13th century vs 21st century
13th century vs 21st century
68 comments
-
Only half?
https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/26/map-shows-much-salary-spend-rent-different-areas-london-10072789/
London is more like 60-80%.
-
Sorry but saying a 13th century high medieval peasant owned their hovel is just incorrect. Yeomen did, they owned their own land, but they didn't live in hovels. Serfs and villeins were bound to their land, owned by a lord, and had to do uncompensated labor on the lord's land for the "right" to live on the land they could not leave.
Also, saying high medieval serfs paid "1/10 annual produce" completely ignores all the other feudal duties owed to their lord. Usually, serfs owed a third of their land value in produce to their lord off the peasant's land, as well as not owning anything, while having to use the lord's flour mill which was also heavily taxed. @PugJesus@lemmy.world has it right.
-
If that doesn't hit close to home.....
-
The commons is the one that hits hardest for me. In Washington State, you have to pay to use our state parks as well as the federal parks. They're saying that we're paying to park.
The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable Earth. These resources are held in common even when owned privately or publicly.
-
-
Bit we have social media.now
So things are MUCH better.... right?
-
And no plagues!
oh wait
-
Keep going.
-
-
What are “the commons” in this case?
-
Doesn't know how to use a Venn Diagram (twice, not in the intersection)
-
Elaborate if you're educated about it
-
-
Not even close.
-
Elaborate?
-
Many would own neither their land nor their hovel. The lucky ones would own themselves, at least; the unlucky ones would not only not own themselves nor their hovel, but also not own their own fucking children - nearly half of England's population was unfree. Of the free half, a majority of them would not have owned any land in any real sense. They lived on their lord's sufferance.
Their access to the commons was dependent on the goodwill of their local lord, and, indeed, as the 14th century comes into play, that access is stripped as soon as it becomes more profitable for the local lord to sell the rights off.
10% of their harvest would go to the Church alone - not optional. Much more would go to their local lord simply for the privilege of existing - around 25% if you were free, closer to 50% if you were unfree. And that's not getting into various other taxes, such as for anything sold, or to get permission to marry. And if you were unfree, you'd owe nearly half of your working days to your lord's needs - without any recompense, in money or produce. On top of that, many taxes levied were irregular - ie whenever your lord thought he could get away with it.
-
-
-
Progress will never fail landlords
-
Well, if we go for economic contraction, shrinking population, automation and even wealth distribution, then the landlord will need to find other work.
-
-
You know serfdom basically still exists in parts of the world. Why not go to one of those places and ask if they'd rather live there or in the USA?
-
One person's pain does not diminish another's.
-
I'm just saying the whole premise of the meme is extremely flawed. It's made to imply that modern life is in any way as bad as medieval serfdom and that is just not true. For example, did you know that most medieval peasants didn't own their own ovens and were forced to take the food they produced to someone else to cook it if they weren't eating something that could be cooked on a simple hearth? Or that they literally weren't allowed to leave the land they were assigned to without permission from their lord? Yeah things are bad today but they were way worse back then.
-
-
68 comments