4 Answers

  1. Relevant for whom? Where? And what do you understand by each of the components of the slogan? What kind of freedom? Positive or negative? Equality of rights, opportunities, or outcomes? What is brotherhood?

    For me personally, the slogan is relevant, in the sense that a person should be free from violence on the part of the state and society, free to control his own fate. Equality of rights and freedoms also seems important to me, but by no means equality of results. And what is meant by brotherhood? Empathy, solidarity, compassion, help? This is right and good, it's hard to argue.

  2. Yes.

    The slogan is relevant if it offers things that are missing here and now. Check for Russia in the 2010s.

    Freedom. There are “freedom from” and “freedom for”: negative freedom to live in your own way, so that no one interferes, and positive freedom of a citizen, the right to participate in the common affairs of the country and city. With “freedom from” things are not bad. With “freedom for” – failure. On the one hand, the mass belief that “nothing can be influenced”�(Levada Center, 2016), on the other – officials, security forces and deputies who do not want to reckon with anyone. Those who feel that they cannot act on them feel unfreedom.

    Equality. There is equality of income, there is equality before the law. There are problems with both. Three-quarters believe that income is distributed unfairly (VTsIOM, 2015), the majority are convinced of inequality before the court and that “influential people” undeservedly avoid punishment ” (VTsIOM, 2016). There is no equality for anyone who thinks so.

    Brotherhood, trust, “social capital”. The easiest way to measure it is to ask if you can trust other people (other than close friends) or if you need to be careful. According to surveys, in Europe, people trust others from a third (Germany, Italy) to two-thirds (Scandinavia). In Russia, one in five people trusts others, while three-quarters of those who are wary trust others (FOM, 2013).�


    three-quarters feel civil disenfranchisement (or, what is the same thing, lack of freedom),

    three quarters see undeserved inequality in society,

    three-quarters live without trust in other people (this is the scale of non-brotherhood).

    All three goals (freedom, equality, fraternity) – to the point.

  3. “The slogan of the French Revolution has been shortened:

    Equality without freedom and fraternity.

    For one equality … was it worth fighting for?

    Equality of those who get drunk – in that they get drunk?

    The equality of the cunning and the cunning — the cunning?

    Equality of fools with fools?

    Equality of sold — out-sold souls?

    Equality of slaves in the soul — with slaves?

    Equality is not necessary, it is superfluous.

    Smart people, cherish inequality with fools.

    Honest people, be proud of your inequality with scoundrels.

    Plums, appreciate the disparity with cherries!

    Cities should be different from people.

    People are not like cities.

    Freedom and brotherhood. There will be no equality.

    Nobody. To nobody. Not equal to. Never.”

    Alexander Volodin

  4. In my opinion, this slogan is completely false and has nothing to do with any ideology. Before you throw minuses, please read the following.

    So, in order. Freedom. Absolute freedom is unattainable for several reasons:

    1. My freedom is limited by my body. I don't have the freedom to lift ten-ton containers, and I also don't have the freedom to breathe underwater, for example. But let's say I built myself a new body from a titanium-tungsten alloy and put a compact supercomputer instead of a brain. My freedom is still limited by the laws of physics, but nevertheless, I began to have more freedom than I had in this body. But there is a problem. I am alive, and therefore must consume energy in order to live. And this is my lack of freedom. It turns out that while we are alive, we cannot be free, and when we die, there will be no one to be free.

    2. My freedom is also restricted by other individuals. If I hit another person, I violate their freedom. Consequently, freedom is unattainable in society in general: there will always be boundaries in the form of other people.�
      Now for equality. Yes, initially everyone should be given equal opportunities for development, in my opinion. But that people should be equal before the law is a moot point. Because the law is a very artificial thing and not absolute. Therefore, the law may not be reasonable. Consequently, a person who considers the law unreasonable and can prove it can be exempted from the senseless restriction of his freedom. But this is my subjective opinion. And yes, laws restrict human freedom for the sake of the state, which is already stupid. And if we talk about equality not only before the law, but in general about the equality of all people – then in general it is complete stupidity. Are Dante Alighieri and Elon Musk equal? No, because they are different. To think that people can be put on the same scale is already stupid. And artificially equalizing them in this scale is even more stupid. This is like saying that 8 km / h=50 Joules.�

    The brotherhood. Here, in general, everything is completely incomprehensible. This concept is a reworked version of the famous categorical imperative, as I understood from the description from Wikipedia, which reads::�Do not do to others what you do not want to get yourself; do to others such good deeds as you would like to do to yourself. But watch this. First, the word “good”, as well as “good”, “evil” and so on. relatively, not absolutely. What is good for you and, say, your loved ones, and even the state in which you live, may not be good for others. You don't need to go far for examples: here's the Third Reich, here's the “steal” instinct, here's organized crime. And secondly, the categorical imperative has holes in the logic: if a person wholeheartedly hates people, including himself, then he, guided by the categorical imperative, may well hang explosives around himself and go to the subway or shopping center, for example.�

    So no, not relevant, in my opinion. The key to a normal society must be found elsewhere, I think. Such a slogan should not contradict itself, because in my worldview equality excludes freedom and freedom excludes fraternity.

    UPD: Okay, guys, I'm not vindictive, I won't specifically minusovat you. Explain in the comments at least where I'm wrong. This is more interesting than seeing the decreasing numbers of the rating for some unknown reason.

Leave a Reply