You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
No one mentioned Iraq, and if you read up the thread - as binners clearly didn’t - you’ll see me praising the Blair/brown govt for spending money on the NHS and schools. No one from the left is against the good stuff that happened during those 13 years. That doesn’t excuse the rest of the crap that went on though.
Although I would argue that Blair’s experiment at blunting the edges of neoliberalism ultimately resulted in the shitshow we see today.
Yes, it was clearly a very good 13 years compared to the 18 before it and the 13 after it - all of which I have lived through. The war was stupid but I am a bit meh to it as wars are pretty much happening all the time and all of them are stupid even though there may be good intentions on one side
The war was stupid but I am a bit meh to it
That's a luxury you and I can afford, I suppose. The families of 300,000 Iraqis dead as a result of the war are probably less sanguine about it.
As are the families in any country where a war has happened/is happening. Yes the war should not have happened, just like 95% of other wars but I can separate that from the other things that were done by the Blair government which were mostly better than the 18 years before or 13 years after but I realise others cannot do that.
Interesting graph above
Edit, too early, didnt read the tweet properly
The war was stupid but I am a bit meh to it as wars are pretty much happening all the time
Dear me, Kerley. Years of humanist posting down the pan.
The war wasn't stupid, it was criminal. Being a bit meh is callous, dehumanising. It wasn't just a war, it was a religious crusade with colonialist resource-grabbing objectives. Have another watch of Dominique de Villepin's prophetic speech at the UN and remind yourself of the pre-war context and debate. Then they named Blair Middle East Envoy. You're "a bit meh" about the most shameful event and period in Britain's post war history.
The numbers are much disputed, but they grow every year. That war lives alive in the hearts and minds of many, and I'm not talking about people posting for political points on the internet.
The justification for Iraq was a lie.
The long term plan was a shit show of incompetence and political interference for gain.
Although much more peaceful now, the end does not and will never justify the means.
But this goes beyond Blair, everyone who voted in favour and continued to support the war on both sides of the house should have been made to account for their choices.
Never have I seen a nation so utterly failed by it's entire political body.
They all saw the potential for profit and gain with the exception of a few.
My next reproach of Blair is Brexit. He was the one who first rolled over to the media and set a precendent:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/apr/20/eu.politics6
From that point on the media and thus much of the public had the bit between their teeth and were running with a referendum.
From the point the idea of a European Constitution became an issue (contemporaneous with the Gulf war) Blair took the populist option. There never was a referendum on the treaty, other countires got there first and the constitution became a makeover of the European democratic system which had many of the elements of a contitution but was called the Lisbon treaty.
As someone with access to European media I was outraged by the BBCs reporting in the run up to war, their reporting of the war and ashamed to be British. I reckoned that if there were ever a vote on a constitution/membership Britain would be out leaving me up shit creek without a paddle. I'd long fulfilled the conditions for applying for French nationality so did so, in protest and self interest.
Blair singlehandedly set the scene for the following 13 years of Tory dominance. Spitting image nailed it when they showed Blair meeting Thatcher in the street and getting on great.
and I’m not talking about people posting for political points on the internet.
As only two of us have posted that's me and politecamera action. So why not just name us and be done with it. Great post from someone well placed to know about Iraq, pity to spoil it with petty insult.
The war wasn’t stupid, it was criminal.
I see pretty much every war as criminal which is why it is just yet another war.
I would still rather have had Blairs government in power for the last 13 years than the various tory party leaders as over the last 40 years or so that was the best of a bad lot for the UK and its frankly, ****ing stupid voters.
As only two of us have posted that’s me and politecamera action. So why not just name us and be done with it. Great post from someone well placed to know about Iraq, pity to spoil it with petty insult.
This forum is full of it, as is any other internet touch point where politics raises its head.
Iraq and all connected to it is simply weapon in an idealogical battle. People don't truly give a **** about the carnage that war caused and continues to cause, it's just a talking point.
The war was stupid but I am a bit meh to it as wars are pretty much happening all the time and all of them are stupid even though there may be good intentions on one side
Really don't know where to start with this? The Iraq war was 'a bit meh'? Wars involving the UK are not happening all the time. To our enormous good fortune they happen very rarely in fact, and in this country we have almost no exposure to the ones that do as they are fought in other countries. Is this where we're at now, where middle class centrists can dismiss the murder of hundreds of thousands as 'a bit meh' so that they can feel good about a political party and the supposed benefits they derive from it?
Anyway, to bring this back to the subject at hand, the fact that many in this country can have such a detached and merciless opinion of something committed in their name without any apparent empathy of sympathy for the victims surely demonstrates that we are not a 'third world country'. Thirld world countries don't invade other countries with overwhelming military resources so that they can make a land-grab for their natural resources.
Thirld world countries don’t invade other countries with overwhelming military resources so that they can make a land-grab for their natural resources.
????
i dunno about that statement being correct, plenty of examples of that across Africa, middle east atm
as for Iraq, certainly our involvement was a grave error, but America would have invaded regardless and we would have struggled not to be drawn in
i dunno about that statement being correct, plenty of examples of that across Africa, middle east atm
They also stay at home a launch murderous, vicious coups/civil wars and visit unspeakable horrors on their 'own' people.
Always a favourite stick to beat Blair's labour is Iraq, but people conveniently forgot that Saddam Hussein started a war with Iran that killed c. 1 million and invaded it's neighbour.
Always a favourite stick to beat Blair’s labour is Iraq, but people conveniently forgot that Saddam Hussein started a war with Iran that killed c. 1 million and invaded it’s neighbour.
A leader we supported, with a military we trained. He was very much supported to slap Iran back into their box.
And subsequently Iran became ****ing arseholes but we didn't make up a story to go and oust them did we?
Most of the arms and munitions supplied to the various insurgent groups in Iraq came from or flowed through Iran. It was blatant, it could be identified by the factory markings.
We were launching eagle VCP's onto cars with IRG smugglers all along the border. Catch and release cos geopolitics.
They picked an 'easy' win as they knew the military would fall apart.
Then KBR and all the other companies with senior western politicians as shareholders came for the 'rebuild".
As for sticks, I'll beat the **** out of him with it as his lies cost me one the most decent humans I've ever had the pleasure to know, a young (baby at the time) girl a father she can't remember and a wife a husband, a loss that still haunts them and their families to this day.
You want to go to war, don't ****ing lie to the warfighters, integrity of the mission and purpose is what aids success.
See also the collapse of Afghanistan and the veteran suicides that have been triggered as a result.
DrJ
No, my possibly gnomic posting was to say that tinkering at the edges with taxes in 2023 will not address a fundamental inequality resulting from centuries of privilege.
This is the total underlying cause and to an extent why France or Scandinavia have different support on taxation in its wider form.
There is a historical context goes back long before the Normans and 1066 and to the first empires that has never been broken in most specifically England) though the Normans make a good example.
At its core is how a elite hierarchy maintain their power over overwhelming masses and that can be traced back to the Akkadian empire we know mainly through later Sumerian texts.
It's a fairly consistent pattern where a tribe of warriors exert their dominance over larger numbers of farmers who then control the supply of food through taxation of the farmers whilst simultaneously using the food to feed an army to subvert the farmers and building religions that support their dominance of keeping everyone in their place whilst usually (if not always) creating a middle class to simultaneously give something to aspire to and collect their taxes.
The details of this model change over time and on occasion one ruling elite has been replaced by another but this is deeply rooted in our history and national psyche.
You can see the same in the Marian reforms of Rome or the Ptolemaic dynasty or Octavius/Augustus making Egypt a colony under direct control of the empire. More recently you'll see this in European Empires where existing class systems were made legally enforced such as India (itself a relict of a feudal system of invaders) or created such as Rwanda - This didn't supplant the feudal system, it just added extra layers of people with darker skin at the bottom.
In the case of Scandinavia they never really had this... everyone was a warrior and anyone could challenge a Jarl in single combat (at least theoretically)... yet when they arrived in Normandy they copied the Merovingian model of a feudal system that was already in place in England for them to supplant the Saxons feudal system.
The English love to con themselves the Magna Carta was anything but the Baron's re-exerting their feudal rights... or that Cromwell did anything different under the guise of Protestantism but this is fundamental to the unbroken continuation of the feudal system in England .. direct quote apparently that Cromwell realised "he was one of God’s Chosen" and Wat Tyler's Rebellion simply reinforced "the natural order" of the elites.
WW I and Spanish flu changed the details of the dynamic but not the big picture... and unsurprisingly after WW II the colonies started to realise they were able to throw off the yoke yet many of them (most) just (re)implemented their own feudal type system the British had supplanted.
We still have a King who is appointed by his god.... and we still have the Rees-Mogg's who see the threats of the populace they regard (IMHO as far as I can see) as semi-humans. (Too stupid/subservient to disobey a fire-crew telling them not to leave a burning tower for example) but now we lost a whole layer of the subservient the rest of us are down in the serf status with our elevated serf apologists and the money and power still has to flow upwards because that is the system we have had for millennia and because that is what children are told through the education system now so many of us have thrown off religion or at least put it into some context....
We see the media today mainly promogulating the "if you are subservient and know your place and non violent" agenda OR "the non violence agenda" depending if they want to see "no change" or "progressive change" and holding up Ghandi who was non violent but supported the caste system as some sort of hero.
He doubtless had deep beliefs in the caste system but equally I think he realised it was the only way to keep the masses subservient and its taken India a long 1/2C to even start to make real inroads.
To go back to the original question as to if the UK is becoming a 3rd world country then I feel the definition in 2023 has as much to do with the feudal system and shaking it free
Scotland seems far more out of this than England... but is that due to it's history or is it genetic? I'd argue strongly that it's historical...
but America would have invaded regardless
I disagree, had the UK published it's intelligence on WMD's (the real intelligence not the lies) Bush's basis for invading would have fallen flat on it's face. There were no WMDs, they knew it, they did everything possible to hamper Hans Blix and deny him the intelligance to prove it. Had Blair been anti-war the WMDs justification could not have been used. What we in France were being told at the time:
https://www.leparisien.fr/politique/bush-et-blair-preparent-la-guerre-22-12-2002-2003673734.php
Google translate before anyone moans about the French.
Scotland seems far more out of this than England… but is that due to it’s history or is it genetic? I’d argue strongly that it’s historical…
Jesus wept. Now we get the racial explanation for Scotch supremacy.
Always a favourite stick to beat Blair’s labour is Iraq, but people conveniently forgot that Saddam Hussein started a war with Iran that killed c. 1 million and invaded it’s neighbour.
That's a great point, and I'd like to make it clear that I am also opposed to any member of the Ba'athist regime acting as an advisor to Kier Starmer if he is elected in the general election.
Also, if Saddam Hussein were swanning around the world raking it in through speaking appointments and hanging out with Paul Kagame, then I would also support his arrest and trial on charges of crimes against humanity. But in fact he was barbarically executed some time ago.
Hope that clears things up.
Scotland seems far more out of this than England… but is that due to it’s history or is it genetic? I’d argue strongly that it’s historical…
don’t kid yourself. Scotland is built on a foundation of inequality and serving the land owning masters. free movement of people within the U.K. means there’s plenty of Scot’s south of the border (who aren’t exactly leading the charge in resetting the balance of power) and proportionally even more English north of the border (and consequently children who are not 100% scottish) - it’s certainly not genetic. Most people in Scotland, or indeed England couldn’t explain fuedalism to you, never mind rationalise it.
cross the pond to the leaders of the free world and every second person will tell you they are “Irish” or “Scottish” descent - yet whilst fuedalism isn’t the model, in most of the states the description in the OP would be valid - with a good site more inequality on top too.
any suggestion that that description is the definition of third world is ridiculous and frankly insulting to the other human beings living in genuine low income countries. Anyone who had ever been to one - even as a tourist would know that the U.K. is about as far removed from the third world as you can get.
I’m just back from a couple of weeks of work travel in Scandinavia, Switzerland and Germany. There’s a lot of good stuff in those countries, but also some stuff you wouldn’t necessarily choose to reproduce.
Worth remembering that real feudalism only ended in Scotland around 2004. Remember those stories of parasites buying up the rights and serving bills on unsuspecting home "owners".
<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; background-color: #eeeeee;">That’s a great point, and I’d like to make it clear that I am also opposed to any member of the Ba’athist regime acting as an advisor to Kier Starmer if he is elected in the general election.</span>
Where TF did that come from?
I disagree, had the UK published it’s intelligence on WMD’s (the real intelligence not the lies) Bush’s basis for invading would have fallen flat on it’s face
Sorry for the tangent but Bush was set on that war from day 1 and crucially Rumsfeld & Cheney had been pushing to taking out sadam since before 9/11 , it had been considered as an immediate response after 9/11
And I dont believe that oil was the direct justification, it was more about America reasserting itself in the middle east
WMDs provided a handy justification but America wouldve gone to war without it ( I seriously doubt even many UK MPs bothered to read the dodgy dossier at the time) there was a republican majority in congress and in the end only a handful of dems opposed the vote to invade Iraq
Where TF did that come from?
The same place as "you can't blame Blair for the Iraq War because Saddam invaded Iran".
The same place as “you can’t blame Blair for the Iraq War because Saddam invaded Iran”.
why don't you re-read what i said as i never said that.
poly
Scotland seems far more out of this than England… but is that due to it’s history or is it genetic? I’d argue strongly that it’s historical…
don’t kid yourself. Scotland is built on a foundation of inequality and serving the land owning masters. free movement of people within the U.K. means there’s plenty of Scot’s south of the border (who aren’t exactly leading the charge in resetting the balance of power) and proportionally even more English north of the border (and consequently children who are not 100% scottish) – it’s certainly not genetic.
I don't really think it is genetic, just chucking that in as a alternative.
Nor am I saying Scotland is perfect 😉 just pointing out they seem to have a different (on average) approach to or acceptance of taxation.
Personally I think it is a mix of real and imagined "someone to blame in England" (some real some not but that doesn't matter) but also because they never had a dominant agrarian culture*** (I'll explain later why) They were also more than happy to selectively jump in on the "wider feudalism" in terms of for example "fighting for the empire"
Most people in Scotland, or indeed England couldn’t explain fuedalism to you, never mind rationalise it.
That is hardly surprising though as our entire culture is the product of normalisation of servitude in what is essentially a feudal system. Technically Feudal England began in 1066 and ended in 1660 (after a long period of adaption) but that's ignoring what feudal is vs legal definitions.
Call it a feudal system or come up with another name but the mechanics changed but not the system.
It was popular for a while (late 19C) to describe late middle age England as "bastard feudalism" but the model goes back as far as agriculture and has evolved independently in multiple forms that all amount to the same thing, that being how do a small number of people dominate another and get them to accept a lesser status and be thankful for it.
any suggestion that that description is the definition of third world is ridiculous and frankly insulting to the other human beings living in genuine low income countries. Anyone who had ever been to one – even as a tourist would know that the U.K. is about as far removed from the third world as you can get.
That is because you have been bred for generations as livestock to be thankful for the crumbs thrown from the masters table. You have been educated to know your place and be thankful for it.
I think to a large extent we have forgotten what we have given up.
It's whichever bullet point I posted earlier basically says ... access to food is controlled by your betters by doing what they tell you. It's how that wealth is distributed and what it is measured in that matters isn't it?
I've lived and worked in a lot of countries and wealth is measured very differently. Even in one country like Malaysia (not that poor but a good illustration) the ethnic Malays, Chinese and Indians all define "wealth" differently..
When I lived in Libya many "poor" people were wealthier to them living in tents and thought they would be poorer living in the free housing the government built for them with running clean water.
All the "poorest" countries I lived and worked in were poor because of the distribution of wealth and or forced changes to their traditional way of life (including war which is a product of the wider feudalism)
So the agriculture bit ... **
Every culture that has ever depended on agriculture develops a system similar to or the wider feudalism...
They are forced to become static, they need storage of grains/seeds and sooner or later ploughs .. meat becomes something the elite can eat and the peasants/lower castes (to use the Hindu equivalent of feudal) either get on special occasions or not at all.
sooner or later they get taken over by a numerically inferior force of physically fitter and healthier people who then need to keep them in their place and stop them banding together and control them through the famines (which are a part of settling down) - and if you don't mind the odd famine and the lower classes dying back then you can support a larger population and a standing army then you can invade the neighbours and so on, subjugate them and get them producing more grain for you and just keep expanding, take more land and have more people farm it.
The serfs are accustomed to paying tax that is filtered so the majority finds its way to the elite be that directly or because "Covid PPE contracts". (expand that yourself - but mates given contracts etc. or the percentage of money goes into the NHS vs gets paid to the workers etc)
Why that bit matters in 2023 ....
No hunter gatherer tribe on earth has ever messed up their environment and food / water ... it's always the farmers.
We are where we are... and whatever the conclusions of the UK feeding itself (using chemicals or whatever) was we certainly can't do that today.
Some claim ^^ we can adapt to it (I'm not saying we can't but I think that's fanciful) but what we can't do is adapt to it (using whatever) and still make sure the elites get most of it.
Do you for a minute think that people like Rees-Mogg or the good King Chuckie are any different to Marie Antionette?
In your heart do you think he really thinks you are human as he is or some dirt he'd wipe off his shoe or that he wouldn't sit sipping a nice wine and feeding his dog steak whilst watching a lower class human actually die of starvation?
@caher: I reread your post as suggested. It remains a glib non-sequitur. If you think there's a great point within, feel free to expand upon it.
+1 stevextc
Brexit is being used to help remove the last vestiges of the post-war consensus - as I've said previously, it's the vehicle not the destination and pretty sure if we go back in history we'll find similar strategies were used when they succeeded in getting ordinary folk to shaft themselves & their children.
No hunter gatherer tribe on earth has ever messed up their environment and food / water … it’s always the farmers.
Well, hunting and gathering can't support that many people per square km, which is why it became popular. It's not some global conspiracy.
Your posts sound like you've read one book with an anti-capitalist agenda and have memorised it.
Do you for a minute think that people like Rees-Mogg or the good King Chuckie are any different to Marie Antionette?
The thing is, Marie Antoinette wasn't actually evil, she was just naive and uninformed. Just like most Tories, I'd say. Wilfully so in some cases, but still.
Well, hunting and gathering can’t support that many people per square km, which is why it became popular. It’s not some global conspiracy.
Quite why you view every hint of anything that may suggest the wealthy don't wish to give up their wealth as a conspiracy is ironic.
I'm not claiming hunter gathering can support the same population density... as I say, we are where we are.
I'm pointing out a possible mechanism for the class structure/caste system and why some cultures it is ingrained so deeply.
Your posts sound like you’ve read one book with an anti-capitalist agenda and have memorised it.
Nothing of the sort .. just lots of history.
I have nothing specifically against capitalism per-se... I was starting postulating why some countries/cultures redistribute wealth better or worse than others.
The thing is, Marie Antoinette wasn’t actually evil, she was just naive and uninformed. Just like most Tories, I’d say. Wilfully so in some cases, but still.
Evil is religious concept... something both Marie Antoinette and Rees-Mogg subscribe(ed) to.
A religion that has adapted but ultimately I believe that Rees-Mogg believes with his entire being that King Chuck is put in place by god... just as he believes the people that died in Grenfell died because they are inferior and can't think for themselves.
When Rees-Mogg say's
“I think if either of us were in a fire, whatever the fire brigade said, we would leave the burning building."
I really believe he truly believes those people are simply sub-human to him... He's not saying it to be nasty/evil...
Public apology aside... what do you think he tells Rees-Sprog (his son)? I'm betting its something like "its a tragedy but these people aren't like you and me... "... and that he truly believes this just as his father and grandfather that they are born to rule and the dirty unwashed masses need people like them.
That's not the tragedy really, its the number of little people that think he's correct and his ilk are meant to rule us.
Do you for a minute think that people like Rees-Mogg or the good King Chuckie are any different to Marie Antionette?
In your heart do you think he really thinks you are human as he is or some dirt he’d wipe off his shoe or that he wouldn’t sit sipping a nice wine and feeding his dog steak whilst watching a lower class human actually die of starvation?
I've never met Sir Jacob nor King Charles, but they strike me as being rather difficult to lump together for comparison. I appreciate that this is only their public personas but Kind Charles doesn't strike me as fitting the description you have made of him, albeit I think through quirks of birth he's found himself the incumbent of an office which is rather difficult not to be self-serving and protective of. I can't honestly say that had I been the eldest child of a Monarch that I would have any different outlook on life; I tell myself I'd see the ridiculousness of it and bring about constitutional reform but I know I'd probably not. Rees-Mogg on the other hand would seem to revel in such a description and genuinely believe that his fortune (figuratively and financially) is because he is better than everyone else; I'm quite certain that had I been born into his life I would not be following his path. I'm not an expert on French History - are you suggesting that 18th Century France was third world? or that had there not been a revolution it would have become 3rd world?
intheborders
Brexit is being used to help remove the last vestiges of the post-war consensus – as I’ve said previously, it’s the vehicle not the destination and pretty sure if we go back in history we’ll find similar strategies were used when they succeeded in getting ordinary folk to shaft themselves & their children.
Well after every war, famine and plague there is always the labour shortage whilst those that survive .
I mentioned WW I and Flu earlier.. the labour started recognising it's worth and Churchill had people machine gunned down coming out the the building he'd had set alight.
Reminds me of an old story.. of a Sultan with 3 sons (or could have been a Caliph) but it went something like:
He was old and had to decide who would be sultan when he died and he set them a task...
The oldest son was given an fez and sent to the sultan's country house where he was to bring back 3 mice.
He returned to the palace with an empty hat .. as did the 2nd son...
The 3rd youngest son arrived back and delivered 3 mice to his father...
"How did you do that?" he asks his son
"Oh it's easy" he said.. "I catch the mice then shake them about in the hat until they are senseless then every time they start to come around and gain their senses I shake the hat up again"
"How did you know to do that?" he asks his son
"I copied you father, you mistreat the peasants all the time and every time you see them start to get any sense so they may be dangerous to us you send in your troops and shake them up"
I think JRM has a public persona and has done since he was at university. I think the JRM that the public see is an act. He knows it and plays to it, and he gets him what he wants; Attention.
He's like diarrhoea; unpleasant while it's going on, but it'll pass
"<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">Churchill had people machine gunned down coming out the the building he’d had set alight."</span>
Source?
Evil is religious concept
Mmmm no don't think so. Secular moral philosophy exists.
I was starting postulating why some countries/cultures redistribute wealth better or worse than others.
This is good:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Francis-Fukuyama-Collection-Political-Origins/dp/9123791896/
Size is a key factor, IMO. Smaller countries tend to be more equal possibly because they have fewer people at the upper extreme and it is easier to relate to people with whom you share more.
Source?
Edit, not sure, need to search again
I can’t honestly say that had I been the eldest child of a Monarch that I would have any different outlook on life; I tell myself I’d see the ridiculousness of it and bring about constitutional reform but I know I’d probably not. Rees-Mogg on the other hand would seem to revel in such a description and genuinely believe that his fortune (figuratively and financially) is because he is better than everyone else; I’m quite certain that had I been born into his life I would not be following his path.
Had you been brought up with them, attended their schools etc. you wouldn't be you and they been brought up with you they wouldn't be them.
Kind Charles could well be a 'Tim nice but dim' and Mogg some nasty criminal
and by way of illustration (despite my republican and atheist bias) had they been brought up with you Kind Charles wouldn't believe god had pre-destined him to rule and Mogg wouldn't think the Tim, nice but dim was.
If Mogg has been born in Saudi as a distant royal though then he'd probably believe that god had put the House of Saud where they are... and by corollary "Kind Charles" still seems to prefer the equality of the house of Saud over the unwashed of the UK.
You, me, and them ... we are all products of our upbringing and where that fits in the unbroken line...
I’m not an expert on French History – are you suggesting that 18th Century France was third world?
Well by the standards of someone born in Bagdad in the Islamic Golden age the whole of Europe at the time was 3rd world...
On July 14 1789 the Paris mob, hungry due to a lack of food from poor harvests, upset at the conditions of their lives and annoyed with their King and Government, stormed the Bastille fortress (a prison).
OK... that "hungry due to lack of food from poor harvests" seemed like a gift to my earlier agriculture-:> famines but lets stick with "hungry" (I can do the French ones if you like but they won't say hungry they will say "starving")
Nous sommes en 1789, la famine guette et la colère gronde dans le peuple. Le royaume continue à engraisser la noblesse alors que le pays est en faillite ! La population affamée croule sous les impôts.
We are in 1789, famine lurks and anger rages among the people
The kingdom continues to fatten the nobility while the country is bankrupt
The hungry population is drowning in taxes
Does that not sound like a 3rd world country to you?
or that had there not been a revolution it would have become 3rd world?
Basically I'm saying because of French history with violent uprising against the Monarchy (Feudal system wider context) they have a different perspective. It's not the same as a Scandinavian perspective who never really developed a "feudal system" (certainly nothing lasted unbroken for a millennia) but France is now sufficiently broken away from being a "feudal system" in the way French people think.
They are WAY less tolerant of governments and generally more open to taxes that they don't FEEL are simply siphoned to the rich (to what extent they are correct is another matter)... and they are more than happy to go out on the streets and violently oppose the government.
It took them a while and a few goes... but they have mentally broken free of the continuous "feudal" system unbroken since the Frankish Merovingian empire.
It wasn't easy they soon had an Emperor (and went through the add a extra layer phase as UK did with India).. then he got shut then they went back to Kings from 1815-48 until the wave of revolutions across Europe caught up and they had a 2nd republic .. and still not having fully learned they got Louis-Napoleon as President who in short order declared himself emperor again... went through the "go to war thing" and add another layer and got captured by the Prussians...
They end up in the 3rd Republic - divest power to a legislature (but still play the empire game) until 1948
bit of a coup with de gaulle and recent history stuff..
to repeat... it took a while and it wasn't easy.. but they mentally have Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité as a national motto.
they don't worship the president as appointed by god... they have their issues such as the dominance of the ecole militaire set up by Napoleon...and whilst they have a culture of "cadre" (officer class - > management from this) they have a stronger feeling of a waitress being someone doing a vocation (metier).
The last 2 translations are not literal...these are more perceptions.
molgrips
Evil is religious concept
Mmmm no don’t think so. Secular moral philosophy exists.
Yes of course secular moral philosophy exists ... but it is not tinged by a good/evil - god/devil perspective.
The etymology is one thing, yfel is old non scandanvian germanic (illr equates to bad in Old Norse) however it has been hijacked in modern English to equate to Christian beliefs.
I separate them because .. well because of the "why don't atheists just murder and rape" question ??
To illustrate the difference... ???
Someone like Rees Mogg can truly believe the Grenville residents died because they are inferior sub-humans or to even suggest deposing the monarch is truly Evil because god appointed him...
I can think that is morally reprehensible... I don't need the Devil or eternal damnation and all that christian stuff to come to that conclusion
Had you been brought up with them, attended their schools etc. you wouldn’t be you and they been brought up with you they wouldn’t be them.
Yeah I realise its an artificial hypothesis.
Kind Charles could well be a ‘Tim nice but dim’ and Mogg some nasty criminal
and by way of illustration (despite my republican and atheist bias) had they been brought up with you Kind Charles wouldn’t believe god had pre-destined him to rule and Mogg wouldn’t think the Tim, nice but dim was.
I wonder if you really think Charles believes he was selected by God? I mean he's always struck me as someone who would probably be an atheist if it wasn't for the uncomfortable issue of his parentage! I mean if you believe in god, it is quite a leap to believe that god takes such an interest in one country that "he" picks the monarch, whilst allowing all sorts of other shit to happen, and has done such a good job of picking the monarch that their progeny will always be the right successor (unless of course "he" has to step in with a thunderbolt or something!). I'm not sure how you would rationalise the decision to change the rules of succession to allow the eldest child rather than eldest son - presumably you'd have to believe you were following god's will...
And Mogg is a Catholic so why he thinks a slightly different religious God appointed Charles to overbear him is mystifying, unless of course whilst being deeply catholic with a small c he doesn't actually understand Catholicism with a big C.
they don’t worship the president as appointed by god…
I've never met anyone who actually thought that the UK Monarch was determined by god? I mean I don't hang around in particularly god-fearing religious circles but I've got friends and acquaintances who are regular church attendees, and those who think the Monarchy is a good thing (there's overlap in the venn diagram but its far from 100%) and yet I dont think I've ever met someone who believed that god was in charge of the selection process.
It’s not the same as a Scandinavian perspective who never really developed a “feudal system”
Ummm, I'm going to suggest that saying that the country that literally gave us the word for Earl as not being feudal is by some reckoning a revision of history.
This whole "Britain is a feudal society" stuff is utter, mad, ranting bobbins. This is an industrial, post-agrarian capitalist society - rightly or wrongly.
I think you’ll find it’s an anarcho-syndicalist commune
Yes of course secular moral philosophy exists … but it is not tinged by a good/evil – god/devil perspective.
Devil and evil aren't the same concept. The current Christian concept of the devil as we know it now is fairly recent as I understand it but there are a great many interpretations. The label of 'evil' is also fairly poorly defined but the concept of 'good' and 'bad' has been debated at length by non-religious philosophers.
Anyway the point I was making was similar to yours - that Marie Antoinette really had no understanding of the situation that poor people were in, which is the same problem a lot of Tories have now.
I think that it is human nature to help those in your group, and not help those outside it. The difference between Tories and various other political factions is where you draw that line between us and them. For the right wingers it only includes their family and friends; for the bleeding heart lefties it includes everyone. And this is a malleable construct, we can be persuaded one way or the other by our life experiences, our situation, and our EDUCATION.
nickc
Ummm, I’m going to suggest that saying that the country that literally gave us the word for Earl as not being feudal is by some reckoning a revision of history.
If by 'country' you mean the hundreds of Jarldoms...
A Jarl could be challenged and removed .. every freeman and woman was a warrior/gatherer/farmer and they were not dependent on agriculture (key word dependent). i.e. They didn't have a "class" of farmers and a "class" of warriors and a "class" only Jarls came from.. some were boat builders in addition but they were legally all the same only owing oaths.
or do you mean what is now Normandy?
Big difference (subtle as it might be) as the Normans (as stated above) adopted the Merovingian feudal system... were dependent on farming and hence had a class of farmers (peasants) who could NEVER be a Earl nor could any of their descendants EVER be an Earl.. and had to be kept in their place.
It is the keeping the entire class in their place (vasselage covering the entire structure) as much as the tenure that defines the feudal system whilst creating tax to flow in one direction only... the entire point was tax flowed towards the king and was shared through the nobility on the way for which the peasant was given the generous privilege of continuing to live.
To take the sensu strictu "feudal period in England" (based on the legal definition) it spans 1066-1660
(Tenures abolition act 1660)
However the Angles and Saxons being more agrarian had already established their own feudal (wider sense) systems based on thegns and ealdormen with their class structure again reflecting the warrior/farmer (peasant) split...
Though similar it was subtly different but to all intents the Normans took over the systems of the Anglo Saxon Heptarchy
Thought I'd pop back in to the thread and see how things stood. Jeez.
they have their issues such as the dominance of the ecole militaire set up by Napoleon
If that's the biggest issue we have we're doing pretty well. 🙂 And assuming you're talking about Saint-Cyr, what's not to like? It's not something people are bothered about unless their kid fancies a military career. I can't think of anyone notable in recent history who went there, Petain and de Gaulle is going back a bit. Jean-Louis Georgelin was in the news recently but that was because he fell off a mountain and killed himself rather than because he did anything controversial.
And the Normans were Vikings 😉
Not sure what this has got to do with the British tendancy to vote against ones own best interests. 🙂
The Siege of Sidney Street isn't exactly machine gunning workers rights activists fleeing a burning building set alight by Winston Churchill is it?
the entire point was tax flowed towards the king
I thought the Crown in England only levied a tax when it wanted to wage war? Hence the Baron's revolt, and later the Civil War?
Anyway. Not sure if you are one of these people who blame farming for all the world's evils (there was a popular history book arguing that wasn't there?) but without farming we would only be able to support a small fraction of people alive today, and we would all basically be in the stone or bronze age still so.. yeah. Not only would we not be having this conversation but you also wouldn't know any of the things you are talking about in it.
Thought I’d pop back in to the thread and see how things stood. Jeez.
I know, I know. You shouldn't feed the troll, but he's funny. Can we keep him?
" First against the wall when the revolution comes"
Might help things along by at least picking a suitable wall.
Edukator
what’s not to like? It’s not something people are bothered about unless their kid fancies a military career. I can’t think of anyone notable in recent history who went there
No I'm talking about the whole lot including ecole polytechnique... which have far too high a proportion of captains of industry, leadership of functionaires and politicians come from them and too many of the best academics...
I'm just pointing out that they still have this... like Ox-Bridge or Ivy League except run by the military.
And the Normans were Vikings 😉
Viking is a term for an activity ... what you mean I think is the Normans were descended from Vikings
Not sure what this has got to do with the British tendancy to vote against ones own best interests. 🙂
one sec ...
Molgrips
Anyway. Not sure if you are one of these people who blame farming for all the world’s evils (there was a popular history book arguing that wasn’t there?) but without farming we would only be able to support a small fraction of people alive today, and we would all basically be in the stone or bronze age still so.. yeah. Not only would we not be having this conversation but you also wouldn’t know any of the things you are talking about in it.
Farming is another activity... it's not a sentient being that can be blamed.
we would all basically be in the stone or bronze age still so.
I'll get to the population but non farming "Vikings" were masters of steel.. they sold their steel as far as Persia.
So yes of course the world would have a lower population but how is that a bad thing of itself?
As I've said, we are where we are... I'm simply linking the farming to requiring a class of sub-humans to till the earth for you to a system to control them. I'm aware we have tractors and combine harvesters today as well... we don't need a whole class to work the land for the nobility
Let me jump back to Edukator...
Not sure what this has got to do with the British tendancy to vote against ones own best interests. 🙂
I haven't said British, I've said English .. but it's obviously affected the Welsh and Scots as well but it seems to me they tend to vote differently. However examine what you mean by "ones own best interests" ... Does that mean financial or would voting for a fairer, more egalitarian way count or are we going back to genetics?
https://electionmaps.uk/parliament
I thought the Crown in England only levied a tax when it wanted to wage war?
As a specific direct tax ..but the rest of the feudal system was a funnel in terms of a whole set of taxes/obligations etc.
The Barons were ultimately pissed off in the run up to the Magna Carta because John wasn't honouring his part of the system that provided their income. The majority of the Magna Carta is putting into writing the existing unwritten <<vassalage>> and telling John "you can't just do what you want without our permission".
The details how something was paid changed over time and from numbers of day's service in fields to military service (that could also be paid separately as a financial scutage (a financial payment in lieu).
eg Inheritance Tax was formally introduced in 1290.. as a fee to transfer the <<socage>> but not called a tax but
So in short the system changed in detail and was no less complex that a tax specialist would understand today.. a couple of the terms you could google if you wanted ..
So in terms of "blame farming for all the world’s evils" - I'm just saying that having an agricultural system that fed the majority of the population and without which there would be famine in pre-mechanical times led again and again to a feudal style system of nobility and peasants.
As politecamera said.. we are post-agrarian now, FFS we have rockets going to the moon and planets etc. but what I am saying (that may well go against the EDUCATION) is that the feudal type system never ended.. it just adapted again.
It's not a conspiracy .. the elite's just want to keep hold of their power and wealth and our entire system and national psyche in ENGLAND is biased towards doffing our caps.
To take what Edukator said... about people voting against their best interests that isn't something you see dominating in Scandinavia or to put it differently their "best interests" might be living in a nicer, more equal society even if they are financially slightly poorer. To some extent I think Scotland, Wales and France also tend more towards this.
To put that all into the original question ... I think within this century the definition of what we could call 3rd world is going to change and those nations that still have a deeply unequal and divided populace are going to be at the bottom the the pile.
I reread your post as suggested. It remains a glib non-sequitur. If you think there’s a great point within, feel free to expand upon it.
@politecameraaction No need to expand on it - maybe put it back in your thesaurus and try again. I'll stick by my point that Iraq remains the bogey word for the Blair era.
I’m just saying that having an agricultural system that fed the majority of the population and without which there would be famine in pre-mechanical times led again and again to a feudal style system of nobility and peasants.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that everything would be better if we didn't have agriculture. But generally I'd dispute that anyway, it's a case of correlation vs causation. There are societies that practice agriculture that are still small and have small locally organised groups. Agriculture provides plentiful food - this is good. Plentiful food leads to lots of people, and that leads to powerful rich elites. So the issue is with how people organise, not agriculture. Agriculture basically leads to everything that's happened in the last 5,000 years so singling out feudalism is a little daft IMO.
that the feudal type system never ended
Of course it did. We are still unequal, but we're not feudal. You could equate my employer with a feudal overlord, but I don't actually have to work for them - I could start my own business selling my wares or services directly, or grow my own food, or work for someone else. Plus, if my employer decides to go to war they can't make me fight for them. It's not in my job description.
If you want to be pedantic at least get your facts right, Stevextc. 🙂
My statement that "the Normans are Vikings" is spot on in Norman land, by definition:
En français, le terme est également employé, par extension, pour désigner les peuples germaniques de scandinavie à partir de l'âge du fer romain au 2ième siècle
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings
Napeleon founded Saint-Cyr but others he did not, He militarised existing institions. You used the singular form so it's not surprising I only presented one - which also fulfilled your other condition that Napoleon did in fact found it. As for seeing these institutions as a problem, I'd argue they've been very much a part of making France an advanced and properous place, and that continues to the present.
Signed: another pedant when it suits. 🙂
I was interest with 18th century France being used as a third world comparison. Third World originally just meant under developed. France in the 18th century was highly developed for the time, les lumières were at the forefront of science, technology and philosophy: ideas that Jefferson drew on when staking out the US and founding its institutions. However, the living conditions for the mass of people were not even current third world in terms of life expectancy, access to medical care, infant mortality, sanitation...
Third World originally just meant under developed.
No, it didn't.
The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War and it was used to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Warsaw Pact...Strictly speaking, "Third World" was a political, rather than an economic, grouping.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
If you want to be pedantic at least get your facts right...
"Third World originally just meant under developed" is absolutely correct.
It was originally a French guy, Alfred Sauvy, who first talked about the "third world" and his condition for "tiers monde" was "sous-développé". He published in l'Observateur in 1952. That English wiki article omits the origin of th eexpression but the French page has it right:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiers_monde
Not the first time English Wiki passes over French achievements. 🙂
My last few posts have been either correcting bollocks or replying to criticism about France.
That English wiki article omits the origin of th eexpression but the French page has it right:
eh? it has the same paragraph explanation under "etymology" section that the French language one does. It clearly doesn't "pass over" French achievements in this case.
So why did politecameraaction interpret the English Wiki article to mean anything other than "under developed"? Because the sites are so radically different. The English one has a totally different opening section and ignores the key point in Sauvey's definition "sous-développé" - under developed. The English Wiki article defines in terms of cold war blocks and the French one in terms of the state of development of countries. English Wiki omits "sous développé" as the key.
As someone pointed out earlier in the thread "third world" has fallen from use as it is perjorative. It's cup half empty. The cup half full version being "pays en développement" developing countries. But even that isn't exactly complimentary which is convenient to this thread. The now more acceptable "developing countries" rather than "third world" does at least make it clear what the notion behind the categorisation is even if you don't agree with its use.
Molgrips
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that everything would be better if we didn’t have agriculture. But generally I’d dispute that anyway,
I'm not saying that, I'm saying it's simply one of the reasons but the one got the ball rolling and more importantly as we are no longer an agrarian economy we no longer need the inequality if only people could realise that.
it’s a case of correlation vs causation.
There are societies that practice agriculture that are still small and have small locally organised groups.
Perhaps ... but that doesn't characterise England... (or really Wales) but ...also I'm not talking about "agriculture" but a complete agrarian society.
Agriculture provides plentiful food – this is good.
I don't think that follows... At least in so far as
Plentiful food leads to lots of people, and that leads to powerful rich elites.
Equally rich and powerful elites need a sub-class ... which requires lots of people who need to be fixed to the land they work for the elites and they need to be subjugated in times of famine.
So the issue is with how people organise, not agriculture. Agriculture basically leads to everything that’s happened in the last 5,000 years so singling out feudalism is a little daft IMO.
To get all Douglas Adams...
“For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.”
but to put that into context ...
Agriculture basically leads to everything that’s happened in the last 5,000 years
Well it does or it doesn't... I think you mean "the good stuff" .. like we had time and resources to do art and science and stuff...
Of course it did. We are still unequal, but we’re not feudal. You could equate my employer with a feudal overlord, but I don’t actually have to work for them – I could start my own business selling my wares or services directly, or grow my own food, or work for someone else. Plus, if my employer decides to go to war they can’t make me fight for them. It’s not in my job description.
In terms of not being forced to fight for your employer you are actually half describing the feudal system of Scutage...
My point is not if we still have a formal feudal system but whether the system we have is so linked to it that its the same thing evolved into a different name.
The formal strict definition means the formal feudal system in England and Wales ended in 1610 predated by 6 years by the first inclosure acts removing access to common and waste land. (waste meaning was farmed by landless peasants)
You realise there was already a merchant class that equates to your ability to "start my own business selling my wares or services directly" .. before the formal end of the feudal system.
I'm saying that to point out one does not preclude the other.. Land was (is) wealth .. land was the ability to generate an income from tennant farmers/serfs.. the system evolved and the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 was really just another evolution not some step change.
This is nearly 20 minutes (if you get time), doesn't mention agriculture or feudalism once... merely about why we tax income not wealth... why council tax on the poor is a MUCH larger % of their home value than the rich and lots more but also "why don't labour change it" spoiler because it's too hard
My observation of how different cultures see tax and the benefit of living in a "nice society" tend to differ as to if that society had millennia of feudalism like segregation or not and if they had a revolution against it.
our rail network is a shambles
I commute into London daily, its supposedly 35minute this costs me over £6000 a year!
every day i end up at least 5minutes late and/or on ridiculously overcrowded trains, maybe fet a seat 30% of the time
trains are cancelled on a whim, stations don't have enough barriers/staff
toilets are grim if even open
ticket prices are ridiculous and the various franchises dont integrate well
lets not even talk about bike storage or security at stations ..
I've been doing it for 7 years now and its definitely got worse
So why did politecameraaction interpret the English Wiki article to mean anything other than “under developed”?
Excuuuuuuuuse me, but I read Sauvey's article, not merely the wikipedia entry, and if you do too, he quite clearly characterises the third world of underdeveloped countries as a residual category of countries that are neither capitalist nor socialist. It is not in other words their level of economic development that is critical (because it would be a nonsensical distinction between countries in all three "worlds" that are objectively at a similar level of development) but their political orientation.
every day i end up at least 5minutes late and/or on ridiculously overcrowded trains, maybe fet a seat 30% of the time
Don't disagree but whenever I'm in the South East on a train it looks like a glistening 21st century monument to modern infrastructure compared to what we have up here in Yorkshire.
It wasn't long ago my regular commute into Manchester was on one of these. They still appear every now and again just to torture us.
Not the first time English Wiki passes over French achievements. 🙂
Neither is it the first time a literal translation of a French compound noun doesn't translate well into English
Or for that matter why a direct translation of a Chinese company name ...
My last few posts have been either correcting bollocks or replying to criticism about France.
TLDR I haven't seen any criticisms of France? Who made those?
If you want to be pedantic at least get your facts right, Stevextc. 🙂
My statement that “the Normans are Vikings” is spot on in Norman land, by definition:
En français, le terme est également employé, par extension, pour désigner les peuples germaniques de scandinavie à partir de l’âge du fer romain au 2ième siècle
and the Ukranians are Russians ???
In this case you are arguing a extended French definition in English.
Vikings is the modern name given to seafaring people originally from Scandinavia (present-day Denmark, Norway and Sweden), who from the late 8th to the late 11th centuries raided, pirated, traded and settled throughout parts of Europe
Les Vikings (en vieux norrois : víkingr, au pluriel víkingar) sont des explorateurs, commerçants, pillards mais aussi pirates scandinaves au cours d’une période s’étendant du viiie au xie siècle1, communément nommée « âge des Vikings ». Ils sont souvent appelés Normands, étymologiquement « hommes du Nord », dans la bibliographie ancienne.
En français, le terme est également employé, par extension, pour désigner les peuples germaniques de Scandinavie à partir de l'âge du fer romain au iie siècle
More importantly though shouldn't we ask say the Swedish ?
Google translate Se/Fr
Les Vikings étaient des guerriers marins et des pirates[1], principalement originaires de la région nordique actuelle, qui ont participé à des raids en bateau et à des campagnes de guerre dans les pays nordiques, en Europe et en Asie occidentale de 793 jusqu'au XIIe siècle. Au cours de cette période, les guerriers nordiques ont conquis une grande partie des îles britanniques et du nord de la France.
Le mot viking apparaît pour la première fois dans les sources du vieil anglais, et dans la plupart des premières sources, y compris le norrois, il fait référence aux pirates, sans autre précision sur son origine. Le sens a ensuite été restreint pour ne faire référence qu'aux habitants du Nord (Norvégiens) à l'époque. Au cours du romantisme national du XIXe siècle, une vision romantique des Vikings a été façonnée par les poètes danois et suédois. Aujourd’hui, le mot, selon l’utilisateur, peut avoir des significations très différentes. Il peut donc faire référence à tout, depuis les marins guerriers scandinaves jusqu'à pratiquement tous les Scandinaves de l'ère viking.[2] Cette ambiguïté fait que le mot est évité par certains chercheurs, même s'il a encore une forte valeur symbolique.[3]
ANYWAY
The real point anyway is had a person from 10C Sweden or Norway that travelled to Kiev for work they would have conversed well enough and they would have found someone spoke a Nordic language well enough in Rouen but they wouldn't have recognised most of the society in either as being the same society they came from.
politecameraaction
because it would be a nonsensical distinction between countries in all three “worlds” that are objectively at a similar level of development) but their political orientation.
I think it is as important to work out what we mean by "development".
Regardless of GDP or GDP per capita etc. then different people will view say Sweden and USA as both different levels of development. Equally a large proportion (I hope not a majority) of the USA seem to view all Europe (or anywhere with social medicine) as being communist.
It wasn’t long ago my regular commute into Manchester was on one of these. They still appear every now and again just to torture us.
As a fellow Manchester commuter of many years standing, I'll agree with you about how bad they were but disagree with you on the last point; they have now all been fully withdrawn from service although I believe a couple ended up on heritage railways where you can pay lots of money for the privilege of reliving the shit times.
Britain seems to excel at that sort of thing. Look at how shit things were and celebrate our mediocrity but also claim to be world-leading because we owned (and usually made a total mess of) half the world.
We were world-leading in turning up to some corner of the planet, nicking all it's treasures then making a total horlicks of the place while in charge and eventually buggering off and leaving the natives to clear up what was left. Although to be fair we weren't the only country doing that...
We are however the only country that still seems proud of it and does the equivalent of sitting there in our armchair gazing wistfully out the window doing the old "I remember when this was all fields" thing that old people do so well just before they get put into a home for the terminally ill.
they have now all been fully withdrawn from service
Good. I don't know what model came after them but sometimes the train into Manchester from Burnley looks like it's been dragged out of the 1980s. Anyway, southerners moaning about shit public transport, they really have no idea what it's like up here. 🙄
Sorry, I was distracted at replying to your observation that small countries also tend to be more "pleasant" and also that book. I'll try and get back on the book, if its genuinely interesting but smaller countries in terms of populations also tend to be non dependent on agriculture..
I guess ultimately it doesn't matter why unless it's part of a solution OR recognising why needs to happen before the solution. That's assuming people even want a solution and what is frustrating is people pretending they would like a more equal, more pleasant society and then voting against it.
To look at this differently, instead look at rail commuters... and ask the question why do rail companies not spend the profits they make on upgrading or even maintaining the rail network? How come the board get bonuses and shareholders get a nice lump of cash yet most of the commuters suffering daily misery are not clammering for nationalisation or some other method that doesn't prioritise shareholder profits and director bonuses?
I'm not saying this purely in terms of past Tory/Labour votes... I'm saying why isn't the Labour party committed to removing the monarchy and hereditary Lords etc. why would anyone who wants a more equal society not start off by getting rid of hereditary privileges or voting for a party that is committed to getting rid of them? [obviously that doesn't seem to be the case]
Lets ignore the names for now and I'm using an extended feudalism to mean a strict hierarchy that defines everyone's immovable place in society by birth.
Whatever we call it - "post feudal capitalism" (seems a apt enough description but I'm not married to it) the system is different to "Scandinavian capitalism" ... and people in Scandinavia are more likely to vote for a more pleasant society over what is best financially for an individual. In general the Scandinavian countries also tend to have very limited periods of "feudal type systems" (a strict hierarchy that defines everyone's immovable place in society by birth) and they have usually been disastrous and overthrown.
The closest England came was swapping one set of landed gentry for another with a different sect. Accounts of the execution and signing of the warrant indicate even Cromwell as part of the ruling elite was reluctant to execute a king... whereas he had no compunction over the murder of commoners.
I think this is a fundamental difference in the way especially the English still see themselves in specific social structures based on birth.. all we did was evolve the feudal system rather than ever throw it out completely and we collectively keep voting for it
“feudal type systems” (a strict hierarchy that defines everyone’s immovable place in society by birth)
I am not sure that's exactly what feudalism means.
Accounts of the execution and signing of the warrant indicate even Cromwell as part of the ruling elite was reluctant to execute a king… whereas he had no compunction over the murder of commoners.
And why was that? Because he thought the King was better?
the English still see themselves in specific social structures based on birth
I really don't think that is a widespread phenomenon. In fact, the English are less reverent than some other cultures I could name. Yes, people fawn over the Royal family, but I think this is because of their celebrity status not because of their actual birth. People (these days) waste no time putting the boot into Royals they don't like despite their royal birth.
To look at this differently, instead look at rail commuters… and ask the question why do rail companies not spend the profits they make on upgrading or even maintaining the rail network? How come the board get bonuses and shareholders get a nice lump of cash yet most of the commuters suffering daily misery are not clammering for nationalisation or some other method that doesn’t prioritise shareholder profits and director bonuses?
That's not out of deference to percieved betters, that's because we have adopted a right of centre political landscape. Other countries that do not have a class system also have right wing landscapes and get similar results. The only time we went left of centre was just after the war, a time when class systems were a lot more embedded than they are now and people were more familiar with 'knowing their station in life'.
Society is a lot more complex than you realise, I think.
Molgrips
Society is a lot more complex than you realise, I think.
I'm sure, however how much of that complexity is manufactured or deliberate or a result of a specific history?
Ultimately why do a significant number of the English especially repeatedly vote against both their best financial interests but living in a more pleasant society to live in?
That’s not out of deference to perceived betters, that’s because we have adopted a right of centre political landscape. Other countries that do not have a class system also have right wing landscapes and get similar results. The only time we went left of centre was just after the war, a time when class systems were a lot more embedded than they are now and people were more familiar with ‘knowing their station in life’.
Firstly if you actually start listing those countries you will probably discover most of them have a class system that is either historic or inherited from European colonialism. Perhaps a stark example is the United States... and the various people they imported to work on the land, railways etc in various degrees of slavery and indentured servitude.
Secondly post WW II and WW I and at various other times such as Watt Tyler's uprising .. when the real people have been killed off to a point the aristocracy hasn't had sufficient people to work the land (or build railways, canals, work in factories etc.) people have started to realise their worth and that they are just cattle or domesticated humans and made a few small concessions... but it's a slow 3 steps forward and 2 steps back and against a backdrop of English Laws going back to feudal times...
I am not sure that’s exactly what feudalism means.
Hence why I am referring to a feudal type system.... although historians (basically posh people who don't need a real job and write history for us and tell us what we should think) debate the term "bastard feudalism" and it slips in and out of fashion the recognised end of the academic English Feudal system is 1660 with the Tenures Abolition Act.
The term bastard feudalism is applied (when convenient) to the replacement of land based tax in terms of providing knights service to the nobility to paying capital instead (socage). This isn't something progressive to the serfs who continued to be serfs, it's merely a gradual change acknowledging it doesn't matter how many knights you have they can't build a ship, buy cannon or any of the other things to need to be an empire. This wasn't something new... it just removed the option of a noble of providing knights instead of money. The net effect on the serfs was basically just to impose a tax on beer and cider on them and for their owner to have to extract tax from them for where else would than money come from.
The full title is
An Act takeing away the Court of Wards and Liveries and Tenures in Capite and by Knights Service and Purveyance, and for setling a Revenue upon his Majesty in Lieu thereof.
Feel free to read it.. I doubt it contains what you may expect it contains.
1660 also ends the fake commonwealth of Cromwell when we swapped one set of nobles and serfdom for another set of nobles.
It's not like the morning after the Tenures Abolition Act was signed the serfs woke up and were no longer the property of their nobleman. We didn't suddenly have freedom or universal suffrage or anything like that... laws still referred to "The King" .. Parliament still sits at the pleasure of a king unlike a republic or a Scandinavian monarchy.
This is still UK law... (technically different orders of precedence for each country)
It's a list of who is legally defined as better than you because of their birth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_precedence_in_the_United_Kingdom
The order of precedence in the United Kingdom is the sequential hierarchy for Peers of the Realm, officers of state, senior members of the clergy, holders of the various Orders of Chivalry, and is mostly determined, but not limited to, birth order, place in the line of succession, or distance from the reigning monarch. The order of precedence can also be applied to other persons in the three legal jurisdictions within the United Kingdom:
I moved to Portugal almost three years ago, Portugal being supposedly a poorer country of Europe.
The town where I live now has a slightly smaller population than the town I lived in the UK ... yet, twice as many shops of all types, thriving markets, lots of organised sports, loads of events put on for free. Health care is accessible, far from perfect but on the whole I've little to complain about. Very little vandalism or crime (that I'm aware of.
We have had a term at school to learn the language and are about to start another at the next level. The more I see of what is going on in the UK, the more I'm thankful I made this crazy leap in the pandemic!