Marxist analyses of history focus on class relations and the movement of money. The book you're reading, while making some very good points, appears to leave out other phenomena of the time that sees Europe create the modern world. Property rights and wealth may go some way toward explaining Europe's advances, but is missing something else: the creative mind; and the circumstances that allow, not only the expression of this mind, but the discipline and focus required for it to come into being. Many states have property rights and wealth, but have no creativity; they merely import their technological advancements from either Europe or America (or maybe Japan).

My double question mark post wasn't aimed at anyone... c warriors post was not visible until i posted it!

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 12:52pm:


As stated several times, the analysis of history as class conflict begins with Marx. All historians that use this paradigm are taking this idea from Marx (although a similar, but not identical, idea can be found in Hegel, from which Marx gets his idea from).

Quote:


As stated previously, I agree with some of the points you have made. What needs to be added to the discussion is how a culture of invention came to be prominent. The approach of the reduction to property rights and wealth is limited because it leaves gaps in our understanding of how certain phenomena came to be. Plenty of people have property and wealth, but are as dumb as door knobs.

There's no need to take offence, just try to be a good scholar and remain impartial and examine the evidence as it comes in.

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 6:58pm:


There may be some commentary on the French revolution. The Jacobins perhaps? But they were Republicans more than supporters of workers and peasants. Feel free to let me know of any class conflict literature before Marx.

Quote:


If you read back you'll see I've provided two sources. Plus, I've asked a few times how does property and wealth on their own lead to technological innovation. You've yet to provide any answer to this.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:


YEAH, SORRY, FD, I assumed too much education and didn't reckon with the plebian reflexes. Anyway, the idea was first articulated by Churchill (yes, the one who knows nothing about history compared to the experts clogging up this board).

He identified Law, Language and Literature as the things that bind people together. He specifically referred to English common law and regarded its manifestations, from the Magna Carta to the American Declaration of Independence, as expressions of the same, unique, bottom-up social and legal thinking.

At the risk of spelling it out - nobody here needs anything spelled out, of course - the continental, Roman Napoleonic legal thinking is top down. This is in no small measure the source of tension between the UK and the EU and accounts for much of the English (not British_) popularity of UKIP. It nicely illustrates the tension between common law tradition and of trying to bring together common law and codified (Roman/Napoleonic) law.

And I am very sorry there is no royal road to these insights and I am afraid no Wiki either. You will simply have to read books and Mr Google will not be of much use. Start with Churchill's History of the English Speaking peoples, Vol 4 The Great Democracies. It was one of the works Churchill got the Nobel Prize for (literature, not peace, you will be surprised to learn). It is a superb example of the Language and Literature that binds us, even if you want to (you know you wan to ) argue about the Law.

I could see  you reply before I signed back in - but now I can't see it.

Can you fix up this problem? People have been complaining about it for months.

As to which 'institutions' common law presupposes - what does that actually mean? I am happy spell out anything provided you are able to articulate what you want spelled out.

Common law - bottom up.
Statute law (Roman/Napoleonic) - top down.

Did you get that?  It is the crucial difference.  Let me know if you see that difference. We cannot proceed until you do.

Why Failures Nationalise is more the point...

**mounts soap box**

Beware the Tides of Marching socio-fascist Uberkontrollers bent on subordinating your nation/society to their whim, and establishing cont-rol control over every aspect of your life.

(just thought I'd fling that one in)...