Yeah, thankfully I said real-world communism. Utopian communism would indeed be great.
In feudal society, the noble owns the serfs. The serf cannot move without the noble's consent and is tied to the land in such a manner that, if the noble decides to sell the land, the serf on the land are sold too. They have to work the lands of the noble before their own and have to pay a tax on what they own to the noble. While they own some small tools, like pots, needles, tools for churning butter and other small farming tools, the biggest tools were often owned by the village as they were too expensive for the single farmer. Some other tools were instead illegal to own, a famous example was the grinding stone, which was illegal to own, since you HAD to go to the noble's mill to transform your wheat into flour and then bread. This was because you then had to pay a tax to the miller and a tax to the noble in order to mill your wheat.
So, in essence, in feudalism a serf did not own their land, did not own their labor and was not even free to move. So much better, right? /s
That isn't "real world" Communism, though. Socialist States tended to place a much higher emphasis on welfare than Capitalist states, that's historical fact, regardless of how effective or not they are/were.
Secondly, I never said Feudalism was better. I indicated the key production distinctions between Capitalism and Feudalism, in Feudalism the serf gives the lord a flat portion of that which they create, in Capitalism the proletarian receives flat wages as a petty portion of profits. Feudalism therefore has very different mechanisms, and while horrible, is different from Capitalism.
Regardless, that has nothing to do with the comic OP posted. Are there, in real-world communist/feudal societies, people that get more on the shoulders of other people's work? If the answer is yes, then the comic does not specifically represent a capitalist society.
Because this is what the comic represents. It does not represent the welfare system, or lack thereof. It does not show any means of production. It just shows some person getting wealth on the shoulders of another person's work. That's it.
Yeah, thankfully I said real-world communism. Utopian communism would indeed be great.
In feudal society, the noble owns the serfs. The serf cannot move without the noble's consent and is tied to the land in such a manner that, if the noble decides to sell the land, the serf on the land are sold too. They have to work the lands of the noble before their own and have to pay a tax on what they own to the noble. While they own some small tools, like pots, needles, tools for churning butter and other small farming tools, the biggest tools were often owned by the village as they were too expensive for the single farmer. Some other tools were instead illegal to own, a famous example was the grinding stone, which was illegal to own, since you HAD to go to the noble's mill to transform your wheat into flour and then bread. This was because you then had to pay a tax to the miller and a tax to the noble in order to mill your wheat.
So, in essence, in feudalism a serf did not own their land, did not own their labor and was not even free to move. So much better, right? /s
That isn't "real world" Communism, though. Socialist States tended to place a much higher emphasis on welfare than Capitalist states, that's historical fact, regardless of how effective or not they are/were.
Secondly, I never said Feudalism was better. I indicated the key production distinctions between Capitalism and Feudalism, in Feudalism the serf gives the lord a flat portion of that which they create, in Capitalism the proletarian receives flat wages as a petty portion of profits. Feudalism therefore has very different mechanisms, and while horrible, is different from Capitalism.
Regardless, that has nothing to do with the comic OP posted. Are there, in real-world communist/feudal societies, people that get more on the shoulders of other people's work? If the answer is yes, then the comic does not specifically represent a capitalist society.
Because this is what the comic represents. It does not represent the welfare system, or lack thereof. It does not show any means of production. It just shows some person getting wealth on the shoulders of another person's work. That's it.
Then all that matters is that OP thinks it's fitting for Capitalism, and should therefore be taken in that context.
Ok, then you are equally ok with this, I guess:
It would be stupid, but we could evaluate it within that context, without having to bring in other systems like Capitalism or Feudalism.
What's the conversation then? If you can't discuss alternative systems, what's the point? Circlejerk? How fun
Issa meme, not an in-depth discussion post. I suggest touching grass.