>post yfw England had an anarchist revolution in 1381

ALS ADAM GRUB UND EVA SPANN
KYRIELEYS!
WO WAR DAN DER EDELMANN?

File: Best Tudor.jpg (1MB, 2400x3132px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2400x3132px

>mfw

Anarchy for the UK
It's coming sometime and maybe
I give a wrong time stop at traffic line
Your future dream is a shopping scheme

>attributing modern ideologies to medieval peasants

>>1838678
>Wanting the state to fuck off is a modern ideology

>>1838678

Read their demands and tell me it wasn't essentially anarcho-communism

>>1838690
Where can I find their demands?

>>1838696

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/voices/voices_reading_revolt.shtml

File: William.Morris.John.Ball.jpg (1MB, 1656x2121px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1656x2121px

>>1838690
They wanted the removal of all feudal duties, and the freedom of labour and trade. The communist leanings were from the lollard John Ball

>>1838722
I see no demand for the abolition of the state here, only demand for egalitarianism. They even desired the king to intervene in their favour, it seens.

And why do peasant leaders always fall for the "let's meet for negotiations" trick? It's obvious the nobility won't respect a truce with peasants because they don't view them as being worthy of chivalry.

This was basically the last time English commoners had a chance to expel their French-based royalty and nobility but they fucked it up.

>>1838575
>>1838690

If anything the Peasants' Revolt reflects the absurdity of believing that anarchy was even a possibility in the mind set of medieval peasantry.

Anarchy is by definition a radical ideology that seeks the destruction of traditional modes of authority. The Peasants' Revolt in 1381 and virtually all pre-modern rebellions were conservative and reactionary in nature, seeking the restoration of an old ideal rather than the imposition of the new. Often these old ideals were romanticized and had little resemblance to the actual state of affairs, being much better than the harsh reality. This means that they can often be confused with idealized utopian societies and "progress"

The Peasants' Revolt (and a large number of other early modern revolts) happened as direct response to the levying of new taxes. In this case that was the poll tax. Taxes are almost always seen as an overstep of authority, especially new ones. In addition this tax was to fund an increasingly unfavorable and unwinnable war (not very popular)
But rebellion against the legitimacy of taxes =/= rebellion of the legitimacy of government.

If anything the Peasants' Revolt shows a firm belief in the legitimacy of government under the king and how deeply ingrained monarchism was in the medieval mindset. The Demands set forward by the peasantry are a petition to the King. It is from the King that justice and legitimacy flow, and if there is injustice being done to the peasantry it is because it hasn't been brought to the Kings attention. It is those that surround the King, advisers, courtiers, clergy, who abuse the people and are the source of injustice.

That is why there are two goals seen across many early modern revolts. Petition the King directly with a list of grievances, in this case the demands, and to remove the negative influences around the King, in this case killing the Lord Chancellor and King's Treasurer

>>1838776
betraying the king is treason, but betraying a lesser lord isn't

>>1838678
They wanted to abolish the feudal order and produce independently.

What the fuck else do you call it?

Redpill me on the best histories about war Tyler, jacquerie, those kinds of revolutions etc

>>1838736
John Ball is the only peasant source of their ideology. He would have been a major force if the revolution was successful.

>>1838818
Liberalism?

>>1838736
Calling these ideals communist is as anachronistic as calling the rebellion anarchist.
The removal of feudal duties, freedom of labor trade etc. etc. were not based on forward thinking "progress" towards a utopia that characterizes Marx's work.
Instead it is based in the conservative desire to return to a romanticized ideal
Manorialism, the dominance of feudal lords, and enclosure of private land was seen an unjust imposition by the nobility that was relatively recent
After the Black Death wiped out a huge portion of peasantry and increased the value of labor the English power structure agricultural system was flipped, with expensive labor gaining power against land holders.
Laws were made to try and limit wages that peasants could demand for cultivation of land. It was this unjust imposition of power that the peasants rebelled against

>>1838811
Great argument. It definitely seems like the revolt was mostly about a return to pre-plague wages rather than any serious opposition toward the feudal order. Remember that the peasants really believed the king would be on their side.

The problem is that the only known ideologue, the Lollard John Ball, was essentially an anarcho-communist. Had the revolution succeeded, such a communism may have been established in Britain, at least temporarily. The question is what influence Ball had over both Wat Tyler (the military leader) and over the common peasantry.

>>1838817
Nah. Kings weren't seen as "icons of the nation" until early modernity and the development of absolutism. The whole concept of a nation would have been alien to Wat Tyler's comrades.

>>1838833
Liberalism without a state and without a ruling class IS anarcho-communism, anon.

>>1838883
>Remember that the peasants really believed the king would be on their side.

That's not as far-fetched as it seens. There were cases of European monarchs siding with the peasantry as a way to break the power of the aristocracy. Most notably, Ivan IV of Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible_in_Russian_folklore

Richard II, though, was no Ivan the Terrible