Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
SeekerofOrder

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #1 
I’ve been thinking about how Feudalism can be jumpstarted again? Using the marketing technique of loyalty in return for security. Any suggestions are welcome, I want to find a way to bring back this system of Order and hopefully give rise to monarchy again?

We can start off by making a fully voluntary Feudalism or ‘Serfdom’ agreement where a person can get this out of the deal by agreeing. There are many people who can’t afford their own homes, or those that have been forced onto the streets due to crisis that might even gladly accept the security provided by their sovereign if marketed correctly. People will see the advantage enough and it can return the plan is.

They will turn themselves over voluntarily to become part of the enterprise(Kingdom or Realm) to the sovereign, it’s ruler/owner. They themselves want to get away from uncertainty to live under protection of said sovereign out of their own free choice & will. The peasants will not have to experience lack of security or a fiercely competitive environment.

Under Feudalism peasants and their descendants(maybe for now) are people that are owned as part of an enterprise’s land or area that it accommodates. The owner of the enterprise is going to be the lord who rules the land. The peasants along with the land being part of it are inherited by the sovereign’s offspring, or whom they will give it to rule after their reign ends.

In exchange for guarantee of security(accomodation, access to means to make a living and protection by private security), the lord or monarch will be allowed to make and enforce their own terms of the realm they own. The lord or monarch will also be able to extract any amount of produces or profit from the value produced by their peasants as much as they desire since it is their realm. The peasants are considered private property and will be protected so that they can continue to be of value to said lord.

For an industrial implementation you might have a factory or a couple, and the peasants would live close-by in accomodation nearby provided or allowed by the lord. The benefits of this might be that they have no need to go through the risk of hiring, and can easily get very affordable labourers willing to offer them loyalty in return for protection. The lord if a charismatic ruler might even on their terms/whim if they decide to do so, provide facilities or things for the ‘peasants’ which can be used for recreation? It’s not that bad you could argue.

So long as they provide the peasantry with security, accomodation and somewhere to work on they can do what they desire with their realm/property which includes the ‘peasants’?

Would there also be any use for reviving the ‘knight’ role? Which I’m guessing would be some type of very well equipped, highly elite, skilled/trained, proficient paramilitary organisation dedicated to protecting said realm + lord, loyal to and fighting for them in exchange for their security. In the most recent implementation I doubt there will be any use as of yet, since the lord would have used their wealth to hire private military(mercenaries) most likely to do the protecting but who knows if it will be needed later on.
ThePennsylvaniaMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #2 
I like your idea quite but I would drop any mention that peasants are "owned" as people would not take too kindly to that. 

I also do believe that knights should be revived as knights have more moral expectations than just any old private military and land is an incentive for good service in its own right. 
SeekerofOrder

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePennsylvaniaMonarchist
I like your idea quite but I would drop any mention that peasants are "owned" as people would not take too kindly to that. 

I also do believe that knights should be revived as knights have more moral expectations than just any old private military and land is an incentive for good service in its own right. 
What would be a way to incentive people with money to take up the role as lords once again? I used the word 'owned' because I hoped to incentive them to do so, in they might find peasant labor far more affordable and less risky than 'hiring'. I know it might not really appeal to 'average people', but any ideas for a better term here, and what role would knights play for a modern monarch or lord that they serve besides private military(mercenaries) acting as guardsmen? My guess might be that the knights would operate in a military structure similar to the way U.S marines do internally?

I think places like Japan or South Korea where people have little choice because of being smothered already by the economy are good areas to jump-start feudalism. From what I heard young people are desperate for a place to stay and would more likely oblige if a lord offered them accommodation, protection + somewhere to work on in exchange for their loyalty and service. Land or homes are not affordable for normal people and only for the wealthy, so how about some of the wealthy agree to become lords once again to provide that deal? You know the part about how people are not going to have a future because of the prices around the world making individualistic life more and more impossible, well Feudalism is the cure to that once again you could argue. Perhaps the only way for people to go forward and have a future.

Plus they still have alot of the Feudal-era cultural influences left behind. Japan, Korea and parts of East Asia were some of the last areas that Feudalism/Monarchy vanished from. You can still see the 'loyalty to family' aspect surviving and closely knit communities which peasants had. Eastern Europe might still have some of that Feudal culture.

A major tenant of Feudalism people could find appealing is this:

*Feudalism is not against rich or poor because both are just as important, it believes all people whether its their financial state or weak/strong have their roles to play in society. Everybody has a place. You can have a stable and secure life, whereas under the modern system life is never certain or stable and always highly competitive.

*The problems today are from the breakdown of the natural order with the 'enlightenment' or 'democracy'(Which is actually oligarchy in practice) and this is not going to be sustainable. The wealthy cannot find people who are loyal and must instead seek places in the world where they can 'hire' those that work for less, the poor cannot find a lord who will take them under their wing and protect them thus have an increasingly insecure future. Regardless Feudalism is the natural way to go for human society.
ThePennsylvaniaMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerofOrder
What would be a way to incentive people with money to take up the role as lords once again? I used the word 'owned' because I hoped to incentive them to do so, in they might find peasant labor far more affordable and less risky than 'hiring'. I know it might not really appeal to 'average people', but any ideas for a better term here, and what role would knights play for a modern monarch or lord that they serve besides private military(mercenaries) acting as guardsmen? My guess might be that the knights would operate in a military structure similar to the way U.S marines do internally?

I think places like Japan or South Korea where people have little choice because of being smothered already by the economy are good areas to jump-start feudalism. From what I heard young people are desperate for a place to stay and would more likely oblige if a lord offered them accommodation, protection + somewhere to work on in exchange for their loyalty and service. Land or homes are not affordable for normal people and only for the wealthy, so how about some of the wealthy agree to become lords once again to provide that deal? You know the part about how people are not going to have a future because of the prices around the world making individualistic life more and more impossible, well Feudalism is the cure to that once again you could argue. Perhaps the only way for people to go forward and have a future.

Plus they still have alot of the Feudal-era cultural influences left behind. Japan, Korea and parts of East Asia were some of the last areas that Feudalism/Monarchy vanished from. You can still see the 'loyalty to family' aspect surviving and closely knit communities which peasants had. Eastern Europe might still have some of that Feudal culture.

A major tenant of Feudalism people could find appealing is this:

*Feudalism is not against rich or poor because both are just as important, it believes all people whether its their financial state or weak/strong have their roles to play in society. Everybody has a place. You can have a stable and secure life, whereas under the modern system life is never certain or stable and always highly competitive.

*The problems today are from the breakdown of the natural order with the 'enlightenment' or 'democracy'(Which is actually oligarchy in practice) and this is not going to be sustainable. The wealthy cannot find people who are loyal and must instead seek places in the world where they can 'hire' those that work for less, the poor cannot find a lord who will take them under their wing and protect them thus have an increasingly insecure future. Regardless Feudalism is the natural way to go for human society.

I would think that even the wealthy, as the way we think in modern day, might not be too keen on owning people. I do like how you stress loyalty, and I would use more of a "contract" terminology here, (Like the Social Contract). It is important to remember that the regardless of whether the Enlightenment was beneficial or detrimental, its ideas are still omnipresent in at least Western society so that is what we need to work within. I agree with what you are saying in principle but I do believe a focus on trust, loyalty, consent, and paternalism (all timeless values that continue in spite of the Enlightenment) are a better angle than ownership.
SeekerofOrder

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePennsylvaniaMonarchist

I would think that even the wealthy, as the way we think in modern day, might not be too keen on owning people. I do like how you stress loyalty, and I would use more of a "contract" terminology here, (Like the Social Contract). It is important to remember that the regardless of whether the Enlightenment was beneficial or detrimental, its ideas are still omnipresent in at least Western society so that is what we need to work within. I agree with what you are saying in principle but I do believe a focus on trust, loyalty, consent, and paternalism (all timeless values that continue in spite of the Enlightenment) are a better angle than ownership.
If possible we could have people from the monarchist community write a document that can be used to implement it. Reviewed and written with best effort then published. Defending all the points, details of benefits and justifications included.

The other thing that originally came from chivalry in Feudalism was the notion of chivalry. There were stories about knights were said to be warriors of good who protected the weak/innocent, traverse the realm and perform good actions in order to ‘gain honour’ with people of the realm. With the abolition of Monarchy in favour of parliamentarian and democracy, people started to abandon the value/importance of goodness and more started choosing evil or selfishness?

For how it comes about I used the term ownership of peasants to try and explain about how it might be implemented in modern day. So how should I best use the wording here? Maybe a contract where the sovereign takes a person ‘under their wing’, into the enterprise(realm) and provide them a stable life safe from a hostile world in return for loyalty?

If Feudalism came back would it be a form of 'privatized citizenship' in your opinion or similar to be a person who is considered part of a sovereign's realm(Which is their enterprise)?
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 432
Reply with quote  #6 
Though I consider myself as from peasant stock (descendant of cobblers, candle-makers, and stone-masons), and I think there are merits to the feudal system, I wouldn't want to re-create it. Particularly the descendants of the serfs having no freedom to leave. Freedom to leave prevents the most egregious possible abuses of the landed gentry. 

Also, I don't know if strict feudalism could work in a society where such a small percentage of people are involved in agriculture and husbandry. 

I honestly think a better fit for our age is to resurrect parts of the medieval guild system. I'm loosely a Distributist for this reason, as I think the means of production (capital, primarily land) ought to be distributed amongst the community. If a wealthy patron wished to organize and patronize a distributist villiage, and in a few generations, formally became some sort of nobility in the traditional sense, I think that would be good. 
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 360
Reply with quote  #7 
Thanks for the previous thoughtful posts.

Along with the previous posters, I think the concept of serfs being "owned" has a negative connotation, reminiscent of slavery. I don't think that the medieval serfs were actually "owned" by the Lord of the Manor. Rather, they were "tied to the land". They could not leave the land, and under ordinary circumstances, couldn't be evicted. If the estate were sold, the serfs went with it.  They owed a certain number of annual days of labor to the Lord on his desmesne, and were free to work on their own plots the rest of the time. They were guaranteed designated holidays ( or holy days ) free from labor. Serfs' family plots were handed down within families over the generations. They were entitled to grind their grain at the Lord's mill, and to pasture their livestock on the common land. They were forbidden to hunt in the Lord's forests. They were allowed to gather firewood from certain common forests, but not from others (which were restricted for the use of the Lord of the Manor only). Women were permitted a certain number of days after harvest to glean (gather leftover grain) from the Lord's fields for their own use.  Justice was dispensed by the Lord, and serfs were free to initiate and present petitions to the Lord. All of these rules were sometimes changed or modified according to local conditions. Serfs had both rights and obligations, as did the Lord of the Manor himself. Customs and traditions formed the basis of law.

I imagine that, in these modern, disordered, technological times in which we live, people who might be seeking order, security, stability in their lives, as opposed to wealth and unlimited freedom, and community welfare as opposed to individual achievement, might be able to set up some sort of cooperative community organized along the old feudal system, which of course would have to be modified to fit in with modern society.


__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
SeekerofOrder

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windemere
Thanks for the previous thoughtful posts.

Along with the previous posters, I think the concept of serfs being "owned" has a negative connotation, reminiscent of slavery. I don't think that the medieval serfs were actually "owned" by the Lord of the Manor. Rather, they were "tied to the land". They could not leave the land, and under ordinary circumstances, couldn't be evicted. If the estate were sold, the serfs went with it.  They owed a certain number of annual days of labor to the Lord on his desmesne, and were free to work on their own plots the rest of the time. They were guaranteed designated holidays ( or holy days ) free from labor. Serfs' family plots were handed down within families over the generations. They were entitled to grind their grain at the Lord's mill, and to pasture their livestock on the common land. They were forbidden to hunt in the Lord's forests. They were allowed to gather firewood from certain common forests, but not from others (which were restricted for the use of the Lord of the Manor only). Women were permitted a certain number of days after harvest to glean (gather leftover grain) from the Lord's fields for their own use.  Justice was dispensed by the Lord, and serfs were free to initiate and present petitions to the Lord. All of these rules were sometimes changed or modified according to local conditions. Serfs had both rights and obligations, as did the Lord of the Manor himself. Customs and traditions formed the basis of law.

I imagine that, in these modern, disordered, technological times in which we live, people who might be seeking order, security, stability in their lives, as opposed to wealth and unlimited freedom, and community welfare as opposed to individual achievement, might be able to set up some sort of cooperative community organized along the old feudal system, which of course would have to be modified to fit in with modern society.

So they are tied to the land? Thanks for mentioning this part and it does seem a better term to use if we were to promote it. How might land be allocated? Yeah somebody needs to write up a document after we get this all figured out.

I could say if asked "Well in Feudalism you are considered part of the land you belong to and nobody can kick you off it. You are allowed to build your own home or shelter using resources available to you on your land. Essentially in most cases problems today like homelessness either do not exist or are very easy to overcome in a society like Feudalism as a result. Everybody has a role to play rich or poor."
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,545
Reply with quote  #9 
Feudalism was a great system in its day. The problem is, it was an agriculturally based economy. In a similar discussion years ago I asked a question which I will now ask in this thread. How do you plan on killing the excess population to bring it down to a number in which an agricultural, feudal economy will work?
__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
SeekerofOrder

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102
Feudalism was a great system in its day. The problem is, it was an agriculturally based economy. In a similar discussion years ago I asked a question which I will now ask in this thread. How do you plan on killing the excess population to bring it down to a number in which an agricultural, feudal economy will work?
No need decentralize everything to the highest degree possible including how the citizenship process works eventually if possible, privatize all of the 'publicly' tax funded military itself and law enforcement so that mercenaries hired by lords can fill in the roles. Replace them and the modern state with decentralized realms/kingdoms owned by lords or monarchs, each with their own mercenaries that are payed with their individual funds rather than public enforcing the law of the land or protecting it. Decentralize land ownership as well if possible, get rid of centralized cities(Will also deal with the overpopulation problem) and dissolve state ownership of land.

Why not have an industrial based Feudalism as well then where a lord can have said factories or sectors on their land, and an area nearby given to them as accommodation where the peasants can all live? They wake up in the morning and all do the said work that the monarch/lord says they must do.

The Congo under ownership of Leopold II of Belgium used a similar structure except he did not live there which was probably how it went wrong, his terms were the law of the land. Mercenaries were hired to keep order and defend the area, although not the perfect example due to some happenings but shows the structure is possible as long as its used by the right monarch for the right purposes unlike him?

It worked like since the Congo was his enterprise(realm) the people tied to the land were part of it.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.