Serfs are better than slaves.

[alberg]

Slaves are expensive. I’ve got to buy them and then I have to maintain them. I have to feed them and house them and clothed them. I have to take care of them when they are sick. And because they have no illusions about their status, there’s always the chance that I’ll lose their services if they run away.

Serfs are free. They come with the environment, like the trees and land and water. There is no need to care for them. Finding food, clothing and shelter is their problem. If one of them becomes sick or dies there is always another to take its place. And because they believe their status is “part of the natural order of things”, an inevitable result of the “free market”, they are reluctant to organize and take any collective action that might result in a meaningful change in their status.

Serfs are better than slaves.

[El_Johns]

1. Traditionally, though, serfs had rights to a percent of the harvest, a patch of land to grow their

own crops on, the use of their own tools, etc. Serfs had the right to access capital (land & its resources).

I'd say "free" workers are better than serfs, because the owners don't owe "free" labor anything but whatever paycheck is agreed to.

I take your point though.

[atreides1]

3. Traditions have been known to change!

N/T

[El_Johns]

17. But when you don't have feudal rights, it's no longer serfdom. It's "free labor capitalism".

[libdem4life]

2. Many a time I've thought of this as a rerun of Medieval Times. Incisive distinction.

Just the Lords of the Manor don't live in the vicinity of the serfs so most don't realize they are serfs. The Lords hide out in their walled fortresses of Wall Street and their mansions/limos and stalk Congress with legislation in one hand and cash/power in the other.

We're nearing a Kleptocracy.

[Coyotl]

4. Serfs is a poor word choice but the message is right on.

"Hungry masses" might be more accurate today!

[Hutzpa]

5. So this is what have become of DU

the community I love.

Outright justification of prejudice.

[alberg]

6. It's not prejudice, it's sarcasm, satire, irony and outrage.

The post is intended to express the despicable point of view of the plutocrats who control our economy. Among other things,its' intent is to encourage increased social and economic awareness and collective action as a path to meaningful change.

[fadedrose]

7. I got it...

You did and meant no harm as far as I'm concerned...

[Hutzpa]

9. Ofcourse it's meant no harm to you

because it does not affect YOU, but three are those who are out there striving to survive that will take offence to this kind of stuff.

Since it's not at your doorstep you have to be comfortable with class division and slavery.

[fadedrose]

13. He should have put a "sarcasm" thingy

The reason he posted it is because he feels exactly the same as you and is not happy with the situation..

Most of us are serfs and are not happy about it...but those who use "serfs" love the idea of not taking care of them or anyone, just jusing them.

It means no sick days, pensions, holiday pays, health care, unions, family care, etc., and it suits them fine.

THAT was the point.

[Hutzpa]

10. Then I'm afraid it's a poor attempt at sarcasm

You could have made it clearer in your post or use one of these....

[gaspee]

12. It looks like most people

Got it.

[Big Blue Marble]

14. I think it is a brilliant insight.

Very clever. Thanks.

[El_Johns]

18. I see no prejudice.

[Cleita]

8. Saw first hand a modern system of serfdom in the last century.

When we lived in chile, my parents were friends with a couple who owned a big fundo in the south in the Lake District. This would be a Rancho Grande in Mexico. Mostly they raised pedigree cattle and horses used for breeding, which they sold around the world to people of wealth. But they also grew a variety of food crops too. The ranch had been in the family for generations. The ranch workers were born, lived and died on the ranch, which was thousands of acres. The patron, which is what the rancher was called, was in all respects a lord and he went by the title of Don, like in Don Juan.

He had pretty much sovereignty over everyone who lived on the ranch. He, on the other hand, had the obligation to care for his worker families, providing health care and school for their children, as well as a place to live and enough resources for them to grow their own crops or other resources like a shop for smithing or carpentry or equipment repair that they could do in their free time to earn some pesos. My parent's friends did those things and being the patron was also a doctor his families got good health care.

Now just because the Don had obligations to his serf families doesn't mean that all of them honored them. Isabella Allende writes eloquently about how the workers and their families could be abused with no recourse in her book, "The House of Spirits".

So what I'm saying is if you have serfs you still have obligations to them that they have what they need for life. If you can't do that then you need to pay them a living wage so they can provide for themselves.

[MisterP]

15. ever since maybe the 1760s (in Russia) it's been serfs! with! capital!

IOW they're subject to the same demands as wage laborers producing for the global market for their products, but aren't in the labor market

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. The tragedy of the commons.

Except you are the commons, the resource that is exploited by capitalists with no investment in your wellbeing.

[July]

16. Some time ago (last year, maybe?) another DUer coined the term "free-range slaves" for the same idea

Great minds, it seems!