Capitalism is by definition hierarchical. It doesn’t matter what you call it, it’s fundamentally not anarchic, and calling it as such just serves entrenched power by adhering to their propaganda.
Don’t let oppressive power dictate your language use.
6 Likes
???
Who is oppressing me in a discussion about language, pedants?
No one is oppressing you. We’re disagreeing with you. Big difference.
2 Likes
Exactly, so you agree with me then.
6 Likes
7 Likes
My “???” should have been enough clue that I was being a bit sarcastic. I didn’t think anyone was oppressing me, so on that point we were in agreement.
I have never thought this was anything more than a polite debate, and I understand the various points everyone made.
It was a little annoying but I hold no grudge against anyone here.
Anarcho-linguists (stochasto-linguists?) would be really annoying.
In Kievan Rus the lesser nobility functioned as tax famers. If the central government demanded more, the Serfs would suffer (more).
1 Like
So pretty much like nobility everywhere?
Arguably, there’s a difference between an obligation to supply the king with mounted infantry (feudal europe), and an obligation to taxes for the tsar so that he might pay his army (russia).
So taxes in europe were levied directly by agents of the king, not his lords, dukes etc? (excuse my Anglocentric terminology)
I don’t have enough information to judge his thesis. He may have political motives. It may be obsolete, by historiographical standards. Apparently in the early 1970s, this happened.
But it’s been revisited.
https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/tmr/article/view/18732/24845
Anyway-- it’s a funny that puts modern concerns about supply side economics into the heads of medieval peasants. It is probably more applicable to certain peasant statuses than others.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
