition from either ruling party is mounted…”
This is not just rhetorical exaggeration. The Democrats supported wars, funded intelligence agencies, expanded the drone program, and oversaw the largest transfer of wealth to the rich in American history. Their opposition to Trump was based on tactical differences over foreign policy and internal power, not a defence of democratic rights. Liberalism as an ideology has fallen apart under its own contradictions. It cannot truly defend democracy because it is inherently linked to the capitalist system that is eroding it.
V. The Deep Roots of Democratic Consciousness in the American Working Class
Amidst this context of oligarchic criminality, the book highlights a counter-trend: the enduring presence of democratic and revolutionary traditions within the American working class. “Their democratic impulses… remain deeply rooted in tradition among workers and young people.” This is not mere sentimentality, but a historical reality. The American Revolution and the Civil War were pivotal events where ordinary people fought against tyranny, slavery, and aristocratic privilege. These values—egalitarianism, suspicion of concentrated power, and opposition to injustice—are still ingrained in the consciousness of millions.
The clash between this democratic legacy and the state’s oligarchic decline is reaching a breaking point. The resurgence of strikes, increasing class struggle, and youth radicalisation reflect this ongoing historical pattern.
VI. The Necessity of Socialism
The final point of the book is straightforward: “The struggle for socialism by the global working class is… the core expression of what is humane, decent, and emancipatory…” This is more than just poetic language; it is a logical conclusion based on an objective analysis of capitalism’s crises. The continuation of democracy, the prevention of world wars, the protection of human rights, and the preservation of civilisation all depend on the overthrow of the oligarchy and the building of workers’ power worldwide.
Part II: The Class Anatomy of the American Oligarchy and the Bonapartist Turn
VII. The Class Structure of the Contemporary American Oligarchy
The shift of the United States into an oligarchic regime is a literal sociological reality, not just a metaphor. Over the last forty years, wealth has become increasingly concentrated among a very small elite, reaching unprecedented levels in modern history. The wealthiest 0.1% now hold more assets than the bottom 90% combined. This trend surpasses mere inequality; it signifies a return to a capitalist aristocracy. North’s book highlights this vividly: “In a society governed by billionaires, corporate predators, military-intelligence operatives and political swindlers…”
This constellation of forces represents the true sovereign power in the United States. The official democratic institutions—such as Congress, the courts, and the presidency—have been diminished and subordinated to the interests of financial capital, the military-intelligence complex, and the corporate elite. The oligarchy is not merely a passive recipient of wealth; it actively influences politics by funding candidates, shaping legislation, controlling media, and directing foreign policy. Its interests fundamentally conflict with democratic principles, which require social equality and public accountability, both of which the oligarchs oppose. The emergence of Trump can be seen as the political embodiment of this class power.
VIII. The Military‑Intelligence Apparatus as the Backbone of Oligarchic Rule
The American state is currently controlled by a large military-intelligence complex that functions with little oversight. The Pentagon, CIA, NSA, FBI, and numerous private contractors create a lasting system of coercion and surveillance. This structure has expanded steadily since 2001, but its origins trace back to the post-1991 rise of unipolar dominance.
North highlights that methods traditionally used for imperial control abroad are now being applied domestically. This is not just rhetoric. The militarisation of local police, employing counter-insurgency tactics against protesters, expanding domestic surveillance, and criminalising dissent all reflect the same underlying logic. The military-intelligence complex forms the backbone of oligarchic rule, providing the coercive force needed to sustain a social order marked by stark inequality and widespread unrest. It also served as the source of many of Trump’s close advisers and supporters. The American ruling class increasingly rules not through popular consent but through intimidation.
IX. The Transformation of the Presidency Under Conditions of Capitalist Decay
The presidency, originally designed as a constitutional office limited by checks and balances, has evolved into a quasi-monarchical entity. This change is not solely due to Trump but rather the result of decades of the expansion of executive power. From the Iran-Contra scandal to the drone assassination program, and from warrantless surveillance to the unilateral initiation of wars, the presidency has increasingly become the main tool for the ruling class to bypass democratic limits.
Trump’s presidency did not initiate this trend; it took advantage of it. His disregard for constitutional norms, his use of the state for personal gain, and his mobilisation of fascistic groups were only possible because the institutional foundations of democracy had already been weakened. In the context of capitalist decline, the presidency tends to lean towards Bonapartism—a form of rule in which executive power supersedes formal democratic institutions while relying on support from the military, police, and parts of the petty bourgeoisie.
X. Trumpism as an American Form of Bonapartism
Trumpism is a uniquely American form of Bonapartism. Similar to Louis Bonaparte in 1851, Trump aimed to portray himself as the personification of the “nation” fighting against a corrupt political system. He appealed to confused segments of the petty bourgeoisie, rallied fascistic groups, and tried to use state power to solidify his personal authority. However, Bonapartism is not defined solely by the leader’s personality. It signals a deeper social crisis: the ruling class’s failure to govern through traditional parliamentary methods, along with the lack of an organised revolutionary leadership capable of mobilising the working class.
Trump’s attempt to seize power, efforts to overturn election results, support for paramilitary groups, and his use of the presidency as a personal domain were not anomalies. Instead, they reflect the natural outcomes of a ruling class that can no longer sustain its dominance through democratic means. The description in the book of Trump as a tool of an oligarchy aiming to retain its authority “through force” accurately characterises this Bonapartist path.
XI. The International Dimensions of the Crisis
The crisis facing American democracy is part of a broader global trend. This includes the collapse of the post-Cold War order, increasing tensions among imperial powers, and a worldwide surge in class struggle. Faced with China’s rise, Russia’s resurgence, and the waning of its economic dominance, the United States has adopted a more aggressive military stance. Its efforts to sustain global hegemony have led to a persistent state of conflict, further destabilising its internal political landscape.
The oligarchic decline of the American state is closely linked to the global capitalist crisis. The same contradictions that gave rise to Trump have also led to far-right movements in Europe, authoritarian governments in Asia, and political unrest in Latin America. Therefore, the fight against oligarchy must be a global effort.
Part III: The Revolutionary Legacy, the Re‑Emergence of the Working Class, and the Historical Necessity of Socialism
XII. The Revolutionary Legacy of the American People
A key argument of the book emphasises that the American working class holds a strong democratic and revolutionary legacy. This is not mere nostalgia but a materialist view of ongoing historical tradition. The U.S. originated from a bourgeois revolution that, despite its flaws, promoted universal ideals of equality, popular sovereignty, and opposition to tyranny. These ideals were further developed and radicalised during the Civil War—often termed the “Second American Revolution”—which ended slavery and reshaped the nation around the principle of free labour.
The book highlights: “The 250-year-old legacy of the American Revolution and the Civil War… remains a deeply rooted tradition among workers and young people.” This insight is vital. The American working class is not politically passive. Beneath the current political confusion lies a reservoir of democratic feelings, hostility to injustice, and a strong dislike for official lies and brutality. These impulses are not just cultural; they form the ideological layers of past revolutionary struggles. The tension between this democratic heritage and the oligarchic decline of the state is a key factor driving the current crisis.
XIII. The Re‑Emergence of the Working Class as a Revolutionary Force
The past decade has witnessed the re‑emergence of the working class as a decisive political actor. Strikes have surged across industries; teachers, auto workers, logistics workers, nurses, rail workers, and countless others have engaged in militant struggles. These movements are not isolated economic disputes but expressions of a deeper social antagonism.
The working class faces numerous challenges, including stagnant wages, insecure jobs, rising living costs, and the dismantling of public services. Society is becoming more militarised, and both major political parties show indifference to these issues. In response, the ruling class has resorted to repression, union-busting, and fostering far-right groups. Meanwhile, the pressures of the capitalist crisis are driving millions of workers toward political radicalisation. The book describes this situation: “The conflict between the criminal oligarchy and the moral consciousness of the masses is assuming an increasingly explosive character…” This is no exaggeration. The United States is heading into a period of significant social upheaval as the working class begins to recognise its collective power and the ruling class struggles to maintain control through traditional means. The historical preconditions for revolutionary struggle are emerging.
XIV. The Moral and Political Bankruptcy of the Ruling Class
The American ruling class has exhausted all ideological justifications for its dominance. It can no longer justify itself through democracy, as it consistently undermines democratic institutions. It cannot rely on prosperity, given the unprecedented levels of inequality under its rule. Nor can it claim to promote peace, as it engages in ongoing war. The book sharply criticises this by stating: “In a society governed by billionaires, corporate predators, military-intelligence operatives, and political swindlers…”
This is not a rhetorical flourish. It is a sociological description of a ruling class that has become parasitic, predatory, and openly criminal. Its foreign policy consists of bombings, sanctions, and coups. Its domestic policy consists of deregulation, privatisation, and repression. The ruling class has no progressive role to play in history. It is an obstacle to human development.
XV. The Objective Necessity of Socialist Revolution
North concludes with a statement of immense historical weight: “The struggle for socialism by the international working class is… the indispensable expression of all that is humane, decent, and emancipatory… The survival of humanity depends upon its victory.”
This is not a moral appeal but a scientific conclusion. The contradictions of capitalism—such as imperialist war, ecological disaster, economic inequality, and authoritarianism—cannot be fixed within the current social system. Humanity faces a clear choice: socialism or barbarism; democratic workers’ control or oligarchic dictatorship; international solidarity or imperialist conflict.
The working class is the only social force capable of transforming society according to principles of equality, rational planning, and democratic control of production. Because capitalism is inherently international, the socialist movement’s international scope is essential, not just desirable. The crisis facing American democracy is fundamentally linked to the global capitalist crisis. Therefore, the solution is not reform but the overthrow of the current system.
XVI. Conclusion: The Historical Moment and the Tasks of the Present
The United States is at a critical crossroads. The decline of the oligarchic state, the rise of authoritarian regimes, increasing class conflict, and growing global tensions are not fleeting issues. They signal a social system in its final crisis. This book offers a sharp, direct analysis: Trump is not the root cause of the crisis but a symptom. The ruling class cannot restore democracy because they are the ones undermining it. Only the working class, drawing on its revolutionary history, can defend democratic rights and ensure humanity’s future. Today’s challenge is to build a conscious, organised, international socialist movement to lead the working class in the fight for power. History is calling—will the working class answer?
Krznaric’s book is a fascinating and valuable insight into the modern Guatemalan oligarchy. He examines the inner life of the oligarchy and how it has maintained its power and privilege for over three centuries. It is a groundbreaking work of political and sociological analysis based on wide-ranging personal interviews.
What The Rich Don’t Tell The Poor was written in 2006 and stems from Krznaric’s 2003 PhD thesis, The World View of the Oligarch in Guatemalan Politics.[1] However, due to political and literary differences with publishers, the book was not published in its original form until 2022. As Krznaric writes in the 2022 preface, although the book is ten years old and much has changed in Guatemala in the intervening years, the oligarchy remains in complete control of Guatemala’s political and economic life.
Guatemala is well known for its extreme wealth inequalities, which have been caused by centuries of economic and political domination by an oligarchy comprising around fifty families of European descent. In this case, the term “oligarchs” usually refers to a small group of influential families (often called “las familias”) that have maintained economic and political dominance since colonial times. As of 2022, approximately 245 individuals in Guatemala held an accumulated wealth of US$30 billion. The oligarchs dominate crucial sectors of the Guatemalan economy, including export agriculture (sugar, coffee, bananas), finance and banking, construction materials (cement), and consumer goods. Families such as the Herrera Family: Owners of Ingenio Pantaleón, the largest sugar production estate in the country, with significant interests in banking (e.g., Banco Agromercantil), the Castillo Family: A historically substantial family involved in the production of beer and other industries and the Novella Family: Major players in the cement industry for generations. These families and others make Guatemala one of the most unequal countries on the planet.
As Krznaric relates: “Getting the oligarchs to speak openly was a challenge. Using all I knew about ethnographic and oral history interviewing techniques, I tried to be courteous rather than confrontational – a strategy that created an atmosphere which felt relaxed, unthreatening and conversational. I quickly learned that accusing them of violating human rights or exploiting workers made them clam up. However, encouraging them to share stories about their lives and experiences lowered their guard and led them to reveal much more about themselves. Rather than offering critical comments on the spot during the interviews, I found that I could defer my critiques until I was writing about them and interpreting what they said, as I do in What The Rich Don’t Tell The Poor.”[2]
Global context: Global Oligarchy and local oligarchy
The global charity Oxfam has recently released several reports that document what every worker knows: an accelerating concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an oligarchy whose fortunes have exploded even as mass poverty, precarious work and state austerity deepen. The charity’s data shows that billionaire wealth surged to a record $18.3 trillion in 2025, and that the wealthiest handful of individuals now own more than the wealth of billions of people. The number of global billionaires recently increased by 30% to approximately 2,750 individuals, who together control more wealth than the planet’s poorest 4.6 billion people.
As Krznarics correctly states in the book, Guatemala’s oligarchy functions as an extension of global imperialist interests. Multinational agribusiness, mining and energy firms rely on local oligarchs to secure land, labour, and concessions. Yankee capitalism has historically backed Guatemalan oligarchs and their militarisation of Guatemalan life and carried out numerous coups to protect these interests, from the 1954 CIA overthrow of Jacobo Árbenz to more recent economic and political interventions. The oligarchs’ rule requires a combination of legal-clientelist institutions and outright coercion. They co-opt political parties, control key state ministries, and use the judiciary to neutralise opponents. When that fails, repression and violence are employed against organisers, Indigenous communities and trade-union militants.
The struggles of the Guatemalan working class against the oligarchs are not documented in the book. But these struggles are not isolated: the working class has challenged the supply chains and profit zones of global capital. Resistance to extractivism (mining and hydroelectric dams), land grabs for agro-exports, and labour discipline in maquilas strike at imperialist accumulation. International solidarity can disrupt investments, cut off supply-chain legitimacy and expose the complicity of multinational corporations and imperialist states. The global working class has an interest in supporting these struggles because they weaken the power of an oligarchy that helps sustain the world capitalist order and its wars.
Summary
Roman Krznaric’s book is a vital piece of journalism and provides essential insight into the world of the Guatemalan oligarchs. Krznaric’s suggestions for countering these oligarchs have profound weaknesses. While addressing the moral and psychological gaps between wealthy elites and the poor, he argues that, to reduce inequality, workers and youth should challenge the oligarchs to change habits, broaden empathy, cultivate longer time horizons, and reframe public narratives so that disadvantaged people can adopt attitudes and strategies associated with success.
Krznaric’s approach is fundamentally an appeal to moral persuasion. He asks the wealthy to change hearts and minds — to exercise empathy, mentor, and open networks — relying on their voluntary moral action rather than on structural compulsion. He treats inequality partly as a deficit of habits and imagination among low-income people that can be remedied by teaching the “right” psychology and practices. These elements make the argument attractive to readers who prefer non-confrontational, reformist routes: it promises measurable improvements through persuasion, education and moral example, without directly challenging property relations or class power.
As Marxists point out, inequality is rooted in property relations, the extraction of surplus value and state power. Teaching better habits or eliciting elite empathy cannot change the class relations that produce mass poverty. Moral appeals to elites presuppose goodwill and avoid building an independent working class
[1] The World View of the Oligarch in Guatemalan Politics.A thesis submitted for the degree of PhD in the Government Department of the University of Essex, Colchester, UK 2003
[2] Want to Challenge the Elite? Then first Understand What Makes Them Tick. frompoverty.oxfam.org.uk/want-to-challenge-the-elite-then-first-understand-what-makes-them-tick/
Last evening I read your work on Marxism and the English Revolution for the second time. I should like to make some points about its arguments very briefly indeed.
1. If one looks at the late Conrad Russell’s corpus of works post-1975, it is possible to see that, deeply embedded within it, there is a degree of subscription to a teleological explanation of the English Civil War, e.g. about incipient support for royalism. pre-1642. I noticed this some time ago and found myself asked not to write about it.
2. One of the key economic and social changes in Anglo-Welsh society before 1640 is the strengthened position of landowners, whether peers or gentry. This goes back to the work of W.R.Emerson and helps to account for the failure of the post-1646 regimes to consolidate themselves in power. The ‘revolution’ took place against one of the key economic developments of the period.
3. As a corollary to point 2, there is good evidence to show that the tenantry of landowners out in the counties were linked not just to their landlords but also amongst and between themselves, hence the coherence of the landed interests before, during and after the 1640-1660 period.
4. One of the important themes in the Stuart realms and in continental states is the retreat from traditional bargaining methods due in measure to the fiscal and military demands of post-1618 wars. In the Stuarts’ kingdoms, these forms of consensus and complaint, bargaining and negotiation declined after 1603 and atrophied post-1625, even when the wars against France and Spain ended by 1630. Their Parliaments were only one means by which negotiations took place in these societies, pace Russell, but one can see how at county and borough levels, with corporate organisations, etc., this retreat took place and accelerated under Charles I.
I am not a Marxist, as you must know, but I enjoy debating the issues of the seventeenth century,
A Trumpet of Sedition 