Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[United Muscovite Nations]

is that in feudalism the state is the largest driver of economic activity; where is in capitalism it is private commercial interests.

This is wrong, the State didn't exist under feudalism.

What we know as the State was a 17-18th century production, but it had its roots in the Renaissance and conflicts such as the Hundred Years War. Under feudalism, you were loyal to people, such as your Lord and your King.

Wow, our ideas on this have a whole lot in common.

[Joohan]

is that in feudalism the state is the largest driver of economic activity; where is in capitalism it is private commercial interests.

This is wrong, the State didn't exist under feudalism.

What we know as the State was a 17-18th century production, but it had its roots in the Renaissance and conflicts such as the Hundred Years War. Under feudalism, you were loyal to people, such as your Lord and your King.

The state is what governs society. There was most certainly a government over society at that time. Be it king or lord

[United Muscovite Nations]

This is wrong, the State didn't exist under feudalism.

What we know as the State was a 17-18th century production, but it had its roots in the Renaissance and conflicts such as the Hundred Years War. Under feudalism, you were loyal to people, such as your Lord and your King.

The state is what governs society. There was most certainly a government over society at that time. Be it king or lord

That doesn't mean there is a state, the state as we know it is a reified abstraction. Like Lang said, people weren't loyal to "the government", they were loyal to the people who made up that government, which makes for a very different social contract than the modern state-centered social contract.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

A state doesn't need to be centralized to be a state.

What are you defining a state?

A state is a political organization with a centralized government that exerts authority within a certain geographical territory.

I think another characteristic that defines a state is where peoples' loyalties lie. Under feudalism, to your lord and monarch. When Louis XIV was finished with France, he was head of a personality cult as the "Sun King". Helping him go to bed and wake up was considered an honour among the most powerful nobles of France.

Most feudal monarchies fit that definition.

[Joohan]

An economic system where in the means of production are owned by private entities and individuals, rather than by the state.

It seems that you are attributing any instance of entrepreneurism to capitalism, but that just isn't the case. Profit motives exist in nearly every single economic system. What distinguishes capitalism from the feudalistic system, which prevailed in the Holy Roman Empire the time, is that in feudalism the state is the largest driver of economic activity; where is in capitalism it is private commercial interests.

Gutenberg's invention of the printing press was an example of entrepreneursism - not capitalism.

Thus my previous point of technology forwarding literature - not capitalism.

Capitalism is not a black white on off switch.
A country can have capitalist companies even if the majority is state owned.
A country can have capitalism without being capitalist per se.
But the modern state did not exist under feudalism, nearly everything was owned by individuals in the form of the nobility.
Gutenberg owned means of production as a private non noble individual as well.

The nobility were the state - those who governed society.

What is your definition of capitalism? It seems ridiculously broad.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think another characteristic that defines a state is where peoples' loyalties lie. Under feudalism, to your lord and monarch. When Louis XIV was finished with France, he was head of a personality cult as the "Sun King". Helping him go to bed and wake up was considered an honour among the most powerful nobles of France.

Most feudal monarchies fit that definition.

Feudal monarchies aren't really centralized or that organized. There were organizations, yes, but there wasn't yet the umbrella of the state that people thought of.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What post-apocalyptic fiction paints individualism as bad?

All the ones that have everyone scramble trying to put themselves on top resulting in massive amounts of deaths because they are no longer restrained by the hierarchy.

That doesn't seem anti-individualist to Mr, it seems anti-authoritarian

[United Muscovite Nations]

Capitalism is not a black white on off switch.
A country can have capitalist companies even if the majority is state owned.
A country can have capitalism without being capitalist per se.
But the modern state did not exist under feudalism, nearly everything was owned by individuals in the form of the nobility.
Gutenberg owned means of production as a private non noble individual as well.

The nobility were the state - those who governed society.

What is your definition of capitalism? It seems ridiculously broad.

The state isn't the people who govern society, the state is the abstraction that is made up of those people, but is, at least in the way people think of it, independent of those people.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Wow, our ideas on this have a whole lot in common.

I thought that was the standard understanding of feudalism and modern-day states tbh.

[United Muscovite Nations]

All the ones that have everyone scramble trying to put themselves on top resulting in massive amounts of deaths because they are no longer restrained by the hierarchy.

That doesn't seem anti-individualist to Mr, it seems anti-authoritarian

Unless you draw the connection that having the authoritarian on top would prevent the scrambling for power.

[Joohan]

The state is what governs society. There was most certainly a government over society at that time. Be it king or lord

That doesn't mean there is a state, the state as we know it is a reified abstraction. Like Lang said, people weren't loyal to "the government", they were loyal to the people who made up that government, which makes for a very different social contract than the modern state-centered social contract.

How does this counter what I said? Even today the state is simply made up of individuals of varying power and responsibilities. That loyalties cannot be so readily relied upon as they can be in modern States in no way discounts what i have said.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Most feudal monarchies fit that definition.

Feudal monarchies aren't really centralized or that organized. There were organizations, yes, but there wasn't yet the umbrella of the state that people thought of.

It may not have exercised authority in the same way that a modern state does, but it most certainly exercised authority.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Most feudal monarchies fit that definition.

Not really, under a feudal monarchy, the function of government is parcelled out to a plethora of nobles who raise soldiers, collect taxes and deal out justice. The Absolutist notion that the King was all-powerful was an innovation.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That doesn't mean there is a state, the state as we know it is a reified abstraction. Like Lang said, people weren't loyal to "the government", they were loyal to the people who made up that government, which makes for a very different social contract than the modern state-centered social contract.

How does this counter what I said? Even today the state is simply made up of individuals of varying power and responsibilities. That loyalties cannot be so readily relied upon as they can be in modern States in no way discounts what i have said.

People aren't loyal to those people though, they're loyal to the abstraction that they make up. People don't pledge allegiance to the President, they pledge it to "the Republic." That the President is the head of the republic doesn't change that their loyalty isn't to him. This understanding didn't exist back then, there wasn't the abstraction, people weren't loyal to "the kingdom", they were loyal to the king.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Feudal monarchies aren't really centralized or that organized. There were organizations, yes, but there wasn't yet the umbrella of the state that people thought of.

It may not have exercised authority in the same way that a modern state does, but it most certainly exercised authority.

It's not that they didn't exercise authority in different ways, it's that the way people conceived of authority was not the same way they conceive of it in modern states.

[Joohan]

The nobility were the state - those who governed society.

What is your definition of capitalism? It seems ridiculously broad.

The state isn't the people who govern society, the state is the abstraction that is made up of those people, but is, at least in the way people think of it, independent of those people.

You mean like monarchy? Yeah, that's been around for.... quite a while.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

That doesn't seem anti-individualist to Mr, it seems anti-authoritarian

Unless you draw the connection that having the authoritarian on top would prevent the scrambling for power.

Yes, but it would mean someone even worse already has even more power.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The state isn't the people who govern society, the state is the abstraction that is made up of those people, but is, at least in the way people think of it, independent of those people.

You mean like monarchy? Yeah, that's been around for.... quite a while.

The institution of the monarchy was meaningless without personal loyalty to the monarch. The institution and person weren't separate back then.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Most feudal monarchies fit that definition.

Not really, under a feudal monarchy, the function of government is parcelled out to a plethora of nobles who raise soldiers, collect taxes and deal out justice. The Absolutist notion that the King was all-powerful was an innovation.

What you are describing is a state.

[Joohan]

How does this counter what I said? Even today the state is simply made up of individuals of varying power and responsibilities. That loyalties cannot be so readily relied upon as they can be in modern States in no way discounts what i have said.

People aren't loyal to those people though, they're loyal to the abstraction that they make up. People don't pledge allegiance to the President, they pledge it to "the Republic." That the President is the head of the republic doesn't change that their loyalty isn't to him. This understanding didn't exist back then, there wasn't the abstraction, people weren't loyal to "the kingdom", they were loyal to the king.

The concept of divine right has been around since the earliest days of Christendom. Loyalty based upon no more than, " he is the king ", was not an abstract concept.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

You mean like monarchy? Yeah, that's been around for.... quite a while.

The institution of the monarchy was meaningless without personal loyalty to the monarch. The institution and person weren't separate back then.

That's also true with Hitler's Germany and the Kims' DPRK and it would be very hard to argue that those are not states.

[United Muscovite Nations]

People aren't loyal to those people though, they're loyal to the abstraction that they make up. People don't pledge allegiance to the President, they pledge it to "the Republic." That the President is the head of the republic doesn't change that their loyalty isn't to him. This understanding didn't exist back then, there wasn't the abstraction, people weren't loyal to "the kingdom", they were loyal to the king.

The concept of divine right has been around since the earliest days of Christendom. Loyalty based upon no more than, " he is the king ", was not an abstract concept.

It was the King that was divinely sanctioned, not the bureaucracy the king ruled over. As opposed to what we have now, where it is the bureaucracy that is important.

[Joohan]

You mean like monarchy? Yeah, that's been around for.... quite a while.

The institution of the monarchy was meaningless without personal loyalty to the monarch. The institution and person weren't separate back then.

Book of Roman's validatied divine right of such institutions.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The institution of the monarchy was meaningless without personal loyalty to the monarch. The institution and person weren't separate back then.

That's also true with Hitler's Germany and the Kims' DPRK and it would be very hard to argue that those are not states.

They still ruled in the framework of formal institutions.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

It may not have exercised authority in the same way that a modern state does, but it most certainly exercised authority.

It's not that they didn't exercise authority in different ways, it's that the way people conceived of authority was not the same way they conceive of it in modern states.

How does having a different view of authority stop it from being a state?