Editing Examples of feudalism (section)

=== Tibet ===
{{Main|Serfdom in Tibet controversy}}
Whether Tibet constituted a feudal social system or if peasants could be considered serfs is still debated.<ref name="TibetBarnett">{{cite book |last=Barnett |first=Robert |date=2008 |chapter=What were the conditions regarding human rights in Tibet before democratic reform? |title=Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China's 100 Questions |pages=81–83 |editor1-first=Anne-Marie |editor1-last=Blondeau |editor2-first=Katia |editor2-last=Buffetrille |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |isbn=978-0-520-24464-1}}; {{ISBN|978-0-520-24928-8}}</ref> Studied districts of Tibet between the 17th and 20th-century show evidence of a striated society with land ownership laws and tax responsibility that resemble European feudal systems. However, scholars have pointed out key differences that make the comparison contested and only limited evidence from that period is available for study.<ref>{{cite book |last=Childs |first=Geoff |date=2003 |chapter=Polyandry and population growth in a Historical Tibetan Society |title=History of the Family |pages=423–428}}</ref> Scholar Geoff Samuel further argued that Tibet even in the early 20th century did not constitute a single state but rather a collection of districts and a legal system of [[Lhasa]] with particular land and tax laws did not extend over the entire country.<ref name="TibetSamuel">{{cite journal |last=Samuel |first=Geoffrey |date=February 1982 |title=Tibet as a Stateless Society and Some Islamic Parallels |journal=[[Journal of Asian Studies]] |volume=41 |number=2 |pages=215–229|doi=10.2307/2054940 |jstor=2054940 |s2cid=163321743 }}</ref>

However, according to [[Melvyn Goldstein]], for the 20th century, the Tibetan political system can not be categorized as feudal since Tibet possessed a centralized state.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Melvyn |last=Goldstein |title=On the Nature of Tibetan Peasantry |journal=The Tibet Journal |volume=XIII |number=1 |date=1988 |pages=61–65 |quote=I did not argue in the paper in question that the Tibetan political system of the 20th century should be categorized as a feudal system, and in fact, have specifically rejected that argument in dissertation and in a later paper in which I argued that Tibet possessed a centralized type of state.}}</ref>