Are there any modern societies that still practice feudalism?

Are there any modern societies that still practice feudalism?

feudalism is ingrained in practically all hierarichies. You owe a favor to someone above you for your position, and return someone below you owes you a favor for his position.

Soviet-type nomenklatura was a feudalism on its own.

>and return
*and in return

There are a few absolute monarchies left, but generally the monarch gives (or at least gives the illusion) of free choice to his people.

It's tremendously inefficient.

European Fuedalism is misunderstood and in short term a myth.

Knights who were truly knightsorry were often nobility. Not royalty but nobility for sure, and with the nobles being leaders of their Levi's or vassals of and comeanders, surely if they died in battle, their holdings and power as well as the kingdoms power would be disrupted and thus chivalry was adopted to show respect for those of high standings.

Soldiers however could have varied from mercenaries in most cases, peasants or worker levies, paid men-at-arms, aso well as other variations.

The peasantry by definition made up most of the population because most were workers, some were servants in those called surfs were nearly considered slaves. But of course these peasants could become craftsmen of sorts and even merchants. In the early middle ages when trade was not nearly as profitable as it was say in the 1500's there was obviously higher demand for a laboring class within the population, but this isn't to be misunderstood because kingdoms were not only uncentralized but also the population was much smaller.

This format of feudalism ended in the 1000's more or less, apon the unification of christendom and centralization of the church. Unless you're Russia... Russia had this kind of feudalism up until the communist revolution... makes you wonder why?

we already exist in a techno-feudalistic compact user

ie. robust, antifragile

>t. leb deadlift man

Not even memeing, aren't most societies effectively still this, profoundly hierarchical with very little social mobility, the UK still has a king, a landed upper legislature, and a massive over-representation of noble in the lower house. Transpose Knights for Bureaucracy and law enforcement, peasants for the working class - you might say not an awful lot has changed.

I do often wonder how strictly feudalism was ever adhered too, People say England was less fuedal before the the Norman conquest, the Godwin family coming from near obscurity, probably low nobility. Was the man who slew the giant Norse axeman at Stamford bridge given a house and name there and then? How did one become or cease to be noble, how often did this change take places?

Even with the Norman conquest, the acting executive, the man who had usurped the throne was bastard born, his mother Herleva, the son of a tanner, not to mention all of the landless nobodies who would have suddenly become the gentry in Great Britain.

...

It all depends one how we define fuedalism. I would say it doesn't exist any more considering the word itself was invented to describe the legal system of the European middle ages. We can spend all damn day arguing over what it means because there's no real objective definition.

>All hierarchies are feudalism.

Tibet
This is why china annexed it

>UK has little social mobility
Work hard at school and you'll work hard, especially now grammar schools are going in after labours autistic fit about them

>landed upper legislature, and a massive over-representation of nobles in the lower
Oh no stability and restrained democracy
Also look at where the MP comes from as to why he's a white posh male
Also say chamber you fucking rebel

What do you think?

Somalia

Europeans didn't have merchant class?

No.
There are residual byproducts of feudalism left, but the whole feudal system has been abandoned for a very long time.
In a feudal hierarchy, for example, class specialization leads to class dominance and protection. For example, the earliest societies saw blacksmiths as the most important ; they assumed dominance, because they built the tools that made society. After metallurgy was widespread, the dominant group were the bread keepers, people who lived on the King's land, were given an amount of land, and offered shelter and protection to farmers, they were the Loaf wards (whence the term "Lord" comes). From there, modern capitalism comes, because the production of society was held by the lord in deficit, making the peasant work harder for a surplus. Industrialization led to people working a full 100 hours a week.

Here's a fresh idea. 2 boys start a fight; at the end of the fight, one of the boys assumes dominance; they might keep fighting until a hierarchy is established; aggression to peace. In nature, especially among our closest living relatives (the chimps), conflict is resolved through aggression (to establish hierarchy). Aggression is just a test, a part of the "fight or flight response" in the social part of the brain. It's a very weird idea to think that an individual would be okay being submissive to another man, because our society works differently. Modern people are given "equality". Anyone who tries to ascend their equal role, we try to collectively knock down, and this is good for capitalism, because capitalism thrives on our unrequited aggression. It creates competitive markets for people to be equal. And suddenly, we now have progressivism; when 2000 years prior, we were content with our wooden hut for a house, now we glorify the future, because the future is the promised land where we believe that elation of "honour" is.

somalia

Cont'd
People assume that modern corporatism is basically feudalism. Basic feudalism existed because men had the right to be aggressive (It leads to peace). Modern capitalism, corporatists, etc, don't believe in aggression; they want to always be above, and that means building an empire that forces people to comply, or by eliminating laws (except for the non-aggression laws), which inevitably leads people to comply regardless.

There was a massive difference in the cultures that still practiced feudalism when republicanism was becoming popular. Places with the "non aggression" principle lived in cities where people traded, merchant societies. The religion of these republicans was a religion of discipline, punishment and reward, and their god was a cold inhumane warlord who bribed its adherents with untold divine riches and would punish them with untold torture.

The culture and religion of the feudal societies were often polytheistic, having many gods who were humane in their appetites and attitudes; they didn't need divine structure, because they had no need to be rewarded nor punished. Their society was a pro-social one, one that encouraged aggression, because they were given peace. They weren't kept in eternal conflict by market interests or by law; they had no god to be afraid of; they believed in nature..

From top-tier (least people, most power) to bot tier is as follows:

1. King/Queen
2. Pope
3. Other High Nobility
4. Nobility
5. High Clergy
6. Mid-Tier Merchant
7. Clergy
8. Knights
9. Serfs
10. Slaves

I'm not sure if I should've put Pope at first place. Maybe I should've done King/Queen and Pope.

Pic related - 1900's actor reenacting the daily tribulations of working as a medieval serf.

Pope goes on the top hierarchically

Feudalism like that didn't exist.

There was no absolute model that was shared throughout Europe.

>Pope under King/Queen

Pretty dangerous path you are walking on, heretic.

>What is France?

...