Everywhere in the world has burned it down at one time or another. Hell, like half the countries in Europe are new or split up from when I was a kid.
Itâs hard to keep track of which thread but Stimabuser legitimately thought I was an accelerationist until I corrected the record. Catface isnât saying the accelerationist theory is sound, just explaining what it is.
Didnât most of the European social welfare states arise in the wake of WWII? Like I just wikiâd Norway and found:
Iâm not a history guy, but it doesnât seem true to say âburn it downâ has never resulted in a better society.
I think this is all being filtered through the specific trump-winning paradigm.
Iâm not history guy either but Iâm pretty sure the end of feudalism was caused by the black death wiping out most of the people on the planet. It seems like paradigm shifting changes need exogenous shocks.
https://twitter.com/PRIMONUTMEG/status/1297190760157196288
https://twitter.com/cormic9/status/1297191453165154305
https://twitter.com/Jamin37045676/status/1297193475109257216/photo/1
5 Likes
Yes, I know trump is worse.
No, I wonât tell swing voters to abstain.
Iâm not a history guy either, but I donât think thatâs right. These things donât have stark lines, but feudalism in Europe ended in the 16th-19th centuries and the plague was in the 14th.
Are we still doing badges and flair?
Can I get a âmf i know trump is worse jfcâ thing?
I meant this one
But yeah, idk wtf Iâm talking about so.
1 Like
Can someone explain what burn it down means? Like a collapse of the US government or a civil war?
I was hoping it meant literal burning down the entire country. Slash and burn is back baby!
1 Like
I donât want to perpetuate a last-wordsing about this, so Iâll just clarify that I genuinely donât believe anyone on this forum thinks like this. If my strawmanning the shit out of everything came across as serious, then it wasnât a great post.
I love this idea. Can the rest of us get a âmf we know the dnc also sucksâ thing?
Sorry, no badges given out atm. 
The Black Death was the beginning of the end, but feudalism still ends without it.
I donât consider myself a history guy either, but this is how I understand it.
There was never a formal system of feudalism and some historians consider it to be an inaccurate term that shouldnât be used at all. What we refer to by that term is something that was phased out. The abolition of serfdom across Europe in the 18th and 19th century could be considered the end of feudalism in many places, but not necessarily. We think of feudalism mainly in terms of the relationship between nobles and peasants, but it was also about the two-way relationship between lords and vassals. Feudalism can be said to have ended in some places when enough power was centralized in the monarchy so that a king dominated his lords, something aided by knights becoming militarily obsolete.
The forms common to feudalism and absolute monarchy may have endured beyond that point, so it is fair to say that the vestiges of feudalism continued and were abolished later.
1 Like
Agree. The polling is clear on M4A and several studies have come out saying it would save money. The main obstacle is Dems like Joe and Pete throwing water on it
1 Like
Abolishing serfdom is probably a less important change than military changes, which is essentially the formation of nation states. After all, slavery does not mean itâs feudalism. Rome centralized power and was not feudal. Later in England it happened with Cromwell.
1 Like
You canât simply assume causation in the presence of approximate historical correlation.
What was the shock that led to healthcare in Canada? Australia? How about sufferance? Gay marriage?
I donât think there is any credible evidence social progress requires some kind of major social shock.
Is that too much to ask for?