Winstanley Between History and Ideology
The 2011 Verso edition of A Common Treasury, introduced by
Tony Benn, compiles Gerrard Winstanley's writings—arguably the most radical
figure of the English Revolution. It calls for serious critical reflection, not
only because of Winstanley’s historical importance but also because Benn’s
admiration for him exposes the political decline of Labour reformism. When
parliamentary socialists adopt revolutionary figures, it is never a neutral
act; it is an ideological move aimed at domestically shaping the past to meet
current needs. To truly grasp Winstanley, one must place him within the class
struggles of the 1640s; to understand Benn, one must see him in the context of
post-war Labour's class compromises.
Winstanley and the Diggers: Revolution from Below
Gerrard Winstanley (1609–1676) was the leader and thinker
behind the Diggers, also known as the True Levellers. In 1649, the same year
King Charles I was executed, they began to occupy and farm common land at St
George’s Hill in Surrey. Their assertion that the earth was “a common treasury
for all” was more than poetic; it was a revolutionary idea. “They declared that
the earth was ‘a common treasury for all,’ rejecting private property in land
as the root of all social evil.”
Winstanley’s pamphlets — including The New Law of
Righteousness and The Law of Freedom in a Platform — outlined a vision of a
society free from buying and selling, landlords, lawyers, masters, and
servants. This was not mere philosophical reflection but a practical response
to the ongoing revolution. The Diggers arose from the common people during the Civil
War. While Cromwell and the leaders of the New Model Army aimed to establish
the political framework for capitalist growth, the Diggers sought to expand the
revolution beyond its bourgeois limitations.
They embodied the most progressive expression of popular
awareness in the 1640s, a consciousness shaped by war, upheaval, and the decline
of traditional authority. The decline of traditional authority was inevitable.
They faced brutal suppression: settlements were razed, leaders were beaten, and
cattle were slaughtered. Cromwell, a fierce enforcer of bourgeois class
interests, had little regard for the Diggers, just as he did for the Levellers,
whose leaders he had executed. This marked the end of a revolutionary era.
Winstanley’s Place in the Pre‑History of Socialism
Winstanley holds a unique place in the early history of
socialist ideas. Christopher Hill, who did more than any other scholar to bring
Winstanley out of obscurity, recognised that revolutions are driven by crowds
whose awareness must evolve. Winstanley's work exemplifies this profound
transformation.
However, accuracy in history is crucial. Winstanley was not
a socialist in the modern sense; his communism was utopian rather than
scientific. His arguments relied on biblical prophecy and mystical
pantheism—Reason as God and the “rising of Christ in sons and daughters.” He
urged Cromwell and the propertied classes to see the truth rather than organise
the oppressed as a political force to seize power.
As Engels explained in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,
utopian socialists could vividly describe the harms of class society with moral
clarity but lacked awareness of the material force needed to eliminate these
ills. The proletariat—the class destined to abolish all classes—was not present
in mid-17th-century England. Winstanley could only appeal to the righteous,
while Cromwell’s response was to ignore him when possible and suppress him when
necessary. This is not a moral failure but an inherent limitation, as
Winstanley’s vision was unattainable at the time because the class capable of
implementing it had not yet emerged.
Tony Benn’s Appropriation: Radicalism Made Safe
This passage reveals Benn’s political stance. Benn, who
passed away in 2014 and was a lifelong Labour Party member—by then an
instrument of big business—spent his career opposing Winstanley's principles.
Winstanley challenged the political establishment and fostered an independent
movement of the dispossessed. Benn served 49 years in Parliament and, as
recently as 2013, stated: “I don’t believe in the idea that you can build a new
socialist party … There is a radical element, and that element ought to be able
to live within the Labour Party.”
This is a significant statement, reflecting Benn’s overall
political stance: the containment of working-class resistance within the
boundaries of bourgeois parliamentarism. "Benn’s entire political life was
devoted to channelling working-class opposition back into the safe confines of
bourgeois parliamentarism." During the Winter of Discontent in 1978–79,
Benn served as a cabinet minister responsible for declaring a State of
Emergency against striking workers. In his diary, he admitted: "I am just
being sucked into this terrible military operation to hold the working class
back.”And then he did it anyway.
Benn’s adoption of Winstanley exemplifies political
appropriation, turning a revolutionary leader who pioneered an independent
movement of the dispossessed into a romantic figure for Labourism—a
century-long tradition of silencing working-class independence. This act
domesticates Winstanley, rendering him acceptable for the drawing room, Fabian
pamphlet, or Verso catalogue.
The Historical Lesson: What Connects Winstanley to
Scientific Socialism
What truly matters in Winstanley's thought isn't his
idealistic plan for a communist commonwealth—which couldn't have succeeded
given 17th-century circumstances—but his insight that private property in the
means of life is the root of exploitation, and that the exploited need to organise
independently of their rulers. This idea links the Diggers of 1649 to the
revolutionary workers’ movements of the 20th and 21st centuries.
However, it's important to recognise that Winstanley's
approach is fundamentally different from scientific socialism, and these
differences shouldn't be overlooked. Winstanley’s shortcomings stemmed from the
limitations of his time—the working class was not yet able to form itself as a
political force capable of driving socialist change. Today, that situation has
changed. The working class now makes up the vast majority of the global
population. The main barrier to socialism is no longer the underdevelopment of
material conditions but the lack of revolutionary leadership within the working
class. The International Committee of the Fourth International is actively
working to develop such leadership.
Against the Politics of Historical Comfort
Benn’s portrayal of Winstanley is more than just a
historical recount; it functions as a political distraction. It implies that
the radical tradition could be revived within Labourism, achieving the “common
treasury” through incremental parliamentary reforms. However, this is not
enough. The working class requires its own party, rooted in the Fourth
International’s programme, to realise what Winstanley only envisioned: the
expropriation of the expropriators and the creation of a society driven by
human need rather than private profit.
Winstanley’s writings remain impactful not because they
provide a detailed plan for socialism, but because they embody the early idea
that liberation must originate from beneath — through the self-organisation of
the oppressed. Honouring Winstanley does not mean romanticising him or using
him to support Labourism, but rather recognising his historical limits and
advancing his struggle on a more developed, scientific basis.
