5 ms·

The more I hear about this feudalism thing the less I like it.

by agency 6y ago

peterburkimsher 6y ago
Supporters of feudalism are down for the Count.
lb1lf 6y ago
-Fun fact: Feudalism (somehow) lingered on until about a decade ago on the channel island of Sark. That being said, aside from the dubious principle, 21st century feudalism on Sark had little in common with its medieval cousin.
- Ichthypresbyter 6y ago
  Which makes sense given that it started with the settlement of the island by Helier de Carteret in 1565, well after feudalism in England was on the way out.
- arethuza 6y ago
  The last parts of feudal law in Scotland were only removed in 2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc._(Scotland)_Act_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc...
dragonelite 6y ago
The shitty thing is the west is gradually moving into neo feudalism, like the World Economic Forum said "You'll own nothing, and you'll be happy".
- magicsmoke 6y ago
  My pet theory about why modern democracy appeared when it did instead of earlier during the Medieval period is that it coincided with the rise of cheap muskets, which overturned the power dynamic between masses of untrained and unequipped peasants and knights with lifelong combat training and the best armor technology available. When victories started to depend less on whoever had the best elite fighting force and more on whoever had the most muskets in the field, the winner is whoever had a better system for funneling wealth and power to as many people as possible instead of to just a small class of elite fighters. For a new state with little government tax revenue or wealth, the democratic vote was a cheap and effective way for America to raise as many militiamen and muskets as possible. If muskets didn't come onto the military scene when it did and the American revolution was fought between armored knights, I'm quite confident the vote would have remained limited to only landowners that had enough economic surplus to spend their time training and maintaining their war equipment instead of spreading to anyone that could hold a musket. Based on this model, WW2 was probably peak democratic potential. Everyone had the same capacity to hold a rifle or work on an assembly line, and whatever country could mobilize the most workers/soldiers would be the strongest. With automation and computerization, a member of the technology elite that can program a robot to make widgets or shoot hostiles can roll that out to replace millions of humans instantly. The world is reverting back to the economic and technological setup that fostered feudalism, where someone trained from birth with the best equipment can outproduce and outfight a numerically superior force. The big difference between old and neofeudalism I can see is that the technological elites in neofeudalism are more vulnerable than the old military elites because they individually also have lower bargaining power. For a medieval knight, their effectiveness is the same no matter which king they serve under, which gives them plenty of power to switch sides. For a member of the technological elite, you may be so hyperspecialized in your niche that if you leave the system that gives you the ecosystem and tools to do your work, your economic value plunges. An individual chip designer without a company that can pay thousands for monthly EDA software licenses or the millions needed to tape out a chip is as unproductive as any member of the unskilled labor pool. Even the average web developer is dependent on a surrounding national/international technological ecosystem far more than a medieval knight would be on his private estate. In neofeudalism, the real holders of power are the same as in older feudalism. They're propagandists, kings, clergymen, academics, populists, think tanks, revolutionaries, people with enough social acumen to get others to do things that coincide with what they want and make them like it at the same time.
  - agency 6y ago
    George Orwell has an essay, You and the Atomic Bomb[1], where he makes a very similar case: > It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon – so long as there is no answer to it – gives claws to the weak. [1] https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/you-and-the-atom-bomb/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
kebman 6y ago
Then you probably won't like what the corporate elite has in store for you either. :)
forinti 6y ago
My view is that nobility were really like gangs that controlled and fought over territory and extorted the common people. So the current nobility are really just the heirs of criminal associations. They shouldn't have a place in the modern world.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  That's exactly right, although over time "nobility" added a layer of polish and distance which allowed it to pretend that nobles were more refined, more intelligent, and generally better people - when in fact they were just the most successful crooks. This continued all the way through the 20th century, where the disposable deplorables did the fighting while the aristocracy profited. There were even strong links to drugs. Look up the history of the opium wars for details. Most of the UK's country estates were built from the profits of slavery, drugs, and colonialism - which is just nation-scale feudal conquest painted over with flag-waving patriotism.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    This continued all the way through the 20th century, where the disposable deplorables did the fighting while the aristocracy profited. The upper classes volunteered enthusiastically for WW1 and died in vast numbers in the trenches along with the commoners. Perhaps because they had come to believe their own myths of honour and glory.
- m-p-3 6y ago
  I see it like all political systems really comes from people stepping up to acquire power over the common people, and over time are given de-facto legitimacy. Kinda like a mobster turning their money into legit business, and eventually their heirs takes over and people forgetting about how it all started.

The more I hear about this feudalism thing the less I like it.

by agency 6y ago

The more I hear about this feudalism thing the less I like it.

peterburkimsher 6y ago

Supporters of feudalism are down for the Count.

lb1lf 6y ago

-Fun fact: Feudalism (somehow) lingered on until about a decade ago on the channel island of Sark. That being said, aside from the dubious principle, 21st century feudalism on Sark had little in common with its medieval cousin.

Ichthypresbyter 6y ago
Which makes sense given that it started with the settlement of the island by Helier de Carteret in 1565, well after feudalism in England was on the way out.
arethuza 6y ago
The last parts of feudal law in Scotland were only removed in 2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc._(Scotland)_Act_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc...

dragonelite 6y ago

The shitty thing is the west is gradually moving into neo feudalism, like the World Economic Forum said "You'll own nothing, and you'll be happy".

magicsmoke 6y ago
My pet theory about why modern democracy appeared when it did instead of earlier during the Medieval period is that it coincided with the rise of cheap muskets, which overturned the power dynamic between masses of untrained and unequipped peasants and knights with lifelong combat training and the best armor technology available. When victories started to depend less on whoever had the best elite fighting force and more on whoever had the most muskets in the field, the winner is whoever had a better system for funneling wealth and power to as many people as possible instead of to just a small class of elite fighters. For a new state with little government tax revenue or wealth, the democratic vote was a cheap and effective way for America to raise as many militiamen and muskets as possible. If muskets didn't come onto the military scene when it did and the American revolution was fought between armored knights, I'm quite confident the vote would have remained limited to only landowners that had enough economic surplus to spend their time training and maintaining their war equipment instead of spreading to anyone that could hold a musket. Based on this model, WW2 was probably peak democratic potential. Everyone had the same capacity to hold a rifle or work on an assembly line, and whatever country could mobilize the most workers/soldiers would be the strongest. With automation and computerization, a member of the technology elite that can program a robot to make widgets or shoot hostiles can roll that out to replace millions of humans instantly. The world is reverting back to the economic and technological setup that fostered feudalism, where someone trained from birth with the best equipment can outproduce and outfight a numerically superior force. The big difference between old and neofeudalism I can see is that the technological elites in neofeudalism are more vulnerable than the old military elites because they individually also have lower bargaining power. For a medieval knight, their effectiveness is the same no matter which king they serve under, which gives them plenty of power to switch sides. For a member of the technological elite, you may be so hyperspecialized in your niche that if you leave the system that gives you the ecosystem and tools to do your work, your economic value plunges. An individual chip designer without a company that can pay thousands for monthly EDA software licenses or the millions needed to tape out a chip is as unproductive as any member of the unskilled labor pool. Even the average web developer is dependent on a surrounding national/international technological ecosystem far more than a medieval knight would be on his private estate. In neofeudalism, the real holders of power are the same as in older feudalism. They're propagandists, kings, clergymen, academics, populists, think tanks, revolutionaries, people with enough social acumen to get others to do things that coincide with what they want and make them like it at the same time.
- agency 6y ago
  George Orwell has an essay, You and the Atomic Bomb[1], where he makes a very similar case: > It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon – so long as there is no answer to it – gives claws to the weak. [1] https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/you-and-the-atom-bomb/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

kebman 6y ago

Then you probably won't like what the corporate elite has in store for you either. :)

forinti 6y ago

My view is that nobility were really like gangs that controlled and fought over territory and extorted the common people. So the current nobility are really just the heirs of criminal associations. They shouldn't have a place in the modern world.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
That's exactly right, although over time "nobility" added a layer of polish and distance which allowed it to pretend that nobles were more refined, more intelligent, and generally better people - when in fact they were just the most successful crooks. This continued all the way through the 20th century, where the disposable deplorables did the fighting while the aristocracy profited. There were even strong links to drugs. Look up the history of the opium wars for details. Most of the UK's country estates were built from the profits of slavery, drugs, and colonialism - which is just nation-scale feudal conquest painted over with flag-waving patriotism.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  This continued all the way through the 20th century, where the disposable deplorables did the fighting while the aristocracy profited. The upper classes volunteered enthusiastically for WW1 and died in vast numbers in the trenches along with the commoners. Perhaps because they had come to believe their own myths of honour and glory.
m-p-3 6y ago
I see it like all political systems really comes from people stepping up to acquire power over the common people, and over time are given de-facto legitimacy. Kinda like a mobster turning their money into legit business, and eventually their heirs takes over and people forgetting about how it all started.