Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

white_wolf

(6,257 posts)

5. In some ways capitalism is worse than feudalism.

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Sun May 13, 2012, 12:38 PM

May 2012

Serfs were bound to the land and there was very little upward mobility, that is true. However, there was an upside to being bound to the land. You would never be unemployed, the lord had an obligation to provide certain protections to his vassals in exchange for their oaths of fealty. In modern capitalism the capitalists feel no obligation to their employes and there is no guarantee of protections or employment.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Austerity = Feudalism [View all] kpete May 2012 OP

And all to support a system that fucks the rest of us over.......... socialist_n_TN May 2012 #1

Unfortunately, both parties are supported by and support the would-be feudal lords. JDPriestly May 2012 #2

As Michael Parenti once said: "The rich have only ever wanted one thing: EVERYTHING!" Viva_Daddy May 2012 #3

HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT May 2012 #4

In some ways capitalism is worse than feudalism. white_wolf May 2012 #5

Most of the obligations of the lords were honored in the breach. malthaussen May 2012 #6

And you got a portion of the harvest and a patch of ground to till, the right to cut wood, the HiPointDem May 2012 #7

By similar reasoning, slavery could be said to be better than capitalism malthaussen May 2012 #8

No, it's a bit different, because under feudalism, serfs had specific rights, and their obligations HiPointDem May 2012 #9

Within limits, I'll grant you "right of access to resources." malthaussen May 2012 #10

interestingly enough, provis99 May 2012 #11

Conceded the point? Wow. Zalatix May 2012 #12

provis99 is being slightly hyperbolic malthaussen May 2012 #13