The Essence of the Left

[useless]

Medieval peasants also didn't live for long, suffered appalling conditions and were often living in poverty and in hovels.

 

[Traitorfish]

Medieval peasants also lived to a ripe old aged, worked in conditions many of us would envy, and enjoyed relative material prosperity in food, clothes and housing.

The thing is, y'see, it's really very difficult to generalise about a category which constituted 90% of the population across an entire continent for the better part of a thousand years. History is complicated like that, and one reductive myth isn't preferable to another simply because it's gloomier.

 

[Flying Pig]

However, those same peasants moved in massive numbers to work in dark, Satanic mills and kept on moving even when they realised that the mills were dark and Satanic. That's worth bearing in mind. Definitely right that you can't generalise too keenly, though - especially as 'peasants' isn't a great category to begin with.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's also worth keeping in mind that "peasant" does not simply apply to any rural commoner, but implies a certain enduring relationship to the land. The rural poor who marched into England's mills were landless proletarians rather than peasants, people who owned no land and worked for a wage.

 

[Borachio]

As far as I know the rural exodus was a forced one. Those taking up factory work simply had no choice in the matter. Many landowners deliberately demolished houses in order to oblige people to move off their land. The Scottish clearances had an English parallel, I think.

Where did I learn this suspiciously unreliable "fact"? I honestly can't remember. Maybe I've imagined it.

But, yeah, "peasant" is often misinterpreted as the lowest of the low. Yeoman might be the English equivalent of peasant.

Though, looking it up, reveals that peasants could be landless labourers too. Or even outright slaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant

Aren't words tricksy?

 

[Traitorfish]

As far as I know the rural exodus was a forced one. Those taking up factory work simply had no choice in the matter. Many landowners deliberately demolished houses in order to oblige people to move off their land.

That's true, but these people weren't peasants, they were wage labourers. They weren't tied to the land, not even necessarily by custom or habit, but frequently moved around for work. There wasn't even necessarily a definite point at which they stopped being rural labourers and started being industrial labourers: seasonal migration remained common well into the nineteenth century, as workers returned to the countryside for the harvest. And even that oversimplifies matter by ignoring cottage industry and the putting-out system, which remained a major part of British manufacturing into the nineteenth century. Even the Highlanders had been reduced to tenants before the Clearances, and were already considerably more mobile than their ancestors, their young men in particular often spending part of the year working in the Lowlands. The medieval peasantry and the industrial proletariat simply don't abut like that in Western Europe, so there's very little mileage in attempting to compare their conditions.

 

[ParkCungHee]

So what? As Jacklegull says, this isn't about individual intellectual biographies, it's about fascism as a movement. Fascism was explicitly presented by and to its membership as a crusade of national salvation against the left, most especially the Marxist left, but ultimately against any who travelled with them. The British Union of Fascists, which drew its membership primarily from middle-class Loyalists, didn't have any more affection for Oswald Mosley's former comrades in the non-Marxist, non-internationalist Labour Party than they did for the Communist Party or ILP. In Ireland, it was even less ambiguous: the Blueshirts fought pitched street-battles with the IRA, an explicitly nationalist organisation. There's no indication at all that the interwar fascists took issue with socialists only for their internationalism and Marxism.

Well, if you're going to take a look at the movement, you also do get other notes. The Fascist movement in Spain before the war was a labor union and little else. Then you have theoreticians like Lawrence Dennis who see little practical distinction between the Fascist state and the Soviet Union other then "Skip the part where we shoot the Romanovs."

"Subtle" is definitely the wrong word. But I understand Kaiserguard's point and agree with it. The Fascists did not offer a strongly alternative program to Socialism, at least the pragmatic variety in the economic sphere, and perhaps in some philosophical sense the way liberalism did.

They're objections to the socialist program (no matter how violently they made and worded them) were of the "Yes, but..." variety. The fact that they were brutal and unrelenting in forging these distinctions is true, but that's Fascism for you. And if you want to look at the broad, non-intellectual strokes and what motivated most of the movement which were not as theoretically inclined, there's again a massive overlap:

Concerns about modernizing faster, being humiliated nationally, being reduced into wage labor and the atomization of modern capitalism and at a cultural level, a revolt against the inertia and directionlessness of an increasingly commercialized artistic milleau.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It are things like these that convinced me to become a reactionary.

If the will of the people to reinstate such conditions was strong enough to make the monarchy/nobility do it (since they will not be able to do so in opposition to the people nor do I think that they would even seriously think of it all by themselves to begin with since radical change is usually the last thing on the privileged classe's mind [having much to loose]) - if the will of the people is that strong you may as well just go the democratic road.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, if you're going to take a look at the movement, you also do get other notes. The Fascist movement in Spain before the war was a labor union and little else. Then you have theoreticians like Lawrence Dennis who see little practical distinction between the Fascist state and the Soviet Union other then "Skip the part where we shoot the Romanovs."

"Subtle" is definitely the wrong word. But I understand Kaiserguard's point and agree with it. The Fascists did not offer a strongly alternative program to Socialism, at least the pragmatic variety in the economic sphere, and perhaps in some philosophical sense the way liberalism did.

They're objections to the socialist program (no matter how violently they made and worded them) were of the "Yes, but..." variety. The fact that they were brutal and unrelenting in forging these distinctions is true, but that's Fascism for you. And if you want to look at the broad, non-intellectual strokes and what motivated most of the movement which were not as theoretically inclined, there's again a massive overlap:

Concerns about modernizing faster, being humiliated nationally, being reduced into wage labor and the atomization of modern capitalism and at a cultural level, a revolt against the inertia and directionlessness of an increasingly commercialized artistic milleau.

Thing is, mind, that's a comment about the fascist attitude towards the socialist program, not about their attitude towards socialists. It wasn't just a case of what was done, but who was doing it, and the fascist view was pretty consistently that socialists were the ambassadors of national suicide. Their hostility wasn't always unconditional, that's true- parts of the Falange apparently came close to siding with the Republicans, and a surprisingly large number of Italian fascists had a soft spot for Stalin until the Third Period upset their prediction that he was just a few years away from dropping the whole "Bolshevik" act- but it was general and enduring enough to make Kaiserguard's claim that they were all much of a muchness pretty dubious.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Thing is, mind, that's a comment about the fascist attitude towards the socialist program, not about their attitude towards socialists. It wasn't just a case of what was done, but who was doing it, and the fascist view was pretty consistently that socialists were the ambassadors of national suicide. Their hostility wasn't always unconditional, that's true- parts of the Falange apparently came close to siding with the Republicans, and a surprisingly large number of Italian fascists had a soft spot for Stalin until the Third Period upset their prediction that he was just a few years away from dropping the whole "Bolshevik" act- but it was general and enduring enough to make Kaiserguard's claim that they were all much of a muchness pretty dubious.

Yes, but on the other hand, I got to repeat, these people are Fascists, and they're threshold for pulling out the truncheons and rifles is worryingly low all around.

And I do think that you are overemphasizing the cognitive leap that was taken from Socialism to Fascism. I think it was a cleavage that many socialists in other countries (especially the third world) never had to face, for a variety of historic reasons.

I don't...know what a much of a muchness is. And I'm not saying the Fascists were in anyway friendly to socialists, and they certainly owed much their success to their opposition to socialism (or as they sometimes defined it, international socialism), but I don't think that necessarily rules out commonalities or ambitions (or changes the fact that vice versa, many Socialist regimes carried out programs essentially similar to the Fascist one).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

, but I don't think that necessarily rules out commonalities or ambitions (or changes the fact that vice versa, many Socialist regimes carried out programs essentially similar to the Fascist one).

One can also point out monarchist programs eerily similar to Fascist or Socialist programs (Louis XIV probably created the most centralized government and economy in history before the Great Turn in the USSR in 1928, perhaps even more so in an absolute sense), that doesn't mean there's anything more than an incidental commonality between them.

 

[ParkCungHee]

One can also point out monarchist programs eerily similar to Fascist or Socialist programs (Louis XIV probably created the most centralized government and economy in history before the Great Turn in the USSR in 1928, perhaps even more so in an absolute sense), that doesn't mean there's anything more than an incidental commonality between them.

I agree. I'm not proposing any extraordinary commonality here, I'm proposing the most people, especially most people who are not ideologues, the boundaries can be surprisingly porous and nebulous. Certainly the boundary between Monarchists and Facists is similarly so.

 

[Tahuti]

If the will of the people to reinstate such conditions was strong enough to make the monarchy/nobility do it (since they will not be able to do so in opposition to the people nor do I think that they would even seriously think of it all by themselves to begin with since radical change is usually the last thing on the privileged classe's mind [having much to loose]) - if the will of the people is that strong you may as well just go the democratic road.

The problem is that hierarchies are fairly arbitrary nowadays, exactly because ideologies built to create egalitarianism eventually replaced more meritocratic hierarchies with arbitrary hierarchies. Aristocracy was hierarchy by bravery. Their economic system - which could be likened to distributism as preached by the Catholic church today - was superior to Capitalism yet ended up being replaced by Capitalism, where the previous hierarchy was replaced by capital and the ability to harness it.

I actually think Socialism will be more disastrous in that it will replace sheer hierarchies of wealth (whether it was validly earned - which is rare - or by pure luck) by hierarchies of charm. Charm is more easier to game for bad purposes than wealth or bravery - which is a virtue in itself.

One can also point out monarchist programs eerily similar to Fascist or Socialist programs (Louis XIV probably created the most centralized government and economy in history before the Great Turn in the USSR in 1928, perhaps even more so in an absolute sense), that doesn't mean there's anything more than an incidental commonality between them.

I would argue that the centralisations carried out by Louis XIV set a timebomb and made the French revolution inevitable at this point.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I agree. I'm not proposing any extraordinary commonality here, I'm proposing the most people, especially most people who are not ideologues, the boundaries can be surprisingly porous and nebulous. Certainly the boundary between Monarchists and Facists is similarly so.

I know that you know better, but even some very good scholars can be led by casual commonality to assume that "lol there's no difference they're basically the same." I blame people like Hannah Arendt (who is no idiot, mind you) and "totalitarian theory" for, well, trying to make "totalitarianism" into A Thing.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I know that you know better, but even some very good scholars can be led by casual commonality to assume that "lol there's no difference they're basically the same." I blame people like Hannah Arendt (who is no idiot, mind you) and "totalitarian theory" for, well, trying to make "totalitarianism" into A Thing.

I'm not saying there's no difference and they're basically the same thing. I wouldn't have invested so much time into the intellectual differences if I thought that. My point is that those differences
1) Do not necessarily matter too much to any particular individual, and looked as a social matter, do not necessarily matter too much to a lot of individuals.

and that

2) The importance of these differences is contingent on a whole boatload of historical, social factors, and a change in those conditions means these differences may not seem important.

And keep in mind, I'm not trying to draw lines here in terms of Totalitarianism. I really, really, really, wish that word stayed in obscure Neo-Hegelian circles where it meant something. I am trying to avoid categorizations all together.

However, I do think the similarity of the Fascist program to the Socialist one in the interwar years was more than coincidence. The Fascists inability to carve out a genuine third way was a central and continuous problem for the movement that they continuously banged their heads against, coming up with very little.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, but on the other hand, I got to repeat, these people are Fascists, and they're threshold for pulling out the truncheons and rifles is worryingly low all around.

And I do think that you are overemphasizing the cognitive leap that was taken from Socialism to Fascism. I think it was a cleavage that many socialists in other countries (especially the third world) never had to face, for a variety of historic reasons.

I don't...know what a much of a muchness is. And I'm not saying the Fascists were in anyway friendly to socialists, and they certainly owed much their success to their opposition to socialism (or as they sometimes defined it, international socialism), but I don't think that necessarily rules out commonalities or ambitions (or changes the fact that vice versa, many Socialist regimes carried out programs essentially similar to the Fascist one).

Well, I don't disagree with that. Perhaps we're just interpreting Kaiserguard's reference to "ideological hostility" differently? Like, you seem to take it as describing ideological incompatibility which produces, but I took it mean an ideologically-based hostility. In the former case, yes, you could arguer that fascists weren't necessarily hostile to socialists in that their ambitions were not necessarily contradictory, at least in the short term, but in the latter case, fascists were pretty much universally hostile to socialists from 1918 onwards, because they regarded socialists as emblematic of everything that was going wrong with the world. (Less so in Spain, but Spanish fascism was always a bit of an odd duck in interwar Europe.)

Also, fair point about the socialist/fascist split being a pretty peculiarly European thing, although I think that's tied in a lot of ways to the slightly different function of socialism in the third world, as an ideology of national development rather than national liberation.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm not saying there's no difference and they're basically the same thing. I wouldn't have invested so much time into the intellectual differences if I thought that. My point is that those differences
1) Do not necessarily matter too much to any particular individual, and looked as a social matter, do not necessarily matter too much to a lot of individuals.

and that

2) The importance of these differences is contingent on a whole boatload of historical, social factors, and a change in those conditions means these differences may not seem important.

And keep in mind, I'm not trying to draw lines here in terms of Totalitarianism. I really, really, really, wish that word stayed in obscure Neo-Hegelian circles where it meant something. I am trying to avoid categorizations all together.

I know. I was specifically not attributing those qualities to you.

However, I do think the similarity of the Fascist program to the Socialist one in the interwar years was more than coincidence. The Fascists inability to carve out a genuine third way was a central and continuous problem for the movement that they continuously banged their heads against, coming up with very little.

This similarity may also derive from the situations the relevant countries found themselves (Italy, Germany, USSR) in the inter-war years. Remember that Germany and Soviet Russia were drawn to one another post-war as mutual victims of Versailles, and even after Germany returned to the Western fold in 1926 they still cooperated up until the Nazi takeover (and resumed that cooperation for a short period even after that). Italy being a rather un-industrialized nation had similar problems of startup capital and nation-building. If you look at pre-war writers' imaginations of what socialism might look like, it's basically rationalized ultra-nationalization; Jack London literally explains [through the mouth of his hero character] socialism as "turning the economy into one giant government-owned company" in The Iron Heel. H.G. Wells, for his anti-fascism, still thought of socialist society as an ultra-rationalized capitalist economy (see The Shape of Things to Come and IIRC part of The Sleeper Awakes, too), so it's somewhat understandable that, prior to the Soviets actually trying stuff out (which they seriously don't get enough credit for - they were feeling their way through a dark room like probably no society in history ever has), popular conceptions outside of the deepest circles of communist and fascist party ideologues truly regarded them as not dissimilar programmes, and the similarity in geopolitical situation to all the countries involved probably heightened that sense.

But today we know much better, now that all that has been fleshed out and both ideologies have been given ample room to separate themselves. There's no longer an excuse for conflating the two in the 21st century.

 

[jackelgull]

The problem is that hierarchies are fairly arbitrary nowadays, exactly because ideologies built to create egalitarianism eventually replaced more meritocratic hierarchies with arbitrary hierarchies. Aristocracy was hierarchy by bravery. Their economic system - which could be likened to distributism as preached by the Catholic church today - was superior to Capitalism yet ended up being replaced by Capitalism, where the previous hierarchy was replaced by capital and the ability to harness it.

I actually think Socialism will be more disastrous in that it will replace sheer hierarchies of wealth (whether it was validly earned - which is rare - or by pure luck) by hierarchies of charm. Charm is more easier to game for bad purposes than wealth or bravery - which is a virtue in itself.



I would argue that the centralisations carried out by Louis XIV set a timebomb and made the French revolution inevitable at this point.

Look, in terms of hierarchies, nothing has fundamentally changed about them today versus back then. Nobles inherited wealth and land whether they deserved or not and kings became kings because they had a) the right bloodline and b) wooed the right people, and of the two, b) is probably more important. Sounds a little like political elections today doesn't it? I mean, we have the Kennedy's, don't we?

Right now though, hierarchies are more fluid than back then because while social status is still tied to revenue, back then the only source of revenue was land and the one who owned the land had the status (there might be a few exceptions, but I think this is a safe generalization to make), which restricted social mobility because land was a limited commodity, but now businesses and jobs provide revenue and status. No one can argue that Bill Gates is lower on the social ladder than my dad who is a software engineer.

 

[John Walker]

Medieval peasants also didn't live for long

Medieval peasants also lived to a ripe old aged

Here is some data for Slavic countries, for Early Medieval times:

Average estimated age at death - data from burials of adult people who died in period 7th-12th centuries:

Serbia - 45,6 years (729 people from 4 cemeteries)
Slovenia - 44,9 years (870 from 6)
Bulgaria (men) - 44,1 years (376 from 6)
Slovakia 9th-10th c. - 43,9 years (328 from 5)
Slovakia 10th-12th c. - 43,1 years (552 from 7)
Czech R. & Slovakia - 42,6 years (from 26 cem.)
Bulgaria (women) - 41,6 years (376 from 6)
Slovakia 7th-8th c. - 40,9 years (1652 from 4)
Croatia - 39,6 years (869 from 4)
Russia-Ukraine-Belarus - 38,5 years (1132 from 6)
Poland - 38,2 years (3853 from 9)
East Germany - 34,8 years (836 from 4)

Difference between the top of the ranking and the bottom of the ranking is quite large (almost 11 years).

 

[Old Hippy]

Here is some data for Slavic countries, for Early Medieval times:

Average estimated age at death - data from skeletons of adult people who died in period 7th-12th centuries:

most probably died before their 5th birthday

some say as high as 50% mortallity

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=NyndSlRHcz4C&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=child+mortality+rates+12th+century&source=bl&ots=xobZLnaeh9&sig=iYjKB2W3W-m5yNRbPasRwHl_LH0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v-8xVIH_Ds-b8QW42IKICg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=child%20mortality%20rates%2012th%20century&f=false