Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Alan – I don’t see how the Peasant’s Revolt or the Diggers of the English Revolution represent ‘different courses (of history)’ potential or otherwise since the first was primarily a revolt against the poll tax led by the better off peasantry and the Diggers were utopian socialists that had no chance of succeeding under bourgeois rule. A brief look at the Taborites (of whom I know little) would suggest they were a pre reformation group like the Lollard Movement in this country whose cause would be furthered by the Lutheran Reformation which would, in turn, lead to the formation of nation states and the Protestant ideology which would fuel the Bourgeois revolutions. In none of these cases do I see the potential for instigating a change in the course of history but rather a necessary element within the course it took.
‘I’m sorry I bothered to give Alan my summary.’
TM – why? I found it an interesting debate. I don’t like the term ‘Eurocentric’ because it implies cultural bias or even racism. But historical facts are facts – would you call the belief that our species had its origin in Africa a form of ‘Afro-centrism’?‘We shouldn’t be too Eurocentric and appreciate that humanity could have taken many different courses, as it often did so.
I have always been interested in pre-capitalist developments such as the peasant revolts that used religion as its language. What if they had prevailed?’
Alan – what ‘different courses’ are you referring to? Some believe that the so-called peasant revolts (at least in this country) were precursors of the bourgeois revolutions that were to follow. Most of the leaders were of ‘the middling sort’ and we shouldn’t imagine them as all impoverished peasants. If this is the case then, in the long term, they did prevail.
‘Non-Europeans are then to be confirmed in their belief that we’re only interested in the West as the “centre of history” and its history as all that’s important. So you can agree with Marx’s dismissive phrase regarding centuries of Chinese stupidity, from which we saved them!’
Thomas – answer me this: ‘Did global capitalism have its origins in Europe? Is global capitalism the greatest obstacle to socialism both economically and politically? As the answer to both these questions is obviously yes then clearly that’s what socialists should examine, understand and explain. It has nothing to do with cultural ‘stupidity’ as clearly many cultures were far in advance of Europe in many and various ways down the centuries. But politically and economically the European model has become the dominant force in everyone’s lives. My understanding of the Marxian approach to the study of history is to distinguish elements of the past that were important in the development of the present and then to likewise try and define elements of the present that we can project as possible components of the future.
TM – As you say it might be of academic interest to an historian but not to a socialist when discussing politics. It doesn’t matter if China was feudal or not since the history of China did not create the development of global capitalism as did Europe. Because of the early political evolution of England (revolutions of 1642 &1688),and the industrial revolution that this made possible, England had the industrial/technological/military edge that enabled it to impose the capitalist mode of production on the world and/or show its superiority to the rising bourgeois classes of other European states who sought to emulate it. It is likewise of academic interest as to how the economies of the Americas would have developed without European contact but it is now of no political importance.
TM – Does the Chinese route to capitalism really matter? The fact is, like the rest of the world, it now conforms to the capitalism that was developed in Europe, and it is the study of that development that is, in retrospect, of primary interest to socialists.
Lizzie45 – ‘reformism is the only game in town’.
No it’s not – if it were then you would not have this forum on which to make such a statement. Even if it were ‘the only game in town’ the winning or losing of it would make no difference to the history of the outcome. It is only infantile impatience and self indulgence that fuels political reformism.‘One cannot have civilization without authoritarianism or probably even a society for that matter.’
This is by far the most revealing of all of the TrueScotsman’s pontifications. It reveals how trapped he is within bourgeois ideology without the merest glimmer of socialist consciousness. He will never understand this but I use it as evidence that the left can be just as reactionary as the right.‘Organise an anti-NATO protest of your own if you think the others too “right wing”. You’ve an entire “party” apparatus at your disposal do you not? Mobilize your members, hit the streets, call for the heads of the NATO warmongers to roll! Or, as I suspect, are you all just a bunch of do nothing posers?’
Really, that’s the best advice you can give us and the working class TS? I seem to remember 1 million on the streets protesting the Iraq war – and that really made a lot of difference didn’t it? You’re just an old fashioned juvenile leftie who loves the self indulgence of slogans and demos.
ALB – Perhaps the US empire is a bit like the old Austro-Hungarian empire and sabre rattling because of perceived internal weakness and by the humiliation of Afghanistan? Let’s just hope that it doesn’t lead to the same catastrophic ending!
TM – Do you not believe that there was a loss of material culture in Europe after the fall of the western Roman Empire? An example of this is the crusaders’ lack of medical knowledge compared with that of their Muslim opponents? Also didn’t the crusaders see the Mongols as an incarnation of ‘Prester John’ who would save the Kingdom of Outremer?
I remember watching this TV series many years ago – it made me reassess the ‘Dark Ages’. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FlbP20Ex9c&list=PLBOXjuzxIKcom1QRkE0y62DyEt_4jkKw4
What are your thoughts on the ‘Enlightenment’? Is it essentially bourgeois ideology or a triumph of reason and science?
Crikey, what a dedicated revisionist you are TM. You’ll be rejecting the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages next. Be careful you don’t throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Do you see the 20th century, as I do, as a true ‘Dark Age’ with the rise of the Fascist and Bolshevik varieties of capitalism?
‘Is there any news source we can go to which isn’t biased?’
rodshaw – would you say that the contents of the Socialist Standard are biased? A Marxian analysis would insist that we have a working class bias because their/our perspective is progressive and represents the future. The perspective of the ruling class is biased in representing their interests – which, of course, is sometimes hotly disputed between sections of that class.
