Resensie: Deel 19 - The Monachy

Resensie: Deel 19 - The Monachy


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

In Junie 1405 stop koning Henry IV by 'n klein herenhuis in Yorkshire om te beskerm teen 'n storm. Daardie nag het hy wakker geskrik dat verraaiers sy vel brand. Sy instinktiewe oortuiging dat hy vergiftig word, was te verstane: hy het in die eerste ses jaar van sy bewind reeds minstens agt planne oorleef om hom te onttroon of dood te maak. Hendrik IV was nie altyd so ongewild nie. In sy jeug was hy 'n groot ridderkampioen en kruisvaarder. Hy was die seun van Johannes van Gaunt, beleefd, selfversekerd, goed opgevoed, vrygewig, toegewyd aan sy familie, musikaal en geestelik vurig. In 1399, op die ouderdom van twee en dertig, is hy entoesiasties begroet as die redder van die koninkryk toe hy die onveilige en tirannieke koning Richard II uit die mag verdryf het. Maar daarin lê Henry se swakheid. Deur homself koning te maak, het hy God se wet oortree en homself heeltemal oop vir kritiek gelaat.


BUITELANDSE HANDEL, KOMMERSIËLE BELEID EN DIE POLITIEKE EKONOMIE VAN DIE LIED EN MING DYNASTIES VAN CHINA

Ek is dank verskuldig aan twee anonieme skeidsregters, Stephen Morgan, Pierre van der Eng, Syed Ahmad, Bharat Hazari, Fred Kwan, Bozhong Li en deelnemers aan die Conference on Lessons from History aan die Lingnan Universiteit, Hong Kong, 9–10 Junie 2006, vir kommentaar en voorstelle van die vorige konsepte.

City University of Hong Kong

Ek is dank verskuldig aan twee anonieme skeidsregters, Stephen Morgan, Pierre van der Eng, Syed Ahmad, Bharat Hazari, Fred Kwan, Bozhong Li en deelnemers aan die Conference on Lessons from History aan die Lingnan Universiteit, Hong Kong, 9–10 Junie 2006, vir kommentaar en voorstelle van die vorige konsepte.

Abstract

Die referaat bied 'n raamwerk om die afwyking tussen buitelandse handelsbeleid en gesagsbevoegdheid te ondersoek. Eersgenoemde word geïllustreer deur die sytakse buitelandse handelstelsel in die keiserlike China, terwyl laasgenoemde deur die privaat buitelandse handel onder toesig van die regering is. In die Song-dinastie (960–1276) het 'n sterk eksterne vyand die monargie gedwing om 'n pro-doeltreffende handelsbeleid te kies om die weermag te finansier, terwyl China tydens die vroeë Ming-dinastie (1368-1644) 'n sterk gesag was. beleid is bevoordeel. Gedurende die laat Ming, namate die dinastie verswak het, vergesel van eksterne dreigemente en interne wanbestuur, het die keiserlike regering weereens 'n pro-doeltreffende handelsbeleid gekies.


Onthou die donker koloniale geskiedenis van Duitsland

Ranke se metode, wat deur 'n generasie geskiedkundiges aangeneem is, was dié van 'n konserwatiewe liberaal van die hersteltydperk, wat 'n balans tussen die Europese mag beoog. Teen die middel van die eeu het nuwe historici egter 'n Pruis-gesentreerde nasionale verhaal na 'n nuwe oortuiging geneem, wat elemente van Hegel se statistiese teleologie kombineer met Ranke se bewysgebaseerde metode. In die Duitse revolusie van 1848 was die retoriek van vryheid en volkskap verwar, en die doelwitte van 'n konstitusionele monargie en 'n verenigde Duitsland lyk onder een vaandel verenig.

Tog het die rewolusie binne 'n kort tyd misluk en 'n konserwatiewe gemoedstoestand daal. Vervolgens is die liberale gees van nasionalisme vervang deur 'n Bismarckiese argument vir nasionalistiese militarisme en ekspansionisme. Akademiese skryfwerk is aangeraak deur hierdie volgorde van gebeure.


Die Tsjeggo -Slowaakse oorsig/Deel 2/Onafhanklikheidsverklaring van die Tsjeggo -Slowaakse nasie deur sy voorlopige regering

Op hierdie ernstige oomblik, wanneer die Hohenzollerns vrede bied om die seëvierende opmars van die Geallieerde leërs te stuit en die verbrokkeling van Oostenryk-Hongarye en Turkye te voorkom, en wanneer die Habsburgers die federalisering van die Ryk en outonomie beloof aan die ontevrede ons, die Tsjeggo -Slowaakse Nasionale Raad, wat deur die geallieerde en Amerikaanse regerings erken is as die voorlopige regering van die Tsjeggo -Slowaakse staat en nasie, in ooreenstemming met die verklaring van die Tsjeggiese afgevaardigdes op 6 Januarie 1918, en besef dat federalisering, en nog meer, outonomie, niks beteken onder 'n Habsburgse dinastie nie, maak en verklaar dit hiermee ons onafhanklikheidsverklaring.

Ons doen dit vanweë ons oortuiging dat geen mense gedwing moet word om te lewe onder 'n soewereiniteit wat hulle nie erken nie, en vanweë ons kennis en vaste oortuiging dat ons land nie vryelik kan ontwikkel in 'n Habsburgse skynfederasie nie, wat slegs 'n nuwe vorm is van die denationaliserende onderdrukking waaronder ons die afgelope driehonderd jaar gely het. Ons beskou vryheid as die eerste voorvereiste vir federalisering, en glo dat die vrye nasies van Sentraal- en Oos-Europa maklik kan federeer as hulle dit nodig sou vind.

Ons maak hierdie verklaring op grond van ons historiese en natuurlike reg. Ons is sedert die sewende eeu 'n onafhanklike staat en in 1526, as 'n onafhanklike staat, bestaande uit Bohemen, Morawië en Silezië, het ons saam met Oostenryk en Hongarye 'n verdedigingsunie teen die Turkse gevaar aangegaan. Ons het nog nooit vrywillig ons regte as 'n onafhanklike staat in hierdie konfederasie oorgegee nie. Die Habsburgers het hul ooreenkoms met ons volk verbreek deur ons regte onwettig te oortree en die Grondwet van ons Staat te oortree wat hulle onderneem het om te handhaaf, en ons weier daarom langer om in enige vorm deel van Oostenryk-Hongarye te bly.

Ons maak aanspraak op die reg van Bohemen om herenig te word met haar Slowaakse broeders van Slowakye, eens deel van ons nasionale staat, wat later van ons nasionale liggaam verwyder is en vyftig jaar gelede opgeneem is in die Hongaarse Magiërs, wat deur hul onuitspreeklike geweld en genadelose onderdrukking van hul vakrasse het alle morele en mensereg verloor om almal behalwe hulself te regeer.

Die wêreld ken die geskiedenis van ons stryd teen die Habsburgse onderdrukking, versterk en gesistematiseer deur die Oostenryk-Hongaarse dualistiese kompromie van 1867. Hierdie dualisme is slegs 'n skaamtelose organisasie van brute mag en uitbuiting van die meerderheid deur die minderheid, dit is 'n politieke sameswering van die Duitsers en Magiërs teen ons eie sowel as die ander Slawiërs en die Latynse nasies van die Monargie. Die wêreld ken die geregtigheid van ons bewerings, wat die Habsburgers self nie wou ontken nie. Francis Joseph het op die plegtigste wyse herhaaldelik die soewereine regte van ons land erken. Die Duitsers en Magiërs het hierdie erkenning gekant, en Oostenryk-Hongarye, wat voor die Pan-Duitsers gebuig het, het 'n kolonie van Duitsland geword en, as haar voorhoede na die Ooste, die laaste Balkan-konflik sowel as die huidige wêreldoorlog uitgelok, wat deur die Habsburgers alleen begin is sonder die toestemming van die verteenwoordigers van die mense.

Ons kan en sal nie onder die direkte en indirekte heerskappy van die oortreders van België, Frankryk en Serwië, die moordenaars van Rusland en Roumanië, die moordenaars van tienduisende burgerlikes en soldate van ons bloed lewe nie, en die medepligtiges in ontelbare onuitspreeklike misdade wat gepleeg is in hierdie oorlog teen die mensdom deur die twee ontaard en onverantwoordelike dinastieë. Ons sal nie deel bly van 'n staat wat geen bestaansregverdiging het nie, en wat weier om die fundamentele beginsels van die moderne wêreldorganisasie te aanvaar, slegs 'n kunsmatige en immorele politieke struktuur bly wat elke beweging na demokratiese en sosiale vooruitgang belemmer. Die Habsburgse dinastie, onderdruk deur 'n groot erfenis van dwaling en misdaad, is 'n ewige bedreiging vir die vrede van die wêreld, en ons ag dit ons plig teenoor die mensdom en die beskawing om te help om die ondergang en vernietiging daarvan te bewerkstellig.

Ons verwerp die heilige bewering dat die mag van die Habsburgse en Hohenzollern -dinastieë van goddelike oorsprong is, ons weier om die goddelike regte van konings te erken. Ons nasie het die Habsburgers uit vrye wil tot die troon van Bohemen verkies en hulle deur dieselfde reg afgesit. Ons verklaar hiermee dat die Habsburgse dinastie onwaardig is om ons volk te lei, en ontken al hul aansprake om te heers in die Tsjeggo -Slowaakse land, wat ons hier en nou verklaar voortaan 'n vrye en onafhanklike volk en nasie sal wees.

Ons aanvaar en hou by die ideale van die moderne demokrasie, soos dit al eeue lank die ideale van ons volk was. Ons aanvaar die Amerikaanse beginsels soos bepaal deur presihdent Wilson die beginsels van die bevryde mensdom - van die werklike gelykheid van nasies - en van regerings wat al hul regverdige mag verkry uit die toestemming van die regerings. Ons, die nasie van Comenius, kan nie anders as om hierdie beginsels te aanvaar wat uitgedruk word in die Amerikaanse Onafhanklikheidsverklaring, die beginsels van Lincoln en die Verklaring van die Regte van die Mens en van die Burger. Vir hierdie beginsels het ons nasie sy bloed gestort in die gedenkwaardige Hussietoorloë vyfhonderd jaar gelede, vir dieselfde beginsels vergiet ons nasie, naas haar bondgenote, vandag sy bloed in Rusland, Italië en Frankryk. Ons sal slegs die belangrikste beginsels van die Grondwet van die Tsjeggo -Slowaakse nasie uiteensit, die finale besluit oor die Grondwet self val by die wettig gekose verteenwoordigers van die bevryde en verenigde mense.

Die Tsjeggo -Slowaakse staat sal 'n republiek wees. In voortdurende strewe na vooruitgang sal dit volkome vryheid van gewete, godsdiens en wetenskap, letterkunde en kuns, spraak, die pers en die reg van vergadering en versoekskrif verseker. Die kerk sal van die staat geskei word. Ons demokrasie sal berus op algemene stemreg, vroue sal op gelyke voet met mans geplaas word, polities, sosiaal en kultureel. Die regte van die minderheid word gewaarborg deur proporsionele verteenwoordiging nasionale minderhede geniet gelyke regte. Die regering is parlementêr en erken die beginsels van inisiatief en referendum. Die staande weermag sal deur milisie vervang word.

Die Tsjeggo-Slowaakse nasie sal verreikende maatskaplike en ekonomiese hervormings uitvoer, die groot landgoedere sal afgelos word vir tuiskolonisasie, patente van adel word afgeskaf. Ons land sal sy deel van die Oostenryk-Hongaarse vooroorlogse openbare skuld aanvaar-die skuld vir hierdie oorlog laat ons toe aan diegene wat dit aangegaan het.

In sy buitelandse beleid sal die Tsjeggoslowaakse nasie sy volle deel van die verantwoordelikheid in die herorganisasie van Oos -Europa aanvaar. Dit aanvaar die demokratiese en sosiale beginsel van nasionaliteit ten volle en onderskryf die leerstelling dat alle verbonde en verdrae openlik en eerlik sonder geheime diplomasie ingevoer sal word.

Ons grondwet bied 'n doeltreffende, rasionele en regverdige regering wat alle spesiale voorregte uitsluit en klaswetgewing verbied.

Demokrasie het teokratiese outokrasie verslaan. Militarisme is oorkom - demokrasie sal die mensdom herorganiseer. Die magte van die duisternis het die oorwinning van lig gedien, die verlangde eeu van die mensdom breek aan.


Die inskripsies van Dodona en 'n nuwe geskiedenis van Molossia. Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien (HABES), 54

Elizabeth Meyer het vir haarself 'n ambisieuse plan opgestel om die geskiedenis van Molossia in die 4de -2de eeu vC te herskryf. In haar baie kort inleiding (p. 11), verklaar sy dat hoewel die geskiedenis van die Molossiaanse geskiedenis in hierdie tydperk hulde bring aan die grootste monarg - Pyrrhus - en al die suksesse in die derde eeu, hulle meer fokus op die ontwikkeling van die Molossiaanse (en Epirote) staat, wat self sterk gebaseer is op die opskrifte van die groot heiligdom in Dodona. Deur dit te aanvaar, lig sy die leser in dat sy sal probeer om die algemeen aanvaarde geskiedenis van hierdie belangrike tydperk in Molossia (en Epiros) te herskryf op grond van 'n groot herbeoordeling van die epigrafiese bewyse van Dodona.

Die eerste hoofstuk (“The Established View ”, pp. 13-17) gee 'n kort en bondige uiteensetting van wat die aanvaarde weergawe die afgelope paar dekades van die geskiedenis van hierdie streek was.

Die tweede hoofstuk (“The Dating of Inscriptions from Dodona ”, pp. 18-45) fokus op die epigrafiese bewyse wat weer dien as die hoofbron, saam met die beperkte literêre verwysings, om hierdie gevestigde siening te rekonstrueer. Meyer gaan deur 'n noukeurige ondersoek van verskeie sleutelinskrywings om voor te stel dat dit herdateer word tot 'n eeu later as wat voorheen aanvaar is, dit wil sê van die 4de tot die 3de eeu vC. Sy doen dit op grond van beide 'sterk' en 'swak' kriteria vir dating. Sterk dating word deur Meyer gedefinieer as

dating formules wat duidelik verwys na die een of ander tydperk in die Molossiaanse/Epirote politieke geskiedenis: dating deur Aeacid kings wat dateer deur strategos van die ( koinon van die) Epirote (na die uitwissing van die monargie in 232) en datering deur ander amptenare, soos agonotete of naiarge, wat slegs op sekere tye bekend was (of vermoedelik bestaan ​​het) ... en dateer deur die identifisering van persone wat in die inskripsies genoem word wanneer hulle is andersins bekend uit historiese bronne soos Polybius en Livy.

Swak dating word gedefinieer as dating op lettervorm alleen, wat volgens haar baie problematies is by die heiligdom van Dodona.

Die tipe inskripsies wat sy gebruik, is die 'politieke' wat bestaan ​​uit die toekenning van voorregte, toewydings en vrystellings. Meyer begin met wat sy die "koning Alexander" -opskrifte noem. Dit bevat sewe inskripsies - 4 toekenningsvoorregte, 2 mandate en 1 toewyding - waarin 'n koning Alexander genoem word. Die aanvaarde standpunt was dat dit koning Alexander I (343-331 vC) is, 1 en Meyer voer aan dat hulle gedateer moet word tydens die bewind van koning Alexander II (272-242 vC). Sy gebruik beide die sterk en die swak kriteria om, oortuigend volgens hierdie beoordelaar, aan te toon dat hierdie inskripsies aan Alexander II gedateer moet word. Sy illustreer dit met tekeninge van die inskripsies, tesame met die herlees van die teks (dit is 'n goeie aanraking dat 'n visuele hulpmiddel aan die leser verskaf word) en vat haar argumente saam in drie hoofpunte: a) Isopoliteia kom nie voor in die derde eeu vC voor in die Griekse epigrafiese verslag nie. 2
b) Die kombinasie van lettervorms pas die 3de eeu vC beter.
c) Een van hierdie Alexander -inskripsies ( SGDI 1334) het 'n gat om te plaas en "die vroegste, veilig gedateerde gedenkplaat met wat blykbaar 'n gat vir plasing is, is ... gedateer aan koning Neoptolemus, seun van Alexander (d. 295 …" (p. 33)).

Sy sluit haar argument oor die inskripsies van King Alexander kortliks af deur te verklaar dat dit die werk is van meters uit die derde eeu op grond van parallelle uit die derde eeu elders in die Griekse wêreld, en sê "... hierdie sewe inskripsies veranker die oorgang van die eeu van Pyrrhus tot die tydperk van die nuwe Epirote koinon ”(Bl. 35). As verdere ondersteuning vir haar saak met betrekking tot lettervorms, bied sy ook 'n nuttige grafiek van die ontwikkeling van briefvorms (pp. 39-41), asook 'n sy-aan-sy-grafiek van Cabanes se aanvaarde datering en sy stel voor her-dating (pp. 42-44).

Die derde hoofstuk (“Seven Points of Difference ”, pp. 46-113) dien as die kern van die hersiene geskiedenis, waarin sy die herdateringseffekte toepas op sewe hoofpunte vir die tydperk, wat sy identifiseer as: a) Molossiese 'staat' en molossiese konings in die vierde eeu
b) Molossiese uitbreiding in die vierde eeu
c) Wat as iets tussen 330 en 328 vC gebeur het?
d) Epirote en Molossiaanse identiteit in die laat vierde en vroeë derde eeu
e) 'The Molossians' in die derde eeu
f) Wat beteken herdatering vir die uitbreiding van Molosse in die derde eeu?
g) Wat is die Molossiese verhouding met Thesprotia en Chaonia in die derde eeu?

In elk van hierdie kategorieë toon Meyer aan hoe die herdatering die Molossiese werklikheid aanspreek. Alhoewel ek geen voorbeelde van al hierdie punte kan gee nie, behoort 'n paar voorbeelde voldoende te wees om haar argumente te illustreer.

Op bladsye 48-53 is daar 'n bespreking van 'n stewige inskripsie uit die 4de eeu vC wat in die heiligdom by Dodona gevind is, waarin politeia is toegeken aan twee vroue en hul kinders. In die inskripsie word verskeie offisiere genoem, benewens die koning, wat in hierdie geval Neoptolemus, seun van Alketas, is. Hulle is spesifiek prostata, grammateus, en damiorgoi. Meyer fokus op die damiorgoien die feit dat hierdie individue in hierdie spesifieke inskripsie nie 'n duidelik omskrewe rol het nie, dit wil sê as voorstanders van die toekenning van burgerskap, en dat daar baie klem gelê is op die etniek van hierdie tien mans, en dat hierdie etniek weerspieël 'n Molosse koinon. 3 Sy bied 'n nuwe en beter verduideliking vir die teenwoordigheid hiervan damiorgoi : '' N Algemene tipe damiorgoi elders in die vroeë Griekse wêreld was hy lid van 'n raad van amptenare met toesig, soms geregtelik, oor godsdienstige aangeleenthede en heiligdomspraktyke: en dit pas baie goed by Dodona ”(p. 54). Sy volg dit deur tot die gevolgtrekking te kom dat die belangrikste verandering in Molossia in die tydperk 430 tot 370 vC was dat hulle toesig gehou het oor die Zeus -heiligdom by Dodona. As 'n hulp vir die koning is 'n raad van amptenare ingestel "om die koning nie in bedwang te hou nie, maar om hom by te staan ​​en te ondersteun, en in daardie geval geheel en al deur die koning self gekies" (p. 56).

Meyer gee 'n duidelike uiteensetting van die ontwikkeling van die Molossiaanse 'staat' soos hieronder deur middel van inskripsionele bewyse, maar sy beklemtoon dat die dominante regeringsvorm tot die uitsterwing van die monargie in 232 vC 'n 'dinamiese monargie' was (p. 90) en dat dit die koning was wat die instellings daarin gedryf het. In die 4de eeu vC was die regeringsamptenare: koning, prostata, grammateus, en 'n bord van 10 damiorgoi
Aan die einde van die 4de eeu vC was hulle: koning, prostata, grammateus, en 'n bord van 9 hiëronamone
In die 3de eeu vC was hulle: koning, prostata, grammateus, en 'n bord van 15 sinargonte, sowel as 'n ekklesia 4

Op grond hiervan van die ontwikkeling van die Molossiaanse staat (insluitend die gebruik van bondgenote) wat voorgestel word deur haar her-datering van die belangrikste epigrafiese bewyse uit die heiligdom van Dodona, beskryf Meyer Molossia soos dit in die derde eeu v.C. verskyn het:

Die hartland bly Molossia, onder beheer van sy koning, en sy burgers noem hulself nou gesamentlik 'Molossiërs' of 'n koinon die volgende sone was die van die bure van Dodona, van wie baie sedert die vierde eeu in die raad gesit het; die derde was die van die bondgenote, nie -ingelyf en nie -geassosieerd, nie insiders of buitestaanders nie, maar gewaardeerde vennote 5 en verder as hulle was vyande, en vriende om beloon te word. (pp. 103-104)

Die vierde hoofstuk (“A New History of Molossia ”, pp. 114-135) is 'n skerp, goed beredeneerde herskrywing van die geskiedenis van Molossia van die 5de tot die 2de eeu vC, met behulp van haar hergedateerde inskripsies en die veranderde nuanses wat die herdatering veroorsaak. Dit vloei goed en is ewe aanneemlik, indien nie meer nie, as die huidige beskouing.

Die vyfde hoofstuk (“Epigraphical Appendix ”, pp. 136-165) bied duidelik die epigrafiese bewyse wat gebruik word, met volledige lemmata sowel as tekeninge (en in sommige gevalle foto's). Sy het lesers 'n uitstekende diens gelewer deur vertalings van hierdie inskripsies te lewer. Hierdie bylaag word opgevolg deur die sesde hoofstuk (“List of Maps and Figures ”, pp. 166-167), sewende hoofstuk ("Afkortings", pp. 168-169), agtste hoofstuk (“Works Cited ”, bl. 170-180), negende hoofstuk (“Index Locorum ”, bl. 181-187) en tiende hoofstuk (“Index ”, bl. 188-201). Die produksie van die volume is van 'n redelike hoë gehalte en ek het baie min tipografiese foute opgemerk (bv. P. 103 n.285 "Verskeie probleme bly ..."). Dit sou egter verkieslik gewees het om meer as 'n enkele algemene indeks te hê.

Ek beveel hierdie boek ten sterkste aan, nie net vanweë die fassinerende herskrywing van die geskiedenis van 'n streek in die antieke Griekeland wat nie soveel aandag as ander gebiede gehad het nie, maar ook vir die uitgebreide vertroue op en meesterlike gebruik van die epigrafiese bewyse. Hierdie bundel toon hoe groot die impak is van die gebruik van die beskikbare opskrifte om die skryf van antieke geskiedenis aan te moedig, en ander boeke van hierdie soort moet sterk aangemoedig word.

1. Bv. N.G.L. Hammond, Epirus. Die aardrykskunde, die ou oorblyfsels, die geskiedenis en die topografie van Epirus en aangrensende gebiede (Oxford, 1967), bl. 535 en P. Cabanes, L'Epire de la mort de Pyrrhus à la conquête romaine (272-167 av. J.C.) (Paris-Besançon, 1976), bl. 160.

2. Bv. P. Gauthier, "Sur les institutions de l'Epire hellénistique", Revue de Philologie n.s. 3.53 (1979), bl. 123, versterk deur Meyer se eie PHI -soektog in 2011.

3. Damiorgoi elders verskeie rolle gehad het, bv. hul name aan jare gee, godsdienstige pligte met betrekking tot gedrag in heilige gebiede, toesighouers oor gemeenskapsaktiwiteite en finansiële toesig by kultussentrums, vgl. C. Veligianni-Terzi, Damiurgen. Zur Entwicklung einer Magistratur (diss. Heidelberg, 1977) pp. 4-62 W.K. Pritchett, Griekse argiewe, kultusse en topografie (Amsterdam, 1996), pp. 37-38 P.J. Smith, Die argeologie en epigrafie van Hellenistiese en Romeinse Megaris, Griekeland (Oxford, 2008).

4. Na 232 vC is die koning (miskien aansienlik) vervang deur a strategieë Apeiroton.


Professor Philip Murphy

'Staatsbesoeke gemaak en ontvang deur die Britse en ander Europese monargiese staatshoofde' in Robert Hazell en Bob Morris (reds), The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy European Monarchies Compared (London, Hart Publishing, 2020), ISBN: 9781509931033, pp. 133-148.

Journal of Contemporary History, Volume: 55 issue: 3, page (s): 704-705

Gepubliseer aanlyn in 'Cerles: revue pluridisciplinaire du monde anglophone', November 2019.

The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 47: 1, 197-200, DOI: 10.1080/03086534.2019.1580868

Uitgegee deur Hurst, ISBN: 9781849049467 296pp

Bandeira Jer & oacutenimo, M., Costa Pinto, A. (reds.) (2015) The Ends of European Colonial Empires: Cases and Comparisons, Palgrave MacMillan, ISBN 9781137394057

In Andrew Thompson (red), Britain's Experience of Empire in the Twentieth Century: Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series (Oxford, OUP, 2012), pp. 33-75.

Jones-Parry R. en Robertson A. (reds) The Commonwealth Yearbook 2012. Nexus/Commonwealth Secretariat, pp. 172-3

The Round Table 100 (414), pp. 267-283

Journal of Southern African Studies, 36 (4), (Des. 2010), pp. 765-780.

International History Review, 31/4, pp. 890-893

Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 37/4

Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 38/2, pp. 340-44

Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 38/1, pp. 157-8

Global: the International Briefing

Londen, skryfbehoeftekantoor: deel I, cxxviii + 448 pp, ISBN 0112905862 deel II, xl + 602 pp, ISBN 0112905870

The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 29 (2), (Mei 2001), pp. 101-130

Londen, IB Tauris, 1999, xi + 276 bls.

Oxford, Oxford University Press: xii + 259 bls

Navorsingsprojekte:

Philip Murphy was hoofondersoeker vir hierdie drie jaar lange AHRC-befondsde navorsingsprojek wat van September 2012 tot Augustus 2015 geduur het.

Huidige PhD -onderwerpe onder toesig:

Datums Besonderhede
Van: 01-Sep-2014
Tot:
'Ondersoek na verborge stemme in die stryd om onafhanklikheid in Noord-Rhodesië, 1958-64, met spesiale fokus op die Cha Cha Cha-opstand van Julie-Oktober 1961'

Beatrice Randall. Deeltydse PhD-studie, onder toesig van dr Susan Williams

Carollann Braum. Onder toesig van professor David Cantor.

Vorige PhD -onderwerpe onder toesig:

Datums Besonderhede
Van: 01-Okt-2012
Tot: 30-Sep-2015
Kennis plaas in 'n dekoloniserende wêreld: die Statebondfonds vir tegniese samewerking en geskiedenis van kundigheid vir ontwikkeling

AHRC-befondsde gesamentlike doktorale toekenning wat deur Matthew Battey gehou word. Gesamentlik onder toesig van dr Ruth Craggs en ondersteun deur die Statebond -sekretariaat.

Charles Rukwengye, onder toesig van dr Leo Zeilig

Chamila Liyanage. Onder toesig van professor Peter Neumann (King's College London).

Professionele affiliasies:

Naam Aktiwiteit
Koloniale en postkoloniale polisiëringsgroep lid
Statebond Demokrasie Forum lid

Samewerkings:

Naam Tik Aktiwiteit Begindatum Einddatum
Studiegroep oor intelligensie Navorsings- en beleidsverwante netwerk wat akademici en huidige en voormalige lede van die intelligensiegemeenskap bymekaar bring Termynvergaderings by die Royal United Services Institute
Relevante gebeure

Verwante gebeurtenisse:

Aanlynkonferensie wat sprekers regoor die Statebond verbind met panele oor die wêreld na Covid 19, mediavryheid, bedreigings vir demokrasie, die Windrush -skandaal, herstelwerk vir slawerny en kolonialisme, en LGBT+ regte.

Spreker op konferensie 'Striking Back? On Imperial Fantasies and Fantasies of Empire ’by die Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen, Duitsland.

Panellid by die Körber Stiftung History Forum, Berlyn

In gesprek met dr Joanna Lewis, LSE IDEAS en Department of International History (LSE).

Spesiale lesing in die teenwoordigheid van die Britse ambassadeur, Yonsei Universiteit, Seoul, Suid -Korea.

Deelnemer aan 'n paneelbespreking oor die Statebond saam met Lord Howell, Philip Murphy, Salil Tripathi, YK Sinha en John Elliott tydens die ZEE Jaipur Literature Festival in die British Library.

Keynote -lesing tydens die konferensie 'Contested Borders? Beoefen ryk, nasie en streek in die negentiende en twintigste eeu, German Historical Institute, Londen.

Onderhoud gevoer op Radio 4 dokumentêr oor die Statebond aangebied deur Jonny Dymond.

Panellid (saam met die voormalige Britse minister Lord Boateng en die voormalige premier van Nieu -Seeland, Helen Clark) tydens 'n spesiale debat by die Britse biblioteek oor die Statebond, onder voorsitterskap van die BBC -joernalis Reeta Chakrabarti.

Historiese konsultant vir die BBC 1 -dokumentêr aangebied deur George Alagiah.

Sentrum vir die geskiedenis van kolonialismes jaarlikse lesing, Universiteit van Kent.

Keynote -lesing by die British Scholar Society 'Britain and the World' -konferensie, King's College in Londen

Keynote -lesing (op afstand gelewer) tydens die internasionale konferensie 'The Crown in the 21st Century', Victoria, Kanada.

The Chevening Christmas Lecture (gelewer saam met professor Robert Hazell), georganiseer deur die Foreign and Commonwealth Office aan die Queen Mary Universiteit van Londen.

Voorlegging aan die Commonwealth Parlementêre Verenigingskonferensie, 'Menseregte in die hedendaagse Statebond: Magna Carta by die Statebondhandves', Huise van die Parlement.

Werkswinkel oor 'monargie en politiek' aan die Ludwig-Maximilians Universiteit, München

Gresham College openbare lesing

Konferensie in die Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, Delhi

Universiteit van Warwick -konferensie, 'Spy Chiefs: Intelligence Leaders in History, Culture and International Relations', by die Palazzo Pesaro Papafava, Venesië

Séminaire Histoire du politique dans les mondes Anglophones, Paris Diderot University

Lesing by die Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, Delhi

The Making of a Monarchy for the Modern World, Kensington Palace, 6-8 Junie 2012

The British Scholar 'Britain and the World Conference', Universiteit van Edinburgh, 22 Junie 2012

Workshop on Relgious Freedom in the Commonwealth georganiseer deur die Commonwealth Advisory Bureau. Geborg en aangebied deur die Canadian High Commission, Londen, 22 Maart 2012.

Onderhoud oor die Radio 4 -dokumentêre reeks 'The Art of Monarchy'. Uitsending 24 Maart 2012.

Onderhoud op die Franse radiostasie Outremer Première vir 'n dokumentêr met die titel 'God Save L'Empire?', Uitgesaai op 25 Junie 2012.

Onderhoud oor die Australiese ABC Radio National for Rear View dokumentêr getiteld 'The British Empire and What Became of it'. Uitsending 3 Junie 2012.

Université Paris Diderot
Instituut vir Statebondstudies / Statebond -adviesburo
Universiteit van Londen

19 Oktober 2012, 14:00 - 16:00, Institut Charles V, kamer A 50

Af en toe seminareeks
Die Statebond in die wêreld: weerstand, regering en verandering

Leslie James (London School of Economics)
'Skryf anti-imperiale solidariteit uit Londen:
George Padmore en die strategie van anti-koloniale verset "

Gevolg deur 'n bespreking met
Professor Philip Murphy (Institute of Commonwealth Studies)
Intelligensie en Britse dekolonisering

Konferensie aan die Universiteit van Northumbria, 'The American and British Relationship with Africa since 1960', 10 Junie 2011

Referaat voorgelê aan die University of Cambridge World History Seminar, 10 Februarie 2011

Openingslesing, Beveridge Hall, Senaathuis, Londen, 23 Februarie 2011

Konferensie oor Britse buitelandse beleid in Afrika sedert 1957, 25 Maart 2011

Sameroeper, spreker en paneelskrywer by 'n konferensie oor The End of The Portuguese Empire in Comparative Perspective, Institute of Social Sciences-Universiteit van Lissabon, 20-21 Junie 2011

Statebond -sekretariaat Inleidingsprogram vir Statebond -diplomate, Farnham Castle, 6 September 2011

'Onderhandeling met die' vyand ': perspektiewe van die verlede en die hede' Werkswinkel oor teenopstand georganiseer in samewerking met die Open University, 24 September 2010

Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK 10-12 November 2010

Statebond -sekretariaat Inleidingsprogram vir Statebond -diplomate, Farnham Castle, 8 September 2010


Review of History Review: Deel 48, uitgawe 2

Die doel van hierdie referaat is om historiese verskuiwings in die mobilisering van die konsep van radikale met betrekking tot Australiese skoolopleiding te oorweeg.

Sekularisme, ras, godsdiens en die Wet op Openbare Onderrig van 1880 in NSW

Deur middel van 'n politieke genealogie, is die doel van hierdie artikel om aan te toon hoe die institusionalisering van die sogenaamde 'sekulêre beginsel' in NSW-staatskole in die & hellip

Die Margaret Bailey -saak: Hoërskoolaktivisme, die reg op onderwys en moderne burgerskap in die laat 1960's, Australië

In Maart 1969 is die Brisbane -student en politieke aktivis Margaret Bailey uit die Hoërskool Inala geskors - oënskynlik omdat sy die gesag van haar onderwyser ondermyn het & hellip

Clarice Irwin se visioene vir onderwys in Australië in die 1920's en 1930's: "wat kan wees"

Die referaat is 'n studie van Clarice McNamara, née Irwin (1901–1990), 'n opvoeder wat gepleit het vir hervorming in die tussenoorlogstydperk in Australië. Clarice is bekend vir haar rol en hellip

Geheue -voorwerpe en koshuis trauma

Die doel van hierdie referaat is om taal en betekenis te gee om stilte rondom traumatiese koshuisherinneringe oop te maak deur die simboliese aura (Nora 1989) rondom & hellip

Henry Caldwell Cook, kreatiwiteit en demokratiese leer

Die doel van hierdie referaat is om die lewe en werk van 'n vergete progressiewe opvoeder-(Henry) Caldwell Cook, 'n Engelse en drama-onderwyser by die Perse & hellip, te ondersoek.

Geskiedenis van onderwysers in Australië en Nieu -Seeland vanaf die sewentigerjare tot hede

Met die publikasie in die sewentigerjare, is die doel van hierdie artikel om die historiese skryfwerk oor Australiese en Nieu -Seelandse onderwysers oor die afgelope 50 jaar te hersien.


'N Metgesel vir die Romeinse Ryk

"Nog 'n bewonderenswaardige uitgawe van Blackwell se groot uitbreidende reeks metgeselle, dit is van vergelykbare lengte, maar met slegs 30 bydraers en 30 hoofstukke ... gee dit mekaar meer diepte en breedte." (Antieke Oos en Wes, 2008)

"Vir diegene wat bedenkinge het oor die 'metgesel' -verskynsel, [hierdie bundel] is 'n uitstekende advertensie vir die voordele van so 'n oefening. Hierdie bundel is byna eenvormig goed as 'n gids vir sentrale onderwerpe in die Romeinse geskiedenis van die eerste tot die vorige eeu , met 'n aantal uitstekende besprekings, "(Die klassieke resensie, 2008)

"A very impressive collection indeed, summarising and building on the latest scholarship, especially the view that there is more to history than politics and the powerful." (Journal of Classics Teaching)

"Scholar, student, and interested layperson will all find much to ponder here, and the editor, publisher, and contributors are to be commended for the success of their undertaking. This Metgesel, at least, constitutes a welcome addition to the field, offers a clear statement of the current state of the discipline, and provides inspiration for future directions" (New England Classical Journal)

"This Metgesel to the Roman Empire provides a fascinating and scholarly insight into our ancient past. It is an ideal reference tool for students and scholars alike, presenting new methods and modes of study that should provoke thought among the readership. It also brings together many disciplines of study that allow scholars to study an Empire as vast and influential as that created by the Romans." (Verwysingsresensies)

"The thirty chapters in this latest title in Blackwell's excellent "Companions to the Ancient World" series are written by such experts in their fields as Maud Gleason, Judith Evans Grubbs, Amy Richlin and Ann Hanson . No comparable handbook exists . Essential. All levels/libraries." (Choice—A Choice Outstanding Academic Title for 2007)

"This elegantly and carefully edited book is a resounding success." (Scholia Reviews)

"David Potter has assembled an impressive array of scholars whose essays in this volume provide overviews and summarize the current state of scholarship on a variety of topics. 'N Metgesel vir die Romeinse Ryk succeeds in meeting the needs of its diverse audience and also offers a few surprises." (Bryn Mawr Classical Review)


Call for 20 new Editorial Board members for The Sociological Review

The Sociological Review is looking to appoint 20 new Editorial Board members to join our team from November 2021. Could you be one of them?

We are looking for people who are enthusiastic about our aims and ethos, and we welcome applicants working outside higher education, people at all career stages, and those based outside the UK. We actively encourage scholars from the Global South, people of colour, LGBTQI+ and people with disabilities to apply.


The Real Karl Marx

Karl Marx and his daughter Jenny, a left-wing journalist and her father&rsquos secretary, in 1869. &lsquoThe cross she is wearing,&rsquo Jonathan Sperber writes, &lsquowas not a sign of religious affiliation but the symbol of the Polish uprising of 1863.&rsquo

In many ways, Jonathan Sperber suggests, Marx was &ldquoa backward-looking figure,&rdquo whose vision of the future was modeled on conditions quite different from any that prevail today:

The view of Marx as a contemporary whose ideas are shaping the modern world has run its course and it is time for a new understanding of him as a figure of a past historical epoch, one increasingly distant from our own: the age of the French Revolution, of Hegel&rsquos philosophy, of the early years of English industrialization and the political economy stemming from it.

Sperber&rsquos aim is to present Marx as he actually was&mdasha nineteenth-century thinker engaged with the ideas and events of his time. If you see Marx in this way, many of the disputes that raged around his legacy in the past century will seem unprofitable, even irrelevant. Claiming that Marx was in some way &ldquointellectually responsible&rdquo for twentieth-century communism will appear thoroughly misguided but so will the defense of Marx as a radical democrat, since both views &ldquoproject back onto the nineteenth century controversies of later times.&rdquo

Certainly Marx understood crucial features of capitalism but they were &ldquothose of the capitalism that existed in the early decades of the nineteenth century,&rdquo rather than the very different capitalism that exists at the start of the twenty-first century. Again, while he looked ahead to a new kind of human society that would come into being after capitalism had collapsed, Marx had no settled conception of what such a society would be like. Turning to him for a vision of our future, for Sperber, is as misconceived as blaming him for our past.

At times Marx&rsquos hostility to Europe&rsquos reactionary regimes led him to bizarre extremes. An ardent opponent of Russian autocracy who campaigned for a revolutionary war against Russia in 1848&ndash1849, he was dismayed by Britain&rsquos indecisive handling of the Crimean War. Denouncing the opposition to the war of leading British radicals, Marx went on to claim that Britain&rsquos faltering foreign policies were due to the fact that the prime minister, Lord Palmerston, was a paid agent of the Russian tsar, one of a succession of traitors occupying positions of power in Britain for over a century&mdashan accusation he reiterated over several years in a succession of newspaper articles reprinted by his daughter Eleanor as The Secret Diplomatic History of the Eighteenth Century.

Sperber&rsquos subtly revisionist view extends to what have been commonly held to be Marx&rsquos definitive ideological commitments. Today as throughout the twentieth century Marx is inseparable from the idea of communism, but he was not always wedded to it. Skryf in die Rynland Nuus in 1842 in his very first piece after taking over as editor, Marx launched a sharp polemic against Germany&rsquos leading newspaper, the Augsburg General News, for publishing articles advocating communism. He did not base his assault on any arguments about communism&rsquos impracticality: it was the very idea that he attacked. Lamenting that &ldquoour once blossoming commercial cities are no longer flourishing,&rdquo he declared that the spread of Communist ideas would &ldquodefeat our intelligence, conquer our sentiments,&rdquo an insidious process with no obvious remedy. In contrast, any attempt to realize communism could easily be cut short by force of arms: &ldquopractical attempts [to introduce communism], even attempts en masse, can be answered with cannons.&rdquo As Sperber writes, &ldquoThe man who would write the Kommunistiese manifest just five years later was advocating the use of the army to suppress a communist workers&rsquo uprising!&rdquo

Nor was this an isolated anomaly. In a speech to the Cologne Democratic Society in August 1848, Marx rejected revolutionary dictatorship by a single class as &ldquononsense&rdquo&mdashan opinion so strikingly at odds with the views Marx had expressed only six months earlier in the Kommunistiese manifest that later Marxist-Leninist editors of his speeches mistakenly refused to accept its authenticity&mdashand over twenty years later, at the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War, Marx also dismissed any notion of a Paris Commune as &ldquononsense.&rdquo

Marx the anti-Communist is an unfamiliar figure but there were undoubtedly times when he shared the view of the liberals of his day and later, in which communism (assuming anything like it could be achieved) would be detrimental to human progress. This is only one example of a more general truth. Despite his own aspirations and the efforts of generations of his disciples from Engels onward, Marx&rsquos ideas never formed a unified system. One reason for this was the disjointed character of Marx&rsquos working life. Though we think of Marx as a theorist ensconced in the library of the British Museum, theorizing was only one of his avocations and rarely his primary activity:

But if the conditions of Marx&rsquos life were hardly congenial to the continuous labor required for system-building, the eclectic quality of his thinking presented a greater obstacle. That he borrowed ideas from many sources is a scholarly commonplace. Where Sperber adds to the standard account of Marx&rsquos eclecticism is in probing the conflict between his continuing adherence to Hegel&rsquos belief that history has a built-in logic of development and the commitment to science that Marx acquired from the positivist movement.

In pointing to the formative intellectual role of positivism in the mid-nineteenth century Sperber shows himself to be a surefooted guide to the world of ideas in which Marx moved. Partly no doubt because it now seems in some respects embarrassingly reactionary, positivism has been neglected by intellectual historians. Yet it produced an enormously influential body of ideas. Originating with the French socialist Henri de Saint-Simon (1760&ndash1825) but most fully developed by Auguste Comte (1798&ndash1857), one of the founders of sociology, positivism promoted a vision of the future that remains pervasive and powerful today. Asserting that science was the model for any kind of genuine knowledge, Comte looked forward to a time when traditional religions had disappeared, the social classes of the past had been superseded, and industrialism (a term coined by Saint-Simon) reorganized on a rational and harmonious basis&mdasha transformation that would occur in a series of evolutionary stages similar to those that scientists found in the natural world.

Sperber tells us that Marx described Comte&rsquos philosophical system as &ldquopositivist shit&rdquo but there were many parallels between Marx&rsquos view of society and history and those of the positivists:

For all the distance Marx kept from these [positivist] doctrines, his own image of progress through distinct stages of historical development and a twofold division of human history into an earlier, irrational era and a later, industrial and scientific one, contained distinctly positivist elements.

Astutely, Sperber perceives fundamental similarities between Marx&rsquos account of human development and that of Herbert Spencer (1820&ndash1903), who (rather than Darwin) invented the expression &ldquosurvival of the fittest&rdquo and used it to defend laissez-faire capitalism. Influenced by Comte, Spencer divided human societies into two types, &ldquothe &lsquomilitant&rsquo and the &lsquoindustrial,&rsquo with the former designating the entire pre-industrial, pre-scientific past, and the latter marking a new epoch in the history of the world.&rdquo

Spencer&rsquos new world was an idealized version of early Victorian capitalism, while Marx&rsquos was supposed to come about only once capitalism had been overthrown but the two thinkers were at one in expecting &ldquoa new scientific era, one fundamentally different from the human past.&rdquo As Sperber concludes: &ldquoToday, a visitor to Highgate Cemetery in North London can see the graves of Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer standing face to face&mdashfor all the intellectual differences between the two men, not an entirely inappropriate juxtaposition.&rdquo

It was not only his view of history as an evolutionary process culminating in a scientific civilization that Marx derived from the positivists. He also absorbed something of their theories of racial types. The fact that Marx took such theories seriously may seem surprising but one must remember that many leading nineteenth-century thinkers&mdashnot least Herbert Spencer&mdashwere devotees of phrenology, and positivists had long believed that in order to be fully scientific, social thought must ultimately be based in physiology.

Comte had identified race (along with climate) as one of the physical determinants of social life, and Arthur de Gobineau&rsquos Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races (1853&ndash1855), a widely influential defense of innate racial hierarchies, was partly inspired by Comte&rsquos philosophy. Marx reacted to Gobineau&rsquos book with scorn, and showed no trace of any belief in racial superiority in his relations with his son-in-law Paul Lafargue, who was of African descent. (His chief objection to the marriage was that Lafargue lacked a reliable income.) At the same time Marx was not immune to the racist stereotypes of his day. His description of the German-Jewish socialist Ferdinand Lassalle, which Sperber describes as &ldquoan ugly outburst, even by the standards of the nineteenth century,&rdquo illustrates this influence:

It is now completely clear to me, that, as proven by the shape of his head and the growth of his hair, he [Lassalle] stems from the Negroes who joined the march of Moses out of Egypt (if his mother or grandmother on his father&rsquos side did not mate with a nigger). Now this combination of Jewry and Germanism with the negroid basic substance must bring forth a peculiar product. The pushiness of this lad is also nigger-like.

Sperber comments that this passage demonstrates Marx&rsquos &ldquonon-racial understanding of Jews. The &lsquocombination of Jewry and Germanism&rsquo that Marx saw in Lassalle was cultural and political,&rdquo not biological. As Sperber goes on to show, however, Marx also referred to racial types in ways that suggested these types were grounded in biological lineages. Eulogizing the work of the French ethnographer and geologist Pierre Trémaux (1818&ndash1895), whose book Origin and Transformation of Man and Other Beings he read in 1866, Marx praised Trémaux&rsquos theory of the role of geology in animal and human evolution as being &ldquomuch more important and much richer than Darwin&rdquo for providing a &ldquonatural basis&rdquo for nationality and showing that &ldquothe common Negro type is only the degenerate form of a much higher one.&rdquo With these observations, Sperber comments,

Marx seemed to be moving in the direction of a biological or geological explanation of differences in nationality&mdashin any event, one connecting nationality to descent, explained in terms of natural science&hellipanother example of the influence on Marx of positivist ideas about the intellectual priority of the natural sciences.

Marx&rsquos admiration for Darwin is well known. A common legend has it that Marx offered to dedicate Capital to Darwin. Sperber describes this as &ldquoa myth that has been repeatedly refuted but seems virtually ineradicable,&rdquo since it was Edward Aveling, the lover of Marx&rsquos daughter Eleanor, who unsuccessfully approached Darwin for permission to dedicate a popular volume he had written on evolution. But there can be no doubt that Marx welcomed Darwin&rsquos work, seeing it (as Sperber puts it) as &ldquoanother intellectual blow struck in favor of materialism and atheism.&rdquo

Less well known are Marx&rsquos deep differences with Darwin. If Marx viewed Trémaux&rsquos work as &ldquoa very important improvement on Darwin,&rdquo it was because &ldquoprogress, which in Darwin is purely accidental, is here necessary on the basis of the periods of development of the body of the earth.&rdquo Virtually every follower of Darwin at the time believed he had given a scientific demonstration of progress in nature but though Darwin himself sometimes wavered on the point, that was never his fundamental view. Darwin&rsquos theory of natural selection says nothing about any kind of betterment&mdashas Darwin once noted, when judged from their own standpoint bees are an improvement on human beings&mdashand it is testimony to Marx&rsquos penetrating intelligence that, unlike the great majority of those who promoted the idea of evolution, he understood this absence of the idea of progress in Darwinism. Yet he was just as emotionally incapable as they were of accepting the contingent world that Darwin had uncovered.

As the late Leszek Kołakowski used to put it in conversation, &ldquoMarx was a German philosopher.&rdquo Marx&rsquos interpretation of history derived not from science but from Hegel&rsquos metaphysical account of the unfolding of spirit (Geist) in the world. Asserting the material basis of the realm of ideas, Marx famously turned Hegel&rsquos philosophy on its head but in the course of this reversal Hegel&rsquos belief that history is essentially a process of rational evolution reappeared as Marx&rsquos conception of a succession of progressive revolutionary transformations. This process might not be strictly inevitable relapse into barbarism was a permanent possibility. But the full development of human powers was still for Marx the end point of history. What Marx and so many others wanted from the theory of evolution was an underpinning for their belief in progress toward a better world but Darwin&rsquos achievement was in showing how evolution operated without reference to any direction or end state. Refusing to accept Darwin&rsquos discovery, Marx turned instead to Trémaux&rsquos far-fetched and now deservedly forgotten theories.

Situating Marx fully in the nineteenth century for the first time, Sperber&rsquos new life is likely to be definitive for many years to come. Written in prose that is lucid and graceful, the book is packed with biographical insights and memorable vignettes, skillfully woven together with a convincing picture of nineteenth-century Europe and probing commentary on Marx&rsquos ideas. Marx&rsquos relations with his parents and his Jewish heritage, his student years, his seven-year courtship and marriage to the daughter of a not very successful Prussian government official, and the long life of genteel poverty and bohemian disorder that ensued are vividly portrayed.

Sperber describes Marx&rsquos several careers&mdashin which, Sperber comments, he had more success as a radical journalist who founded a newspaper than in his efforts at organizing the working class&mdashand he carefully analyzes his shifting intellectual and political attitudes. There can be no doubt that Sperber succeeds in presenting Marx as a complex and changeable figure immersed in a world far removed from our own. Whether this means that Marx&rsquos thought is altogether irrelevant to the conflicts and controversies of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is another matter.

Neither the claim that Marx&rsquos ideas were partly responsible for the crimes of communism nor the belief that Marx grasped aspects of capitalism that continue to be important today can be dismissed as easily as Sperber would like. Marx may have never intended anything resembling the totalitarian state that was created in the Soviet Union&mdashindeed such a state might well have been literally inconceivable for him. Even so, the regime that emerged in Soviet Russia was a result of attempting to realize a recognizably Marxian vision. Marx did not hold to any single understanding of the new society he expected to emerge from the ruins of capitalism. As Sperber notes, &ldquoLate in his life, Marx replaced one utopian vision of the total abolition of alienated, divided labor with another, that of a humanity devoted to artistic and scholarly pursuits.&rdquo Yet Marx did believe that a different and incomparably better world could come into being once capitalism had been destroyed, basing his belief in the possibility of such a world on an incoherent mishmash of idealist philosophy, dubious evolutionary speculation, and a positivistic view of history.

Lenin followed in Marx&rsquos footsteps in producing a new version of this faith. There is no reason to withdraw the claim, advanced by Kołakowski and others, that the deadly mix of metaphysical certainty and pseudoscience that Lenin imbibed from Marx had a vital part in producing Communist totalitarianism. Pursuing an unrealizable vision of a harmonious future after capitalism had collapsed, Marx&rsquos Leninist followers created a repressive and inhuman society that itself collapsed, whereas capitalism&mdashdespite all its problems&mdashcontinues to expand.

While Marx cannot escape being implicated in some of the last century&rsquos worst crimes, it is also true that he illuminates some of our current dilemmas. Sperber finds nothing remarkable in the celebrated passage in the Kommunistiese manifest where Marx and Engels declared:

All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned and man is at last compelled to face, with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The idea that this &ldquoassertion of ceaseless, kaleidoscopic change&rdquo anticipates the condition of late-twentieth-century and early-twenty-first-century capitalism, Sperber suggests, comes from a mistranslation of the original German, which could be more accurately rendered as:

Everything that firmly exists and all the elements of the society of orders evaporate, everything sacred is deconsecrated and men are finally compelled to regard their position in life and their mutual relations with sober eyes.

But while Sperber&rsquos version is decidedly less elegant (as he admits), I can see no real difference in meaning between the two. However translated, the passage points to a central feature of capitalism&mdashits inherent tendency to revolutionize society&mdashthat most economists and politicians of Marx&rsquos time and later ignored or seriously underestimated.

The programs of &ldquofree market conservatives,&rdquo who aim to dismantle regulatory restraints on the workings of market forces while conserving or restoring traditional patterns of family life and social order, depend on the assumption that the impact of the market can be confined to the economy. Observing that free markets destroy and create forms of social life as they make and unmake products and industries, Marx showed that this assumption is badly mistaken. Contrary to what he expected, nationalism and religion have not faded away and there is no sign of their doing so in the foreseeable future but when he perceived how capitalism was undermining bourgeois life, he grasped a vital truth.

This is not to say that Marx can offer any way out of our present economic difficulties. There is far more insight into the tendency of capitalism to suffer recurrent crises in the writings of John Maynard Keynes or a critical disciple of Keynes such as Hyman Minsky than in anything that Marx wrote. In its distance from any existing or realistically imaginable condition of society, &ldquothe communist idea&rdquo that has been resurrected by thinkers such as Alain Badiou and Slavoj Žižek is on a par with fantasies of the free market that have been revived on the right. The ideology promoted by the Austrian economist F.A. Hayek and his followers, in which capitalism is the winner in a competition for survival among economic systems, has much in common with the ersatz version of evolution propagated by Herbert Spencer more than a century ago. Reciting long-exploded fallacies, these neo-Marxian and neoliberal theories serve only to illustrate the persisting power of ideas that promise a magical deliverance from human conflict.

The renewed popularity of Marx is an accident of history. If World War I had not occurred and caused the collapse of tsarism, if the Whites had prevailed in the Russian Civil War as Lenin at times feared they would and the Bolshevik leader had not been able to seize and retain his hold on power, or if any one of innumerable events had not happened as they did, Marx would now be a name most educated people struggled to remember. As it is we are left with Marx&rsquos errors and confusions. Marx understood the anarchic vitality of capitalism earlier and better than probably anyone else. But the vision of the future he imbibed from positivism, and shared with the other Victorian prophet he faces in Highgate Cemetery, in which industrial societies stand on the brink of a scientific civilization in which the religions and conflicts of the past will fade way, is rationally groundless&mdasha myth that, like the idea that Marx wanted to dedicate his major work to Darwin, has been exploded many times but seems to be ineradicable.

No doubt the belief that humankind is evolving toward a more harmonious condition affords comfort to many but we would be better prepared to deal with our conflicts if we could put Marx&rsquos view of history behind us, along with his nineteenth-century faith in the possibility of a society different from any that has ever existed.


Kyk die video: George III: The Life u0026 Reign of Britains Most Misunderstood Monarch -- Andrew Roberts


Kommentaar:

  1. Honani

    En ek het dit in die gesig gestaar. Kom ons bespreek hierdie vraag.

  2. Artus

    Ek stem saam, 'n nuttige gedagte



Skryf 'n boodskap