supernaltempest
23rd January 2008, 21:29
Currently in a debate and someone brought a point that I can't seem to refute. It's with concern about historical materialism.
Everything that has been stated about "feudalism" by both sides in this topic is fallacious and reflects either Marxist or proto-Blochian schools of thought - both of which are very outdated and obsolete in light of recent research. I'm not going to reiterate why "feudalism" as a notion is a meaningless one, especially in this kind of debate, but I will point you to my post on the matter in the other communism-discussion topic. Just one key point: "loyalty" was not the "glue" which defined and maintained feudo-vassalic relationships; rather, they were based on reciprocal ties of services for mutual benefit - a philosophy by no means fully divorced from the "capitalist" system that supposedly superseded them.
And please, if you want any kind of historical credibility you must abandon the subject of "human nature". You cannot possibly base an appraisal of societal and political models on such a vapid concept; otherwise you become bogged down in a deterministic and linear argument which disregards historical circumstances and trends entirely (which is what orthodox Marxism essentially does, thus the "flawed but still brilliant" view that is prevalent amongst most modern historians vis-à-vis Marx's works).
Everything that has been stated about "feudalism" by both sides in this topic is fallacious and reflects either Marxist or proto-Blochian schools of thought - both of which are very outdated and obsolete in light of recent research. I'm not going to reiterate why "feudalism" as a notion is a meaningless one, especially in this kind of debate, but I will point you to my post on the matter in the other communism-discussion topic. Just one key point: "loyalty" was not the "glue" which defined and maintained feudo-vassalic relationships; rather, they were based on reciprocal ties of services for mutual benefit - a philosophy by no means fully divorced from the "capitalist" system that supposedly superseded them.
And please, if you want any kind of historical credibility you must abandon the subject of "human nature". You cannot possibly base an appraisal of societal and political models on such a vapid concept; otherwise you become bogged down in a deterministic and linear argument which disregards historical circumstances and trends entirely (which is what orthodox Marxism essentially does, thus the "flawed but still brilliant" view that is prevalent amongst most modern historians vis-à-vis Marx's works).