Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

<:weirdpepe:803800661933555714>

who tf pinged me

3 pings, too

Lol

https://tenor.com/view/ping-who-pinged-me-disturbed-gif-14162073

He needs to do it

<:KEK:795742276549607456> <:KEK:795742276549607456> <:KEK:795742276549607456>

<:DewIt:801849039258648606>

You’re fine

I wouldn't say meritocracy is impossible. I think free market capitalism does a decent job at achieving it, but of course it isn't perfect (nothing is).

Well, yes. I think so too.

And free market capitalism isn't feudalistic

Socialism has more in common with feudalism than capitalism does tbh

No, I wouldn't say that. Monarchy is what I call the extreme authoritarian Right.
Right is Meritocratic, Left is Equality. National Socialism landed on the extreme authoritarian centrism.

So you'd have a revolution from the previous line of kings, and whoever led the revolution most effectively became the new king. And that line of kings would continue for an average of about 3 generations before the new line of kings would become so corrupt that another revolution was needed.

But there were markets in Monarchies, it's just that the Kings owned so much of everything to such an insane extent that it was, in effect, government. I mean, think about the way fiefdoms worked. The King owned the land you lived on. Taxes and rent were effectively one and the same.

Socialism is government ownership of property and the means of production

Monarchy/feudalism is a form of government

You didn't do it :(

A king/feudal lords owning property/means of production = Socialism

Reactions aren't messages

I should also say I have a functional definition of government. If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it acts like a government, it's a government.

Yes they are, you got outsmarted

Do it

In their effect, they are the same, but the philosophy behind the two were completely different.

In socialism, the government owned all the land and production to make sure that everyone got an equal share.

In Monarchy, the King *deserved* the means of production because he had earned them.

Yeah but that's not how socialism is defined

Isn't socialism when government institutions are free?

Also, socialist countries end up being pretty feudalistic anyway

Equity never actually happens

Duh.

USSR was feudalistic, China is feudalistic still, North Korea is

And no, feudalistic runs through hereditary means.

But the point is, I don't think it makes sense to disqualify something as socialist because of a goal that will never be met in reality

The idea was that the kingdom was the inheretance.

Not always. Take a look at the Roman monarchy, also some monarchies the monarch was elected by a council of lords after the previous monarch died like how the Pope is elected.

In the Roman monarchy, after the King died a Senator would be selected as the interim King and would be charged with finding a King candidate within 7 days. After finding a candidate they would have to be approved by a majority of Senators and a majority of the people. If this didn't happen before the end of the 7 days, there would be a new interim King.

Well, non-hereditary monarchies were definitely the exception rather than the rule.

And the Roman Church, of course they were different. The bible spit on the idea of Kings since the idea was first instituted.