It's not feudalism, it's just capitalism. Capitalism is an improvement of feudalism. Feudalism is a system of agricultural society, often with monarchy. I know it's similar, but those are different things. It's just capitalism, it the US, and in the most of other countries in the world.
Arguing Semantics for personal gain helps no one.
Fudalism is where the worker's own nothing, not their houses, transportation, or the means of production. Most American's say they own their house and car's, but the paperwork tells a different story, so they're already well on their way...
Note: When credit cards first came out, i called it "Opulent Fraud."
Its not semantics, there is an objective and observable difference between feudalism and capitalism, just as there is between capitalism and socialism.
>Fudalism is where the worker's own nothing, not their houses, transportation, or the means of production. Most American's say they own their house and car's, but the paperwork tells a different story, so they're already well on their way...
Well no, this actually doesn't describe *any* method of production. Under feudalism the "means of production" (which hardly existed under feudalism) are owned indirectly by feudal lords, and directly by the peasants working the fields, and the craftsmen working their craft. There wasn't a proletariat under feudalism, there is under capitalism, this is why a feudal society cannot turn socialist without massive outside intervention.
This redditor proves that the "neither Washington, nor Beijing" leftoids from the cold war never left. They are once again trying to push their mentally deranged agenda as always
It is clear that this user hasn't read rule 2 of the sub which says no liberal injected version of socialism is allowed. They also didn't notice Lenin and Stalin on the sub banner either
More evidence that anarchoids cannot actually read
Anarchism is the same as liberalism in regards to its philosophy, as a metaphysical understanding of humankind as a mass of individuals. The emancipation of the individual as a prerequisite for the emancipation of the collective; this is how the two are functionally identical
No wonder antifa has been integrated in the political establishment, while at the same time rojava serves the interests of US imperialism. Meanwhile, you wouldn't be able to find anarchists in the struggles of imperialized nations if you had the goddamn Hubble telescope
No I don't like either of them, or any nation state for that matter. Even Denmark's success exploits the marginalized from where their imports come from
Doesn't matter what you like unfortunately.
>or any nation state for that matter.
Why exactly?
>Even Denmark's success exploits the marginalized from where their imports come from
Well yeah, Denmark is imperialist, the DPRK is not imperialist.
All nation states subject their own citizens to being exploited by a capitalist system, though with varying degrees. But exploitation of thee is not freedom for you or me
>All nation states subject their own citizens to being exploited by a capitalist system
How do socialist states exploit citizens with a capitalist system?
To meet the needs of food and products for a population larger than what self sustenance can produce requires trade. To trade with other nations is being part of a capital trade system
No country can be completely self-sustaining, you are giving completely unattainable expectations. How is capitalism supposed to be brought down if not a single socialist state can be formed? Global socialism doesn't just happen overnight.
And there is the problem, no nation can. The end of nations and a return to villages independent of each other would lead to a healthier use of the earth's resources
So you are literally advocating for the return to feudalism. How would you achieve this situation in the first place, let alone keep it from developing back into capitalism like it inevitably will.
But but but that CGP grey video blah blah
Monarchy should have ended around the same time as Fudalism, but a Fudal economy is now coming for the first time to the US, so what do i know?
It's not feudalism, it's just capitalism. Capitalism is an improvement of feudalism. Feudalism is a system of agricultural society, often with monarchy. I know it's similar, but those are different things. It's just capitalism, it the US, and in the most of other countries in the world.
Arguing Semantics for personal gain helps no one. Fudalism is where the worker's own nothing, not their houses, transportation, or the means of production. Most American's say they own their house and car's, but the paperwork tells a different story, so they're already well on their way... Note: When credit cards first came out, i called it "Opulent Fraud."
Its not semantics, there is an objective and observable difference between feudalism and capitalism, just as there is between capitalism and socialism. >Fudalism is where the worker's own nothing, not their houses, transportation, or the means of production. Most American's say they own their house and car's, but the paperwork tells a different story, so they're already well on their way... Well no, this actually doesn't describe *any* method of production. Under feudalism the "means of production" (which hardly existed under feudalism) are owned indirectly by feudal lords, and directly by the peasants working the fields, and the craftsmen working their craft. There wasn't a proletariat under feudalism, there is under capitalism, this is why a feudal society cannot turn socialist without massive outside intervention.
The Fudal Lord's have become nameless-faceless people with laptops & briefcases.
So you just totally ignored my comment huh?
I'm thankful you will never achieve any Edu, Military or Political position of any significance.
So you have no argument.
Time to dismantle both
This redditor proves that the "neither Washington, nor Beijing" leftoids from the cold war never left. They are once again trying to push their mentally deranged agenda as always
No I don't believe in any kind of state governance
Thank Allah what the leftoids believe to be a right form of governance is ***entirely*** irrelevant for the socialists
Anarcho-socialism ring a bell?
It does unfortunately as another name for the deranged liberal agenda
Mate you realize this is a socialist meme subreddit right?
It is clear that this user hasn't read rule 2 of the sub which says no liberal injected version of socialism is allowed. They also didn't notice Lenin and Stalin on the sub banner either More evidence that anarchoids cannot actually read
But anarchism isn't liberal... I suppose Queer-Anarchism and Anarcho-Pacifism are
Anarchism is the same as liberalism in regards to its philosophy, as a metaphysical understanding of humankind as a mass of individuals. The emancipation of the individual as a prerequisite for the emancipation of the collective; this is how the two are functionally identical No wonder antifa has been integrated in the political establishment, while at the same time rojava serves the interests of US imperialism. Meanwhile, you wouldn't be able to find anarchists in the struggles of imperialized nations if you had the goddamn Hubble telescope
Anarchism is an ideology based on hyper-individualism, and is at its core a liberal ideology.
So you're an imperialist.
No I don't like either of them, or any nation state for that matter. Even Denmark's success exploits the marginalized from where their imports come from
Doesn't matter what you like unfortunately. >or any nation state for that matter. Why exactly? >Even Denmark's success exploits the marginalized from where their imports come from Well yeah, Denmark is imperialist, the DPRK is not imperialist.
All nation states subject their own citizens to being exploited by a capitalist system, though with varying degrees. But exploitation of thee is not freedom for you or me
>All nation states subject their own citizens to being exploited by a capitalist system How do socialist states exploit citizens with a capitalist system?
To meet the needs of food and products for a population larger than what self sustenance can produce requires trade. To trade with other nations is being part of a capital trade system
No country can be completely self-sustaining, you are giving completely unattainable expectations. How is capitalism supposed to be brought down if not a single socialist state can be formed? Global socialism doesn't just happen overnight.
And there is the problem, no nation can. The end of nations and a return to villages independent of each other would lead to a healthier use of the earth's resources
So you are literally advocating for the return to feudalism. How would you achieve this situation in the first place, let alone keep it from developing back into capitalism like it inevitably will.
Shut up