The Peasants' Revolt, also known as the Great Revolt, was a largely unsuccessful popular uprising in England in June 1381. The rebellion's leaders included Wat Tyler and they wanted massive social changes which included a removal of the poll tax, an end to the cap on labour wages, redistribution of the Church's wealth and the total abolition of serfdom.
The revolt began in the south-east of England and then spread to London and elsewhere. Although desiring social change, the rebels did not want to remove King Richard II of England (r. 1377-1399). It lasted only four weeks and was put down by Richard, first by negotiation and then through ruthless persecution of the ringleaders. The consequences of the revolt were, therefore, limited, but the poll tax was abandoned, restrictions on labour wages were not strictly enforced, and peasants continued the trend of buying their freedom from serfdom and becoming independent farmers.
Causes of the Revolt
The Peasant's Revolt of June 1381 was the most infamous popular uprising of the Middle Ages and it was caused by a simmering discontent in England that went as far back as the middle of Edward III of England's reign as king (1327-1377) and the arrival of the Black Death plague in 1348. It was, though, Edward's successor, Richard II of England, who had to deal with the chaos when the widespread discontent boiled over into all-out rebellion.
The principal causes of the Peasants' Revolt were:
- a new poll tax imposed on all peasants irrespective of wealth (the third such tax since 1377).
- the limit by law on wages after labour costs had risen dramatically following the Black Death plague.
- unscrupulous landlords trying to turn free labourers back into serfs (aka villeins) to save money on wages.
- a general feeling of exploitation by local authorities during a time of economic decline.
Violence Erupts
The uprising began, then, in May-June 1381 in England's south-east where royal tax inspectors were investigating why tax returns had been surprisingly low. These inspectors suddenly met with opposition for their demands for payment of the poll tax which Parliament had passed in November 1380. Officials and sheriffs were kidnapped and murdered. Bands of rebels toured the countryside on horseback, torching manors and destroying their records - a clear indicator of the peasants' desire to overturn manorialism. The public records at Maidstone, Rochester, and Canterbury all went up in flames. The ringleaders seemed to be better-off small farmers and included in their number parish priests and village constables. This was not a revolt of the absolute poor but those commoners who had something to lose. The Crown sent men-at-arms to deal with the problem areas, but these were too few in number and many were killed.
Two leaders, in particular, came to the fore. Wat Tyler of Maidstone, perhaps a former soldier but any certain details are lacking, and the demagogue priest John Ball, who radically sought for more equality in society. Ball had already seen the inside of a prison a few times for his extreme preaching.
Consequently, with leadership, genuine grievances and an ideological framework to justify their actions, the disturbances developed into a full-scale rebellion with a mission: confront the King and get things changed. It is important to note, however, that the rebels did not want to topple the king and their members even swore an oath of loyalty to 'King Richard and the true Commons'. The rebels marched to London on 11 June - causing much havoc on their way - where they were joined by equally discontented townsfolk illustrating that the revolt was not simply one of feudal labourers. In London, there had long been rivalries between the rich and poor, factions of the Church, medieval guilds, native and foreign merchants, and apprentices and their masters, and all these divisions would be widened by the revolt. Some chroniclers noted the rebels now numbered over 60,000 people, and all this while the king's army was in Scotland.
The Peasants' Demands
When the mob got to London on 13 June they continued to loot, pillage, and murder. Lawyers, foreigners, and petty officials of the Crown were just some of the groups targeted as old grudges resulted in wanton acts of vengeance. Prisoners were freed while those thought to be guilty of crimes were hanged by peoples' courts.
Although only 14, King Richard emerged from the safety of the Tower of London and bravely promised to meet the protest leaders at Mile End, a field on the outskirts of London. There Richard listened to their demands and blithely promised to meet all of them, issue charters accordingly and even permitted Tyler to extract justice on any person he thought deserved punishment. Tyler then promptly ordered the storming of the Tower of London and had the hated Chancellor, Archbishop Simon of Sudbury, decapitated on Tower Hill.
The participants of the Peasants' Revolt demanded the following changes:
- the total abolition of serfdom
- a repeal of labour laws limiting wage increases brought in after the Black Death
- free fishing and hunting rights for all
- more peasant participation in local government
- the Crown should be the only authority in the counties, not local lords
- the redistribution of the Church's riches, especially of the great abbeys
Richard then employed the much-used tactic of making a load of extravagant promises he had no intention of keeping such as giving everyone involved royal pardons. These promises were enough to stave off more rioting, and the mob disbanded, escorted out of London by the city's militia.
Consequences of the Revolt
Utterly ruthless, Richard next ensured that around 150 of the rebels were hanged, so many that new gibbets had to be built for the purpose. Wat Tyler's head was displayed on London Bridge. There were other minor outbreaks of rebellion thereafter, but these were mercilessly quashed and their ringleaders executed as traitors. As the king boldly stated: 'villeins ye are, and villeins ye shall remain'. The whole affair was perhaps the high point of Richard's reign as things went downhill from then on, the once-admired young king turning out to be a major disappointment and ending his days with a short imprisonment and a mysterious death.
Ultimately, though, there were social changes in England, as had already be seen prior to the revolt. The poll tax was abandoned, the limits on labourers' wages were not rigorously enforced, and serfs continued to buy their freedom. Significantly, the law and legal records were now used not by landowners to enforce an obligation of labour but to demonstrate a labourer had legitimately bought their freedom and could pass on their land to their descendants.
Text From Worldhistory article Peasants' Revolt
Another England: The Story of the Wat Tyler and the Peasants' Revolt
- π»Link to all Hexbear comms https://hexbear.net/post/1403966
- π Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube](https://live.hexbear.net/c/movies
- π₯ Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread https://hexbear.net/post/5042186
- β Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread https://hexbear.net/post/4738774
- β¨ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread https://hexbear.net/post/5039365
- π New Weekly Improvement thread https://hexbear.net/post/5031369
- 𧑠Disabled comm megathread https://hexbear.net/post/4891939
- Parenting Chat https://hexbear.net/post/5020579
reminders:
- π You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- π Hexbearβs algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- π Sorting by new you nerd
- π If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
- πΆ Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:
- β€οΈFoundations of Leninism
- β€οΈAnarchism and Other Essays
gonna give it an honest go because a lot of trots are still comrades but damn I wish there were more options lmao
At some point I think maybe internet MLs should do some introspection about the fact that if any real world org is directly helping people it's anarchist and if it's trying to do communist education and agitprop it's trot.
The degree to which that's true is more due to survivorship bias and US culture than quality of theory or praxis imo, but regardless of reasoning I agree with your conclusion broadly. Internet "activism" involves way too much purity testing and not enough pragmatic engagement. The [org] that feeds the children gets my support, even if it happens to (somehow) be anarchist or trot.
The second step after learning initial theory is going out and applying it, even if that means in a less-than-perfect org. The third step can then be critiquing the org and altering course, but too many leftist skip the real-life engagement part of the dialectic. My first org was a fairly radical DSA chapter and I met a lot of good people, including other MLs.
In the first case it is generally charity bereft of political education or organizing their communities. They're basically doing NGO charity work without the tax breaks and calling it radical. Membership is sporadic and mostly free of political education themselves, being mostly liberals dipping their toes in but arresting their own progress by spending 90% of their "free" time actually doing "mutual aid" (actually following a charity model). This is an easy thing to casually join and leave and is rarely more political than volunteering for any charity. There will be some members who are politically educated, but this is not something that typically occurs through the work itself and it is also in no way exclusive to anarchists, as mutual aid groups will also have MLs and Maoists.
The latter is a long-standing bias in the West, where Trots were the least-repressed communists because they were and are hypercritical of nearly every socialist project and do roundabout propaganda work fir empire. This also makes them appealing for liberals in the imperial core because they can still embrace their own chauvinism while changing their language and reasoning to feel like they are its antithesis. Trots also have their own canon, they read a carefully curated list of Trot works and actively avoid even reading Capital, in my experience, preferring Trotskyist summaries and oddly paternal (and rife for abuse) mentorship instead. I do not, honestly, see Trots doing much political education or agitation, mostly just attending actions (with their pamphlets) organized by others, taking credit for things they didn't do, and doing a bad job at tabling. Trots are more about getting you to join and therefore start on a path to worthiness while paying a tithe.
There are several ML orgs in my area and those for which I have this kind of knowledge are growing rapidly. They do the work of organizing protests and rallies, hosting teach-ins, hosting political movie nights and discussions, gathering money for Palestine, etc etc. I think their historical paucity has more to do with needing a critical mass of people to have the capacity to do political work and they have been historically repressed. It is a full-time job to create and run an organized and you have to build enough capacity to rotate roles, otherwise it isn't really organizing in the first place (organizing must build capacity!). I also think that pipelining is challenging for MLs due to the larger jump from liberalism a person must make. This is why groups like PSL have probation periods and FRSO has two tiers of membership. New members usually don't know shit, they must be educated, and these are the people willing to join a communist org in the first place that runs counter to everything they have previously been taught. Feeder orgs (including fronts) have historically worked to address this but also require a critical mass of people to do the organizing work. And they are being actively targeted, e.g. principled pro-Palestine groups run by commies. Samidoun gets shut down but your local Trots are unscathed.
what is this based on exactly? also did you just forget about AES being ML?
No, I think the fact that China and Cuba both subscribe to modified versions of ML is partly why MLs don't tend to have a lot of orgs in the west. Partly because of the historical repression of the movement, but also because a lot of MLs subconsciously want to outsource the any responsibility for the political work to China. I also think that a lot of people are very quick to take a look at orgs doing actual work and refuse to join because they disagree on theoretical tenets that don't matter at this stage of the movement
my disagreement here is what "doing actual work" is. both trots and anarchists have niche un-scaleable operations and very often completely disconnected from the working class.
Well, then there are real world orgs actually engaged in revolution and fighting people's war, and those are all Maoist :)
I get that feel... It sucks that the best alternative around me is a trot org.