Sfdebris.net

MithrandirOlorin wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 4:51 pm

Madner Kami wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 4:02 pm

MithrandirOlorin wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 2:47 pm I do not think Feudalism was nearly as bad as it's popularly made out to be.

I stopped taking you seriously when you said you're an adherent of Anarchism. Now I point and laugh at you.

Feudalism is not something we should return to, but there are a lot bad myths being perpetuated about the Middle Ages.

Such as?

clearspira wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 5:43 pm

MithrandirOlorin wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 4:51 pm

Madner Kami wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 4:02 pm

MithrandirOlorin wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 2:47 pm I do not think Feudalism was nearly as bad as it's popularly made out to be.

I stopped taking you seriously when you said you're an adherent of Anarchism. Now I point and laugh at you.

Feudalism is not something we should return to, but there are a lot bad myths being perpetuated about the Middle Ages.

Such as?

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... bA5XkJ4OSP

There's also a Book I have written by a Woman's who's name I forgot called Those Terrible Middle Ages.

A lot of people react to lack of public provision viscerally as if it’s synonymous with immediate danger. There’s also a bit of “old west” Romanticism with regard to living in simpler times without middle class burdens and lower class traps. That’s basically it. A lot of it depends on your circumstance, now or then, but much more back then.

And that’s the point. You still had organized society back then, and the more enlightened civil aspects weren’t as different from today as is the disparate conditions.

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 2:47 pm A lot of people react to lack of public provision viscerally as if it’s synonymous with immediate danger.

Sorry, what?

There’s also a bit of “old west” Romanticism with regard to living in simpler times without middle class burdens and lower class traps. That’s basically it. A lot of it depends on your circumstance, now or then, but much more back then.

No lower class traps in Feudalism? There's no middle class in Feudalism. You're either a landed knight or a landless peasent in bound servitude to a landed knight, aka a factual slave. It literally needed half of Europe to die from the Black Death, before peasents were in a position to put economic pressure and, by consequence, societal pressure on the landed aristocracy.

The development of this conversion is weird and it's my oen fault. The truth is Socialism with Class Collaboration is how you get Neo-Feudalism, Faith in either a King or Church to mediate the Classes is the heart of Neo-Feudalism.

There is no real Middle Class under Capitalism either, you are either an Owner or you are now, it isn't defined by the size of your bank accounts.

Feudalism had just as much of a hypothetical Middle Class as Capitalism does, the Proto-Bourgasie in the Merchant Towns and the lesser ranks of the Nobility who's Noble title give them anymore then being the nominal most famous person in their village.

I mean if we're sticking with the England focus there actually was a substantial free population in the fuedal period, the common lands weren't stolen via enclosure until the 17th century. Plus merchants, tradesmen, yeomen who owned their own farms, etc. Real economies have a lot of moving parts.

hammerofglass wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 5:13 pm I mean if we're sticking with the England focus there actually was a substantial free population in the fuedal period, the common lands weren't stolen via enclosure until the 17th century. Plus merchants, tradesmen, yeomen who owned their own farms, etc. Real economies have a lot of moving parts.

Yeah, this is why there are lots of problems dividing history into: Feudal / Capitalist. It's difficult to look at Venetian merchants and say, "No capitalism here guys!" just as it's difficult to look at the plantations of the antebellum south and say, "No feudalism here guys!"

At the same time while Yeomen and Burgesses seem to match up against the middle class of modern conceptions, there's still important differences. Burgesses weren't just people who lived in towns and cities, but had a special status as a member of a particular group associated with the city. For example, if a Swiss Burgher was killed, the other Burgher's could bring the killer to trial. Yeomen owned their own farm, but "owning a farm" wasn't identical to what is thought of today, because Fee Simple land ownership was only introduced in 1290. You couldn't just get a bag of money and pay somebody for a farm they had before that; that simply wasn't how things worked.

I didn't pick 1300 as the year to divide Feudalism from Capitalism for no reason. Fee simple landownership was introduced in England a decade before. The black death arrived half a century later, which began the moves towards enclosure. In Italy, double entry bookkeeping spreading across the peninsula.

Again I ask, what did 600-1300 bring to the world? Not much by my reckoning. 1300-2000? Practically everything that makes life worth living.

The Earliest Enclosures were more or less a new stage of Feudalism rather then proper Capitalism. The Enclosure Acts of 1773 is what the key turning point is England becoming Capitalist in the sense what people talking about Capital at the time meant.

Feudalism had different stages during it's history just as Capitalism has, Jacobite England and The Sun King in France the Highest Stage of Feudalism, as in those countries had never bene more Feudalist before then.

I agree however that the Plantation Culture of the South was very Neo-Feudalist.

MithrandirOlorin wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 7:22 pm The Sun King in France the Highest Stage of Feudalism, as in those countries had never bene more Feudalist before then.

You'll not find a single historian in agreement with you.

Madner Kami wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 8:46 pm

MithrandirOlorin wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 7:22 pm The Sun King in France the Highest Stage of Feudalism, as in those countries had never bene more Feudalist before then.

You'll not find a single historian in agreement with you.

Historians are bad at Economics, and visa versa.