They're both super dysfunctional

IT HAS A MUCH BETTER TRACK RECORD

IT FUNCTIONS

HOWEVER, NO ONE WOULD WANT CAPITALISM STRAIGHT

IT IS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM, NOT A SOCIAL DESIGN.

THIS IS WHY HIERARCHY IS IMPORTANT

IF YOU HAVE HIGHER SOCIAL CASTES IN CHARGE, NO RACE TO THE BOTTOM

WHEN PROLES ARE IN CHARGE...

It doesn't function well at all. It suffers from destructive boom bust cycles. Worker wages get driven down while govt expenditures aren't allowed to rise. Thus most people can't afford to consume the value of the goods and services they provide. Sales drop and so do profits. The investment plutocracy pulls what profits are gained and funnels them into financial products resulting in speculative bubbles which pull even more money out of the productive economy. When they pop depression occurs. This was common place throughout the capitalist industrial world for two centuries until the great depression saw the replacement of capitalism with other systems like soc dem, fascism, socialism and Communism.

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES RISING IS A CONSEQUENCE OF DEMOCRACY

THE BOOM BUST CYCLE IS DRIVEN BY THE DISCOVERY OF NEW INDUSTRIES AND OVER-INVESTMENT BY CLUELESS PROLES

YOU HAD NONE OF THIS UNDER THE ARISTOCRATS

No the expenditures **aren't** allowed to rise

Also not true. The tulip mania of the 17th century happened while plenty of aristocrats and monarchs were in power

How about the south sea bubble?

Ohai guys

Aristocrats weren't really in power in the 17th century.
You forget that by the renaissance, effective power was switching to bankers and investors, more than pure aristocracy.
Aristocracy had a certain function and title, but they were certainly not completely in power. Even kings had to bow down to the banks.

What is needed is a true caste system, where money handlers are servants.

Who are effectively an aristocracy 😒

From the middle ages to the 20th century, it is not just discrete moments that cause the loss of power of the monarchy, but rather a slow, gradual change.

No. You confuse "got power" with "aristocracy"

you are using the confused, generic term for "aristocracy" as "whoever is up there"

It's a pants shitting retarded distinction. Who owns the productive economy?

nope

it is not a retarded distinction

it is a qualitative distinction

like the term "noble"

aristocracy is made up of nobles

nobility is not made with money (alone)

yeah muh meritocratic ______would never do stupid things

You brought up money not me

In terms of power

What I am getting at, is that you are conflating

confounding

No it's called political economics

Simplifications that obfuscate the truth.

you can say "the upper class", if you like

but "aristocracy" and "nobility" mean something else

in today's world , the "upper class" is an ascended merchant class, not a "nobility"

dude political economics was a field of study

"dude", that doesn't change the meaning of what we are discussing