• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -17
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        71 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -41 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”.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -2
              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?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                21 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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  01 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?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 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).