Sfdebris.net

France stopped being a fully-fledged feudal state somewhere during the 100 Years War. France under Louis XIV still had feudalist elements, but was primarily a mercantilististic nation-state under an absolutist monarch.

Madner Kami wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 9:12 pm France stopped being a fully-fledged feudal state somewhere during the 100 Years War. France under Louis XIV still had feudalist elements, but was primarily a mercantilististic nation-state under an absolutist monarch.

Which is the highest stage of Feudalism.

A State isn't a Capitalist State till the Capitalist Class is the ruling Class.

We can't really have a conversation if you're going to keep doing that "no sorry we're using my private definition of that word that nobody else uses and I didn't mention until now" thing.

hammerofglass wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:29 am We can't really have a conversation if you're going to keep doing that "no sorry we're using my private definition of that word that nobody else uses and I didn't mention until now" thing.

The idea that France specifically didn't become Capitalist till 1789 at the soonest comes from the very beginning of talking about Capitalism. The word "Capitalism" was coined by those who opposed it, so if you disagree with Marx on when France became Capitalist you can't even really claim Capitalism is a thing at all.

Absolutism was indeed never part of actual Medivel Feudalism, but it is still at it's core a development of Feudal Ideology because it still comes down to viewing The Kingdom as the Property of The King.

MithrandirOlorin wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 10:53 pm

Madner Kami wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 9:12 pm France stopped being a fully-fledged feudal state somewhere during the 100 Years War. France under Louis XIV still had feudalist elements, but was primarily a mercantilististic nation-state under an absolutist monarch.

Which is the highest stage of Feudalism.

A State isn't a Capitalist State till the Capitalist Class is the ruling Class.

That's denying the existence of transient states. By that measure, France stopped being capitalist when Napoleon ascended to the throne or with Louis XVIII at latest. Germany didn't become capitalist until 1918 and the UK isn't capitalist to date. That this is nonsense, is evident.

Also, stating that Absolutism as the "highest stage of Feudalism" is utter nonsense, precisely because the feudal societal and economical structure is already on it's way out when the entire power of the state is concentrated in the hands of a single monarch. Feudalism is characterized by a decentralization of power. Yes, the monarch technically owns the land and through that everything else, but the monarch himself doesn't hold the actual power within the state, as the monarch relies on the military power and cooperation of his feudal subjects, who owe him fealty and loyalty due to his land-grants. To pretend otherwise is the same as saying, that the Holy Roman Empire (of German Nation) never was a true feudal state.

MithrandirOlorin wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:09 amAbsolutism was indeed never part of actual Medivel Feudalism, but it is still at it's core a development of Feudal Ideology because it still comes down to viewing The Kingdom as the Property of The King.

Absolutism is intrinsically based on the elimination of feudal (economic) structures.

You are defining Feudalism base don technical mechanisms rather the point of how it's Class relations functioned.

You're making a massive category error if you think those are different things. Class relations ARE a technical mechanism.

Everything about the beginning of the French Revolution revolves around the Estates General, French Society was still base don those definitions of Class and that's what mattered.

Speaking of feudalism, congrats on the new monarch to you commonwealth types.

Ironically of course, given Orion's admittance to being an anarchist, medieval feudalism is a very good example of what that would look like in reality and probably why he/she likes the idea so much. A group of people who have all of the power solely because they have more weapons, more men and the equivalent of a big castle, lording over literally everyone else. No police, no help, and a taxman who burns down your house if you don't give him half your stuff every month.

Like BridgeConsoleMasher alluded to a few posts back, there is this subset of people who have a ''freedom fantasy''. They look at the Wild West and the medieval times and they think, ''damn, how awesome would that have been? Just a gun/sword at my hip, a horse under my ass, a traditional woman by my side, and a star to gallop by. And no pesky government getting in my way.''

When in reality of course there is a reason why all of that ended and we tried to adopt something else. That's he elephant in the room to everyone who covets the past, isn't it? If it was so great, why didn't we try harder to keep it? Maybe because it wasn't great. Maybe it was crap and what we have now is better even if it isn't perfect.

BTW, going back to the theme of this thread, Robin Hood. Steals from the rich and gives to the poor. A man who A) wouldn't have needed to exist if the there weren't a ridiculous amount of oppressed poor people back then and B) a man who clearly isn't a fascist given his many fights with the Sheriff of Nottingham i.e. the establishment.