4 ms·

No. Your ideas of what 'feudalism' implies are totally wack and ahistorical. Feudalism was a time of laissez-faire, political liberty and anarchism. "The vass

No. Your ideas of what 'feudalism' implies are totally wack and ahistorical. Feudalism was a time of laissez-faire, political liberty and anarchism. "The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal" was the motto of feudalism. It was a reaction against the centralization and coercion of the old Roman Empire. How is this anything like Facebook et al?

_bxg1 7y ago
What I meant is a civilization where only the powerful have a say, and regular people become serfs to powerful, warring organizations. Which, yeah, I guess isn't very well articulated by the word "feudal".
zergblush 7y ago
He’s sketching out a main point that a few are subjugating the rest using some sort of apportioned rights (in this case, runaway technological inertia and money leading to a positive feedback loop of even more inertia) I think you’re missing the forest for the trees by concentrating on the historical robustness of his feudalism reference My immediate thought was that he meant something more like corporate city states ala cyberpunk themes presciented by blade runner and shadowrun
ancientworldnow 7y ago
Weird that someone who is trying to be such a pedant incorrectly suggests this was a period of anarchism (a political system centered the absolution of government and unjust hierarchies). Maybe you meant anarchy, which is also a stretch historically speaking.
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
Peasants were bound to their lord's land, owed feudal dues like corvée, and could be judged and punished by their lord. It could only be called an era of "political liberty" for perhaps a relatively small class of nobility. The vast majority of the population was trapped in cemented, unalterable relations of fealty and economic exploitation. > It was a reaction against the centralization and coercion of the old Roman Empire. It wasn't so much a reaction against anything in the Roman Empire as the thing that sprang up as the more politically and economically advanced Roman system collapsed. Roman citizens had political rights, such as protection from arbitrary punishment, which were lost in the feudal era. The Roman state collected taxes and used them to provide substantial public goods, such as roads, aqueducts, sewage systems, public baths and theaters, the grain dole, courts and of course, defense of the frontiers against barbarian incursion. With the collapse of that system, the Latin-speaking population of Western Europe came under the rule of rather uncooth German tribesmen. The only honorable professions open to the Roman aristocracy, which previously would have gone into the civil service, were in the Church and the meagre administrations of the new German kingdoms. Taxation systems broke down, the previous public goods were no longer provided, and the common population came under the personal rule of their lords. I wouldn't call a system in which the common population is subjected to the personal rule of a lord more "free" than a system of laws.

_bxg1 7y ago

What I meant is a civilization where only the powerful have a say, and regular people become serfs to powerful, warring organizations. Which, yeah, I guess isn't very well articulated by the word "feudal".

zergblush 7y ago

He’s sketching out a main point that a few are subjugating the rest using some sort of apportioned rights (in this case, runaway technological inertia and money leading to a positive feedback loop of even more inertia) I think you’re missing the forest for the trees by concentrating on the historical robustness of his feudalism reference My immediate thought was that he meant something more like corporate city states ala cyberpunk themes presciented by blade runner and shadowrun

ancientworldnow 7y ago

Weird that someone who is trying to be such a pedant incorrectly suggests this was a period of anarchism (a political system centered the absolution of government and unjust hierarchies). Maybe you meant anarchy, which is also a stretch historically speaking.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

Peasants were bound to their lord's land, owed feudal dues like corvée, and could be judged and punished by their lord. It could only be called an era of "political liberty" for perhaps a relatively small class of nobility. The vast majority of the population was trapped in cemented, unalterable relations of fealty and economic exploitation. > It was a reaction against the centralization and coercion of the old Roman Empire. It wasn't so much a reaction against anything in the Roman Empire as the thing that sprang up as the more politically and economically advanced Roman system collapsed. Roman citizens had political rights, such as protection from arbitrary punishment, which were lost in the feudal era. The Roman state collected taxes and used them to provide substantial public goods, such as roads, aqueducts, sewage systems, public baths and theaters, the grain dole, courts and of course, defense of the frontiers against barbarian incursion. With the collapse of that system, the Latin-speaking population of Western Europe came under the rule of rather uncooth German tribesmen. The only honorable professions open to the Roman aristocracy, which previously would have gone into the civil service, were in the Church and the meagre administrations of the new German kingdoms. Taxation systems broke down, the previous public goods were no longer provided, and the common population came under the personal rule of their lords. I wouldn't call a system in which the common population is subjected to the personal rule of a lord more "free" than a system of laws.