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?

The Diggers.

When reading about the Diggers, I was interested in the song, “Stand Up Now”. I was expecting a song that was super out of style in taste and not very nice on my ears. I’m not sure why that was my expectation, but I was far off. It was actually very pleasant and nice to listen to, it had a good beat. I listened to it a few times to really hear the words. I also read through the lyrics of the other songs on the site. In the song it is asking Diggers to stand up for glory. 

When reading the wiki information on Diggers it said that they basically lived by the following statement, “true freedom lies where a man receives his nourishment and preservation, and that is in the use of the earth”. I thought this was interesting and kind of sums up what the Diggers were all about. They believed that living off the earth was what they were supposed to do. It also mentioned that a lot of these people were poor, and so they needed somewhere to stay and food to eat. It makes sense that this would be a next step. In my opinion it is actually quiet genius. I can see why it was a problem and why they were forced to move, but also, with all the land that is out there, why can’t everyone live in peace and just coexist. 

The song I listened to talks about how they don’t need swords and how they just wanted to be there in peace. They were not trying to fight anyone or be in anyone’s way. They just wanted to  live off the land and provide for themselves and have a sustainable live. From what I read, they were peaceful and never violent. So I guess I am missing the reason as to why they were such a big problem. 

Utopia: If it is Reached, Can it Be Sustained?

I was fascinated to read about the Diggers and their principles. They faced a great deal of strife as they attempted to pursue their ideals, which were wonderfully outlined in both True Levellers and The Law of Freedom. I admire their love and respect for the earth and humanity's inescapable connection to it, as evidenced in the quote:

"True freedom lies where a man receives his nourishment and preservation, and that is in the use of the earth. For as man is compounded of the four materials of the creation, fire, water, earth, and air; so is he preserved by the compounded bodies of these four, which are the fruits of the earth; and he cannot live without them. For take away the free use of these and the body languishes, the spirit is brought into bondage and at length departs, and ceaseth his motional action in the body" (Winstanley, chp 1).

Conversely, in True Levellers, I was interested by the quote: "O thou Powers of England, though thou hast promised to make this People a Free People, yet thou hast so handled the matter, through thy self-seeking humour, That thou has wrapped us up more in bondage, and oppression lies heavier upon us; not only bringing thy fellow Creatures, the Commoners, to a morsel of Bread, but by confounding all sorts of people by thy Government, of doing and undoing." England, as mentioned in More's Utopia, appears as a once-possible hope of a Utopia in these texts. But its has fallen in the eyes of Winstanley and his followers.

I chose these two quotes as they prompted me to think of questions like: Do you believe that a Utopia requires an acknowledgement of or connection to the earth to be equal and fair (as the Diggers believe we are made of it and rely on it)? For all of the Diggers' Utopic vision and practice, it failed. Would it continue to be sustainable if it didn't face opposition from the rich? After all, as the Wiki page mentioned, a significant amount of people were either sympathetic or practically unbothered by the Diggers. What do you guys think?

https://wigandiggersfestival.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/diggers1.jpg

We Don't Even Live Here!

Anarchist rapper POS has a song that would go over well with the Diggers, I think. He professes in the song that "this world's got a whole lot of locked doors. We decided not to live here anymore." The common land that the Diggers had settled they considered to be above the private property of the local landowners. They don't care for the boundaries of private property because of how property is monopolized by the rich. In their manifesto, the Diggers write that the "Earth that is... made a Common Store-house for all, is bought and sold, and kept in the hands of the few..." Similarly, POS responds in his song to the rich's property rights to "trust no rich folks empty out the tummy on your math," which, according to Rapgenius, shows how rich people will use mathy macroeconomics to justify their wealth and by extension poverty and homelessness through the monopolization of private property (which makes people want to puke).

What were they thinking?

As with many other such social movements, I have to question whether the Diggers thought their communities would actually last. As shown in multiple literary examples, a utopian society can only come to be under specific conditions, including the absence of another social order. The Diggers still had to contend with the existing authority of English government at the time. Obviously they anticipated resistance from the landowners, but did they think their movement would outlast those objections?

"I feel" and "I think" in ~300 words

When I first reflected upon the Diggers readings, I thought something like: "how fascinating it is that all these readings so far can be read as critiques of capitalism, all but ensuring we have countless similar discussions about the merits and demerits of private property, etc....."

But then I reflected upon my reflection (reflectception) and thought that those conversations are, in a way, gratuitous. Sure, the Diggers/Levellers alluded to the dichotomy between "poor" and "rich", but their critiques most often formed themselves around "oppressed" and "oppressor".

Some quotes from True Levelers Standard Advanced stood out to me:

"In the beginning of Time...not one word was spoken...That one branch of mankind should rule over another."
"and the same Spirit that made the Globe, dwels in man to govern the Globe."
"not one Lording over the another, but all looking upon each other, as equals in the Creation."
"There is no intent of Tumult or Fighting, but only to get Bread to eat, with the sweat of our brows; working together in righteousness, and eating the blessings of the Earth in peace."

I think we suffer from a postmodern error when we apply socialism/capitalism/communism discourse to readings like this. Because we exist in a world of economy and commodity, we impose those notions onto these readings. But they are unwarranted: though they touch on economic subjects, I feel they're thinking more philosophically than anything else.

Me being a yoga-dude full of namastes, this sounds an awful lot like some of the philosophy I learned about in YTT,—the concept that you are better than no one and no one is better than you; we just are. And that sounds great to me.
You'll find zero mention of economy, just a way of life.

I believe Obi Wan said it best when he said, in other words....

jk tho bc I'm a political science major

The True Levellers Standard Advanced: A question

In what ways are the Diggers like Plato's ideal utopia from The Republic?