Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
TM – ‘I said it’s a waste of time because you simply repeat things without taking any cognisance of my points.’
Give me one example of where I have done that? Let me try to summarize your position in contrast to my own: You don’t believe that there was a loss of material culture and progress in Western Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. I believe that there is ample evidence of that – whether or not it deserves the title of the ‘Dark Ages’, I agree, is debatable. You believe that the merchant capitalism of the medieval period is commensurate with the industrial capitalism we have today whereas I believe the differences are profound and consequential. Likewise you believe the medieval state was comparable with modern nation states whereas, again, I think the differences are of great political importance. I am interested in your contention that Catholic states did transform into capitalism without the need for a protestant Reformation but wasn’t their own ‘counter Reformation’ a reaction to the need for change resulting from the convulsions of the Reformation? You highlight continuity whereas I emphasize revolutionary change. No doubt you will disagree with this summation but that’s how I see things. Perhaps we can discuss the class nature of the ‘gentleman historians’ of the past and their obvious ideological bias?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.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?
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.
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.
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.
TM – Ok we’ll have to agree to disagree about the Reformation playing a central role in the rise of nationalism and the nation state. Historians mention many contenders for the title of the first nation state but rarely, if ever, have I heard Spain mentioned in this context. What is your reasoning for this?
Although the Saracens were quite shocked when they encountered the Franks for the first time during the early crusades. Their lack of hygiene and general ignorance of medicine together with a rather limited education and a almost maniacal need for violence was an embarrassment for many Muslims. Presumably this was because they had preserved the knowledge of Greek science, medicine and philosophy which much of Europe had lost?
CDM – ‘What was the main purpose of the Renaissance? Wasn’t it a scientific, philosophical and artistic rebirth from the obscurity created by Feudalism?’
Historians have debated that ad nauseam but the rediscovery of ancient culture, much of which had been lost in western Europe, had a stimulating effect on the intelligentsia of the time. The fall of Constantinople meant that many scholars fled the city and shared what they knew with the Catholic west, especially Italy. I think Marx acknowledged that political/cultural evolution wasn’t necessarily a smooth passage (a fact that some philosophers mention in their critique of Marx’s work) but it does appear that much material culture was lost after the fall of the western Roman Empire for many centuries. Most historians don’t use the term ‘the dark ages’ anymore but it does seem appropriate to me – what do you guys think? You could make a case for the 20th century being a dark age for socialism because during all of the carnage the Bolsheviks appropriated the term and we still live with the consequences of the Marxian knowledge that was subsumed and subverted by these gangsters.TM – Thanks. We know that merchant capitalism has been around for centuries but what makes the English revolution unique is that it allowed the evolution of Industrial Capitalism with wage labour and the accumulation of surplus value. Would you agree with that?
So no apology then? Only to be expected I suppose. Don’t you realize how you alienate so many in this forum by your behavior? As I’ve repeatedly stated that in terms of the ideology of the bourgeoisie the Reformation is interesting but that the underlying class conflict was inevitable whatever ideology was used.
TM – ‘As for France and the Wars of Religion, you seem to think that all the bourgeoisie were Huguenots. This would fit with your over-simplistic view of Catholic = feudal and Protestant = bourgeoisie.’
I really wish that you’d stop creating these straw men – when did I say or even intimate what you’re claiming here? I’m well aware of the complexities and changing alliances of the Reformation. If you don’t stop doing this, as my patience has its limits, I will have to stop my part in this debate – and that would be a shame since I’m really enjoying it..TM – So you don’t believe that the long ‘wars of religion’ in France and the suppression of Protestantism were major factors handicapping the development of capitalism and bourgeois ideology? Is this not one of the reasons that the capitalist class turned to the enlightenment as an ideology that promoted their revolutionary cause? The capitalism that existed in many Catholic countries was merchant capitalism which only evolved into industrial capitalism and the procurement of surplus value in England. This was helped or, indeed, caused by the favorable legal and financial systems that came about after the English Revolution of the 1640s.
