>>17918704
>Terminally direction-brained
Midwit detected
>>17918702
Yes, I am reading Antonia Fraser's biography of Cromwell right now and ofc communism/socialism were not concepts yet in 1651 but reading the words of the Levellers, the Army councils and of Oliver Cromwell himself some of them had very collectivist impulses
Modern readers cannot comprehend how central religion was to societies in Western Europe in the 17th century and before
The Protestants in the Commons were afraid of England backsliding into domination by Rome, not that long before, 150 years or so, the execution of Charles I was the Protestant Reformation, before that all the kingdoms of Western Europe were essentially vassals of the Holy See in Rome
They were hardcore Protestants, their politics were all over the place, another thing that modern readers have trouble with when reading about politics in that time is how limited governments were in what they could actually do
There were no supercarriers, space stations, thermonuclear warheads, massive social safety net programs and the agencies to administer them
In 1651 England was a little under 200 years away from having an income tax, sometimes armies of 40,000 men would have to wait a year to get paid
Even though some of these guys would definitely be considered socialists or quasi-socialists in the modern context, they could express their opinions in pamphlets or floor speeches but that was it
This idea that collectivism or pro redistribution political opinions didnt exist before the late 19th century is fucking pants on head retarded
