DOCSLIB.ORG

The Intellectual Origins of French Jacobin Socialism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Intellectual Origins of French Jacobin Socialism LEO A. LOUBERE THE INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS OF FRENCH JACOBIN SOCIALISM This essay was written with the thought in mind that there is need for more clarification in the terminology used to describe certain socialist philosophies of the nineteenth century. It seems clear that the terms "democratic socialism" or "social democracy" have lost much of the meaning they might have had in the past. "Democratic" as an adjec- tive or "democracy" as a noun, have been so abused that today they may convey the idea of either a civil libertarian kind of government or a form of totalitarianism. Indeed, the words made for confusion in the nineteenth century when Jacobins, Babouvians, Blanquists, even Bonapartists, claimed each to be true representatives of the general will, and either executed or would have executed those representing opposing wills. Nonviolent were P.-J.-B. Buchez and Louis Blanc, each of whom claimed to be a democratic socialist. Yet in 1848 they opposed each other with intense vehemence. There is need then, for definition and delineation. The problem of clarification involves a reinterpretation of certain socialist ideologies and a more definite understanding of the forces which brought about the politicizing of them. For France, only one author made this latter topic the subject of a special study.1 However, he fell somewhat short of his goal, especially for the pre-18 48 period, the one with which this essay deals. The purpose of this study, there- fore, is to offer a more precise explanation concerning the origin of one of the currents of early socialist philosophy, called here Jacobin socialism. This task calls for an investigation of the efforts made by certain left-wing thinkers to unite two distinct ideologies: Jacobin democracy and co-operative socialism. The seminal ideas of these ideologies appeared during the eigh- teenth century and were drawn, on the one hand, from the principle 1 See Marcel Prelot, L'evolution politique du socialisme francais, 1789-1954 (Paris, 1939). Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.40.139, on 24 Sep 2021 at 09:31:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859000001437 416 LEO A. LOUBERE of popular sovereignty, and, on the other hand, from two contrasting theories of landed property. There was the radicalist theory which sought to make land accessible to all men by parceling it among them as individual proprietors, and the socialist theory which intended to make it available to all men by transferring it to them as collective owners. The latter ideal necessitated the equitable partition of produce rather than of land. In the eighteenth century these two tendencies - the term "schools" would be misleading here - were not sharply divided. Both were influenced by a rather widespread approbation of limited economic controls. Both were also given to open denunciation of "ks riches", which perhaps heralded the nineteenth century criticism of "Us capitalistes"1. Finally, both tendencies shared a similar ethical foun- dation and outlook that distinguished them from the nascent liberal movement, from the ethics of utilitarianism. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the father of French radicalism, was not at one with most of the individualistic liberals of his time. They pro- claimed that private property was a sacred natural right. It is true that some of them were not prepared to push the doctrine of natural right to an extreme, but Rousseau was more emphatic when he held that regulation and even dispossession were not violations of natural law.2 However, the fact that he condemned the first enclosure of land, or that he advocated in his draft constitution for Corsica a kind of state socialism, did not make him a true socialist. Rather, in his gen- eral social philosophy he defended individual possession on condition that no one owned property in excess.3 As a moralist he held that the economic dependence of the poor on the rich was degrading, the solvent of the individual's ethical conscience. It was the man of mo- derate property, the simple man, who promised to become the virtuous citizen. He therefore attributed to the general will and its agent, the government, the power to confiscate and distribute property so that each individual would become virtuous. The state was not to become in a true sense a welfare agency but a moralizing agency.4 Limited private property, under these conditions, was also to be a moralizing agency. Thus grew up the radicalist distinction between a property right as a natural absolute and possession as a social contingency. In contrast, Morelly and Gabriel Bonnot de Mably took the position that private ownership of land, in whatever form, was the cause of 1 Maxime Leroy, Histoire des idees sociales en France (Paris, 1946), I, pp. 60-61. 2 Andre Lichtenberger, Le socialisme francais au XVIIIe siecle (Paris, 1895), p. 157. 3 Oeuvres (Paris, 1852), II, p. 444. 4 Ernst Cassirer, The Question of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (New York, 1954), pp. 56-64. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.40.139, on 24 Sep 2021 at 09:31:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859000001437 INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS JACOBIN SOCIALISM 417 social evil. They too, based their views on moral considerations.1 Like Rousseau, they were inspired by Lycurgus, Plato, and the Bible, and in seeking the principles of a good society they condemned luxury and laziness and uncontrolled individualism.2 These were the social evils which they identified with inviolable property rights and the gross inequality that resulted from such rights. All three thinkers differed from the liberals in that their society of virtue was one in which general equality was the first condition of liberty. They argued that where there was no equality there could be no social unity, and men would become free only as integral members of a unified society. In addition, they thought in terms of agricultural pursuits and small town craftsmanship, and inclined alike to share a distrust of the rich as well as of the poor of the cities. Mably referred contemptuously to industrial workers as "des hommes vils"? What distinguished Rousseau from the socialists, apart from pro- perty considerations, was his greater concern with the problems of government and his emphasis on popular sovereignty as the political basis of freedom. The socialists were far less clear in this matter. Morelly held that any form of government would be acceptable provided there was no private property.4 Mably was vaguer still; in fact, he despaired of ever having good government, "men are too depraved for there to be a wise statecraft".5 The most accurate state- ment to be made is that the socialist tendency was political-minded in only a vague, rather unconcerned fashion. It revealed hardly any awareness of the relation of an economic system to the power of the state.6 II During the Convention, 1792-95, the heirs of the radical tradition were in control, and their Republic of Virtue assumed a decidedly anti-socialist stand. Laws provided for the execution of proponents of the agrarian law and of any idea subversive of property.7 Many 1 Morelly, Code de la nature, edited by Gilbert Chinard (Paris, 1950), pp. 241 ff. See Lichtenberger, pp. 237-38; F. J. C. Hearnshaw, ed., The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great French Thinkers of the Age of Reason (London, 1930), pp. 237 ff. a Kingsley Martin, The Rise of French Liberal Thought, edited by J. P. Mayer (Rev. ed.: New York, 1956), pp. 202, 237. 8 Oeuvres completes (Lyon, 1792), VI, 525; for Rousseau see Alfred Cobban, Rousseau and the Modern State (London, 1934), chap. vii. 4 Code de la nature, pp. 196, 217-18, 230. 5 Quoted in Lichtenberger, p. 234; see also Hearnshaw, pp. 246-47. 6 See the interesting remarks in Harold Lasky, The Socialist Tradition in the French Revolution (London, 1930), p. 5. 7 A. Lichtenberger, Le socialisme et la Revolution francaise (Paris, 1889), p. 260. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.40.139, on 24 Sep 2021 at 09:31:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859000001437 418 LEO A. LOUBERE Jacobins favored equality, but conceived of it as a general uniformity among men in thought and action rather than common ownership. The most advanced of them, Maximilien Robespierre and Louis de Saint-Just, followed Rousseau in their belief that political equality was a delusion unless based on economic justice. Their proposals, however, were designed to limit individual acquisition of wealth, not to collectivize it. Important was their concept of the relation be- tween individual rights and the role of society. Robespierre, in the tradition of Rousseau, placed property among those rights granted by society rather than among the inviolable natural rights. He then went farther than Rousseau when he gave a marked social orientation to the Rights of Man. He proclaimed that society owed to the indivi- dual the right to work or to assistance when incapacitated.1 It is true that his views were not shared by all Jacobins; many of them, espe- cially the provincials, failed to discern any intimate connection be- tween the humane debt of society and popular sovereignty. They, also readers of Le contrat social, shared its author's distrust toward the plutocracy and the masses, and were not greatly moved by the moderate social organicism of the radical left wing.2 Not even the enrages and the Hebertists attacked the ideal of limited private property, being anti-capitalist petty bourgeois.3 Despite these qualifications the Jacobin experiment marked an im- portant phase in the history of Jacobin socialism.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and the Quasi-War with France
    John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and the Quasi-War with France David Loudon General University Honors Professor Robert Griffith, Faculty Advisor American University, Spring 2010 1 John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and the Quasi-War with France Abstract This paper examines the split of the Federalist Party and subsequent election defeat in 1800 through the views of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton on the Quasi-War with France. More specifically, I will be focusing on what caused their split on the French issue. I argue that the main source of conflict between the two men was ideological differences on parties in contemporary American politics. While Adams believed that there were two parties in America and his job was to remain independent of both, Hamilton saw only one party (the Republicans), and believed that it was the goal of all “real” Americans to do whatever was needed to defeat that faction. This ideological difference between the two men resulted in their personal disdain for one another and eventually their split on the French issue. Introduction National politics in the early American republic was a very uncertain venture. The founding fathers had no historical precedents to rely upon. The kind of government created in the American constitution had never been attempted in the Western World; it was a piecemeal system designed in many ways more to gain individual state approval than for practical implementation. Furthermore, while the fathers knew they wanted opposition within their political system, they rejected political parties as evil and dangerous to the public good. This tension between the belief in opposition and the rejection of party sentiment led to confusion and high tensions during the early American republic.
    [Show full text]
  • Reinventar La Izquierda En El Siglo Xxi
    Reinventar la izquierda en el siglo xxi José Luis Coraggio y Jean-Louis Laville (organizadores) Reinventar la izquierda en el siglo xxi Hacia un diálogo Norte-Sur Reinventar la izquierda en el siglo XXI : hacia un dialogo norte-sur / José Luis Coraggio ... [et.al.] ; coordinado por José Luis Coraggio y Jean-Louis Laville. - 1a ed. - Los Polvorines : Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, 2014. 548 p. ; 21x15 cm. ISBN 978-987-630-192-3 1. Teorías Polìticas. I. Coraggio, José Luis II. Coraggio, José Luis, coord. III. Laville, Jean-Louis, coord. CDD 320.1 Fecha de catalogación: 07/08/2014 © Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, 2014 J. M. Gutiérrez 1150, Los Polvorines (B1613GSX) Prov. de Buenos Aires, Argentina Tel.: (54 11) 4469-7578 [email protected] www.ungs.edu.ar/ediciones Traducción del inglés: Gabriela Ventureira. Traducción del francés: Marie Bardet con la colaboración de Carlos Pérez. Diseño de colección: Andrés Espinosa - Departamento de Publicaciones - UNGS / Alejandra Spinelli Corrección: Edit Marinozzi Hecho el depósito que marca la Ley 11723 Prohibida su reproducción total o parcial Derechos reservados Impreso en Docuprint S. A. Calle Taruarí 123 (C1071AAC) Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina, en el mes de septiembre de 2014. Tirada: 400 ejemplares. Índice Reconocimientos .....................................................................................11 PRESENTACIÓN POR LA UNGS / Eduardo Rinesi ................................... 13 PRESENTACIÓN POR EL IAEN / Guillaume Long ....................................17 INTRODUCCION GENERAL / José Luis Coraggio y Jean-Louis Laville ..... 21 Otra política, otra economía, otras izquierdas / José Luis Coraggio ........ 35 Izquierda europea y proyecto emancipador / Jean-Louis Laville .............. 85 Mensajes a la izquierda de ayer y a la de hoy / Guy Bajoit .....................
    [Show full text]
  • General Index
    SCIENCE & SOCIETY GENERAL INDEX VOLUMESI-XXV (1936�1961) Part I: Author, Subject and Title Part II: Books Reviewed SCIENCE & SOCIETY, INC. New York 1965 Copyright © 1965 by Science and Society, Inc. 30 East 20th Street, New York, N.Y. 10003 All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 40-10163 �341 PREFACE The editors of Science & Society believe that this index to its contents during the first twenty-five years of publication deserves the uncustomary tribute of an editorial note, since it serves to remind us that Science & Society is theoldest publication extant devoted to the theory of Marxism. Indeed, with the single exception of that monument to German scholar­ ship, Die Neue Zeit (1883-1923), it is the longest-lived Marxist theoretical journal in the world, and this despite the enormous difficulties under which Science & Society has always been published. The editors, therefore, take this opportunity to reaffirm their inten­ tion of making Science & Society a forum for the best Marxist scholarship, and their hope that the preface to some future edition of its index will no longer need to note the exception of Die N eue Zeit. We think that those who, using this index, rediscover the great variety of subjects treated and the quality of critical scholarship represented, will agree with us that it is a bibliographic tool of real value to all scholars, but truly invaluable to Marxists. Finally, the editors of Science & Society wish to express their deep gratitude to the Louis M. Rabinowitz Foundation whose generous grant made the publication of this index possible.
    [Show full text]
  • CONDORCET (1743–94) Bernard Jolibert1
    The following text was originally published in Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education (Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), vol. XXIII, no. 1/2, 1993, p. 197-209. ©UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, 2000 This document may be reproduced free of charge as long as acknowledgement is made of the source. CONDORCET (1743–94) Bernard Jolibert1 In the discussions of ideas that constitute our daily intellectual environment there are certain words that reek of cordite and certain writers who give us a sense of peace. The term ‘secular’ is in the first category, and Condorcet in the second. A person who speaks of secular or non-religious education or schools, or of educational ‘neutrality’, immediately lays himself or herself open to being regarded either as a supporter of the ‘independent school’, that is private, clerical, religious, ‘right-wing’ and, needless to say, reactionary, or as a champion of public, secular, positivist, ‘left-wing’ and, needless to say, anti-clerical education. Simplistic images are powerful, and ingrained mental habits so reassuring. And yet the divisions are not always where one would like them to be. I may be that one of the first people to notice the caricatural exaggeration of this Manichaean representation of the school was in fact Condorcet, at a time when the present-day French noun denoting the principle of non-religious education did not yet exist. Rather than bludgeon the reader with an encyclopedic account of the educational writings and thought of Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, Marquis de Condorcet, it seemed more useful to accompany this writer, insufficiently known in spite of media excitement over the bicentenary of the French Revolution, along the path that led him to discover the secular ideal.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Paine's Influential Rhetoric in Common Sense
    Revolutionary Persuasion: Thomas Paine’s Influential Rhetoric in Common Sense On January 10, 1776, an unknown English immigrant drastically altered the course of human events by publishing what has been referred to as the most influential pamphlet in American history. This man was Thomas Paine, and his pamphlet was titled Common Sense - two words which to this very day resonate as synonymous with American independence and freedom. Paine’s influential writing in Common Sense made an immediate impact on the minds and hearts of thousands of colonists throughout the densely populated eastern seaboard of North America, calling for an end to tyrannical British rule and for the subsequent foundation of an independent, egalitarian republic. Paine’s “hardnosed political logic demanded the creation of an American nation” (Rhetoric, np), and through his persuasive discourse he achieved just that. Paine’s knowledge and use of rhetorical skill was a main reason for the groundbreaking, widespread success of Common Sense, the magnitude of which, many would argue, has yet to be matched. Rhetoric is the art or science of persuasion and the ability to use language effectively. This paper will provide an in-depth analysis of Paine’s rhetoric in Common Sense by examining factors such as the historical time period, communicator attributes, and audience psychology, and will deliver a thorough application of contemporary modes of persuasive study to the document’s core ideological messages. To Paine, the cause of America was the cause of all mankind (Paine, 3), and for that matter he will be forever known as the father of the American Revolution.
    [Show full text]
  • French Romantic Socialism and the Critique of Liberal Slave Emancipation Naomi J
    Santa Clara University Scholar Commons History College of Arts & Sciences 9-2013 Breaking the Ties: French Romantic Socialism and the Critique of Liberal Slave Emancipation Naomi J. Andrews Santa Clara University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/history Part of the European History Commons, and the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons Recommended Citation Andrews, Naomi J. (2013). Breaking the Ties: French Romantic Socialism and the Critique of Liberal Slave Emancipation. The ourJ nal of Modern History, Vol. 85, No. 3 (September 2013) , pp. 489-527. Published by: The nivU ersity of Chicago Press. Article DOI: 10.1086/668500. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668500 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts & Sciences at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in History by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Breaking the Ties: French Romantic Socialism and the Critique of Liberal Slave Emancipation* Naomi J. Andrews Santa Clara University What we especially call slavery is only the culminating and pivotal point where all of the suffering of society comes together. (Charles Dain, 1836) The principle of abolition is incontestable, but its application is difficult. (Louis Blanc, 1840) In 1846, the romantic socialist Désiré Laverdant observed that although Great Britain had rightly broken the ties binding masters and slaves, “in delivering the slave from the yoke, it has thrown him, poor brute, into isolation and abandonment. Liberal Europe thinks it has finished its work because it has divided everyone.”1 Freeing the slaves, he thus suggested, was only the beginning of emancipation.
    [Show full text]
  • Individualism and Socialism
    INDIVIDUALISM AND SOCIALISM. (1834) By Pierre Leroux AND OTHER WRITINGS ON THE DOCTRINE OF HUMANITY INDIVIDUALISM AND SOCIALISM. (1834.—After the massacres on the Rue Transnonain.) At times, even the most resolute hearts, those most firmly focused on the sacred beliefs of progress, lose courage and feel themselves full of disgust with the present. In the 16th century, when we murdered in our civil wars, it was in the name of God and with a crucifix in hand; it was a question of the most sacred things, of things which, once they have secured our conviction and our faith, dominate our natures so legitimately that there is nothing to do but obey, and even our most precious prerogatives are voluntarily sacrificed to the divine will. In the name of what principle do we today send off, by telegraph, pitiless orders, and transform proletarian soldiers into the executioners of their own class? Why has our era seen cruelties which recall St. Bartholemew? Why have men been fanaticized to the point of making them slaughter the elderly, women, and children in cold blood? Why has the Seine rolled with murders which recall the arquebuscades from the windows of the Louvre? It is not in the name of God and eternal salvation that these things are done. It is in the name of material interests. Our century is, it seems, quite vile, and we have degenerated even from the crimes of our fathers. To kill in the manner of Charles IX or Torquemada, in the name of faith and the Church, because one believes that God desires it, because one has a fanatic spirit, exalted by the fear of hell and the hope of paradise, is still to have some grandeur and some generosity in one's crime.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. the Heritage of Modern Socialist Ideas
    Section XVI: Developments in Socialism, Contemporary Civilization (Ideas and Institutions 1848-1914 of Western Man) 1958 1. The eH ritage of Modern Socialist Ideas Robert L. Bloom Gettysburg College Basil L. Crapster Gettysburg College Harold L. Dunkelberger Gettysburg College See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/contemporary_sec16 Part of the Models and Methods Commons, and the Sociology Commons Share feedback about the accessibility of this item. Bloom, Robert L. et al. "1. The eH ritage of Modern Socialist Ideas. Pt. XVI: Developments in Socialism, (1848-1914)." Ideas and Institutions of Western Man (Gettysburg College, 1958), 2-6. This is the publisher's version of the work. This publication appears in Gettysburg College's institutional repository by permission of the copyright owner for personal use, not for redistribution. Cupola permanent link: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/ contemporary_sec16/2 This open access book chapter is brought to you by The uC pola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of The uC pola. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1. The eH ritage of Modern Socialist Ideas Abstract Of the total heritage which gave birth to modern socialism, brief attention may be given to certain of the predecessors of Karl Marx. Although some now are saved from obscurity only by the diligence of interested historians, others generated powerful ideas still not extinguished today. Together they created an amorphous body of thought from which Marx freelv drew. Consequently, an understanding of the varieties of later socialism, and specifically of Marx, requires a brief survey of these men.
    [Show full text]
  • H-France Review Vol. 20 (October 2020), No. 176 Julia Nicholls
    H-France Review Volume 20 (2020) Page 1 H-France Review Vol. 20 (October 2020), No. 176 Julia Nicholls, Revolutionary Thought after the Paris Commune, 1871-1885. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. vii + 309 pp. Bibliography and index. $99.99 U.S. (cl). ISBN 9781108499262; $32.99 U.S. (pb). ISBN 9781108713344; $80.00 U.S. (eb). ISBN 9781108600002. Review by Julian Bourg, Boston College. Revision is the historian’s stock-in-trade. Explanations of the past do not endure. Interpretations change as constantly altering circumstances shift vantage points, and even new evidence comes into view more often as a consequence than as a cause of such temporal parallax. In another way, however, in recent decades revisionism has become a default mode of historical writing. To take classic examples from contemporary French historical studies, one thinks of post-colonialism successfully decentering the metropole, François Furet overcoming Marxist interpretations of the French Revolution, and Robert Faurisson’s miserable négationnisme trying to abandon the facts of the Shoah. The extremely different normative consequences of such debates are clear, make no mistake, but so too is a certain historiographical pattern: the move to challenge and substitute prevailing views. The gesture of the hand that turns the kaleidoscope’s viewfinder, offering up endlessly combining and dispersing shards of colored glass, is itself repetitive. Historical revisionism can thus seem both a regular gambit--knotting historical writing to its present--and also a seemingly expected, even obligatory move within the “ironist’s cage” of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.[1] Julia Nicholls has revised one of the most tired stereotypes of the early Third Republic: that in the wake of the Commune’s defeat in 1871, little transpired by way of revolutionary thought in France until Marxist orthodoxy ascended in the mid-to-late 1880s.
    [Show full text]
  • Blanqui’S Note Nov
    Biliana Kassabova History of Political Thought Workshop December 4, 2017 Blanqui’s note Nov. 23, 1848 Blanqui between Myth and Archives: Revolution, Dictatorship, and Education This piece, very much a work in progress, aims to make sense of the revolutionary ideas and actions of Louis-Auguste Blanqui. It complicates our ideas of political thought regarding revolution in the nineteenth century, by arguing that the binary of centralized versus popular revolution needs to be revised. It is part of a larger project on concepts of revolutionary leadership in France from the French Revolution of 1789 until the Paris Commune of 1871. Within this historical trajectory, Blanqui is an interpreter of 18th century ideas into 19th century contexts, a political thinker and actor who plays a key role in the various reformulations of the revolutionary tradition. 1848 does not enjoy a stellar reputation among historians of France. The revolution of February that year saw the overthrow of the last king of France, followed by the establishment of a new French republic. This republic, however, lasted for only three years, brought little and short-lived social change, remained rather conservative, though was also laden with bitter parliamentary strife, and ended through a coup d’état that inaugurated a new authoritarian régime, a Second Empire with Napoleon III at its head. To add insult to injury, even the attempts at establishing a viable parliamentary republican system were famously seen by political observers and participants from 2 almost all parts of the political spectrum as derivative, incompetent, and worse yet – laughable. “There have been more mischievous revolutionaries than those of 1848, but I doubt if there have been any stupider,”1 quipped Alexis de Tocqueville in his posthumously published Recollections.
    [Show full text]
  • De Sade's Theatrical Passions
    06.puchner 4/19/05 2:28 PM Page 111 Martin Puchner Sade’s Theatrical Passions The Theater of the Revolution The Marquis de Sade entered theater history in 1964 when the Royal Shakespeare Company, under the direction of Peter Brook, presented a play by the unknown author Peter Weiss entitled, The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade.1 Marat/Sade, as the play is usually called, became an extraordinary success story.2 By com- bining narrators with techniques developed in a multi-year workshop entitled “Theater of Cruelty,” Marat/Sade managed to link the two modernist visionaries of the theater whom everybody had considered to be irreconcilable opposites: Bertolt Brecht and Antonin Artaud. Marat/Sade not only fabricated a new revolutionary theater from the vestiges of modernism, it also coincided with a philosophical and cul- tural revision of the French revolution that had begun with Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s The Dialectics of Enlightenment (1944/69) and found a preliminary culmination in Michel Foucault’s History of Madness (1972). At the same time, the revival of Sade was fu- eled by the first complete publication of his work in French (1967) and by Roland Barthes’ landmark study, Sade Fourier Loyola (1971).3 Marat/Sade had thus hit a theatrical and intellectual nerve. Sade, however, belongs to theater history as more than just a char- acter in a play.Little is known about the historical Sade’s life-long pas- sion for the theater, about his work as a theater builder and manager, an actor and director.
    [Show full text]
  • Agape, Philia and Eros Anca Simitopol Thesis Submi
    Ideas of Community in the Thought of Pierre Leroux and of Feodor Dostoevsky: Agape , Philia and Eros Anca Simitopol Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the PhD degree in Political Science Supervisor: Gilles Labelle Political Studies Social Sciences University of Ottawa ©Anca Simitopol, Ottawa, Canada, 2012 Contents ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………… iv INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………… 1 CHAPTER ONE Two Critics of “Possessive Individualism” ………………………………….. 11 1.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………... 11 1.2. Leroux as a liberal …………………………………………………......... 27 1.3. Leroux’s anthropology: Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité …………………... 37 1.4. Division of society, division of the self and eclecticism ………………... 42 1.5. Freedom according to Leroux …………………………………………... 47 1.6. Property according to Leroux …………………………………………… 58 1.7. Dostoevsky as political thinker ………………………………………….. 68 1.8. The poor and the ontological meaning of capitalism ………………….. 70 1.9. “Possessive Individualism” in Russia …………………………………… 82 1.10. From individualism to the revolutionary affirmation of the will-to-power 1.10.1. Raskolnikov ………………………………………………….. 93 1.10.2. The case of “The possessed” ………………………………... 98 1.11. Conclusion …………………………………………………………… 105 CHAPTER TWO Varieties of Socialism and of Utopia ………………………………………. 115 2.1. Introduction ...………………………………………………………… 115 2.2. Dostoevsky’s critique of socialism: “Shigalovism” …………………. 130 2.3. Leroux’s critique of Fourier’s socialism ……………………………. 144 2.4. Introduction to utopia ………………………………………………... 149 2.5. Transformation of utopia in the 19 th century ……………………….. 158 2.6. Saint-Simon: oscillation between transcendence and immanence .... 171 2.7. The Saint-Simonian School: utopia transformed into political program …………………………………………………….. 180 2.8. The Grand Inquisitor and the incompatibility between freedom and unity ……………………………………………………. 193 2.9. Dostoevsky: a dialogical utopia ……………………………………… 207 2.10.
    [Show full text]