Call me a peasant any day cause overnight oats are delicious. Here’s my recipe you are now asking yourselves for: 1/4 cup steel cut oats, 1 Tbsp chia seeds, a glob of honey, 1/8 tsp salt, 1/4 tsp cinnamon, 3/4 cup of milk, then in the morning add 1/4 cup crushed walnuts and a ton of blueberries.
Now if you’ll excuse me, it’s gruel o’clock for this peasant.
pro tip: try frozen berries and add them the night before to infuse the oats with berry juice. which is also practical because you can mix all together the night before in a to go jar and in the morning you don‘t waste any time and can get right to slaving away for our feudal overlords
And the quick and dirty recipe:
Maple and Brown Sugar Oats
- Oats
- Hot Water
- Brown Sugar
- Maple syrup
- Pinch of Salt
Doing this to Farina also makes Malt O’ Meal - Brown Sugar version
Sorry, but this one is just oats with sugar while the one above actually has fruit and nuts for that healthy boost.
With two kinds of sugar.
american version ;)
deleted by creator
You need a pinch of salt, trust me on this
Ah how could I forget!
I’ll just stick with the kind I can microwave in a couple of minutes.
I actually don’t mind people who want to live in tiny homes. After all, it’s our societal fixation on mcmansions and suburban sprawl for all that has caused us to pass restrictive zoning laws and parking minimums and setback requirements and everything, which have created an artificial scarcity of housing. And it’s this artificial scarcity of housing that investors, speculators, landlords, and old homeowners use to extract ungodly amounts of wealth from the younger and working class. If we abolished those laws, built more housing, and solved the housing crisis, we wouldn’t be feeling nearly so much like peasants, working paycheck to paycheck and under mountains of debt.
If there’s no housing scarcity, your landlord can’t extract nigh-unlimited amounts of money from you.
I’m a bit of a minimalist and dream of a well designed
tinysmall home. You can cram all of the bells and whistles of modern living in 800-1100 square feet easily and be comfortable while you’re at it. It only gets tricky when kids come into the picture, id imagine. But I’m dreaming of atinysmall home so I don’t think kids are a reasonable decision financially lolThat’s not really a tiny home, that’s just a slightly smaller house. They have a tiny home show where I live, and the biggest ones are 350-ish sq ft. Most are under 200. I’d love to get really crazy and build one that’s like 400sq ft - when they’re really well designed, that feels massive, but it’s still small enough to clean in like, an hour.
Yeah 1000/1100 is in the “small but normal” territory. 800/900 is fairly small if your household has more than one person though. But well designed I could see 400-500 being pretty cozy. Tbh, with 800 sq ft I’d have like 300 living and sleeping space and the rest for my kitchen and bathroom lol. I don’t have a dream house, I have a dream shower and kitchen
I currently live in a 550 sq ft 1-br apartment, and it’s actually quite comfortable. Adequately sized kitchen wirh a kitchen island (since I like to cook), bedroom big enough for a queen bed, a not-cramped bathroom, and a living room. Plus pretty decent closet space and in-unit laundry. Tbh, my only wish is that the living room were a bit bigger so I could have a proper sofa and a proper desk for days I work from home. Currently just rocking a desk and an armchair and a TV stand. For a family, I’d definitely want closer to 1000 sq ft.
I have a family of four in a 1000sq ft house and it’s honestly perfect. Any bigger would be too much work for me.
I finally got, if not the dream shower, then a more reasonable version of it, and it really is awesome. That’s a worthwhile goal for sure. My only wish for a kitchen in a smaller space would be to make it open. None of that claustrophobic galley kitchen stuff that’s always in smaller apartments. I don’t love to cook, but I’d at least want somewhere I could without it being miserable.
Kudos on the shower! I envy you lol. And hard agree on the kitchen. How hard is it to design a kitchen with a reasonable amount of counter space and elbow room??? For fucks sake! I don’t need a huge kitchen either, just room for two people to comfortably work. My current kitchen is “acceptable” but barely. If the revolution doesn’t include reasonable housing built around humans instead of cramming as many people into as little space as possible for profitability I will revolt again
designed back in 1926 – the Frankfurt Kitchen – the original source of the “kitchen triangle”, modular storage, and a place to sit down while you chop veggies
I renovate apartments/condos for a living. The average single person unit here is 620-650sq ft in my experience. 800-900 is waaay above average for a single person.
We are having a child in 2 weeks and the 3 of us will live in a 650 for a year or two until we buy. It’s going to be cramped.
Ours is basically around 420sqft. It started as a 12x30 amish shed that we insulated and put in power/woodstove/12v water pump(from the creek). But then I added a 10x12 bath and washing room.
It is pretty comfy for two people.
800-1100
75 m² is pretty big for any European city. I have lived a very happy single life in a well optimized 24 m² city appartement.
i don’t want a tiny home, i want to live in a god damn cooperatively owned commune.
If everyone is there because of some shared interest in the project then sure, it might work. But if you ever lived in a building owned by the very people that live there, like it happens all the time in Europe, you know people often act very much against the shared interest.
I started with my tiny home. And hope to gather some like-minded folks to turn it into a commune once I have basic infra to support more than just myself and my wife.
We are getting there! Maybe next year we will be able to invite one more family/couple/group.
I would actually love that. They’re building something that’s sort of in that vein where I live, where each family/individual has their own house of sorts, but there’s a big communal building with a giant kitchen and dining space, library, living room, gardens, etc, instead of trying to pack all of that in each house. Everyone has to commit to contributing somehow, whether it’s lawn maintenance or helping cook communal meals or whatever. Unfortunately, it would make my commute about an hour, so that’s a no go, but it sounds nice.
deleted by creator
I’d quite happily live in a tiny home as long as it’s surrounded by a couple of acres.
If it were feudalism the proles would now have more power as peasantry.
But the working class continues to have less and less power as capital accrues into fewer and fewer hands - this is still capitalism.
Not really. Capitalism is when owners of capital employ workers to use that capital to create goods and services which they sell to generate a profit. In capitalism the capitalists own the means of production. In feudalism they don’t have to care about production, they just own the land and then charge rent.
Adam Smith is notorious for his support of capitalism, but he was extremely critical of rents. The “free market” he talked about wasn’t one that was free of any government regulation, it was free of rents. You don’t have to do any work to get rent, you just have to own something. And rent gets worse when the owners of that something have a monopoly.
Imagine a capitalist who leases a textile factory and fills it up with workers earning minimum wage. Trucks drive up to one side of the factory and drop off spools of yarn, out the other side come sweaters which are sold for a big mark-up. The capitalist can do things like monitor his workers and fire them for taking more than 5 minutes to use the bathroom, or he can demand they work night shifts during holiday season to maximize his profits. The key thing here is profits – the amount left over after subtracting the costs from the revenues.
Now imagine the feudal landlord who owns the land that the factory uses. He doesn’t care if the factory is profitable or not, all he cares about is that it’s on land he owns, and he demands that he is paid rent for the use of his land. Maybe climate change means that sweaters stop selling so well, so the capitalist’s profits start to disappear. The feudal landlord doesn’t have to care. It’s his property, and the person leasing his property has to pay rent.
Feudalism led to the Irish potato famine. Even during the famine, Ireland was exporting food to England because the feudal landlords required their payment, even if the Irish were unable to feed themselves.
The modern world is looking more and more like feudalism and less and less like capitalism. Amazon rose to prominence using capitalism. It made profits when people ordered things online. The cost to buy those goods wholesale then pack and ship them to individual buyers was less than the price people paid for that service. In the early days, every product listed on Amazon’s website was sold by Amazon. Anything else would have been absurd. And, of course, Amazon wasn’t selling search ads on its website. It was in the business of selling goods, so when you searched for “cat beds”, it wanted to sell you a cat bed. Amazon had to compete with other rival websites that sold things online, as well as with physical stores like Wal*Mart.
These days, Amazon has transitioned from a capitalist enterprise to a feudal landlord. They forced local businesses to close. They bought up their online competition. Nowadays, they don’t make much of a profit on their store, they make rent by selling space on their search results page. Amazon makes much more money by selling space on its search results page for “cat beds” than from selling people cat beds. Because Amazon is a choke point through which most online commerce flows, Amazon gets to raise the rent it charges for space on that search results page to absurd levels.
Whether or not you hate capitalism, I think it’s clear that feudalism is much worse.
In feudalism they don’t have to care about production, they just own the land and then charge rent.
This is not the definition of feudalism. Feudalism is complex and varied, but the common theme in it is reciprocal obligations. These obligations do not exist among direct parties in the current capitalist system.
Everything that you say is feudal about Amazon, is definitively capitalist. Cornering a market is capitalist. You don’t stop being a capitalist when you use non-capital assets as a part of your business model. Real estate companies are still capitalist even though they deal in real estate. Ad space, SaaS, these things operate in a capitalist framework. Adobe isn’t receiving foodstuffs from graphic designers, and it isn’t granting free licenses to win the coordination of a militia. There is no clergy, nor manoralism binding the stakeholders.
It’s also probably worth pointing out that Adam Smith’s writing is primarily descriptive, not prescriptive. He had criticisms, yes, but those are not what are considered foundational about nor integral to his work. Prescriptive exploitation of the system he observed is capitalism as it actually exists. Rent is charged because it is conducive to the capitalist, regardless of the effect it has on larger society over long time periods. Externalizing costs is likewise conducive to the capitalist participant.
Whether or not you hate capitalism, I think it’s clear that feudalism is much worse.
With the research that has come out in the past several decades, I’m not sure that it is clear at all. Even a simple analysis will show that inequality is higher under capitalism, and class mobility has a worse track record under capitalism (feudalism gave birth to the bourgeoisie, for better and for worse). I think what’s more important and more clear, is that 1. neither economic system is compatible with our current challenges such as ecological destruction, and that 2. neither will lead to equality.
This is not the definition of feudalism
Of course it’s not “the definition” of feudalism. But, being paid for the use of something you own is a key aspect of feudalism.
the common theme in it is reciprocal obligations
Suuuure… I’m sure that’s how the feudal lords framed it for their subjects. But, when push came to shove, if you didn’t work the lord’s fields he could have you whipped. If he failed to protect you from brigands you could… complain quietly to the other serfs? The lord would only need to fear aristocrats higher up the food chain than themselves.
Everything that you say is feudal about Amazon, is definitively capitalist
No, it may be happening in an economy where capitalism is one of the main economic systems, but it definitely isn’t capitalism.
Real estate companies are still capitalist even though they deal in real estate.
Take away the company from this example. Is an individual a capitalist if they own land and receive rent from people using that land? How is that different from a feudal lord who owns land and demands rent?
Take away the company from this example. Is an individual a capitalist if they own land and receive rent from people using that land? How is that different from a feudal lord who owns land and demands rent?
Yes, absolutely, if the landowner is rent-seeking and using the proceeds for their own benefit - including expansion of their business. The modern economy alienates participants and their dependency on direct relations to other participants. Currency is the primary mechanism for this: the landowner’s proceeds are not coming in the form of grain and defense; it is coming in the form of a fungible debt token. With this currency he may go to his lessee, a farmer, a futures market, or a store to get his grain. The maintenance required to construct and maintain housing is relatively capital-intensive. Often, what landowners have done is to contract out anything that involves direct ownership and usage so as to reduce cost. They bring in HVAC companies, and pool companies if they are large enough to not be a sole (capital-utilizing) proprietor operation.
And this transition from the sole proprietor barely eeking out enough to buy the next house on the street to rent out (this is how all of the landlord circles speak, they are clearly trying to accrue capital to convert to assets to leverage debt to accrue capital etc…) to the corporate management company contracting every aspect of operations, is perfectly illustrative of what the real evolution has been. It is not capitalism to feudalism, rather it is the same financialization that led to deindustrialization in developed nations. When a landowner’s operation is successful enough, they distance themselves from operations as a corporate board does from its executive team. The landowner hires laborers and accountants to run their capitalist business that is personally profiting them and allowing them to gain greater and greater privileges. The end game of this is that their rent-seeking has turned into naught but numbers flickering in front of them on a screen. They have externalized the costs of capital and maintenance. The capital and maintenance is still utilized, its just by the landowner’s contractors instead of the landowner. At some point this landowner stops looking like a landowner and more like your typical business person looking to corner a market. But their business is still being a landowner, and nothing in the landowner-lessee relationship has changed except degrees of separation (and prices going up to keep all of the contractors employed at a profit to their own business owners).
Most landowners I see speaking with each other are talking about what stocks, ETFs, bonds, and other assets they should be buying - in the perspective of how to maximize their profits. Is Blackrock not capitalist because it only deals with financialization of factories and not the factory operations themselves? No, they are still capitalist and their shares signify their stake of ownership.
The landowners are not maintaining their realms for a mutual if unequal benefit. They are maintaining their assets to succeed in the game of capitalism. It’s not exactly easy to extricate oneself from a capitalist world. Even the homeless and possessionless must deal with it; they still go to the store to legally acquire things with currency. They don’t get to work on a farm and keep a portion of the harvest to feed themselves with as an accepted part of the social contract.
You can define capitalism and feudalism however you like, don’t let me stop you any further. Maybe you’ll strike upon an enlightening realization based on this novel framework. Just be aware that you aren’t using the common definitions.
The working class has all the power, they just don’t know it. But what good is all the power if it doesn’t give you more? If everybody on this world would double their resource usage, global warming would just accelerate.
You can’t fire a slave, slaves has to be sold.
Basically true, but consider the alternative. Given how expensive things are now, if you don’t live a very minimal lifestyle you are going to be much more trapped in your career than someone who does. You won’t be able to retire early, you won’t be able to switch to something lower paid but more enjoyable/laid back, you won’t have the means to take some time off to pursue your own business ideas or just dealing with life stuff.
If you’re dead set on living the “American Dream” or something and refuse to hold back on treating yourself with luxuries, you are going to end up being even more of a tool of your technofeudalist masters. Acknowledging that doesn’t mean turning a blind eye to what is happening, it’s just basic self preservation of your freedom.
The problem is that more and more the tiny house and so forth is no longer a choice, but a neccessity to survive. In places like Silicon Valley a normal job basicly forces you to either communte for hours every day or live in a tiny house just to survive. Looking at the rent increases and high home prices combined with high intrest rates, the cost of housing looks like it will grow in the coming years. That is not just a US problem, but the case in many parts of the developed world. In poorer countries it is a reality for even longer and for even more people.
That being said, if you have the choice, building up some wealth is certainly a good idea. With a bit of it and some good ideas, it becomes much easier to drop out a bit out of the capitalist hellscape and avoid the worst problems.
This is actually why I won’t even bother doing higher tier jobs. Being owned by my boss is not going to make me happy.
The thing is, the need for large expansive homes have substantially evaporated in younger generations as technology advances.
The desire for a massive home as a well off (not wealthy, but above peasant) person was due to:
-
Needing somewhere to store all your necessary shit, your tools of your trade, etc etc.
-
Needing somewhere for your servant(s) to live, because they took care of the house for you
-
Somewhere to store all your books and other pleasantries
However, our servants are now tiny little robots that dont need to eat or sleep, they dont need an entire bedroom and seat at the table.
The entire knowledge of all of humanity no longer requires a library of alexandria, but instead can fit in your pocket.
Many folks have all the tools of their trade able to fit in a small laptop bag at most.
When you can largely fit all your requirements of modern life in a single cardboard box, as opposed to needing several rooms, the desire for a mansion dwindles. Entire kitchens have been replaced with a single microwave and a hotplate.
Meals that used to take an entire day and a whole kitchen staff to prepare, now take a single person hitting an on button.
We have VR, laptops, netflix, the entire internet, etc etc all at our fingertips.
And most importantly, we have cars and whatnot. A trip to the store is no longer a “wake up at 6 in the morning to get the horses saddled and hitched, then three hour ride into town, get back home just before sunset” affair.
It’s now “hop in the car and drive over to the store in 10 minutes”
And unlike horses, a car doesnt need a whole ass stable and stablehand. It can just… sit there lol
So yeah, its perfectly reasonable for us to slowly revert back to small life, everything we could possibly need to live life can fit in an extremely small square footage now, theres literally no need to have a giant mansion, it’s largely pointless.
In most towns and cities, grocery store should be within walkable distance to allow people to get what they need for the next day or two, removing the necessity for large pantries or food storage rooms. Also getting benefits of eating healthier and fresher.
Also this, yeah, as farming scales and technology enables farmers to be able to manage larger and larger swathes of land with less and less labor involved, more and more people congregate in central hubs, major cities, etc, which means more and more people are within walking distance of all the needs.
Is this astroturfing?
Of course I want more space! small rooms with a small number of rooms is claustrophobic and cluttered. I need space for me and all my shit!
The point is, you almost definitely have way less shit on your property, than a middle or upper class family would have in the 1800s.
You probably dont have a whole ass horse stable, and separate living quarters for your stable hand, yes? And all the “stuff” that would be involved in maintaining that horse stable, and all the stuff that the stablehand would own for their own life, right?
And you likely dont have servants, and a cook, right? And all their stuff and their living quarters?
And your computer can hold an entire library worth of books on it, an entire blockbuster worth of VHS tapes in movies, etc etc?
And you probably dont have dozens and dozens of boxes of photographs in storage, right? All of that now can fit in your pocket in a single USB stick.
No matter what your trade or craft is, even ones that involve working with your hands, its extremely likely someone 200 years ago would have required like twice as much stuff to do it. Our tools have become smaller, compact, multi-use, storable, foldable, digital, etc etc.
We’ve gone from giant machines that took up entire rooms, to extremely powerful ones that take up a fraction of the space.
Think about something as simple as just printing off some pamphlets, do you know how much stuff was involved in that process 200 years ago?
Now, you can mass produce pamphlets with just your phone or a laptop and an inkjet printer.
I would say there certainly are a small handful of hobbies and skills that have not had much change in terms of downsizing. Weightlifting / exercise, for example, is largely functionally the same. Steel is still steel and you cant really “downsize” the fact you have a certain density, and you simply just have to live with that. People have tried to come up with countless fancy ways to downsize weightlifting but at the end of the day, a barbell is a barbell.
Sewing also hasn’t changed dramatically in terms of scale either. Modern sewing machines arent that much different in size. Sure they have gotten a little bit more power in a bit smaller shape but, if you look up sewing machines from 200 years ago they, well, sorta still look the exact same not gonna lie.
But overall, most of the day to day living is just a LOT smaller and simpler. A small electric hand vacuum can do the work one handed in a few minutes that would have taken ages before. Microwaves cook food at extraordinary speeds that someone from a hundred years ago would absolutely consider borderline magic.
Servants? Stables? How rich do you think the average person is?!
I absolutely have more space and more things easily manufactured compared to a peasant with a shit ass job, even from just 100 years ago, have you seen how small the average persons house is? There’s houses around me built in the 1800s and I can barely stand up or fit a modern couch in them. They didn’t have kitchens they had a fire and a pot in the lounge.
You seem to be talking about peoples work tools, which would be at work, not in their house.
Just do make sure that, if you live in a small home, you spend some time out in the town, because living in too little space can harm your feels.
I wish houses weren’t required by law to have a lawn. I could save so much space if I didn’t have one and all the junk to take care of it.
This thread blows my mind.
You’d prefer to just be boxed in with people all around you and concrete everywhere? That’s what developers would do if they weren’t required by law to give you space. Pack them into smaller spaces and get more money!
I’m mostly unhappy with front yards. Basically no one in my area uses them for anything. They’re just money and time sinks you have to put up with for very little benefit. I’m totally ok with having a backyard because it actually gets used.
Anything to use as a buffer between me and my neighbours I’m happy.
You could look into lawn alternatives. Here the rules are no weeds and vegetation can’t be over 6 inches unless it is intentionally cultivated. So I have native plants in garden beds around my house that take up roughly 50% of the yard, and the “lawn” portion is mostly native groundcovers that are unlikely to reach above 6 inches. I rarely have to do anything to it since it’s mostly native. We go out there maybe once a month to mow the little grass that’s left (which we’re phasing out as natives spread) and pull weeds.
It was a little more work up front to make beds and plant natives, but we did it the lazy way, starting out small and expanding over the years as natives grew and spread. We did temporary borders of cardboard with rocks on top to smother grass and expand out as needed.
Sadly I’m in an HOA, so it would never fly.
I’m in an HOA as well and am working around their rules. Occasionally I’ll get a notice about “weeds,” and I have to give them a call and gently remind them that I’m compliant with the rules. Here in Texas we have laws that the HOA can’t force us to grow exotic grasses or have rules against xeriscaping, so hopefully your area has something similar. People have also had success getting their yards certified as wildlife habitats, so that might be an option. If all else fails, keeping a large garden with a small strip of mowed grass in the front might be a good compromise.
Lawns dont have to be grass
-
If you call it “oat milk”, you can sell gruel at a steep markup.
Isn’t dairy subsidized to make it so cheap?
Serfs had The Commons. We don’t even have that
Capitalism is just an extension of feudalism already. There was no transition
Well not really, but I get what you mean! As one German guy wrote long ago - it is always a class struggle. And I’m writing this as a person who knows how shit the communism was. No matter the system, there will always be someone who exploits it and someone trying and being in charge. Even in Anarchism, everyone then tries to be in charge, even if just over themselves.
I won’t stand for slandering overnight oats like that!
edit: how tf did I mess up my comment so badly.
overnight oats are delicious
Technofeudalism is just endgame capitalism
But I like tiny homes…
There’s no point renaming capitalism
I think this is very toxic post. I live in apartment in a size of tiny house, and I have no wish to move to suburbs and slave away my life in traffic jams. People should live in a way that they enjoy. Comparing is just a dick measuring contest. And One should be able to enjoy his mega mansion and his huge truck if he wants to too, providing it is done in environmentally safe way and all the taxes (and I mean appropriately and proportionally calculated taxes) are paid
It’s hard to take this seriously when you shit on living in the suburbs then immediately say “people should live in a way they enjoy”.
I’m not shitting on suburbs. I don’t like them though. And I don’t just say “people should live in a way they enjoy”. If you would avoid twisting the words and reading until the end You would notice a whole sentence saying: “And One should be able to enjoy his mega mansion and his huge truck if he wants to too, providing it is done in environmentally safe way and all the taxes (and I mean appropriately and proportionally calculated taxes) are paid”. If, by any chance, you are still reading, let me say that we are free to define the system of living in any way we want. And If you can find a way to do what you like in a way that is safe, constructive and not infringing on our planet and society - go for it!
Respectfully - I don’t see how mega-mansions and huge-trucks could be considered ‘environmentally safe’.
And people should also consider the “social-impact of earning”…
since most mansion-owners “leeched” their money via white-collar jobs at exploitative corporations.
…In my opinion - the entire downstream effect of our choices must be considered.
(I write this in the spirit of unified awareness - I know you aren’t pushing for mansions or trucks)
I think You can have a huge house if You build it smart. Like 100 m long earth ship or something like that. I was a bit iffy about trucks though wen I wrote this, so I know what you mean. But if you scale back to normal not Murican size car/truck and go hydrogen or electric, it is still bad, but better than I can realistically hope for with current trends. I agree with your opinion about jobs. I feel that big corporations are allowed too much free space to do what they want. I love to see innovation that big resources can bring, but it is always being overshadowed by their exploitation and lobbying in self interest. There is not enough control and they always end up exploiting their position.
My smallish place gives me a 10 to 15 minute commute. Which I take do by bicycle frequently. My friends in the suburbs travel 1.5 hours each way. Fuck that shit.
deleted by creator
At that point - why don’t just live in a motor home.
Agreed. One could generously give the OP the benefit of the doubt that the intent of the post is a complaint about the system, but it’s fundamentally flawed as it’s still an attack on the “victim” of said system.
Who are they, to tell people what to eat or what size house to live in? As long as people have the choice of food they want or home they want, that’s all that matters. Work needs to be done to make those choices equitable, but even in an equitable system there would still be tradeoffs. I just bought a house a few years ago, it’s in town, modest size (1800sq ft), and I have a 15 minute commute. I love it. My friends bought a house last year - huge, 3500 sq ft. Brand new, bit mcmansion-y, but it’s a nice house, and they love it. We paid about the same price, because their house is in the middle of nowhere. If we bought a house near them, I’d have a 1+ hour commute one way each day, and I’d hate it. I like my hobbies, but I don’t need that much space, lol.
And if someone is happy buying a tiny house, good for them. If someone doesn’t need the space - doesn’t have kids, has undemanding hobbies, isn’t throwing a lot of parties, why would they need a bigger house? It’s just more to maintain. This post is basically saying anyone who doesn’t consume - buying bigger houses and a meat and eggs breakfast - is a victim, which is just stupid. And it’d be great if tiny homes weren’t one of the easiest ways out of the current rental nightmare, but some people would still choose tiny homes even if every house cost the same and renting didn’t exist.
I think You hit a nail on it’s head saying " This post is basically saying anyone who doesn’t consume - buying bigger houses and a meat and eggs breakfast - is a victim, which is just stupid". I agree.
Hooray for nuance and reason!
Slaves cannot be fired. They have to be sold.
Ever heard of share cropping? How about debt bondage or wage slavery? Slavery takes many forms. Very few include open air slave markets.
Also, this post is about peasants. While they were certainly a form of slave, particularly serfs, I have a suspicion you didn’t know that and didn’t intend to equivocate the two. Peasants weren’t really bought or sold either. I’m sure it happened sometimes but it wasn’t a structural component of feudalism.
All this to say, what’s your point?
