Showing posts sorted by date for query LEVELLERS. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query LEVELLERS. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, March 19, 2024

 

UK

Hatfield Main Pit: Never Forget, Never Forgive

Forty years after the start of the historic miners’ strike, Bryn Griffiths returns to Yorkshire, where members of his family once mined coal.

 On Saturday 9th March 2024, I had an emotional return with my family to Hatfield Main in South Yorkshire to mark the fortieth anniversary of the Great Miners’ Strike. My Grandad and other family members of that generation had worked in the local pits during the earlier successful strikes of 1972 and 1974. I spent the 1984-85 strike as an activist in the Brighton Miners’ Support Group but my heart always lay with the militant miners of Hatfield Main. Emotion was the order of the day for everyone. As we made our way through the streets, people came out of their houses to clap and show their respect. I spotted one woman shed a tear.  

Ken Capstick, a Vice President of the Yorkshire NUM during the strike, wrote to event organiser Mick Lanaghan: “In all my 50 years as Branch and Area Official of the NUM (Yorkshire Area) I have never attended a miners’ event so full of emotion… to receive such a warm welcome from so many wonderful people will remain with me a as a special moment and the proudest moment of my life as a Yorkshire Miners’ Leader.”

Capstick went on to put the Hatfield miners alongside “the Chartists, the Levellers, the Tolpuddle Martyrs and the suffragettes.” We were all attending an important event and we knew it.

We gathered at a packed Broadway Hotel, in Dunscroft, and in the very best traditions of the miners we set off towards the Hatfield Main Pit Head with the Doncaster and East Yorkshire Pipe Band leading the way.  The Hatfield Main Branch Banner featured AJ Cook, the Miners Federation of Great Britain and of course Keir Hardy from the Independent Labour Party and a founder of today’s Labour Party.

The Doncaster and East Yorkshire Pipe Band

We stopped at the Hatfield Main pithead, one of the few winding gears left standing after a campaign by  the Hatfield Main Heritage Trust.  The head gear was constructed in 1922 and now, thanks to the community campaign, has official Historic England Status.  At the pithead we were entertained by the Hatfield and Askern Colliery Band. 

The most important speech at the pithead was delivered on behalf of Dave Douglass – one of Hatfield’s most prominent militants who appears on one of the Hatfield Main banners alongside such greats as Scottish NUM leader Mick McGahey, local miner Freddie Matthews who gave his life on the picket line in 1972 and none other than Rosa Luxemburg.

Dave’s speech in absentia drew from his must-read working-class miners’ historyGhost Dancers. Dave put the strike of 1984-85 in its historical context. Taking us back to the miners’ strike in 1912 he reminded us that, “Churchill put machine guns at the pitheads, and tanks on the streets,  armoured cars on the docks and swore to drive us back down our holes like rats… and when Arthur Cook [Miners’ Federation of Great Britian leader] said we would let grass grow on the pulley wheels before we’d submit to longer hours and still more wages reduction, Churchill said he’d make us eat the grass.”Dave, the South Yorkshire picket organiser in 1984-85 is unwell so I wish him a rapid recovery.

We were joined by Arthur Scargill, the former NUM president, as we marched to the site of the Battle of Hatfield  where the local community was attacked by riot police as a few scabs were escorted into the pit in 1985.  The day is memorialised by the broken stump of a lamppost that met its end in the mayhem that ensued.

The site of the Battle of Hatfield

At the Pit Club we heard keynote speeches from Rose Hunter, North Staffs Miners’ Wives Action Group, and Arthur Scargill.  Arthur wore a Palestine badge and stood proudly, alongside Ken Capstick (on Arthur’s right), in front of a tall Palestinian flag.  Arthur opened his speech to loud cheers saying the “slaughter of more than thirty thousand innocent people including children and the unborn in Gaza is nothing less than genocide.” 

Arthur Scargill (centre) with Ken Capstick (right) at the Hatfield Main 1984-5 Strike commemoration

Arthur Scargill’s leadership of the NUM ended with some  controversial wrangling within the union and the creation of the ill-fated Socialist Labour Party adventure, but every militant supporter of the miners’ strike would praise him as a great trade union leader who stood with the rank-and-file miners to the very end.  This anniversary event was to mark our labour movement history and Arthur has an important place within it.

Gathering in the Pit Club to hear Arthur Scargill

Scargill’s speech was serious, long and intently listened to by the old miners. He recounted how, had NACODS, the pit deputies union which struck in September 1984, stood firm, the strike would have been won. He argued that there should have been a greater focus on starving the steel works of coal and maintained that the Battle of Orgreave could have been won had the pickets been maintained and built upon.  To this day he stands by the decision by the NUM not to hold a ballot and instead recognise the legitimacy of the Area actions in accordance with the union rule book to defend their jobs.

Arthur made a “particular tribute to the young miners.”  He also made a point of praising “the magnificent Women Against Pit Closures (WAPC) who were at the forefront of our struggle.”  On 12th May 1984 Arthur attended the first WAPC march in Barnsley and he said: “I confess that I anticipated that if we were lucky 500 would appear… I couldn’t believe my eyes – 10,000 women were in Barnsley.” He recalled, with admiration, how the women completely ignored police instructions to march away from the centre of the town.

George Galloway’s presence on the day has been noted in some coverage of the event. I did not spot him on the march but he did appear for the photo calls and stood behind Arthur like ‘Where’s Wally’ at the end. He was not a speaker; according to press coverage, he was not invited by the organisers and his main activity seemed to be posing for selfies.  Galloway is marmite and I never put it on my toast! 

For me the most inspiring speaker of the day was Rose Hunter from Stoke who was an important figure in the Women Against Pit Closures movement.  She started by remembering Davy Jones and Joe Green, the miners who were killed in the 1984-85 strike who as ‘Donkey Dave’ reports in the link had been remembered in Barnsley earlier in the day. Doreen Jones, Davy’s Mum, played an important role in the women’s movement. Rose said of Doreen: “The heartbreak of losing a bloody son never left her but she along with Mark Green [Joe’s Dad] continued to fight for justice… Her strong and defiant spirit lives on.”

Listening to Rose I was transported back to the strike as she introduced Liz French from Kent whom I met back in the 1980s. Rose told us that the Women Against Pit Closures were prominent at Wapping during the printers’ strike and were labelled “Scargill’s slags”, a badge she said they “wore with honour.” 

Women Against Pit Closures was the greatest working class women’s movement I have ever witnessed and, as Rose said, turning to the younger women in the room, “This is your legacy.”  She ended her speech by leading a thunderous rendition of the song Women of the Working Class, as many in the room choked back yet more tears.

I have marked the fortieth anniversary in the Labour Left Podcast with Mike Jackson, the co-founder of Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners who was portrayed in the film Pride.  Mike was an excellent guest to take us through the political, cultural and industrial legacy of the strike. In the interview with Mike we explored Mark Ashton’s legacy, compared Kinnock and Starmer, re-examined the awful Clause 28, considered the importance of the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign today and shared our deep-seated loathing of Margaret Thatcher.

Click to watch it on You Tube here. You can also listen to it on all your favourite podcast platforms such as Amazon, Audible, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, Spotify etc. Just search for Labour Left Podcast.

The day was not all serious stuff because as well as choking back the tears we had a lot of laughs.  Even the visit to the men’s urinals was marked by a memorable experience! As I looked down, I was met with a requirement to engage in target practice with a picture of Margaret Thatcher.  I laughed so much I almost missed.  As in the title of the event, we must never ever forgive.

Decoration of the Stainforth Pit Club Urinals

Bryn Griffiths, pictured below, is the host of Labour Hub’s spin off the Labour Left podcast which he produces with Luke Robinson, the podcast editor.  They are both activists in the labour movement, Momentum and The World Transformed in North Essex. Bryn writes regularly for Labour Hub. You can find all the episodes of the Labour left Podcast here  Bryn Griffiths will be speaking at a University of Sussex, UNITE and Sussex UCU event on Wednesday 20th March  to consider How Sussex Supported the Miners.

Bryn Griffiths in front of the Hatfield Main NUM Banners.

Photos: Bryn H Griffiths

Thursday, February 08, 2024

E.P. Thompson at 100

An interview with
06.02.2024

At Saturday’s Palestine solidarity protest — which took place on E.P. Thompson's centenary — Jeremy Corbyn, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's Kate Hudson and John McDonnell remember the pioneer of ‘history from below’ and the debt owed to him by the anti-war movement.



E.P. Thompson speaks from the Pyramid Stage at Glastonbury Festival, 1986.


INTERVIEW BY Owen Dowling

This Saturday, the 3 of February 2024, saw a diverse crowd of 200,000 people descend upon Whitehall in the Eighth National March for Palestine since the onset of Israel’s genocidal latest assault upon the people of Gaza. Mustered by the longstanding coalition around the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, including the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the bustling demonstration demanded a ceasefire in Gaza as a step towards negotiations for a just political settlement, and for Britain to withdraw all military and diplomatic succour for Israel following the ICJ’s ruling last week.

Joining a platform hosting Palestinian representatives and campaigners, and progressive British activists, MPs, and trade unionists, RMT general secretary Mick Lynch addressed the impassioned crowd:


No matter what our background, no matter what our community, no matter what our religion, we are all working people together. They are working people in Gaza and in the West Bank, and we must show our solidarity. We call on all of the trade unions, and all of the socialist movement, and our Labour Party: stand up and support the people who are being massacred, stand up against the slaughter, stand up against genocide — and build the bridges of peace on behalf of the people of the world, and especially the people of Palestine!

The mobilisation of the working-class movement in its tradition of internationalism against war and oppression and for peace and freedom was also a paramount concern for the celebrated Marxist historian E.P. Thompson (1924-1993), whose centennial birthday fell upon the same Saturday as London’s latest Palestine march. Author of a foundational classic of radical history-from-below, The Making of the English Working Class (1963), Thompson was also a leading champion and protagonist of popular protest in his own time — against exploitation, war, state repression, and the threat of nuclear annihilation.

With centenary celebrations for this legendary founder member and former vice-president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament coinciding serendipitously with the occasion of another massive national demonstration against the greatest international injustice of our own age, co-organised by the CND of today, Tribune’s Owen Dowling spoke to several of the rally’s speakers about Thompson, his tradition as both historian and campaigner, and his significance for Britain’s socialist movement in its solidarity with Palestine today.
Jeremy Corbyn
OD


Looking back today, on the centenary of his birth, what has been the significance for you and your socialist and antiwar commitments of Edward Thompson, as a historian and as a peace campaigner?
JC


I always thought of him as E.P. rather than Edward; his children lived in my constituency and I obviously knew them. His role in political history and historical writing was fantastic, and I was brought up on his books, if you like, politically. And then when he wrote that absolutely brilliant polemic, Protest and Survive, against the government’s ludicrous Protect and Survive pamphlet in 1980, an absolutely brilliant riposte, that inspired a whole movement of people.

We should remember that the intellectual, academic, challenging historian has an incredibly powerful place in our movement and in our society, because if we don’t look at history from the point of view of popular movements and the growth of common causes, and only look at it through the prism of the interests of states, the military, royalty, and establishments, then we lose so much. And I think that Edward Thompson was one who did that. I thank him for that, and his legacy will last forever for all of that.

Dorothy Thompson [socialist historian and campaigner, author of The Dignity of Chartism among other works, and Edward’s wife] I also knew quite well. Dorothy and I had a very interesting relationship; we used to go to a secondary school in Marleybone, Quintin Kynaston School, which had an annual ‘balloon debate’ where you had to go into ‘the balloon’ playing a particular character, and then would vote on who would be ‘thrown out’ and who would ‘survive’ to the end. I was there being Karl Marx, and Dorothy was there playing Queen Victoria. She was absolutely brilliant at being Queen Victoria, and managed to create a sort of almost feminist narrative around Queen Victoria’s life. At one point we got into a sort of repartee, she was saying: ‘Mr Marx, you don’t even want my head to be on my shoulders’, and I was just saying: ‘Your Majesty — no, I’m not calling you “Your Majesty”, you’re just a person, you’re Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha!’ It became a big joke, the whole thing, and we got on really well. She was actually brilliant at bringing out Queen Victoria in the role of the monarch during all the social movements of the nineteenth century; she would say things like: ‘I suppose, Mr Marx, you support the Chartists?!’
OD


Do you think E.P. Thompson’s life and work has an importance for those of us in Britain marching for peace and in solidarity with Palestine today?
JC


E.P. Thompson would absolutely be here today, right at the front of the march, because he would see the connection — as there is an obvious connection — between the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament to bring about a nuclear-free world, and the cause of Palestine solidarity. Israel is an undeclared holder of nuclear weapons; Mordechai Vanunu suffered eighteen years imprisonment for revealing the truth about Israel’s nuclear aspirations. And Thompson would also have been supportive of a campaign which for many years many of us raised at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of a Middle East weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone, in order to bring about the possibility of talks between Iran and Israel, about Israel getting rid of its nuclear weapons in order to discourage Iran from developing them. So yes he would absolutely be at the front of it.

I think the whole peace movement, the labour movement, the socialist movement needs to thank people like Edward Thompson.
Kate Hudson
OD


As General Secretary of CND, which is one of the cohosts of today’s march and has been part of the coalition behind these Palestine demonstrations for some years, how do you see the politics of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament aligning with those of the movement for solidarity with Palestine?
KH


Well this movement is overwhelmingly for peace, for justice, for a negotiated political solution to the crisis for the Palestinians, and that is fundamental to the type of politics that CND has. We’re always looking for a peaceful solution, we’re always looking for an end to weapons use, to the weapons trade, and so on, so it aligns very closely. Of course for us, one of the points which we do try and draw out is that Israel is a nuclear-armed state, it has nuclear weapons, and there is a danger if the conflict spreads more widely in the region that nuclear weapons may be used.
OD


From the time of its inception in 1958 through the 1980s to today, CND’s politics have also had an anti-imperialist orientation. Do you see that as reflected in its contemporary solidarity with Palestine?
KH


Well, very, very clearly; we draw out a number of strands around this. There’s a really strong developing movement against nuclear colonialism, raising the question of where nuclear weapons have been tested in the past, where uranium is mined — largely on the lands of indigenous people — so there’s a big issue around that. But again it comes back to the question of justice and freedom. If a small number of countries, maybe they have nuclear weapons, maybe they go around invading other countries, start stamping on other people’s rights — we’re absolutely opposed to that, because you can’t have a world of peace while you continue to have that kind of power inequality in the world.
OD


On the centenary of E.P. Thompson’s birth, how do you see his legacy in relation to the internationalist and antiwar practice of CND today?
KH


It’s really fundamental to it, E.P. Thompson was one of the great figures in our history. But he’s not just a historical figure; his values, his whole ethos, everything he fought for is central to our movement today, absolutely. Those concepts of peace, socialism, and internationalism — those are at the heart of the labour movement, and that’s what we want to ensure, that peace and anti-imperialism remain central to the labour movement.
OD


Since the 1950s CND, and in the 21st century the Palestine Solidarity Campaign have both entered into the canon of British popular social movements from below that E.P. Thompson of course helped recover historically: from the Levellers and the Diggers through the Chartists, the trade union movement, support for Republican Spain, and beyond. Do you think Thompson would be marching with us today if he were here?
KH


100 percent. He was in that fantastic tradition — of the people, from the grassroots, organising, working together, solidarity. He would have been here now.
John McDonnell
OD


Today would mark the 100th birthday of Edward Thompson, author of The Making of the English Working Class and lifelong CND and peace activist. You’ve written on and engaged publicly with that school of history-writing. What has been the significance for your politics and conception of radical history of E.P. Thompson?
JM


When I was a student, I came off the shop floor and then went to a university after night school, and one of the key texts you did in politics and political theory and history was E.P. Thompson’s book. It was one of the most fundamental analyses of how the working class was forming itself, how it was recognising itself in all its different strands. And then for a number of years it was one of those books that you read as a text that were so enjoyable, so enlightening.

Then years after, during the pandemic, I discovered a reading group [‘Casualties of History’ (2020) with Alex Press and Gabriel Winant, from Jacobin Magazine] reading a chapter a month of Thompson’s book, and it was so enjoyable re-exploring it all again. It shaped an understanding of the class relations of our society, about how they were formed from their origins, and the very title — The Making of the English Working Class — about how the working class were making themselves, and they still are.
OD


In the 1980s, when you were on the Greater London Council, did you have any involvement with the CND movements of the time in which Thompson was prominent as a campaigner?
JM


You and I are talking outside in Whitehall at the moment. When I was a GLC councillor I came out of County Hall to greet a CND demonstration, and they had a band, and they decided as part of the protest that they would sit down in Whitehall. So I was arrested and spent the night in the cells and came out the next day, and it was one of those occasions which you always remember — because at that point in time we were again on the edge of a nuclear war because of the rearmament that was taking place. And it was people like Thompson and others who held fast in convincing people that that wasn’t the way to go and that we needed peace.
OD


Having led several enormous demonstrations through these London streets against NATO’s installation of US cruise missiles on British soil during his time, would Thompson have been in support of today’s demonstration for Palestine?
JM


Yes he would, he was an internationalist, an antiwar internationalist. He was about changing society, transforming society, but not just here in terms of British politics: he was an internationalist who wanted a global transformation. That whole generation of the New Left would be here, definitely. Because one of the things that they emphasised was how working people can come together and then exert their power to secure peace.

We haven’t come as far as we wanted to in terms of the CND campaign, but people haven’t gone away; the concerns that people have about war and instability in the world at the moment demonstrates how necessary it is to get rid of nuclear weapons, and I think that’ll come back on the agenda. There’s a new wave, a new generation of political activity now, and I think it’s important that we seize this opportunity and insert again the nuclear weapons debate into that.


About the Authors

Jeremy Corbyn is the member of parliament for Islington North.

John McDonnell is the Labour Party member of parliament for Hayes and Harlington.

Kate Hudson is the General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).
About the Interviewer

Owen Dowling is a historian and archival researcher at Tribune.

Sunday, November 26, 2023

The Wood Theft Laws and the beginnings of Marxism

Submitted by Zac Muddle
 14 November, 2023 - 
 Author: John Cunningham

LONG READ



Introduction


In the Ariège Department in Pyrenean France, between 1829 – 1831, men dressed up as women revolted against their landowners in what became known, curiously, as the ‘Girl’s War’ or ‘Maidens’ War’ (Guerre Des Demoiselles). 

They were trying to protect their long held right to forage for firewood and graze their animals in the forests. A new forestry code passed in 1827 denied them this right and the rebellion spread across the region with many pitched battles taking place. So strong was feeling amongst the local populace that it became difficult to recruit anyone for the mayoralty lest they became ‘tainted’ with the detested new laws. The resistance of the ‘Maidens’ continued sporadically until 1872. Around the same time, over in the Rhineland, a part of Prussia, peasants hired a local Advocate (roughly equivalent to a lawyer in the British legal system), one Heinrich Marx of Trier, to fight a court case on their behalf in an attempt to affirm and uphold their long held right to collect firewood from the forests around Koblenz. The legal proceedings ran on for a staggering 27 years (outlasting Heinrich by seven years), prompting his slightly more famous son, Karl, (left) to write a series of articles in a liberal-radical newspaper (Rheinische Zeitung, RZ) about what became known as the Wood Theft Laws. What connects these two historical events, separated by geography and a few years? The answer is simple and complex at the same time: in both cases rural communities were denied a long established right to help themselves to firewood from the forests and surrounding woods. It sounds unimportant, trivial even, yet it became a burning issue – if somewhat localised – of the time, evoked much controversy and was indicative of wider and deeper trends. It was also important for the political development of the young Karl Marx.

All over Europe ideas and practices about ownership and inherited rights were in flux as economic needs, modes of production and demographic patterns changed. The last vestiges of feudalism were being erased and replaced by the new, dynamic yet more brutal mode of capitalism. The court case pursued by Heinrich Marx began when Karl was only nine yet it ran on into his adulthood and, in total he wrote five articles for the Rheinische Zeitung on this issue, all in 1842. It was not the first of his forays into radical journalism but it was one of the most important for the future author of The Communist Manifesto, written at a time when ‘Marxism’ was unheard of and the word ‘communism’ was being used for the first time in Germany. The young journalist from Trier, on the banks of the Moselle, considered himself a radical liberal, certainly not a communist or any of those other new-fangled labels that were just starting to circulate and soon to become common currency in Europe and elsewhere, particularly in the period leading up to the revolutions of 1848-9 and beyond. Socialist and communist thought (the two terms were interchangeable at this time) began to take root in Germany in 1842 starting with a key publication: Lorenz von Stein’s ‘The Socialism and Communism of Present Day France’. This book had strange origins particularly in light of the role it would later play. It was originally commissioned by the Prussian government and planned as a report on the influence of leftist ideas among German immigrant workers in Paris. Stein was no socialist but inadvertently his book became widely read and helped spread the ideas of socialism in Germany (no doubt to the embarrassment of the Prussian government).

Throughout Europe, for generations, those who worked on the land (loosely labelled as ‘peasants’, although this was not in any sense a homogenous class), had certain rights. In England these rights went as far back as the reign of Edward the Confessor (1042-1066). For our purposes there were two main elements to this entitlement: firstly, the right to access common land to graze pigs and cattle and secondly the right to access the forests to gather firewood for domestic use. In some areas wood-burning to make charcoal was also included in these rights although the charcoal burners and wood gatherers would occasionally clash. The situation varied from place to place: killing a deer generally brought severe retaliations from landowners but catching the odd rabbit for the pot was sometimes allowed, likewise fishing in rivers was permitted in some areas but banned in others. Collecting the ‘fruits of the forest’ (mushrooms, berries, nuts etc.) was also part of this complex and varied but well-established package of rights. There were other activities such as gleaning (scouring fields after the harvest for left-over grain
‘The Gleaners’ (Les Glaneuses) by Jean Francois Millet, completed in 1857. Gleaning, although somewhat outside of the terms of our discussion, was another ancient right which came under attack from farmers and landowners and was fiercely contested by the French peasantry. The practice continues to this day and modern day gleaners can also be found in those groups who search the ‘waste’ bins of supermarkets to procure foodstuffs which are still edible, as depicted in Agnes Varda’s film The Gleaners and I (2000).

And other crops such as grapes left on the vine) which existed as long-established rights and they too came under attack. The extent to which the peasantry relied on these rights to survive (particularly in times of a bad harvest or a harsh winter) is hard to assess but it can be said with some certainty that the right to gather wood for the home fire was essential for heating and cooking, without which life would be grim indeed. The erosion of the right of access to common land and the forests was fiercely contested. Peasants would often engage in stand-up fights with the landowners and their stewards and bailiffs and it was not unusual for the military or police to be called in to crack open a few peasant skulls. In one notorious instance in the village of Newton on 8 June 1607 in Northamptonshire, England, over 40 villagers were killed in fighting. While this was an exceptional case, deaths were not uncommon. The erosion of commons rights was an issue, but not the main one in the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 and was a central motivating element in the Jack Cade Revolt of 1450 and Kett’s Rebellion of 1549 (all in England). It was also a concern of the Levellers and Diggers during the period of the English Revolution. In Scotland the Highland Clearances (roughly 1750-1850) took on an exceptionally brutal aspect as whole families were forced off their land to make way for sheep rearing, many being forced to emigrate to North America.

In Switzerland, herdsmen take their cattle to the commons for summer grazing. From ‘A Short History of Enclosure’ by Simon Fairlie in The Land No. 7. Summer 2009.

In England, common land was closed off mainly for sheep grazing in order to supply the growing and extremely lucrative wool trade. By the reign of Henry V (1413-1422) around 63% of the Crown’s total income came from a tax on wool exports. Wool was big business – the commons simply got in the way. It was a long process and there had already been many enclosures before the first enclosure facilitated by an Act of Parliament in 1604 (there were others). In practice, this meant that a landowner had simply to apply for an enclosure to Parliament and it was usually granted. Many more applications were to follow, over 5,200 individual cases. To take just one of a myriad of examples: the last enclosure in the Sheffield area occurred in 1837 when 1,200 acres in the district of Totley were enclosed. The last enclosure in Britain, astonishingly, occurred as late as 1914! On mainland Europe the seizure of the commons did not always lead to such confrontational and bloody showdowns as at Newton but nevertheless the peasantry of the Rhineland, France, Sicily (which enclosed its commons in 1789) and elsewhere fought to protect their ancient rights, whether through the courts or through guerilla warfare, acts of sabotage or open conflict. The resort to the courts, as in the Rhineland, was unusual as legal cases were often too expensive a course to pursue and, of course, the judges were frequently drawn from the landowning class. This was not a time for the faint-hearted, many were prepared to stand up and fight for what they saw as their inalienable rights and death threats were not unusual, though it is not possible to know how many were actually ever carried out. The anonymous sentiments expressed below were probably not that usual, though in this particular case, the Lord of the Manor, wasn’t gunned down in the street.

Anonymous letter received by John Edward Dorington (and his son) Lord of the Manor, Gloucestershire, England, in 1864:

‘You are robbing the working class of the Parish and their offspring for ever in fact you are not gentlemen but robbers and vagabonds, however if it [the common land] is enclosed you shall never receive any benefit thereby as there are several on the lookout for you both and so help my God I am on the alert for you and if I have one chance of you I will shoot you as dead as mortal.’

To put it simply: firewood ceased to be something you picked up on the floor of a nearby forest and took home; it became a commodity to be sold on the market, as explained by Karl Kautsky in the first of his two volume work The Agrarian Question, written in 1899,


Once urbanisation had made wood into a desirable commodity – and in the absence of coal or iron a much more important building material and fuel than now – the feudal lords tried to grab forest lands, either by taking them off the Mark [German village with a strong communal ethos] communities to whom they belonged, or, where they themselves owned them, by restricting peasant access for the collection of wood and straw for grazing. (Kautsky 24)

As in Britain this was no recent development. Over 350 years before Kautsky put pen to paper, the rebellious peasants of the 1525 Peasant War, issued a famous statement of their beliefs. The peasants, ill-equipped and with little or no military training, were slaughtered at the Battle of Frankenhauser (15 May 1525) but they left to posterity their famous Twelve Articles, drawing attention to their ancient rights such as wood gathering and couched in the religious idiom of the time. The famous leader of the peasants, Thomas Muntzer did not write this but he penned a supporting document, The Constitutional Draft. Sections four and five of the Twelve Articles read as follows:

The Fourth Article. – In the fourth place it has been the custom heretofore, that no poor man should be allowed to catch venison or wild fowl or fish in flowing water, which seems to us quite unseemly and unbrotherly as well as selfish and not agreeable to the word of God. In some places the authorities preserve the game to our great annoyance and loss, recklessly permitting the unreasoning animals to destroy to no purpose our crops which God suffers to grow for the use of man, and yet we must remain quiet. This is neither godly or neighbourly. For when God created man he gave him dominion over all the animals, over the birds of the air and over the fish in the water. Accordingly it is our desire if a man holds possession of waters that he should prove from satisfactory documents that his right has been unwittingly acquired by purchase. We do not wish to take it from him by force, but his rights should be exercised in a Christian and brotherly fashion. But whosoever cannot produce such evidence should surrender his claim with good grace.

The Fifth Article. – In the fifth place we are aggrieved in the matter of wood-cutting, for the noble folk have appropriated all the woods to themselves alone. If a poor man requires wood he must pay double for it (or, perhaps, two pieces of money). It is our opinion in regard to wood which has fallen into the hands of a lord whether spiritual or temporal, that unless it was duly purchased it should revert again to the community. It should, moreover, be free to every member of the community to help himself to such fire-wood as he needs in his home. Also, if a man requires wood for carpenter’s purposes he should have it free, but with the knowledge of a person appointed by the community for that purpose. Should, however, no such forest be at the disposal of the community let that which has been duly bought be administered in a brotherly and Christian manner. If the forest, although unfairly appropriated in the first instance, was later duly sold let the matter be adjusted in a friendly spirit and according to the Scriptures.

The historian Christopher Clark in his monumental study of 1848-9, Revolutionary Spring, highlights how the enclosures and wood theft laws closed down the open spaces previously accessible to the rural population. The forest skirmishes and land battles in pre-1848 Europe were ‘… often (though not always) rearguard actions against the more homogenous and spatially delimited forms of ownership that would become characteristic of modern society’. (Clark 88) Clark’s academic language should not be allowed to hide the brutal reality of what this meant: hunger, starvation, immiseration and death for thousands of rural people throughout Europe.


In the Rhineland

In Prussia (which included the Rhineland) the issue became so toxic that between 1830-1836, 77% of all prosecutions were concerned, in one way or another, with forestry, hunting and pasture rights. Generally speaking peasants had, under the old system of rights, been allowed to gather wood which was lying on the ground. In some cases there were maximum dimensions to the wood which you could pick and cutting down branches was not allowed and could result in a severe penalty. Now, under the increasing restrictions being introduced even this wasn’t permitted. Given the large number of prosecutions it looks as if this policy was energetically policed by the landowners, through their bailiffs, hired hands and the police and then pursued through the courts.

Urban growth in the Rhineland during the 1800s was the fastest in the whole of what was to become Germany in 1871: The figures below show urbanisation rates (in %) between 1815 – 1850 in the Rhineland.

Although these figures are not as great as some areas in Europe they nevertheless indicate an increasing escalation in the urban population. These people had to be fed and they needed fuel for their fires. Urban growth was to have a profound effect on rural life, not least in the drift of the rural population to toil in the workshops and factories now beginning to develop in the new towns and cities; increasingly the rural economy was geared to feeding the urban population and centuries old patterns of agricultural practice were swept away. Marx’s words in the Communist Manifesto, ‘All that was solid melts in the air’ were rarely so appropriate. Wood was now collected by the landowners to be sold on the market in the growing towns and cities. If peasants collected firewood they could not use it for themselves unless they paid for it, or they could sell it to the landowner who in turn would sell it to merchants in the towns, at a profit of course.

Given that his father was the Advocate in the long-running legal battle around the Wood Theft Laws it is hardly surprising that the young Karl Marx became interested in the issue. Marx paid close attention to the debates in the Sixth Rhine Province Assembly about the Wood Theft Laws which took place between 23 May to 25 July. The Rhine Province was created in 1822 from the provinces of the Lower Rhine and Jülich-Cleves-Berg; its capital was Koblenz. The Assembly was formed a year later and was hardly democratic. The system of election was based on landownership which gave landowners a comfortable majority when it came to voting. Apparently, he attended all the sessions where the issue was discussed but, for reasons which are not clear, was not supplied with any of the relevant documentation pertaining to the issues raised in the chamber. Fortunately, he was an assiduous note-taker.

He reported, analysed and commented on what he heard in the Rheinische Zeitung (RZ) which had been established in January 1842 with Moses Hess as its editor. In October Marx was appointed to the editorial board. Before looking at what Marx wrote it is worth mentioning that, at this time in his life he was heavily influenced by the German philosopher Hegel who had taught at Berlin University before Marx arrived there. Although Hegel died in November 1831 and Marx arrived in Berlin in October 1836 the Hegelian influence was still very strong. Many of Marx’s early collaborators were Hegelians and he too fell under the spell of this philosopher who did much to shape the intellectual landscape of Germany and other parts of Europe. One result of this philosophical influence is that it renders some of what Marx wrote about the Wood Theft Laws rather abstract. In later years Marx turned away from Hegel (although never totally abandoning him) towards a class analysis based on historical materialism and a concentration on economic analysis as manifested in his monumental study Das Kapital, the first volume being published in German in 1867.

As a contributor and later as an editor on the RZ, Marx addressed a number of issues not least of which was the question of press censorship which was widely practiced at the time and would ultimately signal the death knell for the RZ in 1843. His concern for the Wood Theft Laws could be seen as an element in Marx’s growing awareness of what was often referred to, at the time, as the ‘social question’. There were numerous writings about the social conditions of the newly emergent working class which proliferated in the first half and middle of the 19thC: James Kay, Bettina von Armin, Heinrich Grunholzer, Ange Guépin and Eugene Bonamy were just five of these chroniclers of urban labour, poverty and destitution, to which we must add the classic study, The Condition of the Working Class in England written in 1845 (by which time Marx and his family were living in Belgium) by Marx’s future friend and collaborator Frederick Engels. Hal Draper elaborates,




Concern with the “social question” was not only new, it was the special characteristic of the pioneer socialists and communists whose ranks Marx was still unwilling to join. What was characteristic of these early radicals was that they mostly dissociated the “social question” from the “political question” (gaining freedom in the state) […] It was precisely Marx’s contribution to develop a communism that integrated into one consistent perspective both the battle for political democracy and the struggle on the “social question”. (Draper, Marx’s Theory of Revolution Vol. 1. p. 66)


Marx’s articles in the Rheinische Zeitung

Turning now to what Marx wrote in the RZ about the Wood Theft Laws, it is striking that he expends much energy writing in a mode that, from today’s perspective, could be called satirical (in fact throughout his life Marx displayed an abundant talent for this kind of expression and rarely missed an opportunity to ‘have a go’ at an opponent). He clearly regards the Assembly Deputies as a bunch of idiots and there are many examples of his talent for put-downs and insults, although he mentions no-one by name. Marx’s articles on the Wood Theft Laws are not easy to follow (apart from other considerations he thought the debates were ‘tedious and uninspired’). There are detailed accounts on what constitutes a right, what punishments are appropriate or not and the appointment of Forest Wardens and the role they play; none of which need detain us any further. What follows is an attempt to pick out the main issues and summarise what Marx wrote, not to provide a blow-by-blow account of what transpired in the debating chamber.

His first article (although they are usually referred to as Supplements) appeared in the RZ 298 in 25 Oct. 1842. The other Supplements appeared in No. 300 (27 Oct.), No. 303 (30 Oct.), No. 305 (1 Nov.), No. 307 (3 Nov.). Two main themes soon begin to emerge:

a) the rights of property versus the rights of the people.

b) the relation between the state and the property owner.

One of the key aspects of the wood theft debates is to what extent does an inherited right have over a new law which clearly works to the disadvantage of those who have previously benefitted from the old, well-established practice? Does a new law simply sweep away the old rights? The dynamo of capitalist development was rapidly changing the face of Europe (and the rest of the world would follow), what chance did a relatively small number of peasants in the Rhineland and elsewhere have of maintaining a practice that was perceived by many (particularly landowners) as outmoded and flew in the face of the inexorable march of modernity? What did it matter that a few peasants would have to abandon an age old right and, probably also, at some point, abandon their whole way of life and move to the cities? Why not succumb to the inevitable? Marx did not see it this way, his sympathies were clearly with the wood gatherers.

Marx argued in RZ 300 that ‘Little thought is needed to perceive how one-sidedly enlightened legislation has treated and been compelled to treat the customary rights of the poor…’ (in all quotes from RZ italics are as in the original). The very question of whether wood lying on the floor of the forest was property or not was a matter of debate as was the question, if indeed it was property, to whom did it belong? Marx elaborates,


‘…all customary rights of the poor were based on the fact that certain forms of property were indeterminate in character, for they were definitely not private property, but neither were they definitely not common property being a mixture of public and private right, such as we find in all institutions of the Middle Ages.’

‘Indeterminate’ is a key word here. The wood on the forest floor is not private property (as opposed to the trees themselves). The scattered branches are ‘accidental’ and ‘elemental’ and belong to what Marx called ‘occupation rights’, in other words to ‘those excluded from all other property’ (in this case the peasantry). Marx likened the loose wood to the ‘alms of nature’ and just as the poor could claim alms (money or food distributed to the destitute) which were given out in the street, so they could claim branches and twigs lying on the forest floor. The wood becomes an ‘accidental appendage of property’. The landowners were having none of this – an attitude starkly illustrated by the apparently innocuous practice of picking berries in the forests. Traditionally, this task was left to children and was another long-established customary right. The landowners did away with this practice and the berries too became part of the monopoly of the landowning class. As a Deputy explained in the Assembly and quoted by Marx ‘…in his area these berries have already become articles of commerce and are dispatched to Holland by the barrel.’

What was particularly striking to Marx was the way the Wood Theft Laws represented the power of the landowners over the elements of the state at both regional and local level. The authority of the state has become a servant of the landowners, ‘All the organs of the state become the ears, eyes, arms, legs by means of which the forest owner, observes, appraises, protects, reaches out, and runs.’ (RZ 303) Marx continued on this theme in RZ 305, ‘What then are the harmful results? Harmful is that which is harmful to the interest of the forest owner.’ The Deputies even discussed taking punishment out of the hands of the law and, in effect, giving it to the landowner. The possibility arose of making a convicted wood thief work (unpaid of course) for the landowner meaning that the landowner would actually profit from the activity of the wood thief. In this way crime would ‘pay’ twice over but only for the landowner. Marx, evoking the spirit of Jonathan Swift, commented, ‘We are only surprised that the forest owner is not allowed to heat his stove with wood thieves.’

In his final article on the Wood Theft Laws (RZ, 307 3 Nov. 1842) Marx attempted to sum up the situation. Private interest (i.e. of the landowners/capitalists) was paramount, all else was subordinate, ‘Our account has shown the Assembly degrades the executive power, the administrative authorities, the life of the accused, the idea of the state, crime itself and punishment as well, to material means of private interest.’ Considering that his father was a legal Advocate it must also have impressed itself upon the young Marx how the law was ‘outvoted’ by the Assembly Deputies. The principles of law, supposedly so sacrosanct to the ruling classes, were sacrificed to the interest of forest protection, for the sole benefit of the landowners,


This abject materialism, this sin against the holy spirit of the people and humanity, is an immediate consequence of the doctrine which the Preussische Staats-Zeitung [Prussian State Gazette – an official publication] preached to the legislator, namely that in connection with the law concerning wood he should think only of wood and forest and should solve each material problem in a non-political way, i.e. without any connection with the whole of the reason and morality of the state.’

The relationship of the state and local authority to the landowner was one which Marx had not yet fully worked out; this would come later beginning in 1843 with some critical notes on Hegel and The German Ideology (written in 1845-6 but not published till much later). At the time Marx has no developed analysis of the state and he expects the state authorities to defend the wood gatherers, which of course, is precisely what did not happen. Another crucial aspect of Marx’s thought, which he is only just beginning to understand, is the notion of class. He does not talk about the working class in his articles on wood theft although he does refer to the poor as the ‘elemental class of human society’. He sees in the poor many virtues and here we can also locate an area where Marx moved away from Hegel. The latter was utterly disdainful of the poor who he referred to as Pöbel (usually translated into English as ‘rabble’). All in all, Marx’s writings on the Wood Theft Laws were important stepping stones in his political development, as mentioned by Hal Draper, ‘His article on the Wood Theft Laws anticipated his critique of Hegel: the Diet debases the state officialdom into “material interests of private interests.” His article on the Moselle peasants emphasised the narrowmindedness of the bureaucratic mentality’. Much later, when Marx was dead, Engels, writing to R. Fischer in 1895, made much the same point, ‘I heard Marx say again and again that it was precisely through concerning himself with the wood theft laws and with the situation of the Moselle peasants that he was shunted from pure politics over to economic conditions, and thus came to socialism.’

The Rhineland at this time, although developing quickly was not a place where the industrial bourgeoisie yet held sway and in Germany as a whole, even after 1871, landowners, nobility and the new bourgeoisie all vied for control while keeping an eye over their shoulder at the growing proletariat in the cities. One key aspect of Bismarck’s rule was his attempt, not always successful, to play-off one class or section of a class, against another and later Marx and Engels were to regard his regime as Bonapartist in the same way (though not exactly) as the Bonapartism of the the great Napoleon’s less illustrious, nephew Louis. In time, Germany was to develop as one of the industrial powerhouses of the world, defeating France in the Franco-Prussian war of 1871, flexing its imperial muscles overseas (in Morocco for example), building a navy, a large army and gearing up for the First World War. None of which would have been possible without a powerful, highly productive industrial base. In this complex and unstoppable process the needs and rights of the Rhineland peasants were swept aside.



Sources and notes:

For general background reading there are a number of biographies of Marx which mention, in varying degrees of depth (and quality), his engagement with the Wood Theft Laws and, although it is not a biography, Hal Draper’s Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution Vol. 1. particularly chap. 2. ‘The Political Apprentice’ is excellent. The reference to the ‘Girls’ War’ or ‘Maidens’ War’ can be found in The Revolutionary Spring by Christopher Clark. The full text of the five ‘Wood Theft’ articles by Marx in the RZ can be found in various sources, I used the Marxist Internet Archive website which was also useful for footnotes giving background information (social makeup etc.) to the Assembly. For general background to issues around the question of land, land rights, enclosures etc. the journal The Land proved invaluable; the information about enclosures in Sheffield came from an article by Peter Harvey in the website our Broomhall.org.uk in 1982. The text of the threatening anonymous letter to John Edward Dorington can be found in a review by Dinah Birch of Penning Poison: A History of Anonymous Letters by Emily Cockayne in London Review of Books, 21 Sept. 2023. Karl Kautsky’s classic study The Agrarian Question was published in English (for the first time) in two volumes by Zwan Publications in 1988. The Twelve Articles can be easily found on various websites. Some ideas about Marx and Hegel were derived from Draper (see previous reference) and ‘The Virtue of Poverty: Karl Marx’s Transformation of Hegel’s Concept of the Poor by Erica Sherover, Canadian Journal of Political Social Theory Vol. 3. No. 1 (Winter 1979) pp 53-66. Figures for urban growth in the Rhineland came from: ‘Population Growth and Urbanisation in Germany in the 19th Century’, Jurgen Reulecke in Urbanism Past and Present. No. 4. (Summer, 1977) pp 21-32. Engels’ letter to R. Fischer (15 April, 1895) is quoted in Draper, see previous reference p. 75.

Note on a source not used: For various reasons I was not able to locate a copy of Daniel BensaÑ—d’s The Dispossessed: Karl Marx’ Debates on Wood Theft and the Rights of the Poor (University of Minnessota Press, Minneapolis, 2021). However, I understand that BensaÑ—d’s text uses Marx’s writings on wood theft primarily to discuss various issues arising in the 21st century and this is outside the remit of my basic introduction to the topic. BensaÑ—d was a highly respected theoretician and activist long associated with the international Trotskyist movement who died in 2010. A beautifully written assessment of his life and work can be found in chapter 11 of Paul Le Blanc’s Revolutionary Collective: Comrades, Critics, and Dynamics in the Struggle for Socialism (Chicago, Haymarket Books, 2022).

Cover illustration: Peasants on a path in the forest (oil on panel, painted in 1626) by Jasper van de Lanen of Antwerp (1585-1634).

Tuesday, August 08, 2023

UNINTENTIONAL IRONY

UK

‘Starmerism is not a Blairite project. New Labour’s liberal quality is under threat’


© Rupert Rivett/Shutterstock.com

In 1995, at a key moment in the creation of New Labour, Tony Blair gave a speech to the Fabian Society to mark the 50th anniversary of Clement Attlee’s 1945 victory. In his speech, Blair embedded New Labour within the work of philosophers such as JA Hobson and LT Hobhouse, pioneers of early 20th century New Liberalism.

The purpose behind Blair’s embrace was to reunite liberal and socialist traditions, a modern ‘LibLabism’ that earlier in the century had resulted in Labour’s first MPs in 1906 and the common campaigns of 1910. For Blair, the objective was a new progressive alliance to avoid a repeat of the Conservative domination of the 20th century and to build an anti-Tory coalition to win and retain power.

Labour’s 1992 defeat meant many modernisers remained fearful that the party might never again secure an outright victory. After that defeat, Blair had begun to meet privately with Alliance leader Paddy Ashdown to explore the future reconstruction of the left. Once leader, he privately stated to Ashdown that his preferred option was to include Lib Dem representatives in his government.

The landslide of 1997 removed the electoral imperative behind such changes. Yet Blair offered Ashdown membership of a joint cabinet committee to consider constitutional change, chaired by Blair himself, with equal representation from the two parties. Moreover, in December 1997, Blair established the Jenkins committee to recommend alternatives to the voting system.

Labour’s pluralist, liberal tradition has a rich history

The long-standing liberal left pluralist tradition within the party influenced the early phase of New Labour. There are three basic elements to this tradition.

First, a focus on questions of legal equality best expressed in the five decades of equalities legislation enacted by successive Labour governments from the 1960s culminating in the 2010 Equality Act. 

Second, the promotion of human rights derived from post-war concerns to defend and enhance human dignity and freedom given wartime experience of genocide and totalitarianism, reflected much later in the 1998 Human Rights Act. 

Third, confronting questions of constitutional and electoral reform to challenge the power of the state in the name of liberty and to advance citizenship. Initiatives such as reform of the House of Lords, devolution and freedom of information – all under the Blair government – reflect this emphasis.

This pluralist, liberal tradition has a rich history. It was on display with the pioneering social reforms of the 1960s under the guidance of Roy Jenkins. In the 1970s and 1980s, campaigners such as Tony Benn referenced the contribution of the Diggers, Levellers and Chartists when making the case for modern democratic and constitutional renewal. In the 1980s and 1990s, Charter 88 attracted widespread support from across the liberal, social democratic and socialist left. Above all, it can be identified in the embrace of human rights and constitutional reform by John Smith as Labour leader. In his first week as Prime Minister on July 3rd 2007, Gordon Brown argued for a written constitution.

This liberal plural tradition is under attack in the modern party

Today, this liberal plural tradition is under attack. Neal Lawson, a member for 44 years, is one of the most high profile advocates of pluralism in Labour. Neal is Labour through and through. In all the 30 years I have known him, he has continually demonstrated the Labour values that our party was built on: respect, tolerance, compassion and, importantly, pluralism. 

The soft left has historically been the group most committed to political and constitutional reform, to questions of liberty and freedom in their understanding of socialist justice. Compass, the think tank Neal leads, is the organisation most associated with upholding this tradition. Neal must have been targeted and threatened with expulsion for this reason.

My point is that what we are witnessing is not just an attack on Neal or Compass or the soft left. It is an attack on a liberal and pluralist tradition of justice pursued through democratic, constitutional and political reform and the pursuit of individual and human rights.

The right-wing faction who appear to be running the party, singling out Neal and deciding who is and is not a candidate or member come from a very different tradition – colder, more authoritarian and utilitarian, in which politics is all about state capture and factional control. Different political traditions have always coexisted around Labour. Every Labour leader has accepted this cohabitation.

Factionalism threatens our ability to challenge the status quo

Today, many see Starmerism as a New Labour restoration project. I don’t. New Labour had a liberal quality which is under threat in the modern party. The enduring features of New Labour’s first term – the Good Friday Agreement, devolution, new legal rights to equality, the Human Rights Act, freedom of information – show its liberal, plural quality.

After the next election one small, Leninist section of one party has no hope of tackling the huge issues facing our country, whether on climate, inequality or rebuilding our crumbling public services.

The threat to our party, and by extension the country, from this factionalism cannot be overstated. This is much bigger than Neal Lawson. It is about the character of the modern party and upholding the liberal, pluralist tradition within Labour. Neal is threatened, but something much more significant is at stake: our capacity to democratically challenge the existing social and economic order.

Saturday, April 29, 2023

May Day and Abolition


 
LONG READ
Facebook

Image Source: The Haymarket Riot – Harper’s Weekly – Public Domain

“Murther, murther, murther, murther …” shouted Free-born John Lilburne from prison. “M’aidez, m’aidez,” says the international distress signal. Murder is the crime, and help is the need. That is the dynamic of the day, May Day. It’s methodology therefore requires answers to two questions: Who? Whom?

We remember los martiros, that is the martyrs who were hanged for their support of the Eight Hour Day and the police riot at Haymarket, Chicago. That struggle commenced on May 1st 1886. Who? Whom? The bosses hanged the workers. Their names were August Spies, Albert Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel. Their hanging was judicial murder or state sponsored terror. “The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the voices you are throttling today.” Their last words, our prologue. The Haymarket hangings were preparation for mass murder at Wounded Knee (1890). Who? Whom? The army massacres the Lakotas.

The tendency of capitalism is the global devaluation of labor, an abstraction covering over the four-fold murders of war, famine, pestilence, and neglect that characterize our neo-liberal, incarcerating, planet-wrecking times. It is the widespread whisper, the secret thought, the unindicted accusation as more and more are shot, gassed, get sick, starve, drown, burn, or have to move out so that entrepreneuring gentry may move in. Call it expropriation, call it exploitation, combine them and you have X squared; add extraction and you have X cubed, or the formula of capitalism. No matter what you call it, we live in murderous times.

The time is out of joint—O cursèd spite,
That ever I was born to set it right!
Nay, come, let’s go together. (I.v.188-90)

So, to all the Hamlets out there suffering from cursed spite, remember Shakespeare’s wise words, “let’s go together.” It’s May Day! The day of pleasure, the day of struggle. A day for the green, a day for the red. We want more time, as Linton Kwesi Johnson sings. More time in both senses referring to the years of our lives and to the seven generations hence. More personal time, more human/species/historical time.

The Maypole and the Hydra

Thomas Morton and a boat load of indentured servants arrived in Massachusetts in 1624. They settled in Passonagessit, or what became Merry Mount (modern day Quincy just south of Boston). In 1627 they celebrated May Day by erecting an 80 foot May pole. The following year the Puritans destroyed it and the settlement.

The Puritan Governor of Massachusetts, William Bradford, describes what happened. “They also set up a May-pole, drinking and dancing about it many days together, inviting the Indian women, for their consorts, dancing and frisking together, (like so many fairies, or furies rather,) and worse practices. As if they had anew revived and celebrated the feasts of the Roman Goddess Flora, or the beastly practices of the mad Bacchanalians. Morton likewise (to show his poetry,) composed sundry rimes and verses, some tending to lasciviousness, and others to the detraction and scandal of some persons, which he affixed to this idle or idol May-pole.”

The dance around the Maypole included former indentured servants from England, a Ganymede, several Algonquin people, youth and age, men and women. The dances were inspired by animals of the forest. Perhaps a morris dance or “Moorish” dance. Puritans had been fighting it for years. A poem was made, Bachanalia Triumphant, a year after its destruction, 1629

Nathaniel Hawthorne called it “that gay colony” where“jollity and gloom contended for an empire.” In his story, “The Maypole of Merry Mount” (1837), he describes “the Salvage Man, well known in heraldry, hairy as a baboon, and girdled with green leaves.” Twice he refers to rainbows once on the ribbon of the Maypole and once on the “scarf of a youth in glistening apparel.” Nathaniel Hawthorne alludes to the great central European Peasant’s Revolt a century earlier in 1526 when the rainbow was the sign of those fighting to retain access to the life-giving gifts of river and forest, the commons. Thus the rainbow was the earliest flag of the settler-indigenous encounter and suggests alternative to the bloody flag of war or the white one of surrender. Plus, it was emblematic of the commons.

Of May Day Philip Stubbes reported in The Anatomy of Abuses (1583), “I have heard it credibly reported (and that viva voce) by men of great gravity and reputation, that of forty, three score or a hundred maids going to the wood overnight, there have scarcely the third part of them returned home again undefiled. These be the fruits which these cursed pastimes bring forth.” The Puritan Christopher Fetherston fulminated against cross-dressing in his Dialogue Against Light, Lewd and Lascivious Dancing (1582). ‘For the abuses which are committed in your May games are infinite. The first whereof is this, that you do use to attire men in women’s apparel, whom you do most commonly call May Marions, whereby you infringe that straight commandment which is given in Deuteronomy  22.5. That men must not put on women’s apparel for fear of enormities.’

Puritans saw only “enormities” and “cursed pastimes.” These seem to have disappeared by the Victorian era. The poet Alfred Tennyson did much to domesticate the tradition with his long poem The May Queen (1855).

So you must wake and call me early, call me early mother dear,
Tomorrow’ll be the happiest time of all the glad New Year,
Tomorrow’ll be of all the year the maddest, merriest day,
For I’m to be Queen of the May, mother, I’m to be Queen of the May!

May Day was becoming a children’s holiday. In Oxfordshire the kids were trying to turn it to advantage. They chanted.

Please to see my garland
Because it’s the First of May
Give me a penny
Then I will go away.

Thomas Morton was the wildest person there according to Hawthorne. “Up with your nimble spirits, ye morris-dancers, green men, and glee maidens, bears and wolves, and horned gentlemen! Come; a chorus now, rich with the old mirth of Merry England, and the wilder glee of this fresh forest, and then a dance.”

Thomas Morton told the story. He did so in a book that could not be printed or published in England, The New English Canaan, published in Amsterdam in 1637. The English authorities confiscated four hundred of them on import. We don’t know that Free-born John Lilburne had a hand in the smuggling, though he might have since time and place were right. More anon.

The Green Man, that gentle soul of the earth and growing things, quite the opposite of the American AR-15 type of guy! A Green Man appears on the invitation for the coronation for King Charles III and Queen Camilla (the billionaires), designed by heraldic artist and manuscript illuminator Andrew Jamieson. Here it is on the invitation to attend next week’s coronation of Charles III.

The royal website explains this inclusion: “Central to the design is the motif of the Green Man, an ancient figure from British folklore, symbolic of spring and rebirth, to celebrate the new reign. The shape of the Green Man, crowned in natural foliage, is formed of leaves of oak, ivy and hawthorn, and the emblematic flowers of the United Kingdom.” A fertility figure or a nature spirit, similar to the woodwose (the wild man of the woods), and yet he frequently appears, carved in wood or stone in churches, chapels, abbeys and cathedrals.

Sculptures of Green Men provide curious ornamentation to medieval churches, universities, furniture, and fixtures – oak leaves disgorged from mouths, leaves sprouting from eyebrows, hawthorn leaves spewing from ears, nostrils, and eyes. Foliage crowns, leaf heads. They grimace, leer, smile, brood, or scowl. They make mischief or anguish and stir up mysteries making us think of Roman fauns, the wodewose or hairy wild man of the Dark Ages, the Hindu kirtimukha, or the Puck of the woodlands. The ancient Egyptian God Osiris is commonly depicted with a green face representing vegetation, rebirth and resurrection. Sometimes the figures of Robin Hood and Peter Pan are associated with a Green Man. The green man was adopted by Church and Monarchy as a kind of peripheral iconography. Green men ornament the quad of St John’s College, Oxford, that was commissioned by Archbishop William Laud, the would-be nemesis of Free-born John Lilburne.

The Puritan parliament in 1644 banned the erection of maypoles, declaring them ‘a heathenish vanity, generally abused to superstition and wickedness.’  Under Cromwell’s Protectorate the pendulum swung entirely in the Puritan direction; the May revels were shut down everywhere. In Oxford the antiquarian, Anthony Wood, reported: ‘1648 May 1. This day the Visitors, Mayor, and the chief officer of the well-affected of the University and City spent in zealous persecuting of the young people that followed May-Games, by breaking of Garlands, taking away fiddles from Musicians, dispersing Morrice-Dancers, and by not suffering a green bough to be worn in a hat or stuck up at any door, esteeming it a superstition or rather an heathenish custom.’

May Day celebrations, banned under the Commonwealth, were revived in 1660. When Charles II returned to England, common people in London put up maypoles “at every crossway”, according to John Aubrey. The largest was the Maypole in the Strand. The Maypole there was the tallest by far, reaching over 130 feet, half again taller than Merry Mount’s Maypole. It was blown over by a high wind in 1672, when it was moved to serve as a mount for the telescope of Sir Isaac Newton. Thomas Hobbes who tutored Charles II in math believed the Maypole was a left over from the time the Romans worshipped Priapus. The earliest reference to Maypole in England is time of the Peasant’s Revolt, 14th century.

The Maypole revelers were defeated Myles Standish and Governor Endicott. Morton was arrested, exiled, and imprisoned. The Maypole was toppled and the settlement burnt. The Maypole became a whipping post. Some are suspected of witchcraft, and whipped.

The Boston Puritans compared these folk to the many-headed Hydra. Frightened “Of Hydras hideous form and dreadful power … Hydra prognostics ruin to our state.” Morton was brought to trial, the Puritan magistrate deliberated.

Sterne Radamantus, being last to speak,
Made a great hum and thus did silence break:
What if, with ratling chains or Iron bands,
Hydra be bound either by feet or hands,
And after … lash’d with smarting rods,

In addition to its several heads, no sooner was one cut off than others grew in its place. This was so frequent a charge against the landless people of the world, the crowds of its towns, and the ships’ crews in the era of settler colonialism and age of primary accumulation that Marcus Rediker and I took it as a symbol for the circulation of struggles among the various components of the nascent proletariat against their rulers and oppressors. Evidently we were not the first to do so!

We the working class, or we the people, or we commoners determine what we make and not just how we make it or who does the making, and that this is required in the face of climate change and what geologists term “planetary perturbations.”  Human society must find its nature in an ecology that saves the waters, saves the soil, saves the air for purposes of life.  This is why, as the Red Nation teaches us, indigenous sovereignty (Land Back!) and decarbonzation require us to look again at history with a view of the commons. Morton was among people who were commoning, bringing together various forms of mutuality based upon English celebration and indigenous commons. Here is Morton’s testimony.

“The more I looked, the more I liked it. And when I had more seriously considered of the beauty of the place, with all her faire endowments, I did not think that in all the known world it could be paralleled, for so many goodly groves of trees, dainty fine round rising hillocks, delicate faire large plain, sweet crystal fountains, and clear running streams that twin in fine meanders through the meads, making so sweet a murmuring noise to hear as would even lull the senses with delight a sleep, so pleasantly do they glide upon the pebble stones, jetting most jocundly where they do meet and hand in hand run down to Neptunes Court, to pay the yearly tribute which they owe to him as sovereign Lord of all the springs. Contained within the volume of the Land, [are] Fowles in abundance, Fish in multitude; and [I] discovered, besides, millions of turtledoves one the green boughs, which sat pecking of the full ripe pleasant grapes that were supported by the lusty trees, whose fruitful load did cause the arms to bend: [among] which here and there dispersed, you might see Lilies and of the Daphnean-tree: which made the Land to me seem paradise: for in mine eye t’was Nature’s Masterpiece.”

Here is the green vision, idle for sure, idol not at all. Here’s what he says about dwellings (places for rest) and about shoes (needed for locomotion).

“The Natives of New England are accustomed to build themselves houses much like the wild Irish,” he says in lines that might as well have come straight out of Braiding Sweetgrass. “They gather poles in the woods and put the great end of them in the ground, placing them in form of a circle or circumference, and, bending the tops of them in form of an arch, they bind them together with the bark of walnut trees, which is wondrous tough, so that they make the same round on the top for the smoke of their fire to ascend and pass through; these they cover with mats, some made of reeds and some of long flags, or sedge, finely sewed together with needles made of the splinter bones of a crane’s leg, with threads made of their Indian hemp, which there grows naturally, leaving several places for doors, which are covered with mats, which may be rolled up and let down again at their pleasure, making use of the several doors, according as the wind sits. The fire is always made in the middle of the house, with windfall commonly, yet sometimes they fell a tree that grows near the house, and, by drawing in the end thereof, maintain the fire on both sides, burning the tree by degrees shorter and shorter, until it be all consumed, for it burns night and day.”

At the time of the making of the English working class shoemakers were the most numerous artisanal craft. We’ll see that they provided John Lilburne with his revolutionary impetus. So here’s the Algonquin shoe. “They make shoes of moose skins, which is the principal leather used to that purpose; and for want of such leather (which is the strongest) they make shoes of deer skins, as they dress bare, they make stockings that comes within their shoes, like a stirrup stocking, and is fastened above at their belt, which is about their middle.”

“They love not to be cumbered with many utensils, and although every proprietor knows his own, yet all things (so long as they will last), are used in common amongst them: a biscuit cake given to one, that one breaks it equally into so many parts as there are persons in his company, and distributes it. Plato’s commonwealth is so much practiced by these people.” (Except that Plato’s republic excluded the poet.) The encounter makes Morton think. “If our beggars of England should, with so much ease as they, furnish themselves with food at all seasons, there would not be so many starved in the streets, neither would so many jails be stuffed, or gallows furnished with poor wretches, as I have seen them.” Morton grasps X cubed whose operation depends exactly on stuffed jails and wretches swinging in the wind, that is, mass incarceration and capital punishment.

In 1637 Harvard College was founded, and the first slave ship from Massachusetts launched its criminal expedition. Seven thousand English Bibles were printed in Amsterdam. They campaigned to capture Connecticut, and the lucrative fur trade, against Pequot control of exchange of pelts and wampum and European trade goods. William Bradford, the first governor of Massachusetts, said of the indigenous, “they die like rotten sheep.” Then he takes the land it “being the Lord’s waste.” Six or seven hundred Pequots were slaughtered one morning in May. In that same month of May the antinomians of Massachusets were defeated. Soon Anne Hutchinson would be tried and begin her exile. Governor Wm. Bradford of Plymouth, “It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire, and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof.” Fort Mystic massacre. They were burned alive in “a flaming funeral pyre,” writes its historian, Al Cave.

Who? Whom? The Puritans decapitated the Hydra.

Freeborn John, Abolitionist

John Lilburne belonged to the radical publishing underground. He also was in Amsterdam at the time. The history and significance of the English Revolution could not be told without him. As a founder of the Levellers he was a leading head of the Hydra. Moreover neither he nor them can be understood without May Day.

He was arrested in England at the end of 1637 and brought to the terrifying court of the Star Chamber. “The Lord according to his promise was pleased to be present with me by his special assistance, that I was enabled without any dauntedness of spirit, to speak unto that great and noble assembly, as though they had been but my equals.” The attorney general and the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, tried to examine him but he refused to take the oath on the grounds that any answer he gave might incriminate him. There was no 5th amendment at the time. His refusal, in fact, is the origin of that constitutional right. For his refusal Archbishop Laud made him suffer – five hundred lashes delivered on his bare back at the cart’s tale two miles across London, hours pinioned in the pillory in Westminster, and then assigned to the Fleet prison where the keeper was instructed to keep him “close” (solitary), to shackle his legs in irons, to deny him medical attention, to prevent visitors, and not to feed him. He was kept in a cell where he could not stand up. Only a fire in the prison led to the alleviation of his conditions.

Yet, communication had been established thanks to a support network bravely and resourcefully knit together in which women were prominent. Pamphlets soon appeared – Work of the Beast (1638), Come out of her, my People (1639), The Christian Man’s Trial (1641) – and these were scattered about Moorfields among London’s excitable apprentices or helter-skelter in London’s streets. The seed of a new force was generated, a London crowd, that will operate as one of the contending forces along with King, Army, and Parliament during the English revolution.

The May Day riot of apprentices and sailors against the domicile of the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, in Lambeth Palace across the river Thames from the Houses of Parliament. Here the exclusive purveyor of ideology sought to control press, books, schools, and assemblies. Uniform, “thorough,” totally a state operation, everything on high, the established religion was such that you could not speak in church, only pray. And pay.

Who? Whom? Lilburne versus Laud.

In 1639 John Lilburne listened to Samuel How preach, a shoemaker, and had an awakening, an enlightenment that set him squarely on a revolutionary path with prisoners, sailors, and apprentices.  “Make your selves equal to them of the lower sort,” the cobbler advised. These folks listened to scriptures like Bob Dylan listened to Woody Guthrie – listened, spoke, wrote, and sang. They absorbed and were transformed.  The scripture that the cobbler expounded upon was from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:27-28): “And he hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty, and base things of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, yea, things which are not to bring to nought things that are.” In this Biblical culture this particular passage will be quoted or cited or paraphrased by Levellers, Diggers, and Ranters. It is easy to see why: it prophecizes the end of the existing order and it opens the question of class agency and class composition.

With the beginning of hostilities in the civil war between Charles I and Parliament Lilburne joined the Parliamentary army, saw combat, was wounded, and damaged his eye. One of his fellow soldiers, Thomas St Nicolas, was a poet, lawyer, and parliamentarian. In early May 1643 he was imprisoned in Ponetefract Castle by the Royalist army along with other common Puritan soldiers.

To see poor men stripped to their shirts and driven
Ten miles or twelve barefoot, some six or seven
Tied by the thumbs together, some, that stood
With shirts like boards stiffened with cold gore blood
Surbate and lamed i’the feet with walking bare

They were forbidden from praying collectively, they were packed tight together, friends and relations were forbidden to bring even “sorry rags t’the grate” or a bowl of milk; instead they sang psalms including Psalm 142 (“Set me free from my prison”) and Psalm 137 (“By the river of Babylon we sat down and wept”). Despite “close” conditions of deprivation and sickness, he woke after a long night,

And yet next morn to hear these caged birds sing,
To hear what peals of psalms they forth did ring,
To see their spirits not yet by these brought under,
Made their poor friends rejoice, their foes to wonder;
Would make a neuter in the cause believe
These men have somewhat whereupon to live,
Somewhat within when all without is gone,
The cause they fought for sure is right or none.

He makes us realize that in addition to the dialectic of Who? Whom? There is another dialectic between “within” and “without,” or subjectivity and objectivity. They knew what they fought for, loved what they knew, and sang about it.

Prison abolition became part of the Leveller program.  Small wonder, since that’s where they spent so much time.  Free-born John was locked up or exiled for most of the Revolution, victimized by the Bishops, by Star Chamber, by the House of Lords, by the House of Commons, and finally by Oliver Cromwell.  These were the institutions of the grandees who thought “men’s merits are measured by the aker, weighed by the pound.”  Prison experience could be hard time too, in solitary or “close” confinement, legs shackled in irons, without medical care to his wounds, denied visitors, putrid water, lousy rags, crumbs for food if anything.  He petitioned Parliament over and over again but found his most trusted allies among sailors, ‘prentices, and poor old women.  “I resolved,” he wrote in 1647, ” … to make my complaint to the Commons of England, and to see what … the Hobnayles, and the clouted Shooes will do for me.”  He referred to the footwear of people who walked on the soil and through the mud and muck of horse traffic.  These were the “commons.”   He feared for his life in prison, and indeed one of his guards had formerly been the executioner, the hangman. He appealed directly to London’s apprentices.  “Wherefore unto all you stout and valiant Prentizes, I cry out murther, murther, murther, murther ….”

William Walwyn was a polished ironist and subtle critic with a plausible pen. He was a man of means and Lilburne’s adroit and influential comrade who wrote pamphlets, organized defense of his imprisoned friend calling meetings, appointing committees, drafting petitions, getting them printed, paid for, circulated, and delivered with a noisy throng to the door of the House of Commons. What C.L.R. James will call the first political party with particular view to franchise. We have to add that this movement grew in relation to the imprisonment of its leaders. It’s not just that Lilburne’s expressed views were those of a prison abolitionist; his prison experiences triggered an explosive insurrectionary revolutionary movement.

In 1648 he wrote at least four pamphlets comprising, his biographer says, a comprehensive condemnation of the prison system.  They were The Prisoner’s Mournful Cry, The Prisoner’s Plea for a Habeas Corpus, The Lawes Funerall, and England’s Weeping Spectacle.  His August 1646 pamphlet Liberty vindicated against Slavery indicted the prison system as you can tell from its subtitle, Shewing that imprisonment for debt, refusing to answer interrogatories, long imprisonment though for just causes, abuse of prisoners, cruel extortion of prison keepers, are all destructive to the fundamental laws and common freedoms of the people.  To the Levellers slavery and prison were overlapping structures of oppression. They were abolitionists. The campaign in 1646 to free him from imprisonment in the Tower spawned the Leveller party and led to An Agreement of the People for a firm and present peace upon grounds of Common Right.

From Newgate prison he wrote Liberty Vindicated Against Slavery (1646). “But alas we have but the shadow of it [liberty], we by the subtilty of Lawyers, are only free men in name, the English man’s freedom is now become worse than the Turkish slavery, how many of us lye and languish in your murthering prisons to the provoking of the God of Justice unto wrath against you) & our wives & children thereby exposed to all want & misery; whose loud cries and tears (doubtless) will draw down vengeance from the just hand of Heaven upon you (if not speedily prevented by administration of justice.)”

They drafted and argued for the Agreement amidst the soldiers (October 1647), and revised, and argued for it again before Parliament (Dec. 1648), and a third time revised and published from imprisonment in the Tower of London, An Agreement of the People, this time on May Day 1649.  This was the first democratic constitution.  It is the precedent to the Constitution of the U.S.A. but better.  The U.S.A. constitution had to be quickly amended with the Bill of Rights.  It used to be well-known and Supreme Court judge, Hugo Black made clear in his dissenting opinion to Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947), that the first eight amendments owe their origins to the defenses that Free-born John Lilburne created in his trials during the English Revolution. The right to face your accuser, the right to hear the accusation, the right to refrain from self-incrimination, the right to counsel are some of the rights originating in Lilburne’s tenacious creativity in the teeth of the autocratic court. Equality before the law, religious toleration, manhood suffrage, abolition of debtors prison, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, for these too he fought and suffered and in time, seven generations down the line, were won (it seemed).

That May Day Agreement of the People shall be a caution, a warning, and a challenge to readers in 2023.  It came from prison!  It came on May Day!  The attack on Archbishop Laud’s Lambeth Palace which we illustrated in the Hydra. The ‘prentices and sailors are the artisans or crafts people who will be devalued as the division of labor extolled by Adam Smith grows apace, and they are the sailors of a global proletariat of the mercantilist imperial state.  The May Day 2023 themes are class composition, incarceration, and social constitution. Who will bring to nought the things that are? M’aidez! M’aidez!

Pauline Gregg asked of the Leveller programs, “What was there … to appeal to the landless labourer or to the industrial wage-earner?” She continued, “If the Levellers instead of repudiating, had entered into alliance with the dispossessed, represented by the Diggers, would the issue have been any different?” Winstanley believed that Parliament’s declaration of a free commonwealth authorized the sort of communist society which the Diggers wished to see established.

Levellers and Diggers did not join. The 30th article in the Agreement of the People made the reason plain: “That it shall not be in the power of any representative, in any wise to … to level men’s Estates, destroy Propriety, or make all things Common.” No sooner said than challenged. An anonymous comrade combined the words for tyranny and hypocrisy to make “tyrannipocrit” and wrote, “All you who have cast out any old tyrants, consider seriously what you have yet to do, and so near as you can make and maintain an equality of all goods and lands; …. Which if you will not perform, you are worse than the old tyrants, because you did pretend to a bettering, which they did not.”

In January 1649 Charles I was decapitated. In April 1649 Gerrard Winstanley and the Diggzers began to dig. On May Day the Leveller collective imprisoned in the Tower of London published the Agreement of the People.

We want another “world.”  Another is possible. The world of soul, of spirit, of life, something as of yet unheard of, at once necessary and kind.  The Levellers and the True Levellers, the imprisoned Lilburne, the digging Winstanley, can help.  Four years later on May Day 1649 the Levellers imprisoned in the Tower published The Agreement of the People.   It needs remembering because American revolutionaries need to put into words how we intend to constitute ourselves, separate “identities” notwithstanding, in common and with commons. Land Back and Reparations.

The Agreement of the People concludes, “Thus, as becometh a free People, thankful … for this blessed opportunity, and desirous to make use thereof … in taking off every yoke, and removing every burden, in delivering the captive, and setting the oppressed free; we have in all the particular Heads [headings] forementioned, done as we would be done unto…”

John Lilburne cried from his prison cell in 1648. “Wherefore unto all you stout and valiant Prentizes [apprentices] I cry out murther, murther, murther, murther.” On May Day 1649 his prison collective published An Agreement of the People, the first democratic constitution. Free-born John Lilburne was a dedicated life-long abolitionist who opposed slavery and prison with equal fervor. As a young man ten years earlier he had to elude anonymous assassins in prison, now with the defeat of his party in 1650, he found it necessary again to call for help in prison conditions of darkness and bad air where murder lay easily in the shadows.

John Lilburne appealed to the commons. By this he did not mean House of Commons whose members were measured by “the aker and weighed by the pound.” By commons he referred to the common people, particularly to “hobnayles and clouted shoon.” Clouts were cleats, squared headed nails hammered to the sole, either or together they provided a grip to the mud, muck, and mire for all those who walked the ground or worked the earth. They were not footwear for nobles who rode horses. They were class signifiers.

Who? Whom? The acres and pounds versus hobnayles and clouted shoon.

Since the end of the 14th century the commonalty of people imagined the body politic in their own vernacular: I quote David Rollison. “The head is the king. The neck holds up the head and is a just judge, the pillar of justice. The breast fills the body with life-giving breath, allowing good spirits in and keeping bad spirits out, just like a good priest. Lords are shoulders and backbone; arms are knights. ‘Yeomen’ are fingers. They grasp and control the earth and the commonalty that works it. Lawyers are ribs to protect the heart, thighs are merchants ‘that bear the body’ and maintain boroughs and cities … and good households of great plenty.’ Artisans are the legs, ‘for all the body they bear, as a tree bears branches’. The feet are ‘all honest [trewe] tillagers of the lands [with] plough and all that dig the earth. All the world stands on them.’ The toes are faithful servants, without which the tillagers themselves ‘may not stand.’ Yet toes, feet, and legs do not speak.”

Analysis of class forces during the English revolution included the cavaliers (established church and king), the roundheads (merchants and masters), and finally the many-headed Hydra including the “hobnayles and clouted shoon” who have been historically mute. This was changing from quiet murmuring to Lilburne’s shout. Even the written historical archive allows us to see that by the 1640s everything had changed. The enclosure of land, the loss of the commons began its steady two century progress, Parliamentary enclosure act by Parliamentary enclosure act until England itself was closed.

If we do not hear the tongue of silent common people during the 1640s, we can at least read their words including those by the most prolific pamphleteering prisoner the world had yet known. The importance of the “toes” of England must include Elizabeth Dewell who became the wife of Freeborn John, Elizabeth Lilburne. She served him well bringing food and raiment to prison, smuggling out his manuscripts, eluding the censors, finding surreptitious printing presses unknown to the pursuivants of power, petitioning the powerful in court or Parliament. Women made life possible for Free-born John, in and out of prison.  She saved his life on numerous occasions interposing her body when he was attacked by guards, all the while trying to preserve the lives of all their children.  Mary, Overton’s wife, similarly was his life-line in Newgate and the Tower.  Yet massive repression was directed against women at the time. Much of this occurred at the same time that the Witchfinder General, as Matthew Hopkins termed himself, was hanging sixteen women and two men as witches in Bury St. Edmunds in 27 August 1645. Two weeks earlier Lilburne was committed to Newgate.  1645 was the year when the Leveller party emerged with the publication of Lilburne’s Englands Birth-right Justified.  

page151image790718416

Francis Quarles’ Emblemes (London: 1696)

Through his life Freeborn John paid close attention to the feet. It was the preaching in 1639 of Samuel How, a cobbler, which led to Lilburne’s momentous spiritual and political insight that turned the world upside down. It was another shoemaker, Luke Howard, who visited him in 1653 in the dungeon of Dover castle and convinced him in the outer darkness of historical defeat to rely on an inner light. Lilburne’s spiritual life was grounded in a literal sense. After the victorious battle of Naseby (164) he petitioned Parliament to provide the soldiers with shoes and socks. It was reported that a bootmaker refused to size him for a new pair of riding boots in the belief that he had not length of life left to wear them. Shoes were needed for locomotion, locomotion is the basis of human freedom, hence the African-American spiritual with its who? whom?:

I got shoes, you got shoes,
All God’s children got shoes.
When I get to Heaven gonna put on my shoes,
Gonna walk all over God’s Heav’n, Heav’n, Heav’n,
Everybody talkin’ ‘bout Heav’n ain’t goin’ there

The Levellers did not speak for them all. Diggers, or true levellers, were closer to the ground than Levellers who organized only in opposition to authority in state or church. The Diggers attempted to by-pass them, going straight to the goods, the earth. What Diggers and Levellers have in common is the commons but this term had different meanings to them. To Levellers the commons are the people. To Diggers commons may refer to lakes, land, shore, rivers, other relations. The concept of the “nation” is to mix up the people and the land; it’s imaginary precisely because it is without the commons in either sense of the term. History from below gives the toes, feet, and legs leave to speak.

Thomas Morton tells how the Algonquin people of Massachusetts shared utensils and cake, the commons of consumption we might say. To Gerrard Winstanley the whole earth was a common treasury, the very ground and land. “Work together, break bread together,” he said. A commons of production we could add. John Lilburne saw the hobnayles and clouted shoes, the free-born people, as the commons, the commons of ‘we the people.’ Opposed to them were the settler colonists enclosing by conquest, the King and gentry enclosing by command, and the Parliament enclosing by statute. Who? Whom? Ian Angus tells the story in The War Against the Commons.

On May Day 2023 we look back to the intersectionality of the first Maypole in Turtle Island. On May Day 2023 we can look back to the primacy of the people and fellow creatures or relations of the species of the woods, fields, rivers, air, and seas. We’ll also find that our Bill of Rights, our struggle for universal adult franchise, the demand for an equality of the delights, comforts, and joys of life – they might call it the common wealth, all this bears a direct relation to the historical forces brought together by that first May Day on Turtle Island, Passonagessit to be precise. They can’t be attained without the red side of May Day, that is the class struggle, and agreements of the people.

Therefore from this part of the world, the Great Lakes, we call for solidarity with the women of the Giniw collective protecting our waters. We call for solidarity with the graduate students on strike at the University conveying knowledge to the next generation. We call for solidarity with the opponents of Cop City in Atlanta, Georgia, and the preservation of the forest that it threatens. We call for solidarity with the incarcerated in penitentiary, prison, and jail. On May Day we connect the dots.

Thanks to Michaela Brennan, Tim Healey, Joe Summers, Janie Paul, and all my friends at Retort, ECI, and Under the Bus. 

Some References

Ian Angus, The War Against the Commons: Dispossession and Resistance in the Making of Capitalism (Monthly Review Press, 2023).

Anon, Tyranipocrit Discovered (Rotterdam, 1649)

William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation (many editions)

Alfred A. Cave, The Pequot War (Amherst, Mass.: 1996)

Silvia Federici, Caliban and the Witch (Autonomedia, 2004)

Pauline Gregg, Free-born John: A Biography of John Lilburne (London, 1961)

Tim Healey, The Green Man in Oxfordshire (2022)

Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down (1972)

Robin Wall Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teaching of Plants (Milkweed, 2013)

Peter Linebaugh, The Incomplete, True, Authentic, and Wonderful History of May Day (PM Press, 2016)

Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker, The Many-Headed Hydra (Beacon Press, 2000)

Thomas Morton, The New English Canaan (Amsterdam, 1637)

Thomas St. Nicholas, For My Son (1643)

Janie Paul, Making Art in Prison: Survival and Resistance (Hat & Beard, 2023)

John Rees, The Leveller Revolution: Radical Political Organization in England, 1640-1650 (Verso, 2016)

David Rollison, A Commonwealth of the People: Popular Politics and England’s Long Revolution, 1066-1649 (Cambridge, 2010)

Franklin Rosemont and David Roediger (eds.), Haymarket Scrapbook (Chicago AK Press, 2012)

Peter Linebaugh is the author of The London HangedThe Many-Headed Hydra: the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic (with Marcus Rediker) and Magna Carta Manifesto. Linebaugh’s latest book is Red Round Globe Hot Burning. He can be reached at: plineba@gmail.com