Bourgeoisie revolutions

[Dimentio]

I think that the ideological foundations of the bourgeoisie class sentiments became consolidated already under the 16th and 17th centuries, due to the spread of protestantism in northern and western Europe. Protestantism, unlike catholicism, did not loathe wealth as sinful, and did not impose a ban on usury.

Moreover, in the religious wars of the 16th century, the burghers more often than not participated in the war on the protestant side. Just look at the "defenestration in Prague" which unleashed the Thirty Years war 1618-1648. The burghers also supported Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans in the English Civil War.

Protestantism, in it's focus on hard work, accumulation and soberness, was a religious form of christianity that ideologically responded to the social situation of the burghers during that time.

[luxemburg89]

I think it is probably incorrect to look at this along religious lines. You see the Protestant Church in England is tiny, what really happened was the Henry VIII brought about a reformation of the Catholic Church into the Anglican Church, with him as its head. Henry VIII was a strong Catholic, he had even been previously decorated as the 'Defender of the Faith' by the Pope; and so all he wanted to change was the divorce laws - he was still, essentially, a Catholic. A number of changes were brought into the church along Protestant lines, but it was only alligned and allied with the Protestant faith, the Anglicans are slightly different. Hnery confiscated the churches wealth and land according to the history books; but let us assess this another way. The land belonged to the Catholic church, therefore it belonged to the Pope, the head of the religion owned the wealth; The wealth was taken by Henry, as King the wealth now went to the head of the church - again. Therefore I think we can still see these divisions between Catholic and Anglican churches in Britain (if we are to isolate it as one example) are wholly monarchistic - and not particularly Capitalist. On the other hand you may argue that as the Anglican faith is more liberal than Catholicism that it allowed the middle-classes to strengthen.
I think, however, you are correct in your belief that the seeds were sown in the 16th and 17th centuries, with an increase in trading between European powers and the introduction of, and demand for, new materials. The Renaissance itself cannot be considered a Capitalist movement - it is an arts movement and simply increased our knowledge - the benefit of the Renaissance would be felt under any system, be it Communism, Socialism, Feudalism or Capitalism.
Capitalism was in fact present in the Ancient Roman Republic to an extent but until, I would say, the English Civil War, as you rightly point out, it was not a strong ideology. The English Civil War created fear in monarchies and so concessions were made to businesses and artisans - but it wasn't enough. The French Revolution terrified the Monarchy, particularly in Britain, and so, at the end of 18th Century, almost total power was given to Capitalism - the Feudal age is now commerated by the old, rusty family portrait that is the British Royal Family.

Conversely this thread is not on the history of Capitalism as a whole, but rather its roots. Its roots can be found in monarchy, there is someone at the top oppressing all others and gaining from it. Capitalism is simply the desire to be that someone at the top and gain all that you can from the people you oppress. Capitalism is the rich all competing to be their own little Monarchs basically. Wherever there is heirarchy you can be sure the first brick is laid down for the foundation of Capitalism.

[Dimentio]

I do not think that capitalism is ideologically based on monarchy, since a feudal monarchy was based on two concepts inter-dependence and subsidiarity. Not to sound primitivist, but during the transition between feudalism and absolutism, those relationships weakened.

One could of course call absolutism the last stage of feudalism (with a monarch employing a standing army based on permanent taxation made possible by gun-powder).

Even though the states centralised and the inter-dependence weakened, we had something which differentiates all forms of feudalism from all forms of capitalism, namely that the sovereign is socially responsible for those who she exploits. A feudal lord had an obligation to provide the subsidients with housing and work. That is of course a natural result by the fact that feudalism, in similarity to other caste systems, is based on graduated unequal rights and some form of meta-collectivism. In catholic (and orthodox) dogma, the monarch and the church were seen as parents of the people, with an obligation to take care of them.

Capitalism is legally based on equal rights in front of the law, as well as individualism. That means that the capitalist, under a full free market economy, holds no social obligations at all to her subsidients. It is their own responsibility if they get kicked out, loses a limb or have a sick child which they must nurture.

Under paternalistic systems, as feudalism, those who are the basis of production, the proletariat, are seen as little kids who must be taken care of by benign sovereigns and in return work and show loyalty.

Under capitalism, the existance of classes are denied. Everyone are "free". If you do not like your work, change to a new one? If you do not have access to healthcare services, why not buy one? That are typical arguments made by capitalists and liberal apologets. They deny the fact that anything other than laws could be discriminatory, and deny the existance of social groups on a whole. A "free citizen" is supposed to not take help from anyone.

Actually, capitalism reminds more of the graduated system that existed in Mediterranean city-states during the Ancient era. In for example Athens, there were slaves and freedmen/foreigners who had no right to vote but had some social benefits, and there were free citizens who had the right to vote (no matter if they owned property or not) but they could not expect social protection from anyone except themselves.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:14 pm
I think that the ideological foundations of the bourgeoisie class sentiments became consolidated already under the 16th and 17th centuries, due to the spread of protestantism in northern and western Europe. Protestantism, unlike catholicism, did not loathe wealth as sinful, and did not impose a ban on usury.

Moreover, in the religious wars of the 16th century, the burghers more often than not participated in the war on the protestant side. Just look at the "defenestration in Prague" which unleashed the Thirty Years war 1618-1648. The burghers also supported Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans in the English Civil War.

Protestantism, in it's focus on hard work, accumulation and soberness, was a religious form of christianity that ideologically responded to the social situation of the burghers during that time.
in France and Hungary, however, Protestantism was the ideological tool of feudal reaction and particularism, against the centralised monarchies.

Its role is far from unequivocal.

Luís Henrique

[praxicoide]

Ideas change as the result of the change in people's material conditions; not the other way around.

Protestantism became successful as more people accepted it as true because they better identified with it because of their particular interests.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:35 am
Ideas change as the result of the change in people's material conditions; not the other way around.

Protestantism became successful as more people accepted it as true because they better identified with it because of their particular interests.
I am in agreement there. During the 16th century, we had a syphilis epidemy which made a logical excuse for puritanism (just as AIDS contributed to christian fundamentalism in the 80;s) as well as new technologies which enhanced the bourgeoisie.

Remember that a lot of protestants in France were burghers, and that a lot of burghers, especially in provincial cities, did not like the process of centralisation.

[RedCat]

Marxist historian Cristopher Hill wrote extensively on this argument,also Ernst Bloch in "Das Prinzip Hoffnung".The requests fo religious reforms paved the way for social reforms, and lower-classes sects such as the Anabaptists were formed(for example the dramatist Ben Jonson mocked them for their social origins), but as happened in Germany with peasantry they were violently crushed by aristocracy and bourgeois.

[Dimentio]

Interesting reply. I am in agreement there, except that I do believe that the positions of the bourgeoisie was not yet marked by class conciousness and often based on interests which stood against the progress of last-stage feudalism (while last-stage feudalism in truth offered better opportunities for the bourgeoisie, they did not realise that).