However, there is a crucial difference between European and Japanese feudalism, according to Bloch: "Japanese vassalage was much more an act of submission than was European vassalage and much less a contract" (Feudal Society. English version. U of Chicago Press p. 447)
Oh, i see what you mean and it is true that terminologically speaking one needs the free will of one to have a contractual relation. What i said was a sort of social contact maybe, not contract. Thank you laura
As I see it, this is an important difference, because through out his book Bloch argues that one of the great contributions of European feudalism to the modern world is the idea of contract- no slavery, expression of will and mutual trust. Rousseau et al have a great intellectual debt with Feudalism (even though, along with most revolutionaries, they despised feudal society). There was no such thing in Japan, according to Bloch
'When feudalism was overthrown and “free” capitalist society appeared in the world, it at once became apparent that this freedom meant a new system of oppression and exploitation of the working people.' Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)
I do not agree every type of social relation is a contract. Slavery is certainly not contractual, the will of the slave matters absolutely nothing, although I agree Roman slavery was more contractual than, say, XVII Cent. slave-trade
well every type of social relation is a contract whether it be submission or anything else. but what you are saiyng is the english were more on equal terms with the king.
However, there is a crucial difference between European and Japanese feudalism, according to Bloch: "Japanese vassalage was much more an act of submission than was European vassalage and much less a contract" (Feudal Society. English version. U of Chicago Press p. 447)
Oh, i see what you mean and it is true that terminologically speaking one needs the free will of one to have a contractual relation. What i said was a sort of social contact maybe, not contract. Thank you laura
As I see it, this is an important difference, because through out his book Bloch argues that one of the great contributions of European feudalism to the modern world is the idea of contract- no slavery, expression of will and mutual trust. Rousseau et al have a great intellectual debt with Feudalism (even though, along with most revolutionaries, they despised feudal society). There was no such thing in Japan, according to Bloch
'When feudalism was overthrown and “free” capitalist society appeared in the world, it at once became apparent that this freedom meant a new system of oppression and exploitation of the working people.'
Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)
I do not agree every type of social relation is a contract. Slavery is certainly not contractual, the will of the slave matters absolutely nothing, although I agree Roman slavery was more contractual than, say, XVII Cent. slave-trade
well every type of social relation is a contract whether it be submission or anything else. but what you are saiyng is the english were more on equal terms with the king.
He said 'like' England.. Not Identical.