Category Archives: Uncategorized

Indefinite Perfection

Posted on by

Condorcet, in his Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, argued that mankind progressed at a continuous rate toward perfection. His philosophy for perfection was guided by his own reason and science. Condorcet was adverse toward religion and believed that reason was the sole basis for man’s ability to progress, become virtuous, and better society. He saw man’s ability to be limitless and unconstrained by nature, and concluded, “that this perfectibility of man is truly indefinite.” He observed that society had gone through many stages and periods of error and false theories regarding the rights of man. This resulted from the constraints of tyranny from monarchs and hypocrisy from priests and the church. However, Condorcet revealed the single truth, “that man is a sentient being, capable of reasoning of acquiring moral ideas.” In other words, man has the ability to reason, think on his own, and become enlightened. From the single truth, Condorcet advocated liberalism where man possessed inalienable rights of liberty. He believed the future condition would be determined by, “the abolition of inequality between nations, the progress of equality within each nation, and the true perfection of mankind.” Condorcet had a very practical and scientific view of the future of the human condition, a society shaped by history that would reflect the progress of the human mind.

Condorcet’s views on human progress and liberalism reflect many of the past readings we studied this year, such as Locke, Kant, and Smith, who agree that man is inherently good. Condorcet’s philosophy is still held in society today. It is amazing that Condorcet published his thoughts as a liberal activist during the French Revolution, and today, our society still strives for the same basic tenets of equality of nations, equality of class, and perfection of mankind. It is clear to me that Condorcet was correct when he said that continual progress toward perfection is indefinite.

New Rus Culture Post Mongol Occupation

Posted on by

Little evidence of culture and everyday life was left behind after the Mongol occupation. As A.M. Sakharov had pointed out in our previous readings, the Mongol Yoke destroyed centers of elite culture, cities, and markets all around Rus. Despite all that was lost during the occupation, it seems that starting in the  early fourteenth century, a new Russian culture had awakened.

One of Russian history’s most famous painters, Andrei Rublev lived during this era. Rublev pioneered a whole new style of art and invented painting techniques never known before. Not only is he considered one of the greatest artists in early Russia, but his work has been compared to some of the most well known artists in Western Europe. The discovery of pieces of birchbark writing gives evidence that there was, to some extent, literacy in Novgorod. One of them lists letters of the alphabet while the other is a picture of a horse and rider spearing an opponent. It also includes the name Onfim to the right.The drawing is very simple and looks as if it was drawn by a child. This means that education of reading and writing for children could potentially have existed.

Another form of culture that seems to be fairly significant at the time was the travel of Skomorokhi. The Skomorokhi were people that provided entertainment throughout Russia to mostly the peasant class. They included musicians, dancers, actors, and tamed animals dressed in colorful costumes. Using a variety of instruments from the gusli to percussion and wind instruments, the Skomorokhi were very popular at the time.

I found it most impressive that so much of this culture arouse independent of the Mongols. For instance, Rublev’s paintings did not have any Mongol cultural influence. His style was his own, and did not borrow from other cultures. The Skomorokhi’s instruments were ones they developed themselves and were not things made by the Mongols. There was a new and innovative culture in Rus, and that is something that is unique for a people ruled by a different culture for so long.

Daily Life and Culture in Post-Kievan Rus’

Posted on by

Although many aspects of daily life in Post-Kievan Rus’, both during the Mongol invasion and directly after, have been lost in the intervening centuries, scholars have been able to determine several valuable insights into Post-Kievan culture. Literacy was not widespread at all during this time period–even some princes were illiterate. However, “birchbark charters” c. 1220 show us that some non-royal children did learn the alphabet and to write their names. Furthermore, the Mongols, through their violent occupation, destroyed buildings and left little market for artists to sell their goods. However, Andrei Rublev (c. 1370-1430), one of the most famous painters in Russian history, lived during this time and managed not only to create art, but also to develop new strategies and modes of painting. Peasants had few forms of entertainment besides traveling minstrels, who sang, danced, juggled, and tamed animals. The Church managed to destroy most records of these entertainers, but a few of their masks and images of them survive to today.

I found the Novgorod Birchbark Charters particularly interesting. Scholars tend to take them as evidence of children learning to read. However, I wonder how–or even if–scholars are able to determine that the document pictured in our text (p. 129) belonged to a small child versus an adult. To that point, how do they know that the drawing of a man on a horse was Onfim “distracted to depict is how imaginary conquests” (“Evidence for Literary” 128), and not a peasant adult–or even a boyar–drawing a picture of his personal, violent feat? I find it difficult to believe that, in such a largely illiterate society, children would be taught to read and write before adults.

I’d like to know what sort of impact, if any, the Mongols had on literacy in Post-Kievan Rus’. The readings explain how they impacted art and architecture, but what about education? In a broader sense, all of these readings make me wonder if there are still very large gaps in our knowledge of Post-Kievan culture and daily life. What don’t we know?

Wollstonecraft and Marx

Posted on by

“After attacking the sacred majesty of kings, I shall scarcely exit surprise by adding my firm persuasion that every profession, in which great subordination of rank constitutes its power, is highly injurious to morality.” I chose this line because this is where Mary Wollstonecraft transitions from her criticisms of the monarchy and those ruling civilians to her criticisms of all who are more powerful in the workplace and who utilize power over others to their benefit. This is a critical step because many discussed their issues with the autocracy of the government, however not all recognized the smaller- scale occurrences in everyday life. She continues on to use armies as examples of ineffective institutions for humanity as “subordination and rigor are the very sinews of military discipline,” and thus will not provide the very freedoms that humans will look for in the long run. Wollstonecraft provides a look into our very institutionalized power struggles- where citizens can not exclusively blame the monarchy and must turn towards the struggles within each other.

In this section of the passage, Wollstonecraft appears to have a similar perspective to that of Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto, written about 50 years later. Just as she recognized the power dynamics of society and how that influences humanity, Marx also attempts to address the issue of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat who are bound in an inevitable power struggle based on their class. Estranged Labor also appears reminiscent of Wollstonecraft, as she mentions that “authority pushes the crowd of subalterns forward, they scarcely know or care why, with headlong fury,” showing how those subordinate lose themselves in the work they do- in the work that is chosen for them. Both works recognize how this harms the character of the individual, as Wollstonecraft states that “the character of every man is, in some degree, formed by his profession,” and Estranged Labor similarly recognized that the worker is distanced from their own identity. Both attribute this to the lack of personal choice in the professions, and trace that back to those with more power in the workplace who make decisions for others.

Communist Manifesto

Posted on by

Money system is a derivation of land, upon which constructed capitalism. In the first part of the manifesto, Bourgeois and Proletarians, Karl Marx talks about the “oppressor and oppressed” relationship between the two classes. Capitalization of property and lands has changed the social classes from clear division of clergies, aristocracy and peasants into solely two classes, one with capital and the other without. The money system accompanying capitalism set up the ground for “egotistical calculation,” which “has transformed personal worth into mere exchange value.” Money derives from the land but it is not the land; instead, it is an alienation of land. Capital, or private property, can be understood as the transformation and alienation of land, which people work hard for. Because money only has the exchange value but not productive value, proletarians can only earn what is enough for their subsistence. As industry thrives, competition arises between capitalists, for gaining more customer and profit means more private property for the bourgeois. Wages decline as a result of competition, proletarians live a worse life while bourgeois live a better life. When the situation comes to a point, when the majority of the society, proletarians, are so poor that they cannot afford to buy the commodities they produce, the epic of over-production will happen, according to Marx. The suffering of poor and hard life, the fact that working hard doe not pay back proportionally, eventually brings proletarians everywhere together to fight against  the bourgeois. Revolution is inevitable.

Marx and the Communist Manifesto

Posted on by

Marx delved into the many details describing why the current system was failing and was always bound to fail. He repeated the themes of antagonism and struggle. The proletariat was always in a losing battle against the bourgeoisie. He pointed out that the free market had gotten out of hand. A candle lit by the bourgeoisie had turned into a wildfire, which burnt down cities. The destruction did not stop at borders or coasts. The  system caused barbaric nations to be dependent on civilized ones just as the workers were dependent on the ruling class. After listing the problems he claimed he had a solution: communism. He outlined his plan in ten points which included abolition of private property and centralization of industry and credit to the state among others.

As in any quality piece of writing, Marx addressed a few potential counterarguments. He stated that the proletariat already were stripped of everything to be abolished in his plan, so only the bourgeoisie would be hurt. He claimed that workers gained nothing. He forgot to consider however that in the current system, the proletariat did not even gain the most basic human needs of food, water, and shelter if they did not work. In communism, one could not become wealthy through laziness, but neither could he become wealthy though hard work. If he was lazy, he would at least not die of starvation, dehydration, or lack of shelter for the most part because all of that was provided by the state. Therefore, the easiest option with the highest benefits was to work very lightly. Human nature always causes people to seek the lowest cost highest benefit option.

The Rise of Muscovy

Posted on by

Today’s reading focused on the rise of the Russian people after the influx of the Mongol hordes, in particular, the law code drafted by Ivan Vasilievic, the Grand Prince of Rus, which first made an appearance in 1497. Vasilievic, along with his children and nobles, comprised this code for the purpose of governing his nation, and for the purpose of administering justice in the most efficient manner possible.  This law code, which is significantly larger than the others previously examined in our reading, is entitled “The Sudebnnik”(roughly translated to “code of law”) lines out 68 key commandments of Ivan’s Rus society, commandments which he believed would unite his people and make his lands easier to govern. 

One notable modification in this law code when compared to others previously examined in class is it’s introduction of a trial system. The system (explained throughout the law code) is meant to bring a more systematic and (seemingly) fair version of justice to an accused party. Legitimate trial proceedings did not exist in Rus, instead a simple law code of “do the crime, pay the financial consequence” was in place, a system that had not developed alongside a formal trial proceeding, basically leaving a prince or lord of a town to decide the proper consequence for the action of an individual, without much chance for the accused to rebut the accusations. The law code provided a clear way for the people of Rus to see the way in which the judicial process would be conducted, a development that led the people of Rus to develop into a more modern, fair society.

Law and economy in Post-Kievan Rus

Posted on by

The Mongol invasion and occupation of Rus changed the economic structure of the country. People in the countryside needed the protection of nobles. This was essentially the roots of the serf system. The law system had also considerably evolved from past systems. The laws were written out and included provisions such as swearing on a cross, an equivalent to among other things our modern day swearing on the bible, and that all where equal in the eyes of the law. Most of the cases that we have records of have to do with property disputes. Fires where not uncommon so records where often destroyed. The system for evidence was also interesting. It appears as though those who were illiterate placed extremely high value on written documents while those who could read including judges placed a higher value on human evidence, even when the memories where 60 years old. It appears that dueling could be used to challenge evidence as well as a manner of determining the case.

I found the equality written into the law to be very interesting. It was declared in the first point of the first set of laws, However it only refers to men. Also the fact that it was written does not necessarily mean it was followed. In our own history we had a time that our constitution said all where equal, yet all people where not treated equally. I wonder if it was the same here? This of course does not even address the fact that the rights of women and children are not addressed there.

Interchangeable Parts

Posted on by

“These workers, forced to sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, and all the fluctuations of the market.”

I chose this passage because it relates directly to the readings and class topics that have been discussed over the past week. It expresses very similar ideas to those of Oastler and Heine, and the tones are very similar to Marx’s estranged labor.

Marx notes the differences between classes and the shifts between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The lower tiers of the middle class, the tradespeople, morphed into the proletariat as technology made their trades obsolete. Marx argues that capitalism is inherently unstable and unsustainable because it wears down the proletariat and continues to exhaust its resources with no sign of slowing down. The members of the working class, regardless of age and sex, are treated as interchangeable parts in the capitalist system; they are a “commodity like every other article of commerce.” They are susceptible to all the uncertainties of the market and the demand for labor. Technology was improving rapidly and replacing human workers with gears and steam; not only was the worker treated as a disposable commodity in the market, he was also not guaranteed any security in his job whatsoever.The worker was paid barely enough wages to maintain his life. He did not earn enough money to acquire any personal property; he had to live under the roof of a landlord who exploited him further. This is Marx’s main argument for the abolition of private property rights. The vast majority of the population was already absolutely unable to acquire any private property, so this is in reality not a right at all, but a privilege reserved for the upper classes.

Putting An End To Feudal Strife

Posted on by

The unification of Russian lands around Moscow and putting an end to the feudal strife was the key to finally vanquishing the Mongol yoke in 1480. The desire of Russian princes to boost Russian economy in a centralized state is reflected in the new codes of law. Both the Novgorod Judicial Charter and the Moscovite Sudebnik of 1497 provide the foundation for land ownership and the legal guide to protect it in the court of law.  This is a big leap forward compared to The Iaroslav’s Statute and Pravda Russkaia which mostly concentrated on judging most common crimes, as well as violations of moral and family values. The new documents describe in detail the structure of the court procedures to determine a person’s right to land. The figure of the judge appears, but still remains a passive force during court. The parties fighting for land have to assume the active role, produce written documents and witnesses , while the judges act as supervisors hoping that the decision would become obvious in the course of the trial. A flaw from the standpoint of contemporary litigation, this was still a great step forward in developing the legal structure of Russian society. An accent on the role of written documents presented as evidence and certifying the right to land is also an important new development. Reducing the freedom of peasants by binding them to land is a controversial measure that reduced their freedom, but at that point of time it seems to have positively contributed to developing the economy of the Russian state in post- Mongol time.