5 ms·

I don’t see how democracy is much different, to be quite honest. The same structures get set up (the state, instead of a Lord, provides security ... over time t

I don’t see how democracy is much different, to be quite honest. The same structures get set up (the state, instead of a Lord, provides security ... over time the state drags the “citizens” into new wars all the same). I suppose the difference is that in a democracy you at least have an illusion of influence on the state, whereas in a Feudalistic society everyone was quite honest about how the peasants had no or only limited influence at best.

tsimionescu 6y ago
This is ignoring all of the details. Feudal peasants were much closer to slaves than to citizens in a democracy. They had a duty to produce certain amounts of resources for the lord - often not a percentage like a tax, but a minimum amount due. In many places at many times, they were bound to the land - they were not allowed to move away from the village where they lived, definitely not to a different Lord's lands. As you also note, they had no power to influence decision making, and even if they did rise up, they were violently put down, by neighboring lords if they somehow were successful against their own. Not to mention, (modern) states offer much more than military security. They offer healthcare, food, care for the disabled, infrastructure, education, and many other services. And, especially in smaller nations or at local levels (think town, not US state), there is quite a lot of real democratic power, certainly incomparable to the realities of serfdom.
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  > This is ignoring all of the details. Feudal peasants were much closer to slaves than to citizens in a democracy. I disagree. We overestimate the freedom we have and underestimate theirs. For example they had much more free time than we do today. We on the other hand are still "free" to choose where to work (as long as we aren't in poverty, which is unfortunately untrue for too many, with no prospect of future change), but the workplace is as undemocratic as it gets. Forget our (tech) golden workplaces. Most people spend 2/3 of their lives in authoritarian workplaces that they can't leave because they need their shit job to survive. Where is the practical difference with being a serf? Even in the west, most of us don't live a democracy, except for the minority of their time.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  Look, I’m not making an argument in favor of serfdom (far from it). I’m pointing out that many current iterations of democracy have become quite corrupt, so much so that the difference between it and feudalism is one measured on the margins (your details). Every couple days an article gets upvoted on this website that describes how the economies in (western) democracies have metastasized to the point where it’s participants are just cogs, working for a massive corporate enterprise that explicitly does not care about them, voting in elections about a government that quite often does the opposite of what is in their expressed interests, and/or are stuck in an infinite loop of debt-enabled credentialism. Okay yeah that’s not de jure feudalism. Inching closer and closer to de facto, though. Edit: to say this again, because apparently it’s needed. I am not in favor of feudalism.
  - mrmonkeyman 6y ago
    But still lightyears off. You are dramatizing our priviledged existence. Billions (literal) would offer their firstborn son to be "cogs" working a "massive corporate enterprise". What you are describing is the good part of modern life, I suggest you don't look at the bad parts if this already disturbs your soul.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    I didn't take your comments as being in favor of feudalism, I took it as being a bit too cynical of modern states. The clarifications in your new comment make it clearer that you are more talking about a direction, not saying we already live in neo-feudalism, and I agree with you completely that it is something we're inching towards.
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      Thanks, and yes I should’ve been more clear about my intent. I am a defender of democracy, and what I said should’ve been better placed in the context of what I actually mean. Namely, the decay of competency and the corruption we see in many democracies will drift to a point where the situations of their citizens start to mimic or echo a version of feudalism.
ashtonkem 6y ago
If you’ve left your town without your landlords permission, you enjoy a freedom that medieval peasants didn’t have. If your apartment changed hands without you suddenly becoming someone’s property, you’ve enjoyed a freedom peasants didn’t have. If you’ve been involved in a legal process that wasn’t adjudicated by your land lord then you’ve enjoyed a freedom peasants didn’t have. I can’t believe I need to explain this, but democracy is nothing like feudalism.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  Do you think I’m making an argument in favor of feudalism? I’m sorry that pointing out that our current structures of government aren’t exactly performing at their presumed capacity is a troubling idea.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    You’re getting downvoted because our current system of government, no matter how flawed, is very different from feudalism. The comparison is poor for all the reasons I listed and more. There are better ways to critique our current system without such hamfisted comparisons.
- masswerk 6y ago
  Actually, most parts of medieval society were astoundingly mobile. Not everyone was tenant or serf, many, as in the trades and crafts, workers of all kind and everyone involved in moving goods, were often travelling and surprisingly mobile, as were the ruling class. Mind that this was before settled living became the standard model. (Which happened in continental Europe only in the 18th century.)
- rowanG077 6y ago
  In fact you aren't allowed to leave the country if the state doesn't allow it. You equate two concepts together because the words are similar (lord and landlord) but that's childish. It's obvious a lord back in the is much closet to a governments then a landlord.

tsimionescu 6y ago

This is ignoring all of the details. Feudal peasants were much closer to slaves than to citizens in a democracy. They had a duty to produce certain amounts of resources for the lord - often not a percentage like a tax, but a minimum amount due. In many places at many times, they were bound to the land - they were not allowed to move away from the village where they lived, definitely not to a different Lord's lands. As you also note, they had no power to influence decision making, and even if they did rise up, they were violently put down, by neighboring lords if they somehow were successful against their own. Not to mention, (modern) states offer much more than military security. They offer healthcare, food, care for the disabled, infrastructure, education, and many other services. And, especially in smaller nations or at local levels (think town, not US state), there is quite a lot of real democratic power, certainly incomparable to the realities of serfdom.

pietrovismara 6y ago
> This is ignoring all of the details. Feudal peasants were much closer to slaves than to citizens in a democracy. I disagree. We overestimate the freedom we have and underestimate theirs. For example they had much more free time than we do today. We on the other hand are still "free" to choose where to work (as long as we aren't in poverty, which is unfortunately untrue for too many, with no prospect of future change), but the workplace is as undemocratic as it gets. Forget our (tech) golden workplaces. Most people spend 2/3 of their lives in authoritarian workplaces that they can't leave because they need their shit job to survive. Where is the practical difference with being a serf? Even in the west, most of us don't live a democracy, except for the minority of their time.
remarkEon 6y ago
Look, I’m not making an argument in favor of serfdom (far from it). I’m pointing out that many current iterations of democracy have become quite corrupt, so much so that the difference between it and feudalism is one measured on the margins (your details). Every couple days an article gets upvoted on this website that describes how the economies in (western) democracies have metastasized to the point where it’s participants are just cogs, working for a massive corporate enterprise that explicitly does not care about them, voting in elections about a government that quite often does the opposite of what is in their expressed interests, and/or are stuck in an infinite loop of debt-enabled credentialism. Okay yeah that’s not de jure feudalism. Inching closer and closer to de facto, though. Edit: to say this again, because apparently it’s needed. I am not in favor of feudalism.
- mrmonkeyman 6y ago
  But still lightyears off. You are dramatizing our priviledged existence. Billions (literal) would offer their firstborn son to be "cogs" working a "massive corporate enterprise". What you are describing is the good part of modern life, I suggest you don't look at the bad parts if this already disturbs your soul.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  I didn't take your comments as being in favor of feudalism, I took it as being a bit too cynical of modern states. The clarifications in your new comment make it clearer that you are more talking about a direction, not saying we already live in neo-feudalism, and I agree with you completely that it is something we're inching towards.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    Thanks, and yes I should’ve been more clear about my intent. I am a defender of democracy, and what I said should’ve been better placed in the context of what I actually mean. Namely, the decay of competency and the corruption we see in many democracies will drift to a point where the situations of their citizens start to mimic or echo a version of feudalism.

ashtonkem 6y ago

If you’ve left your town without your landlords permission, you enjoy a freedom that medieval peasants didn’t have. If your apartment changed hands without you suddenly becoming someone’s property, you’ve enjoyed a freedom peasants didn’t have. If you’ve been involved in a legal process that wasn’t adjudicated by your land lord then you’ve enjoyed a freedom peasants didn’t have. I can’t believe I need to explain this, but democracy is nothing like feudalism.

remarkEon 6y ago
Do you think I’m making an argument in favor of feudalism? I’m sorry that pointing out that our current structures of government aren’t exactly performing at their presumed capacity is a troubling idea.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  You’re getting downvoted because our current system of government, no matter how flawed, is very different from feudalism. The comparison is poor for all the reasons I listed and more. There are better ways to critique our current system without such hamfisted comparisons.
masswerk 6y ago
Actually, most parts of medieval society were astoundingly mobile. Not everyone was tenant or serf, many, as in the trades and crafts, workers of all kind and everyone involved in moving goods, were often travelling and surprisingly mobile, as were the ruling class. Mind that this was before settled living became the standard model. (Which happened in continental Europe only in the 18th century.)
rowanG077 6y ago
In fact you aren't allowed to leave the country if the state doesn't allow it. You equate two concepts together because the words are similar (lord and landlord) but that's childish. It's obvious a lord back in the is much closet to a governments then a landlord.