3 ms·

> Also, in feudalism the owners of the land would not provide services as these platforms do, they would only exert the power of ownership. The relationship her

> Also, in feudalism the owners of the land would not provide services as these platforms do, they would only exert the power of ownership. The relationship here is more complex, as the cloud-serfs are also a source of capital as they buy the items sold by the platforms. Both of these claims (that owners did not provide services and that serfs were not sources of capital) is contradicted by wikipedia: “Serfs … were entitled to protection, justice, and the right to cultivate certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence. Serfs were often required not only to work on the lord's fields, but also in his mines and forests and to labour to maintain roads.” The source for the Wikipedia text isn’t quite clear to me, but the content jibes with my prior understanding of serfdom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom

qwytw 3y ago
> owners did not provide services Maybe they did in the initial period or in case by case basis. Initially serfdom (in the Roman empire) was a somewhat voluntary contract individuals chose to enter into. When serfdom became an entrenched institution with no way out it was certainly huge net negative for the serfs. .e.g. what protection or justice do you think the 'lords' provided to serfs in 17-19th century Russia, Poland or the rest of Eastern Europe (in some cases it was effectively chattel slavery, there was a caste of "landless" peasants in Russia who could be rented out or effectively (even if not fully legally) sold to other nobles). > Serfs were often required not only to work on the lord's fields, but also in his mines and forests and to labour to maintain roads.” True but it's still a very different relationship. Serfs were effectively slaves (of course conditions and degree of autonomy they had varied significantly), in many ways closer to modern farming or factory equipment than modern worker-consumers. Honestly I think the whole feudalism angle is a stretch, the current situation seems much more similar to 19th century robber barons/"unrestricted" capitalism.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Comparing 500 century Italy and 19th century Russia is kind of idiotic. Other then that we use the same general word, the political systems are really not that similar. I dislike how people use feudalism as a vague catchall for everything that came before British Capitalism. This is just one of those idioitc theory Marx came up with that has no basis in reality. His theories were not even correct for Britain and he had extremely limited knowlage about the world. But he still was arrogant enough to believe he could deduce 'general laws of history' based on these extremely limited examples from British history (that weren't even correct or complete). But no matter how wrong Marx are, we now must forever pull out the 'feudalism' card anytime somebody dislikes something. Despite historians not even agreeing on what 'feudalism' actually means. European medievalists generally talk about feudalism in a narrow way of how lords would agree to contracts with knights. Global historians tend to use feudalism more as a catch all land ownership by the nobility. > Serfs were effectively slaves Serfs were not one thing. The thing we call 'serfs' had many meanings that changed over 100s of years and was different in each region and depended on that countries specific context. The laws around serfdom were constantly shifting. And beyond the actual laws, we know that very often the real world didn't actually reflect the laws. Making any general statements about serfs simply doesn't make sense. Just as it doesn't make sense to talk about slaves as one thing.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > Serfs were not one thing. Well yeah, never implied they were. That comment was a reply to a specific claim about serfdom being a relationship which might have been beneficial to both sides. That certainly wasn't the case by the 18-19th centuries. Nor was I 'making any general statements about serfs' in the medieval or pre medieval periods (or outside Central and Eastern Europe for that matter).
    - chimpanzee 3y ago
      Just to clarify in case of any misunderstanding of my comment (to which you originally replied)… I don’t view serfdom as a net benefit to the serfs. Nonetheless there were initially small benefits that surely dwindled to nothing over time. I think this is exactly where the op metaphor is most apt. When power is traded for comfort, what seems like a good deal now will eventually become a raw deal in the future. (And we moderns surely have more relative power than the serfs ever had)

qwytw 3y ago

> owners did not provide services Maybe they did in the initial period or in case by case basis. Initially serfdom (in the Roman empire) was a somewhat voluntary contract individuals chose to enter into. When serfdom became an entrenched institution with no way out it was certainly huge net negative for the serfs. .e.g. what protection or justice do you think the 'lords' provided to serfs in 17-19th century Russia, Poland or the rest of Eastern Europe (in some cases it was effectively chattel slavery, there was a caste of "landless" peasants in Russia who could be rented out or effectively (even if not fully legally) sold to other nobles). > Serfs were often required not only to work on the lord's fields, but also in his mines and forests and to labour to maintain roads.” True but it's still a very different relationship. Serfs were effectively slaves (of course conditions and degree of autonomy they had varied significantly), in many ways closer to modern farming or factory equipment than modern worker-consumers. Honestly I think the whole feudalism angle is a stretch, the current situation seems much more similar to 19th century robber barons/"unrestricted" capitalism.

panick21_ 3y ago
Comparing 500 century Italy and 19th century Russia is kind of idiotic. Other then that we use the same general word, the political systems are really not that similar. I dislike how people use feudalism as a vague catchall for everything that came before British Capitalism. This is just one of those idioitc theory Marx came up with that has no basis in reality. His theories were not even correct for Britain and he had extremely limited knowlage about the world. But he still was arrogant enough to believe he could deduce 'general laws of history' based on these extremely limited examples from British history (that weren't even correct or complete). But no matter how wrong Marx are, we now must forever pull out the 'feudalism' card anytime somebody dislikes something. Despite historians not even agreeing on what 'feudalism' actually means. European medievalists generally talk about feudalism in a narrow way of how lords would agree to contracts with knights. Global historians tend to use feudalism more as a catch all land ownership by the nobility. > Serfs were effectively slaves Serfs were not one thing. The thing we call 'serfs' had many meanings that changed over 100s of years and was different in each region and depended on that countries specific context. The laws around serfdom were constantly shifting. And beyond the actual laws, we know that very often the real world didn't actually reflect the laws. Making any general statements about serfs simply doesn't make sense. Just as it doesn't make sense to talk about slaves as one thing.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > Serfs were not one thing. Well yeah, never implied they were. That comment was a reply to a specific claim about serfdom being a relationship which might have been beneficial to both sides. That certainly wasn't the case by the 18-19th centuries. Nor was I 'making any general statements about serfs' in the medieval or pre medieval periods (or outside Central and Eastern Europe for that matter).
  - chimpanzee 3y ago
    Just to clarify in case of any misunderstanding of my comment (to which you originally replied)… I don’t view serfdom as a net benefit to the serfs. Nonetheless there were initially small benefits that surely dwindled to nothing over time. I think this is exactly where the op metaphor is most apt. When power is traded for comfort, what seems like a good deal now will eventually become a raw deal in the future. (And we moderns surely have more relative power than the serfs ever had)