The Reformation and the Rise of the Nation State
- This topic has 92 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 3 hours, 5 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
TM -Did the inhabitants of the peninsular think of themselves as ‘Spanish’ or were they still very regional (Castilian or Aragonese etc.). This is one of the distinctions historians make between Medieval states and the modern conception of a nation state. Although it has to be said that the whole conception of a ‘nation-state’ is problematic in terms of definition but obviously very successful for the bourgeoisie politically.
The Basques and Catalans have never thought of themselves as Spanish; nor have the Bretons and Occitans thought of themselves as French, yet both are nation-states (Spain and France). There was one army under one royal livery and an empire whose governors were answerable to one royal authority. All wealth from conquest went to the Crown, in Spain, France and England. Each state appointed its own bishops. Whatever an individual or community believed, the reality was only one central allegiance. A crime against the state was a crime against its Church too and was punished by the state or church authorities answerable to the state and not to any foreign power, not even the pope.
A feudal secular authority could have never established global power, and none did, even if remnants of feudal society still lingered in the home nation. (As they did in England too).TM – ‘Whatever an individual or community believed, the reality was only one central allegiance.’
Yes but that ‘central allegiance’ changed from one of fear and superstition to one of national pride and cultural/racial superiority. I think you underestimate the power of nationalism without which even capitalism would falter – that’s why it remains the greatest enemy of socialism.
Yes. But even in Britain before the First World War, the red coat was something to avoid, which is why recruiting sergeants had to trick working men by dropping the “King’s (or Queen’s) Shilling” into their mugs of beer when they weren’t looking, or lead press gangs into ale houses, brothels and streets to cosh them and drag them away into the army or navy.
If Britain was still dubious about patriotism in the 19th century, but nonetheless an industrialised nation-state, it’s no surprise it was still an infant in the 15th century in Spain and Portugal. But royal force and violence were real and ruthless, and strongly centralised. The monarchs were no longer the pawns of feudal lords and global markets and colonies were in play, if not in our modern sense.
So what are you trying to say, that these were not nation-states, but England was?Lastly, although the 1688 settlement had consolidated the bourgeois English state, and the 1707 Union had created Great Britain, half of the island, remember was still the roaming land of semi-feudal/tribal Gaelic clans until 1746.
https://share.google/gkQczj5K5TMGhHWMP (How could a fragmented feudal country have conquered this much and become the world’s global power – whilst England was dependent on pirating from it?)
TM – I don’t think it helps not to recognize the difference between a ‘state’ and a ‘nation-state’. The latter acquires its legitimacy (ideologically speaking) from its population and their shared identity and not from an autocrat or God (religious leaders). We still hear the call for ‘independence’ as if it’s some kind of remedy for all capitalism’s ills. It is of interest that during the 30 years war most of the fighting was done by mercenaries and not by those who were loyal to a religion or country. Nation states with standing armies changed all that. Of course I see this all as ideological nonsense but the reason why the working class murder each other periodically for the interests of the bourgeoisie can, partly, be understood historically.
I think that the SPGB pamphlet, Socialism and Religion, is more than enough for the working class. The book How the Gods Were Created, based on historical materialism, is enough for the working class. Engels and Kautsky on Christianity is enough for the working class
So we’ll end the thread then. It’s a waste of time.
By your logic, England wasn’t a nation-state either.
Didn’t George III use thousands of Hanoverian and Hessian troops against the American rebels?
There was no standing army in England until James II. Parliamentarian regiments in the Civil War, like Royalist ones, were privately raised by regional landowners. It was a minority conflict and Puritans were a minority of the English population.
TM – It’s not my logic because, like you, I depend on historians to provide me with information that I base my interpretations on. My information is that England had a permanent standing army after the crushing of the counter revolution in 1688. Cromwell’s New Model Army was, likewise, a standing army. As for your petulant assertion that this thread ‘is a waste of time’ this has not been my experience and I can only conclude that if anyone dares to disagree with you on anything that, for you, it’s a waste of time. Rather infantile don’t you think?
CDM – ‘I think that the SPGB pamphlet, Socialism and Religion, is more than enough for the working class.’
Fortunately you and the SPGB don’t get to decide what is ‘more than enough for the working class’. Such arrogance is not helpful.Whether the oppressed are patriotic or not, have the franchise or are ruled autocratically, a nation-state is not their property nor their tool, but is the property and tool of the ruling class.
Of course the modern nation-state today has the ultimate in national brainwashing power to instil “nationhood” among its proletariat, but the nation-state would exist even if coercion were necessary.
Authoritarian countries today are no less nation-states than “democratic” ones are. So are states run by clergy (such as Iran), where the patriotism is inseparable from religious loyalty.I said it’s a waste of time because you simply repeat things without taking any cognisance of my points.
The permanent standing army was brought in by James II, so yes, it was already there by 1688. The New Model was Cromwell’s own raised force and did not survive him.
Cranmer’s hypocrisy:
Google: ” Active Concealment: Cranmer had to hide his marriage to Margaret Osiander, which occurred around 1532, as clerical celibacy was enforced for much of Henry’s reign.
Protestant Reputation: By 1536, Cranmer was already identified as the leader of the reformist faction, and by 1538, he had abandoned the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
Political Compromise: Despite his personal beliefs, he complied with the conservative Act of Six Articles in 1539, which reinforced Catholic doctrine, and even participated in the persecution of those with more radical views than his own.
Controlled Reform: He was forced to accept the “King’s Book” (1543), which largely restored Catholicism, but was allowed by Henry to compose an English Litany in 1544, preparing the ground for future Protestant changes.
Final Actions: Upon Henry’s death in January 1547, Cranmer was finally free to openly implement the Protestant changes he had prepared. “Wez
CDM – ‘I think that the SPGB pamphlet, Socialism and Religion, is more than enough for the working class.’
Fortunately you and the SPGB don’t get to decide what is ‘more than enough for the working class’. Such arrogance is not helpful.———————————————————
You have your own opinion, and I have my own opinion, stick yurselves to your opinions. The SPGB has said that without Marx and Engels, they would have created their own version of socialism. Is that arrogance?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.