*When The Capitalist World Was Young- William Manchester's View

In Honor Of The 500th Anniversary Of Martin Luther's Refromation Pleas-*When The Capitalist World Was Young- William Manchester's View

BOOK REVIEW

A World That Was Lit Only By Fire, William Manchester, Little, Brown and Co., Boston 1994

The last time that the name of the late well-known journalist and history writer William Manchester was mentioned in this space was in a review of his biography of the self-promoting American Caesar, World War II and Korean War General Douglas MacArthur. Previously Manchester had also done an analysis of the John F. Kennedy assassination so that he is well versed in the meaning of history and the importance of particular historical facts-as opposed to the self-serving and fraudulent press releases.

The central story of Manchester’s effort here, that takes up about one third of the book, also concerns one of those larger than life historical figures from an earlier period in Western history, the career of the Portuguese explorer extraordinaire Ferdinand Magellan. However, if this was solely Manchester’s purpose that might be worthily satisfied by an extended monogram. He has here provided as well, despite his penchant for great heroic figures, a very readable look at the dawn of capitalism as it merged out of the mire of what used to be known in historical studies as the “Dark Ages”.


In the process of that exposition Manchester has done an interesting job of detailing much of the history of those dark ages- a period of history that today’s readers may not be familiar with but which was an important precursor to the development of European capitalism and to the history of the international labor movement that Karl Marx wrote about in the 19th century. Manchester runs quickly through the decline of the Roman Empire, the rise and stabilization of the Christian church in the wake of that decline and its role as the international (at least for Europe) arbiter of the political, economic and social world of the times. With the proviso that Manchester’s effort here is of a piece with his general theory about the role of heroes in history those of us more familiar with the period can begin to understand something of the nature of the changes that were occurring at the time that his protagonist Magellan was accomplishing his feat in the early 16th century (circumnavigating the earth and therefore empirically proving that the earth was a sphere).


The heart of the book for us, however, is the detailed description that Manchester provides for the bulk of the 16th century an extraordinary period that saw the breakthrough of international trade westward as well as eastward, the rise of nation-states as segments of society gain literacy and begin to express themselves in their home languages, the development of cities as centers of commerce creating the conditions for a division of labor that would later form the basis for industrial capitalism, the struggle between the secular and the sacred in determining the course of social life including some very saucy stories about Popes, princes and their ladies(the Borgias in particular), the feuding between various religious factions most notably between the Roman Church and Martin Luther of Germany and Henry VIII of England and the flowering of artistic culture and learning that we can observe remnants of today in any major art museum.

As historical materialists we look at the history of any period to determine its main thrust. Manchester has done a more than adequate job of detailing those events and movements that caused the decline of Europe for approximately one thousand years from the demise of the Roman Empire to the Renaissance and then the upward curve mentioned above. The most important aspect of this book and the one that makes me want to recommend it to today’s readers is its study of the late 15th and early 16th century- a time when dramatic changes were occurring that would begin the long process of accumulating the expertise to create the progressive capitalist system. Without the changes in the manner of religious thinking, ways of producing goods and notions of culture it is possible that Europe, and through it the world might be very different- and not for the better.

As long as we don’t forget in that content the down side of this spurt in human culture- the rise of colonialism that accompanied international exploration, the religious wars that torn apart families and nations and the rise of a middle class cultural ethos that has placed more than its fair share on individual self-fulfillment at the expense of the social and gone some distance to slow the struggle for socialism down. If you need a quick look at the broad picture of what happened to make Europe a central cog in world history from the 15th century on read this little work to whet your appetite. Then go out and get some more specialized books to appease it.

“Free Tibet”: Rallying Cry for Counterrevolution in China- A Guest Commentary

Click on title to link to a very different view of the Dali Lama and his cohorts from the traditional view in the West where everyone is ready to fall all over themselves to hustle for this 'holy man'.

In The Age Of “The World Turned Upside Down”- D.H. Pennington’s “Europe In The Seventeenth Century”- A Book Review

Book Review

Europe In The Seventeenth Century, Second Edition, D.H. Pennington, Longman,
London, 1970

No question when I think of 17th century European history I am drawn immediately to think about the English bourgeois revolution of the mid-century. That event put paid to the notion that a ruler could rule by divine right and that through various twists and turns, not all of them historically progressive by any means, some rough semblance of democratic rule would work best. Work best then in tandem with an emerging capitalist order (of course the process stretched out for some two centuries but the shell was established then) as the means of creating a stable society.

Aside from kings and queens having to worry, worry to death, about their pretty little necks (ask Charles I and Louis XVI, among others) and having rough-hewn, warts and all, rulers like Oliver Cromwell enter the scene many other things were going on in Europe in the 17th century that would contribute as well to what we would recognize as a modern Europe. What those events were, and their importance, was why when I was first seriously looking at the English Revolution back in the late 1970s I picked up Professor Pennington’s nice little survey (well maybe not so little at six hundred plus pages). And a recent re-reading only confirms (with the obvious acknowledgement of a need for some updating given the immense increase in scholarship in this area since then) its worth as a primer.

Perhaps the most dramatic social change of the 17th century was the long term (very long term globally as it is still working its way through the whole planet) trend toward more efficient agriculture leading to the lessening need for farmer workers (and large farm families as well) freeing up a surplus population to head to the bright lights of the city (maybe) and availability to work in the newly emerging industries that were just beginning to be formed in a way that we would recognize. The old feudal lord-serf relations were beginning to become attenuated, very attenuated with this movement away from the land and its seemingly eternal fixed relationships. Starting with textiles and working through to almost every possible commodity it became easier to buy machine-made products, and usually, except in times of not infrequent economic duress, cheaper.

That little spurt into what we would now call the industrial revolution changed many other aspects of the European outlook as well. Science became a more pressing social concern as the need to understand the physical work and its laws became more pressing. Religion which drove conflicts of the previous century, while still important to the plebeian masses, was lessening its grip on a more urbanized population. And, of course with that change, without becoming enthralled with a “Whig” onward and upward progressive interpretation of history came a dramatic increase in more secular interest for the arts, education, thinking of new ways of governing beyond the old time divine right of kings theories, other more radical political ideas about the family and other social relationships, and the extremely important fact that the a “right to rebellion” if not in official dogma then in practice became a legitimate form of plebeian expression.



Needless to say, as with every century, wars, wars for possession, succession, or just plain hubris, highlighted by the Thirty Years War, get plenty of attention. And, at the governmental level, that way to resolve conflicts not unexpectedly takes up much of the book. But the real importance of Professor Pennington’s survey is that it gives the “losers” in that century, places like Spain, Portugal, Sweden and Denmark their “fifteen minutes of fame,” information that when I first read the book I was not award of since many presentations, including general surveys, are front-loaded toward looking at the “winners” in various periods. England and France get plenty of attention, especially at the end of the book (and the end of the century setting up the big rivalries of the next couple of centuries. I will admit though that trying to keep up with the various partitions, dissections, intersections, and the like would drive me mad-if I was a cartographer. If your grasp of 17th century European history could use a little brushing up this survey is just fine. Then you can use the extensive bibliography and end notes (over one hundred pages between them) and move on to get the inside story of places, people and events that interest you.

Afghanistan Redux -In Honor Of The Fallen Soviet Soldiers In Afghanistan, 1979-1989

Commentary

This year marks the 20th Anniversary of the historically decisive (for the fate of the Soviet Union itself as it turned out) and catastrophic withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. The Soviet Union is no more, to the great detriment of the international working class in its efforts to fight for socialism. Nevertheless this is an appropriate time and an appropriate space to honor the Soviet soldiers who fell doing their internationalist duty in Afghanistan. All Honor To The Fallen Soviet Soldiers In Afghanistan, 1979-89!

I once again pose the question here (as I do directly below in the reposted commentary from May 14, 2007 because the points made there seem appropriate today)- Does any socialist, self-styled or otherwise, in the West want to reconsider their anti-Soviet support for Western imperialist objectives and material aid to the Islamic fundamentalists in respond to the Soviet assistance of the secular/nationalist government in Afghanistan in 1979? You should, although I would have to stretch my imagination to believe that you would do so.



Dated May 14, 2007

COMMENTARY

IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF U.S/ALLIED TROOPS FROM IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN!

"With the recent flurry of activity by Congress in Washington over the Iraq and Afghanistan war budgets and the ‘surge’ strategy in Iraq Afghanistan has fallen below the newspaper fold. That is a mistake. In one of the ironies of history Afghanistan was the pivotal start of the whole ‘war of civilizations’ going back to the fight by the Soviet Union in the 1980’s that was fought, at least partially, to bring Afghanistan into the 20th century (or maybe even the 19th). If the Soviet Union had waged more than a half-hearted fight then world history might have looked significantly difference today. The Islamic fundamentalist forces, notably those committed to Bin Laden and an Al Qaeda strategy, got their first taste of blood there. And they liked it.

The current political situation in that benighted country is that the Karzai government’s writ does not extend outside of Kabul and that the U.S./NATO presence there is the only thing propping up that government. And this is the rub. There has been a recent spate of articles on the fighting in Afghanistan centered on the allied forces indiscriminate bombing of various outlining villages and the killing of innocent civilians. While not now a matter of widespread public knowledge the American strategy in Afghanistan is essentially the same as in Iraq. In order to defeat the Taliban (and other) insurgencies those allied forces have relied on the old tried and true imperialist method of bringing overwhelming military force and then letting “God” separate out the innocent from the guilty. Of course, this nice little strategy has its blow back effect as previously disinterested Afghans have now begun, on their own, to fight against the imperialist presence. One village that was bombed by the United States during the past week did just that. One can expect more to come.

American imperialism, for public consumption, will bring out the candy bars and soap to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the local populace but when the deal goes down the bomb is the persuader of choice. So much for all those vaunted pacification programs. In justification for the aerial bombing policy one of the Allied ground commanders stated that without the use of such power hundreds of thousands of additional ground troops would be necessary. Nobody in the political and military establishment in Washington, or anywhere else, wants to, at this point, get into that hornet’s nest. The long and the short of it is that while we keep the fight against the war in Iraq on the front burner we had better bring the demand for immediate withdrawal in Afghanistan up to the front as well. In fact, United States Hands Off The World!"

February 18, 2009

I have argued since the Americans presidential elections of November 2008 were decided with the election of Barack Obama that virtually every move that he had made up that time was predicated on making Afghanistan the center of his Middle Eastern foreign policy initiatives. That included his own predilection to gain a ‘win’ in that region of the world for American imperialism by shucking (that is the correct word for this) Iraq for the ‘greener pastures' fields of Afghanistan. His later national security and appropriate cabinet level appointments concerned with Afghanistan only confirm this. At that time, since then and today I will stand by the point I made there that Obama has staked his place in history on this decision. And working people, one way or another, in lives and treasure will the price of that decision.

That said, after reading a review in “The New York Review Of Books” (February 12, 2009) by William Dalrymple of a book “Descent Into Chaos: The United States And The Failure Of Nation Building In Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia” by noted scholar Ahmed Rashid the probabilities submerged in that last sentence may prove even more ominous that I suspected. I would note that I have only started reading this work myself because I had some difficulty getting a copy but one should recall that this book is by the same author of the book “Taliban” that everyone started to climb the shelves for after 9/11. The man knows this area of world.

I am not sure whether President Obama, as intellectually-inclined as he appears to, is a devotee of “The New York Review”. However, he should read this article. And take these words as I intend them as I sure as hell have no ambition, like some others on the left, to be a foreign policy advisor to him or his administration. If one want to get an approximate understanding of the huge pitfalls that await this rookie president then read the review, or better, get a copy of the book. In short, the fates of the British and the Russians mentioned above are calling. Hey, I’ll stick with another point that I made last November (and repeated on Inauguration Day)- Obama- Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops From Iraq, Afghanistan and Central Asia!