4 ms·

Yes, it's feudalism

by teraku 6y ago

Yes, it's feudalism

jml7c5 6y ago
How?
- teraku 6y ago
  Well the OP said: > We're seeing the teaming up of governments and giant corporations to control the narrative and tell people what's true and what isn't. And then he said it's facism. To which I say, no, it's feudalism: > Feudalism, also known as the feudal system, was a combination of the legal, economic, military, and cultural customs [...]. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships that were derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor. [0] I don't get why people downvote me so much. It's basically a direct answer [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Yes, it's feudalism Its really, really not feudalism, which is highly de-centralized.
- OJFord 6y ago
  I'm not so sure, I think if GP had expanded on it a little it's an interesting take. Multiple corporations (with their 'fiefdoms') is decentralised from government, in a similar manner to peers being decentralised from government (or the crown). You could either argue 'not as much so', or that 'corporate lobbying, unions, and party donations have a similar influence on policy'; regardless I think it's an interesting idea.
  - teraku 6y ago
    First of all this, but even in the very definition of feudalism it's feudalism: > Feudalism, also known as the feudal system, was a combination of the legal, economic, military, and cultural customs [...]. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships that were derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor. [0] Don't really get all the downvotes. I could extend more on it, and explain my reasoning, but I feel like HN is too caught in this "tech moguls are saviors" and even if they weren't and they wouldn't be where they are, somebody else would be a bad actor. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > but even in the very definition of feudalism it's feudalism: Except there is no “holding of land in exchange for labor”, the only concrete element of the description you quote.
      - teraku 6y ago
        Not in the literal sense of land, but in the economical/capitalistic sense. In capitalism theory, the basic idea behind the growth of capitalism is defined as "land grab", i.e. the system ingests what is foreign and makes it its own. So land in that sense can mean anything that binds people to you. Nowadays this means money in order to pay rent, food, bills etc. > We're seeing the teaming up of governments and giant corporations to control the narrative and tell people what's true and what isn't. Now why do I call this feudalism? To be honest I could call it various other things, the most "getting to the root" would be "class warfare". I chose to call it feudalism in this case, because feudalism was basically the last period/time we chose to call it honestly what it is: Getting ruled from above. They want to implement censorship, because even though we always say "one day it might work against you", but for them it does not. Ever. So when we introduced parliaments we split law-making power from nobility to politicians, elected by the people. But if you are an "accumulator of wealth", you can basically act as a modern fief. Especially if you work together with politicians.
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  Walled gardens (read fiefdoms) run by megacorporations is decentralised, I don't have to accept Alphabet's TOS if I don't want to. They just have so many people who do want to that they can dictate pretty crazy terms. Governments asking favours of these corporate lords looks centralised and makes us pay attention, but it requires their consent to get anywhere.

Yes, it's feudalism

by teraku 6y ago

Yes, it's feudalism

jml7c5 6y ago

How?

teraku 6y ago
Well the OP said: > We're seeing the teaming up of governments and giant corporations to control the narrative and tell people what's true and what isn't. And then he said it's facism. To which I say, no, it's feudalism: > Feudalism, also known as the feudal system, was a combination of the legal, economic, military, and cultural customs [...]. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships that were derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor. [0] I don't get why people downvote me so much. It's basically a direct answer [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Yes, it's feudalism Its really, really not feudalism, which is highly de-centralized.

OJFord 6y ago
I'm not so sure, I think if GP had expanded on it a little it's an interesting take. Multiple corporations (with their 'fiefdoms') is decentralised from government, in a similar manner to peers being decentralised from government (or the crown). You could either argue 'not as much so', or that 'corporate lobbying, unions, and party donations have a similar influence on policy'; regardless I think it's an interesting idea.
- teraku 6y ago
  First of all this, but even in the very definition of feudalism it's feudalism: > Feudalism, also known as the feudal system, was a combination of the legal, economic, military, and cultural customs [...]. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships that were derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor. [0] Don't really get all the downvotes. I could extend more on it, and explain my reasoning, but I feel like HN is too caught in this "tech moguls are saviors" and even if they weren't and they wouldn't be where they are, somebody else would be a bad actor. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > but even in the very definition of feudalism it's feudalism: Except there is no “holding of land in exchange for labor”, the only concrete element of the description you quote.
    - teraku 6y ago
      Not in the literal sense of land, but in the economical/capitalistic sense. In capitalism theory, the basic idea behind the growth of capitalism is defined as "land grab", i.e. the system ingests what is foreign and makes it its own. So land in that sense can mean anything that binds people to you. Nowadays this means money in order to pay rent, food, bills etc. > We're seeing the teaming up of governments and giant corporations to control the narrative and tell people what's true and what isn't. Now why do I call this feudalism? To be honest I could call it various other things, the most "getting to the root" would be "class warfare". I chose to call it feudalism in this case, because feudalism was basically the last period/time we chose to call it honestly what it is: Getting ruled from above. They want to implement censorship, because even though we always say "one day it might work against you", but for them it does not. Ever. So when we introduced parliaments we split law-making power from nobility to politicians, elected by the people. But if you are an "accumulator of wealth", you can basically act as a modern fief. Especially if you work together with politicians.
SuoDuanDao 6y ago
Walled gardens (read fiefdoms) run by megacorporations is decentralised, I don't have to accept Alphabet's TOS if I don't want to. They just have so many people who do want to that they can dictate pretty crazy terms. Governments asking favours of these corporate lords looks centralised and makes us pay attention, but it requires their consent to get anywhere.