Early 'Communists' in the English Civil war.

[Forward Union]

I would like to start a discussion about The Levellers and The True Levellers (the Diggers) movements in the English civil war. And well, exactly how far we should commend them - or perhaps just your thoughts on the two groups. Who argued and fought for property to be given to the common people, the seperation of church and state, and for greater democracy and universal sufferage.

For those who are unfamillier;


Originally posted by Libcom article

The Diggers [or ‘True Levellers’] were led by William Everard who had served in the New Model Army. As the name implies, the diggers aimed to use the earth to reclaim the freedom that they felt had been lost partly through the Norman Conquest; by seizing the land and owning it ‘in common’ they would challenge what they considered to be the slavery of property. They were opposed to the use of force and believed that they could create a classless society simply through seizing land and holding it in the ‘common good’.

Full article (http://libcom.org/history/1642-1652-diggers-levellers)

and I also suggest reading

A Declaration from the poor and oppressed peoples of England (published 1649) (http://libcom.org/library/a-declaration-from-the-poor-oppressed-people-of-england)

Obviously they will have had a lot of shortcomings. But a political movement in mid 1600s England with such demands as theirs is clearly very comendable, and revolutionary.

Thoughts?

http://www.unclenicks.net/bilderberg/www.bilderberg.org/land/putney.jpg

[apathy maybe]

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60752 Marxist view point on English Civil War.
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55304 The DIggers
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42934 Could anarcho-communism ever work? (One mention of Diggers)
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41303 Communism before Marx (mention of Diggers)

I once was discussing anarchism and communism with some young women, and she mentioned the Diggers. Yes they were revolutionary for the time. One area where we should not at least follow them (in my opinion) is there religious position, but that's just 'cause I don't like religion.

(For those who claim that you can't be anarchistic and religious, obviously you are WRONG! I'm reasonably sure that Freakazoid has a similar position to many of these Diggers. Anyway...)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 31, 2007 01:42 pm
I once was discussing anarchism and communism with some young women, and she mentioned the Diggers. Yes they were revolutionary for the time. One area where we should not at least follow them (in my opinion) is there religious position, but that's just 'cause I don't like religion.
Well they were for a secular society. But, they were pacifists as a result of christianity. Almost all the levellers were christians (though not catholics) and proclaimed "Blessed are the peace makers"

But to be honest, I think the fact that they were pacifists to begin with, highlights the impracticality of non-violence. In other words, they taught us a valuable lesson.

Frankly I was impressed at the nature of their demands at such in such early period of history.

"We, whose names are subscribed, do in the name of all the poor oppressed people in England, declare unto you, that call your selves lords of Manors, and Lords of the Land, ...that the earth was not made purposely for you, to be Lords of it, and we to be your Slaves, Servants, and Beggers. It was made to be a common Livelihood to all, without respect of persons"

[Janus]

Like most of the counter-government groups back then, the Diggers expressed their thoughts and discontent through religious terms as this was before societal secularization. Thus, most of the communal movements arose from radical religious movements and as a result most of them were too ahead of the times for their own good. As such, they lacked any actual means to really accomplish much even though their intentions are still commendable.