Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I use the word feudal in the Marxist sense, and not in the more restricted sense adopted by most academic historians to describe narrowly military and legal relations. By “feudalism” I mean a form of society in which agriculture is the basis of economy and in which political power is monopolised by a class of landowners. The mass of the population consists of dependent peasants subsisting on the produce of their family holdings. The landowners are maintained by the rent paid by the peasants, which might be in the form of food or labour, as in early days, or (by the sixteenth century) in money. In such a society there is room for small handicraft production, exchange of products, internal and overseas trade; but commerce and industry are subordinated to and plundered by the landowners and their State. Merchant capital can develop within feudalism without changing the mode of production; a challenge to the old ruling class and its state comes only with the development of the capitalist mode of production in industry and agriculture.
Christopher Hill
‘It seems Charles I relied on levying of taxes and fines for the most part. He was always strapped for cash.’
But wasn’t that the case with many preceding monarchs including those that were indisputably Feudal? I don’t see how this makes him a capitalist. Anyways moving on – now I have to contend with ALB’s ‘three- class society’ which, presumably excludes the aristocracy and peasantry leaving us with two types of capitalist and a proto working class in the 1640’s? Talk about a ‘critique of the critique’ – this forum certainly keeps you on your intellectual toes.
Why would I want to say that? I just think that Charles I was a member of a decaying feudal nobility that had to be replaced by the capitalist class politically. At least this is what I have always believed but I will read the historians you suggest and review my understanding accordingly. I’m impressed by your confidence but it does seem to confront my understanding of what the class struggle means historically. Have you studied history at university?
‘Aristocrats can become capitalists.’
Does that mean that they are both at the same time? I take it to mean that they were a member of one class who transferred to another (as a member of the working class would upon winning the lottery). As a Marxist I define class by the relationship to the means of production. If you muddy these waters you end up with a sociology that declares that a more affluent section of the working class are ‘middle class’ – which is nonsense. I can accept that ‘bourgeois’ can have a broader meaning culturally but economically? We use the term ‘petit bourgeois’ to define a section of the working class whose income derives partly from profits and who politically identify with the capitalist 1%. Is this the kind of ‘complexity’ you speak of? I’ve been a member of the SPGB since 1980 which was instigated by my brother-in-law who was a professor of Russian history and who showed me the poverty of Lenin’s ideology compared with the materialism of Marx. I turned my back on the Left from that time.
‘Charles Stuart was not a bourgeois but a descendant of Scottish feudal lords ‘
So far, so good. But then you go on to say the source of his wealth was mercantile capitalism which makes him ‘bourgeois’ does it not? Can you tell me the source of this assertion – which historians would you recommend? It flatly refutes Christopher Hill’s version which has hitherto been my main source. It’s important to me because if the Marxist theory of class struggle does not adequately describe events in England at that time then, since it was the origin of global capitalism, it undermines the theory of historical materialism. At the moment I only have your assertions – I would like to read the historians that provided your perspective.
Oh dear TM you’re turning into another avian yourself by never answering a straight question. Say this out loud to hear how preposterous it sounds: ‘Charles Stuart was a Bourgeois.’
‘The relations of production had, in their base, ceased to be feudal and had become capitalist, but the capitalist class was divided.’
So you’re saying that the revolution was the result of a conflict within one class – not competing different classes. I repeat: doesn’t that invalidate the Marxist concept of the struggle between different competing classes as the dynamic element creating historical change?
TM – the problem is that if we were to accept that, for instance, the English Revolution was the result of a struggle between sections of the same class then that would invalidate the Marxist conception that it is the struggle between classes that generates historical change.
‘Just as most French aristocrats became capitalists and joined the French Revolution in 1789’
Where are you getting this stuff? As you know these two events (English & French Revolutions) and their interpretation have caused intense debate among historians. In some ways they have become the ‘front line’ in a materialist/ideological battle between Marxists and all those variations that seek to exclude class conflict as the main cause. You make pronouncements with a confidence that belies the nature of the evidence. Who are your sources and do you really believe the debate will ever reach a conclusion? I realize, glancing at the title of this thread, that we have gone on something of a tangent here – or have we? Without the success of the bourgeoisie in both countries we would not have had the ‘Enlightenment’ and the science that followed?
TM – So, to be clear, you believe that Capitalist hegemony was achieved through an evolutionary process and that the events in 1642 did not represent a bourgeois revolution? You would go as far as to say 1642 represented an internecine struggle between members of the capitalist class? I would reject both of these perspectives and suggest that you might be opposed in general to the Marxist theory of history?
I agree with some of what ALB says but many of the King’s supporters still used the old feudal way of farming. They looked down on the nouveau riche capitalist farming and they in their turn saw the old farming practices as wasteful and as under-exploited land. At least this is the perspective of Christopher Hill who was regarded as the preeminent historian of the period. The idea that the events of 1642 were the result of an internecine struggle between different sections of the capitalist class (TMs understanding) is something I have not heard before and is counter to the Marxian analysis as I and CH understand it. I suppose it could be a semantic argument in terms of the definition of ‘feudalism’.
Strange then that after parliament’s victory one of their first acts was to abolish feudal economic relationships. You seem to have been convinced by Whig historians that there was no Bourgeois revolution in England (unlike those French barbarians) – something us Marxists have long dismissed as propaganda. Read Christopher Hill and learn.
Thomas Moore -I would say that it was the English aristocracy that was split during the English Revolution. It was certainly not a ‘capitalist conflict’ as the court was composed of feudal barons who wanted to maintain their economic power base against the rising bourgeois gentry (capitalist farmers) and prevent ‘free market’ capitalism. Of course you are correct in that the economic power was passing to the capitalist class during the dying days of Stuart feudal autocracy via their trade in slaves, coal and wool but they needed a political revolution to destroy feudal economic relations and so unleash the potential for capital accumulation. You seem to be confusing the existence of capitalists with capitalist hegemony. Germany, although consolidating the reformation with Lutherism, their bourgeoise failed in the revolution of 1848 (they seemed to be more interested in profits than power). Again the rise of capitalists/capitalism within feudal Spain is not the issue but its failure to take political control. The ‘English Model’ of capitalism became global because of its colonialism/imperialism and the economic miracle of the industrial revolution. It was imposed on the world and so, of course, we can use the model to explain Spanish politics.
‘The Spanish monarchy was the national capitalist, just as the Tudor autocracy in England was the national capitalist.’
If that were the case in England then there wouldn’t have been the need for the Bourgeois Revolution in 1642. The Reformation was a prerequisite for the formation and rise of the capitalist class but the Tudor and Stuart monarchies did all they could to prevent the rise to power of the bourgeoise. Although I don’t know much about Spanish history I would suggest the failure of the Reformation in that country inhibited the bourgeoisie gaining political power and led to the slow economic development that ultimately led to the pseudo-Fascist rule of Franco?
