"Patrimonial state"? (general, 70s, empire, Russian)

[Clarallel]

I'm trying to figure out what this means:

Up through the 19th century, he notes, the United States had a weak, corrupt and patrimonial state.

Does it mean that most of the power and wealth were inherited, but not now?


Global Warning
By Sheri Berman
Political Order and Political Decay, by Francis Fukuyama

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/b...cal-decay.html

[bale002]

Originally Posted by Clarallel

I'm trying to figure out what this means:

Up through the 19th century, he notes, the United States had a weak, corrupt and patrimonial state.

Does it mean that most of the power and wealth were inherited, but not now?

Often one must study a particular writer's lexicon to understand what he means, on the precarious assumption that the writer has even developed one, but chances are he throws words around to sound intelligent and alluring, like everybody else.

In any case, your guess is as good as any.

In parallel, I could hardly take such a sweeping generalization seriously, especially regarding fast changing societies during the early years of the Industrial Revolution: to be sure, there have long been people who inherit wealth, in early times largely based on land and military commands, but in the past 250 years or so they have been replaced and turned over as fast as technological change.

Same is true today: look, for example, how powerful people in high tech companies are challenging for leadership roles in political theater, actual policy-making and the military-industrial complex.

They will be tomorrow's old guard.

Good luck in your reading.

[Dd714]

No one can tell the context because your link has a subscription pay block and doesn't work.

But something tells me you are disguising another agenda that has little to do with history.

[harry chickpea]

I don't get a paywall on that. Curious. Anyway, the use of that word is strange, as inheritance laws have remained consistent. I suspect that what was meant was the political power flowed more through family lines than in later years, which is an incorrect assumption, as witness the Kennedy clan and the Bush clan.

Another smoke and mirrors phrase is "clientelist system," a nice way of implying graft. To say that graft disappears because of new people connected with industrialization are not interested in it or susceptible to it is beyond idiotic and bordering on utter fantasy.

My advice is to ignore both the author and reviewer as unreliable and biased.

[theoldnorthstate]

Or children, wives, and daughters were considered chattel until 1970s in some states. Those states based on English Common Law.

depends upon the article and context.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

I don't get a paywall on that. Curious. Anyway, the use of that word is strange, as inheritance laws have remained consistent. I suspect that what was meant was the political power flowed more through family lines than in later years, which is an incorrect assumption, as witness the Kennedy clan and the Bush clan.

Another smoke and mirrors phrase is "clientelist system," a nice way of implying graft. To say that graft disappears because of new people connected with industrialization are not interested in it or susceptible to it is beyond idiotic and bordering on utter fantasy.

My advice is to ignore both the author and reviewer as unreliable and biased.

Hmmm, for me it appears for a second then the paywall appears and says "your free limit has been reached" .

There is a term called "patrimonialism" which per Wiki describes an authoritative or oligarchy type government where the central government does not distinguish between public and private ownership - for instance fuedalism of the sort practices in the Russian Empire until the late 19th century.

Only the most cynical can describe the US as such. The OP mentions a patriamonial state until the end of the 19th century - I would actually submit, with the U.S. governments focus on individualism during that time, as needed for the settlement of the frontiers, and decentralization of power into states and territories, just the opposite was in existence.

So very strange topic.

[msgsing]

Ship it over to the Great Debates forum and maybe they can make some sense of this post. But I doubt it. What an obtuse and confusing question.

[Quietude]

Originally Posted by Dd714

No one can tell the context because your link has a subscription pay block and doesn't work.

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

I don't get a paywall on that. Curious.

NYT allows six articles per month and can easily be bypassed by using an anonymous browser tab.

I don't see the problem with the question, although context is missing. Anyone who wants to argue that the US was not patriarchal/patrimonial/almost wholly owned, run and guided by [white] men until the middle 20th is definitely working their own agenda.

[adjusterjack]

Originally Posted by theoldnorthstate

Or children, wives, and daughters were considered chattel until 1970s in some states. Those states based on English Common Law.

That would be my guess.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by Quietude

NYT allows six articles per month and can easily be bypassed by using an anonymous browser tab.

I don't see the problem with the question, although context is missing. Anyone who wants to argue that the US was not patriarchal/patrimonial/almost wholly owned, run and guided by [white] men until the middle 20th is definitely working their own agenda.

Yeah but is that the question or topic at hand?
We are all here trying to still figure out what the topic is about.

I'm with the other guy - move this to great debates.