3 ms·
You don't really need to have feudalism to have servitude, if you're working somebody else's land and you're allowed to keep just barely enough to eat, that'll
by carlob 13y ago
You don't really need to have feudalism to have servitude, if you're working somebody else's land and you're allowed to keep just barely enough to eat, that'll basically turn you into a serf (and it's still the case in many places around the word, seasonal tomato pickers in Italy is one I know of).
On the other hand you are right that in the colonies the situation was somewhat freer — at first -, that's how they got people to move from the old world, but I'm pretty sure that the situation got back to inequality pretty quickly.
The point I'm trying to make is that this Arcadian paradise that conservatives like to call 'back in the day' is really more of a myth.
- coldtea 13y ago>The point I'm trying to make is that this Arcadian paradise that conservatives like to call 'back in the day' is really more of a myth. In some parts of the world yes. In others no. But not for the reasons the progressives put forward (toil, lack of progress, etc). For political reasons: people being in command of other people. There were villages and regions all over Europe that such was not the case, and people were free. Sure, you had to work, but that's just as it is now (minus the modern conveniences). Actually, even in medieval Europe, agrarian societes had so many festivity days that almost half the year was off.