Feudalism and liberalism aren't substantially different. Manorialism was a social safety net arrangement precisely identical to the welfare state minus some cosmetic differences.
The idea that feudalism was lords mercilessly exploiting serfs in exchange for nothing, rather than a slightly different version of the liberal state, is based on biased accounts from anti feudal historians.
>>459134
Every time I come here and see threads like this I double - triple check that I did not write /lit/ instead of /his/ in the url bar LMAO.
>>459142
Name 1 substantial difference between liberalism and feudalism.
>>459155
Never studied political philosophies.
I would like to but my opinions would be subjective and on w/e I have picked up from remote sources.
>>459155
"Feudalism" is more fun to say out loud.
>>459134
>Systematic extraction of biomass from tracts of land by a serf caste for conversion into gigantic snorting warhorses
>Pledges of mutual defense by local hereditary autocrats
>Fucking kings
You do not understand feudalism
>>459228
Those could all be used to describe the welfare state, with some minor semantic changes.
>>459228
>Systematic extraction of taxes from a taxpayer caste for conversion into gigantic snorting defense programs
>Pledges of mutual defense by various elites in society
>Fucking presidents, prime ministers, and other irrelevant figureheads
>>459243
False equivalencies are so common on this board
>atheism is a religion because it shares some weak similarities with religion :^)
>democracy is actually the same thing as dictatorship because it isn't anarchy :^)
>>459286
It's not a false equivalence, it's pointing out that there are only cosmetic differences between hereditary serfdom and hereditary citizenship and taxpayership.
>>459277
>It has a military
>It has agreements
>It has prominent people
You're right, it's exactly feudalism, and so is literally every society that has ever been
>>459300
Thats what I mean. People act as if liberalism invented wealth redistribution and social programs when in reality they always existed.
>>459295
It absolutely is a false equivalency. It's the similarities that are superficial, not the differences. You say they're the same because presidents are just like kings, but that ignores the fact that presidents don't have absolute power. You say they're the same because they both extract tax, but ignore that liberal states don't take the majority of their citizens' product & earnings.
>>459304
And what I mean is that if you consider these the essential features of feudalism, and any other society that has them to be feudalism with window dressing, you do not understand how to identify the salient features that will allow you to productively compare things
In a Feudal state, nothing is done to help those who are handicapped. Blind, crippled, etc. Etc.
Essentially, this is what we call wellfare. For one, Feudalism doesnt have it.
In Feudalism, there's not only no mobility between serfdoms, there is also no mobility between castes. No peasant ever got promoted to knight unless something EXTRAORDINARY happened.
In a liberal state, the system is built around rules and regulations formulated in a constitution. These all allow for the aforementioned mobility.
A feudalism doesn't have to codify it's laws at all. In fact many feudal states have existed where tradition and arbitrary judges (see Nobles) have been the keepers of the law and thus had utter control of it.
>>459314
>presidents don't have absolute power
Neither did kings, they only pretended to.
>Liberal states don't take the majority of citizens earnings
Some do.
If you meant to say "liberalism doesn't give the majority of citizens earnings to rich people to buy luxuries for themselves", that still doesn't apply to feudalism either.
>>459134
>Feudalism and liberalism aren't substantially different.
true
>feudalism was good
false
In practice a large proportion of the population being totally reliant on the state affords the same opportunities for corruption as feudalism, hence why places like Venezuela become seriously flawed.
>>459328
General welfare was provided by the church and other feudal institutions. This wasn't some new concept Liberalism invented.
It's true that feudalism had hereditary titles, but all liberal societies have heritablility of status to differing extents, and serfs were still able to become independently wealthy.
Liberal states violate their own constitutions all the time and the modern legal system is still mostly common law, just as always.
>>459155
Classical liberalism, or leftist liberalism?
>>459340
Almost every known economic system is prone to massive opportunities for corruption. The only ones that aren't are the non-functional, powerless economic systems - like types of anarchism.
In reality, the degree of corruption mostly boils down to culture. A culture like Venezuela, which promotes the idea of a lazy ''parasite man'' as a glorious ideal is more prone to corruption than one which promotes self-sacrifice, like, say, Japan's.
>>459328
>No peasant ever got promoted to knight unless something EXTRAORDINARY happened
>what are ministeriales
estates of the realm werent as stiff as the caste-system in india, for example.
>Manorialism was a social safety net arrangement precisely identical to the welfare state minus some cosmetic differences.
Yes. The welfare state is not the same thing, though. The welfare state is where you are paid by the government for being unemployed or for being poor; it's an effective subsidy for businesses that cater to this demographic, without being sufficient to allow people to avoid debt. If things were organized more like the Manorial system, you'd be paid regardless of whether you work or how much money you have, translating it to the modern bureaucratic state, it would be a basic income.
>>459420
The caste system in India wasn't as stiff as the caste system in India.
Even during British rule, there were alternating moves to weaken and strengthen it, including some that made it stronger that it had ever been previous to British rule.
>>459405
>A culture like Venezuela, which promotes the idea of a lazy ''parasite man'' as a glorious ideal is more prone to corruption than one which promotes self-sacrifice, like, say, Japan's.
So in Venezuela, those who earn a lot of money without working, like those who receive an inheritance, are elevated in society? I thought they were socialist?
>>459134
Interesting argument. I definitely agree that liberalism (I prefer liberal capitalism) is not as distict from feudalism as we like to pretend, but there are some significant differences.
Manorialism is most distinct from liberal capitalism through the presence of major, immutable, and immaterial hierarchies that really aren't represented today. While race and gender are broadly comparable, the significance of lordship must not be underestimated.
A moneylender could have had more material wealth than the local Lord, but by not being ennobled and thus not entitled to an army or potentially any land, he would be forever subservient.
>>459304
With very few exceptions, there was not much of a principle of state welfare during the middle ages and early modern period.
That was usually a church matter.
>>459328
De facto, this is true in the modern era.
It's almost impossible for somebody born into poverty to become wealthy. The incidence of this happening is so incredibly rare that it hardly needs to be mentioned.
People who are born in poverty die in poverty. Most people born in poverty will never even MEET an impoverished person who dies in a wealthier circumstance.
>>459420
The caste system was created by the Muslims and institutionalized by the British.
The Varnas before the Muslim conquest were comparable to tribalism within Judaism -- being a Levite or a Kohen -technically- determines your social status, but has little effect in practice.
People from allegedly "untouchable" castes could have lived amazingly comfortable lives in the pre-Islamic period.
>>459134
>Feudalism and liberalism aren't substantially different
Look into enclosure. Try Hammond & Hammond Village Labourer. Liberalism destroyed the social safety net in the 19th century.
>>459155
Liberalism means more butter on bread
Feudalism is knights and lords and peasants and kings
The two words are not relatable.
However in the context of US democratic ("liberal") party pushing for bigger government higher taxes and controlling the poor with handouts, youre absolutely right. Good job anon, i saw through your autism and saw the genius underneath
>>459549
>Liberalism destroyed the social safety net in the 19th century.
Careful now.
Liberalism as in 2015 American liberalism?
Why are liberals now the only ones who want to build a 21st century social safety net?
>>459304
>People act as if liberalism invented wealth redistribution and social programs
Where
> Well on this blogg I once read
You're an idiot
>>459563
Neo liberalism
>>459563
>Liberalism as in 2015 American liberalism?
Some of us consider them theoretically congruent. But this is a really excellent point. On the other hand Malthus and Ricardo were full of love for the idiot common man, a theme common in (for example) LBJ's modern US liberalism.
But this is a theoretical side line to a stupid OP question, probably more interesting than OP.
