Were people actually better off under Feudalism?

[Goatse]

OK, it may seem obvious that people were worse off under Feudalism - however, couldn't that have been more to do with the technological and economical states? If Feudalism was implemented in today's society, would people be, socially, better or worse off?

EDIT: Uhh, I just realised this probably would have been better off in Learning - it seemed at the time I was posting about an indepth theoretical topic but now I realise it was more of a question. Sorry.

[Demogorgon]

No, I very much doub they would be. We all hate capitalism here, but lets not get mixed up and forget feudalism was even worse and even more esploitative.

[JazzRemington]

Depends. There was a set work week that included so many hours a day, mostly from sun rise to sun set and they had all winter off and many holidays in between. Also, there was a natural limit to intensity of the work, being mostly limited by the physical capacities of humans.

In fact, in terms of hours worked per year and intensity, I'd say we are worse off in capitalism than in feudalism.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:45 pm
In fact, in terms of hours worked per year and intensity, I'd say we are worse off in capitalism than in feudalism.
Probably. The introduction of the factory system was a way for the bosses to maximize the productive capabilities of their employees and exert greater control over them and their activities.

[The Grey Blur]

Wasn't the whole point of the rise of capitalism due to the fact that feudalism as a means of social structure couldn't advance the means of production?

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 23, 2007 05:59 pm
Wasn't the whole point of the rise of capitalism due to the fact that feudalism as a means of social structure couldn't advance the means of production?
Possibly. The most common source of laborers under Feudalism (at least in Europe) were serfs, who were legally owned by their lords. Because of this, there was legislation that limited the employment of the serfs and the amount of profit that could be made at their expense.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In spite of my pronounced Leninist disagreements with ComradeRed, I will say this as a structural analysis.

In manufacturing, there is the potential for advanced technology with increased automation. However, consider "de-industrialization" in the developed countries, as well as the opening up of 24-hour retail and entertainment businesses, with employees working graveyards and nights. This "coincides" with the shift from manufacturing labour to service labour, and "outsourcing" of this element of the value chain to developing countries.

What Marx said was that capitalism was more progressive than feudalism, but was also more alienating. We are NOT worse off under capitalism, and there is a difference between exploitation and alienation.

Consider gender equality. While stay-at-home moms (in Islamic countries, for example) are being discriminated from employment AND education, working couples are having more difficulties maintaining their relationships (hence the increased divorce and NON-marriage CL relationship rates).

Even education costs for the ordinary Joe and Jane are spiraling due to lack of infrastructural funding and disincentives for would-be teachers/profs to enter the workforce as teachers/profs (while more teachers would cost more, smaller classes, tutorial programs, and POSSIBLY extra-curricular programs result in better grades and less second attempts), necessitating the need for "practical education" (either working experience as part of post-secondary studies or right after getting degrees). The bottom line: the rock and the hard place.

Besides, isn't it common for many of us here to say that wage labour (and possibly salary, as well) is ALREADY de facto slavery?



If ComradeRed can elucidate more on what I said (since my focus is more on monopoly capitalism than anything else :( ), so much the better.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 23, 2007 04:59 pm
Wasn't the whole point of the rise of capitalism due to the fact that feudalism as a means of social structure couldn't advance the means of production?
As I understand it, not exactly. The problem was that feudalism couldn't advance them in the way that was most profitable to the bosses. Under feudalism, manufacturers had more control over the means of production, the pace at which they were produced and the wages they received for the products. This obviously wouldn't do, as it took the control away from the boss (who owned the machines and sold the goods), and so the peasants were forced off the land through enclosure and in to the factories, where the bosses could exert more direct control over them and the machines. It took some time for the peasants to become properly "trained" of course, and the bosses had to actively discourage things like people visiting their friends at work, workers talking to each other and things such as that. Early unions actually played a major role in this "housebreaking" process, foreshadowing their almost consistent role as mediators between the rage of workers and the desire of the bosses for production to continue, which led to all manner of concessions and sell-outs.

"At the dawn of Industrialism, factories were modeled after prisons."