• infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Is it, though?

    It is. A king could have 5,000 serfs and hey that’s a lot of serfs. But it’s nothing compared to tens of billions of dollars in an economy where most people make 35K a year. And serfs were not hot-swappable cogs like workers effectively are today. Losing a serf was a non-fungible, tangible loss.

    It’s apples to oranges comparing medieval feudalism to modern global capitalism, I think it’s folly trying to say one is “better”, but the scale of the latter certainly dwarfs the former into barely perceiveable insignificance.

    • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I wasn’t trying to argue either of them being “better”. I just presented kings vs serfs as an example of obvious wealth disparity in history, but I could have equally said roman emperor and roman slave, of which the difference in wealth would be, well, infinite really.

      • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        I know you weren’t, but if I didn’t put that disclaimer there someone would will themselves into thinking I was because this is the internet.