Archives

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 1 September 2011, see discussion.

Older deletion discussions:
Rewrite, 10 May 2004, see discussion.

",which impose by force and influence,"

should be

"that impose, by force and influence,"

for the sake of readability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redward1958 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

=

On the page it says: An early example critical of the Left is the essay "Neo-Feudalism" by John Kenneth Galbraith, published in 1961.[2]

But the citation does not lead to the article "Neo-Feudalism". The cited article [2] refers to Galbraith's "The affluent society", but this book mentions neither feudalism nor neo-feudalism, as far as I can see.

I suggest to either add appropriate references or delete the reference to Galbraith. As it stands, there is no substantial connection between Galbraith and neo-feudalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:2902:3700:D0AC:696:176:12E7 (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 68.224.50.211

Thank you to whomever rennovated this article, though it would be nice if there were still a summary at the top of the page. When I first looked up neo-feudalism, many years ago, the article in existence said that it was purely a pejorative term, and gave no description or definition. Most of the other sources on the web parroted this site's "definition," so that for the general webgoing public there was no ability to discuss this (rather important, in my opinion) idea unless you referred back to published sources. I undertook an extensive reading research to re-write the article (7+ years ago, I believe) and the result was the backbone of "older" article mentioned above, much of which remained in place until fairly recently. I like that the new version has more thorough citations of published works, though it seems much of the topic was lost and what remains only discusses privatization of government, which may compromise the article's relevance by narrowing its scope to only one aspect of neofeudalism. I am concerned about the future of this page, after looking through the history at the repeated attempts to gut and/or delete this article. I fear that this concept is regularly targeted for language control by individuals whose personal politics may support neo-feudalistic policies or institutions and who harbor philosophical objections to the wide use/existence of this term. There are Wikipedia articles covering profanities, web-speak terms, abbreviations common in texting or messaging as well as old and new slang terminology of the most passing sorts. Yet this article is still regularly nominated for deletion under the assertion that there exists no such concept or idea (or, rather, that such idea should not exist or be discussed) as neofeudalsim despite its wide use, that the word is merely a neologism which is somehow less relevant to the English language that many of the other trivial and faddish terms and ideas covered on Wikipedia. I do like the new material, but it is disturbing that the entirety of the old article - several pages worth of contributions by various individuals - has been completely deleted. --68.224.50.211 (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't vouch for the history here, but I agree with the sentiment. The current article is pretty inadequate. Elinruby (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block quotes

This page deals extensively in block quotes with only one, relatively minor, use of the term. 66.31.219.208 (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's better to just summarize what the quotes say in original words and link to the source. The article used to have a lot of original text, but was deleted for reasons I don't know, probably related to the Article for Deletion in September 11'. Entire sections gone, including an etymology. It's there in the history record for anyone interested. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that old version is much more what I was hoping for when I came here for a quick overview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.163.88 (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to this article on "Neofeudalism" the effect it has on class relations: a lack of noblesse oblige and the loss of a feeling of reciprocal obligation between a landless peasantry on the one hand and an aristocracy which is not tied to any particular locale due to its portable wealth. e.g. Mitt Romney, who did not serve in the military during a time or war, nor did his sons; has his money in an overseas bank to avoid American taxes and admittedly pays less tax than his secretary, yet runs for President of the USA. The "landless peasantry" are dependent on market forces and the government rather than on fealty to an overlord for security and stability in society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfraed (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting comparison would be to look at this in relation to the "burvclave" gated communities run by "FQNEs", "franchise-organised quasi-national entities", in the Neal Stephenson novel Snow Crash. 99.224.180.176 (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Bruce Schneier on "feudal security". [2] [3] 99.224.165.88 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-feudalism as government state

Immanuel Wallerstein in year 1992 made his view on global development of the world. Three variants, one of them - neofeudalism - autarky regions with local hierarchy and hi tech goods for elite. (I don't have English refs to this, sorry)

In article you say about corporations cooperating with government. But how about government become corporation, how in Putin's Russia? Corrupt vertical of power (Putin - oligarchs), that he build is much more like feudalism (sovereign - lords).·Carn !? 11:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?

This Article is little more than a ruin. The old version was much, much better. Thanks to Green Cardamom for linking it first, or else I would've missed it. Geez, one would've thought this Article would get more attention & care, considering we're already living in a neofeudalist world. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.240.60.86 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. The new version has not kept good sides of the old one.·Carn !? 14:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there some bizarre and unsubstantiated piece about Russia, but nothing similar, for example, discussing whether the USA is essentially a corporate neofeudalist state? This entire page seems to be almost random and rather whimsical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.23.172 (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy answer: because this is user:Jimbo Wales ' world-famous Wikipedia. It only masquerades itself as a "neutral" platform but one needn't scratch too deep under the surface to see whose opinions get pushed here by the "admins" who use any means at their disposal to stifle dissent and objecting voices to whatever crap pov is being endorsed, the whole rest of the internet already knows what this backwater charade is 208.54.36.180 (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@80.229.23.172: & @208.54.36.180: No, it's because you haven't edited the article. Why don't you add a section on the USA as a corporate neofeudalist state if there are reliable sources saying so? Why don't you add some criticism to the claims of that section? Don't be so lazy and just complain. --Fixuture (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recently cited

This article was recently cited in a financial newsletter, which gives it some measure of merit.^[1] However, the referring article was more related to Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom which it probably confused with neofeualsism as defined here being a different concept. Hyaek's serfdom is related to the Georgist view that high land prices inhibit economic growth and cause income inequality; however, I do not recall seeing the term used in Georgist writings.

As it stands now I do not think there is a very good definition of neofeudalism and not enough usage to justify keeping this article. Therefore I vote to delete.Phmoreno (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

Anarcho-capitalism

The sentence "It is related to neo-reactionary ideas like anarcho-capitalism." have been heavily disputed today so I thought it might be better to actually discuss it instead of having a silent edit-war. My position is that anarcho-capitalism is not a neo-reactionary idea and that the previously mentioned sentence should be deleted or provided with a reliable source (if any exists).

The neo-reactionary link leads to the 21st century section of the Reactionary page where you will find this sentence: "According to The Daily Caller, the movement's objectives included opposition to any form of egalitarianism as well as "a return to traditional gender roles, monarchism, and typically a more libertarian-oriented economic system".".

Anarcho-capitalism is not opposed to egalitarianism (anarcho-capitalists have diverse opinions on egalitarianism), while anarcho-capitalism have nothing to do with gender roles most anarcho-capitalists are against "a return to traditional gender roles" and all are against using force to establish or protect gender roles and all anarcho-capitalists are against monarchism as it necessitates a state.

--Nuclearsnke (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not heavily disputed, you're vandalizing the page because it was pointed out by reddit. You're conjecture on the opinions of ancaps regarding social issues are not sufficient. The belief in natural rights and the natural order of things that underpins the archano capitalists rejection of the state is certainly a neo-reactionary idea. The economics behind Archano Capitalism are certainly reactionary. 2605:A000:160A:C016:B4CA:F72B:8AEC:2B85 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalists belief in natural rights usually take the form of the non-aggression principle which says that it is wrong to initiate the use of force. I have no idea what you mean by 'the natural order' and I have never heard an anarcho-capitalist mention it. Do you have a source for the claim that anarcho-capitalism is a neo-reactionary idea? Nuclearsnke (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you do not seem interested in discussing the issue any further, I will remove the reference to anarcho-capitalism from the article. If you disagree with this, please respond to me here before reverting my change. Nuclearsnke (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First use of "neo-reactionary" is by Orwell, who characterized those that believe that humans cannot be made better by act of parliament as neo-reactionary. Now stop vandalizing the page with your PR war launched from /r/anarcho_capitalism. 2605:A000:160A:C016:B4CA:F72B:8AEC:2B85 (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your source doesn't mention anarcho-capitalism and most anarchists regardless of type believe that humans cannot be made better by act of parliament. The quote was however not meant to be taken literally and it seems to me like Orwell was alluding to the belief that humans are naturally evil or at least inherently holds some negative characteristics. This belief have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-capitalists have different and unrelated opinions on the subject. I will wait a week before reverting for you to respond to my criticism or find a better source. If you think I am vandalising, please report me to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism so we can get this resolved. Nuclearsnke (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orwell touched a lot of bases when he coined that phrase, but generally it was the various philosophies that all had in common the idea that man could not be made better via act of parliament. If you're honestly suggesting that being against the use of the state is somehow not about anarcho-capitalism, then there's nothing really more about to discuss. It's already been pointed out in another topic that this topic has been targeted by a POV edit raid by /r/anarcho_capitalism, and you just happened to make an account and show up the exact day that happened, and started making edits along with a few other accounts with no discussion whatsoever. I could report you, or you know, you could stop vandalizing the page. 2605:A000:160A:C016:B4CA:F72B:8AEC:2B85 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that everyone who are opposed to the state are neo-reactionary? is anarcho-syndicalism and communism also neo-reactionary ideas? Shouldn't you be rewriting the reactionary page if you think that is the case? Please report me if you think that I am braking any rules so we can get this resolved without pointless accusations. Nuclearsnke (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The aren't pointless accusations. First you and many others from the raid come here from /r/anarcho_capitalism and start making edits with no discussion and engaged in an edit war. Then even though you were the one abusing wikipedia, you try to report others for engaging in a war you started. Finally, you're abusing the disputed tag as you're calling the entire article into question instead of a single statement, and you've created no appropriate section in the talk page. And now even though a citation describing neo-reactionary from the man who first coined the phrase has been given you're reading it in such ways that calls into question whether or not you're being purposely obtuse. There's no way you could read the Orwell citation and think he was discussing syndicalism or communism, especially when he describing what easily can be referred to as libertarian or Austrian economics - "Men cannot be made better by act of Parliament; therefore I may as well go on drawing my dividends." Sure, Orwell's point of view is present in his summation, but there are certainly a group of political theories that use essentially what he's describing as a basis, and anarcho-capitalism easily fits into this. 2605:A000:160A:C016:B4CA:F72B:8AEC:2B85 (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw this article on reddit but I can't see how that is relevant. It matter what I do here, not how I got here. Accusing me of starting an edit war is ridiculous. I was trying to end the edit war you where involved in since before I got here. When I first saw this article, I noticed that you and some other editors where reverting each others edits without any discussion on the talk page so I started this section and wrote a comment describing my view on the issue. This was before I had done any edits to the page. 80.0.78.24 continued to revert without answering my comment so I though the best way to bring my comment to the other editors attention and get them to discuss the issue was to revert 80.0.78.24s reversal and use the edit summary to ask for this to be discussed on the talk page. You then reverted my reversal with the claim that it was vandalism (still without any discussion) and I reverted back asking you to use the talk page or add a source. This went back and forth until I had done 3 reversals and you had done 4. I posted the uw-3rr tag on your talk page to notify you that you had violated the three-revert rule and you did the same on my talk page. I never reported anyone, I submitted a request for a third opinion and for mediation when you refused to participate on the talk page, those where directed at the article and not any specific user. I don't think my use of the disputed tag was incorrect as there are a lot of other issues with this article (as pointed out by 78.21.92.14 and Rezin in their edit summaries) even if those issues have not been taken up on the talk page yet. I will however use Template:Disputed-inline instead if you think that is better. I didn't think anyone could read the citation and think he was discussing anarcho-capitalism, apparently I was wrong. There is nothing in what Orwell is saying that reasonably could be referring to anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism or austrian economics. Orwell even wrote: "The thing that is common to all these people, whether it is Pétain mournfully preaching ‘the discipline of defeat’, or Sorel denouncing liberalism...". Liberalism in the european use of the word is (usually) synonymous with libertarianism in the american use of the word, especially if we use the wider 'small l' definition that encompasses everything from anarcho-capitalism to libertarian socialism. If you want to include the disputed sentence in this article, you will have to provide sources that clearly state that: Anarcho-capitalism is a neo-reactionary idea and that anarcho-capitalism is related to neo-feudalism. You have done non of that. Now either report me or stop throwing out accusations and focus on the articles content. Nuclearsnke (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A third opinion was requested. I agree that neo-feudalism and anarcho-capitalism are neo-reactionary ideas as usually defined, but that reasonable people vary in characterizing fringe ideas. I also see accusations of vandalizing this article. There has been no vandalism, only an allegation of vandalism (a personal attack) in a content dispute. This content dispute would be better solved by a Request for Comments. Stop the personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will submit a Request for Comments. I agree that neo-feudalism is a neo-reactionary idea but I don't think the same applies to anarcho-capitalism, although I am of corse willing to leave it in the article with a reliable source. What do you think about the source the other editor provided? Especially that it didn't specifically mention anarcho-capitalism or any characteristics that are unique to anarcho-capitalism? Nuclearsnke (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anarcho-capitalism has the goal of privatizing police forces and judicial systems, then would it not fall under neofeudalism as described in citation number 15 (Braithwaite, John (2000). "The New Regulatory State and the Transformation of Criminology") which states:

"

"[These  bubbles  of  private  governance]  include  such  spaces  as  communities  of  library  users,  the residential communities that North Americans term ‘gated communities’, communities of shoppers at malls,  and  so  on.  Together,  these  communities,  or  arenas  of  governance,  form  a  complex  and expanding archipelago of private governments that together establish what we might term an emerging ‘neo-feudalism’. One of the features of this new feudalism is that the contracts that establish these arenas of governance are, in part, contracts that set out such things as the proper expectations (rights) and  responsibilities  (duties)  of  community  members.  An ubiquitous  example  is  the  contract  that persons enter into as library user. Most libraries today require, as part of this contract, that members agree to submit themselves to electronic scanning as they enter and leave the book collection. Similar contracts  are  required  if  one  wishes  to  fly  . . .  In  our contemporary  world  we  move  around  this feudal-like archipelago of governance by moving from one contractual community to another. Each of these bubbles has its own mode of governance and its own rules ...."

....

Shearing’s prescription is different. While he sees Hayek’s analysis of local knowledge as the key to understanding the direction of change in criminal justice practice, 3 he sees myopic marketization as a path to insecurity.4 This is because Shearing regards security for the poor as the best hope for security for the rich. Yet a free market in security as we had in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century delivers private policing services only to the rich, leaving the poor unprotected (and let us be frank, unregulated). Policing works best ‘where it is least needed and worst where it is most needed’ (Bayley and Shearing 1996: 595). For Shearing, the market mentality engenders deep inequalities in security,  especially  in  his  beloved  South  Africa.  Yet  it  is  a global  mentality  that  has colonized all our sensibilities. This leads him to conclude that there is no alternative but to  work  with  these  sensibilities  and  seek  to  harness  them  in  a  transformative  way. Shearing is no utopian dreamer; he is a Foucauldian schemer.

" Livingfractal (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off site discussion

Just a heads up that the ancap sub on Reddit is currently discussing this article, so regulars might need to expect some POV editing in the short term. N^oformation ^Talk 08:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Time to Remove the Bananas... and Return Our Republic to Democracy" citation

The second paragraph of this article reads: "Concept of "neofeudalism" largely focuses on economics. Among the issues claimed to be associated with the idea of neofeudalism in contemporary society are class stratification, globalization, mass immigration/illegal immigration, open borders policies, multinational corporations, and "neo-corporatism."" The citation for this paragraph is an article by Thom Hartmann titled "Time to Remove the Bananas... and Return Our Republic to Democracy". The link in the references is dead but I managed to find the article, here is the link: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2002/11/06/time-remove-bananas-and-return-our-republic-democracy. The article by Thom Hartmann doesn't even mention: mass immigration, illegal immigration or open borders policies and hardly mentions class stratification. The article do talk about corporations but only mentions one corporation: The East India Company, a corporation with a government granted special monopoly position. I will wait a few days for anyone to object before removing the paragraph as this article is in a lot of controversy right now and I don't want to make that worse. --Nuclearsnke (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is anarcho-capitalism a neo-reactionary idea?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is no. AlbinoFerret 13:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is anarcho-capitalism a neo-reactionary idea? See previous discussion here. Nuclearsnke (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The determining question on this particular point is whether there are independent, reliable sources that state that anarcho-capitalism is a neo-reactionary idea. The answer, as far as I can tell, is no: all of the sources I can find for such a claim are blogs and mouthpieces for the neo-reactionary movement, neither of which count as reliable sources—the latter may be citable with explicit attribution on Dark Enlightenment, but given their extreme minority position, citing them here would be a fairly obvious case of undue weight. I've read through the discussion you linked and it seems to me that the case for anarcho-capitalism being neo-reactionary is built on WP:OR.

With respect to the Orwell citation specifically, the question isn't simply about whether anarcho-capitalism is a neo-reactionary idea but whether, as the statement claims, neo-feudalism is related to neo-reactionary ideas, "like anarcho-capitalism". Orwell certainly says nothing at all about anarcho-capitalism; indeed he describes the "neo-reactionary school" as being made up of men like Pétain and T. E. Hulme whose ideas are quite obviously not anarcho-capitalist. To the extent that it's explained, the anarchism he mentions is identified as that of Georges Sorel. He also says nothing about "neo-feudalism", never mind whether it's related to neo-reactionary ideas.

All in all the answer to this seems relatively straightforward to me: no, the specific statement added to the article should be removed as improperly sourced and POV, and the assertion in question about anarcho-capitalism and neo-reaction is not supported by reliable sources. —Nizolan ^(talk) 06:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Damotclese (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that Orwell does not mention feudalism of any kind. Unless a rich man drawing his dividends is supposed to be "neo-feudalism", the source does not support a connection between that and anarcho-capitalism. Thus it's irrelevant whether anarcho-capitalism is a neo-reactionary idea - no source connecting it to neo-feudalism has been given, and it should not be discussed in this article without such a source. Huon (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- To be simple, there seems to be an air of original research here. Take the disputed text out or find a source to back it up.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neo-Feudalism as it relates to organized crime and kleptocracy

Since this is obvious a more recent concept and thus defined more by peoples' opinions on the matter or their political leanings, it seems this definition in the article is unfairly biased against so-called 'Western' societies and their market economies since it ignores the modern political, economic, and even social tendencies of major 'non-Western' powers which bear a far closer resemblance to feudalism than "class stratification, globalization, mass immigration/illegal immigration, open borders policies, multinational corporations, and 'neo-corporatism'"(i.e. typically western/American economic and geopolitical characteristics). Considering how the article makes sweeping generalizations about a large number of Western geopolitical characteristics based on sources that seem to be a handful of books based on opinions and the political views of their authors, this article seems to push/present a political bias rather than a neutral and objective or, at the very least, logical, explanation of a perceived trend and the underlying themes associated with it. This article shouldn't even be on here in the present form since it is clearly not neutral despite the token claim that "some on the right" use the term because of a single quote by an irrelevant writer while the rest of the article looks like it was written by Carl Marx.

Here are 3 problems with this article:

1) It makes no attempt to even define feudalism - a term that's disputed by the way - when claiming that various aspects of modern Western civilization resemble it. Such lines as "The significance of the comparison to feudalism, for Randy Lippert and Daniel O'Connor, is that corporations have power similar to states' governance powers.", "The widening of the wealth gap, as poor and marginalized people are excluded from the state's provision of security, can result in neofeudalism, argues Marina Caparini, who says this has already happened in South Africa.[12] Neofeudalism is made possible by the commodification of policing, and signifies the end of shared citizenship, says Ian Loader." and "A primary characteristic of neofeudalism is that individuals' public lives are increasingly governed by business corporations, as Martha K. Huggins finds." are irrelevant because they, apart from clearly being individuals' opinions, are highly questionable due to their conclusions reflecting perceived congruences between cherry-picked observations in the modern world and assumptions - built upon a likely/clearly oversimplified and systematically-paradoxical understanding of the historical feudal societies - about the nature of feudalism and its effects.

2) Claiming that the presence of seemingly-powerful institutions is somehow heralding feudalism is a false equivalence argument because it ignores why feudal societies relied on hierarchies and control over territory/people when arguing that large multinational corporations would have similar ambitions. Feudal societies had land-owning nobles/aristocrats because that was the only feasible way to create wealth, protect property, afford defense, work together, and maintain order at a time when cameras, telecommunication, securities markets, cars, trucks, airplanes, and even the internet didn't exist. Modern multinational corporations don't need, nor benefit from, control over everything and everyone, nor do they, as a whole, benefit from protectionism and class systems. Large corporations, no longer having an unlimited supply of workers, benefit from, and thus have an incentive to promote, stable and prosperous societies that lack corruption and human suffering. Yet this article claims that large corporations would rather waste their money micromanaging society instead of, you know, making money.

3) Neo-feudalism does exist yet this article fails to mention it. Neo-feudalism is alive and well in Russia and China. In Russia, corruption and organized crime are rampant and thus the hierarchies common in medieval feudal society are present and serve as a means by which large companies and rich individuals can protect their wealth and enjoy a higher level of freedom than the common person. In this system, the lines between legitimate business and crime are often blurred thus causing the expansion of Russian economic power to be accompanied by organized crime and corruption. In China, while it may not be as bad as Russia, corruption and favoritism are essential for economic success. Like in a feudal realm, you can only rise up in China if you have friends or family in higher places. Of course, while people are literally dying due to the neo-feudal conditions in Eastern Europe and China, the writers of this article instead launched a biased diatribe attacking the only corporations that aren't expanding neo-feudalism due to the fact that American/western corporations don't benefit from, and thus don't spread spread, corruption the way Russian and Chinese ones do.

Wipe the article clean and re-write it. Maybe mention the neo-feudalism in Transnistria and Moscow instead of just pasting left-wing conspiracy theories backed up by for-profit books written by irrelevant Marxists/statists who are propped up as "authorities" on subjects only because 9/10th of Wikipedia's editors agree with their ideology. 67.7.233.128 (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. This is not only neo-feodalism, but slavery (human trafficing, forced labor, etc.). But this content is sourced and should stay. BTW, there is also a book "New Nobility" by Andrei Soldatov about it. My very best wishes (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No accurate and neutral mentionings

The intro is surely a bit confusing for unpolitical people because it lists a number of policies from a left-wing point of view. I don't know whaddya mean with "syntax" but one should anyway overwork the whole introduction. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of syntax, I can hardly discern what you are saying, and suspect that English is not your native language, so if you cannot see why "unequal legal protections for common people and for nobility" is not the same thing at all as saying "legal protections for common people and for nobility", how it changes everything if you remove the word "unequal", I suggest you not worry about it , since this is obvious to native English speakers for whom it is written. 172.58.216.241 (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it but changed "unequal rights" (which is a dysphemism) to "social difference" (which is neutral). But the whole introduction needs to be overworked. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what makes "unequal rights" a "dysphemism" but I've never heard such.It's plain English, and mediaeval legal codes had codified that some groups enjoyed greater rights over other groups. Any source for your assertion that would be a "dysphemism? 172.58.216.241 (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Unequal" and "Unequality" have negative connotations which make them dysphemisms. Why shouldn't we use "social difference"? --212.186.7.98 (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It's a statement of plain fact, not subjective, whereas "social difference" is vague. In laws such as the murdrum of England for instance, where Normans enjoyed greater protection than Anglo Saxons, rights were definitively unequal. 172.58.216.241 (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it has negative connotations, especially when one talks about unequal "rights". But anyway the whole intro needs to be overworked. It's surely confusing for unpolitical people. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neo-feudalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

erroneous citation

I think this sentence "An early example critical of the Left is the essay "Neo-Feudalism" by John Kenneth Galbraith, published in 1961" mistakenly attributes the essay to Galbraith rather than Reisman, the author — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taway2578 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Work by Galbraith?

I’m somewhat confused by a point in the article where it speaks of an essay titled “Neo-Feudalism” by well-known economist Kenneth Galbraith. However, I can find no such existing source. The quote links to an essay by George Reisman which critiques Galbraith’s ideas in The Affluent Society as feudalist, but the relation to feudalism here is Reisman’s idea, not Galbraith’s. Would it not be more accurate to rephrase this section to something along the idea of “Some critiques of The Affluent Society introduce the concept of a neo-feudalism by…” [I apologize for any errors or inconveniences I may cause, I am still relatively new to Wikipedia editing.] 2603:6010:2F06:4798:9C33:2B16:4286:652C (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are neo-feudalism and techno-feudalism the same thing

A lot of recent text has been added to the article talking about techno-feudalism. But the article dates to the 2000s and deals with neo-feudalism. Are the two the same or similar things? If they are the same or similar, then techno-feudalism should be mentioned in the lede. If they are different, then the technofeudalism text should be moved to its own article or a separate section in this one. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haywood

I added a sourced paragraph about Charles Haywood wanting the United States to become feudal in the future. It was reverted by another editor without explanation. I’d say Haywood is notable enough to mention here, and probably also notable enough for his own article as well. He has close ties to the Claremont Institute, a popular podcast, lots of money from his own business ventures, and has been platformed by Tucker Carlson among others. He’s certainly within the mainstream of what passes for American “conservative” discourse these days (I use that term in scare quotes because, by their own admission, American conservatives are not trying to “conserve” anything but just want to tear the whole system down, a la Timothy McVeigh). 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:6466 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Luc Bellemare was not original source of term

The assertion Michel Luc Bellemare coined the term Techo-feudalism is incorrect. My research reveals the Australian author and academic Dr Brentley Frazer first coined the term, though without the hyphen (technofeudalism) in 2014 in a review of the dystopian novel Zanesville by American Author Kris Saknussem https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20060307062840/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/21323/20060304-0000/www.retortmagazine.com/06/id_02.06_iview_saknussemm.htm and again in an academic paper in 2017 https://aawp.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Frazer_AAWP_2016_aboriginal-to-nowhere-RF.pdf Ed Rembrandt (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Luc Bellemare

The sections relating to Bellemare are bloated, biased and potentially self-promotion. Suggest editing these into concise summaries to improve the readability and trustworthiness of this important page.

Also, why is this talk page such a mess? Can anyone help tidy it up?SycamoreWood (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1]

[1]