ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I didn’t think that Weber’s linking of capitalism and Protestantism was about Protestant churches and religious leaders supporting capitalism but about how Protestant teaching on how an individual should behave (work hard, don’t enjoy yourself) encouraged the accumulation of capital as opposed to spending wealth on luxuries.
This would explain why so many early capitalists were Protestants. In England many early capitalists were “Nonconformists” such as Quakers, Congregationalists and Baptists as non-Anglican Protestants were known (the Church of England being semi-Catholic anyway). Their attitude to non-essential consumption was illustrated by their opposition to drinking alcohol for which they were popularly known. Even in Catholic countries most early capitalists were not Catholics.
So I think it is fair to say that Protestantism was the religion of capitalism. This doesn’t mean that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t support capitalism but that Catholicism didn’t reflect or encourage “the spirit of capitalism”; in fact it was against economic liberalism and free market capitalism wanting to restrain it through social reforms.
“We still believe a lot of Roman propaganda that has since proven fraudulent, for instance St. Jerome’s description of the “barbarian” sack of Rome – which never happened, and we use words like “barbarian” and “vandal”, when it would be more apt to say of a damaged phone booth or ransacked shop, “It’s been Romanised!””
I think it might be better to say “Roman Catholic” propaganda as both the Visigoths and the Vandals who “sacked” Rome in the 5th century where Christians but of a different sect. They lost out in the end and the victors wrote history. If they had won the West might have inherited a genuine monotheistic religion like Islam is instead of the ridiculous and incomprehensible doctrine of a three-headed god called “Trinity”. Of course it would still have been mambo-jumbo.
Other words of contempt inherited from the ruling class of those days showing how they regarded the peasants they exploited are “villain” and “churlish”. It is of course to their credit that the villeins and churls of those days earned these descriptions from their opponents in the class struggle.
I can believe that in their ideological battle with the obscurantist Roman Catholic Church the ideologists of the rising bourgeoisie exaggerated how bad things were under feudalism. But they had to win that battle and fortunately they did, otherwise socialism would not have become possible.
Technological progress continued during the period, as it always does in human societies as they strive to make it easier to produce what they need. Indeed it was this that laid the basis for the appearance and development of the capitalist mode of production.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2014/08/30/tech-lessons-from-the-dark-ages/amp/
If the situation is as serious as the government’s two top scientific advisers said on Monday, the measures announced by the government yesterday are not going to prove that effective.
They know that they should have closed down pubs completely but the brewers have traditionally been supporters of the Tory party. Making them close at 10pm is only going back to what used to be the case in the olden days. They also know full well that allowing university students to return is inevitably going to spread the virus.
But of course they’ve got a huge problem — they are having to deal with organising the necessary social distancing in the context of capitalism. But capitalism, because it depends on profit-making with so many depending on the money they get from selling their labour power to live, makes it impossible to organise to continue production and distribution with social distancing in a rational way.
This from an email circular from comrade Alwyn Edgar is relevant:
The papers say that half of Americans will refuse to accept vaccination against covid-19. What is it with Americans? Andrew Wakefield took his bogus theory (that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine caused autism) to the States, and found a vast number to support him. (Trump, not yet president, accepted this baloney, and in fact – being Trump – claimed he thought of it first.) In America, millions believe that aliens are regular visitors (at any rate to the U.S.), that the “second coming” of Christ (“the Rapture”) will be here any day now, that the moon landing was all a hoax, etc. But it’s surely dangerous to reject vaccination.
When smallpox regularly killed 10% of the U.K. population, some clever clogs worked out why dairymaids didn’t get it (and therefore were noted for being pretty – not having the facial pockmarks left by smallpox). Instead they got cowpox from the cows – that is, a much milder variant of smallpox: and people who’d had cowpox didn’t get smallpox.
When I began 60 years ago (!) to write about the Highland clearances, I plunged into a survey of Scotland, parish by parish, written in the 1790s by the parish ministers (the “old Statistical Account”); I studied every report on the 162 Highland parishes, nearly all of which talked of this new idea of inoculation against smallpox. Some said the locals were against it, and there were still many deaths from smallpox; some said it was beginning to be accepted, and there were fewer deaths from smallpox; some said nearly everyone now had it, and there were hardly any deaths from smallpox. Short of accepting a plot among a pious crowd of Highland ministers to tell lies, this large batch of parish reports left a reader with no alternative: inoculation against smallpox worked.
But if many Americans refuse to accept vaccination (when a vaccine is found), even though everyone else in the globe accepted it, the disease would repeatedly spring up again. (Like smallpox did, for centuries before vaccination.)
There are two different senses of the word “philosophy”. The one you call “a tool for living”; the other is a theory of the nature of the world.
I suppose everybody has a philosophy of life even if only that “shit happens” or that “what will be, will be”. But philosophy in the other sense as “metaphysics” is useless and has been replaced by logic and the theory of knowledge and science. This is what Dietzgen meant by “the positive outcome of philosophy”, ie that this was science, and Marx by the contrast he made between “philosophy” and “the study of the actual world”. That’s why I think it’s dubious to talk about a “Marxist philosophy”, though as a tool for living I suppose it would be that philosophers only interpret the world but the point is to change it.
Marx’s correspondence with Engels and others shows that after 1845 he was not interested in philosophical theories but in scientific advances and inventions. Which of course makes sense as they change the world and pave the way for socialism as a society that can satisfy the material needs of all.
We could let Marx have the last word. This from the German Ideology;
”Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relationship to one another as masturbation and sexual love.”
Which I think translates as All Philosophers are Wankers. I hasten to add that he wasn’t talking about us here but only about the German philosophers of his day. We are discussing something different— not philosophy but the theory of science, aren’t we?
Reformist’s dilemma. If you want a reform (or want to stop an existing reform being taken away) what do you do: vote for party that stands for it with no chance of being able to implement it or for a politician who might just take a few tentative steps towards it? In this case what seems to have made the 170 ( never heard of any of them) desert the Green Party is less the aim of getting their Green New Deal implemented than the risk of existing environmental reforms being rescinded.
Anyway of course the Green New Deal is a pipe dream. It’s just Green Keynesianism and experience has shown that no kind of government spending can change the way capitalism works.
Incidentally, I take it that the “ranked choice” election system that the Green Party wants is what we over here call the Alternative Vote where you express your preference for the candidates by voting 1,2,3 etc and the bottom preferences are redistributed until one candidate gets to 50% + 1 of the votes cast (which is in fact the fairest system when choosing a single person).
I thought that this imaginary interview with him during the 1912 presidential election when he was up against Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson abd the outgoing President Taft was amusing, especially the bit where he mentions capitalism and the interviewer moves on quickly. It’s only four minutes.
Bijou Drains wrote: “…we discover as children that things that are hot burn us.”
Yes, so every member of humanity could participate in a vote on this and agree. Hot things burn.
_________________________Did he really say that? That the proposition that “hot things burn” should be put to a world referendum before it can be accepted as “true”?
Weird, no?
Someone on another thread mentions someone who says that Marx was an “existentialist” while here someone is saying that he was a “constructivist”. Both are anachronisms.
Actually, after he and Engels wrote in 1845 the notes intended to clarify their own views and which were not published until long after the death of both of them under the title of The German Ideology, Marx never wrote anything about philosophy (he left that to Engels) and does not seem to have been interested in it any more. He seems content to regard himself as a “materialist” as he had done in the 1844 Theses on Feuerbach though a new kind different from the “contemplative materialism” he was criticising. I don’t think he thought that in the past the Sun went round the Earth, as is being alleged.
Thanks. I see I’ve still got time to change it ! Done. While I have the floor I can add that “reality” is not out there waiting to be “discovered”. It is out there waiting to be “described” but it’s there independently of how it’s described,
I’d never heard of him either but this passage from that article on him is a bit suspicious:
“And finally, there is Hägglund’s proposal that Marxists can ditch communism — which in any event Marx described vaguely — in favor of democracy.”
True, communism, as a society based on the common ownership of the means of life by the whole community, is only a means to an end — the framework within which humans can lead a life freed from all exploitation and oppression and can develop their abilities.
But I think we can say that such “freedom” and “development” are only possible within that framework as in fact is democracy. Common ownership is the same as no ownership in the sense that in communism (what we normally call socialism) the means of life don’t belong to anybody or any institution. They are simply there to be used and the only way they can be used on a non-class basis is where everyone has an equal chance to have their say in how things should be run, ie democracy. So, carried to its logical conclusion, democracy is the same as communism.
Ok but I only used the word “real” (which is not entirely appropriate) because that‘s the one postmodernists and oids use in their dogma that “beliefs create reality.”
They would have a bit of a point if they argued that beliefs shape our description and interpretation of realty but not reality itself which is the ever-changing world of phenomena (the whole universe) parts of which humans experience.
Otherwise you end up with the absurdity, expressed many times here, that in the past the reality was that the Sun went round the Earth. That was only how at one time that particular part of the world of phenomena was described and interpreted.
