He doesn't know the modern era began in 1492 with the invention of the printing press

printing press was invented in 1440

You know I've been meaning to ask: did modernity exist? I mean, other than as a technological phenomenon. The more I read about how the world works today the less appears to have changed from past times.

- secularization
- social differentiation (In the sense of Luhmann)
- rationalization (in work/production/war)
- acceleration (of the social)

Are the first things that come to my mind. Note that those are not cut and dry criteria but rather tendencies that distinct modernity from pre-modernity. Your reading means that you have an idea in your head about how the world could or should be, but appears not to be. This alternative to what you appear to observe is I would argue already a sign that there is something like modernity. Medieval people didn't have such ideas.

I guess you're right.

Any readings to suggest on this (other than Luhmann)?

Peter Wagner, Modernity: History of the Concept, in: Neil J. Smelser (Hrsg.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Bd. 15, Pergamon Press, Amsterdam 2001.
Herbert, Ulrich, Europe in High Modernity: Reflections on a Theory of the 20th Century, in: in: JMEH 5, 2001.

It's the way Germans cite and I am to lazy to adjust it atm.
Also:
jstor.org/stable/488620?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Feudalism is much preferable to this wage slavery shit we have now.

Not even Marx would agree.

Marx was an imbecile and certainly not a feudalist. He actually fell for the linear progress meme.

>Marx was an imbecile and certainly not a feudalist.
Of course he wasn't and I never implied he was. I somehow doubt though that you are familiar with Emma Goldman or that the term "wage slavery" would be in your vocabulary without Marx.
>He actually fell for the linear progress meme.
He actually didn't. Read the 18. Brumaire for a deep but entertaining meditation on that problem. It seemed though you fell for the 19th century >muh past was great meme that even people like Carl Schmitt mocked.

>Not even Marx would agree.

really meks me brain go "zoom zoom"

>historical materialism
>not linear progress doctrine

Wew lad

>I would rather be a literal serf than just work
This is how you can tell you've never had a job.

...

I hope you realize that you can solve all of those problems yourself.

>>History repeats itself the first as tragedy, then as farce
Actually read Marx. The linear aspect of his theory is the progress in the means of production. Now I know many people understood that in a way that this technology directly determines history but that's just not what is in the Marx' writing, at least not in such a simple one dimensional form. This is why I named the 18th Brumaire.

But.... why? Nothing is stopping you from becoming a serf for someone and I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't mind adopting you as one.

>just b urself

Serfdom isn't legal, user. At least not in my country. We're all just disposable wagecucks being let to rot in a ditch when we become obsolete and forgotten.

Not technology but material base as a whole.

kek that's basically selling your labour in a contract with an employer. Even hookers are wage slaves, you can't just "become a serf" in western modernity, because serfdom is a component of a wider social system and in many ways defined by its position in the wider social context.

>when we become obsolete and forgotten.
Yeah and we all totally remember the peasants from the 13th century... You can read up on the Russian soldiers from WWI (serfs basically) that have never left their village until the war started. Now I am with you on that Globalization in the way it's happening now is a disaster but returning to an imaginary peasant age is not the solution but a right-wing fantasy. If you wanna get deeper into the subject I recommend this lecture:
youtube.com/watch?v=4-l6FQN4P1c
Yeah, I know Produktivkräfte in German. I always confuse the English terms for that.

Yes.

The fact that NEETs are such genetic dead ends that their self isn't good enough doesn't mean feudalism is desirable.

>WW1
>serfdom

Brush up on your histiry user, your knowledge is getting rusty.

Unfortunately I'm not a NEET but I wish I could afford to be one.

I said basically. Redemption payments in Russia were abolished in the early 20th century AT LEAST until then a big part of the Russian peasants were bound to the mir and only the following generation was/would have been free to leave it. Also they had no education or training so there was no way they would just leave the villages since the industry in the Empire was undeveloped with the exception of maybe 3 or 4 larger Western cities and only formers serfs in Polan recieved land to work on.

Actually the situation before WW1 was hardcore wage/debt slavery, not serfdom.

It's not literal serfdom and I never claimed it was. What I am claiming however is that the social reality of the Russian peasantry hadn't changed much since the legal end of serfdom. The real game changer for them was the war experience.
DESU I find it hard to argue about this since every single scholar I read, from Marxist ones to right wing-ones like Barberowksi, agree on this.

My point was the Russian system was more similar to the shit we have now than to serfdom.

I gotta go but on what dimension are you talking? Legally? I'd agree there but in reality peasants were fucked and bound to the mir in 1834 and in 1905 pretty much all the same.

>Christianity founded western civilization :^)
>Borrows heavily from Jewish scriptures, Greek philosophy, and preexisting Roman organizational structures

You high? Neither the word Christianity nor civilization appeared ITT.

We're currently in the postmodern age, I'd honestly say we became postmodern with the invention of consumer grade radios

The social uncertainty, mass evictions, starvation, debt accumulation, people out of work, those are the textbook characteristics of capitalism, not feudalism.

Calm down Rodney, this is now a thread for mocking revisionist "historians" who claim their personal ideology started western civilization for political expedience in the present

>1492
>Invention of the printing press

You might be a genius. You should major in history and work with us at starbucks. We need smart people.

>he prefers the printing press over linear perspective as the dawn of modernity

>He prefers linear perspective over double entry bookkeeping as the dawn of modernity

What is the perspective of this background?

>IT IS WRITTEN IN 2 different BOOKS SO IT IS TRUE AND LET'S TALK ENDLESSLY ABOUT MY INTERPRETATION OF THESE BOOKS and give me money for my career

kys

I actually did but I was a poor student and not really interested in academics. You should get Paralegal work if you really want to get out of retail. You have all the requisite skills and could probably find something through a temp agency and it's not a big commitment.

nice

Close enough for government work perspective

>doesn't know what double entry bookkeeping is