Call me a peasant any day cause overnight oats are delicious. Here’s my recipe you are now asking yourselves for: 1/4 cup steel cut oats, 1 Tbsp chia seeds, a glob of honey, 1/8 tsp salt, 1/4 tsp cinnamon, 3/4 cup of milk, then in the morning add 1/4 cup crushed walnuts and a ton of blueberries.
Now if you’ll excuse me, it’s gruel o’clock for this peasant.
pro tip: try frozen berries and add them the night before to infuse the oats with berry juice. which is also practical because you can mix all together the night before in a to go jar and in the morning you don‘t waste any time and can get right to slaving away for our feudal overlords
I’ll just stick with the kind I can microwave in a couple of minutes.
Capitalism is just an extension of feudalism already. There was no transition
Well not really, but I get what you mean! As one German guy wrote long ago - it is always a class struggle. And I’m writing this as a person who knows how shit the communism was. No matter the system, there will always be someone who exploits it and someone trying and being in charge. Even in Anarchism, everyone then tries to be in charge, even if just over themselves.
Basically true, but consider the alternative. Given how expensive things are now, if you don’t live a very minimal lifestyle you are going to be much more trapped in your career than someone who does. You won’t be able to retire early, you won’t be able to switch to something lower paid but more enjoyable/laid back, you won’t have the means to take some time off to pursue your own business ideas or just dealing with life stuff.
If you’re dead set on living the “American Dream” or something and refuse to hold back on treating yourself with luxuries, you are going to end up being even more of a tool of your technofeudalist masters. Acknowledging that doesn’t mean turning a blind eye to what is happening, it’s just basic self preservation of your freedom.
The problem is that more and more the tiny house and so forth is no longer a choice, but a neccessity to survive. In places like Silicon Valley a normal job basicly forces you to either communte for hours every day or live in a tiny house just to survive. Looking at the rent increases and high home prices combined with high intrest rates, the cost of housing looks like it will grow in the coming years. That is not just a US problem, but the case in many parts of the developed world. In poorer countries it is a reality for even longer and for even more people.
That being said, if you have the choice, building up some wealth is certainly a good idea. With a bit of it and some good ideas, it becomes much easier to drop out a bit out of the capitalist hellscape and avoid the worst problems.
This is actually why I won’t even bother doing higher tier jobs. Being owned by my boss is not going to make me happy.
deleted by creator
Not really. Capitalism is when owners of capital employ workers to use that capital to create goods and services which they sell to generate a profit. In capitalism the capitalists own the means of production. In feudalism they don’t have to care about production, they just own the land and then charge rent.
Adam Smith is notorious for his support of capitalism, but he was extremely critical of rents. The “free market” he talked about wasn’t one that was free of any government regulation, it was free of rents. You don’t have to do any work to get rent, you just have to own something. And rent gets worse when the owners of that something have a monopoly.
Imagine a capitalist who leases a textile factory and fills it up with workers earning minimum wage. Trucks drive up to one side of the factory and drop off spools of yarn, out the other side come sweaters which are sold for a big mark-up. The capitalist can do things like monitor his workers and fire them for taking more than 5 minutes to use the bathroom, or he can demand they work night shifts during holiday season to maximize his profits. The key thing here is profits – the amount left over after subtracting the costs from the revenues.
Now imagine the feudal landlord who owns the land that the factory uses. He doesn’t care if the factory is profitable or not, all he cares about is that it’s on land he owns, and he demands that he is paid rent for the use of his land. Maybe climate change means that sweaters stop selling so well, so the capitalist’s profits start to disappear. The feudal landlord doesn’t have to care. It’s his property, and the person leasing his property has to pay rent.
Feudalism led to the Irish potato famine. Even during the famine, Ireland was exporting food to England because the feudal landlords required their payment, even if the Irish were unable to feed themselves.
The modern world is looking more and more like feudalism and less and less like capitalism. Amazon rose to prominence using capitalism. It made profits when people ordered things online. The cost to buy those goods wholesale then pack and ship them to individual buyers was less than the price people paid for that service. In the early days, every product listed on Amazon’s website was sold by Amazon. Anything else would have been absurd. And, of course, Amazon wasn’t selling search ads on its website. It was in the business of selling goods, so when you searched for “cat beds”, it wanted to sell you a cat bed. Amazon had to compete with other rival websites that sold things online, as well as with physical stores like Wal*Mart.
These days, Amazon has transitioned from a capitalist enterprise to a feudal landlord. They forced local businesses to close. They bought up their online competition. Nowadays, they don’t make much of a profit on their store, they make rent by selling space on their search results page. Amazon makes much more money by selling space on its search results page for “cat beds” than from selling people cat beds. Because Amazon is a choke point through which most online commerce flows, Amazon gets to raise the rent it charges for space on that search results page to absurd levels.
Whether or not you hate capitalism, I think it’s clear that feudalism is much worse.
deleted by creator
This is not the definition of feudalism
Of course it’s not “the definition” of feudalism. But, being paid for the use of something you own is a key aspect of feudalism.
the common theme in it is reciprocal obligations
Suuuure… I’m sure that’s how the feudal lords framed it for their subjects. But, when push came to shove, if you didn’t work the lord’s fields he could have you whipped. If he failed to protect you from brigands you could… complain quietly to the other serfs? The lord would only need to fear aristocrats higher up the food chain than themselves.
Everything that you say is feudal about Amazon, is definitively capitalist
No, it may be happening in an economy where capitalism is one of the main economic systems, but it definitely isn’t capitalism.
Real estate companies are still capitalist even though they deal in real estate.
Take away the company from this example. Is an individual a capitalist if they own land and receive rent from people using that land? How is that different from a feudal lord who owns land and demands rent?
deleted by creator
You can’t fire a slave, slaves has to be sold.
Technofeudalism is just endgame capitalism
Serfs had The Commons. We don’t even have that
There’s no point renaming capitalism
I won’t stand for slandering overnight oats like that!
edit: how tf did I mess up my comment so badly.
I think this is very toxic post. I live in apartment in a size of tiny house, and I have no wish to move to suburbs and slave away my life in traffic jams. People should live in a way that they enjoy. Comparing is just a dick measuring contest. And One should be able to enjoy his mega mansion and his huge truck if he wants to too, providing it is done in environmentally safe way and all the taxes (and I mean appropriately and proportionally calculated taxes) are paid
It’s hard to take this seriously when you shit on living in the suburbs then immediately say “people should live in a way they enjoy”.
I’m not shitting on suburbs. I don’t like them though. And I don’t just say “people should live in a way they enjoy”. If you would avoid twisting the words and reading until the end You would notice a whole sentence saying: “And One should be able to enjoy his mega mansion and his huge truck if he wants to too, providing it is done in environmentally safe way and all the taxes (and I mean appropriately and proportionally calculated taxes) are paid”. If, by any chance, you are still reading, let me say that we are free to define the system of living in any way we want. And If you can find a way to do what you like in a way that is safe, constructive and not infringing on our planet and society - go for it!
Respectfully - I don’t see how mega-mansions and huge-trucks could be considered ‘environmentally safe’.
And people should also consider the “social-impact of earning”…
since most mansion-owners “leeched” their money via white-collar jobs at exploitative corporations.
…In my opinion - the entire downstream effect of our choices must be considered.
(I write this in the spirit of unified awareness - I know you aren’t pushing for mansions or trucks)
I think You can have a huge house if You build it smart. Like 100 m long earth ship or something like that. I was a bit iffy about trucks though wen I wrote this, so I know what you mean. But if you scale back to normal not Murican size car/truck and go hydrogen or electric, it is still bad, but better than I can realistically hope for with current trends. I agree with your opinion about jobs. I feel that big corporations are allowed too much free space to do what they want. I love to see innovation that big resources can bring, but it is always being overshadowed by their exploitation and lobbying in self interest. There is not enough control and they always end up exploiting their position.
My smallish place gives me a 10 to 15 minute commute. Which I take do by bicycle frequently. My friends in the suburbs travel 1.5 hours each way. Fuck that shit.
deleted by creator
At that point - why don’t just live in a motor home.
Agreed. One could generously give the OP the benefit of the doubt that the intent of the post is a complaint about the system, but it’s fundamentally flawed as it’s still an attack on the “victim” of said system.
Who are they, to tell people what to eat or what size house to live in? As long as people have the choice of food they want or home they want, that’s all that matters. Work needs to be done to make those choices equitable, but even in an equitable system there would still be tradeoffs. I just bought a house a few years ago, it’s in town, modest size (1800sq ft), and I have a 15 minute commute. I love it. My friends bought a house last year - huge, 3500 sq ft. Brand new, bit mcmansion-y, but it’s a nice house, and they love it. We paid about the same price, because their house is in the middle of nowhere. If we bought a house near them, I’d have a 1+ hour commute one way each day, and I’d hate it. I like my hobbies, but I don’t need that much space, lol.
And if someone is happy buying a tiny house, good for them. If someone doesn’t need the space - doesn’t have kids, has undemanding hobbies, isn’t throwing a lot of parties, why would they need a bigger house? It’s just more to maintain. This post is basically saying anyone who doesn’t consume - buying bigger houses and a meat and eggs breakfast - is a victim, which is just stupid. And it’d be great if tiny homes weren’t one of the easiest ways out of the current rental nightmare, but some people would still choose tiny homes even if every house cost the same and renting didn’t exist.
I think You hit a nail on it’s head saying " This post is basically saying anyone who doesn’t consume - buying bigger houses and a meat and eggs breakfast - is a victim, which is just stupid". I agree.
Hooray for nuance and reason!
If you call it “oat milk”, you can sell gruel at a steep markup.
Slaves cannot be fired. They have to be sold.
Ever heard of share cropping? How about debt bondage or wage slavery? Slavery takes many forms. Very few include open air slave markets.
Also, this post is about peasants. While they were certainly a form of slave, particularly serfs, I have a suspicion you didn’t know that and didn’t intend to equivocate the two. Peasants weren’t really bought or sold either. I’m sure it happened sometimes but it wasn’t a structural component of feudalism.
All this to say, what’s your point?
