• mister_monster
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Those were both feudalism, where the king owns all economic output and does what he wants with it, much like communism in practice.

    • Platomus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you think communism is? Cause it’s not at all like feudalism - you’re thinking of late stage capitalism that’s like feudalism.

      • mister_monster
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think communism is an economic system where resource distribution (including labor) is centrally controlled by the state. That’s a lot like feudalism, except you don’t call the supreme leader who became supreme by killing his rivals “king”.

          • mister_monster
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Ok well enlighten me then, because I was pretty certain communism is an economic system where resource distribution is centrally planned by the state. I wonder where I got that idea, tell me, what is communism?

            • Platomus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, Communism is a political ideology that focuses on giving the means of production to the people doing the labor.

              What you just said is the right-wing capitalist propaganda definition of communism.

              In the context of this conversation it is about removing the Capitalist from business. Making it so everyone earns their fair share of the profits instead of one person at the top (like a King/feudalism) gets all the profits, while also making all the decisions. Instead the laborors gets a stake in the business - giving more incentive to help the business do well while giving the worker more power and take home money.

              • mister_monster
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So in such a system, distribution of resources wouldn’t be centrally planned? Resources would be distributed in a free market? A farm owner for example who worked their own farm would be free to sell his produce how he sees fit?

                  • mister_monster
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    So what if, suppose, that farm owner had some neighbors that weren’t fortunate enough to own a farm for whatever reason, let’s say they were migrants from a less plentiful place, and decided it would be good for them and himself if he paid them so they wouldn’t starve to help him out on his farm. An open market for labor you might say. Would he still be able to sell that produce how he sees fit?

    • eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      England has explicitly had a non-autocratic king since 1215, the idea that the King of England “owned everything” is ahistorical.

      Do some research on the British East India Company before you’re so sure about how things worked in India. It was the first multinational, and it ran India as a profit center.

      One thing I find interesting about your comments is that you’re using a very Marxist framework to talk about pre-capitalist modes of organization (which is reductionist and partly why he is not taken seriously as a sociologist in most settings).