Feudalism or Slavery. How far back are we reverting?

[peacetalksforall]

I found these nicely condensed paragraphs in a well written article while doing some research.

Why do these descriptions resonate as predictions for us based on the ever-telling agenda of our leaders who are acting on behalf of the barons whose faces you never see on tv - the ones who will benefit from either or -

Quote start
Two societies confronted each other in the 5th century. The Roman empire was the largest slave economy of antiquity. In such an economy the land holders owned the land, the farm houses, farming implements, animals and labour force, and state-owned labour force supported public services. The barbarian tribes lived in an agricultural village society, in which the peasants owned the land, their houses, farm implements and animals and the village community owned the forests and pasture.

When Rome fell to barbarian rule, these two society forms gradually merged. Through force and debt the landowners, who had lost their supply of slaves, could get control of the land of the peasants, who continued to own their houses, implements and most of their animals but had to pay rent for the use of the land.

The new economic order, known as feudalism, was more productive than slavery because the peasants were free to decide how to run their farm, as long as they delivered the required part of their harvest to the landlord. This stimulated interest of the peasants in their own success and increased production. The drawback for the landlords was that coercion was required to collect the tax, which necessitated a police force or army.

The new feudal agricultural units were largely self-sufficient and included basic trades such as blacksmith, weaver, furniture maker and many more. Trade, which had played a large part in the Roman economy, declined during feudalism. This led to a reduced role for the cities, which declined in size. Some provincial cities originally established as Roman garrisons disappeared, larger cities were depopulated.

The church became one of the most powerful landlords in the process. Monasteries owned large tracts of land, and bishops and archbishops became feudal rulers over large territory. Within 200 years Europe consisted of a patchwork of dukedoms and bishoprics that competed for power, pawned or sold villages and towns amongst each other and formed alliances against each other.

There was one major difference between the secular rulers and the clergy. Land ownership of the aristocracy became hereditary, bishops and archbishops were appointed as feudal landlords by the pope. This gave the pope a degree of over-arching authority even in worldly affairs.

End of quote, but there is more:

http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/science+society/lectures/lecture13.html
The School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences - Flinders University - Australia

The earth, the earth and its resources. That's what the agenda is all about.

Wht part of your budget and muscles go into buying and carrying drinking water?
How much are you willing to pay for water to flush your toilet?
How much have you already paid to get a pipeline going into and through Israel?
How much are you going to pay for rising water that will ruin wells and collapse reservoirs?
How many people have scattered to the land from the City of New Orleans?
How many acres of Paraguayan land were purchased by Rev Moon in the same country with the largest aquafir?

[DKStreet]

1. Interesting question..

I think we are already in a hybrid of the two, the landlord/master being large multi-national corporations.

[Warpy]

2. Feudalism. Slaves were property, like livestock, and represented

a loss of wealth if they were damaged or died. Nobody ever had to care what happened to a serf, he just sort of came with the land. Slaves, as an investment, were fed, clothed and housed. Serfs were on their own. Slaves got at least minimal care when they got sick. Serfs went out and picked herbs and, more often than not, died quietly. Serfs were entirely low maintenance, producing whether the lord and master acknowledged him as he rode by or not, devoting the same percentage of his crops in good years as in bad, assuring the lord and master of food even at the cost of his own and his family's starving.

No wonder they want to go back. Feudalism is the best deal the rich can imagine.

[happyslug]

3. Feed Slaves? Why?

While no one liked the idea of killing slaves, it was done. This idea that slave master kept old slaves is common but seems NOT to have been the case. The slaves were just starved to death for they could NOT get up to eat.

Serf's on the other hand were often related to the other serfs in the area, thus in old age were taken care of by their relatives. This was a drain on the relatives and on the land owners but it was one of the costs of Feudalism.

Two more comment, while the dark ages saw the mixture of Roman Slavery and Germanic Feudalism, one of the characteristics of Feudalism was that is was always viewed (in the Dark and middle Ages) to be military in nature. A serf received his portion of land to farm in exchange for Military service. If he failed to perform his military service he lost his land. This seems to have been the case by the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, but by 900 AD the same rule was being applied to the upper classes i.e. if they did NOT protect their serfs, the king would remove them and give the land to someone who would fight for the peasants. To be able to fight one has to be able to organize the peasants. Thus feudalism was tied in with Military duty and Military arms held by the Peasants. In your old age the lord had a duty to keep you just like the Government has a duty to provide for its long term soldiers today. This assistance was NOT charity but a requirements which if not meet could lead to the younger peasants NOT going to war with you. Given the constant warfare of the time period, such abandonment of the elderly was not just done for it meant the destruction of one's army for the soldiers would desert to help their elderly relatives (and would not fight for the Lord do to his failure to provide for their widows, orphans and other family members). It is only with the Renaissance and a resurgence of Roman law do you see the hardship of Feudalism and the Land owners tried to keep their privileges of being the Feudal lord AND obtain the rights of Roman property ownership while dropping all duties of Feudalism for such duties did not exist under Roman Law.

The Second comment I will make is the nature of land ownership during the Dark ages and the Middle Ages. We in the US are use to the concept of almost complete land control of land one owns. From the center of the earth to the sky (Restricted to 600 feet by act of Congress in the 1920s to facilitate air traffic). Another modern difference is that the Spanish concept of land ownership never included the minerals underneath the Surface (That always belongs to the Spanish kings).

A similar difference in land ownership existed in the Feudal Period and until about 1700 in England. While a lord may be a "freeholder" of land in the feudal periods, his land could (and often were) also subject to "Copy-holds" of the Serfs. These "Copy-holds" were ownership interest but subject to the "freehold" rights of the Lord of the serf. Thus a Serf was a Freeman to everyone but his master and to that master he was subject to what we would call Military Discipline as opposed to being the property of the Freeholder. With the Renaissance, you see a reversion to Roman Law of Land Ownership (and massive opposition to the concept among the Peasants). The ability to freely transfer property just did not exist in Europe prior to the Renaissance and only gradually afterward.

Now by 1700 both England and Northern Italy had started to make the change from Feudalism to free sell-ability of land (Would take another 100 years for Scotland). In the US the free transferability of land was the rule from day one (Through some elements of Feudalism even survived in America till the US Revolution). Even today selling land in France and Germany can cause problem given that some of the Feudal rules of ownership are still the laws in those Countries. On the other hand if you want to be able to mortgage land you have to be able to sell it, under the traditional rules of Land Ownership such sells were NOT generally permitted even by peasants. The law started to Change in the Renaissance but took almost to 1800 to be the universal law in England (and even afterward took another 20-30 years to become the law in Scotland and even today there are areas of Scotland where dual ownership of land exits).

The Middle ages (Roughly 600-1200 AD) were the best period to live in if you were NOT a member of the Nobility prior to the last 200 years. Peasants had the most rights and powers, rights and powers that started to decline as the Renaissance saw a revival of Roman Law. The raise of the Middle Class also hurt the Peasants but not a much a the peasants lost of power during the Renaissance.

[peacetalksforall]

4. Any answers to the questions? What is your preference? S or S?

[moondust]

5. I call it Neofeudalism.

And it relies on offshoring, which is technically not slavery because workers may be paid a few cents an hour or a day. But those workers may not be free to quit their jobs and move on to better ones if there is a system of blacklisting in place. When worker mobility is not possible then what you have is effectively slavery.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tnlefty]

7. Welcome, Mr. Sosa.

Would you settle for a society that allows people to have what they NEED to survive?

[peacetalksforall]

8. The problem is opportunities -

The opportunities that were there are tumbling every day - the opportunity rug is being pulled out from under the feet of many willing people.

What is the opportunity outlook for serious students who need loan help to go to college?
How difficult should it be to figure out and get a prescription filled - at an extra cost or never - if you're on Medicare or Medicaid?

How long do you wish the 'opportunities taken away' list to be.

We are in the process of erasing fifty years of progress in one swipe.

[Just Me]

9. Well, feudalism IS a form of slavery. They just own ya',...

,...via economic superiority rather than asserting physical force to own ya'. There's not much difference in outcome.

[Odin2005]

10. Capitalism is just Feudalism with capital instead of land.

Capitalist democracy = Oxymoron.