PDA

View Full Version : Socialism: The New Feudalism



PoliCon
06-01-2010, 11:25 PM
By Michael Aaron Jones
Exactly which side of the political spectrum is dragging us toward the past?

Recently Bill Maher said on his show, "Democrats in America were put on earth to do one thing: drag the ignorant hillbilly half of this country into the next century, which in their case is the 19th..."

This is the type of rhetoric we hear from liberals all the time, ‘the old ways of capitalism and individual responsibility are over and it is time to move into a more collective and social era.' Hence the name MoveOn.org or the term progressive, coined to signify progression into a new era and away from individual responsibility and greed.

The left should study history and the rhetoric of a distance political system called Feudalism. Many people have a misconception that the early socialist thinkers like Jean Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels were original thinkers, writing ideas about collectivism and equal sharing of property. But one only has to look back a few centuries to see they were simply recycling old failed ideas with some new jive attached.

After the era of Viking, Magyar, and Muslim raids gradually subsided, Europe began to reorganize itself into a Feudal society. The old ways of the Germanic tribes were ending, which meant less freedom and more central power.

The Feudal system was nothing more than creating a ruling class who owned all the land and wealth and provided security and safety to all the serfs; in turn the serfs provided work and servitude to their master. But many people do not realize the collective aspect of how serfs lived together.

After the ruling class reaped the finest of the crops and livestock for themselves, the serfs were to distribute all the yield of their labor amongst everyone equally. They had no rights to any crops or land for themselves, all belonged to the community, which was bestowed upon them by their feudal lords. They also shared in utilities. Most peasant societies had a communal oven that was also shared to save on resources. (1)

The ruling class, which consisted of the clergy and lords, did everything they could to spread feudalist propaganda in order to keep the serfs in line. John of Salisbury wrote a short piece in the twelfth century called ‘The Body Social.' In it he describes the proper role of each peasant and how they should all work together as a collective body for the better of the community.

"Then and then only will the health of the commonwealth be sound and flourishing, when the higher members shield the lower, and the lower respond faithfully and fully in like measure to the just demands of their superiors, so that each and all are as it were members one of another by a sort of reciprocity, and each regards his own interests as best served by that which he knows to be the most advantageous for the others." (2)


In 1274 AD Thomas Aquinas wrote something similar in his book, the 'Summa Theologica.' "For since every individual is a part of the community, so does each man, all that he is and all that he possesses, belong to the community as well." (3)

Now let's compare that thought to a quote to an early progressive icon, Teddy Roosevelt. "Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it." See a parallel of ideologies? (4)

The Feudal propagandists were not above painting tales of evil freedom fighters murdering a good, virtuous, feudal lord. Galbert of Bruges wrote a piece in 1127 AD titled, ‘The Murder of a Feudal Lord.' In it he writes about a family of freedom fighters struggling against a Feudal lord who wishes to bring them into serfdom. The family fights to keep their lands and freedom and ends up murdering the Feudal lord. Of course, Galbert painted the family as ignorant for not understanding that the Feudal Lord only wished to provide them with security and a proper place in society. All he wanted to do was establish order throughout his realm, which was so desperately needed for the betterment of the community. (5)

This is exactly the type of rhetoric we hear from the left all the time. With their ideas of the redistribution of wealth, and a central controlling nanny state, we're told things such as: ‘You should listen to those who know better. You should care more about the community over your own desires; conservatives are just a bunch of ignorant hillbillies clinging to old ideas and must be forced into a better and more ordered society.'

In actuality, the left is leading us right back into feudalism, where men are enslaved to lords, knowledge is left to the ruling class, and freedom and ingenuity are hindered to prevent man from reaching his full potential. This is exactly why our founders pulled us away from the ideas of Europe and gave us every right and freedom the feudalists said were wrong to have.

If Bill Maher and other liberals want to lead us into the next century they should first study history, because they are actually dragging us back a millennium.

Footnotes:

1.) Backman, Clifford R. The Worlds of Medieval Europe. New York: Oxford UP, 2003. pp196-209.
2.) Ross, James Bruce, and Mary Martin McLaughlin. The Portable Medieval Reader;. New York: Viking, 1949. pp48.
3.) Backman, Clifford R. The Worlds of Medieval Europe. New York: Oxford UP, 2003. pp383.
4.) Theodore Roosevelt: Speech, Osawatomie, August 31, 1910
5.) Ross, James Bruce, and Mary Martin McLaughlin. The Portable Medieval Reader;. New York: Viking, 1949. pp92-101.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/socialism_the_new_feudalism.html

Wei Wu Wei
06-01-2010, 11:50 PM
What are you talking about? Capitalism was the natural progression from fuedalism because the merchant class began to get more power than the old political/religious classes. It's the same idea, one group of people own the land, own the means of production, and own the fruits of labor, while everyone else only has their labor to sell in exchange for benefits that the capitalist class gives them.

Wei Wu Wei
06-01-2010, 11:53 PM
In what way is socialism like feudalism? In feudalism the workers have absolutely no power, in socialism the workers own the land and the means of production.

In feudalism the land, power, and wealth is concentrated amongst a class who simply claim ownership over it and do not work the land, but gain the benefits of it; in socialism the wealth is distributed amongst the workers and ownership is divided amongst those who work the land.

Rockntractor
06-01-2010, 11:54 PM
In what way is socialism like feudalism? In feudalism the workers have absolutely no power, in socialism the workers own the land and the means of production.

In feudalism the land, power, and wealth is concentrated amongst a class who simply claim ownership over it and do not work the land, but gain the benefits of it; in socialism the wealth is distributed amongst the workers and ownership is divided amongst those who work the land.
What difference does it make to you? You don't work, others support you!:rolleyes:

PoliCon
06-01-2010, 11:54 PM
What are you talking about? Capitalism was the natural progression from fuedalism because the merchant class began to get more power than the old political/religious classes. It's the same idea, one group of people own the land, own the means of production, and own the fruits of labor, while everyone else only has their labor to sell in exchange for benefits that the capitalist class gives them.

DUMBASS - MERCANTILISM was what came after feudalism. You truly are a stupid fucktard. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
06-01-2010, 11:56 PM
DUMBASS - MERCANTILISM was what came after feudalism. You truly are a stupid fucktard. :rolleyes:

He is a societal leech.

Elspeth
06-01-2010, 11:58 PM
This article is right on target. Thanks for posting it.

Wei Wu Wei
06-01-2010, 11:59 PM
DUMBASS - MERCANTILISM was what came after feudalism. You truly are a stupid fucktard. :rolleyes:

I didn't say it was a direct switch from one to another, but a natural progression. Mercantilism was clearly the fertile soil for Capitalism.

PoliCon
06-02-2010, 12:03 AM
He is a societal leech.

I think you're giving him WAY too much credit. A leech would be a superior life form to this fucktard. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
06-02-2010, 12:06 AM
I didn't say it was a direct switch from one to another, but a natural progression. Mercantilism was clearly the fertile soil for Capitalism.

Capitalism is a term created by socialist to disparage economic individualism - a concept set out by Adam Smith in his text - Wealth of Nations. Do try to know a little bit about a subject before you attempt to pontificate on it. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
06-02-2010, 12:08 AM
Capitalism is a term created by socialist to disparage economic individualism - a concept set out by Adam Smith in his text - Wealth of Nations. Do try to know a little bit about a subject before you attempt to pontificate on it. :rolleyes:

Yes I watch Glenn Beck's program every day buddy and I read the books he puts on, I've heard it all.

Now, how much critiques of capitalism have you read from academic sources?

Wei Wu Wei
06-02-2010, 12:09 AM
Personal attacks are used by people with nothing behind their arguments. You're transparent.

PoliCon
06-02-2010, 12:10 AM
Yes I watch Glenn Beck's program every day buddy and I read the books he puts on, I've heard it all.

Now, how much critiques of capitalism have you read from academic sources?

Clearly - more than you.



BTW - I've never once watched an episode of becks show.:rolleyes:

PoliCon
06-02-2010, 12:11 AM
Personal attacks are used by people with nothing behind their arguments. You're transparent.

spoken like a true fucktard. You're claims have been destroyed and now you wanna make the argument about me? :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
06-02-2010, 12:11 AM
Personal attacks are used by people with nothing behind their arguments. You're transparent.
You're a communist fool.

PoliCon
06-02-2010, 12:12 AM
You're a communist fool.

Notice how he is fulfilling exactly what the article speaks of and is too fucking stupid to see it. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
06-02-2010, 12:17 AM
Notice how he is fulfilling exactly what the article speaks of and is too fucking stupid to see it. :rolleyes:

They see what their socialist masters have taught them to see and nothing else. He would starve if the hive collapsed!

malloc
06-02-2010, 07:42 PM
In what way is socialism like feudalism? In feudalism the workers have absolutely no power, in socialism the workers own the land and the means of production.


What the hell world do you live in? The workers own the means of production? Are you out of your mind? Look at people in Cuba, and Soviet Russia and China, the worker's don't own a pot to piss in. Sure the propaganda tells them that they own the factory they slave in, but then the commissars and those in power reap the fruits of the factory's wealth leaving the populace in squalor. Your statement is absolutely deranged and not based on any form of reality, plain and simple.



In feudalism the land, power, and wealth is concentrated amongst a class who simply claim ownership over it and do not work the land, but gain the benefits of it; in socialism the wealth is distributed amongst the workers and ownership is divided amongst those who work the land.

Please give me an example of one nation, under socialism, where the wealth is distributed amongst the workers and ownership of the wealth is divided amongst those who work the land. One example where this warm and fuzzy theory actually translates to real world tangible wealth. Socialism is feudalism with a different line of propaganda to dupe idiots like you. Does Kim Jong Il starve with his people, or does he live comfortably in his palace? Does Fidel Castro lie in his own filth and disease like his people, or does receive the best medical care in Cuba? Face it, in the practice of socialism, an elite few own the means of production as well as the fruits of that production period, as well as the workers. History has proven this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wei Wu Wei
06-03-2010, 12:51 AM
What the hell world do you live in? The workers own the means of production? Are you out of your mind? Look at people in Cuba, and Soviet Russia and China, the worker's don't own a pot to piss in. Sure the propaganda tells them that they own the factory they slave in, but then the commissars and those in power reap the fruits of the factory's wealth leaving the populace in squalor. Your statement is absolutely deranged and not based on any form of reality, plain and simple.



Please give me an example of one nation, under socialism, where the wealth is distributed amongst the workers and ownership of the wealth is divided amongst those who work the land. One example where this warm and fuzzy theory actually translates to real world tangible wealth. Socialism is feudalism with a different line of propaganda to dupe idiots like you. Does Kim Jong Il starve with his people, or does he live comfortably in his palace? Does Fidel Castro lie in his own filth and disease like his people, or does receive the best medical care in Cuba? Face it, in the practice of socialism, an elite few own the means of production as well as the fruits of that production period, as well as the workers. History has proven this beyond a reasonable doubt.


Right, the Soviet Union was a failure, Cuba is poor and China is hardly a socialist country (and admittedly they are becoming the new superpower faster than paranoiacs can buy gold).