|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 3, 2023 18:41:58 GMT
As anyone with any sense knows, Globalism will not tolerate Nationalism. So how much less will it tolerate Feudalism, even on a dinky little island where the people are not complaining about it?
The answer is: Feudalism must go. And go it finally did in 2008.
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 5, 2023 0:26:14 GMT
As anyone with any sense knows, Globalism will not tolerate Nationalism. So how much less will it tolerate Feudalism, even on a dinky little island where the people are not complaining about it? The answer is: Feudalism must go. And go it finally did in 2008. Do you think "globalism" is really just American imperialism? Just as every empire before had a myth that justified it's expansion of power, modern America has it's myth, we're defending democracy, freedom and human rights, and one mechanism of gaining and keeping control is moving people, migrants, and we defend their "rights".
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 5, 2023 0:41:15 GMT
As anyone with any sense knows, Globalism will not tolerate Nationalism. So how much less will it tolerate Feudalism, even on a dinky little island where the people are not complaining about it? The answer is: Feudalism must go. And go it finally did in 2008. Do you think "globalism" is really just American imperialism? No, but I think American imperialism was an important component of globalism, easier to see in retrospect than when it was happening. A lot of that defending freedom and human rights stuff was hogwash IMO, at least up to the point when Communism became an overt threat.
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 5, 2023 0:50:44 GMT
Do you think "globalism" is really just American imperialism? No, but I think American imperialism was an important component of globalism, easier to see in retrospect than when it was happening. A lot of that defending freedom and human rights stuff was hogwash IMO, at least up to the point when Communism became an overt threat. I think that's just our imperial myth. The Romans loved to proclaim they were the inheritors of Hellenistic culture and brought order to barbarous people. We love to claim we're defending democracy against regimes that imprison opposing political leaders, and bringing freedom, you know freedom for children to get gender reassignment, and freedom to consume American products, and migrants rights while we repopulate their nations.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 5, 2023 1:06:06 GMT
No, but I think American imperialism was an important component of globalism, easier to see in retrospect than when it was happening. A lot of that defending freedom and human rights stuff was hogwash IMO, at least up to the point when Communism became an overt threat. I think that's just our imperial myth. The Romans loved to proclaim they were the inheritors of Hellenistic culture and brought order to barbarous people. We love to claim we're defending democracy against regimes that imprison opposing political leaders, and bringing freedom, you know freedom for children to get gender reassignment, and freedom to consume American products, and migrants rights while we repopulate their nations. Yeah. I guess it could be said of any country that practiced imperialism, but I believe the US was founded for the purpose of becoming an imperial power. Maybe Germany and Italy too, so they could be pushed over. The others (Russia, Portugal, Spain, Japan, France, Netherlands, Belgium, and Austria-Hungary) were already in existence before overseas imperialism began. I think of the exploration and colonization of the world as the ride of the first horseman. Imperialism and its associated wars were the ride of the second horseman. The third horseman seems to be the global economy. And unless I miss my guess, the forth horseman is the replacement of nationalism by globalism.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Apr 5, 2023 1:33:22 GMT
None that you might be thinking about. The last feudal state was Imperial Russia. The Antebellum South with the plantations and three-tiered society was a pseudo-feudal state. Most of the isolated tribal peoples are primitive, but egalitarian societies.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 5, 2023 2:30:16 GMT
None that you might be thinking about. The last feudal state was Imperial Russia. The Antebellum South with the plantations and three-tiered society was a pseudo-feudal state. Most of the isolated tribal peoples are primitive, but egalitarian societies. Sark in the English Channel was the last feudal state, in Europe or anywhere else. It expired in 2008.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Apr 5, 2023 13:19:17 GMT
None that you might be thinking about. The last feudal state was Imperial Russia. The Antebellum South with the plantations and three-tiered society was a pseudo-feudal state. Most of the isolated tribal peoples are primitive, but egalitarian societies. Sark in the English Channel was the last feudal state, in Europe or anywhere else. It expired in 2008. On the books, but they were not exactly living in feudalism.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 5, 2023 13:25:19 GMT
Sark in the English Channel was the last feudal state, in Europe or anywhere else. It expired in 2008. On the books, but they were not exactly living in feudalism. In the UK the peasants have electricity and indoor plumbing. Does that mean they are not exactly living in a monarchy?
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Apr 5, 2023 13:29:59 GMT
On the books, but they were not exactly living in feudalism. In the UK the peasants have electricity and indoor plumbing. Does that mean they are not exactly living in a monarchy? Are the King’s subjects still considered his slaves? Why do you always pick a fight?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 5, 2023 13:37:40 GMT
In the UK the peasants have electricity and indoor plumbing. Does that mean they are not exactly living in a monarchy? Are the King’s subjects still considered his slaves? Why do you always pick a fight? I'm not picking a fight. I'm simply trying to understand your requisites for feudalism.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Apr 5, 2023 13:54:00 GMT
Are the King’s subjects still considered his slaves? Why do you always pick a fight? I'm not picking a fight. I'm simply trying to understand your requisites for feudalism. The three-tiered system: king and his noblemen or vassals with estates who were always fighting and jockeying for the king’s favor and positions of power; the freeman, who generally were small farmers and tradespeople; and the peasants or surfs, who served the king and noblemen. In the antebellum South, this was recreated in a loosy-goosey system of the planters class citizens, the middle class citizens, and the non-citizen slaves. It resembled the old Roman system more the medieval version, but the point was a rigid class system which controled social mobility, but in this case, only on the slave class was disenfranchised by the system. The rights of the middle class were generally protected from upper-class exploitation by the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 5, 2023 13:57:07 GMT
I'm not picking a fight. I'm simply trying to understand your requisites for feudalism. The three-tiered system: king and his noblemen or vassals with estates who were always fighting and jockeying for the king’s favor and positions of power; the freeman, who generally were small farmers and tradespeople; and the peasants or surfs, who served the king and noblemen. In the antebellum South, this was recreated a loosy-goosey system of the planters class citizens, the middle class citizens, and the non-citizen slaves. It resembled the old Roman system more the medieval version, but the point was a rigid class system which controls social mobility, but in this case, only on the slave class was disenfranchised by the system. The rights of middle class were generally protected from upper-class exploitation by the Constitution. I'm not sure if a political scientist would agree with you, but thanks.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Apr 5, 2023 13:59:33 GMT
The three-tiered system: king and his noblemen or vassals with estates who were always fighting and jockeying for the king’s favor and positions of power; the freeman, who generally were small farmers and tradespeople; and the peasants or surfs, who served the king and noblemen. In the antebellum South, this was recreated a loosy-goosey system of the planters class citizens, the middle class citizens, and the non-citizen slaves. It resembled the old Roman system more the medieval version, but the point was a rigid class system which controls social mobility, but in this case, only on the slave class was disenfranchised by the system. The rights of middle class were generally protected from upper-class exploitation by the Constitution. I'm not sure if a political scientist would agree with you, but thanks. In order to be sure, read up on the political science of feudalism.
Sometimes visuals help.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Apr 5, 2023 14:00:27 GMT
|
|