Before there was Marx, Before there was Bakunin

[RGacky3]

There was John Ball, in the 1370s and 1380s. Who was a big inspiration on and took part in the peasant revolt of 1381.

"Why are those whom we call lords, masters over us? How have they deserved it? By what right do they keep us enslaved? We are all descended from our first parents, Adam and Eve; how then can they say that they are better than us... At the beginning we were all created equal. If God willed that there should be serfs, he would have said so at the beginning of the world. We are formed in Christ's likeness, and they treat us like animals... They are dressed in velvet and furs, while we wear only cloth. They have wine, and spices and good bread, while we have rye bread and water. They have fine houses and manors, and we have to brave the wind and rain as we toil in the fields. It is by the sweat of our brows that they maintain their high state. We are called serfs, and we are beaten if we do not perform our task... Let us go to see King Richard. He is young, and we will show him our miserable slavery, we will tell him it must be changed, or else we will provide the remedy ourselves. When the King sees us, either he will listen to us, or we will help ourselves. When we are ready to march on London I will send you a secret message. The message is "Now is the time. Stand together in God's name.""

"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondsmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who would have had any bond and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may, if ye will, cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty. I counsel you therefore well to bethink yourselves, and to take good hearts unto you, that after the mannar of a good husband that tilleth his ground, and riddeth out thereof such evil weeds as choke and destroy the good corn, you may destroy first the great lords of the realm, and after, the judges and lawyers, and questmongers, and all other who have undertaken to be against the commons. For so shall you procure peace and surety to yourselves in time to come; and by dispatching out of the way the great men, there shall be an equality in liberty, and no difference in degrees of nobility; but lika dignity and equal authority in all things brought in among you."

Heres what was wrong about him
"The common people had as their leader an evil man named John Ball, who advised them to get rid of all the lords, archbishops, bishops, abbots and priors... and their possessions should be divided among the people."

"A crazy priest in the county of Kent, called John Ball... told the peasants that the nobility should not have great power over the the common people... John Ball had several times been confined in the Archbishop of Canterbury's prison for his absurd speeches... It would have been better had he locked him up for the rest of his life, or even had him executed... for as soon as he was released, he went back to his former errors."



Socialist revolution is older than Marx :)

[#FF0000]

Well, yeah. Marx developed Marxism and "scientific socialism". Utopian socialism always existed.

[Nolan]

Let's see his critique of capitalism. ;)

[Thug Lessons]

Many early socialists were not Utopian at all though, but reactionary. The Levellers of 17th century England, for example, were openly anti-worker, and thought that wage-laborers should be oppressed and eventually eliminated as a class to prevent them from enriching those they work for. This sentiment is expressed in their manifesto, The True Leveller Standard Advanced.

[Conquer or Die]

So there are three contra nancys so far on these forums.

Keep em coming.

[#FF0000]

So there are three contra nancys so far on these forums.

Keep em coming.

what

[RGacky3]

Let's see his critique of capitalism. ;)

ehem, 1381 numbnuts.


Well, yeah. Marx developed Marxism and "scientific socialism". Utopian socialism always existed.

It was'nt utopian socialism in the sense of Owen or whatever, it was'nt a group tyring to set up some sort of commune or whatever, John Ball was a revolutionary, calling for common ownership of the peasants.

Jeez, man tough crowd, you guys would sneer at Sparticus. Does it not count unless it includes marxist thought?

[Jack]

ehem, 1381 numbnuts.

That was the joke....

[ComradeOm]

It was'nt utopian socialism in the sense of Owen or whatever, it was'nt a group tyring to set up some sort of commune or whatever, John Ball was a revolutionary, calling for common ownership of the peasantsJacquerie does not equal socialism. The latter is a development of the Enlightenment (and the French Revolution in particular) and only emerges properly during the 19th C. Prior to that there were a number of movements that can be labelled proto-socialist, amongst which 1381 is just one of countless

In fact, Engels wrote about one of the more notable peasant revolts (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/index.htm). So I'm afraid that there's no great discovery about 'pre-Marxian socialism' here

[#FF0000]

ehem, 1381 numbnuts.



It was'nt utopian socialism in the sense of Owen or whatever, it was'nt a group tyring to set up some sort of commune or whatever, John Ball was a revolutionary, calling for common ownership of the peasants.

Jeez, man tough crowd, you guys would sneer at Sparticus. Does it not count unless it includes marxist thought?

No I think this owns. So does Sparticus.

[RGacky3]

That was the joke....

Sorry man, sarcasm in the internet is hard to detect, considering there are many idiots on the internet.


The latter is a development of the Enlightenment (and the French Revolution in particular) and only emerges properly during the 19th C. Prior to that there were a number of movements that can be labelled proto-socialist, amongst which 1381 is just one of countless

In fact, Engels wrote about one of the more notable peasant revolts (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/index.htm). So I'm afraid that there's no great discovery about 'pre-Marxian socialism' here

Great, no great discovery, sorry man, that was'nt my intention.

When to the broadest sense of socialism (common control over economy), it was a socialist revolt. Marx does'nt have a monopoly on socialism.

[ComradeOm]

When to the broadest sense of socialism (common control over economy), it was a socialist revolt. Marx does'nt have a monopoly on socialism.Which is not what socialism means. This is a whole package of measures (most notably the abolition of private property) that depended heavily, as I said, on the revolution in political thought of the late 18th C. In contrast the peasant jacquerie were almost uniformly couched in terms of religious freedoms* or the defence of feudal rights. They did not envisage the creation of a future socialist society - not surprising given that they entirely lacked the political language (Enlightenment again) needed to articulate this

So we call these movements proto-socialist because their intentions were good but they lacked the framework and programmes of later true socialist movements. This is not their fault and we can applaud their efforts to overturn the social order. Doesn't automatically mean that they are socialist though

The real 'pre-Marxian socialists' are the utopians like Owen and the Saint-Simonians, who coupled the political advances of the Enlightenment with a vision of a truly socialist society

*Its no coincidence that most major peasant revolts involved heresy. In this case, John Ball was a Lollard

[Nolan]

ehem, 1381 numbnuts.


I love you too

[Die Neue Zeit]

Before Marx and Bakunin, there were Blanc and Blanqui. :D

[S.Artesian]

And Fourier.

The levellers were hardly reactionary. Nor were they socialists. They're views on workers on the 17th century are not how we define them historically. The fact that their social origins were in the yeoman farming, that they were the "heart and soul" of the New Model Army, that they fought feudal privilege and landed property relations is how we define them historically, as revolutionists.

Their economic basis was private property, yeoman farming property, capital. No they were not the diggers, that's for sure, who eschewed private property in total. Nevertheless the levellers were not reactionaries.

[RED DAVE]

William Morris, the great 19th Century English socialist, wrote a novel about John Ball.

A Dream of John Ball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dream_of_John_Ball)

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

And Fourier.

The levellers were hardly reactionary. Nor were they socialists. They're views on workers on the 17th century are not how we define them historically. The fact that their social origins were in the yeoman farming, that they were the "heart and soul" of the New Model Army, that they fought feudal privilege and landed property relations is how we define them historically, as revolutionists.

Their economic basis was private property, yeoman farming property, capital. No they were not the diggers, that's for sure, who eschewed private property in total. Nevertheless the levellers were not reactionaries.

Don't forget Spartacus and even Julius Caesar, if we go by people's histories. Unlike the caricatured Caesar of "Caesarism" and later Bonapartism, the Caesar of people's history could have accomplished more with Spartacus-inspired radicals inside his populist political coalition.

[S.Artesian]

Don't forget Spartacus and even Julius Caesar, if we go by people's histories. Unlike the caricatured Caesar of "Caesarism" and later Bonapartism, the Caesar of people's history could have accomplished more with Spartacus-inspired radicals inside his populist political coalition.


Interesting. I have forgotten almost every single thing I ever knew about the history of the Roman empire.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's probably because what you read wasn't Parenti's work on Julius Caesar. ;)

"Lips that have touched Bismarck's shall not touch mine"? How about the Julius Caesar of people's history?

[S.Artesian]

That's probably because what you read wasn't Parenti's work on Julius Caesar. ;)

"Lips that have touched Bismarck's shall not touch mine"? How about the Julius Caesar of people's history?


Oh come on, there's a minor issue of centuries involved here, and of capitalism.

Besides, I'm not about to swap spit with Caesar either, despite the fact that he was known as "every woman's man, and every man's woman."

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's probably because what you read wasn't Parenti's work on Julius Caesar. ;)

"Lips that have touched Bismarck's shall not touch mine"? How about the Julius Caesar of people's history?
Oh come on, there's a minor issue of centuries involved here, and of capitalism.

Besides, I'm not about to swap spit with Caesar either, despite the fact that he was known as "every woman's man, and every man's woman."

Point conceded. :)

[Barry Lyndon]

John Ball and Wat Tyler(a tile maker from Kent I believe) were the two leaders of the English Peasant Revolt of 1380-81. Ball was described the aristocrat historian Sir John Froissart(the source of the OP), as 'insane' because he believed the serfs should rule the country for the collective good. While Ball was the spiritual leader, Tyler was more the military head of the rebellion.

They gathered an army of 50,000 peasants that marched on London and burned manor houses, killing all the knights and lords they could get their hands on along the way. They beheaded the archbishop of Canterbury and put his head on a pike. They demanded that Wat Tyler have an audience with the then only 14-year old King of England Richard II.
The negotiations didn't come to anything, but Wat Tyler was treacherously stabbed in the back by one of the king's bodyguards when riding away from speaking to Richard. John Ball was captured soon afterward and drawn and quartered by knights. Leaderless, the rebellion collapsed.
http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/5/5f/DeathWatTyler.jpg
Wat Tyler being murdered.

[Barry Lyndon]

A similar figure:

http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Thomas_Muentzer.jpg
Tomas Muntzer, the warrior-priest who led the largest peasant rebellion in European history. 300,000 peasants rose up against the barons and most of what is now Germany went up in flames. Muntzer was a disciple of Martin Luther but took his theology several steps further- he believed that not only the Catholic Church but the entire fuedal baron class should be done away with.

Frederich Engels wrote an analysis of the German Peasant War of 1525:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/

[Comrade Anarchist]

Aristotle was a defender of private property and he lived between 384 BC-322 BC. But you know what ill give you this one THE GREAT GRANDFATHER OF COLLECTIVIST THOUGHT was Plato and he was before Aristotle.

[Barry Lyndon]

Aristotle was a defender of private property and he lived between 384 BC-322 BC. But you know what ill give you this one THE GREAT GRANDFATHER OF COLLECTIVIST THOUGHT was Plato and he was before Aristotle.

Go away Ayn Rand, no one wants your shitty book.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Despite Hal Draper mis-linking Plato to fascists, a Republic based on pre-industrial Distributism (equal private ownership as much as possible) was the best that ancient Greek society could hope for. Isolated communes can't do the job economically.