2.4 The Situation in Europe at the Onset of Capitalism

Neither Christianity nor Islam has found a solution to the final crisis that deepened with the fall of the Roman Empire at its slave-owning stage. The system that they developed, the so- called “feudal order” or “Medieval Civilization”, is no different to the solutions preached by the Sumerian and Egyptian priests. Thus, all that these ambiguous metaphysical recipes managed to achieve –both in terms of political program and in terms of praxis– was to plunge society into a “dark ages.” Many of the cultural values that had still existed during antiquity vanished during this time. Rome’s crisis only deepened under its heirs. The societies, on the other hand, were lined up as groups awaiting their turn for heaven and hell, figurines in rank that would march off to war in order for this end to be achieved. The living had almost been excluded from life itself. But what was the concrete situation?

The Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians, the initial people to embrace Christianity, lost the majority of their historical and cultural domains of influence due to the Islamic conquests. Greece was bent on strengthening its own identity against Rome; the Syriac Armenians and Assyrians wished to do the same against both the Byzantines and the Sassanids. Instead, as a result of the Islamic conquests, they lost most of what they had and experienced the most tragic of situations. The Kurds and Persians were able only to ensure their own survival. The Turks and Arabs were greatly advantaged by these conflicts, which enabled them to expand their dominions. Russia, however, was one nation that benefited from these conflicts because of Christianity. The Turks, Tatars, Mongolians, and even the Chinese, suffered big losses in their conflicts with the Russians.

Christianity enabled the European tribes to consolidate their gains and stabilize their losses. National identities at first started to develop because of the shared belief but theecclesiastical aristocracy, and later the feudal lords, caused the loss of a significant portionof the old cultural elements. The superior aspects of the Neolithic culture wereoverpowered and assimilation was imposed. Nonetheless, the historical reality is that thefirst aspects of nation and nationality had appeared and these would prove to bepermanent.

The natives of Africa, America, and Australia could not preserve their main cultures when confronted by Christianity and partially by Islam: they have lost their identities. Indian cultures, too, have been on the losing side, and thus far China has not dared to expand in the face of these religions.

The medieval civilization –I call it the second phase of civilization– not only failed to solve the cultural crisis but exacerbated it. Consequently, the situation in Europe became strategically important: should Europe lose the battle for civilization, Europe would lose its cultural identity like other parts of the world; should Europe win, its strategic superiority would be certain. The “civilizational battle,” of course, was the battle between the two strategic powers of the Middle Ages. It was the battle between Christianity and Islam in Europe and over Europe. The situation was far more complex than what is commonly thought.

At the onset of the fifteenth century, Christianity had completed its expansion into Europe and the period of sacred kingdoms and feudal lords began. The Holy Roman Empire of the Germans claimed that they were the ones to continue the legacy of Rome, but there were rivals who disagreed. The French Kingdom was one, so was the newly emerging power of the Austrian Habsburgs. The Russian Czardom, after the fall of Constantinople, had long since declared itself the true representative of Christianity and the “Third Rome.” The Polish Kingdom, the latest culture to become Christianized, did not wish anyone to snatch the badge of sacredness from it and thus was at the forefront of the claimants. England and France were caught up in their Hundred Years’ War and thus kept out of the struggle. The Iberian and Balkan Christians were waging their own defensive struggle against their Muslim conquerors. The Italian cities were not only leading the Renaissance; they were moving towards capitalism as well. Rome was deeply involved in the intense commercial rivalry amongst the Italian city-states, and so no one expected it to be able to come to the fore and secure unity amongst the cities, and thus becoming a role model for Europe. The Italian cities’ only contribution was to prepare a strategic opportunity by leading Europe into urbanization and by spreading merchant capitalism throughout Europe. But, as we learned from the events of the sixteenth century, this opportunity turned out to be Europe’s best chance to win the battle for the civilization. The Crusader wars did not deliver the expected outcomes and, as the fifteenth century started, the future of Europe was uncertain.

In the meantime, Muslim Arabs continued to pose a strategic threat to the Iberian Peninsula. (They had invaded France but were ousted) The loss Iberia could have meant that Christian Europe would be colonized and lost forever. After all, the Ottomans had advanced swiftly into Austria and Hungary by invading parts of the Balkans and had even reached Poland. Had they not been stopped, the political and cultural existence of Europe might have ended just like that of Rome. The Ottoman Turks and the Andalusian Arabs knew very well that if they did not win a conclusive war against Europe, they would be the ones suffering consecutive losses. On the other hand, the Golden Horde states (as the western part of the Mongol Empire) could attack Western Europe via the northern Black Sea at any time.

But some elements of a deeply rooted, pre-civilization culture did survive in Europe. Thetradition of tribal democracy was still fresh in the cultural memory and people had not profoundly experienced the civilized slave-owning system. Their understanding of Christianity was quite superficial-their minds had not been totally conquered yet. This wasespecially true for Northern Europe where the bond with natural life was still very strong. Despite going through the fastest period of urbanization yet, democratic characteristics predominated because their cities did not really experience kingdoms and empires. They all had semi-democratic rule, and confederations were being established among them and they did not easily recognize other, unelected hegemonies. The kingdoms and fiefdoms were all newly established and did not possess the necessary skills or experience torepresent Europe. (Such experience and skill that had existed was greatly depleted duringthe Crusades.)

On the other hand, with the oldest civilizational world behind it, Islamic civilization wasexperienced and well versed in issues relating to power. Not only were they not defeated during the initial Crusades, they still controlled the trade routes and they were still superiorin trade. Thus, they were completely self-confident. Furthermore, because they representedthe “final” religion and prophet, they were more dogmatic than the Europeans. An analysis of all these facts will make it clear that the civilizational crisis in Europe wasprofound. The threat of Islam, and hence the Turkish and Arabic threats, grew by the day.Christianity’s foothold in Eastern Europe was lost with the fall of Constantinople in 1453. In 1480 Mehmed II sent 20,000 troops to the southern Italian city of Otranto, from where hehoped to conquer Italy. 15 Islam posed a total nightmare to Europe –not only because of the religious threat, but also because of the belligerent tribes it dragged along. Christianity was not a form of civilization capable of dealing with such a nightmare. It incurred a continuous string of losses. The only battle left was in Vienna; if Vienna fell, stopping Islam and the Turks would have been extremely difficult.

Hence, it is understandable that the Italian cities embraced merchant capitalism and delivered the Renaissance. Besides the commercial and cultural-intellectual innovations these movements engendered, it was a matter of survival. This is why the developments inthe Italian Peninsula would determine Europe’s fate.

The two powers promising to resolve the problems created by the darkness of a collapsing Rome and to bring liberation and enlightenment, in fact deepened the crisis because of internal problems and by seeking each other’s destruction. Indeed, these powers led to renewed problems of liberation and enlightenment. Europe could either resolve the crisis- developed by these two powers and left in her arms –or, just like Rome, drown in it.

At this point, the predominant question is whether capitalism can become the solution to the problem at hand. Circumstances at the time of its birth may provide a chance for it to resolve the problems stemming from Islam and Christianity of the late Middle Ages (that is, the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries). The experiences of the Netherlands and England during the sixteenth century shed light on these chances for a solution. However, a closer look at these aspects will show that there also exists the danger of spreading the crisis worldwide-with the crisis of the third phase becoming more profound than the first two phases. The fact that capitalism itself can only exist as a military, political, and economic monopoly makes it the fundamental element of crisis in the history of civilization. It is both the result and producer of crisis. It can spread crisis over time and location but this cannot be a solution. The events that have taken place between the sixteenth and twenty-first centuries are enough proof of this.

The subjects of the next two main sections are the nation-state and industrialism. I will question these fundamental tools used, for the first time in history, by capitalism to resolve social questions before concluding with an assessment of capitalism as a regime and a civilization of crisis.

Notes

14. Ocalan here refers to the Turkish word for republic, cumhuriyet, which comes from an Arabic root that means coming together or forming a community.

15. In response to the plea by Pope Sixtus IV, a Christian army (consisting mainly of Neapolitan and Hungarian troops) besieged Otranto in May 1481 to take back the city and to prevent Rome from suffering the same fate as Constantinople. Two days after the siege began, Mehmed II died, and the resulting succession crisis prevented