Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Of course, the current system is neo-feudalism with atomic weapons. They are the ones who talk about capitalism, which objectively cannot exist. Of course, feudalism has the beginnings of capitalism.
Feudalism is a relationship between a liege lord and a vassal. �The vassal owes the seigneur everything he has, �moreover, the vassal has the land that the seigneur gave him to feed. �On any occasion, the seigneur can take everything from the vassal. �
Is this happening in Russia??? �If so, �who are our lords, �and who are our vassals???�
In my subjective opinion, “Russia is certainly not perfect,” but certainly not a feudal country. Афганистан Here is Afghanistan, �there is still feudalism, you can feel the difference.”And even in Afghanistan, it is believed that feudalism has already outlived its usefulness.
If we take the political system of the modern Russian Federation, then it does not coincide with feudalism in any way. Within the framework of developed feudalism, political power is held by an absolute monarch, a person who is endowed with full power and has almost unlimited powers. In Russia, there is a President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, whose power is greater and broader than the powers of the president of an ordinary democratic country. But this does not mean that the power of the monarch is before us. Here are some examples:
Vladimir Putin does not have the ability to transfer power to his successor. The attempt to transfer power to a “friend of Medvedev” led to an unbalanced system and mass protests. The monarch usually has no problems with the transfer of power-there it is transferred either to the heir or to the successor.
Vladimir Putin does not have full independence of decision-making in crisis situations (like the Russian tsars, for example). We can give two examples – the situation in 2014 with the “Russian world” and the situation with the pension reform. As part of 2014, Vladimir Putin went de facto to obtain permission from the Federation Council for military intervention (invasion) in Ukraine. But at the very last moment, due to the opposition of the financial elites and the diplomatic corps, the decision was canceled. Later, Vladimir Putin withdrew his consent to the invasion. The second example is that for many years Putin has stated that he will never, under any circumstances, raise the retirement age. The announcement of such a promotion would be a serious blow to his reputation (as it happened). Nevertheless, as a result of increasing losses from the sanctions imposed by V. V. Putin, he was forced to accept the proposals of the “liberal-economic” bloc of ministers and sacrifice a significant share of his personal reputation in exchange… yes, in exchange for nothing. This measure could not give anything special in the sense of immediate correction of the situation (but there were a lot of negative consequences for the president). And you can continue to list such things. Let me remind you that Tsar Nicholas II, who was much weaker politically (than Putin), being completely isolated by the Duma, hated by his own relatives, and bullied in the press, not only did not stop waging the First World War, but also decided to personally lead the troops (despite the advice of almost everyone around him, except for his wife). Here's the difference between a weak monarch and a much stronger, even authoritarian president.
So no, it is precisely politically that we have an authoritarian regime, and of a weak type (such regimes are sometimes called non-democratic, sometimes liberal), much weaker even than the monarchy. Another thing is that socio-economically, yes, peripheral capitalism retains the features of previous economic formations. That is why they say that we have “neo-feudalism”, that is, a system in which:
Politically and legally, all citizens are divided into two unequal groups-the privileged minority and the “taxable majority”. The majority does not have the right to organize themselves or protest against the deprivation of a minority.In court, a representative of the minority will win any case against a representative of the majority (with the exception of high-profile media scandals).
The process of political decision-making is influenced by the emergence of so-called ” bureaucratic pyramids “and even”power clans”. Within the elite, an informal hierarchy of these clans is built, for example, within the formal political system, the post of minister of the Russian Federation is higher than the post of head of a state corporation, but in reality, during the conflict between the head of the state corporation (and “personal friend of the president) Sechin and Russian Minister Ulyukayev, the opposite was true (Ulyukayev lost and went to prison). This is because in the informal hierarchy, a member of the ” president's clan “is a higher status than the”minister of the Russian Federation”.
The majority of the population is obliged to pay a ” hidden fee “in the form of withdrawal of funds through bank fraud, fraudulent” investment funds ” and so on.
The political decision-making process is not public, but hidden. Most of the decisions taken arise under the influence of” underhand intrigues”, and the parliament in Russia already records the results of this struggle in the adopted law.
But all these things also play a role in “developed countries”, it's just that there this role is 1) smaller than in the Russian Federation, 2) in the framework of the “elite game”, Western elites observe the “appearance of legality”. Simply put. the peoples of developed countries are more involved in the elite games of Western elites than the Russian people are in the games of our own.
https://www.inliberty.ru/article/escape-law/
This statement has no basis in fact. Feudalism is very different and the Western version differs from feudalism, for example, in Russia, but there are a number of common points. Feudalism as a system of social organization presupposes:
First , and most importantly, feudalism presupposes the predominance of subsistence (agriculture)and, as a consequence, a specific military organization. That is, the land that farmers cultivate is divided between feudal lords(knights, squads, boyars, etc.), where the peasant supports the feudal lord and ensures his combat readiness, and the feudal lord in return undertakes to serve the prince/king/emperor. It is the countryside that feeds the cities, and there is no question of any serious urban industry.
Secondly, the strict division of society into classes, where a person already acquires his social role from birth. If you were born a peasant, then most likely you will be one, and if you are an aristocrat, then you can certainly become a peasant, but there are unlikely to be many applicants.
Third, feudalism has its own vassalage system, when a complex hierarchy of titles is clearly built. This is more typical for Western Europe than for Russia, but nevertheless.
These are perhaps the main clear distinguishing features of feudalism. But what of this can be shifted to today? Yes, perhaps nothing.
The Russian Federation cannot be a feudal country simply because it has a completely different economic and social basis. Russia is a capitalist country and therefore the political structure of the Russian Federation has all the characteristics of a bourgeois democracy. We have a narrow stratum of capitalists who have certain agreements, agreements and connections with the political apparatus. State policy and relations between groups of elites within the country are dictated not by vassalage law, but by the business interests of elite groups