Muh capitalism

Having a lower population won't suddenly Un-mechanize industry and agriculture. Baka desu senpai.

>be peasant
>local lord says you have to provide him with food and funds as "protection" money, or else he'll imprison you
>to ensure you meet your end of a bargain you didn't agree to, you're not allowed to travel further than 25 miles from the place you were born
>church usually sides with local lord as long as he keeps funding them

So were feudal lords basically mafia?

It's the other way around.

The mafia evolved from feudalism.

Nah. Mafia and feudalism are both evolutions of the Roman patronage system. In case of mafia its pretty much the exact same as the Roman patronage system desu, whereas in feudalism it's filtered through the lens of Germanic gift culture.

I thought that it evolved from the bands of thugs that Sicilian landowners used to keep the peasants in line.

Your half right, the mafia evolved from patronage but feudalism didnt, even though it is somewhat similar

meant for

>collective farms = manorialism
Do you actually think that?

Feudalism predates Rome. There were feudal lords all over the Classical world

Even Marx disagrees about that.

I'm honestly all for feudalism, provided there would be strong laws in place that would protect the workers instead of lords indulging in blatant mistreatment like was often the case in the middle ages.

What? That's all feudalism is. Workers unable to leave, no social ladder, no way to improve your position unless you were a noble.

FFS how fucking stupid are you people? Feudalism is absolute shit. Jesus fuck it actually HURTS how fucking dumb this thread is.

There would be mandatory work for sure, just no murder, rape, torture, starvation and other things that were symptomatic to certain eras.

That would be anarcho-capitalism, most libertarians believe in a limited a state government.

>no social ladder, no way to improve your position unless you were a noble

And how do you think nobility was created, nobles just popping out of nowhere? The ruler usually ennobled commoners for their military service. It wasn't uncommon at all for a king to give small fiefs to peasants if they proved themselves on the battlefiedl (my own ancestors got ennobled that way in the 16th century).

>mandatory work
Seriously dude, that's fucking retarded. People should be allowed to choose what they do, how they do it, and how often they do it, at least legally.
You really think the aristocracy would allow the average person rights? You are as dumb as the communist fucks on this board, if not more.

If you honestly thing that every man had equal opportunity under feudalism, you must be retarded.

Again, my brain physically hurts from this thread. As of now, capitalism is the only viable economic system along side democracy politically that allows for social mobility, freedom, and rights of man. FFS

>capitalism is the only viable economic system
Its the least bad, its not the only one that works. Be fair

>triggered libertarian

>least bad
>only viable
What's the difference?
Your point? All people that stand for liberty and equality should rightly be pissed off that idiots like some in this thread exist. Hell, all people that value education should be pissed that people in this thread honestly believe any of this.

>If you honestly thing that every man had equal opportunity under feudalism

Nowhere did I imply that, nor did I say equal opportunity is a good thing, I don't really believe in meritocracy since it leads to absurd degree of selfishness which is the exact opposite of what it should be about (benefitting society). That said, military valor should be rewarded, that's something all societies ever had in common.

Also, power and wealth must be cultivated and refined through generations upon generations, even in modern times you see the nouveau riche acting like utter children trying to show off their shiniest toys and clothes while having a FUCK THE PLEBS attitude. This is what capitalism brings you.

Equality is a meme.

>equality is a meme
This desu family

We pretty much live in an oligarchy right now, I dont see how it'd be any different if we just had a dynasty ruling right now

Viable just means its capable of working

Viable just means its capable of working. Socialism is viable, barter systems are viable, feudalism is viable

>nowhere did I emply that
I apologize for believing so.
>meritocracy leads to an obsurd amount of selfishness
In general, selfishness is not inherently bad as in can result in the overall betterment of society. However I do agree that in some cases (especially where loopholes in laws and corporatism exist) it can be a negative thing. Capitalism is built on selfishness because the average person only gives a shit about them self. Capitalism exploits this to its benefit. Overall it is a net good.
>equality is a meme
Not sure what you mean. All men should be considered equal as we all are the same species. Some are dumber than others and some hold irrational (and even harmful) beliefs, but they are still humans and while their bad ideas deserve no respect, they as humans do.
If someone plans on responding with
>niggers aren't equal etc.
don't even bother, your point is not valid.

Perhaps you're correct, in which case I retract that statement. It is however the least bad system.

I never said anything about "niggers".

Yeah I think you just used the word wrong

It would be better, since oligarchy is informal and shady, while an aristocratic society codifies this ever-present social reality into a legal framework.

I know, that's why I said
>someone

While I agree to an extent that the current republican system is somewhat oligarchical, I would argue that at least there is some form of accountability since they are elected officials. Unfortunately I don't believe any modern government can exist without some form of oligarchy.

since when is capitalism about land ownership in exchange for services?

Explain, why wouldn't feudalism work in a society with industrialized farming?

thats how it was, but it doesnt have to

If Marx is right, then we just need to change the material reality and pull the lever back on technology.

Bingo.

>be citizen of a state
>state says you have to pay taxes on food the state produces and to support the standing army or they'll imprison you
>to ensure you hold up your end of the bargain you're issued a social security number and state identification so you cannot be anonymous
>church sides with the state in exchange for not having to pay taxes, as well as legal immunity and being able to influence legislation

Republican democracy is pretty much feudalism with fewer lords. It was the same way in rome. Allow me to elucidate:

>be roman citizen
>grow up son of a merchant, but have ambitions to learn a trade
>too bad, the patricians own all the slaves
>slaves are the only way to have competitive prices in any trade
>only way to get slaves or advance is by joining the military framework that advances the state's interest
>Patricians will always do their best to maintain this order
>end up just being a merchant
>crassus buys the stall next to you and drives you out of business because he can sell at a lower premium from mass-production efficiency and vertical integration

And today:
>be citizen of Germany
>grow up son of a store owner, but want to learn a trade
>too bad, rich corporations own all the mechanized production
>mechanized production is the only way to sell goods at competitive prices in any industry
>only trades available are servicing those machines which produce revenue for corporations and thus the state
>rich corporations buy the governmental influence to make it so schools keep it that way
>end up running dad's store
>Wal-Mart shows up and drives you out of business by selling at lower premiums from their mass production and vertical integration

The notes change but the song remains the same.

Tl;dr - youtu.be/3yMy7JuGpJM&t=12s

too complex, how are you going to organize feudal obligations with the 100s of different tradesmen and businesses you hire

Feudalism is impossible to sustain with a strong and developed middle class, so no. To see why, look up how absolutism emerged from feudalism-- it was a simple extension of royal prerogatives that enabled them to create standing armies for the first time in almost a thousand years, founded on a political alliance between kings and the bourgeoisie. Similarly, societies with strong middle classes tend towards liberal democratic republics, however this isn't as hard and fast of a rule.

lol no. you live in a dysfunctional democracy, but in no way is it adequately described as even a covert oligarchy.

vox.com/2016/2/9/10941690/campaign-finance-left

The domestication of humans by humans.

there are differences of course, but the main differeence is just the propaganda they use

>social mobility, freedom, and rights of man

All spooks.

Jesus Christ, the fucking retards on this thread.

>new way
;is super old

you cant make things better by going backwards

But we are going backwards with """"""demo""""""cracy.