By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Agente42 said:
sc94597 said:

Historically, "libertarian" was a synonym for anarchism or the libertarian branch of socialism. In most places it is still used that way, and even in the United States where right-wing liberalism has appropriated the "libertarian" label to an extent that older sense is also still used. 

The first "libertarian" was Joseph Dejacque an early communist anarchist who used the word to circumvent anti-sedition laws in France which prohibited the use of "anarchist." 

The right-wing libertarian is new term to Neo-feudalism

• Completely localized economy bounded by the borders of the estate which they are tied to?

• Vassal of a liege? Who is in turn vassal to another liege?

• Generalized skill sets rather than specialization since no full time jobs can exist due to the economic limitations, but with plenty of small/micro jobs because so many unserved tasks require completion?

• The lack of a middle class?

• Tied to the land?

My understanding by early libertarian writers was that the lingering elements of the feudal system was what they were rebelling against. While the economy had drifted from Manorialism to globalism the class hierarchies persisted. Caleb Williams is a good example of an early/proto libertarian work that really targeted this. Basically, the purpose of libertarianism was originally to dismantle hierarchy, which makes it very strange that it has somehow become the code of the right wing of the US. At the same time, Liberalism is generally not defined correctly in the US (either by big or small l definitions) so it just might be one of these hijacked terms. At the same time, I think the US definition probably dominates its meaning today - and it’s basically neoliberalism intended as a garden bed to grow hierarchical corporate structures, which in ways are kind of like mini-dictatorships: and I’ve known people who work in the US corporate system; and the idea of “if you don’t like employer A then go to employer B” doesn’t really work in a system of specialized skill sets, maybe if we did still have a general skill set economy it would be better - but far more automation and AI would be required to even consider a general skillset worker as a mainstream employee again - as in a world where the production of necessities is automated and people actually decide they want to spend money on generalized services again.

Feudalism wasn’t actually as bad as many think, but it had some severe holes in it, such as medical skill set availability (it’s unlikely you’d have a dermatologist, psychiatrist, or oncologist, for example; but a part time general practitioner and nurses may exist), luxuries would be rare - you’d probably have paintings, maybe some writings, but not likely to have things such as electronics as these sorts of things require globalism.

If the idea of technofeudalism interests you, read the Robot Trilogy by Isaac Asimov. The second book, The Naked Sun, focuses on just that thing. Although the plot follows a murder. Basically everyone on the planet (Solaria) lives in giant estates with robot peasants doing all the labour.

You can probably read The Robot Trilogy without worrying about iRobot, but if you are interested in the Asimov universe as a whole I’d read iRobot and Foundation first.

If you’re doing the whole series, this is the best order, IMO:

1. iRobot & Foundation

2. Book 2 and 3 in the Foundation trilogy.

3. The Galactic Empire trilogy (book 1 and 2 optional, they’re standalones, but I’d read Pebble in the Sky, which is book 3)

3. The Robot trilogy

4. Foundation sequels

5. Robots and Empire

6. Foundation prequels (even though they’re chronologically before Foundation, from a conceptual standpoint these are the end of the story. Reading them earlier would spoil almost every surprise/twist in the rest of the Foundation series).

Last edited by Jumpin - on 03 February 2021

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.