Does Feudalism Still Exist?

[Bogotanian]

Do you think that a form of Feudalism still exists in Western Society? There aren't peasants or serfs anymore who work for a meager plot of earth on the Lord's lands, keeping a tiny amount for themselves but giving most of it to the Lord, who probably would remain tied to the land for life. In today's democratic society that talks about democratic freedoms, there would be no indentured servitude... right?

I think that there are some striking parallels with medieval feudalism, just it may not be as obvious as a serf on a plot of land. We are supposed to be a society of free people, but we still are indebted. We owe the government taxes. We live in a society where if someone is suspected to succeed, they must take on some extraordinary debt with higher education and start working immediately to pay it off. People who own a house are tied to the land and indebted until they can pay it off. I think that we are all really indebted to the leaders in society, and we are demanded to enter the work force and do labor to pay off debts, get in more debt, pay it off, work more labor etc. If we're really free people who can do whatever we want, why is there always something demanded of us?

I think that in a way we are vassals to the controllers at the top. Also, just because the conditions aren't as apparent as in medieval Europe doesn't mean that a system of Feudalism isn't in place. I think that the best way to keep a group of people "enslaved" or indebted is to give them the illusion that they're free. America is all about talking about freedoms all the time. If people think that they're free, they won't complain, because they get to drive around to other locations and aren't chained to a wall in a cell. That doesn't mean that they're not still enslaved to the system. I've been thinking about this quote I saw "Is a slave a slave if he doesn't know he's enslaved?"

What do you think?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Uh... well feudalism refers to a practice of small fractionalized city states potentially of a similar identity fighting each other and not really indentured servitude. That's... well, indentured servitude.

So, to answer that question, no, not really. The physical plane demands something from us, there's nothing we can really do about that.

[Bogotanian]

Suicidesoldier#1

Uh... well feudalism refers to a practice of small fractionalized city states potentially of a similar identity fighting each other and not really indentured servitude. That's... well, indentured servitude.

So, to answer that question, no, not really. The physical plane demands something from us, there's nothing we can really do about that.

I'm thinking about Serfdom though. A peasant was required to till the fields and do things for the Lord while being able to keep a small amount. While it's not as bad as in the Middle Ages, we still work for the government and owe them taxes. We are still indebted to someone. And I think that indentured servitude was similar to serfdom because they were tied to the land for their labor, and they eventually got their freedom like some some peasants. Also the fact that something is demanded of us and there's nothing we can do about that... doesn't that make us a slave or indebted to the system?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Bogotanian

Suicidesoldier#1

Uh... well feudalism refers to a practice of small fractionalized city states potentially of a similar identity fighting each other and not really indentured servitude. That's... well, indentured servitude.

So, to answer that question, no, not really. The physical plane demands something from us, there's nothing we can really do about that.

I'm thinking about Serfdom though. A peasant was required to till the fields and do things for the Lord while being able to keep a small amount. While it's not as bad as in the Middle Ages, we still work for the government and owe them taxes. We are still indebted to someone. And I think that indentured servitude was similar to serfdom because they were tied to the land for their labor, and they eventually got their freedom like some some peasants. Also the fact that something is demanded of us and there's nothing we can do about that... doesn't that make us a slave or indebted to the system?

Not exactly. We only owe the government money on income, sales taxes and whatnot; the government provides social security for those below the poverty line and such, as well as welfare. So, if you're born into the system, and if you choose to do nothing, the government will still provide for you something, although it's basically only what you need to survive or find another job in modern society. As well, it's more of a, capitalist environment thing than a government one, though the government is of the people, and the taxes largely go to public works.

Capitalism today is a lot like an oligarchy in that it's ruled by a handful of powerful people who have no obligation to the people and you need money to get money but, it's more of a non government thing. Probably not really like being a serf for a lot of reasons, but if it is, we've got it pretty good as modern serfs. xp


Owing someone a debt for having bought something isn't the same as being a slave, since you don't have to get into debt.

But a lot of people are by choice since it makes life easier. The one way it's still like the mid-eval ages is that being born into the right family is still everything. Unlike in those times, you can work your way to the top, but the chances of that are slim to none. Lazy, dumb, terrible human beings inherit billions of dollars and it basically makes their life easy, while poor people, no matter their virtues, by nothing more than being born into the wrong family, in the wrong circumstances, can be stuck there for life. So, it's still a major problem in that not everyone is given equal amounts, and we still rely heavily on our parents to get us from point A to point B.

[UF6]

What you speak of is nothing more than anachronism that further makes a greater divide of what is already a historical subject that's being revised by historians within the last ten years. The term “feudalism" came from the eighteenth-century United Kingdom authors that misused history to fit a generalized pattern within a time period that varied through the era. The term was used for various meanings: from the use of a governmental system, to the "loss of power of the public". The term is wrong since it labels a span of time that it tries to explain through generalizations. These generalizations give a poor perspective of an otherwise complex system of law, social, and cultural trends that makes the system very ridged. In turn it makes it hard to gauge from a historical perspective of how such a system would arise.

Frederic W. Maitland was a British historian who ran into these issues when he tried to describe how England varied differently before and after the Norman and Viking invasions. Maitland further went into how these differences arose from country to country as well as he described England and France. Maitland further extrapolates of how each century differed from each other then what the stereotypical term applies. This is often spoken in terms of contracts of landed tenure and services held by them with the untenured. Like many historians at the time these pose many contradictions to which he felt were “feudalism limited and checked by other idea”.

To answer your question I say no. I don’t say no for reasons as others would state here, I say no that there’s no agreed term of what feudalism is, nor to apply the standards of yesteryears to today. I find in very unfavourable that you would go such a route since what you state is nothing more than mere generalizations. The reason that it’s generalized is stated before along with how feudalism is used within double context of social and economical context. I know that either often and can overlap but often there’s no statement that the organization of economics at that period was based off of manorialism and mercantilism. Debt itself isn't “feudalist” nor is being a debtor. How debtors were and are treated are in a matter of the context of their time. Debt itself transcends before and after the Middle Ages. Vassalage itself was a political and social as well. It solely didn't come just from being in debt but the rite of the landed tenure to have their holdings recognized by their liege for service and taxation.


Brown Tyranny Of A Construct

[UF6]

Bogotanian

Suicidesoldier#1

Uh... well feudalism refers to a practice of small fractionalized city states potentially of a similar identity fighting each other and not really indentured servitude. That's... well, indentured servitude.

So, to answer that question, no, not really. The physical plane demands something from us, there's nothing we can really do about that.

I'm thinking about Serfdom though. A peasant was required to till the fields and do things for the Lord while being able to keep a small amount. While it's not as bad as in the Middle Ages, we still work for the government and owe them taxes. We are still indebted to someone. And I think that indentured servitude was similar to serfdom because they were tied to the land for their labor, and they eventually got their freedom like some some peasants. Also the fact that something is demanded of us and there's nothing we can do about that... doesn't that make us a slave or indebted to the system?

You do realize that centralized states were few and far between and ones patronage one paid to was to a minor noble and not to the said state? I'm getting this vibe that your asset that paying to one state and paying to a person are the same thing.

Being a peasant didn't mean they didn't own land nor had vassals themselves. That pyramid system that you're peddling is wrong since it's a reductionism to the extreme.

[low iq 111]

i heard the rich and gov'ts hate gold

they like printed money b/c for whatever reason it keeps people working or something

[low iq 111]

i can't imagine people wanting to control others...i can hardly decide what i want to do for myself



well maybe that is b/c of my lower status idea

[Samadhi23]

Regardless of whether "Feudalism" specifically is the right word to apply to our conditions, your analysis is 100% spot on. Well said.

[Avgvsto]

Feudalism always exists in every time, it's the natural form of humanity.

[AN OLD HAGS CACKLE]

Bogotanian

There aren't peasants or serfs anymore who work for a meager plot of earth on the Lord's lands, keeping a tiny amount for themselves but giving most of it to the Lord, who probably would remain tied to the land for life.

Well, low-wage earners are not usually indentured by law, but you could draw an analogy between modern minimum wage workers and feudal serfs.


Change "serfs" for "employees," keeping a small reward for their labor while the employer (Lord) keeps the bulk. While they are free to quit the job, low wage earners are usually just a paycheck or two ahead of homelessness, forced to work constantly and therefore unable to pursue things which might improve their situation. Most are effectively tied to low wage work for life.

[Roih Uvet]

Bogotanian

Suicidesoldier#1

Uh... well feudalism refers to a practice of small fractionalized city states potentially of a similar identity fighting each other and not really indentured servitude. That's... well, indentured servitude.

So, to answer that question, no, not really. The physical plane demands something from us, there's nothing we can really do about that.

I'm thinking about Serfdom though. A peasant was required to till the fields and do things for the Lord while being able to keep a small amount. While it's not as bad as in the Middle Ages, we still work for the government and owe them taxes. We are still indebted to someone. And I think that indentured servitude was similar to serfdom because they were tied to the land for their labor, and they eventually got their freedom like some some peasants. Also the fact that something is demanded of us and there's nothing we can do about that... doesn't that make us a slave or indebted to the system?

We have that same system, more or less. Except it's called "rent" now.

[Patton]

I actually don't have a problem with feudalism, roman- style patron cliency, or other such things. Not every ancient policy is, by necessity, a negative thing.

[Bogotanian]

low iq 111

i heard the rich and gov'ts hate gold

they like printed money b/c for whatever reason it keeps people working or something

When the US went did away with the Gold Standard, the only thing that gives our dollars worth is "The good faith and trust of the Federal Reserve." With mounting debt and with the way the economy's going... side topic but important to note.

[Bogotanian]

Suicidesoldier#1

Bogotanian

Suicidesoldier#1

Uh... well feudalism refers to a practice of small fractionalized city states potentially of a similar identity fighting each other and not really indentured servitude. That's... well, indentured servitude.

So, to answer that question, no, not really. The physical plane demands something from us, there's nothing we can really do about that.

I'm thinking about Serfdom though. A peasant was required to till the fields and do things for the Lord while being able to keep a small amount. While it's not as bad as in the Middle Ages, we still work for the government and owe them taxes. We are still indebted to someone. And I think that indentured servitude was similar to serfdom because they were tied to the land for their labor, and they eventually got their freedom like some some peasants. Also the fact that something is demanded of us and there's nothing we can do about that... doesn't that make us a slave or indebted to the system?

Not exactly. We only owe the government money on income, sales taxes and whatnot; the government provides social security for those below the poverty line and such, as well as welfare. So, if you're born into the system, and if you choose to do nothing, the government will still provide for you something, although it's basically only what you need to survive or find another job in modern society. As well, it's more of a, capitalist environment thing than a government one, though the government is of the people, and the taxes largely go to public works.

Capitalism today is a lot like an oligarchy in that it's ruled by a handful of powerful people who have no obligation to the people and you need money to get money but, it's more of a non government thing. Probably not really like being a serf for a lot of reasons, but if it is, we've got it pretty good as modern serfs. xp


Owing someone a debt for having bought something isn't the same as being a slave, since you don't have to get into debt.

But a lot of people are by choice since it makes life easier. The one way it's still like the mid-eval ages is that being born into the right family is still everything. Unlike in those times, you can work your way to the top, but the chances of that are slim to none. Lazy, dumb, terrible human beings inherit billions of dollars and it basically makes their life easy, while poor people, no matter their virtues, by nothing more than being born into the wrong family, in the wrong circumstances, can be stuck there for life. So, it's still a major problem in that not everyone is given equal amounts, and we still rely heavily on our parents to get us from point A to point B.

I agree with some people being born rich. It's reminiscent of being born a noble or into a high class, so they are set for life from daddy's wealth.

But if you choose to do nothing in society (assuming you're not a privileged kid), you're not afforded many rights as a citizen. Without paying for something and working for something, you'll just be a vagrant person who gets no right to healthcare, food, property etc. Also, in some areas, you don't even have the right to wander around. The police have a stigma towards homeless people and many will get rounded up into shelters they don't want to be in. Or many homeless people don't have the right to just congregate in certain areas of a city, as if standing around is suspicious? To get things you have to be a minimum wage worker and owe your labor to someone. Unfortunately you're right about the welfare and many people find a way to cheat the system, not work, and remain on welfare though I'm not exactly sure of the requirements to actually get or keep welfare. Is it similar to unemployment where people have to continually "apply" for jobs to keep their welfare status?

Okay, I can see the oligarchy thing applying to the powerful people in Capitalism. But I would also lump in Government officials and many Corporations into that oligarchical category.