Started following my exchange with Valmy in another thread where I stated that noobody likes/cares for fraternité (of the French revolutionary trio) any more but Valmy countered that it is liberté that is the red headed step child of modern politics.
I disagree. I think both equality and liberty have political proponents, while "fraternity" is forgotten. In fact, many aspects of it (clubs, fraternities, masonic lodges, orders and similar associations) are imho looked down upon in the modern world as relics of the past at best and dysfunctional tools promoting nepotism, discrimination and elitism at worst.
Discuss.
I was never sure exactly what was meant by "fraternité".
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2015, 10:12:42 AM
I was never sure exactly what was meant by "fraternité".
Same here. Liberty and Equality I understand. I don't understand how my right to fraternise is being threatened.
Not sure where you are going with this Marti. Freedom of association is a well recognized right. Probably the most protected of the three.
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2015, 10:12:42 AM
I was never sure exactly what was meant by "fraternité".
I think it is the most social or "horizontal" of the three "virtues" of the revolution.
Liberty and equality can, theoretically, exist without you ever acknowledging the fellow human being - they are simply directives to the state, telling it that it cannot restrict your liberty and that it must treat you equally with others. As long as the state acts in accordance with these directives, it does not care whether people are nasty or nice.
Fraternity or fellowship goes beyond that and creates a directive for the people. It means both the freedom of association - so you can choose who your "brothers" (closer and more distant) are - but also means looking at the fellow man as a "brother" and not an enemy or competitor. It means being willing to share or help, to provide aid. I think this one of the three "virtues" is the one most often forgotten in modern politics - whether it is about helping the poor in your country or forgiving another country's debts.
I was being more specific to France :P
I think fraternité, in a nationalistic and ethnic sense, tends to be a big deal to the French rightwing. Though I guess extreme right wing these days. I know the Nazis famously would do things like have rich and poor and aristocrats and peasants sit down for a big common meal and do German things together. That has to dampen a bit of the luster on those types of efforts :P
In modern society you might be right Marty. It is highly encouraged that you treat everybody fairly and not group together in fraternal groups based on some shared trait. And I think it was used in the French Revolution to mean the brotherhood of France, that you are supposed to all work together for the nation and not serve your ancien regime privilege. I am not sure how that would resonate today.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 13, 2015, 10:17:13 AM
Not sure where you are going with this Marti. Freedom of association is a well recognized right. Probably the most protected of the three.
Check out this link - fraternity is NOT only (or even not mainly) about freedom of association. It is a moral obligation of fellowship between men:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9,_%C3%A9galit%C3%A9,_fraternit%C3%A9
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2015, 10:19:44 AM
I was being more specific to France :P
I think fraternité, in a nationalistic and ethnic sense, tends to be a big deal to the French rightwing. Though I guess extreme right wing these days. I know the Nazis famously would do things like have rich and poor and aristocrats and peasants sit down for a big common meal and do German things together. That has to dampen a bit of the luster on those types of efforts :P
In modern society you might be right Marty. It is highly encouraged that you treat everybody fairly and not group together in fraternal groups based on some shared trait. And I think it was used in the French Revolution to mean the brotherhood of France, that you are supposed to all work together for the nation and not serve your ancien regime privilege. I am not sure how that would resonate today.
I agree. I also thought about corporatism, which you mention as well, as that would have been the political system most closely built on the concept of fraternity (to the exclusion of liberty and equality).
It also had a patriotic bent to it but granted sometimes it would be universalized.
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2015, 10:21:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 13, 2015, 10:17:13 AM
Not sure where you are going with this Marti. Freedom of association is a well recognized right. Probably the most protected of the three.
Check out this link - fraternity is NOT only (or even not mainly) about freedom of association. It is a moral obligation of fellowship between men:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9,_%C3%A9galit%C3%A9,_fraternit%C3%A9
If that's the interpretation (I'm also confused about what exactly the term entails), then redistributive policies widely endorsed by the left would be "fraternity".
Quote from: celedhring on August 13, 2015, 10:24:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2015, 10:21:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 13, 2015, 10:17:13 AM
Not sure where you are going with this Marti. Freedom of association is a well recognized right. Probably the most protected of the three.
Check out this link - fraternity is NOT only (or even not mainly) about freedom of association. It is a moral obligation of fellowship between men:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9,_%C3%A9galit%C3%A9,_fraternit%C3%A9
If that's the interpretation (I'm also confused about what exactly the term entails), then redistributive policies widely endorsed by the left would be "fraternity".
It would be, but I think in today's politics the redistributive policies are to a large extent vilified or at least abandonned. The left have moved, imo, much more strongly towards equality, leaving fraternity as the after-thought, and the right is also fundamentally opposed to it in any form.
Valmy is getting soft with age. He should have pointed out that Marty's question does not matter, and that Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité OU LA MORT, popular during the red year of 1793, sounds much better. :P :frog:
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2015, 10:21:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 13, 2015, 10:17:13 AM
Not sure where you are going with this Marti. Freedom of association is a well recognized right. Probably the most protected of the three.
Check out this link - fraternity is NOT only (or even not mainly) about freedom of association. It is a moral obligation of fellowship between men:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9,_%C3%A9galit%C3%A9,_fraternit%C3%A9
I am still not sure what you are advocating. Western democracies do not compel association. That is the stuff of dictators. We have preserved the aspect which is consistent with a pluralistic democracy.
I guess my point is that fraternity, as Valmy and celedhring point out, would be, broadly, composed of two elements - a patriotic/community element for feeling kinship with other people of your nation, and a redistributive element of willingly (or at least, structurally) sharing your wealth with those less fortunate.
My theory is that, while liberty and equality are fine and well, as they are being championed to various degrees by the left and the right, fraternity was more or less left by the wayside. The "patriotic" element of fraternity has been compromised by fascism/nationalism and is considered toxic by a lot of the left; the "redistributive" element has been compromised by communism and is considered anathema by the right and considered less important by the left, which now tends to champion the "third way" and focus on equality instead (so it tends to champion LGBT rights, gender equality, etc.).
As a result societies are seen less as cohesive collectives but rather more or less random aggregations of individuals - each with his or her own agenda, and each more or less autonomous. I am not saying it is necessarily a bad thing but that's how I see it.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on August 13, 2015, 10:29:26 AM
Valmy is getting soft with age. He should have pointed out that Marty's question does not matter, and that Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité OU LA MORT during, the red year of 1793, sound much better. :P :frog:
I just figure somethings are self-evident -_-
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 13, 2015, 10:31:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2015, 10:21:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 13, 2015, 10:17:13 AM
Not sure where you are going with this Marti. Freedom of association is a well recognized right. Probably the most protected of the three.
Check out this link - fraternity is NOT only (or even not mainly) about freedom of association. It is a moral obligation of fellowship between men:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9,_%C3%A9galit%C3%A9,_fraternit%C3%A9
I am still not sure what you are advocating. Western democracies do not compel association. That is the stuff of dictators. We have preserved the aspect which is consistent with a pluralistic democracy.
I am not advocating anything. I am arguing about which of the three is the least popular today.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 13, 2015, 10:31:41 AM
Western democracies do not compel association. That is the stuff of dictators.
Or particularly energetic committees.
Yeah I think Mart was specifically saying it was not preserved in Western Democracies.
Marti, well accepted public policy initiates such as progressive taxation and universal medical care, at least in the Canadian context, seem to be inconsistent with your thesis.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2015, 10:34:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 13, 2015, 10:31:41 AM
Western democracies do not compel association. That is the stuff of dictators.
Or particularly energetic committees.
Sure and freedom of association protects those communities
I see it as solidarity with humanity in general.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 13, 2015, 10:39:55 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2015, 10:34:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 13, 2015, 10:31:41 AM
Western democracies do not compel association. That is the stuff of dictators.
Or particularly energetic committees.
Sure and freedom of association protects those communities
Committees not communities. This one in particular.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcalarchitecture.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2Fcommittee-of-public-safety-french-revolution.jpg&hash=ecabd34bef293cd006ca9542242b973d65655d26)
The way I see it the welfare state widely prevalent in Europe and the curling-loving parts of America is an example of fraternity enforced by the state.
Quote from: Norgy on August 13, 2015, 10:41:11 AM
I see it as solidarity with humanity in general.
Yeah there were elements of that I guess. Though in the revolution itself it had more of a patriotic focus.
That was something liberals (19th century ones) thought would emerge naturally from their values. Boy were they sadly wrong.
Quote from: celedhring on August 13, 2015, 10:44:05 AM
The way I see it the welfare state widely prevalent in Europe and the curling-loving parts of America is an example of fraternity enforced by the state.
We have shitloads of welfare and love it here in Texas. We just pretend not to.
I thought that it was pretty widely acknowledged that in the modern West, a lot of the community ties that used to hold society together have become frayed or broken, and that feelings of alienation and isolation are problems affecting a lot of people. I'd think that those community ties are largely what fraternity involves, so the weakening of those ties would support Marti's contention that fraternity is being ignored.
I don't think any important political movement (left or right) is opposed to community ties per se, but I don't think any that actually put a lot of emphasis on it, either, if for no other reason than that it's hard to see how you could legally require people to feel connected to their neighbors.
Sounds pretty odd that fraternity is put together with equality and liberty. It seems to be the odd one out that doesn't belong there in the first place.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 13, 2015, 10:48:56 AM
Sounds pretty odd that fraternity is put together with equality and liberty. It seems to be the odd one out that doesn't belong there in the first place.
It made perfect sense in the era it was done. A huge thing was breaking down those social distinctions into a patriotic family.
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2015, 10:21:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 13, 2015, 10:17:13 AM
Not sure where you are going with this Marti. Freedom of association is a well recognized right. Probably the most protected of the three.
Check out this link - fraternity is NOT only (or even not mainly) about freedom of association. It is a moral obligation of fellowship between men:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A9,_%C3%A9galit%C3%A9,_fraternit%C3%A9
Reading the wiki article left me more confused than before. It seems different people meant different things by the term.
QuoteThe third term, fraternité, was the most problematic to insert in the triad, as it belonged to another sphere, that of moral obligations rather than rights, links rather than statutes, harmony rather than contract, and community rather than individuality.[2] Various interpretations of fraternité existed. The first one, according to Mona Ozouf, was one of "fraternité de rébellion" (Fraternity of Rebellion),[2] that is the union of the deputies in the Jeu de Paume Oath of June 1789, refusing the dissolution ordered by the King Louis XVI: "We swear never to separate ourselves from the National Assembly, and to reassemble wherever circumstances require, until the constitution of the realm is drawn up and fixed upon solid foundations." Fraternity was thus issued from Liberty and oriented by a common cause.[2]
Another form of fraternité was that of the patriotic Church, which identified social link with religious link and based fraternity on Christian brotherhood.[2] In this second sense, fraternité preceded both liberté and Égalité, instead of following them as in the first sense.[2][page needed] Thus, two senses of Fraternity: "one, that followed liberty and equality, was the object of a free pact; the other preceded liberty and equality as the mark on its work of the divine craftsman."[2]
Another hesitation concerning the compatibility of the three terms arose from the opposition between liberty and equality as individualistic values, and fraternity as the realization of a happy community, devoided of any conflicts and opposed to any form of egotism.[2] This fusional interpretation of Fraternity opposed it to the project of individual autonomy and manifested the precedence of Fraternity on individual will.[2]
In this sense, it was sometimes associated with death, as in Fraternité, ou la Mort! (Fraternity or Death!), excluding liberty and even equality, by establishing a strong dichotomy between those who were brothers and those who were not (in the sense of "you are with me or against me", brother or foe).[2][page needed] Louis de Saint-Just thus stigmatized Anarchasis Cloots' cosmopolitanism, declaring "Cloots liked the universe, except France."[2]
With Thermidor and the execution of Robespierre, fraternité disappeared from the slogan, reduced to the two terms of liberty and equality, re-defined again as simple judicial equality and not as the equality upheld by the sentiment of fraternity.[2] The First Consul (Napoleon Bonaparte) then established the motto liberté, ordre public (liberty, public order).
The notion of a positive moral obligation to foster community has little modern echo - OTOH the notion of "fraternity" in the sense of ethno-nationalism certainly does.
Quote from: celedhring on August 13, 2015, 10:44:05 AM
The way I see it the welfare state widely prevalent in Europe and the curling-loving parts of America is an example of fraternity enforced by the state.
I think "enforced" sounds like these policies are against the wish of the electorate. Which can't be true as welfare in general - although not in the nitty details - has an extremely wide support in all Western societies. This institutionalized fraternity was created over a century with continuous democratic mandates. I guess it is fair to say that this all encompassing and anonymous form of fraternity has damaged all other forms that existed in the past as people are much less reliant on their fellow men. If not causation then at least correlation. Countries that lack a modern social state usually have much stronger informal networks.
Hey Marty this kind of relates to our original discussion. Equality trumps everything...
Spellus linked this on facebook.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/bernie-sanders-blacklivesmatter-free-speech.html?mid=fb-share-di
QuoteA week ago, a handful of protesters associated with Black Lives Matter shut down a Bernie Sanders speech in Seattle to protest what they see to be his insufficient platform on racial justice. This event has provoked a fierce debate within the left, but what is instructive about the debate is the illiberal terms on which it has been conducted. Sanders' critics have defended the protest on the grounds that Sanders has not done enough for racial justice. His supporters have replied that he has. Hamilton Nolan, representing the pro-Sanders side, called the shutdown "dumb," "stupid," "unwise," and "counterproductive" because, Nolan explained, "Bernie Sanders is the most progressive serious presidential candidate, and the most liberal, and the most vocal and wise on the issue of America's entrenched and widening economic inequality."
Nolan suggested that protesters instead shut down speeches from the likes of Donald Trump. Other Sanders fans have urged Black Lives Matter protesters to disrupt Hillary Clinton instead of Sanders. (Some protesters reportedly planned to do just that later in the week but were foiled by the Secret Service.) And so the debate revolved entirely around Sanders' ideological merits, and whether preventing him from speaking advances or hinders the progressive cause. Absent from the calculation on either side is a normative debate over shutting down political speeches. Nolan made very clear his belief that his only problem with the method is that it has been used against a politician he likes. But maybe there is a more important question here than mere tactics. Perhaps shutting down a political speech is, normatively, wrong.
The revival of political correctness has renewed an old fight between liberalism and the left. Liberalism and the left are amorphous terms to describe ideas that sometimes overlap. But if there is a simple conceptual distinction between the two, it lies in the way they treat political rights. Liberals treat political rights as sacrosanct. The left treats social and economic justice as sacrosanct. The liberal vision of political rights requires being neutral about substance. To the left, this neutrality is a mere guise for maintaining existing privilege; debates about "rights" can only be resolved by defining which side represents the privileged class and which side represents the oppressed. When I critiqued political correctness earlier this year, Amanda Taub insisted, without supplying any evidence, that my motive was that, as a white male, I found it "upsetting to be on the receiving end" of criticism. (I do not.) It was simply axiomatic to her that my argument masked personal privilege. Writing again this week, Taub argues, "this isn't really about 'discourse' or 'free speech' at all, but about something a lot more pedestrian: the anxiety of people who aren't used to having their speech and behavior policed by rules that aren't designed for their benefit, but now suddenly find themselves experiencing just that." Taub's regard for appeals to the sanctity of discourse and free speech is indicated by the scare quotes she throws around those terms. They are, to her, mere cover for the comfort of the privileged.
Debates between liberals and the left take this form whether the left-wing analysis defines privilege by economic class, race, or gender. "The liberal view is that abstract categories — like speech or equality — define systems," wrote the left-wing feminist scholar Catharine MacKinnon three decades ago. These abstractions were mere cover for the subordination of one group (women) by another (men). "If one asks whose freedom pornography represents, a tension emerges that is not a dilemma among abstractions so much as it is a conflict between groups." Abstractions are imaginary; groups are real. What matters is that the oppressed prevail. Mao Zedong put it less elegantly: "the reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right."
Obviously, all leftists do not agree with MacKinnon and Mao — who, in any case, would not agree with each other. What they do agree on is, first, their critique of liberalism's elevation of abstract rights over concrete interests; and second, their conviction that political rights ought to be designated to individuals on the basis of their lack of privilege.
In a recent New Yorker review essay, Kelefa Sanneh offers a sympathetic account of the critiques of free-speech liberalism made by Stanley Fish and Jeremy Waldron. Sanneh defends the notion of denying free-speech rights to reactionaries. "If we want a society that recognizes the dignity of marginalized groups," he argues, then we should be willing to enact "laws that prohibit the mobilization of social forces to exclude them," he writes. "This would involve carving out an exception to the First Amendment." Doesn't this line of reasoning justify banning Donald Trump, whose vicious racism and misogyny surely qualify as hate speech, from expression? For that matter, wouldn't "the mobilization of social forces designed to exclude" marginalized groups constitute a fair description of the entire Republican Party, and — from a left-wing standpoint — much of the Democratic Party, too? What theoretical justification does this analysis leave for respecting political rights for reactionaries?
Clearly, a Mao-esque purge does not lie on America's horizon. The strong constitutional protections for free speech, and the left's tiny share of the electorate, limit its ability to operationalize its theories. But leftist theories do hold sway over some parts of the academy and certain social-media communities that have disproportionate impact on the national discourse.
The trouble with p.c. culture is not, as its defenders tend to sneer, that it oppresses white males. Many of its targets are not white males; anyway, oppression isn't the main issue, per se. Political correctness is an elaborate series of norms and protocols of political discourse that go well beyond the reasonable mandate of treating all people with respect. Its extravagant imagination of mental trauma lurking in every page, its conception of "safety" as the absence of dissent, and its method of associating beliefs with favored or disfavored groups: They all create a political discourse that is fraught at best, and at worst, inimical to reason. False accounts of a stomach-turning rape at the University of Virginia and the police assassination of a surrendering Michael Brown lingered uncorrected for far too long, as social-media activists swatted away well-founded doubts as rape denial or racism. The "victims" of p.c. culture are not white males but the inhabitants trapped within their own ideological hothouses.
Of course, anti-rape activists are right to change the culture of male sexual entitlement, and anti-racism activists are right to challenge entrenched biases in the criminal-justice system and other structures. Black Lives Matter has had enormous success in driving police reform and raising awareness of racism, and has, on the whole, changed the country for the better. Liberals believe that social justice can be advanced without giving up democratic rights and norms. The ends of social justice do not justify any and all means. When we're debating which candidates are progressive enough to be allowed to deliver public speeches, something has gone terribly wrong.
I know this only gets said about 100 times a day on the internet but I thought of this conversation while reading it :P
Quote from: Zanza on August 13, 2015, 10:55:47 AM
Quote from: celedhring on August 13, 2015, 10:44:05 AM
The way I see it the welfare state widely prevalent in Europe and the curling-loving parts of America is an example of fraternity enforced by the state.
I think "enforced" sounds like these policies are against the wish of the electorate. Which can't be true as welfare in general - although not in the nitty details - has an extremely wide support in all Western societies. This institutionalized fraternity was created over a century with continuous democratic mandates. I guess it is fair to say that this all encompassing and anonymous form of fraternity has damaged all other forms that existed in the past as people are much less reliant on their fellow men. If not causation then at least correlation. Countries that lack a modern social state usually have much stronger informal networks.
Anything not passed unanimously is by definition going to be imposed on at least the one dissenter against his will. So it's not really wrong to say it's enforced. And it's clearly the case that it's the dominant mode of human society right now.
I hadn't really considered the "anonymous fraternity" aspect before, but I think it's closer to the truth to say that men are actually more reliant on each other now, but in an impersonal way. Most of us couldn't feed ourselves. The fraternity of actual comradeship has been replaced by the anonymous fraternity of mutual dependence.
It seems like something inevitable, frankly.
Fraternity is so open to interpretation.
Does it mean leftist, workers of the world unite you've nothing to lose but your chains, etc...
Or rightist. Huzzah for the Aian people and our bloodline. So much more superior to those Blander scumbags.
Quote from: Tyr on August 13, 2015, 02:46:33 PM
Fraternity is so open to interpretation.
Does it mean leftist, workers of the world unite you've nothing to lose but your chains, etc...
Or rightist. Huzzah for the Aian people and our bloodline. So much more superior to those Blander scumbags.
Well both senses were left wing at the time :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2015, 02:49:31 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 13, 2015, 02:46:33 PM
Fraternity is so open to interpretation.
Does it mean leftist, workers of the world unite you've nothing to lose but your chains, etc...
Or rightist. Huzzah for the Aian people and our bloodline. So much more superior to those Blander scumbags.
Well both senses were left wing at the time :P
No, they weren't. :P
The right wing was all about the church and the god-given social order.
National brotherhood was a radical notion.
More like the Estates should confer and vote as one body. A radical notion then but one that is so well accepted now so as to be hard to notice. Again going to the point that this is the best protected of the three.
Well if the word was supposed to refer to unicameralism I don't think that is that well accepted now, not even in France :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2015, 04:04:41 PM
Well if the word was supposed to refer to unicameralism I don't think that is that well accepted now, not even in France :P
I am not sure if you are purposefully misunderstanding the creation of the Natonal Assembly or not. Do you really think that was primarily about unicameral government and not about giving power to the Third Estate?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on August 13, 2015, 10:29:26 AM
Valmy is getting soft with age. He should have pointed out that Marty's question does not matter, and that Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité OU LA MORT, popular during the red year of 1793, sounds much better. :P :frog:
Valmy is going soft. He would support the Directory now.
Quote from: PDH on August 13, 2015, 07:28:31 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on August 13, 2015, 10:29:26 AM
Valmy is getting soft with age. He should have pointed out that Marty's question does not matter, and that Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité OU LA MORT, popular during the red year of 1793, sounds much better. :P :frog:
Valmy is going soft. He would support the Directory now.
:o
I have never been so insulted :ultra:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 13, 2015, 06:41:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2015, 04:04:41 PM
Well if the word was supposed to refer to unicameralism I don't think that is that well accepted now, not even in France :P
I am not sure if you are purposefully misunderstanding the creation of the Natonal Assembly or not. Do you really think that was primarily about unicameral government and not about giving power to the Third Estate?
I was making a joke. But I don't think the fraternity value was a driving force in that case.
Perhaps it's my inner Marxist, but I always thought of fraternity as arguing along the lines of the universal brotherhood of man as opposed to the artificial, divisive, exploitative, and hierarchical constructs of feudalism.
Quote from: Camerus on August 13, 2015, 09:20:34 PM
Perhaps it's my inner Marxist, but I always thought of fraternity as arguing along the lines of the universal brotherhood of man as opposed to the artificial, divisive, exploitative, and hierarchical constructs of feudalism.
This was not totally absent from the rhetoric but I think it mainly got used in a patriotic sense than a universal sense. Do the French of today think it means we are all one nation?
It is funny that the presumption was they developed artificially. They developed quite organically. The client patron relationship is one of the most basic human relations. In fact it has been the basic structure of every Marxist state ever created as well.
I guess from a certain perspective, you could say that the EU was also built on the principle of fraternity.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2015, 09:44:35 PM
Quote from: Camerus on August 13, 2015, 09:20:34 PM
Perhaps it's my inner Marxist, but I always thought of fraternity as arguing along the lines of the universal brotherhood of man as opposed to the artificial, divisive, exploitative, and hierarchical constructs of feudalism.
This was not totally absent from the rhetoric but I think it mainly got used in a patriotic sense than a universal sense. Do the French of today think it means we are all one nation?
It is funny that the presumption was they developed artificially. They developed quite organically. The client patron relationship is one of the most basic human relations. In fact it has been the basic structure of every Marxist state ever created as well.
Well, there are radical differences in levels of exploitation, etc. in how such relationships might exist across time, cultures and class. And, in fairness, there were a lot of bullshit constructs, obligations, etc. supporting aristocrats' privileged position and claims to superiority by 1789 that they were now rightly being called on - no matter how gradually and understandably such relationships developed over the centuries.
Quote from: Camerus on August 13, 2015, 09:20:34 PM
Perhaps it's my inner Marxist, but I always thought of fraternity as arguing along the lines of the universal brotherhood of man as opposed to the artificial, divisive, exploitative, and hierarchical constructs of feudalism.
I believe that you are correct. Examples of the principle in action would include the election of officers in the Volunteers. Fraternity would be taken to its logical (and disastrous) extreme during the February days of 1848.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2015, 09:44:35 PM
It is funny that the presumption was they developed artificially. They developed quite organically. The client patron relationship is one of the most basic human relations. In fact it has been the basic structure of every Marxist state ever created as well.
I'd argue that feudalism was simply the classic patron-client relationship you mention, stripped of all other trappings.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2015, 09:44:35 PM
It is funny that the presumption was they developed artificially. They developed quite organically. The client patron relationship is one of the most basic human relations. In fact it has been the basic structure of every Marxist state ever created as well.
It is the basic structure of most democracies too. Particularly the US one. Except the clients are elected.
Go Sanders, go Sanders, go, go!
Quote from: Norgy on August 15, 2015, 06:10:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2015, 09:44:35 PM
It is funny that the presumption was they developed artificially. They developed quite organically. The client patron relationship is one of the most basic human relations. In fact it has been the basic structure of every Marxist state ever created as well.
It is the basic structure of most democracies too. Particularly the US one. Except the clients are elected.
Go Sanders, go Sanders, go, go!
It's how the "democracy" of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth worked too. The Commonwealth never had officially recognised aristocracy, but richest land-owning mandates would effectively sponsor several of their clients (usually poorer, sometimes landless nobles) in Parliamentary elections.
There are local election campaigns here nowadays. The flood of money and the rethorical windmills make me sort of want to opt out.
I'll cast my vote holding my nose. For the most leftist party I can find.