This is feudalism. This is literally feudalism. You own nothing and pay a tithe to your landlords.

TECHNOFEUDALISM

Under capitalism, income comes from "profits" (money from making or doing things); under feudalism, income is based on "rents" (money from owning things).

When a company ceases to do or make things and its income increases, that company isn't practicing capitalism (mobilizing capital for production), it's practicing feudalism (extracting rents from assets).

*googles "how to make it socially shameful and abhorrent to have 8 acres of treeless lawn"*

Rich people houses have the most blatantly wasteful enormous lawns

I am doing so much on my one little acre...but then I see the McMansion with 10 acres that are just no trees no flowers nothing except grass and I feel such anger and despair...

*googles "how to write an article that says personal choices cause ecological devastation but not if you're a regular person just if you have a giant house with 10 acres of grass*

How to give a presentation and invite all the rich people to it and it shows them their giant houses on Google Earth next to the regular people houses and then it says "You have 16 normal sized yards and live right next to people whose kids can barely play outside without getting turned into roadkill. You are a feudal lord except you don't even allow the peasants access to your grain mill or blacksmith's forge."

The history of corporate propaganda.

'Nobody wants to work' fails to mention the poverty wages and horrible workplaces.

Reframe the narrative: Capitalists refuse to pay thriving wages.

this isn't a thing that's unique to capitalism and I'm really really tired of people trying to frame it as such

all through the middle ages, nobles complained about their serfs not wanting to work in exchange for protection. craftmasters complained about their apprentices not wanting to work (and wanting to instead play ball games or sneak out to see girls).

we have records of ancient romans complaining that the goddamn poors spent all their time drinking and gambling and hanging out under theatre awnings instead of working

we have records of an ancient egyptian pharaoh complaining that no one wants to dig canals anymore.

none of these people existed within a capitalist system. capitalism didn't really exist until the late 1700s/early 1800s.

this is not a capitalism thing. this is a power thing.

in a capitalist society, having capital gives you power! you can conflate the two and it doesn't really make a difference in terms of what you need to do to stop the powerful from harming people! but it's important not to conflate the two in general because it muddies the problem

the powerful will never see their subordinates as being full people unless you make them do so. they will complain about you not working for them, and they will make your life hell if you don't work for them, unless you take your power back.

you need leverage- unions! democratic government interference! checks and balances on any form of societal power!- to make that happen.

but this is not an evil unique to capitalism. it never was. capitalism is not the One True Evil that corrupts people; power is.

I like the term "Greedism" as the underlying problem, because controlling money (capital) is power in a capitalist system, controlling slaves / serfs is power in a feudalist-style system, and so on, but power without greed isn't necessarily a harm

in theory, those in power can choose not to abuse the system for their own personal benefit. but dang if greed doesn't seem to creep in most of the time

this is why spreading out power among all those affected in a system is so important: socialism disperses power across all the workers invested in an economy, and democracy disperses power across every citizen in a society

(this is also why term limits and other means of limiting the acquisition of power in those who serve others is also so important - even in a democratic-socialist utopia, greed for [measure of power] will corrupt so many people, or else positions of power lure greedy people to seek those positions)

knowing how fallible people are, how easily corrupted by whatever means of power they can acquire under a particular system, it only makes sense to disperse power and limit its acquisition

from the original threat where vice cribbed this “idea” to write this article.

1) https://twitter.com/kari_paul/status/1488982369302425603

2) https://twitter.com/Xanitross/status/1489231833204244483

(image caption  - “could you please say ‘ thank you for keeping me employed”?? To the ring camera please and thank you)

3) https://twitter.com/atomly/status/1489355005060476931

i want this on a t shirt

people love capitalism because it lets them feel like little feudal lords. it’s exactly why the brunch crowd all lost their shit when they couldn’t go torment restaurant employees who were making $3 an hour.

It’s bad enough that the drivers get paid so little and are already treated like trash. Why would anyone humiliate them?

This is a shitty people problem, not a capitalism problem.

You’re right, but a capitalist system rewards shitty behavior through incentivized hierarchy and the terrible brain-effects thereof.

Landlords call themselves lords yet they do not respect the feudal contract. Would you levy an army and ride into battle against neighboring duchies to protect your tenants’ interests? Would you use your wealth to purchase iron weapons and armor, and steeds, and build strong walls for tenants to take cover in during times of peril? Would you, huh? Would you Jeff?

I've often wondered why the people of Tirragen supported a coup; did they have to, because their lord ordered them, or was it something they all wanted?

Rereading The Woman Who Rides Like a Man, the last chapter gives a possible clue: the sorceress lives in a village near Lake Tirragen. She says it was a hard winter and they had no food. Probably a safe bet that food was scarce at the Tirragen holdings as well. Possibly their lord convinced them a new king would fix their problems. Dissatisfied citizens are more likely to want and support change than people who are prospering.

Anyway. Just a thought.

In feudal Europe, a warrior’s immediate loyalty was to their lord. It’s why it was such a problem when nobles revolted against the king,because their vassals often followed them and not the king. The economic piece would definitely have been extra incentive though.

One of the things that’s so interesting about the Alaba vs Kel books is watching the transition from a feudal system to a more centralized monarchy.

*distant Barrayaran cackling*

Description: a bumper sticker that says “Feudalism: It’s your Count that votes!”