Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,800 
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 24, 2020 11:33:14 GMT
Since the autumn of the middle ages and finally since ~1789 bourgeoisie&economy have become prevalent, but this was not the case in the aristocratic eras. The rats try to encapsulate us in the modern dystopia by claiming, that it was never ever better before - but this is a lie! For Austria's economical situation after 1918 You are generally right, but A. had also certain hopes now and again: the end of inflation, balanced budgets, strong currency ("AlpenDollar"), rise of wood/paper-industry and a far more effective agriculture (which had been neglected during the monarchy in order to enable more imports of wheat/... from Hungary). By aristocratic do you mean feudalism? Yes. |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,322
Member is Online
|
Post by slon on Oct 24, 2020 16:16:35 GMT
By aristocratic do you mean feudalism? Yes. You think the feudal sysem gave a people a good standard of life? Are you mad?
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,800
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 24, 2020 22:09:35 GMT
You think the feudal sysem gave a people a good standard of life? Are you mad?
Even the economical standard of live You are certainly meaning was higher than that of mankind in few decades, when the holdless tramps will have taken over control worldwide. And it is "mad" to obey a company or a "nation" or "Europe" or "mankind" or "ideals" or parties instead of a concrete human being (as it was the case in feudalism). |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,322
Member is Online
|
Post by slon on Oct 25, 2020 11:16:22 GMT
You think the feudal sysem gave a people a good standard of life? Are you mad?
Even the economical standard of live You are certainly meaning was higher than that of mankind in few decades, when the holdless tramps will have taken over control worldwide. And it is "mad" to obey a company or a "nation" or "Europe" or "mankind" or "ideals" or parties instead of a concrete human being (as it was the case in feudalism). I suppose slavery has similar justification |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,800
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 25, 2020 12:40:07 GMT
Even the economical standard of live You are certainly meaning was higher than that of mankind in few decades, when the holdless tramps will have taken over control worldwide. And it is "mad" to obey a company or a "nation" or "Europe" or "mankind" or "ideals" or parties instead of a concrete human being (as it was the case in feudalism). I suppose slavery has similar justification Slavery is not the same as choosing freely someone, who deserves it (as was the ideal of feudalism). And the personal slavery of the ancient world was better than today's, when You must be the slave - nothing else is an "employee" - of abstract machineries. (Amazing, that i am once more more British-empiristical and less german-ideological than Britons here are...) |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 25, 2020 13:18:28 GMT
I suppose slavery has similar justification Slavery is not the same as choosing freely someone, who deserves it (as was the ideal of feudalism). And the personal slavery of the ancient world was better than today's, when You must be the slave - nothing else is an "employee" - of abstract machineries. (Amazing, that i am once more more British-empiristical and less german-ideological than Britons here are...) I am just popping in briefly to say that my university tutor would have jumped on this to point out that there is a fundamental difference between feudal relationships (between lords and vassals: reciprocal, honourable and to some extent as Georg Ebner says voluntary, or at least personal) and manorial relationships (between lords and villeins or serfs: top-down, servile and absolutely non-voluntary since arising from inherited status and tied to dear old Karl's "ownership of the means of production" i.e. land, and which is what I think slon is thinking of.) The latter was applicable to the majority of the population and almost everyone in the countryside; the former was limited to the nobility, gentry and what in England were called yeomanry. She didn't like the word "feudalism" at all, on the basis that "isms" in English are ideologies and political movements (Communism, Marxism, Nazism, Fascism etc) and no-one in the Middle Ages was a member of the Feudal Party; feudal relations were just a feature of society that was a given. She wasn't keen on "feudal system" either, on the basis that the sort of pyramid structure we (in the UK anyway) were taught at school does not fit with the varied forms of feudal (and manorial) relations that could be found across Europe; medieval Wales or Brittany (her specialisms) or Ireland being very different from e.g. Hungary, Poland, Scandinavia, Italy or France (and the latter equally different from each other.) It isn't really even adequate as a description of Medieval English society and is hopeless as a starting point for urban society (a minority, but a significant one and quite integrated with rural life due to the market function). I'm less confident on ancient slavery but I've read Finley, who is emphatic that it was fundamental to ancient slavery that the slave's body belonged to the owner and that a consequence was routine physical and sexual abuse - so routine that it was not considered abuse at all, merely legitimate use of a possession. However alienated the modern employee may be from the faceless company, generally speaking the former is only metaphorically screwed (though sadly there are exceptions) |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Oct 25, 2020 14:06:24 GMT
Slavery is not the same as choosing freely someone, who deserves it (as was the ideal of feudalism). And the personal slavery of the ancient world was better than today's, when You must be the slave - nothing else is an "employee" - of abstract machineries. (Amazing, that i am once more more British-empiristical and less german-ideological than Britons here are...) I am just popping in briefly to say that my university tutor would have jumped on this to point out that there is a fundamental difference between feudal relationships (between lords and vassals: reciprocal, honourable and to some extent as Georg Ebner says voluntary, or at least personal) and manorial relationships (between lords and villeins or serfs: top-down, servile and absolutely non-voluntary since arising from inherited status and tied to dear old Karl's "ownership of the means of production" i.e. land, and which is what I think slon is thinking of.) The latter was applicable to the majority of the population and almost everyone in the countryside; the former was limited to the nobility, gentry and what in England were called yeomanry. She didn't like the word "feudalism" at all, on the basis that "isms" in English are ideologies and political movements (Communism, Marxism, Nazism, Fascism etc) and no-one in the Middle Ages was a member of the Feudal Party; feudal relations were just a feature of society that was a given. She wasn't keen on "feudal system" either, on the basis that the sort of pyramid structure we (in the UK anyway) were taught at school does not fit with the varied forms of feudal (and manorial) relations that could be found across Europe; medieval Wales or Brittany (her specialisms) or Ireland being very different from e.g. Hungary, Poland, Scandinavia, Italy or France (and the latter equally different from each other.) It isn't really even adequate as a description of Medieval English society and is hopeless as a starting point for urban society (a minority, but a significant one and quite integrated with rural life due to the market function). I'm less confident on ancient slavery but I've read Finley, who is emphatic that it was fundamental to ancient slavery that the slave's body belonged to the owner and that a consequence was routine physical and sexual abuse - so routine that it was not considered abuse at all, merely legitimate use of a possession. However alienated the modern employee may be from the faceless company, generally speaking the former is only metaphorically screwed (though sadly there are exceptions) Ah, for just a moment a voice of sanity (and authority) in a world sadly lacking those qualities. Welcome back even if it does prove a quick pop-in! |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,800
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 25, 2020 16:33:40 GMT
Slavery is not the same as choosing freely someone, who deserves it (as was the ideal of feudalism). And the personal slavery of the ancient world was better than today's, when You must be the slave - nothing else is an "employee" - of abstract machineries. (Amazing, that i am once more more British-empiristical and less german-ideological than Britons here are...) I am just popping in briefly to say that my university tutor would have jumped on this to point out that there is a fundamental difference between feudal relationships (between lords and vassals: reciprocal, honourable and to some extent as Georg Ebner says voluntary, or at least personal) and manorial relationships (between lords and villeins or serfs: top-down, servile and absolutely non-voluntary since arising from inherited status and tied to dear old Karl's "ownership of the means of production" i.e. land, and which is what I think slon is thinking of.) The latter was applicable to the majority of the population and almost everyone in the countryside; the former was limited to the nobility, gentry and what in England were called yeomanry. She didn't like the word "feudalism" at all, on the basis that "isms" in English are ideologies and political movements (Communism, Marxism, Nazism, Fascism etc) and no-one in the Middle Ages was a member of the Feudal Party; feudal relations were just a feature of society that was a given. She wasn't keen on "feudal system" either, on the basis that the sort of pyramid structure we (in the UK anyway) were taught at school does not fit with the varied forms of feudal (and manorial) relations that could be found across Europe; medieval Wales or Brittany (her specialisms) or Ireland being very different from e.g. Hungary, Poland, Scandinavia, Italy or France (and the latter equally different from each other.) It isn't really even adequate as a description of Medieval English society and is hopeless as a starting point for urban society (a minority, but a significant one and quite integrated with rural life due to the market function). I'm less confident on ancient slavery but I've read Finley, who is emphatic that it was fundamental to ancient slavery that the slave's body belonged to the owner and that a consequence was routine physical and sexual abuse - so routine that it was not considered abuse at all, merely legitimate use of a possession. However alienated the modern employee may be from the faceless company, generally speaking the former is only metaphorically screwed (though sadly there are exceptions) Yes, i was aware of this ambiguity (thus my "ideal of feudalism"). On the SurFace caused by being an amalgam of the romanic ordo senatorius and the germanic triuwe. (But the deeper reason for being not merged were the 2 different steps of Christian faith: First a Christian must define himself - like Beatissima Virgo Mary did - as doule; and only afterwards he can get elevated to be the brother&friend of CHRIST. And L'homme révolté against GOD and HIS order is also the final reason for all that egality-NonSense: If You cannot see the spiritual/intellectual/physical aristocrats as - insufficient - symbols for the only absolute&perfect entity any longer, You cannot accept our apparent InEqualities. Only a homo religiosus can accept to be the slave of e.g. PLATON or GOETHE: "Unreadable like modern biographies on genial heroes." [GOMEZ DAVILA]) |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,322
Member is Online
|
Post by slon on Oct 26, 2020 10:00:22 GMT
I am just popping in briefly to say that my university tutor would have jumped on this to point out that there is a fundamental difference between feudal relationships (between lords and vassals: reciprocal, honourable and to some extent as Georg Ebner says voluntary, or at least personal) and manorial relationships (between lords and villeins or serfs: top-down, servile and absolutely non-voluntary since arising from inherited status and tied to dear old Karl's "ownership of the means of production" i.e. land, and which is what I think slon is thinking of.) The latter was applicable to the majority of the population and almost everyone in the countryside; the former was limited to the nobility, gentry and what in England were called yeomanry. She didn't like the word "feudalism" at all, on the basis that "isms" in English are ideologies and political movements (Communism, Marxism, Nazism, Fascism etc) and no-one in the Middle Ages was a member of the Feudal Party; feudal relations were just a feature of society that was a given. She wasn't keen on "feudal system" either, on the basis that the sort of pyramid structure we (in the UK anyway) were taught at school does not fit with the varied forms of feudal (and manorial) relations that could be found across Europe; medieval Wales or Brittany (her specialisms) or Ireland being very different from e.g. Hungary, Poland, Scandinavia, Italy or France (and the latter equally different from each other.) It isn't really even adequate as a description of Medieval English society and is hopeless as a starting point for urban society (a minority, but a significant one and quite integrated with rural life due to the market function). I'm less confident on ancient slavery but I've read Finley, who is emphatic that it was fundamental to ancient slavery that the slave's body belonged to the owner and that a consequence was routine physical and sexual abuse - so routine that it was not considered abuse at all, merely legitimate use of a possession. However alienated the modern employee may be from the faceless company, generally speaking the former is only metaphorically screwed (though sadly there are exceptions) Yes, i was aware of this ambiguity (thus my "ideal of feudalism"). On the SurFace caused by being an amalgam of the romanic ordo senatorius and the germanic triuwe. (But the deeper reason for being not merged were the 2 different steps of Christian faith: First a Christian must define himself - like Beatissima Virgo Mary did - as doule; and only afterwards he can get elevated to be the brother&friend of CHRIST. And L'homme révolté against GOD and HIS order is also the final reason for all that egality-NonSense: If You cannot see the spiritual/intellectual/physical aristocrats as - insufficient - symbols for the only absolute&perfect entity any longer, You cannot accept our apparent InEqualities. Only a homo religiosus can accept to be the slave of e.g. PLATON or GOETHE: "Unreadable like modern biographies on genial heroes." [GOMEZ DAVILA]) Yes but behind the mumbo jumbo there is still a inefficient and disfunctional society which falls to bits when forced to compete with even the least successful products of the age of enlightment. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,800
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 26, 2020 14:05:19 GMT
Yes, i was aware of this ambiguity (thus my "ideal of feudalism"). On the SurFace caused by being an amalgam of the romanic ordo senatorius and the germanic triuwe. (But the deeper reason for being not merged were the 2 different steps of Christian faith: First a Christian must define himself - like Beatissima Virgo Mary did - as doule; and only afterwards he can get elevated to be the brother&friend of CHRIST. And L'homme révolté against GOD and HIS order is also the final reason for all that egality-NonSense: If You cannot see the spiritual/intellectual/physical aristocrats as - insufficient - symbols for the only absolute&perfect entity any longer, You cannot accept our apparent InEqualities. Only a homo religiosus can accept to be the slave of e.g. PLATON or GOETHE: "Unreadable like modern biographies on genial heroes." [GOMEZ DAVILA]) Yes but behind the mumbo jumbo there is still a inefficient and disfunctional society which falls to bits when forced to compete with even the least successful products of the age of enlightment. When reducing human life to technics this is indeed true - presently&recently. (But, as mentioned earlier, even this technical "progress" will evaporate in few decades, when the holdless-communistic tramps will take over.) |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,322
Member is Online
|
Post by slon on Oct 26, 2020 14:26:37 GMT
Yes but behind the mumbo jumbo there is still a inefficient and disfunctional society which falls to bits when forced to compete with even the least successful products of the age of enlightment. When reducing human life to technics this is indeed true - presently&recently. (But, as mentioned earlier, even this technical "progress" will evaporate in few decades, when the holdless-communistic tramps will take over.) When I come across a holdless-communistic tramp I will let you know |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,800
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 26, 2020 18:04:52 GMT
When reducing human life to technics this is indeed true - presently&recently. (But, as mentioned earlier, even this technical "progress" will evaporate in few decades, when the holdless-communistic tramps will take over.) When I come across a holdless-communistic tramp I will let you know You won't believe it: There are said to be people You will certainly denounce as "asocial escapists", who flee - for reasons entirely ununderstandable to You - from the worth-&sense-less world You admire so much into ideologies promising a salvation by more of the same (from sharp Marxism down to wishywashy progressism) or into drugs/teleVision/crime/sex/sports/career/hobbies/videoGames/interNet/elections - all in all the vast majority! "We needn't have to fear, that the modern world will survive." (GOMEZ DAVILA) |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,322
Member is Online
|
Post by slon on Oct 27, 2020 8:37:33 GMT
When I come across a holdless-communistic tramp I will let you know You won't believe it: There are said to be people You will certainly denounce as "asocial escapists", who flee - for reasons entirely ununderstandable to You - from the worth-&sense-less world You admire so much into ideologies promising a salvation by more of the same (from sharp Marxism down to wishywashy progressism) or into drugs/teleVision/crime/sex/sports/career/hobbies/videoGames/interNet/elections - all in all the vast majority! "We needn't have to fear, that the modern world will survive." (GOMEZ DAVILA) Train spotters are the worst |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Oct 27, 2020 8:57:21 GMT
You won't believe it: There are said to be people You will certainly denounce as "asocial escapists", who flee - for reasons entirely ununderstandable to You - from the worth-&sense-less world You admire so much into ideologies promising a salvation by more of the same (from sharp Marxism down to wishywashy progressism) or into drugs/teleVision/crime/sex/sports/career/hobbies/videoGames/interNet/elections - all in all the vast majority! "We needn't have to fear, that the modern world will survive." (GOMEZ DAVILA) Train spotters are the worst Have you ever met a bus "enthusiast" ? |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 31, 2020 2:18:11 GMT
Slavery is not the same as choosing freely someone, who deserves it (as was the ideal of feudalism). And the personal slavery of the ancient world was better than today's, when You must be the slave - nothing else is an "employee" - of abstract machineries. (Amazing, that i am once more more British-empiristical and less german-ideological than Britons here are...) I am just popping in briefly to say that my university tutor would have jumped on this to point out that there is a fundamental difference between feudal relationships (between lords and vassals: reciprocal, honourable and to some extent as Georg Ebner says voluntary, or at least personal) and manorial relationships (between lords and villeins or serfs: top-down, servile and absolutely non-voluntary since arising from inherited status and tied to dear old Karl's "ownership of the means of production" i.e. land, and which is what I think slon is thinking of.) The latter was applicable to the majority of the population and almost everyone in the countryside; the former was limited to the nobility, gentry and what in England were called yeomanry. She didn't like the word "feudalism" at all, on the basis that "isms" in English are ideologies and political movements (Communism, Marxism, Nazism, Fascism etc) and no-one in the Middle Ages was a member of the Feudal Party; feudal relations were just a feature of society that was a given. She wasn't keen on "feudal system" either, on the basis that the sort of pyramid structure we (in the UK anyway) were taught at school does not fit with the varied forms of feudal (and manorial) relations that could be found across Europe; medieval Wales or Brittany (her specialisms) or Ireland being very different from e.g. Hungary, Poland, Scandinavia, Italy or France (and the latter equally different from each other.) It isn't really even adequate as a description of Medieval English society and is hopeless as a starting point for urban society (a minority, but a significant one and quite integrated with rural life due to the market function). I'm less confident on ancient slavery but I've read Finley, who is emphatic that it was fundamental to ancient slavery that the slave's body belonged to the owner and that a consequence was routine physical and sexual abuse - so routine that it was not considered abuse at all, merely legitimate use of a possession. However alienated the modern employee may be from the faceless company, generally speaking the former is only metaphorically screwed (though sadly there are exceptions) Ancient slavery had as much variation as medieval feudalism, so Finley is only right in part. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,800
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 31, 2020 5:09:32 GMT
I am just popping in briefly to say that my university tutor would have jumped on this to point out that there is a fundamental difference between feudal relationships (between lords and vassals: reciprocal, honourable and to some extent as Georg Ebner says voluntary, or at least personal) and manorial relationships (between lords and villeins or serfs: top-down, servile and absolutely non-voluntary since arising from inherited status and tied to dear old Karl's "ownership of the means of production" i.e. land, and which is what I think slon is thinking of.) The latter was applicable to the majority of the population and almost everyone in the countryside; the former was limited to the nobility, gentry and what in England were called yeomanry. She didn't like the word "feudalism" at all, on the basis that "isms" in English are ideologies and political movements (Communism, Marxism, Nazism, Fascism etc) and no-one in the Middle Ages was a member of the Feudal Party; feudal relations were just a feature of society that was a given. She wasn't keen on "feudal system" either, on the basis that the sort of pyramid structure we (in the UK anyway) were taught at school does not fit with the varied forms of feudal (and manorial) relations that could be found across Europe; medieval Wales or Brittany (her specialisms) or Ireland being very different from e.g. Hungary, Poland, Scandinavia, Italy or France (and the latter equally different from each other.) It isn't really even adequate as a description of Medieval English society and is hopeless as a starting point for urban society (a minority, but a significant one and quite integrated with rural life due to the market function). I'm less confident on ancient slavery but I've read Finley, who is emphatic that it was fundamental to ancient slavery that the slave's body belonged to the owner and that a consequence was routine physical and sexual abuse - so routine that it was not considered abuse at all, merely legitimate use of a possession. However alienated the modern employee may be from the faceless company, generally speaking the former is only metaphorically screwed (though sadly there are exceptions) Ancient slavery had as much variation as medieval feudalism, so Finley is only right in part. Fundamental was the juridical aspect: That a slave was a res, not a persona, ie. an object, but not a subject of law. What that meant in daily life, varied indeed a lot: Some slaves were millionaires, some were terribly treated. Generally it was seen - especially because of the Stoa - as legal, but inpropriate to torture or kill a slave reasonless. |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,322
Member is Online
|
Post by slon on Nov 6, 2020 11:56:53 GMT
There is a good series about the disintegration of empires and the conflicts within the 'new' countries post WW1 on PBS America at present.
"A Bloody Legacy"
|
|
