So I recently had the thought that the early emergence of feudalism and monarchies might resemble modern day street gangs and other organized crime. A bunch of teenage boys with too much time on their hands go around starting trouble, and people start paying them to leave them alone. There's your warrior and peasant classes, right? What we now call "protection rackets" looks a lot like feudalism to me. Is this far off? (Don't just say "no, retard," at least say why it's retarded.")
>>992151
God knows I hate foreigners.
>>992151
I remember when I was watching the Sopranos, at many times it felt like a show about feudal politics
People dont give knights enough credit these days.
While of course, giving someone military power over others will sometimes create a bit of a bully, they were no protection racketeers, and they certainly werent the evil people like to distort them as today.
>>992151
Well as far as feudalism is a thing it actually appeared in "stable" kingdoms. Charlemagnes empire turned into feudal lands.
That said every government on earth is a protection racket. We call it the social contract...
>>992163
>Hates foreigners
>Posts pic of men ruled by foreigners
Nice.
Just bumping for interest
>>992151
I have thought the same too, there must be some official sociology theory about it somewhere.
>>992344
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract
>>992151
>Is this far off?
From what I understand of gang shit, yes. You're either underestimating the amount of organization that goes into feudalism, or overestimating the amount of organization of the average street gang.
Your comparison works for the earliest forms of military autocracies and very early monarchies, but that's it.
Now, when you go into some forms of well radicated international crime (mostly the cell based organizations like the italian mafia and some triads and yakuza), you get closer. But the structure is still much to unstable to count as proper feudalism.
>A bunch of teenage boys with too much time on their hands go around starting trouble
This is not the spirit that moved medieval warriors and kings.
Describing the mechanical anathomy of power isn't comparying things, we live in another era in a different universe. There was no government and criminals nowadays are much more comparable to barbarians rather than medieval knights.
>>992367
>This is not the spirit that moved medieval warriors and kings.
What are you basing that on?
>>992357
>Your comparison works for the earliest forms of military autocracies and very early monarchies, but that's it.
Right, I'm talking about the origins of these things. Later on they start to forms webs of alliances and hierarchies, and it looks more like a medieval monarchy. The only major difference I see is clearly defined rules of succession.
>>992387
>I'm talking about the origins of these things.
You're talking more about the origin of the social contract than the origin of feudalism here senpai.
Feudalism was vastly more codified and legal than you think, it was really a system rather than a contract.
>>992401
>implying there was literally a contract
>>992374
Medieval feudalism was not urban nor a product of mass society.
Urban gangs can be compared to socialist governments.
We had this thread yesterday...
>>992409
>>992410
>Medieval feudalism was not urban nor a product of mass society.
I don't think I implied either of those things?
>Urban gangs can be compared to socialist governments.
wat
>>992423
>your mom is a human
>hitler was a human
>wow, they're basically the same
>>992445
What?
>>992151
No not really. European feudalism, at least, was based on conditions and reforms made in the 3rd-4th century which made local landowners and magnates more independent and self-sufficient. Peasants weren't kept tied to the land by violence, but through a series of codes and laws, and the landowners became the warrior classes due to the necessity of needing to protect their land more than anything else. Modern gangs and criminal organization more resemble low level tribes and family clans than feudalism.
>>992410
Why would an urban setting change much? It still largely revolves a hierarchical organization glued together by personal relationships.
>>992367
Teenagers in street gangs are usually foot soldiers that are merely being used by older members of the gang. Gangs target kids because when you recruit them young you get them for life.
They also consider that someone who is under 18 is less likely to wind up behind bars long term if they get caught selling drugs.
>>992151
>Is this far off? (Don't just say "no, retard," at least say why it's retarded.")
It is far off because there's a lot of legality involved in Feudal states.
You want gangsta style protection schemes? Central Asian Nomads. Well, until some of them adopted Perso-Islamic Sinitic state systems (i.e. Middle Eastern Turks, Mongols, Jurchens, etc).
Steppe Nomads don't build a state using borders and cities like standard kingdoms because there aint none in the Steppes. Their states were built upon how many people bend their knee to a "Royal/Main" Clan and the ability to protect said people. Central Asian tribes or the few villages and city states found there were ether coerced or cajoled by the stronger clan, offering protection from other nomads, in return for a regular tribute.
It has few rules but the rule of strength and are highly dependent on strong leadership. A small diplomatic insult among civilizations is a major scandal among Steppe Nomad tribes, and an insult to their clan or their leader's authority, and results to war.
It is also highly decentralized. Subject peoples were often allowed to do their own shit while a moving capital of the Royal Tribe went around, collecting protection money and renewing oaths. Just look at Attila's """Empire""" it was literally just a bunch of Huns moving around demanding money from people.
>>992501
>European feudalism, at least, was based on conditions and reforms made in the 3rd-4th century which made local landowners and magnates more independent and self-sufficient.
That's interesting. So you're talking about the Roman Empire then? I was under the impression that the fall of the western empire was followed by at least a brief period of essentially anarchy. Do I understand you correctly that early medieval institutions had continuity with (local) Roman institutions?
>Peasants weren't kept tied to the land by violence, but through a series of codes and laws
How are laws enforced if not through violence? Do peasants have any say in these laws? Not seeing the distinction.
>and the landowners became the warrior classes due to the necessity of needing to protect their land more than anything else.
Well sure, and criminal organizations mostly direct violence at other criminal organizations. But their power is derived in the first place from threatening civvies in their own territory.
>Modern gangs and criminal organization more resemble low level tribes and family clans than feudalism.
Perhaps I used the wrong term. But I think you might be surprised just how elaborate the organizational structures of organized crime can be.
>>992347
>>992353
Close but the social contract is typically non-negotiable. If an average person wants to pay less taxes there is not much they can do about it, even in a democracy they are just 1 voter.
Whereas gangsters/nobles and gangs/clans can use the threat of violence/war as a bargaining chip. Hence all the effort they put into gaining respect/honor and other things.
>>992550
>It is far off because there's a lot of legality involved in Feudal states.
Could you clarify what you mean by "legality?"
>>992507
It doesn't really. In the pre-modern world, organized crime was mostly in the form of piracy, highwaymen and brigands. It's wherever government control is the weakest.
There's a reason "riding shotgun" became a figure of speech. In the United States, until the 1930s highwaymen were such a problem that firearms specifically designed for protecting yourself from inside your automobile were sold. Getting robbed at gunpoint was a real threat during long car voyages until the advent of highway patrols and super-fast freeways.
Urban ghettos are a similar situation. Areas where police protection are the weakest are where gangs and organized crime are most likely to arise.
>That's interesting. So you're talking about the Roman Empire then?
Yes
>I was under the impression that the fall of the western empire was followed by at least a brief period of essentially anarchy.
Not accurate at all, a lot of the time the people in charge just changed, life for most peasants and landowners continued like normal. The new German kings didn't want to disrupt a system that was already working.
>Do I understand you correctly that early medieval institutions had continuity with (local) Roman institutions?
That's correct, Diocletian's reforms basically got the feudal ball rolling by tying peasants to their land, making taxes payable in goods, and creating the guild system, over time the system would solidify into the feudal system we all know.
>How are laws enforced if not through violence? Do peasants have any say in these laws? Not seeing the distinction.
You're not incorrect, but think about it like this: Does a Cop have to threaten to kick your ass for you to follow traffic laws, does the IRS have to threaten your life for you to pay your taxes. While Governments can enforce laws through a monopoly on violence, most do so through social contract, feudalism was much the same, the local lord generally didn't need to threaten you in order to get you to pay your tithe.
>>992593
Contracts? Laws both Secular and Sacred, governing feudal relationships?
Hell, we haven't even talked about Medieval Cities with their urban charters and constitutions.
>>992553
>Well sure, and criminal organizations mostly direct violence at other criminal organizations. But their power is derived in the first place from threatening civvies in their own territory.
The point is that landowners didn't become militarized in order to exploit those on their lands, they could do that already, they did so to protect from outside threats. Their military power came from their land and wealth.
>Perhaps I used the wrong term. But I think you might be surprised just how elaborate the organizational structures of organized crime can be.
I wasn't trying to imply a lack of organization, some tribal and clan organization are extremely complex and structured, I wanted to point out difference in structure and mean. Tribes most often enforce their power through direct violence and extortion, while feudal lords use legalism and social contract instead, that's not a hard and fast rule or anything though.
>>992606
>Contracts? Laws both Secular and Sacred, governing feudal relationships?
I'm assuming there are many rules for how Mafia or any other large organizations function, though. What's the difference between that and a law?
>>992151
Far off, but as some have said, not so far off for feudal organisations outside of Europe. My only experience is with a gang I grew up around.
Ki Yung was the son of a powerful import/export magnate with ties to the Triad. He started importing drugs, then guns. Eventually he realised he could take on the small Lebanese gang that kept a tight hold on China Town. Two shootings and a firebombed house later, he owned China Town, with its 2 apartment buildings, 18+ businesses, 2 drug dealers and collection of affiliated, ungoverned prostitutes.
He ran protection rackets and collected from them in varying form of payments. From the LAN gaming cafe, it was a personal section for him and his brand new gang of 5, from the Bubble Tea place next door, it was free products for the gang ect. He also brought the dealers into the fold, forcing them to buy from him or leave. The prostitutes paid tax and did not work outside of his zone of control. He had established a small monarchy with clearly defined borders, a primarily mono-ethnic population, lands, tenants and traders under his thumb.
From here he expanded to neighbouring blocks, forcing out other small street gangs, while drawing recruits from Chinese and SE Asian families. he built his gang and soon had a number of dealers, businesses and prostitutes under his control. Problem was, it was too big. He couldn't supply all his dealers, couldn't manage monitoring and collection from hookers and could not uphold his end of protection rackets as they suffered retaliation from withdrawing gangs. With the weight of the empire on him, he chose his trusted brothers and friends and gave them businesses to collect from and protect, blocks of prostitutes to tax and dealers to find the supply for. He divided his land into fiefs, losing overall wealth, but allowing him to collect greater future returns through the division of management. Under this new system, his empire bloomed.
>>993133
He continued this for many years, eventually being forced to stop expansion, form unofficial treaties, avoid stirring conflict and generally calm the fuck down. He even bought a gigantic warehouse for use as his personal palace away from home.
From here things civilized quick. He had to release the stranglehold to keep businesses afloat, and eventually stopped the gang's claim on all but a few for their convenience. He and the gang were now more favoured and honoured patrons than overlords.
His profits didn't dwindle, however, as he became more focused on inter-block trade and even semi-legal business. He joined the underground city economy and graduated from brutal feudal overlord to brutal totalitarian dictator.
I think it kind of matches the advancement of feudalism. At a point it reaches a critical mass and can't sustain the system. It has to evolve.
I would say that the early stages of a street gang closely mirror the early stages of feudalism.
