Was Feudalism a Right-wing precursor?

[iudas]

Half inspired by the Robin Hood thread where people said he was a commie, half by getting up in the morning after a bizarre dream, I decided to open this thread here.

So, do you think the Feudal system was a Right-wing precursor? It can be considered so because the economy was controlled by individuals and not the state, and because capitalism evolved out of it.

[The White Knight]

Half inspired by the Robin Hood thread where people said he was a commie, half by getting up in the morning after a bizarre dream, I decided to open this thread here.

So, do you think the Feudal system was a Right-wing precursor? It can be considered so because the economy was controlled by individuals and not the state, and because capitalism evolved out of it.

Could you elaborate on that?

[iudas]

On what point exactly?

[The White Knight]

On what point exactly?

That capitalism evolved out of feudalism.

[Farnan]

Applying 19th Century concepts to the Middle Ages is stupid. Its the same as trying to compare Ghengis Khan and Hitler.

[iudas]

I said 'precursor' for a reason... I also don't think Robin Hood was a commie.

[Farnan]

The problem is that Feudalism has no comparisons with any modern-day economic or political system. Both left-wing and right wing groups emerged from it and it wasn't related to either capitalism (all land was basically state or communally owned) or communism (there were distinct political classes).

[removeduser_487563287433]

Um. No. Feudalism is an extremely controlled system, including economically.

[joerd9]

Feudalism is a way to organise society in to groups (estates) and to define the relations/rights/duties each of those estates has towards the other. It has no relation whatsoever to a political system and is technically apolitical.
Politics in a feudalistic society are made and determined by one of it's estates, usually the second estate, the one you could call 'lords' or 'the nobility'.

So: No.

Edit: and no, feudalism wasn't extremely controlled. Due to lack of means for control. But it was very static.

[iudas]

Um. No. Feudalism is an extremely controlled system, including economically.

Controlled by whom?

Feudalism is a way to organise society in to groups (estates) and to define the relations/rights/duties each of those estates has towards the other. It has no relation whatsoever to a political system and is technically apolitical.

Which makes it a form of government. A.k.a. a political system. It also governed the economy, which was not always centralised (quite the opposite).

I'm just comparing the economic aspects of the two. You can't say there are no similarities.

[joerd9]

Which makes it a form of government. A.k.a. a political system. It also governed the economy, which was not always centralised (quite the opposite).

Well, ok, one might put it that way, although I have difficulties to apply the term 'political' to it. It's a bit anachronistic. It's more about organising society as a whole rather than about political decision-making.

As for the economical aspects, I'm not sure about the amount of actual 'control' there. If you look at cities, i.e. the burghers for example, there was a lot of self-control there, aka autonomy, and a lot of wars were fought between e.g. italian cities and the HREmperor about who may decide what, especially in terms of economics and self-government. A bit later it was interestingly the emperor himself (or any other european monarch) who exempted rich cities from the control of the local nobility since this was simply more profitable. Regarding the peasants and the whole agricultural sector there were strict rules, agreed, but this sector wasn't much about economy, more about supplies.

[removeduser_487563287433]

What do you mean by whom? Do you not know what feudalism is? Usually serfs owned by landowners, who are vassals of nobles who are vassals of greater nobles.

[iudas]

What do you mean by whom? Do you not know what feudalism is? Usually serfs owned by landowners, who are vassals of nobles who are vassals of greater nobles.

Yes. The economy was controlled by the nobles...

[Farnan]

And nobles were the government. Thus the government controlled the economy.

[iudas]

And nobles were the government. Thus the government controlled the economy.

I wouldn't call them the 'government' in a non-centralised state. This way you could call a business's owner its government.

[The White Knight]

And nobles were the government. Thus the government controlled the economy.

That's not true. The nobility was in an eternal struggle with the government or centralised rule in general.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

I think feudalism was a precursor for capitalism, in that there is the 'money traingle' - the poor earn for the rich, in a sense. In the same way, it could be seen as linked with the right-wing, in that it is a selfish and focuses on the individual people higher up.

[Mig el Pig]

So, do you think the Feudal system was a Right-wing precursor? It can be considered so because the economy was controlled by individuals and not the state, and because capitalism evolved out of it.

Actually capitalism evolved due to the fact that european nobility controlled the land, while citizens controlled the cities. (unlike china and muslim society where the sultan/emperor and his nobility controlled the cities)

[Farnan]

Government does not always mean the centralised national government. For example in the US there are state governments that at times contend with the national government. Both the Federal and the State governments are governments and they are actually different governments but both in the same nation. Same for feudal nobles, they were government in and of themselves, subject to greater governments.

[iudas]

Government does not always mean the centralised national government. For example in the US there are state governments that at times contend with the national government. Both the Federal and the State governments are governments and they are actually different governments but both in the same nation. Same for feudal nobles, they were government in and of themselves, subject to greater governments.

It does mean that, most of the time. In any case my comparison was very loose, and there's no room to use secondary meanings in its context.