Landlords refers to feudal lords in that time. They essentially physically owned thousands of peasants, worked them to an early death, and used medieval torture when the peasants got out of line.
oh, that sounds more like slave owners than people who just own some land.
While this isn’t exactly the same as absentee ownership of homes like you see in countries that allow that, we also find that abhorrent, and we know historically that propertied classes have never given that up without bloodshed.
yeah, I see. I thought landlord refered to normal landlords who just own a home and rent it to others.
I’m really bad at history, so please call me out if what I’m saying is nonsense. I agree that absentee ownership is bullshit, stock or home or anything like that, but once you take it away, you have effectively taken away the power that owners hold, and I can’t imagine a class like owners coming to the streets and reclaiming their unjust properties by themselves, so wouldn’t that render them powerless and not a threat anymore?
No problem. Here’s a great article by historicaly that goes into some of the conditions of feudal Tibet for example, before the communists liberated it ( the conditions were similar for all rural China too before the revolution ):
In the 1940s, only 200 families owned 95% of all land in Tibet, and 95% of its people were illiterate. Child labor was rampant, and malnutrition was common. The average life expectancy for serfs in Tibet was 36 years. When the serfs were “taxed,” they had to provide various forms of forced labor. Some serfs owed all their daytime labor to the lords, others owed five days a week of unpaid labor, and some were at the disposal of the lord’s every whim.
I can’t imagine a class like owners coming to the streets and reclaiming their unjust properties by themselves, so wouldn’t that render them powerless and not a threat anymore?
Its a common pattern for the propertied classes to hire mercenary armies, or recruit from the petit-bourgeoisie, or just entice poorer people with promises of some of their wealth. This is the case in all revolutionary events, a civil war of the propertied classes against the propertyless always follows: russian, chinese, cuban, vietnamese, korean, french rev, etc.
oh, that sounds more like slave owners than people who just own some land.
yeah, I see. I thought landlord refered to normal landlords who just own a home and rent it to others.
I’m really bad at history, so please call me out if what I’m saying is nonsense. I agree that absentee ownership is bullshit, stock or home or anything like that, but once you take it away, you have effectively taken away the power that owners hold, and I can’t imagine a class like owners coming to the streets and reclaiming their unjust properties by themselves, so wouldn’t that render them powerless and not a threat anymore?
No problem. Here’s a great article by historicaly that goes into some of the conditions of feudal Tibet for example, before the communists liberated it ( the conditions were similar for all rural China too before the revolution ):
Its a common pattern for the propertied classes to hire mercenary armies, or recruit from the petit-bourgeoisie, or just entice poorer people with promises of some of their wealth. This is the case in all revolutionary events, a civil war of the propertied classes against the propertyless always follows: russian, chinese, cuban, vietnamese, korean, french rev, etc.
thanks for the article. seeing people supporting a CIA backed system of theocratic slavery in the comments is deppressing.
Yes I think using the word “landlord” is misleading. It’s “lords” or “feudal lords” you’re talking about.