Wednesday, 31 January 2018

John Lilburne and the Levellers-Reappraising the Roots of English Radicalism 400 Years On-Edited by John Rees-© 2018 – Routledge-158 pages

John Lilburne, the Levellers, and the Problem of English Radicalism: A Marxist Reappraisal

Abstract

This article offers a Marxist reassessment of John Lilburne and the Levellers: Reappraising the Roots of English Radicalism (Routledge, 2018), edited by John Rees. While the collection contributes to the historiography of the English Revolution, it remains shaped by the political and methodological limitations of the British New Left’s “People’s History” tradition. Drawing on classical Marxism—particularly Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution—this article situates the Levellers within the class dynamics of the seventeenth‑century bourgeois revolution and critiques the pseudo‑left appropriation of radical traditions for contemporary political purposes. The Levellers emerge not as proto‑socialists but as representatives of a contradictory petty‑bourgeois democratic current whose aspirations exceeded the structural limits of bourgeois society.

1. Introduction

The English Revolution has long been a site of historiographical contestation. The collection edited by John Rees seeks to reassert the centrality of John Lilburne and the Levellers to the revolutionary crisis of the 1640s. The volume’s contributors challenge revisionist attempts to depoliticise the revolution, yet the collection also reflects the limitations of the political milieu from which it emerges. As this article notes, the volume is “a useful introduction to a genuinely significant body of scholarship,” but one that “carries certain political and methodological limitations that demand scrutiny.”

This article argues that the Levellers can only be understood within the framework of the English Revolution as a bourgeois revolution, and that their political programme—while democratic and radical—was structurally incapable of resolving the contradictions of the emerging capitalist order. It further contends that the editor’s political standpoint, shaped by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and its offshoots, leads to a romanticisation of radical movements that obscures their class limits.

2. The English Revolution as Bourgeois Revolution

The central question is whether the English Revolution constituted a bourgeois revolution. The collection gestures toward this conclusion but does not consistently develop it. It is right to  emphasises Evgeny Pashukanis’s insight that the Levellers, despite their defence of private property, “objectively threatened feudal property relations; their ideology was bourgeois, but their program… would have struck at the foundations of the old feudal order.”

This position aligns with the classical Marxist interpretation advanced by Christopher Hill and reaffirmed by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). As Ann Talbot observed in her appraisal of Hill, his achievement lay in “challeng[ing] the accepted consensus of Whig history” by demonstrating that the 1640s witnessed a genuine social revolution in which one class displaced another.

Yet Hill’s work, shaped by the nationalist distortions of Stalinist historiography, sometimes treated the English Revolution as an insular national tradition. Peacey’s identification of Lilburne’s debt to Dutch pamphleteering is a welcome corrective. A Marxist analysis must go further, situating the English Revolution within the international dynamics of early modern capitalism: the Dutch revolt, the Thirty Years’ War, and the emergence of the Atlantic economy.

3. The Class Character of the Levellers

Norah Carlin’s contribution comes closest to articulating a Marxist understanding of the Levellers. Her argument that they represented “the small independent producer” and developed a “secular and democratic perspective” is central to understanding their historical role. The Levellers were not proto‑socialists; they were the radical wing of the petty bourgeoisie and plebeian masses whose demands pressed against the structural limits of bourgeois revolution.

Carlin’s most incisive point—is that the Levellers’ political principles “were opposed to the continued growth of capitalism.” This contradiction is the key to their historical significance. Their programme, especially the Agreement of the People, articulated democratic demands that would echo in later working‑class movements, yet its implementation would simultaneously have cleared the ground for capitalist development.

This dialectic is illuminated by Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution: bourgeois revolutions generate social forces whose aspirations exceed what bourgeois society can satisfy. The Levellers exemplify this dynamic. Their conflict with Cromwell’s Independents culminated in the suppression of the Leveller mutiny at Burford in 1649—an event that marked the moment when the bourgeois revolution turned decisively against the plebeian masses whose mobilisation had made it possible.

4. John Rees, the SWP, and the Politics of Radical Tradition

It is correct to insist that the political context of the editor matters. John Rees is a leading figure in the SWP and Counterfire, organisations that the ICFI identifies as pseudo‑left formations which channel working‑class discontent back into bourgeois politics. The SWP’s “People’s History” approach, inherited from the Communist Party Historians Group, tends to treat all rebels as part of a continuous national radical tradition. As the document notes, this tradition “treat[s] all rebels and radicals as part of an undifferentiated national progressive tradition.”

The danger is not that such an approach falsifies the Levellers, but that it instrumentalises them. For the SWP, the Levellers become a model for broad-front radicalism and extra‑parliamentary protest. For Marxists, they illustrate the limits of democratic radicalism in a bourgeois revolution and the necessity of an independent revolutionary programme.

5. Internationalism and Class Continuity

The most serious limitation of the collection is its national framing. The English Revolution was not an isolated event but part of a broader European crisis. The Levellers’ political imagination was shaped by transnational currents—Dutch republicanism, radical Protestantism, and the circulation of pamphlets across borders. A Marxist historiography must restore this international dimension.

More importantly, the Levellers’ significance lies not in their contribution to a national radical tradition but in the historical lesson they embody: that the plebeian masses of the seventeenth century lacked the class basis to carry the revolution beyond bourgeois limits. Only the modern working class possesses the social power to complete the tasks left unresolved by the English Revolution.

6. Conclusion

The collection edited by Rees contributes to the struggle against revisionist attempts to depoliticise the English Revolution. Yet its limitations reflect the political standpoint of the contemporary British left. A Marxist analysis must go beyond both revisionism and the “People’s History” tradition. It must situate the Levellers within the class dynamics of the bourgeois revolution and draw out the lessons that their defeat holds for revolutionary politics today.

To conclude, “no amount of ‘radical tradition’ building will substitute for the construction of a revolutionary international party fighting for socialist revolution.”⁸ The Levellers’ legacy is not a comforting national myth but a historical warning: democratic radicalism, without a revolutionary class capable of carrying it through, is doomed to defeat.

 

Monday, 29 January 2018

Interview With Historian Marcus Rediker

Marcus Rediker has kindly answered a few questions regarding his work. His new book is The Fearless Benjamin Lay published by Verso. 

My review of the book is linked @ http://keith-perspective.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/the-fearless-benjamin-lay-quaker-dwarf.html


Q How did you come to write about Lay. Was it something you had always aspired to?

I first learned about Benjamin Lay in the 1990s as Peter Linebaugh, and I worked on a book entitled The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic (2000).  We were interested in cycles of rebellion that erupted around the Atlantic in the 1730s, the 1760s, the 1790s, and wondered if slave revolts helped to generate new abolitionist ideas.  Lay’s radical anti-slavery book, All Slave-keepers that keep the Innocent in Bondage … Apostates (1738), reflected his consciousness of the rising tide of resistance.  After I learned about Lay and his acts of guerrilla theatre, I thought to myself, this man deserves a book of his own.  Some twenty years later, he got it.


Q. The connection between Lay and the English Revolution and its radical wing is fascination, could you elaborate more?

The religious radicals so lovingly chronicled by Christopher Hill in The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas in the English Revolution (1972), provide the essential context for understanding the life and ideas of Benjamin Lay.  Among the Levellers, Diggers, Ranters, Seekers, Muggletonians, and yes, the early Quakers were many antinomian radicals, people who felt that the gift of God’s grace had placed them above man-made law, which was created by wicked rich people for their own purposes anyway.  Lay carried a revolutionary body of ideas – about democracy, equality, and human rights – into the eighteenth century and included within it the principles of anti-slavery.  I, therefore, call Lay “the last radical of the English Revolution.”  He connected that revolutionary era to the late eighteenth-century “age of revolution,” which encompassed major uprisings in America, France, and what became Haiti.  He embodied the long underground life of radical ideas.


Q In my review I cite Lay as a figure of the Enlightenment. Do you agree?

I agree, Lay is definitely a man of the Enlightenment, but not the usual one we think of when we use that term – the movement that emerged in the late eighteenth century among white, male, elite thinkers in France and across Europe.  Lay was enlightened much earlier and in a different way, not in the salons of Paris or London – rather on deep-sea sailing ships and on the docks of Barbados, where he heard about and witnessed the horrors of slavery and turned decisively against them. Lay, in my view, is a representative of “enlightenment from below.”  He was one of many working people who took a different route to a vision of a more humanitarian future.


Q The genre history from below is one you use a lot. Could you describe the pros and cons of such a genre? Do you feel it has a future?

This is a well-established way to view history, especially in the UK.  A key text, as you know, is Edward Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class (1963).  Its strengths have included a broader, more inclusive, more democratic vision of the past and an ability to understand both the experiences and the contributions of ordinary working people in the unfolding of history.  Its weaknesses have been an occasional tendency not to concentrate on class as a relationship, which always requires looking at history “from above,” especially if one wants to understand the operation of power.

I am much encouraged about the future of history from below.  As new movements from below arise around the world around the many-sided issue of inequality, all seeking in one way or another “power to the people,” the demand for this kind of history is bound to increase.  If we want a new kind of society, we are going to need a new history to guide us.


Q What is your next project?


I am writing a play entitled “The Return of Benjamin Lay” with my friend, the distinguished playwright Naomi Wallace.  History from below meets theatre from below!  My next history book project will be a study of work at sea in the age of sail.  This will be a voyage through the oceans of world history with Herman Melville as my shipmate.  I will use his sea-novels to explore the issues of labour, class, and power at sea.

Sunday, 7 January 2018

The Fearless Benjamin Lay: The Quaker Dwarf Who Became the First Revolutionary Abolitionist Hardcover – September 5, 2017, by Marcus Rediker Verso.



“The barbarities and desperate outrages of the so-called Christian race, throughout every region of the world, and upon every people they have been able to subdue, are not to be paralleled by those of any other race, however fierce, however untaught, and however reckless of mercy and of shame, in any age of the earth”.

William Howitt: “Colonisation and Christianity: A Popular History of the Treatment of the Natives by the Europeans in all their Colonies.” London, 1838,

The just man who is resolute
will not be turned from his purpose
either by the rage of the crowd or
by an imperious tyrant.

Horace-Quoted by Lay’s biographer Roberts Vaux

It is a pretty safe bet that people reading this excellent biography of the Quaker radical Benjamin Lay will not have heard of him or his exploits. Hopefully because of Marcus Rediker’s hard work and perseverance more people will now know of this extraordinary figure.

Lay was Quaker Dwarf who took an active anti-slavery stance; he was attacked and ostracised by the early Quaker movement of which large sections not only supported slavery but made them very rich. Rediker has campaigned for Lay’s rehabilitation. Finally, in 2017, the Abington Quakers of Pennsylvania recognised him as “a Friend of the Truth”. London Quakers followed suit by declaring “unity” with Lay’s spirit.

Rediker response to this development was “ I was, quite frankly, moved to tears. The recognition represented a profound, heartfelt act of retrospective justice because Lay had been unjustly disowned in the first place. It was a symbolic rejection of what a previous slave-owning generation of Quakers had done, and it was simultaneously an affirmation that Benjamin Lay’s values matter to the Abington and North London communities. I learned during my research that Lay dearly loved his fellow Quakers—at least those who did not own slaves—and that his exclusion was terribly painful to him. It was therefore deeply touching, 279 years later, to know that he has been brought back into the fold. This act would have meant everything to him”.[1]

Rediker continues “the significance is two-fold. First, this is a significant step by Quakers to reckon with their own slave-owning past. As such, it is exemplary for the US and the UK as nations. Second, the decision advances the process of restoring Benjamin Lay to his rightful, prominent place in the history of Quakerism. This, in turn, feeds a broader effort to restore him to his proper position in American, British, and world history.

Rediker’s book is a well written and methodically researched book. Rediker is very good at exposing the essential contradiction at the heart of the Quaker movement in that its origins came about during the English revolution. Many Quaker constituted a radical wing of the revolution and had an anti-slavery stance yet large sections of its membership did not oppose slavery, kept slaves and profited by them.

The modern-day recognition of Lay has tended to gloss over the poor treatment dished out to Lay by his peers. For instance, when Lay published his book All Slave Keepers that keep the innocent in bondage: Apostates,  He was attacked in Philadelphia by Quakers who declared ‘That the author is not of their religious community; that they disapprove of his Conduct, the Composition and Printing of the Book’.

It must be said that Lay’s book is not an easy read and you have to give Rediker his due for not only reading it but chronicling Lay’s life and struggle in this highly readable book. Despite only measuring four foot two inches Lay was a formidable campaigner who sought the emancipation of all enslaved people around the world. One of Lay’s tactics was to perform guerilla theatre.

As Rediker states in his book “Benjamin began to stage public protests against the "men of renown," to shock the Friends of Philadelphia into awareness of their own moral failings about slavery. Conscious of the hard, exploited labour that went into making seemingly benign commodities such as tobacco and sugar, Benjamin showed up at a yearly Quaker meeting with "with three large tobacco pipes stuck in his bosom." He sat between the galleries of men and women elders and ministers. As the meeting ended, he rose in indignant silence and "dashed one pipe among the men ministers, one among the women ministers, and the third among the congregation assembled." With each smashing blow, Benjamin protested slave labour, luxury, and the poor health caused by smoking the stinking tweed. He sought to awaken his brothers and sisters to the politics of the smallest, seemingly most insignificant choices”.[2]

It would not be an overstatement to say that Lay led a diverse life. He worked as a shepherd, glove maker, sailor, and bookseller. His worldview was a complex mixture of  Quakerism, vegetarianism, animal rights, opposition to the death penalty, and abolitionism. Lay while being anti-slavery was not anti-capitalist. He did shunn the trappings of wealth that his business acumen brought him. While in America he lived in a cave with a library of two hundred books.

Lay’s significance was that he was one of the first radicals to call an end to all slavery in whatever form it took. He refused to consume anything produced by slave labour.As Rediker outlines in the book Lay was opposed by a significant section of Quakers, who had grown fat on slavery. As Rediker points out, these Quakers played a massive part in the bloody rise of American capitalism. The New England Puritans and Quakers became some of America's most significant industrial leaders.

As Karl Marx wrote “The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement, and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation.[3]

Early Capitalism

Rediker has made his name writing popular histories of mutinies, pirates, slaves and revolts at sea. The majority of his work has examined the rise of early capitalism and the part played by the merchants and workers. He correctly states that the rise of early capitalism owed a massive debt to the movement of trade around the world. As Rediker brings out in his book the treatment of slaves by the early capitalists Quakers  reminds one of Marx’s famous phrase “If money, according to Augier,  “comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,” capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt”. [4]

We owe a debt to Rediker in that he life has sought to establish the correct place the sea has played in the rise of early capitalism. As the Russian Marxist writer Isaac Rubin elaborates “Mercantilist policy, which accelerated the breakup of the feudal economy and the guild crafts, corresponded to the interests of the commercial bourgeoisie and merchant capital. Its main objective was to foster rapid growth of foreign trade (together with shipping and such exporting industries as woollen textiles), striving, in particular, to reinforce the influx of precious metals into the country, which in their turn accelerated the transition from a natural to a money economy. It is therefore understandable that mercantilist literature focused its attention primarily on two, closely inter-related problems: 1) the question of foreign trade and the balance of trade, and 2) the question of regulating the circulation of money. We can distinguish three periods in the way the solution to these problems was approached: a) the early mercantilist period, b) the period of developed mercantilist doctrine, and c) the beginnings of the anti-mercantilist opposition”.[5]

This opposition took many forms, but the most striking came from the early stirrings of the working class for better working conditions and social equality.Most of these stirrings took the form of strike action. These strikes as Rediker points out were not in factories but on ships, “the first strike was not in a factory or an office. It was not even on land. In 1768 sailors “ went from ship to ship and took down the sails. That is called striking the sails. Out of that collective action, the term strike was born ”.The ship and the sea are dynamic places of struggle,”. “These people were on the cutting edge of developments between capital and labour in the 17th and 18th centuries. These ships were a precursor of the factory. The ship itself was the most important machine of its day. One of the primary experiences of people who worked on ships was collective cooperation. This was a place where waged workers were assembled in a complex division of labour. “Once they were assembled they began to define their cooperation in different collective ways. So we get a very rich and still not fully understood the history of mutiny, piracy and desertion. “Sailors were in many ways the first international labour force”.

The Enlightenment

That Lay was an enlightened figure for his time goes without saying. What connection Lay had with other figures of the Enlightenment is a complicated subject, and it is one hopefully Rediker explores at a later date.  According to Anthony Comegna, “Benjamin Lay and other radicals were vectors of connection and causation in the world’s great unknown Enlightenment. Beneath the gilded lush layers of philosophes and statesmen that litter our history books were the slave rebels, the servile insurrectionists, the outcasts and arsonists, the common rabble out of doors and on the docks, and even the lone Quaker dwarf abolitionist. These people and much more built their own kind of Enlightenment from below”.[6]

This theme of history from below runs through all of Rediker’s books. In his book Outlaws, he describes a  figure like Henry Pitman whose journal was the basis for Daniel Defoe’s novel Robinson Crusoe. Defoe’s book despite being a ripping yarn also glorified Britain's slave trade.

As Rediker explains “One of the things about my research that continually delights people is to find out about how democratically pirates lived. There is history from below of democracy that has many sources other than the philosophers of the enlightenment.

The English Revolution

Another theme that runs through Rediker’s books is that of the English Revolution. This theme also runs through his biography of Lay.Rediker explains Lay’s deep connection to the radicals of the English revolution. “I’ve identified five major influences, and the first and the most important of these was a specifically radical variant of Quakerism. Now Quakerism goes back, actually, to the English Revolution. It began as one of many radical Protestant groups. The others were the Levellers, the Diggers, the Seekers, the Ranters. The Quakers are all part of this. Those groups arose during the English Revolution when royal censorship broke down as the king, King Charles I, and Royalists did battle with Oliver Cromwell and Parliamentary side. These radical groups really burst into print in that situation, offering from below their own solutions to the problems of the day”.

He continues “Quakers were part of this, and there was a man named James Naylor, who was an especially radical Quaker. I basically argued in my book that Benjamin Lay channelled this early generation of Quakers. They were very activist. They performed street theatre. They were very confrontational. He managed a couple of generations later to reach back to them in order to revive that spirit of Quakerism.

“In any revolutionary situation there are always people who want to go further,” he said. “Often there are retrenchments where those who had originally made the revolution are excluded. In the American revolution slaves and urban protests involving mixed racial crowds created the momentum and some of the ideas of the revolution.

“But around 1773-74 the elites like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson got control and started to define notions of citizenship that would exclude the motley crew. Citizenship then was based to a large extent on property rights, with all the links that have to race, class and gender. The people who had actually destabilised society in the new world were left out. That is what I call the American Thermidor. It is a process that many revolutions go through.”

History From Below

Sometimes it is difficult when reading a well-established historian to hear the buzzing of the bees. This is not the case with Rediker, who manages to write of complex historical processes with a style of historical writing that is easy on the eye without dumbing down the history.

Having looked at and read some of Rediker’s books he has adopted the “history from below” genre and has rescued some exciting and important figures from what the British historian E.P. Thompson called the "enormous condescension of posterity," and restored to their proper place in the historical record. EP Thompson is an apparent influence but then so is the historian Christopher Hill. Hill wrote of the 17th-century English revolution. From a historiography point of view, Rediker is closer to Hill than Thompson. Hill was extremely complimentary of Rediker’s work.In this review of another historian Hill wrote, “Rediker describes the transition in the early eighteenth century to more capitalist relations in merchant shipping—wage labor replacing profit sharing, stricter discipline brutally enforced, cost-cutting by merchants at the expense of the living standards of seamen—and the growth of organized resistance by seamen, from collective protests, strikes, and mutinies, with piracy as the ultimate resort. The relative egalitarianism and democratic organization of pirate ships was a logical outcome of this situation: so were the utopian pirate communities established on Madagascar and elsewhere, where traditional hierarchical deference was forgotten. Defoe in his History of the Pyrates (1724) made much of such points in order to criticize aspects of English capitalist civilization that he disliked. Defoe “wrote a great deal about buccaneers and sided with them,” says Ritchie, making the same point rather differently. He “had a dyspeptic view of the new financiers and the world of stocks, bonds, and jobbers.” But Defoe had spent a good deal of time talking to retired pirates”[7].

Rediker like Hill not only wrote about radicals who had largely been forgotten by historians if not history itself but also Rediker wrote a period that was defined by Hill as-as a critical stage in the transition from feudalism to capitalism—a stage that Rediker would also research and evaluate throughout his career.

"I intended to apply the bottom-up approach to doing history that had been pioneered by Thompson and Hill to other contexts," and along with Peter Linebaugh, my colleague and writing partner since [graduate] school, I wanted to update our understanding of radical activity past where Christopher Hill had left the subject in The World Turned Upside Down—both in chronological terms, past the English Restoration, and, in geographical terms, encompassing the entire Atlantic."

Like Hill Rediker’s writing still has a contemporary feel to it. The Many-Headed Hydra (2000), which he co-authored with Linebaugh found its way into the discussion of the 2000s Occupy movement.

Conclusion

Despite Lay being of small stature, being only 4 feet 7 inches and suffering from a congenital growth disorder he was a giant of a man in many other ways. Thanks to Rediker’s book Lay can be an inspiration to today’s generation struggling against oppression and social inequality.

As Rediker states “We have now a very big historical debate going on. It's going on in the streets, it's going on in publications, it's going on around dinner tables: Who deserves to be called a hero of American history? We’ve had a lot of direct action with Confederate generals, we've had armed battles over this matter in Charlottesville. I think Benjamin Lay shows that there are people, frequently unknown, who embody higher ideals and reflect some of the better possibilities for example, within American life, so that someone like Benjamin Lay, someone like Frederick Douglass, someone like Harriet Tubman. This is a real value of history from below”.[8]




[1] http://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2017/11/radical-abolitionist-benjamin-lay-reclaimed-by-quakers-279-years-later.html
[2] Excerpt from Chapter Three, “Philadelphia’s ‘Men of Renown’”
[3] Capital-Karl Marx
[4]Capital -Karl Marx  Chapter Thirty-One: Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist
[5] A History of Economic Thought. Conclusion-Isaak Illich Rubin 1929- https://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/1929/conclusion.htm
[6] https://www.libertarianism.org/media/liberty-chronicles/benjamin-lay-was-original-sjw-marcus-rediker
[7] Success Story-Christopher Hill- http://www.nybooks.com.ezproxy2.londonlibrary.co.uk/articles/1987/01/29/success-story/
[8] http://prospect.org/article/qa-first-revolutionary-abolitionist