Leaving Afghanistan

[giblets]

And why did this change occur, Ben?

Like I said, you're confusing the RESULT of an inexorable historical process for the cause of a certain cultural state.

Why the hell do you think there must be "inexorable historical processes" that are simple enough to be described by some theory?

[dannubis]

Oh nice. So now you're backtracking from your previous claims. Interesting...

It's not 'increasing' productivity per se; its a reorganization of the economy giving more economic power to the urban bourgeoisie accompanied by the transfer, first by halbreds and pike warfare and then intensified by the rising commonality of guns, of the means of war away from the landed nobility to the common people. It was this commoner power base, utilized with national armies and state bureaucracies, which those monarchs like Louis XIII taped into to move away from feudalism, but it was an inexorable historical process given certain conditions, not the whim of a few monarchs and their ministers. The nation-state did not just spring up; it was the result of a shift in socio-economic and political power brought upon and encouraged by numerous conditions which I previously touched upon.

OK, these are the last seconds of my life I spend on this:

1. It seems "increased productivity" suddenly went out the window and I am backtracking ?

2. Feudalism was replaced by absolute monarchy (nothing to do with enriched bourgeoisie - that is the french revolution and aftermath, i.e. 150 years later). The enablers of the rise of the absolute monarchy were pre-existing social structures and outside influences (in the case of Spain the completed reconquista and the gold coming in from the new world).

3. Once the power base of the ruling families started to decline the poor masses revolted, the king was deposed, a foreign king took over...

[Ben Kenobi]

That's because he's a Marxist!

[Al B. Sure!]

How the hell does a theory that attributes dynastic cycles to social cohesion have anything to do with economics or technology? You're basically lumping all theories that attribute societal changes to some cause together.

You dumbass I was giving you ****ing examples of non-Marxist 'historicism'. The existence of historical processes is what people like Ben and dannubis are arguing with me over. I see in retrospect you never technically did criticize the general idea of motive forces in history. I would apologize, if you weren't you, for the assumption on my part that you were taking a similar position as them.

[BeBMan]

Because the previous system collapsed in the 30 years war. The previous system relied upon religious unity throughout Europe to govern relationships between families and the Pope throughout Europe.

The solution was Westphalia, national soveriegnty over a territory. This fixed things until the French Revolution.

But this wasn't national souvereignty. It was the souvereignty of the ruler over a terrritory or multiple territories, often with lotsa nations (in the sense of bigger national groups), like in the colonial empires, multi-ethnic empires like Austria, Russia etc. Even the smaller units like Prussia had lot of different groups (here Poles, Baltes). In all those the "nation" or better nations had not much to say, the ruler everything (though that's kinda simplified, since some layers of the society did have at least certain powers, but that is not "national" nor "souvereignty"), like in France pre 1789.

I'm not sure I understand your "If a nation is defined as the 'land owned by the Plantagenets' - of course the nation is not the land, or what do you mean?

[giblets]

You dumbass I was giving you ****ing examples of non-Marxist 'historicism'. The existence of historical processes is what people like Ben and dannubis are arguing with me over. I see in retrospect you never technically did criticize the general idea of motive forces in history. I would apologize, if you weren't you, for the assumption on my part that you were taking a similar position as them.

Where did they claim that things like economics, technology and other factors don't have any effect on history? They're arguing against your simple paradigm of "economic changes -> bourgeoisie appears -> centralized nation states form" because all you did was come up with some theory and then try to cram facts into it.

[Al B. Sure!]

I'm going to bounce off the Newton reference in the hopes that this will make my argument clearer

That's like arguing Newtonian Mechanics owed it's creation to the plague outbreak and not to Isaac Newton.

The physics existed for billions of years before Newton (partially erroneously) discovered it.

Likewise, the conditions that led to the 30 Years War and the peace of Westphalia traced back centuries and were more pervasive than some whims of royalty. I assume Dutch independence is the aspect of the treaties associated with Westphalia that, to you, marks the moment of the 'advent' of the nation-state but the Dutch Republic was not created at that moment in 1648 by the whims of diplomats and rulers. The Dutch had been rebelling for decades and their motivations for rebellion had to do with various historical processes and conditions going back centuries: everything from divergences in ethnic identity with their Spanish overlords to the ratio of coast-line to arable land which mitigated the development of a land-based power structure in the Netherlands.

It's hard for me to express this. All the treaties of Westphalia are are a documentation of the culmination of historical processes.

[Al B. Sure!]

OK, these are the last seconds of my life I spend on this:

1. It seems "increased productivity" suddenly went out the window and I am backtracking ?

Sir, would you kindly show me where I used the phrase "increased productivity", "increasing productivity", or anything else when making my points except in response to your usage of the term?



I'm looking and I don't see it... Those were words you erroneously attributed to me then I clarified I don't mean that. Interesting how that's backtracking

TYPICAL ****ING APOLYTON

[giblets]

Oh great. Newton would not have developed Physics if he had lived as a hunter-gatherer, therefore the Neolithic revolution caused the study of Physics and any claim that individuals can impact history is wrong! Newton was just the culmination of historical processes.

[Al B. Sure!]

Here we go...

And why the hell do you think this 'nation state' developed?

A de-emphasis on agriculture, the growing urban bourgeoisie, the depopulation effects of the Black Plague which raised wages, the 'commonalization' of the means to fight wars with gunpowder which weakened the military power of knights, etc. etc.

The common undercurrent in all of that is the ECONOMY. Learn some historical processes. Learn about the economic origins of political systems, ****head

The nation state as a concept developed under the rule of Richelieu and Louis XIII. That is what ended feudalism. This is about 200 years before productivity was drastically increased by your "industrial revolution". If ghetto-man would like to say something sensible about European history, ghetto-man would do good do get out of the ghetto first.

****head

Hmm... So I only made a statement about de-emphasis on agriculture then you came up with this productivity increase business... Hmm... then I countered saying I don't mean increased productivity, and repeating my previous statement in different words, clarified "reorganization of the economy".

So someone corrects your erroneous attribution and it's backtracking?


I win. **** you *******.

[giblets]

Here we go...






Hmm... So I only made a statement about de-emphasis on agriculture then you came up with this productivity increase business... Hmm... then I countered saying I don't mean increased productivity, and repeating my previous statement in different words, clarified "reorganization of the economy".

So someone corrects your erroneous attribution and it's backtracking?


I win. **** you *******.

I thought "your entire ****ing point" a while back was that Afghanistan needs alternative economic opportunities in order to turn away from an agrarian society? Doesn't that kind of imply an increase in productivity in some sectors? Why would the economy reorganize if productivity hasn't changed... are you claiming that Europeans suddenly altered their consumption preferences?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not sure I understand your "If a nation is defined as the 'land owned by the Plantagenets' - of course the nation is not the land, or what do you mean?

Just in Germany, you had free imperial cities, free papal cities, fiefs held by various lords, etc. The territory didn't matter so much as who it belonged to.

You could have overlapping lords. Land that was under the jurisdiction of the king, but some was enfoeffed to the Emperor, some was not.

After Westphalia, this all changed. The idea that a nation should be contiguous, etc, merging some of the smaller areas started to take place. Under the previous system this was unnecessary. Subdividing to your heart's content didn't matter.

[Al B. Sure!]

I thought "your entire ****ing point" a while back was that Afghanistan needs alternative economic opportunities in order to turn away from an agrarian society? Doesn't that kind of imply an increase in productivity in some sectors? Why would the economy reorganize if productivity hasn't changed... are you claiming that Europeans suddenly altered their consumption preferences?

Yes. It needs to shift to other economic opportunities besides agriculture. And yes, an increase in productivity and trade in the European cities was one factor which motivated the rise of the bourgeois which led to absolutism.

Danubis was apparently claiming that there was no increase in productivity until the industrial revolution beginning in the late 18th century. No, there had been previously. I don't know why he seemed to claim that, or at least the increase was unrelated to political changes. I affirmed that I said nothing about increased productivity as a response to his claims that I was claiming that the rise of absolutism corresponded anachronistically with the intense increase in productivity brought on by the industrial revolution.

I feel like I'm doing verbal gymnastics here because so many words have been put into my mouth and so much of the context of the discussion keeps being changed.

[Al B. Sure!]

Just in Germany, you had free imperial cities, free papal cities, fiefs held by various lords, etc. The territory didn't matter so much as who it belonged to.

You could have overlapping lords. Land that was under the jurisdiction of the king, but some was enfoeffed to the Emperor, some was not.

After Westphalia, this all changed. The idea that a nation should be contiguous, etc, merging some of the smaller areas started to take place. Under the previous system this was unnecessary. Subdividing to your heart's content didn't matter.

I refuse to believe you honestly think some pieces of paper signed by some kings and diplomats was the cause of the vast political changes that would take place and had been taking place long before Westphalia. Westphalia was just the physical culmination.

[giblets]

Yes. It needs to shift to other economic opportunities besides agriculture. And yes, an increase in productivity and trade in the European cities was one factor which motivated the rise of the bourgeois which led to absolutism.

Danubis was apparently claiming that there was no increase in productivity until the industrial revolution beginning in the late 18th century. No, there had been previously. I don't know why he seemed to claim that, or at least the increase was unrelated to political changes. I affirmed that I said nothing about increased productivity as a response to his claims that I was claiming that the rise of absolutism corresponded anachronistically with the intense increase in productivity brought on by the industrial revolution.

I feel like I'm doing verbal gymnastics here because so many words have been put into my mouth and so much of the context of the discussion keeps being changed.

So you did mean an increase in productivity after all? Maybe you shouldn't have called him an "*******" for saying you said that?

Also, how exactly was absolutism associated with the bourgeoisie? Versailles seems rather aristocratic to me.