• RandomWords [he/him]
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 years ago

    because they weren't the ruling class. if the 'revolution' still ends up with different classes of people it is fundamentally the same.

    • PaulWall [he/him]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      feudalism and capitalism can both be hierarchal without them having no tangible difference. here is some evidence i found quite quickly. can find more too if you want. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-349-17745-5_2

      also a tangible difference you seem to care about is that capitalism has caused mass extinction and feudalism didnt

      • RandomWords [he/him]
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 years ago

        the difference between feudalism and capitalism and the effect on mass extinction is negligible when you incorporate modern technology and fossil fuels, which would inarguably occur similarly provided that there was a lower class to exploit and an upper class in charge of resources.

        • PaulWall [he/him]
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 years ago

          the incorporation of fossil fuels and modern technology is literally a result of capitalism what are you talking about. you can’t just say what if the feudal lords had access to the same things. they didn’t because they were not capitalist and had not invested in developing such tech to generate profit.

          • RandomWords [he/him]
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 years ago

            not at all dude. maybe the speed at which it occured, but you're giving way too much credit to capitalism.

            the advent of technology is not an invention of capitalism, but of eventual progress. i shouldn't have to argue this point to someone trying to speak up for the moral existence of human beings.

            tesla and einstein were fucking socialists. the shit didn't happen because they wanted to make a profit, it may have created a motif to drive it, but it would have happened, probably under b etter circumstances, eventually anyway.

            • PaulWall [he/him]
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 years ago

              i’m not saying technological development under capitalism is only done be capitalists. i’m saying that the specific technologies you are referring to that killed the planet were technologies developed and funded by capitalist firms trying to increase profit. and to say what if the fuedal lords had the same tech, that’s just literally nonsense. it’s a historical argument based on development of the forces of production, you can’t just transport technologies throughout history independent of the modes of production that produce them to make a point.

              • RandomWords [he/him]
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 years ago

                the systems remain the same. a small ruling class that exploits a larger class of workers to maintain their standard of living.

                you've not presented anything that presents an argument against this.

                • PaulWall [he/him]
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  I’m not disagreeing that when you frame it that broadly the system didn’t change, that’s why we need communism. Specifically because the aspect you are talking about didn’t change. but various other important aspects did change from feudalism to capitalism and that’s why they are different modes of production. just like how slavery is a different mode of production from both feudalism and capitalism. these changes are notable and much scholarship has been written about them, like the one i linked you.

                  also on an unrelated note, i genuinely apologize for insulting you. it was wrong and completely unrelated to the ideas we were discussing. and as you continue to put effort into this conversation i feel more and more bad about the way in which i acted when it began. i respect your insistence on your point of view and your will to argue for it.

                  • RandomWords [he/him]
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 years ago

                    capitalism and slavery didn't really have 'different' modes of production, just different ways by which they decided the working class.

                    people making 7 dollars an hour, many still people of color and illegal immigrants in the usa, working two jobs to maintain a living are on par with slaves.

                    the system didn't change much it just made it more pc. anything that pretends it's not the same is liberal revisionism.

                    • PaulWall [he/him]
                      arrow-down
                      1
                      ·
                      4 years ago

                      have you actually read marx? not trying to be an ass but this is like marxism 101. there exists different modes of production sorry to break it to you. i honestly feel like you’re just trolling me at this point or you just literally don’t know.

                      (hint those different ways they decide the working class literally are the different modes of production)

                        • PaulWall [he/him]
                          arrow-down
                          1
                          ·
                          4 years ago

                          you’re literally willfully ignoring substantial differences between slavery feudalism and capitalism just so you can paint all of them as capitalism. if you wanted to say they all were the same you could say they all were hierarchal, but no you say they are all just capitalism. your mind has been poisoned by capitalist ideology so throughly that you can’t even recognize a mode of production distinct from it. from within the cave of the the capitalist ideology, everything outside just looks like capitalism too. it’s meant to make you feel like there’s no other alternative and that capitalism is the natural progression of human economics rather than the specific ideology of a ruling class that siezed state power in the 17th century