Gerrard Winstanley and the Politics of Appropriation: Bernstein, Hill, and the Modern Left

 Whose Winstanley?

The modern left has inherited Gerrard Winstanley like how it has inherited the English Revolution: selectively, mythically, and often in ways that obscure more than they clarify. John Gurney’s posthumously published article, “Gerrard Winstanley and the Left” (2017), serves as more than just a reception history. It offers a subtle yet sharp critique of how political traditions create usable pasts — and how these constructed histories can distort the real figures they aim to honour.

As Gurney illustrates, the Winstanley known to many socialists, radicals, and activists today is not the Winstanley of Cobham and Walton-on-Thames in 1649. Instead, he has been repeatedly reconstructed to serve the ideological agendas of figures like Eduard Bernstein, Christopher Hill, and later the counterculture, environmentalists, and the modern pseudo-left. The Digger colony at St George’s Hill lasted less than a year, and Winstanley himself largely disappears from historical records for extended periods. Nonetheless, his symbolic presence has grown so significant that he is now one of the most recognisable symbols of seventeenth-century radicalism. This amplification is deliberate and rooted in ideology.

Bernstein’s Winstanley: Revisionism and the Search for Precedents

Gurney’s key insight — and one that merits more recognition — is the vital role Eduard Bernstein played in Winstanley’s modern resurgence. The irony is striking: Bernstein, known for developing revisionist social democracy and aiming to reform capitalism via parliamentary channels, also championed Winstanley, who called for abolishing private property, ending trade, and establishing a “common treasury for all.”

Bernstein’s appropriation was not driven by curiosity about history but served a political purpose. He aimed to identify a native English precursor for his form of evolutionary socialism, and Winstanley — appropriately softened — fit this role. In Bernstein’s interpretation, Winstanley shifted from a millenarian communist reacting to the fall of feudal authority to a proto-social democrat, a forward-thinking reformer. This shift exemplifies a wider trend: the left, during its reformist stages, often downplays its revolutionary roots to align with gradualist politics.

Christopher Hill: Marxism, Secularisation, and the Limits of the Canon

Christopher Hill’s approach was more scholarly, rigorous, and rooted in class analysis. He brought Winstanley out of obscurity and highlighted his role in a plebeian communist tradition during the English Revolution. However, Hill also modified Winstanley’s depiction. In The World Turned Upside Down (1972), Hill downplayed Winstanley’s theology, recast his millenarianism as rational and proto-scientific, and portrayed his communism as an early form of modern materialism.

Hill later addressed this imbalance in The Religion of Gerrard Winstanley (1978), reintroducing the theological aspect he had earlier minimised. However, the secularised Winstanley had already become part of the Marxist canon. While Hill’s contribution was significant, his portrayal of Winstanley was ultimately a constructed image—tailored to fit the intellectual expectations of mid-twentieth-century Marxism.

The Counterculture: Winstanley as Symbol, Lifestyle, and Brand

By the 1960s, Winstanley evolved into a versatile icon. The Haight-Ashbury Diggers, squatters, land rights activists, environmentalists, and later anti-road and anti-fracking groups all saw him as a prophet of resistance against enclosure and commodification. He was reimagined as a proto-hippie, a green anarchist, and a supporter of “living lightly on the land.” This depiction of Winstanley was even further removed from the historical figure. His theological beliefs were entirely discarded; his communism was transformed into a lifestyle rebellion; and his critique of property was separated from the specific historical context of feudal collapse and revolutionary potential. In the counterculture’s hands, Winstanley stopped being a communist and became more of a brand— a symbol of authenticity rather than a force for social change.

This appropriation clearly serves a political purpose. It enabled the emerging pseudo-left to assert a radical heritage without adopting genuinely radical politics. Winstanley’s real agenda—abolishing private property, ending wage labour, and creating communal production—clashed with movements that accepted capitalism's permanence and divided social struggles into identity-based factions. By sanitising and secularising Winstanley, he became a safe figure.

Gurney’s Contribution: Restoring Winstanley to History

Gurney’s work, especially Brave Community (2007), disputes the long-standing mythologization of Winstanley. By placing Winstanley within the specific local, social, and economic context of Surrey in 1649, Gurney highlights the material roots of his ideas. The Diggers were not merely utopian dreamers, but actively involved in real struggles over land, rents, and the weakening of manorial power. Winstanley’s communism was born from particular grievances, opportunities, and contradictions, rather than from timeless ideals.

This clarification does not lessen Winstanley’s importance; it increases it. A radical tradition that avoids engaging with its history cannot fully grasp its purpose. Gurney’s Winstanley is not a mere symbol but a revolutionary figure responding to capitalism’s emergence.

Gurney’s article teaches us that the real lesson isn’t about Winstanley himself, but about how the left uses history. Different political groups create their own idealised past to support their views. Bernstein looked for a respectable English ancestor to back revisionism; Hill needed a commoner who was a communist to fill out the Marxist story of the English Revolution; the counterculture aimed for a prophet of the commons; and environmentalists sought a 17th-century voice opposing enclosure. Each group found what suited their goals, but only by modifying Winstanley to match their narrative. As your essay correctly asks: Whose Winstanley are we analysing, and what do our choices say about our own politics?

Winstanley and the Pseudo‑Lefts

The modern pseudo-left has reduced Gerrard Winstanley to a harmless mascot—depicted as a seventeenth-century eco-sage, a proto-hippie, or a prophet of “living lightly on the land.” This distortion is not only poor history but also a form of political falsification, deliberately neutralising one of the most steadfast communist voices of the English Revolution. As I mentioned elsewhere, “The Winstanley familiar to generations of socialists, radicals, and activists isn’t the same as the Winstanley of Cobham and Walton-on-Thames in 1649.” The historical Winstanley called for abolishing private property, ending wage labour, and establishing a “common treasury for all.” He based these demands on millenarian theology and the economic collapse of feudalism. His programme bears no resemblance to the lifestyle anarchism, identity-driven activism, or anti-political individualism prevalent in the pseudo-left.

The 1960s counterculture initiated this distortion. The Haight-Ashbury Diggers, squatters, and environmentalists adopted Winstanley as a symbol of authenticity—viewing him as a figure who could legitimise their rejection of “the system” without challenging capitalism itself. They stripped away theology, softened communism into communal living, and replaced class struggle with personal rebellion. Winstanley became a brand. The pseudo-left then inherited this distorted image of Winstanley and intensified the deception. Their politics—centred on identity, moral posturing, and accommodation to the capitalist state—reject the idea of overthrowing property relations. Consequently, they reinvent him: transforming a communist into a “commons activist,” a millenarian into a proto-environmentalist, and a revolutionary into a lifestyle image.

This is deliberate, not accidental. It aims to serve a specific ideological purpose. The pseudo-left merely seeks the appearance of radicalism without its substance. They desire the recognition of history without the weight of revolutionary demands. They want Winstanley’s name, but not his programme.

John Gurney’s thorough scholarship quietly dispels this myth. By placing Winstanley within the concrete social and economic setting of Surrey in 1649, Gurney reaffirms the revolutionary core of his ideas. He demonstrates that Winstanley was not merely a dreamer but a materialist responding to the contradictions of early capitalism. His work shows that the pseudo-left’s appropriation is ultimately a political evasion. "To claim Winstanley is to confront the revolutionary demands he genuinely articulated — demands that, at their heart, remain incomplete." The pseudo-left cannot confront them. Marxists must.

Winstanley is rooted in the revolutionary tradition, not the pseudo-left. He aligns with those aiming to abolish private property, rather than those advocating for gentler management. He supports universal emancipation instead of dividing struggles into identities and moral acts. He looks forward to the future, not clinging to current political dead-ends. The goal is clear: reintroduce Winstanley to the revolutionary movement he helped inspire, away from the pseudo-left.

Conclusion: Recovering the Revolutionary Winstanley

A Marxist interpretation of Gurney’s work should highlight that the aim is not to dismiss Winstanley’s relevance today but to recognise it genuinely. Winstanley was neither a proto-social democrat, secular Marxist, nor green anarchist. Instead, he was a seventeenth-century revolutionary communist influenced by the fall of feudalism, motivated by millenarian beliefs, and dedicated to ending private property.

Understanding him through these terms shows the English Revolution as a moment when early capitalist contradictions were exposed — and when ordinary people briefly aimed to resolve them for universal emancipation. As your essay notes, “To claim Winstanley is to face the revolutionary demands he actually articulated — demands that remain, at their core, unfinished.” This article honours John Gurney, whose scholarship and generosity deepened the study of seventeenth-century radicalism. His work reminds us that engaging with the radical past has consequences. Recovering Winstanley means confronting the revolutionary vision he saw — a vision that still challenges today.

Sources and Bibliography

Primary Sources: Gerrard Winstanley and the English Revolution

• Winstanley, Gerrard. The True Levellers Standard Advanced (1649).
• Winstanley, Gerrard. A New Year’s Gift for the Parliament and Army (1650).
• Winstanley, Gerrard. The Law of Freedom in a Platform (1652).
• Winstanley, Gerrard. The Saints Paradise (1648).
• Winstanley, Gerrard. The Mysterie of God (1648).
• Hill, Christopher (ed.). The Law of Freedom and Other Writings. Penguin Classics, 1973.

Core Scholarship on Winstanley and the Diggers

• Gurney, John. Brave Community: The Digger Movement in the English Revolution. Manchester University Press, 2007.
• Gurney, John. Gerrard Winstanley: The Digger’s Life and Legacy. Pluto Press, 2012.
• Gurney, John. “Gerrard Winstanley and the Left.” Past & Present 235 (2017): 179–206.
• Gurney, John. “The Diggers and the Limits of Popular Radicalism.” History Workshop Journal (2008).
• Hill, Christopher. The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution. Penguin, 1972.
• Hill, Christopher. The Religion of Gerrard Winstanley. Oxford University Press, 1978.

The English Revolution and Seventeenth‑Century Radicalism

• Manning, Brian. The English People and the English Revolution. Bookmarks, 1991.
• Manning, Brian. The Far Left in the English Revolution. Bookmarks, 2002.
• Aylmer, G.E. The Levellers in the English Revolution. Thames & Hudson, 1975.
• Reay, Barry. The Quakers and the English Revolution. Temple Smith, 1985.
• Morton, A.L. The World of the Ranters. Lawrence & Wishart, 1970.
• Underdown, David. Revel, Riot and Rebellion. Oxford University Press, 1985.
• Sharp, Buchanan. In Contempt of All Authority. University of California Press, 1980.

Bernstein, Revisionism, and Marxist Critique

• Bernstein, Eduard. Evolutionary Socialism (1899).
• Bernstein, Eduard. Cromwell and Communism. George Allen & Unwin, 1930.
• Luxemburg, Rosa. Reform or Revolution (1900).
• Lenin, V.I. Marxism and Revisionism (1908).
• Lenin, V.I. State and Revolution (1917).
• Trotsky, Leon. The Revolution Betrayed (1937).
• Trotsky, Leon. In Defence of Marxism (1942).

The Pseudo‑Left, Identity Politics, and Post‑1968 Radicalism

• North, David. The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo‑Left. Mehring Books, 2015.
• North, David. The Heritage We Defend. Mehring Books, 1988.
• Callinicos, Alex. The Revolutionary Road to Socialism. Bookmarks, 1983.
• Eagleton, Terry. Why Marx Was Right. Yale University Press, 2011.
• Dean, Jodi. The Communist Horizon. Verso, 2012.
• Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press, 2005.

Counterculture, Squatting, and Environmental Appropriations of Winstanley

• McKay, George. Senseless Acts of Beauty: Cultures of Resistance since the Sixties. Verso, 1996.
• White, Micah. The End of Protest. Knopf, 2016.
• Wall, Derek. The Commons in History. MIT Press, 2014.
• Cresswell, Tim. In Place/Out of Place. University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
• Linebaugh, Peter. The Magna Carta Manifesto. University of California Press, 2008.
• Linebaugh, Peter & Rediker, Marcus. The Many‑Headed Hydra. Beacon Press, 2000.

Archival Sources

• Surrey History Centre, Woking — manorial records for Cobham, Walton, and Oatlands.
• The National Archives (Kew) — Star Chamber and Chancery records relating to enclosure disputes.
• British Library, Thomason Tracts — pamphlets of the English Revolution.
• Guildhall Library, London — parish records relevant to Winstanley’s later life.