General political philosophy discussion

[Aldarion]

...What the fuck do you think peasants were? The class system of Feudalism arose specifically from expanding forced labor to higher skilled jobs so that the instability of the last days of the Western Roman Empire wouldn't topple it as quickly by forcing families to stick to their professions so required labor pools would not convulse to pieces.

The hands-off policy trend was simple necessity of not being able to micromanage, as well demonstrated by the Absolute Monarchs cropping up damned near instantly when management methodology advanced enough to actually have a centralized state. Russia was the only remotely major exception of Europe itself, and we all know where that went in the 1910s.

And wrong.

Feudalism developed from the Roman system of colonate, which was a system where a landowner owned land and then loaned it out to landless families in exchange for a proportion of whatever the land produced. Literally an early version of capitalism. The "forcing families to stick to their professions" part did exist, but only in the advanced stage of colonate (IIRC, it was Diocletian who introduced that).

Also, Russia was not an exception to the rule, in fact it was more centralized than most monarchies of the time. And absolute monarchies of 1900s were less centralized and intrusive than modern-day "democracies". Read more if you want 1 2, but to sum it up, "absolutist" "tyrannical" and "centralized" monarchies of 1900s had cca. 3% of population or so working for the state in one way or another. In modern democracies, that percentage is anywhere between 10% and 30%.

Feudalism is a fundamentally nepotistic and elitist system. The entire premise of it is enforcing social stratification by bloodlines. Innovation came from the people dealing with trade, not the people gathering taxes. The governmental system merely handled common defense, it did nothing to actively promote advancement.

You do understand that if you remove the word "feudalism", your description can just as well apply to the current system?

Bullshit. In China, India and the Arab World they were way in advance of Europe at the time and were using Knowledge that was lost to Europe as a whole. The fact that Middle Age Europe had to learn about Gunpowder via an invasion is telling. When comparing them to other Eurasian powers.

Bullshit. The main advantage that China, India and Arabs had was that they had centralized states capable of performing large-scale projects, and so they appeared more advanced. And the reason for that was that Europe had lost the access to parchment due to Muslim expansion, and thus also the ability to maintain high levels of literacy. But up until the Muslim expansion, European states were more than capable of maintaining complex administrative structures, and even after that happened, Medieval Europe was both more advanced and maintaining faster rate of advancement than e.g. Roman Empire had, especially in terms of technology. Some knowledge was lost with the fall of the Empire, yes, but far less than what is commonly assumed, and even early Medieval Europe was more advanced than Roman antiquity in things which mattered for a day-to-day life.

 

[Sailor.X]

And wrong.

Feudalism developed from the Roman system of colonate, which was a system where a landowner owned land and then loaned it out to landless families in exchange for a proportion of whatever the land produced. Literally an early version of capitalism. The "forcing families to stick to their professions" part did exist, but only in the advanced stage of colonate (IIRC, it was Diocletian who introduced that).

Also, Russia was not an exception to the rule, in fact it was more centralized than most monarchies of the time. And absolute monarchies of 1900s were less centralized and intrusive than modern-day "democracies". Read more if you want 1 2, but to sum it up, "absolutist" "tyrannical" and "centralized" monarchies of 1900s had cca. 3% of population or so working for the state in one way or another. In modern democracies, that percentage is anywhere between 10% and 30%.



You do understand that if you remove the word "feudalism", your description can just as well apply to the current system?



Bullshit. The main advantage that China, India and Arabs had was that they had centralized states capable of performing large-scale projects, and so they appeared more advanced. And the reason for that was that Europe had lost the access to parchment due to Muslim expansion, and thus also the ability to maintain high levels of literacy. But up until the Muslim expansion, European states were more than capable of maintaining complex administrative structures, and even after that happened, Medieval Europe was both more advanced and maintaining faster rate of advancement than e.g. Roman Empire had, especially in terms of technology. Some knowledge was lost with the fall of the Empire, yes, but far less than what is commonly assumed, and even early Medieval Europe was more advanced than Roman antiquity in things which mattered for a day-to-day life.

Dude Medieval Europe couldn't even make high quality Steel. The Vikings had to trade with the Persians to get Damascus Steel which was the best you could get in that period of time. One of the reasons Viking weapons could wreck other European Weapons at the time. The Concept of Zero was discovered by the Indians and gave them the better system for mathematics. Without the concept of zero modern physics would not work like at all. The Chinese literally invented a crossbow more advanced than what European Armies would use in the Middle ages 2,000 years before that time. Europe could have gotten paper from trading with the Moors in Spain but you know the whole the heathens invaded Europe thing was still going on. As a matter of fact if the Monarchies in Europe had did what the Vikings did and actually went and establish trade routes with Eastern Eurasia. They would have been in a better position than what they were in. The Monarchies of Europe literally hamstrung themselves for no logical reason. Even the Romans would trade with a rival they did not like if they saw a benefit in doing so.

 

[Sailor.X]

And no Medieval Europe was not more advanced than the Romans.

Antikythera mechanism | Description, Purpose, & Facts | Britannica

 

[Aldarion]

Dude Medieval Europe couldn't even make high quality Steel. The Vikings had to trade with the Persians to get Damascus Steel which was the best you could get in that period of time. One of the reasons Viking weapons could wreck other European Weapons at the time. The Concept of Zero was discovered by the Indians and gave them the better system for mathematics. Without the concept of zero modern physics would not work like at all. The Chinese literally invented a crossbow more advanced than what European Armies would use in the Middle ages 2,000 years before that time. Europe could have gotten paper from trading with the Moors in Spain but you know the whole the heathens invaded Europe thing was still going on. As a matter of fact of the Monarchies in Europe had did what the Vikings did and actually went and establish trade routes with Eastern Eurasia. They would have been in a better position than what they were in. The Monarchies of Europe literally hamstrung themselves for no logical reason. Even the Romans would trade with a rival they did not like if they saw a benefit in doing so.

European steel was far better quality than what Romans made, and only improved over time. Even in the early Middle Ages, Europe had better steel than e.g. Japan. Problem was again in administration, as large-scale utilization of iron sources was simply not possible. As for Damascus steel, that was extremely limited, and evidence of Vikings utilizing it at all is rather questionable - and there is no indication that they used it on large enough scale to provide them advantage over other Europeans. And in fact, the crucible or wootz steel (which is what is often called Damascus steel) swords were only possible due to a far better quality of iron ore available in India - while Europe had plentiful iron ore, it was relatively low in quality compared to what was available in India and elsewhere.

China invented everything earlier than everyone else, so that is hardly surprising.

And "European monarchies hamstrung themselves"...? They traded with Muslims whenever they could, but trade is always limited in time of war, and Muslims did not allow for possibility of any long-lasting peace with unbelievers. Situation was hardly any better in Byzantine Empire than it was in Europe, despite Byzantines' Roman tradition, far more advanced diplomacy and possession of a powerful fleet. These factors did allow the Empire to maintain a somewhat better administration than Western Europe, and in addition they did literally everything you had suggested, yet in spite of that the processes which created the Dark Ages in Europe are also in evidence in the Byzantine Empire of the time.

And no Medieval Europe was not more advanced than the Romans.

Antikythera mechanism | Description, Purpose, & Facts | Britannica

Yes, one-off wonder is really a good example of general technological advancement...

 

[Sailor.X]

European steel was far better quality than what Romans made, and only improved over time. Even in the early Middle Ages, Europe had better steel than e.g. Japan. Problem was again in administration, as large-scale utilization of iron sources was simply not possible. As for Damascus steel, that was extremely limited, and evidence of Vikings utilizing it at all is rather questionable - and there is no indication that they used it on large enough scale to provide them advantage over other Europeans. And in fact, the crucible or wootz steel (which is what is often called Damascus steel) swords were only possible due to a far better quality of iron ore available in India - while Europe had plentiful iron ore, it was relatively low in quality compared to what was available in India and elsewhere.

China invented everything earlier than everyone else, so that is hardly surprising.

And "European monarchies hamstrung themselves"...? They traded with Muslims whenever they could, but trade is always limited in time of war, and Muslims did not allow for possibility of any long-lasting peace with unbelievers. Situation was hardly any better in Byzantine Empire than it was in Europe, despite Byzantines' Roman tradition, far more advanced diplomacy and possession of a powerful fleet. These factors did allow the Empire to maintain a somewhat better administration than Western Europe, and in addition they did literally everything you had suggested, yet in spite of that the processes which created the Dark Ages in Europe are also in evidence in the Byzantine Empire of the time.



Yes, one-off wonder is really a good example of general technological advancement...

This goes into Viking Trade. The Vikings in the East | ASNC Viking Age
The Romans did more. 16 Roman Inventions That Helped Shape the Modern World | IE (interestingengineering.com)

 

[Aldarion]

This goes into Viking Trade. The Vikings in the East | ASNC Viking Age
The Romans did more. 16 Roman Inventions That Helped Shape the Modern World | IE (interestingengineering.com)

I am aware of Viking trade.

Everything Romans could do that medieval Europeans couldn't came down to administrative organization. And that came down to not having Muslims for neighbours and being able to maintain centralized state, as I already described.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Feudalism developed from the Roman system of colonate, which was a system where a landowner owned land and then loaned it out to landless families in exchange for a proportion of whatever the land produced. Literally an early version of capitalism. The "forcing families to stick to their professions" part did exist, but only in the advanced stage of colonate (IIRC, it was Diocletian who introduced that).

...So you're saying that Feudalism did, in fact, stem from exactly what I said? Because "advanced stage of colonate" would be the founding framework that became Feudalism, not the rental agreements that "advanced stage" developed from.

Also, Russia was not an exception to the rule, in fact it was more centralized than most monarchies of the time. And absolute monarchies of 1900s were less centralized and intrusive than modern-day "democracies". Read more if you want 1 2, but to sum it up, "absolutist" "tyrannical" and "centralized" monarchies of 1900s had cca. 3% of population or so working for the state in one way or another. In modern democracies, that percentage is anywhere between 10% and 30%.

Most other Monarchies had done away with the nobility having the authorities of Feudalism. Russia did not, and was still playing all the same nobility games as before. Furthermore, I would say that population working for the government has nothing to do with the level of absolutist or centralized authority. It was normal to flat-out ban commoners from wearing certain manners of dress. It was normal for the majority of the population to be bound to their land by law. It was normal to have the only way to get most offices of state power be to be born into them.

Meanwhile, in Capitalism, the main barrier to social mobility is that things are an opaque clusterfuck rather than there existing any formal authority barring people. Every lever of power is open, between Trump and Elon Musk we have excellent proof those barriers aren't any kind of hard rule, and we're in the middle of parents throwing out bullshit from the bureaucracy in the school system. The legal channels are still telling the central government to fuck off, between the representative nature of that very government and local autonomy. The attempts at founding a new oligarchy are failing before our eyes.

You do understand that if you remove the word "feudalism", your description can just as well apply to the current system?

There's a pretty fucking big difference between "Old Boys Club" cronyism based on inherited wealth and being taught how to navigate all the bureaucracy and it being the explicit foundation of the entire legal system. Again, Musk and Trump. Musk's a self-made man, Trump played fuck all of the politician game, and the two of them are telling the "Old Boys Club" to fuck off from their globalist libertine nonsense.

Edit: A fundamental misunderstanding at the core of your criticism is equating Progressive bullshit with the system itself, despite several examples of the system pushing back against that bullshit, as well as assuming the scale of government employment must represent overreach rather than considering any possibility of modern economics having a ludicrous amount of stuff going on causing that sprawling bureaucracy to be required to keep tabs on everything. Also the rather vital differences between direct democracies, republics, representative democracies, and the variety of ways each interfaces with modern economics.

You seem to take every failing of any post-monarchy state as an unavoidable problem with all of them, while willfully ignoring the problems of the very definition of Monarchy and wider hereditary aristocracy, to say nothing of their historic track record. We live in a system where nepotism and elitism are signs of corruption, not things working as intended. Where innovation is the path to the largest share of power, rather than playing intergenerational marriage games.

The premise of modern governance is to try to design things to work well for everyone despite openly being selfish bastards. The old systems you call back to rely on a premise of people being beholden to social norms and respecting history. Monarchy has no official breaks, and installing them is exactly where the UK got to where it is today. Bad monarchs lead to the monarchy having its power torn away one way or another.

 

[Aldarion]

...So you're saying that Feudalism did, in fact, stem from exactly what I said? Because "advanced stage of colonate" would be the founding framework that became Feudalism, not the rental agreements that "advanced stage" developed from.

"Wrong" part was referring to your inference that peasants - be it coloni or serfs - were somehow similar to slaves. They weren't, not even close.

Most other Monarchies had done away with the nobility having the authorities of Feudalism. Russia did not, and was still playing all the same nobility games as before. Furthermore, I would say that population working for the government has nothing to do with the level of absolutist or centralized authority. It was normal to flat-out ban commoners from wearing certain manners of dress. It was normal for the majority of the population to be bound to their land by law. It was normal to have the only way to get most offices of state power be to be born into them.

Meanwhile, in Capitalism, the main barrier to social mobility is that things are an opaque clusterfuck rather than there existing any formal authority barring people. Every lever of power is open, between Trump and Elon Musk we have excellent proof those barriers aren't any kind of hard rule, and we're in the middle of parents throwing out bullshit from the bureaucracy in the school system. The legal channels are still telling the central government to fuck off, between the representative nature of that very government and local autonomy. The attempts at founding a new oligarchy are failing before our eyes.

Majority of feudal monarchies didn't in fact have hereditary power in terms of offices of state. Hell, even kings were subject to election in many monarchies, and when it comes to actual offices of the state, these were almost never hereditary. And if you move away from strictly feudal monarchies, majority of other things you say are also false.

Capitalism is no different from feudalism, it is just that real power players are in shadow. Democracy is literally a circus; actual decisions are made by clans of oligarchs who had had their wealth and influence for centuries in many cases. Sorry, but I prefer to know who rules over me.

In fact, Trump is an excellent proof that these barriers are, in fact, a hard rule. Sure, he got elected. And what did he achieve? Absolutely nothing. He didn't even manage to put brakes on the leftist insanity overtaking the US and the rest of the West, let alone do something meaningful. He was a clown who gave "conservatives" false hope into a better tomorrow, and that was it, because power - real power - never was in his hands to begin with. Democracy is a sham, always was.

There's a pretty fucking big difference between "Old Boys Club" cronyism based on inherited wealth and being taught how to navigate all the bureaucracy and it being the explicit foundation of the entire legal system. Again, Musk and Trump. Musk's a self-made man, Trump played fuck all of the politician game, and the two of them are telling the "Old Boys Club" to fuck off from their globalist libertine nonsense.

There is no difference. The system works the same, except in one case it is implicit while in the other case it is explicit.

Trump achieved nothing. Musk is unlikely to achieve anything of long-term significance. See below as to why.

Edit: A fundamental misunderstanding at the core of your criticism is equating Progressive bullshit with the system itself, despite several examples of the system pushing back against that bullshit, as well as assuming the scale of government employment must represent overreach rather than considering any possibility of modern economics having a ludicrous amount of stuff going on causing that sprawling bureaucracy to be required to keep tabs on everything. Also the rather vital differences between direct democracies, republics, representative democracies, and the variety of ways each interfaces with modern economics.

I have seen no examples of system pushing against progressive bullshit on a fundamental level, or in the areas that actually matter. Fact of the matter is, political power is irrelevant in the long term. You console yourself that you can vote and thus have power, but that is a joke. Politicians you elect in most cases simply do not care - most of them are narcisoid psychopaths who are participating in elections for exposure, to validate their own egos with cameras pointed in their direction. Even Trump fit that description well, despite being far saner than most. It is just a natural consequence of the system where people vote in clowns to a show.

And even if they did care, they cannot do anything. Real power is not in the White House, the Congress or the State Department. It is, in fact, with the Deep State - or as Moldbug called it, the Cathedral. It is an ideological alliance, a literal f***ing Borg Collective consisting of the real avenues of power: the mainstream media, schools, universities, tech giants and other elements of the "soft power".

Who you vote for does not f***ing matter. And government has become so sprawling not because it needs to keep oversight, but because it is there to service the Cathedral.

You seem to take every failing of any post-monarchy state as an unavoidable problem with all of them, while willfully ignoring the problems of the very definition of Monarchy and wider hereditary aristocracy, to say nothing of their historic track record. We live in a system where nepotism and elitism are signs of corruption, not things working as intended. Where innovation is the path to the largest share of power, rather than playing intergenerational marriage games.

Monarchy =/= hereditary aristocracy. There were elective monarchies even in the Middle Ages. And even with hereditary monarchy, monarch is more likely to care about the state and the people on an emotional level than elected politicians are.

Monarchies' historical track record is darn good, all things considered.

The premise of modern governance is to try to design things to work well for everyone despite openly being selfish bastards. The old systems you call back to rely on a premise of people being beholden to social norms and respecting history. Monarchy has no official breaks, and installing them is exactly where the UK got to where it is today. Bad monarchs lead to the monarchy having its power torn away one way or another.

Maybe you should consider things wider than just the UK itself...

 

[Morphic Tide]

"Wrong" part was referring to your inference that peasants - be it coloni or serfs - were somehow similar to slaves. They weren't, not even close.

Are you seriously arguing that people bound by law to stick to a specific plot of land and produce a specific variety of goods there were not comparable to slaves? The entire point of serfs and the end-stage of the Coloni was relatively skilled forced labor.

Majority of feudal monarchies didn't in fact have hereditary power in terms of offices of state.

What definition of "office of state" are you using that excludes feudal aristocrats? How, exactly, are people who collect taxes and command military forces not holding an office of state? Are you seriously going all-in on the state being exclusively the direct efforts of the Monarch himself? Or how most of the elective monarchies arose directly as a work-around to a mode of hereditary aristocracy that constantly split domains, starting from Charlemagne himself?

Capitalism is no different from feudalism, it is just that real power players are in shadow. Democracy is literally a circus; actual decisions are made by clans of oligarchs who had had their wealth and influence for centuries in many cases.

Capitalism as we know it today originated under the UK when it had a very active House of Lords and was still expanding the British Empire. One of the early supermassive black-holes of manipulative investment was a scheme to wash the Crown's and the state's debts, reaching the so-far unique distinction of having such an astronomical valuation it was seriously choking out the entire rest of the economy.

The modern hidden-in-the-cacophony oligarchy does not have nearly so much command over social structure as Feudal stratification. Because again, people like Elon Musk and the Trump family exist. The Rockefellers and Disneys and Fords exist. Massive economy-warping concentrations of wealth within the last 150 years are what's dominant today, not Old Money.

He didn't even manage to put brakes on the leftist insanity overtaking the US and the rest of the West, let alone do something meaningful.

...So you're just ignoring the half-built wall where he managed an end-run to get started around all the bullshit by doing it through the military? The piles and piles of judges he appointed? The serious threat to abortion from the Justices he got through? That he didn't pull a one-eighty in four years is no indication of his comprehensive failure, there is very obvious resistance with noteworthy effect he got through massive interference.

Maybe you should consider things wider than just the UK itself...

A common point of contention in this argument is that the Monarchs in WW1 wanted to avoid it but couldn't. What is the point if the Monarch does not have the authority to decline going to war? How do the desirable features function in that situation?

As best I can tell, what you call a "Monarch" is indistinguishable from the popular perception of the US President. Hell, there were seriously considerations to have the President be literally an elected monarch in all but name, following the procedures of the British Parliamentary Monarchy.

 

[Aldarion]

Are you seriously arguing that people bound by law to stick to a specific plot of land and produce a specific variety of goods there were not comparable to slaves?

Yes.

With slaves, person itself was a property. Serf was not a property himself.

Big fucking difference. For one, a noble could not just go and kill a serf the way slaveowner could with a slave. Secondly, serfs could not be bought, sold or traded individually. This meant that serfs had a fairly stable life, as there was no possibility of a family being randomly ripped apart - if a plot of land was sold by a noble to another noble, that changed literally nothing for the serf - only thing different was whom he paid his dues to. Third, noble had a legal obligation towards serfs, especially in terms of protection, and serfs had extensive legal rights: ability to collect firewood from lord's forests, right to sell any surplus produce on the free market, right to demand legal protection at the court. And while lord could demand certain produce (usually wheat) as part of the tithe, so long as the tithe was met, serf could choose to produce whatever he wanted on his land and sell the produce on the free market. Tithe was also not excessive: 10% to the lord and 10% to the Church; compare to modern world where average person gives to the state some 50% - 60% of their income. And a serf knew to whom and to an extent even for what his taxes were being used; good luck knowing that with the modern state. Lord could also not randomly dispossess the serf - in a way, serfs had more extensive legal protection of property rights than today's "free people" have (just ask the banks). Lord also had a legal obligation to support the serfs, both in terms of protecting them from depredations of bandits and other lords, but also in terms of supporting them in time of famine or war. And while lord could and did demand serfs to work his own land, not just theirs, this obligation was sharply limited: in 14th century Poland, requirement was one week per household per year.

If there is no difference between slaves and serfs, then there is no difference between slaves and today's "free" people.

What definition of "office of state" are you using that excludes feudal aristocrats? How, exactly, are people who collect taxes and command military forces not holding an office of state? Are you seriously going all-in on the state being exclusively the direct efforts of the Monarch himself? Or how most of the elective monarchies arose directly as a work-around to a mode of hereditary aristocracy that constantly split domains, starting from Charlemagne himself?

Office of state is literally office of state. Treasury, captainship, literally any function related to functioning of the kingdom. You could say barons and other high nobility were holding offices of the state by default as they were tasked with enforcing laws, but majority of nobility did not.

If you want to use modern terminology, feudal lords were not collecting taxes, they were collecting rent on allowing usage of private property. According to you, if you rent out a flat you own and require subtenants to pay you for renting the flat, you are holding office of the state. That is, literally, the logic you are using here.

And yes, I know it was basically a form of taxation. But that does not mean they were holding offices of the state: they were not.

Capitalism as we know it today originated under the UK when it had a very active House of Lords and was still expanding the British Empire. One of the early supermassive black-holes of manipulative investment was a scheme to wash the Crown's and the state's debts, reaching the so-far unique distinction of having such an astronomical valuation it was seriously choking out the entire rest of the economy.

The modern hidden-in-the-cacophony oligarchy does not have nearly so much command over social structure as Feudal stratification. Because again, people like Elon Musk and the Trump family exist. The Rockefellers and Disneys and Fords exist. Massive economy-warping concentrations of wealth within the last 150 years are what's dominant today, not Old Money.

Rockefellers are literally the definition of old money nowadays, as are most of the US political dynasties. You have Forbes, Astors in the US (and Kennedies, Bushes, Clintons in the political landscape), Rothschilds in Europe. As for the rest, that comes down to modern world in general being far quicker in general. There were cases in Middle Ages of peasants becoming lords, it just didn't happen very often.

...So you're just ignoring the half-built wall where he managed an end-run to get started around all the bullshit by doing it through the military? The piles and piles of judges he appointed? The serious threat to abortion from the Justices he got through? That he didn't pull a one-eighty in four years is no indication of his comprehensive failure, there is very obvious resistance with noteworthy effect he got through massive interference.

People believed he will drain the swamp, he did not because he could not. I did not say he had no successes, just that these successes don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

So long as the Left controls the deep state and can brainwash the children, literally nothing that Trump has achieved or might achieve matters. I suspect he was allowed to win to give people hope, and he did not actually poke the Cathedral where it hurts. Even McCarthy and especially Reagan did not, yet both are being vilified for what little they did do.

A common point of contention in this argument is that the Monarchs in WW1 wanted to avoid it but couldn't. What is the point if the Monarch does not have the authority to decline going to war? How do the desirable features function in that situation?

As best I can tell, what you call a "Monarch" is indistinguishable from the popular perception of the US President. Hell, there were seriously considerations to have the President be literally an elected monarch in all but name, following the procedures of the British Parliamentary Monarchy.

If you really want to be technical, issue with World War I was not only the authority - in fact, diplomacy between the monarchs had managed to prevent several close calls in the years preceding the war, if memory serves me - it was the entire setup in general. Essentially, once situation got to the point everybody started mobilizing, war became unavoidable due to the way mobilization worked. But it is true that decision to go to war was made by governments, not by monarchs.

Ironically, in this specific situation the outcome might have been far better if 1900s monarchs truly were absolutist rulers a la Louis XIV. But even that might not have stopped the war. Fact is that monarchs were not immune to political forces within the countries nor were they immune to the nationalist sentiment. Especially Austria-Hungary could not avoid war against Serbia, not just for the reasons of national prestige but because its populace was pissed at Serbs assassinating the Archduke. Again, that situation was fundamentally identical to the US and intervention in Afghanistan, except for the fact that US did not start a world war in doing so.

 

[Simonbob]

I'm just going to add, Serf was a term that varied in useage.

They were almost always tied to a particular location, but not every time, and they were taxed at a much lower rate than many today, but that's more an element of us having more to take now.

Sometimes serf pretty much meant slave, and sometimes it matches what we'd call peasant now.


With all this, the biggest thing that allows greater power now is tech. There are both advantages and disadvatages to progress.

 

[Aldarion]

There is a war going on against the white people:

 

[Cherico]

think this will help

 

[ATP]

I'm just going to add, Serf was a term that varied in useage.

They were almost always tied to a particular location, but not every time, and they were taxed at a much lower rate than many today, but that's more an element of us having more to take now.

Sometimes serf pretty much meant slave, and sometimes it matches what we'd call peasant now.


With all this, the biggest thing that allows greater power now is tech. There are both advantages and disadvatages to progress.

Servs in Moscov was slaves,gentry could sell them.
Servs in Poland was not,gentry could only sell land.That is why serfs was running from Moscov to Poland in 18th century,and one of the reasons why Partition happened/well,main was becouse our fucking gentry decided,that we do not need army/

 

[Agent23]

Servs in Moscov was slaves,gentry could sell them.
Servs in Poland was not,gentry could only sell land.That is why serfs was running from Moscov to Poland in 18th century,and one of the reasons why Partition happened/well,main was becouse our fucking gentry decided,that we do not need army/

Um, and the Serfs went with the land, usually, aka that one has a nice piece of ass, time to buy some land, for the geography, of course.
IIRC Cossackry began with serfs BTFOing from both Russia and Poland to parts of modern-day Ukraine to be 100% free.
Also, I am pretty sure that the serfdom as an institution underwent a bunch of changes in both Russia and Poland and that various areas had variations on it, in Georgia, for example, one nobleman could be a serf to another nobleman, or some such Caucasus nonsense.

 

[ATP]

Um, and the Serfs went with the land, usually, aka that one has a nice piece of ass, time to buy some land, for the geography, of course.
IIRC Cossackry began with serfs BTFOing from both Russia and Poland to parts of modern-day Ukraine to be 100% free.
Also, I am pretty sure that the serfdom as an institution underwent a bunch of changes in both Russia and Poland and that various areas had variations on it, in Georgia, for example, one nobleman could be a serf to another nobleman, or some such Caucasus nonsense.

Cossack goal was not be free/they could do that as peasants there/,but robb tatars and turks.That is why alliance between them and Poland was impossible in long run - they need constant war with Ottomans,when we wonted peace.
And yes,there was changes in Poland - initially seffs almost do not need to work for landlord,and could pay in money.Later they must work more and more and payed in grain.

 

[Agent23]

Cossack goal was not be free/they could do that as peasants there/,but robb tatars and turks.That is why alliance between them and Poland was impossible in long run - they need constant war with Ottomans,when we wonted peace.
And yes,there was changes in Poland - initially seffs almost do not need to work for landlord,and could pay in money.Later they must work more and more and payed in grain.

Later, like in Russia, they became de-facto slaves attached to land parcels, then gradually got some more rights back until the practice was banned.

As to the Cossacks, I distinctly recall some joining forces with the Turks and living in the north-east of Bulgaria after the Tzar got annoyed.
The "problem" was that they had dealings with the ottomans as well, and didn't take kindly to being brutalized and made second class citizens by the Ottomans and their friends in the Crimea and the rest of the Black Sea coast.

Also, they appropriated much tatar culture and became badass!

For most of the time there were serfs brutal corporeal punishment was also the norm, btw.
But frankly they should be seen as slaves for the purpose of this discussion, in fact, Russian and Prussian serfs were released of serfdon after the US civil war and Brazil stopped practicing slavery.

 

[ATP]

Later, like in Russia, they became de-facto slaves attached to land parcels, then gradually got some more rights back until the practice was banned.

As to the Cossacks, I distinctly recall some joining forces with the Turks and living in the north-east of Bulgaria after the Tzar got annoyed.
The "problem" was that they had dealings with the ottomans as well, and didn't take kindly to being brutalized and made second class citizens by the Ottomans and their friends in the Crimea and the rest of the Black Sea coast.

Also, they appropriated much tatar culture and became badass!

For most of the time there were serfs brutal corporeal punishment was also the norm, btw.
But frankly they should be seen as slaves for the purpose of this discussion, in fact, Russian and Prussian serfs were released of serfdon after the US civil war and Brazil stopped practicing slavery.

Yet both moscovite and prussian serfs was running to Poland,to become polish serfs.Becouse They still have some rights there,for example,they were judged by other polish serfs from the same village,all landlord could do was safe punished serf and take him to other village.
He could not kill serfs on his own without his serfs cooperation.

 

[Agent23]

Yet both moscovite and prussian serfs was running to Poland,to become polish serfs.Becouse They still have some rights there,for example,they were judged by other polish serfs from the same village,all landlord could do was safe punished serf and take him to other village.
He could not kill serfs on his own without his serfs cooperation.

You do realize you are basically arguing that a form of slavery once practiced in Poland is superior to those once practiced in other countries, right...
Bruh, just admit it, it was a stupid institution that never should have existed!

 

[ATP]

You do realize you are basically arguing that a form of slavery once practiced in Poland is superior to those once practiced in other countries, right...
Bruh, just admit it, it was a stupid institution that never should have existed!

I never said that serfdoom was good.In fact,i belive that turning free peasants into serfs was one of reasons why my country collapsed.
I only state,that ,althought we were bad,others was still worst.That is all.And remember,that kgbstan and germans now still worshipp their rulers from that time,althought they were slavers.