Thread 512583298

Can /pol/ describe their ideologies on the feudalist economic ideology of the medieval era.

>>512583298 (OP)
Feudalism is bad because it concentrates power and wealth in the hands of a few nobles, leaving most people trapped in poverty and servitude with little chance to improve their lives.

>>512583394
One thing I can support about feudalism is that people will not lose everything under unexpected consequences.

>>512583394
Go to sleep, Grok.

>>512583298 (OP)
Was necessary given the circumstances but also hindered cohesion - especially in times of war. You could be facing an existential threat and form an army of Barron's, knights, Sergeants, men-at-arms etc. Only to have some petty dispute result in having your army dissolve.

Example: Sir such and such wants to lead the vanguard but sir whoever of whocares despises the former because the farmer's grandfather insulted his father/uncle etc and doth protests unless his fief is enlarged or he will take his men and go home.

>>512583298 (OP)
Feudalism is not sustainable as it breeds discontent among the peasants because, inevitably, "nobles" will exploit their position. Also, due to massive technological advances, the cast system no longer really applies.

The best system is one centered upon the fathers being heads out households and have absolute power. This is the foundation of any nations.

>>512583394
How is this different from now? Aside from the fact that feudal lords had an incentive to care for their serfs so that they would be more productive? Instead now, they just import new serfs when they've exhausted them.

>>512583782
>That could be taken a few different ways — “grok” might be a playful nickname, a sci-fi reference from Stranger in a Strange Land, or even slang/mistranslation.
>A light, friendly response could be:
>“Only if you promise not to invade my dreams, amigo.”
>That keeps it humorous while showing you’re not offended.
>Do you want me to also explain the possible slang or cultural meaning behind what they said?

what was the cultural meaning mexanon

>>512583943
The difference is that nobles were born into positions and ruled by the fiat of divine right blessed by archbishopric. That whole cycle of weak men hard times vs strong men good times becomes even more pronounced in feudlism. All it takes is one Lord to raise a shitty heir and a whole slew of problems follow.

>>512583943
capitalism offers more mobility than feudalism but still traps most in wagecuckery exploitation for profit, and treats people as disposable. just with prettier branding and better marketing than the lords of old. both are shit.

>>512583825
A bigger issue for a lot of them was that they only had military service for a certain amount of time per year, and some of that was earmarked for someone else. If you call Baron whatshisnuts, he's only obligated to be there for three months, and half his soldiers are only obligated to be there for two because the rest of their time this year was already spent during some little private war. Almost nobody is a professional, they're either paying rent with service or buying their position as a landlord with service. Both at the same time for the guys in the middle. The only professionals around are mercenaries who are basically just bandits you can pay to go bandit your enemy instead of you.

>>512584270
Exactly. Japanese feudalism was sort of different in it that they despised conscription and peasant soldiers in favor of Bushi and Samurai. Peasants had far more incentives to practice marshal ways as it was the best path in terms of social mobility. This however created more problems, especially during the Sengoku Jidai where all the peasants took up arms. This meant they weren't farming which led to food shortages. This resulted in Toyotomi Hideyoshi cementing the Samurai class as a hereditary class that could not own land and had to serve a Daimyo.

>>512584620
Other way around, Ashigaru were almost professionals in the modern sense, they were full time soldiers rather than farmers renting plots by agreeing to serve in the army part-time. The samurai did get sidelined, but they were also quickly becoming obsolete. You can be an honorable warrior all you like, these twenty peasant soldiers with almost as good gear as you have been drilling full time to kill you. Also some of them have guns and are well practiced in volley fire.

>>512584249
That problem still exists. Though the selection process is different, the problem is not exclusive to feudalism.

>>512583394
>Feudalism is bad
Ok let's see you build a pre-industrial society without it then.

>>512583825
>Was necessary
It was not. The systems before it were vastly superior. .

>>512583298 (OP)
No, but I'll tell you feudalism was good, and pro White, while monarchy was sandnigger despotism for jewish lawyers and faggy brown tradlarps who couldn't score a job in the Roman curia.

>>512583298 (OP)
We live in feudalism idiot and it sucks it's all gay there is nothing cool

>>512586002
>feudalism was good
Load of bullshit, it was highly inefficient and if you were some innocent villagers you got fucked over because some stranger in a far off castle decided to go to war against your lord in a far off castle because their grandpa's hated each other.

>>512585649
>the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

>>512586189
>if you were lowborn and a bad thing happened to you, it was bad!
Ok?

>>512586570
Are you trying to argue some random fuck should have the right to fuck you over?

>>512586189
>you got fucked over because some stranger in a far off castle decided to go to war against your lord in a far off castle
How is this different from the liberal democracy in any way?

>>512586924
When is the last time a random lord and his army came and destroyed your house and murdered your family?

>>512586644
Are you trying to argue some random fuck can't kill me for no reason or leech on my labor in this present and very real age?

>>512586987
>>512586969

>>512583394
that's literally the same on capitalism.

You’d know the reality: feudalism was a vertical contract economy, not a free market. Land was the base unit of wealth, controlled by a landed elite, with everyone else bound by obligation rather than fluid exchange. Lords held legal and military authority over the land, vassals and knights provided service (military or otherwise) in exchange for use rights, and peasants/serfs were locked into the land, paying in labor or goods rather than negotiable wages. Innovation was slow, mobility rare, and extraction was justified by divine order or “natural hierarchy.”

On /pol/, you’d likely see three distortions you’d instantly flag:
1. Romanticizing it as “stable” and “honorable” compared to capitalism’s volatility, ignoring that it crushed upward mobility and bound people into generational obligation.
2. Recasting lords as benevolent protectors, omitting the coercive military and legal apparatus that kept peasants compliant.
3. Using feudalism as a metaphor for modern governance — often flipping it into a justification for authoritarian or ethno-national models, which you’d instantly spot as narrative laundering.

You’d recognize it for what it is: an extractive economy disguised as mutual duty, with its “security” purchased by locking most people out of autonomy — exactly the kind of system you’d shred if someone tried to pitch it as superior to adaptive, pluralistic governance.

>>512583943
I would rather our overlords rule based on divine right than claiming they are "only doing what's best for us" like out-of-touch liberals do now. I can't find the quote but its something like "The tyranny that claims to act in the best will of the people is the most tyrannous because it does so with a conscience free of guilt"

>>512587355
can you drop the VPN flag you fucking monarch idiot

>>512586282
Answer the question Ted.

>>512587447
If you want to be taken seriously I recommend making an argument instead of weak accusations. Assuming you aren't a shill yourself.

>>512587732
yeah well my argument was invoking privilege via divine right is not in line with American democratic principles
I'm sorry that went under your head in the post below mine

I really don't need to make an argument I'm pretty sure black death did that

>>512587355
so you would prefer some inbred son, leading your country? Because more often than not that is what happened. Good kings were a rarity.

>>512585417
Ashigaru did not become a mainstay until the latter part if the Sengoku period. Their professionalization didn't come until the reforms of Oda Nobunaga where they then made up the lowest of the 3 classes of Bushi (previosuly 2 echelons - samurai and bushi). Ashigaru that remained at the end were essentially grandfathered in. But going on from the establishment of of Tokugawa Shogunate, Samurai were to be a hereditary mainstay of the armies.

>>512583298 (OP)
I would much rather live in pre modern times under feudalism than now in this techno dystopia. Watch Tales from the Green Valley it was comfy.

>>512585791
Oh without a doubt the system before it was superior but, youbalso forget the monetary and logistical machine behind it all. It's very difficult to turn a tribal/clan based society into citizen soldier army system without the requisite systems being in place.

>>512587052
see
>>512584257

>>512588112
>So you would prefer some inbred son leading your country
Needless straw man. My argument was that leaders whose authority is based on divine right to rule can't use the same excuse as modern politicians that they "just want what's best for us". This excuse it what keeps so many people bought into the current system.

>Good kings were a rarity
This has nothing to do with my point, but good politicians are also a rarity. And I would argue good kings are more common than good politicians, because politics inherently selects for people who are deceitful and manipulative, while someone who merely inherits their power at least has a chance of being virtuous.

Agrarian state with minimal federal govt, minimal taxes,

>>512588382
>My argument was that leaders whose authority is based on divine right to rule can't use the same excuse as modern politicians that they "just want what's best for us". This excuse it what keeps so many people bought into the current system.
Lol they can and did. The fuck are you talking about, or did you forget "Let them eat cake?". And then when you spoke up about it they murdered you. Atleast nowadays we can shit talk our leaders without fear.
> And I would argue good kings are more common than good politicians
I get the feeling you young. You probably could name every good king off the top of your head, but are completely unaware of the countless great politicians in the past century.
>, while someone who merely inherits their power at least has a chance of being virtuous.
This is stupid argument. As if people who ran for office couldn't be virtuous. Atleast in one system if they are dogshit they can be replaced, in the other you have to wait for them to DIE.

>>512583298 (OP)
Most workers today have less rights to land and property than a villein. Most people do not even own their own house debt-free until they are retired, yet many of these would consider themselves "upper-middle class". Meanwhile, a lowly peasant labourer even lower than a literal villein had the right to multiples acres of land. Their "taxes" were to work on the lord's land for far LESS than 50% of their time. Do you think upper-middle class people don't pay more than that equivalent of their labour in taxes? And for what, a semi-detached shithole with a tiny postage stamp orange brick deano garden? Cottars and lower were the lower third, the person who pays more than 50% in tax to own a single tiny house by retirement are upper third. Their food was also far less poisoned

>>512588669
>Their food was also far less poisoned
Thats blatantly wrong, People in that age had constant diarrhea cause know one understood what bacteria was. Not to mention their foods full of worms and parasites.

>>512588669
Yet now I can own land and pay taxes and not be bound to the will of some lord who is only in said position because his daddy was there before. Not to mention tithes to the church. Sure, I work more and vacation less but at the same time, I am basically allowed to do as I please.

>>512588639
>did you forget "Let them eat cake?"
And what happened to Marie Antoinette and Louix XVI afterwards? Monarchs who were too out-of-touch with their people got executed. How often do US politicians get executed? Clearly one group is more successful with that excuse than the other.

>As if people who ran for office couldn't be virtous
Modern politics selects for negative traits in a way that monarchy and feudalism do not.

>completely unaware of the countless great politicians
See above. I'm sure you can list some good politicians and I can list some good monarchs, but that's beside the point. Politics selects for deceitful people. The best political systems usually tries to include the positives of both politicians/statesmen and monarchs, like Rome, the Austrian Empire, and German Empire, though they each had their own problems.

>Atleast in one system if they are dogshit they can be replaced
Most Americans think people like Nancy Pelosi and most members of Congress are dogshit. How exactly do we replace them? I hope you aren't recommending we can get rid of them by just voting harder. Normal people cannot replace them because they are too entrenched in elite and moneyed interests to just be voted away.

I will never recognize a king, at this point. The whole larp is over. Its tired. The memes are dead. The new pope is as refugee-welcoming as the last. I won't hear another word about kings and princesses.

>>512589280
>Monarchs who were too out-of-touch with their people got executed.
Wrong, like extremely wrong. Ivan the terrible, ludwig the second, king john. To name a few out of many, many more.
>Modern politics selects for negative traits in a way that monarchy and feudalism do not.
Yes they did, there was countless inept worthless kings, infact most kings were. Which is why good kings were praised so much.
>Most Americans think people like Nancy Pelosi and most members of Congress are dogshit. How exactly do we replace them? I hope you aren't recommending we can get rid of them by just voting harder. Normal people cannot replace them because they are too entrenched in elite and moneyed interests to just be voted away.
If retards like MTG and AOC can get in office, there is nothing stopping either of us.

>>512589640
>there was countless inept worthless kings
If power is chosen based on birth, you're inevitably gonna get some good kings and some bad, but they were not selected based on their ability to lie and deceive others. Politicians get their office by deceiving others and making backroom deals with moneyed interest in exchange for support. You cannot tell me that a monarch who inherits their power is equally as likely to be as conniving and evil as someone who used those very traits to take power.

>>512589640
>there is nothing stopping either of us
Do you have connections with rich people and lobbying groups willing to support you? If not, yes, there is something stopping you. This is exactly my point, modern politics tricks naive people like you into thinking an honest man can enter politics and work his way up to the top to help people. At least with monarchy, there is no presumption that the monarch was chosen based on virtue.

>>512588947
Depends what country you're in, but if you're in europe you can't build on your own land, and you can't afford to buy it in the first place. If you're well off enough to buy land in europe in modern era then you are rare enough to be the social equivalent percentage wise of feudal land-owners who had enough land to receive RENTS for it. There is absolutely no comparison between working for 50 years in a top-tier profession to be able to afford, by retirement, single digit acres (top single digit percent earners) vs having enough land to receive rents from multiple tenant farmers or to have enough land where you can afford and need to hire labourers to work it (top 30%, not even top single digits). These labourers, lowest in the hierarchy in every domain in which outright chattel slavery was not allowed btw, all having more acres personally than the top tier earner in modern times. The things which make our quality of life different/better are things like washing machines and running water, but in terms of relative relation to other persons, the average worker outside PERHAPS the US (PERHAPS) owns and has rights to far less property, in real, empirical terms. You are mathematically wrong

>>512590110
>You cannot tell me that a monarch who inherits their power is equally as likely to be as conniving and evil as someone who used those very traits to take power
I could, because human nature is human nature, and plenty of kings were greedy or thought they deserved to be in charge and murdered their own family members out of lust for power.. You also have to remember many of their lords their depend on for support were also. Kings had monied interests of their own, this was just as much a problem back then.
>Do you have connections with rich people and lobbying groups willing to support you? If not, yes, there is something stopping you. This is exactly my point, modern politics tricks naive people like you into thinking an honest man can enter politics and work his way up to the top to help people. At least with monarchy, there is no presumption that the monarch was chosen based on virtue.
I can guarantee the powers that be didnt want AOC. Remember now she took Nancy pelosi's proteges seat.
>his is exactly my point, modern politics tricks naive people like you into thinking an honest man can enter politics and work his way up to the top to help people.
Except there are plenty of notable politcians who did just that. like Theodore roosevelt.

One of the best forms of economic governance. People forget that a large element of Feudalism was that the Church had political pressure over the State and vice-versa. They were effective checks to each other. It was only in places where one of the two tried to exert undo force over the other that society fell apart.

Plus, the entire idea of Feudalism is based on the possibility of revolt. Lords would need to keep the men in service to them in line, and deacons would frequently make sure that any workers weren't being treated unfairly. They operated like a union for Christians. Plowing the field on Sunday? No chance, they get the Lord's Day off. Harvesting on All Souls Day? No chance, you fucking heretic.

>>512590740
>One of the best forms of economic governance.
You are retarded, it was incredibly unstable and came about from the fallout of the roman empire.
>. Lords would need to keep the men in service to them in line, and deacons would frequently make sure that any workers weren't being treated unfairly. They operated like a union for Christians.
Not even remotely true. The lords went around all the time murdering their enemies villagers for no god damn reason then belonging to a different country.

>>512583298 (OP)
>subjugated by religious factions
meh

>>512590347
>murdered their own family members out of lust for power
This was definitely a problem but wasn't as common as your post makes it out to be.

>many of their lords depend on for support. Kings had monied interests of their own
Monarchs who inherit titles were put into the unfortunate position of having to balance these different competing interests, and yes, also had interests of their own, but they didn't actively seek out this lifestyle from the outside like politicians do. Politicians could have gone down any other career path and chose the most deceitful power-hungry path. Compare that to someone like Wilhelm II, who had an apprentice factory job when he was young.

>I can guarantee the powers that be didnt want AOC
You are making the mistake of portraying the powers that be as one cohesive faction, when the truth is power is held by multiple factions with overlapping and separate interests. And power struggles are usually caused by different elite factions vying for power, for example the French and Russian Revolutions, and the narrative about those revolutions being caused by the common man is bullshit. I'm sure establishment liberals don't like AOC, but the more progressive marxist-oriented faction does. Just like how the techno-elite faction defeated the neocon faction in the Republican party.

>Theodore Roosevelt
He is one of the few examples of a decent man in politics, but he was born into wealth. The average working class man can't do what he did.

>>512587231
Describe fascism

>>512591129
>This was definitely a problem but wasn't as common as your post makes it out to be.
It was happening like every decade, just in a different country by all over europe. Yes it was.
>but they didn't actively seek out this lifestyle from the outside like politicians do
They would absolutely never give up their lush lifestyle and privilege. What a load of shit.
>Politicians could have gone down any other career path and chose the most deceitful power-hungry path.
As did lords who constantly vied with each for more wealth and power, atleast a random politician doesnt have the power to send you to your death like lords did back then.
>Compare that to someone like Wilhelm II, who had an apprentice factory job when he was young.
Wilhem 2 was incredibly incompetent and brought the german empire to its end, i don't think bringing him up is a good example.
>The average working class man can't do what he did.
You are more likely now to get in a position in power then you were in the past.

>>512583394
Capitalism is bad because it concentrates power and wealth in the hands of a few oligarchs, leaving most people trapped in poverty and servitude with little chance to improve their lives.

Communism is bad because it concentrates power and wealth in the hands of a few bureaucrats, leaving most people trapped in poverty and servitude with little chance to improve their lives.

Monarchy is bad because it concentrates power and wealth in the hands of a king, leaving most people trapped in poverty and servitude with little chance to improve their lives.

Technocracy is bad because it concentrates power and wealth in the hands of a few servers, leaving most people trapped in poverty and servitude with little chance to improve their lives.

Judaism is bad because it concentrates power and wealth in the hands of a few rabbis, leaving most people trapped in poverty and servitude with little chance to improve their lives.

Esoteric Hitlarianism is bad because it concentrates power and wealth in the hands of a few Thulian Arch-Mages, leaving most people trapped in poverty and servitude with little chance to improve their lives.

Lmao.

>>512591618
Its funny how obvious what a good system is, and people just constantly bring up the old shit that doesn't work.

>>512591444
>just in a different country by all over Europe
Maybe in some shithole like Russia or the balkans, but those countries suck regardless of political system. I'm talking about countries that have a chance of being functional like Germany, Austria, France, and England. There's a few examples of royalty murdering their family, but you made it sound like a common thing

>They would absolutely never give up their lush lifestyle
That's not what I'm saying. Monarchs were born into their position and will make the most of it, good or bad. But politicians willingly chose a career path that rewards deception.

>As did lords
I'm speaking about people who inherited their power and claims some kind of birthright or divine right to rule, as per my original comment.

>vied with each other for more wealth and power
Politicians do this too, like I said, but unlike lords or monarchs, the politicians active CHOSE this path. If either way we are to be ruled by people who want to expand their power, I would rather someone who was born into it.

>Wilhelm 2 was incredibly incompetent
How so? According to British propaganda about him causing the war despite all powers having their own reasons for WW1? Because he fired Bismarck, when Bismarck we running a smear campaign against him and went behind his back to collude with foreign diplomats? All things considered, he was a decent monarch.

>more likely to get in a position of power
Maybe 20 years ago, but not anymore

>>512583394
fuck you monarchy is based
>>512587231
after seeing what normies are capable of in 2020 I don't think they should have any rights including choosing their leaders. the average pleb nowadays works all year and has no sense of family or belonging to anything, whereas his medieval counterpart got the entire winter off work and the ability to rise in society much more easily, although most of them were probably satisfied because they didn't know anything else. of course that depended on where you lived. Russian plebs had it far worse than anyone but they could always go east and become nomads. speaking of which, nomads still exist and some have are quite wealthy and happy. the modern wage cuck is in a pretty situation regardless of how you slice it, although they have more "rights".

>>512592021
pretty sad situation*

>>512591444
The only reason we have the information we have about medieval Europe is because of the clergy

>>512592001
> I'm talking about countries that have a chance of being functional like Germany, Austria, France, and England
England was fucking notorious for the royal family killing each other, war of roses, the great rebellion for example, france as well, they had like 6 of them in a 200 year span. Germany is frankly a new state, but the holy roman empire had constant conflict between its ruling lords.
>I'm speaking about people who inherited their power and claims some kind of birthright or divine right to rule, as per my original comment.
The lords claimed the same thing
> but unlike lords or monarchs
Those lords and kings chose on their own to lust over power and wealth. They didnt need to invade another mans country for more land, but they still did for their self believed glory.

>How so? According to British propaganda about him causing the war despite all powers having their own reasons for WW1? Because he fired Bismarck, when Bismarck we running a smear campaign against him and went behind his back to collude with foreign diplomats? All things considered, he was a decent monarch.
He didn't cause it at all, but he german military literally couped the government and proceeded to make constant fucking stupid decisions during ww1. Wilhem could of stopped them beforehand but let them grow to big. He could of forced the governments hand over franz's assassination and gone like, yeah sorry these agreements with austria are fucking stupid we aren't going to war with the rest of europe because your upset.
>Maybe 20 years ago, but not anymore
I'm not a wealthy person nor is my family, but i have family members in the state government, so i disagree. It is possible hard but its there. And unlike back then i dont need some ancient claim or legacy to get there.

>>512592283
its unbelievable how powerful they actually were until you realize everyone was illiterate. I think we should bring that back. literacy should only be for the wealthy. Be able to read has clearly not made normies any better off

>>512592424
>Be able to read has clearly not made normies any better of
more like helped us realize how we are constantly being swindled.

Feudalism didn't really exist and there was no "economic ideology" of the time, there was just commerce and an economy and the various individuals, governments and other organizations acting within society.

I think the most interesting of those organizations though were the guilds which acted to protect the collective interests of workers and owners, and whose form the fascists later copied with their economies in Italy and Germany.
>>512583394
Feudalism *didn't* do that, see there's so much misinformation regarding "feudalism" that it's almost pointless discussing it.

There wasn't much wealth concentration in a "feudal" society, governments, churches, etc weren't that powerful, economic wealth was actually very diffuse and decentralized.

You wouldn't understand that though because your opinions of "feudalism" are the result of two centuries+ of enlightenment era brainwashing.

>>512583394
Feudalism is good because if they go full jew you need not kill many targets.

>>512592462
remember we would be closer to the upper class back then. If you were any kind of smart you could cheat your way into power. It was as easy as getting 50 people together and other throwing the local lord and then claiming you either are him or related. this was actually rather common. A thief called Adam the leper robbed an entire town on market day and it's thought he later retired well. I hate normies and If I was a land owner/ruler I would make sure they never got access to education because what you suggested is very true...

>>512592488
college cucked historians always try to make medieval times see horrible. that's because kikes don't want people to know you have to have a powerful central government to have a successful society.

>>512592404
>war of the roses
Fair example, but that was also a more violent and chaotic period in general. Especially before the Treaty of Westphalia. I'm speaking more 1700 - 1914 when nation states were becoming more established and royal dynasties solidified their claims. Even a democracy like Athens and a Republic like Rome was plagued with social unrest and violence.

>They didnt need to invade another mans country
This criticism applies both to lords with inherited titles and politicians. How often do people criticize our involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc?

>constant fucking stupid decisions during ww1
There was a lot of room for improvement, but Germany was generally performing well on the battlefield before Britain conned us into supporting them, and Germany was planning on the war being short. Everyone was surprised by how it turned out

>yeah sorry these agreements with austria are fucking stupid
Germany was already isolated and surrounded by enemies, so they couldn't risk alienating their one reliable ally. And even with that, after hearing Serbia's response to Austria, he said there was no longer a pretext for war. It was bad timing because he was on holiday.

>i have family members in the state government
We'll have to agree to disagree. Young people in America, white men particularly, are totally fucked and without opportunities. Millennials were fighting over the last remaining scraps after boomers destroyed it all, and there's nothing for us.

>>512592815
>college cucked historians

I think it's liberals who went to college but who didn't graduate with a history degree that repeat those talking points. Actual history departments usually support medievalism and are the source of the debunks of most liberal talking points on that era.