Has egalitarianism failed England?

[sasguru]

As one of the elite, let me assure you that I am correct in this.

Ah a fellow toff. What ho, old bean.

[Platypus]

Ah a fellow toff. What ho, old bean.

I say, is that you Bingo? I'll see you at the Drones later.

Pip pip.

[sasguru]

I say, is that you Bingo? I'll see you at the Drones later.

Pip pip.

Ta mate.

[threaded]

If by successful you mean winning wars and having empire, then maybe the country was more successful, but that success was enjoyed by far fewer people.

You'd just be a prole in a plutocracy.

Just to let you know there was more social mobility during feudalism than there is nowadays.

In fact there was more social mobility 50 years ago than now.

HTH

[Platypus]

Just to let you know there was more social mobility during feudalism than there is nowadays.

In fact there was more social mobility 50 years ago than now.

HTH

Linky ? Evidence ?

[Mich the Tester]

Just to let you know there was more social mobility during feudalism than there is nowadays.

Lower taxes too.

[threaded]

Linky ? Evidence ?

Try a dictionary: 'ministerial' for example, where does the word come from?

In the past it denoted a person raised up from a serf. Do the current holders of such titles look anything like someone raised from the working class...

[Board Game Geek]

There's definitely good and bad about any sort of class system, and I would suggest, the same applies when there is no class system either.

Human beings are naturally hierarchical in the way they like to govern or be governed.

No everyone aspires to run the country, at the same time not everyone wants to sweep the streets either.

People tend to gravitate to what feels comfortable to them, with opportunity (or lack of) and other socially conditioning factors affecting their place in society.

The problem is, as far as I can see, is that modern-day living and the media constantly remind us that being rich and successful is the ideal to which we should aspire.

But you cannot have a society where everyone is rich and successful and does no work, because who would be left to do the unglamourous work ?

Consider the feudal system. Whatever you may have seen on telly in Hollywood movies, the feudal system had considerable merit when it worked as it was intended to.

The King would gift a loyal Noble with a tract of land, in which said Noble was to support both himself and also provide resource back to the King.

The contract between the Noble and the Villein (the peasant who worked the Noble's land) was complex and some might say amounted to little more than slavery.

However, it was the Noble's obligation to treat his subjects fairly.

If he didn't and they revolted, the Noble would suffer accordingly, and the loss of income and resource would deeply upset the King.

In practice, Noble's ruled with an even-tempered hand, but I suppose we only get to hear the bad stories.

Skip forward to modern day.

We don't have Nobles in the feudal sense any more, but we have politicians instead. We don't suffered physical indentured service, although it could be argued we do financially through our taxes.

Are we more free today than we were 500 years ago ?

Are our laws more just ?

Do we punish the guilty as much as we used to ?

Is our society better off or worse off ?

imagine the following..

1. Your local MP is your Liege Lord/Lady
2. Your Liege's responsiblity is to house you, feed you and protect you.
3. All tax you pay is reinvested in to the local community.
4. You toil for your Liege in return for number 2.
5. If you are sick, your Liege provides for you and your family.
6. If your Liege fails to provide, he or she is accountable and replaced. the old Liege is publicly punished for their failure, the severity depending upon their crime(s).
7. You have some luxuries and treats, which you save up for from time to time.
8. You are not a free man or woman, in today's sense, but your labour is indentured as opposed to your physical being.


Appealing or not ? Why ?

I would suggest that the social organisations that exist today will be superceded at some point in the future. The question is, what will follow ?
We can't forever go round and round the circle trying capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism, republicanism, etc.

Even political instruments of control evolve, so what's next and does it worry you ?

[Bagpuss]

Just to let you know there was more social mobility during feudalism than there is nowadays.

Yep but that was aided by The Plague, shortage of toffs= promote the Baldrick.

[denver2k]

There's definitely good and bad about any sort of class system, and I would suggest, the same applies when there is no class system either.

Human beings are naturally hierarchical in the way they like to govern or be governed.

No everyone aspires to run the country, at the same time not everyone wants to sweep the streets either.

People tend to gravitate to what feels comfortable to them, with opportunity (or lack of) and other socially conditioning factors affecting their place in society.

The problem is, as far as I can see, is that modern-day living and the media constantly remind us that being rich and successful is the ideal to which we should aspire.

But you cannot have a society where everyone is rich and successful and does no work, because who would be left to do the unglamourous work ?

Consider the feudal system. Whatever you may have seen on telly in Hollywood movies, the feudal system had considerable merit when it worked as it was intended to.

The King would gift a loyal Noble with a tract of land, in which said Noble was to support both himself and also provide resource back to the King.

The contract between the Noble and the Villein (the peasant who worked the Noble's land) was complex and some might say amounted to little more than slavery.

However, it was the Noble's obligation to treat his subjects fairly.

If he didn't and they revolted, the Noble would suffer accordingly, and the loss of income and resource would deeply upset the King.

In practice, Noble's ruled with an even-tempered hand, but I suppose we only get to hear the bad stories.

Skip forward to modern day.

We don't have Nobles in the feudal sense any more, but we have politicians instead. We don't suffered physical indentured service, although it could be argued we do financially through our taxes.

Are we more free today than we were 500 years ago ?

Are our laws more just ?

Do we punish the guilty as much as we used to ?

Is our society better off or worse off ?

imagine the following..

1. Your local MP is your Liege Lord/Lady
2. Your Liege's responsiblity is to house you, feed you and protect you.
3. All tax you pay is reinvested in to the local community.
4. You toil for your Liege in return for number 2.
5. If you are sick, your Liege provides for you and your family.
6. If your Liege fails to provide, he or she is accountable and replaced. the old Liege is publicly punished for their failure, the severity depending upon their crime(s).
7. You have some luxuries and treats, which you save up for from time to time.
8. You are not a free man or woman, in today's sense, but your labour is indentured as opposed to your physical being.


Appealing or not ? Why ?

I would suggest that the social organisation that exist today will be superceded at some point in the future. The question is, what will follow ?
We can't forever go round and round the circle trying capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism, republicanism, etc.

Even political instruments of control evole, so what's next ?

Im sure you are warming bench these days....