>On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Eubulides wrote:
>
> > The absence-of-feudalism argument has come under attack for a while...
> > we now have a maldistribution of wealth every bit as absurd as the
> > feudalism we claim to have abolished with the founding of the republic.
>
>A maldistribution of wealth, certainly. What we don't have is the the
>consciousness of class that went with it.
>
>These attacks miss the point of the feudalism argument. It's not that it
>handed down exploitation. It's that it handed down a consciousness of
>exploitation, a conviction that it had always been, and would always be, a
>condition of society. And along with that, a vast repetoire of visible
>and audible signs of class separation that were immediately recognizable,
>that didn't have to be deduced.
>
>What feudalism handed down was centuries of class consciousness.
>
>Michael
That and, wasn't it E.P. Thompson's argument: feudalism handed down centuries of rebellious tradition. when the landlords got out of hand--too greedy--peasants felt it their right to protest and demand their due. it derives from Noblesse Oblige, of course, but peasants could use that as a gauge against which to measure the behavior of the land holding class.
Haven't read the material in years, though, so perhaps other researchers have criticized the thesis.
Kelley