The Diggers, or Levellers, were wonderful but Winstanley's comments were voiced during the English revolution, a power struggle between a would-be absolute monarch and the rising class of Capitalists and Gentry. He was shunted to the fringes. Why have none of these righteous people's movement so far been unable to overcome the immense power held by the super rich? Do the people actually have any power other than the ability to strike?
People throughout history have done far more than strike, and have won victories worth celebrating. They also made mistakes we need to learn from. Here are some examples:
Great piece. I was an anarchist for many years. Contemplating the Spanish Civil War was actually one of the factors that disillusioned me.
I can't agree that the anarchists would've been successful against the fascists, particularly once the German air force became involved. Emma Goldman admitted at the time that the anarchist militias had no way to cope with aerial bombardments in their wildest dreams. One could argue it would've been possible for the anarchists after the invention of anti-aircraft weapons, as this is what helped the North Vietnamese to defy the US air force, but having heavy weaponry like that is contingent on having militarized "non-egalitarian" allies like the USSR and China.
I don't think allying with the Moroccans would've helped in the long run--If numbers alone trumped technology, then Africa and Asia wouldn't have fallen to Europe in the 19th century. There is the recent example of the Taliban defeating the US military, but I think that's an extraordinary case related to Afghanistan's geography. Afghanistan was the exception that proved the rule in 19th century imperialism as well.
I added the following two paragraphs to my article, thanks to your input:
A reader of this article (G.R.) recently made the good point that the anarchists were severely out-gunned by their enemies, not only General Franco but Hitler who used his air force to bomb the anarchist militias. The anarchists had no allies able and willing to provide them with anti-aircraft guns. In contrast, the North Vietnamese who were being bombed by the U.S. in the 1970s did have anti-aircraft guns provided to them by the Soviet Union, and this is one reason they prevailed despite not having their own air force.
The lesson from this is that the success of egalitarian revolutionaries in one country depends greatly on having the support of strong egalitarian revolutionary movements in other countries. For example, if there had been a strong egalitarian revolutionary movement in the United States, even though it was not in power, it could have so militantly protested the refusal of the U.S. government to send arms to the Madrid government (which would have been perfectly in keeping with international law, since the Madrid government was the duly elected government of Spain) that the U.S. government would have been forced to send arms, including anti-aircraft guns, to Madrid. In this case the anarchists might have prevailed.
You may be right. I think I need to add a point to my article about the need for an INTERNATIONAL egalitarian revolutionary movement. If even just the refusal of the US to arm the Madrid government had been opposed by a strong egalitarian revolutionary movement the U.S. might have been forced to provide arms such as antiaircraft weapons. Who knows?
"The 'science' of Marxism leads to very anti-democratic practice and anti-democratic regimes."
I disagree with this statement. Marx observed that the world would not be communist until after Asia had become industrialized. His observation didn't industrialize Asia: he merely observed a trend.
Furthermore, Marx's prediction was right. Asia was completely industrialized, and Marxism didn't cause that or prevent that from happening. Now, this year, Asia and the rest of the world are ascending to the 4th density, a plane in which scarcity, lack and want don't exist. In other words, mankind is ascending spiritually, and human society will be inevitably be re-organized around service to others (which is service to God), or communism.
Would you prefer "rule by the people" or rule that produces a good outcome -- i.e. just rule? You hold up "democracy" as a good in itself, when what you should hold up is a "happy society." And a happy society is a moral society, which is best achieved by fomenting moral values.
The majority of people who incarnate on 3rd-density Earth do so because they are more than 50 percent motivated by self-interest. This planet is literally a prison for the greedy. This being the case, the way to freedom has nothing to do with making Earth less hellish, but requires that people turn inward, where God is found.
Incidentally, there was an agreement made, which you can read about in "Hidden Hand," whereby Earth would be ruled by the Luciferians until the final harvest. Look ito the Mayan calendar for the date of that. In any case, individual responsibility and spiritual growth is the only way to benefit oneself and mankind.
I advocate that local assemblies of egalitarians (not of everybody) be sovereign; that the laws they democratically enact must be obeyed by all the people in that local community. I also say that if a local assembly democratically enacts a law that goes against egalitarian values, then other egalitarians have the right to declare that this assembly is not truly an egalitarian assembly and they have the right to use force to prevent the enforcement of the anti-egalitarian law. Read about egalitarian values and democracy etc. at https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarianism .
Fine. Which of the three worlds described by Hidden Hand do you choose for yourself? Or do you believe the Bible, the Mayan calendar AND the Enuma Elish are wrong?
So, Tribulation Earth. The good news is that that only lasts 1,000 years. The bad news is that the people there aren't intelligent and society won't get any better.
So do your attacks on Lincoln and Marx. You have a lot of good ideas, John, but you also display a lot of petite bourgeois very great ignorance, negativity, and petite moralism. You sit back on your high horse and pass such silly, superficial judgments, and you think everybody is just going to bow down to the a-knowing wise man. Get over yourself.
" . . . Marxist Party dictatorships that have made this the ugly word that it is today."
I disagree with you. Economic, military, biological and weather warfare, combined with ongoing infiltration and destabilization from within, made Communist Party dictatorships necessary. But their attempts to defend their revolution were then slandered by the same capitalist class that was attacking them, which called self-defense "repression," "brutal," etc.
I enjoyed reading about early support for communitarianism. However, I'm perplexed that you would ignore the unrestricted warfare waged by the capitalist class against revolutionary movements.
I hardly think it is fair to say that I "ignore the unrestricted warfare waged by the capitalist class against revolutionary movements." Have you read my recent article about the need for waging the class war, at https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/class-war-yes-terrorism-no?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web ? Have you read my article about how to remove the rich from power, at https://www.pdrboston.org/how-we-can-remove-the-rich-from-power? Do you think a writer ignores X if he/she happens not to talk about X in a single particular article? By that "logic," I should ask you, How come you ignore the importance of teaching arithmetic to children? Do you want our children to grow up unable to do arithmetic? It seems to be so, since you have never mentioned the importance of teaching arithmetic in your comments.
The Diggers, or Levellers, were wonderful but Winstanley's comments were voiced during the English revolution, a power struggle between a would-be absolute monarch and the rising class of Capitalists and Gentry. He was shunted to the fringes. Why have none of these righteous people's movement so far been unable to overcome the immense power held by the super rich? Do the people actually have any power other than the ability to strike?
People throughout history have done far more than strike, and have won victories worth celebrating. They also made mistakes we need to learn from. Here are some examples:
1. Spain 1936-9 https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarianism-in-spain-1936-9
I discuss the mistakes they made at https://www.pdrboston.org/anarchism
2. In a Mexican town recently: https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarianism-in-a-mexican-town
3. In an Ethiopian village (recently, but I'm not sure of its current status)https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarianism-in-ethiopian-village
4.EGALITARIANS IN KURDISH ROJAVA (SYRIA) (not sure of the current status) https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarians-in-kurdish-rojava-syria
5. A 17th century egalitarian society that lasted at least 98 years in Brazil:https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarianism-in-brazil
6. 1381 in England. Watch the great video about this linked to in my article:https://www.pdrboston.org/england-john-ball-was-right
7. The Great Peasant War in Germany 1524-5. Here's a random source, there are no doubt better ones: https://www.thoughtco.com/german-peasants-war-4150166
There is an anti-capitalist, anti-Marxist, and anti-majoritarian tradition known as anarcho-communism. Would you say you align with that?
In many ways, yes. Here is something I wrote about anarchism: https://www.pdrboston.org/anarchism
Great piece. I was an anarchist for many years. Contemplating the Spanish Civil War was actually one of the factors that disillusioned me.
I can't agree that the anarchists would've been successful against the fascists, particularly once the German air force became involved. Emma Goldman admitted at the time that the anarchist militias had no way to cope with aerial bombardments in their wildest dreams. One could argue it would've been possible for the anarchists after the invention of anti-aircraft weapons, as this is what helped the North Vietnamese to defy the US air force, but having heavy weaponry like that is contingent on having militarized "non-egalitarian" allies like the USSR and China.
I don't think allying with the Moroccans would've helped in the long run--If numbers alone trumped technology, then Africa and Asia wouldn't have fallen to Europe in the 19th century. There is the recent example of the Taliban defeating the US military, but I think that's an extraordinary case related to Afghanistan's geography. Afghanistan was the exception that proved the rule in 19th century imperialism as well.
I added the following two paragraphs to my article, thanks to your input:
A reader of this article (G.R.) recently made the good point that the anarchists were severely out-gunned by their enemies, not only General Franco but Hitler who used his air force to bomb the anarchist militias. The anarchists had no allies able and willing to provide them with anti-aircraft guns. In contrast, the North Vietnamese who were being bombed by the U.S. in the 1970s did have anti-aircraft guns provided to them by the Soviet Union, and this is one reason they prevailed despite not having their own air force.
The lesson from this is that the success of egalitarian revolutionaries in one country depends greatly on having the support of strong egalitarian revolutionary movements in other countries. For example, if there had been a strong egalitarian revolutionary movement in the United States, even though it was not in power, it could have so militantly protested the refusal of the U.S. government to send arms to the Madrid government (which would have been perfectly in keeping with international law, since the Madrid government was the duly elected government of Spain) that the U.S. government would have been forced to send arms, including anti-aircraft guns, to Madrid. In this case the anarchists might have prevailed.
You may be right. I think I need to add a point to my article about the need for an INTERNATIONAL egalitarian revolutionary movement. If even just the refusal of the US to arm the Madrid government had been opposed by a strong egalitarian revolutionary movement the U.S. might have been forced to provide arms such as antiaircraft weapons. Who knows?
"The 'science' of Marxism leads to very anti-democratic practice and anti-democratic regimes."
I disagree with this statement. Marx observed that the world would not be communist until after Asia had become industrialized. His observation didn't industrialize Asia: he merely observed a trend.
Furthermore, Marx's prediction was right. Asia was completely industrialized, and Marxism didn't cause that or prevent that from happening. Now, this year, Asia and the rest of the world are ascending to the 4th density, a plane in which scarcity, lack and want don't exist. In other words, mankind is ascending spiritually, and human society will be inevitably be re-organized around service to others (which is service to God), or communism.
Marx was a prophet.
Please tell me what is the most democratic Marxist regime, and please tell me how democratic is it, OK?
Would you prefer "rule by the people" or rule that produces a good outcome -- i.e. just rule? You hold up "democracy" as a good in itself, when what you should hold up is a "happy society." And a happy society is a moral society, which is best achieved by fomenting moral values.
The majority of people who incarnate on 3rd-density Earth do so because they are more than 50 percent motivated by self-interest. This planet is literally a prison for the greedy. This being the case, the way to freedom has nothing to do with making Earth less hellish, but requires that people turn inward, where God is found.
Incidentally, there was an agreement made, which you can read about in "Hidden Hand," whereby Earth would be ruled by the Luciferians until the final harvest. Look ito the Mayan calendar for the date of that. In any case, individual responsibility and spiritual growth is the only way to benefit oneself and mankind.
I advocate that local assemblies of egalitarians (not of everybody) be sovereign; that the laws they democratically enact must be obeyed by all the people in that local community. I also say that if a local assembly democratically enacts a law that goes against egalitarian values, then other egalitarians have the right to declare that this assembly is not truly an egalitarian assembly and they have the right to use force to prevent the enforcement of the anti-egalitarian law. Read about egalitarian values and democracy etc. at https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarianism .
Fine. Which of the three worlds described by Hidden Hand do you choose for yourself? Or do you believe the Bible, the Mayan calendar AND the Enuma Elish are wrong?
I am not familiar enough with your cited phrases to reply.
So, Tribulation Earth. The good news is that that only lasts 1,000 years. The bad news is that the people there aren't intelligent and society won't get any better.
Just as with your petite-moralistic view of Lincoln. You are not very charitable, nor open minded, Mr. Spritzler.
Your comment lacks substance.
So do your attacks on Lincoln and Marx. You have a lot of good ideas, John, but you also display a lot of petite bourgeois very great ignorance, negativity, and petite moralism. You sit back on your high horse and pass such silly, superficial judgments, and you think everybody is just going to bow down to the a-knowing wise man. Get over yourself.
State (quote) a single factually false statement of mine.
Stop pissing on my heroes.
Telling the truth is not pissing.
" . . . Marxist Party dictatorships that have made this the ugly word that it is today."
I disagree with you. Economic, military, biological and weather warfare, combined with ongoing infiltration and destabilization from within, made Communist Party dictatorships necessary. But their attempts to defend their revolution were then slandered by the same capitalist class that was attacking them, which called self-defense "repression," "brutal," etc.
I enjoyed reading about early support for communitarianism. However, I'm perplexed that you would ignore the unrestricted warfare waged by the capitalist class against revolutionary movements.
I hardly think it is fair to say that I "ignore the unrestricted warfare waged by the capitalist class against revolutionary movements." Have you read my recent article about the need for waging the class war, at https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/class-war-yes-terrorism-no?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web ? Have you read my article about how to remove the rich from power, at https://www.pdrboston.org/how-we-can-remove-the-rich-from-power? Do you think a writer ignores X if he/she happens not to talk about X in a single particular article? By that "logic," I should ask you, How come you ignore the importance of teaching arithmetic to children? Do you want our children to grow up unable to do arithmetic? It seems to be so, since you have never mentioned the importance of teaching arithmetic in your comments.