The responsibility of the little guy

One of the things that Winstanley (et al), Morris, and Bellamy have in common is the idea that the little guy, the average Joe, the guy on the street (whatever you want to call someone who's not in a position of power) is also responsible for the way that the world works. Not just bringing about change, but also helping it stick. The thinking is this: you can't just wait for the higher-ups to step in and fix a broken system. After all, they are the ones benefitting from said system, so they have little to no motivation to step in and improve it, do they? So that means it's up to the rest of us. 

by johnhain on pixabay

We see this clearly as Morris describes the General Strike that began the great change in their society (in chapter 17); without the workers, the prisoners, and so on, the change could never have occurred. (Makes me think of way that air traffic controllers, TSA agents, and other workers affiliated with air travel were the ones to bring an end to the recent government shutdown.)

This is an idea I've struggled with as I've read these texts, especially as it's expressed in the First Digger Manifesto:

So long as we ... doth own the Earth to be the peculier Interest of Lords and Landlords, and not common to others as well as them, we own the Curse, and holds the Creation under bondage; and so long as we or any other doth own Landlords and Tennants, for one to call the Land his, or another to hire it of him, or for one to give hire, and for another to work for hire; this is to dishonour the work of Creation; as if the righteous Creator should have respect to persons, and therefore made the Earth for some, and not for all: And so long as we, or any other maintain this Civil Propriety, we consent still to hold the Creation down under that bondage it groans under, and so we should hinder the work of Restoration.

.

When I first read this, I was pretty upset - it felt a bit victim-blame-y to me. But here as elsewhere, when thinking about utopian ideas, I have to challenge myself to reset my thinking. Rather than beginning from a place of skepticism or cynicism, why not begin from a place of empowerment? Isn't it an awesome idea to think that the "little guy," especially in the mid-17th century, has the power to make a change? And they did. Even though the Digger Movement met a sad end, their ideas have had lasting impact.

Personally, I'm still eager for the proletariat to seize the means of production. I'm all for a General Strike along the lines described in Morris' novel. I don't think we'll get the kind of radical redistribution of wealth that the world needs until something like that comes to pass. But as an obvious member of the bourgeoisie, I wonder what my role is in that change. Is it patronizing of me to expect the workers to rise up and do that work when they aren't starting from a position of privilege? Or am I empowering those who might not realize that they do, in fact, have more strength than they might think?