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.

For many years in UK history the Witan would elect the King

Like, if you read the passages where the Isrealites were deciding whether or not they should have a king, God was pretty clear that the answer was "No, that's a fad."

They eventually changed it

Beforehand it was common to elect the son of the previous King, but they did not always do this

A notable exception is King Alfred

Although, to be fair, he was the brother, but still

They were not required to choose a family member which is the point

Look, if you wish to make the world into a dichotomy of "Socialism" and "Not socialism" that's fine.

I am not defending socialism, the whole idea is stupid.

I mean the state either does own all property and the means of production, it doesn't, or somewhere in between

Socialism is commonly defined as the state owning those things so that would seem to be the logical conclusion

But it hardly does you any good in debating ethics. Because ethics runs deeper than that.

"Libertarian socialism" is a unicorn

Well you seemed to say meritocracy would require feudalism

That's how this started

Stop putting words in my mouth!

No, it does not "require" fuedalism, fuedalism was the first iteration of attempting 100% meritocracy.

Just because you attempt something, doesn't mean it works!

@isoboto Is there an easy way to see memes I've already posted? Scrolling up on mobile doesn't work very well.

> We learned eventually that, as much as we *wish* things to be run from a 100% meritocratic point of view, it actually makes a whole lot of suffering. People would become indentured servants with no way of upward mobility, which would lead to resentment and revolutions.
You also said this right after mentioning monarchy/feudalism. There's putting words in someone's mouth, and then there's not communicating effectively.