Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?
Thomas Moore – I was under the impression that the several attempts by the Bourgeoisie to take power in Spain was thwarted, to a great degree, by Catholicism and its support of Absolutism. What is this ‘Tridentine Catholicism’ that you claim was favourable to the capitalist class in Spain?
Bijou – I may be mistaken but weren’t Einstein’s theories of relativity entirely the result of ‘thought experiments’?
As a materialist I don’t doubt the existence of an objective reality independent of our concept of it but science still asks many more questions than it has answers. Perhaps this is because the present scientific paradigms are mistaken or inadequate? We cannot know what further research will reveal but we do know, by looking at history, that perspectives and knowledge will undergo profound change.
‘Of course, for postmodernoids, evolution wasn’t real before the 18th century. Creationism was because that was the reality that the social consensus created until then.’
Beware of contemporary conceit ALB. The future may look back on our own view of ‘reality’ as anachronistic just as we see the metaphysics of the past as outdated.
Psychologically those who believe in a deity still rely on some supernatural parental substitute to sustain them emotionally. Such immaturity makes them irrational and unreliable and subsequently no help in the struggle for socialism.
Yeah, I keep waiting to hear the fluttering of idealist wings.
‘ What we are looking for is a description that reliably predicts the course of a series or set of phenomena and so is of more practical use.’
And that is precisely what Marx’s theory of history does – based on dialectical philosophy. It doesn’t get more ‘practical’ than that. If you agree that both philosophy and science are a ‘phenomena of the mind’ we have no debate. Your statement that science gives us access to something that is in the phenomena themselves implies a contrast with philosophy in general – even materialist philosophy?
‘In other words, as Marcos has pointed out, dialectics is one way of describing observed changes in phenomena not something that is in the phenomena themselves. It belongs to the realm of human thought not to that of “Nature”.’
This implies that scientific descriptions of nature are not human creations but are somehow ‘Godlike’ pronouncements that exist outside of their cultural context. Science is created by scientists who are as human as anyone else. Science is a human construct and one of the most powerful descriptions of observed phenomena that we have but its origins are philosophical (i.e. logic, reason, empiricism etc.).
None of the above alters the fact that all Marx’s work is infused with the dialectical method. ‘Internal relations’ are described in terms of the interpenetration of opposites, the transformation of quantity into quality and the negation of the negation. This is the only way to understand the internal contradictions that transform something into something else. All of this is in the philosophical tradition going back to Plato. It is purely cultural bias that seeks to deny this and replace it with the religion of science.
I’m glad you have found your religion Marcus. Marxism is dialectical, no Marxism = no socialism and no hope of a ‘coherent theory’ of anything. As far as I know the best that can be said of Lenin was that he started out as an idealist before his megalomania forced him to rationalize the brutality of his political actions – just propaganda he convinced himself of and he certainly had no claims to be any kind of philosopher – not even a third rate one.
‘Science is just another name for organised knowledge. It’s not an ideology.’
Agreed but many have elevated it to the status of a religion. If it is indeed another name for organised knowledge then how can it have superseded philosophy which shares the same ambition?
‘I would like to know which is the best book on dialectical materialism.
If you in your organization share this philosophy.’
Some comrades struggle on trying to read Marx without a knowledge of dialectics but others, like myself, believe it to be a key to political insight. Bertell Ollman’s ‘Dance of the Dialectic’ is a good introduction.
‘Having said this, philosophy has largely given way today to the theory of science and to neuroscience as the study of how the brain works.’
I suspect ALB was provoking the likes of myself with this assertion. Of course science can be seen as a branch of philosophy (natural philosophy) but it has come to see itself as somehow superior to its originator. ‘Science’ has become a magical/religious (ideological) concept to many divorced from its origins. As an exercise in empirical trial and error it is something that humans have always practiced. As a branch of philosophy it can never answer interesting questions concerning meaning and purpose etc. Roberto’s statement that the universe is ‘indifferent to our desires’ is illogical since we are part of the universe – we may be a unique example of the universe becoming conscious of itself.
