Talk:Serfdom in Norway

The fundemental (defining) feature of serfdom is the serf not being allowed to leave - their being "tied to the land" (tied to service). This was not a feature of these Norwegian peasant farmers, so to talk of "Norwegian serfdom" is false.91.107.79.125 (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose of talking about "Norwegian serfdom" when there were no serfs in Norway. A serf is someone who is "tied to the land" (not allowed to leave it). Not someone who is poor.

Is the purpose of his article to try and save Marxism? A theory which insists there has to have been a "feudal stage of production" (with serfdom and so on) at a certain level of technology ("productive forces"). As Norway had much the same farming tools ("productive forces") it should, according to Marxist "scientific materialism" have had the same "relations of production" as other places (these "productive forces" and "relations of production" making up the "mode of production"). Yet Norway clearly did not have the same "relations of production" as certain other places as there was no serfdom there.

Therefore a "Norwegian serfdom" has to be invented (where none existed) - in order to stop Marxism being refuted. Either Marxism is a "scientific" theory (in which case its supporters should allow it to be refuted if it does not fit the facts - which it does not). Or it is a William James style truth is "whatever is expedient in our way of thinking" sort of thing. And I would have thought that recent events in and near Oslo would have made people doubt the anti objective truth (useful myth) ideas of William James and his followers (Sorel, Mussolini - and the person recently active in Oslo and near Oslo). It is ironic that the philosphy of the murderer (i.e. his favourate philosopher - William James, the foe of the idea of objective truth, and defender of the idea that "truth" is whatever one wants it to be) should, de facto, be used to try and save Marxism (save it from the facts) - when the murderer himself claimed to be anti Marxist.2.26.103.86 (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment
A "serf" is a farmer who is not allowed to leave the farm, someone who is "tied to the land". There never was serfdom in Norway, the Marxist scheme of history (which insists there must be a "feudal stage of production", based upon serfom[sic] in terms of its "relations of production", before a "capitalist stage of production") is refuted by the example of Norway (and other examples), hence an article PRETENDING that there was serfdom in Norway - in order to try and save the Marxist theory of history.

The above comment by an IP moved from article space to Talk page by Hordaland (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You do not seem to know what a "serf" is.
A "serf" is someone who is not allowed to leave the land. These people in Norway were allowed to leave the land - therefore they were not serfs. I also resent it when I am told I am not being "constructive" when I am telling the truth. You do not know what a "serf" is - it is not my fault that you do not know. I have a right to tell the truth whether you consider it "constructive" or not.2A02:C7E:1CA8:CE00:4925:C27E:B579:D6F (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)