Fifth Monarchists

For religious non-conformists of the 1600s, the Fifth Monarchists actually managed to acquire quite a bit of power (for a little while, at least.)

They were an essentially apocalyptic sect. They associated the year 1666 with the number of the beast of Revelations, and believed that Jesus was about to begin the 1,000 year "fifth monarchy" (the first four were Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome.)

Two Fifth Monarchists were judges at Charles I's trial and signed his death warrant. After Oliver Cromwell dissolved the Rump Parliament, the Fifth Monarchists proposed that the country should be ruled by a body of "saints," based on the Old Testament Sanhedrin. These saints, they believed, would usher in the apocalypse and the second coming of Christ.

Oliver Cromwell actually tried to implement this scheme. English churches nominated 129 men for the new government; Scottish churches nominated five; and the Irish, six. Many of those nominated were Fifth Monarchists themselves or were otherwise sympathetic to their cause. This Parliament of Saints, (also known as the Barebones Parliament,) lasted a whole 6 months before it dissolved itself for the good of the people.

After that, Fifth Monarchists' power and influence waned. They tried and failed to overthrow Cromwell's Protectorate. They later tried to conquer London (on Jesus's behalf,) and many were subsequently killed hideously for treason.

Religious Communism

(Note: this is a subject of on-going research. I could be wrong about stuffs.)

We tend to think of "communism" as starting with Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto. Marx was certainly a significant political theorist, but he was actually part of an existing, much larger movement that has its origins in the same reforming impulse that lead to American democracy and many religious communes.

Today we think of "communism" and "democracy" as opposites, but in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s, they were more or less the same. Democracy meant a community of people had the right to determine their own laws, instead of the King dictating laws to them. Communism of the day was meant that the community had a right to determine their economic fates, rather than the King. In religious communes, in particular, councils voted on both legal and economic matters. Later, the idea of collectively running one's own country and of collectively running one's own factory can be seen as the same idea expressed at different levels.

As I understand it, our notion that the government and the economy are two separate entities is fairly modern. 500 years or so ago, the political and economic systems were completely entwined, via that system popularly known as feudalism.

I'm still not clear on when or why democracy/communism first became a big deal, but we see at least some interesting groups emerging in the 1600s, with a variety of systems. The Pilgrims of the Plymouth Bay Colony, in 1620, established a democratic society, apparently in keeping with Calvinist doctrines. The colony's government also administered certain economic concerns, like regulating the purchasing of land, but does not appear to have banned private property.

Some Quaker and Shaker groups did hold all property in common. The Diggers, around 1650, were agrarian socialists who attempted to farm on common lands. I believe the Mormons also practiced some form of centralized economic direction in the settling of Utah. And, of course, many monasteries and convents have been essentially communistic for centuries.

Some groups were obviously more successful than others, but overall, religious communes seem to have done pretty well, and may have provided much of the inspiration for the secular communism movement.

When Enthusiasm was a Dirty Word

Apparently, back in the 1600s and 1700s, the English decided that enthusiasm was bad. Too much political or religious enthusiasm was blamed for causing the English Civil War, and so being enthusiastic about such things was looked down upon. "Enthusiasm" became a pejorative term for advocating political or religious causes in public.

I would not be surprised to find that many of the more enthusiastic-personalitied Brits immigrated to the US as a result, leaving their calmer brethren behind, and contributing to the development of our respective national characters.