Early Modern Socialist State

Is it possible that a state that would be considered socialist or even pseudo-communist to the modern observer could develop in the Early Modern Era? There are certainly some dissident religious groups, such as the Levellers in England, that had communitarian ideologies. How could one such faith develop and take over a European state or colony by 1800 with a POD of 1500?
 
Try to first identify what you view are necessary characteristics in a "socialist" state. Would it be big government? State-owned central economy?
 
During the reformation there were definitely peasants movements with proto-communist ideologies of equally sharing out the land and that sort of thing.
The ideas were definitely there.
However such a rebellion managing to last? Very unlikely. Both the nobility and the bourgeois would be opposed. Not to mention the church.
 
During the reformation there were definitely peasants movements with proto-communist ideologies of equally sharing out the land and that sort of thing.
The ideas were definitely there.
However such a rebellion managing to last? Very unlikely. Both the nobility and the bourgeois would be opposed. Not to mention the church.

I wouldn`t be so sure.

The Church would be opposed, of course, as with any kind of reformation, that`s why the reformators forged their own churches.

"The nobility" would be mostly opposed, yes. But they´re not a uniform class. By the XV century, many less important knights experienced a crisis of their own, too. How some of them united with a social revolutionary movement and fought alongside them can be observed in the case of the Hussites. If the future state finds a meaningful role for them - could be interesting.

As for "the bourgeoisie", once again I´m not so sure. If by socialism you understand collective ownership of land and syndicalist organisation of the crafts, then lots of crafters in the towns are on your side. (They were the basis of radical Hussite groups like the Taborites, too.) In the towns, the guilds fought for representation and a share in municipal power against mercantile patrician dynasties. In some towns, they had won, while in others, they were still struggling and could have been won over for the cause of revolution.

The difficult thing is the absence of an abstract political-economic vantage point on the entire matter, one which would unite petty crafters and indentured servants, or in more Marxist words, the consciousness of a revolutionary class.
 
During the reformation there were definitely peasants movements with proto-communist ideologies of equally sharing out the land and that sort of thing.
The ideas were definitely there.
However such a rebellion managing to last? Very unlikely. Both the nobility and the bourgeois would be opposed. Not to mention the church.

Dithmarschen ran more or less autonomous with peasant control for long periods of time, in the middle and late medieval era
 
During the reformation there were definitely peasants movements with proto-communist ideologies of equally sharing out the land and that sort of thing.
The ideas were definitely there.
However such a rebellion managing to last? Very unlikely. Both the nobility and the bourgeois would be opposed. Not to mention the church.

I think a European pre 19th century socialist state would have to draw heavily on Jesus's sermons regarding the poor for justification. A literal Kingdom of God style socialism seems more likely than anything else.
 
I wouldn`t be so sure.

The Church would be opposed, of course, as with any kind of reformation, that`s why the reformators forged their own churches.

"The nobility" would be mostly opposed, yes. But they´re not a uniform class. By the XV century, many less important knights experienced a crisis of their own, too. How some of them united with a social revolutionary movement and fought alongside them can be observed in the case of the Hussites. If the future state finds a meaningful role for them - could be interesting.

As for "the bourgeoisie", once again I´m not so sure. If by socialism you understand collective ownership of land and syndicalist organisation of the crafts, then lots of crafters in the towns are on your side. (They were the basis of radical Hussite groups like the Taborites, too.) In the towns, the guilds fought for representation and a share in municipal power against mercantile patrician dynasties. In some towns, they had won, while in others, they were still struggling and could have been won over for the cause of revolution.

The difficult thing is the absence of an abstract political-economic vantage point on the entire matter, one which would unite petty crafters and indentured servants, or in more Marxist words, the consciousness of a revolutionary class.

The church- well that's not the church is it.

Nobility- true, there are poor knights. But still, they held strongly to their names and their status no matter how peasant like their lifestyle may have become. You won't find many of them willing to give that up.

The bourgeois- Kind of but not quite. Look at Switzerland for an example- sure, with citizens of the member cities everything was all lovely and democratic.... but they still went around subjugating peasants and other towns and cities just the same as the nobility did.
There were few thoughts of the people vs. the nobility. It was your guild, your city, outside of that a commoner was just as bad as a noble. The dominant cities will crush a peasant uprising just as happily as the nobility.
 
The church- well that's not the church is it.

Nobility- true, there are poor knights. But still, they held strongly to their names and their status no matter how peasant like their lifestyle may have become. You won't find many of them willing to give that up.

The bourgeois- Kind of but not quite. Look at Switzerland for an example- sure, with citizens of the member cities everything was all lovely and democratic.... but they still went around subjugating peasants and other towns and cities just the same as the nobility did.
There were few thoughts of the people vs. the nobility. It was your guild, your city, outside of that a commoner was just as bad as a noble. The dominant cities will crush a peasant uprising just as happily as the nobility.
Tyr,
as far as the limited (regional, group-based) perspective is concerned, I agree with you.
It would have to start somewhere with several of the groups concerned involved, and spread the model in a way that is both actively proselytising (and, hence, principle-based) AND universalising enough so as to grasp what needs to be done. And that is almost impossible to achieve. Support from various classes was not unachievable, given feudalism`s crumbling social base, the early modern centralising monarchy is not the only route to modernity and equality, as the example of Switzerland shows on one hand. The overarching theory/ideology which would inspire a stably egalitarian society was difficult to develop, though.
Socialism without socialists is difficult.
 
Top