Feudalism: The Most Resilient System?

It's still the 99% pretty much dependent for their livelihood on the 1%. So, call it however you like but I think we're still being feudal in many ways. Discuss. I'll pop in later, got to finish something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long-term, I would suggest that the Monarchy is the more stable political platform.  I really like the King of Holland! And the Monarchy is flexible!  Even the People are flexible under the Monarchy! Check it out:

 

Prince Harrry will marry!.PNG

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

It's still the 99% pretty much dependent for their livelihood on the 1%. So, call it however you like but I think we're still being feudal in many ways. Discuss. I'll pop in later, got to finish something.

There is one main difference.

Under feudalism, the lord had an obligation to protect the vassals and the inhabitants of his fief from external threats.

Today the 1% really doesn't care about the 99%. There is no sense of having obligations.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone on this forum is the 1%, on a global scale. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marina Schwarz said:

It's still the 99% pretty much dependent for their livelihood on the 1%. So, call it however you like but I think we're still being feudal in many ways. Discuss. I'll pop in later, got to finish something.

Interesting view. Not sure it is the definition of feudalism, though. To me the definition of feudalism is giving up freedom in exchange for security, not food. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Interesting view. Not sure it is the definition of feudalism, though. To me the definition of feudalism is giving up freedom in exchange for security, not food. 

Foodalism?

image.png.5023bab05c3da8581a2a2a715ef6b800.png

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the serfs had a hand in deciding. And true surf societies require high levels of low end labor, typically agricultural. Today so much wealth is asset based, not on being productive by historical definitions. 

A poor American today typically has a better life than a semi-rich person 150 years ago. And a better life than a heck of a lot of the folks in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, half of China and Indonesia, etc..

I've done a bit better than my father, but I expect my son to do worse. But I don't fear for my son's basic ability to get by.

I suppose debt is in many ways the modern owner of many. 

I don't begrudge a Saros or Brazos their billions. I do fear for the long term consequences of entitlement and inherited wealth and power. History suggests if the 1% gets too out of hand, it's pitchforks, bonfires, and guillotines. But technology and firepower allows the wealth and power discrepancy ratios to be for more than in historical terms. And we live in a time that thinks inheritance taxes are evil, ignoring what history teaches us. Yes, enough for you kids to live an OK live, but not oligarchs and royalty.

So I'll continue to argue for capitalism, but it needs regulation because when one side has too much power, overwhelming history suggests it destroys the competition that makes it work well, and reward desired behavior. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John Foote said:

I don't think the serfs had a hand in deciding. And true surf societies require high levels of low end labor, typically agricultural. Today so much wealth is asset based, not on being productive by historical definitions. 

A poor American today typically has a better life than a semi-rich person 150 years ago. And a better life than a heck of a lot of the folks in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, half of China and Indonesia, etc..

I've done a bit better than my father, but I expect my son to do worse. But I don't fear for my son's basic ability to get by.

I suppose debt is in many ways the modern owner of many. 

I don't begrudge a Saros or Brazos their billions. I do fear for the long term consequences of entitlement and inherited wealth and power. History suggests if the 1% gets too out of hand, it's pitchforks, bonfires, and guillotines. But technology and firepower allows the wealth and power discrepancy ratios to be for more than in historical terms. And we live in a time that thinks inheritance taxes are evil, ignoring what history teaches us. Yes, enough for you kids to live an OK live, but not oligarchs and royalty.

So I'll continue to argue for capitalism, but it needs regulation because when one side has too much power, overwhelming history suggests it destroys the competition that makes it work well, and reward desired behavior. 

I agree, in the debt feudal system, the central bankers, global elite, elected officials, government including government bureaucrats are our overlords with ever increasing power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JunoTen said:

Everyone on this forum is the 1%, on a global scale. 

I would guess closer to 10%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Interesting view. Not sure it is the definition of feudalism, though. To me the definition of feudalism is giving up freedom in exchange for security, not food. 

But also food. They tended to the land of the lord, no?

@Jan van Eck, since monarchy was the default state system during feudal times, we are in agreement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

But also food. They tended to the land of the lord, no?

My definition is that people were given protection and in exchange worked the land of the lord. However, land wasn't in short supply at the time, so in my view the main driver was the security. Re the land - the lord basically got a crop-share. I suppose that could be compared to modern day finance cost. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I would guess closer to 10%. 

The 1% on a global scale are the ones who make more than 33k$ a year. I think all the people in here are old enough to make more than that!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JunoTen said:

The 1% on a global scale are the ones who make more than 33k$ a year. I think all the people in here are old enough to make more than that!

Here is a nice article on worldwide income https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/business/global-income-calculator/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7fb1625f548d

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to my above. A key trait in feudalism is the belief that some a born to lead and others to follow. Something largely incompatible with social mobility, which to an extent exists globally. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2018 at 5:19 PM, JunoTen said:

The 1% on a global scale are the ones who make more than 33k$ a year. I think all the people in here are old enough to make more than that!

You mean you believe age is the sole factor determining annual income? Oh, how I wish that were the case. Sadly, it isn't. And no, initiative and ambition are not enough, either.

13 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Further to my above. A key trait in feudalism is the belief that some a born to lead and others to follow. Something largely incompatible with social mobility, which to an extent exists globally. 

You're right, that belief is gone in some places at least but is it fully gone, I wonder. I really wonder. Food for thought. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

You're right, that belief is gone in some places at least but is it fully gone, I wonder. I really wonder. Food for thought. Thanks!

I think we need to get started on the false consiousness. I wonder what is our opium these days? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

You mean you believe age is the sole factor determining annual income? Oh, how I wish that were the case. Sadly, it isn't. And no, initiative and ambition are not enough, either.

It's not the sole factor but it's a very important one. Initiative and ambition are not sole factors either, sometimes you're just lucky, and sometimes you're not, it's a fact. But people get desperate if they think they can't do anything about their situation and that they are only victims of the circumstances and not actors of their own lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weeeell, we're dipping our toes in another topic here with the victim thinking. I completely agree this sort of thinking is harmful. Yet it is apparently also quite convenient, as we can see. It will come back to bite its proponents and this will be sad. Anyway enough about that.

 

23 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I think we need to get started on the false consiousness. I wonder what is our opium these days? 

As opposed to religion? Why, PC, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

As opposed to religion? Why, PC, of course.

I don't really think that religion is that important anymore with the ME being a possible exception (and even there I have my doubts). What I had in mind was money  and social media... I am a big fan of Slavoj Zizek (my philosophy professor introduced me to his writings back in the day). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this as good a thread as any to discuss the big isms. Capitalism, liberalism, social-liberalism and the big one : what is democrazy, really? In order to keep it civil Isuggest we try to discuss these in a spirit the great thinkers would have liked. 

 

I will start off with Capitalism. Whilst I believe in Capitalism and comparative advantages I also believe that un-regulated capitalism leads to monopolies and geo-political problems (I think here we need to consider that capitalism was born into a different contect). A balance has to be found. 

I am sincerely hoping that someone other than me will take liberalism and social liberalism. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I think this as good a thread as any to discuss the big isms. Capitalism, liberalism, social-liberalism and the big one : what is democrazy, really? In order to keep it civil Isuggest we try to discuss these in a spirit the great thinkers would have liked. 

Was this on purpose or is it the best typo ever? 

I believe in moderation when it comes to political systems. Actually, no, I don't believe. I know moderation is crucial.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

Was this on purpose or is it the best typo ever? 

I believe in moderation when it comes to political systems. Actually, no, I don't believe. I know moderation is crucial.

lucky typo. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:
3 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I think this as good a thread as any to discuss the big isms. Capitalism, liberalism, social-liberalism and the big one : what is democrazy, really? In order to keep it civil Isuggest we try to discuss these in a spirit the great thinkers would have liked. 

Was this on purpose or is it the best typo ever? 

Possibly the best description ever, but still better than the alternates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" --Churchill

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2018 at 6:53 PM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I think this as good a thread as any to discuss the big isms. Capitalism, liberalism, social-liberalism and the big one : what is democrazy, really? In order to keep it civil Isuggest we try to discuss these in a spirit the great thinkers would have liked. 

 

I will start off with Capitalism. Whilst I believe in Capitalism and comparative advantages I also believe that un-regulated capitalism leads to monopolies and geo-political problems (I think here we need to consider that capitalism was born into a different contect). A balance has to be found. 

I am sincerely hoping that someone other than me will take liberalism and social liberalism. 

 

On 12/7/2018 at 8:27 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

Was this on purpose or is it the best typo ever? 

I believe in moderation when it comes to political systems. Actually, no, I don't believe. I know moderation is crucial.

 

On 12/7/2018 at 10:52 PM, Dan Warnick said:

Possibly the best description ever, but still better than the alternates.

Dear Commies (friends in the community).......... uuhhh........ pardon me..... I have attached an image tendative to illustrate the diverging points quoted above............ eerrr................ we might be in a dynamic constant. The basic remain the same regardless how much time has past but terms could be different? or no? :S

cute image4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites