Are Feudalism and Communism the Same Thing? Are Collective Farming and Collective Farming Work Feudal?

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: I say feudalism is communism because it is in practice though not in theory. Collective farming and factory work is very feudal in character.

Feudalism grossly exploits the farmers, whereas communism aims to give them their fair share and the best result that the society can possibly give to them.

Factory work is probably not feudal. Read Marx. Under communism, factory workers are not exploited and are gifted with the greatest material gifts that society can afford to give them. There was no factory work under feudalism.

So we are talking about two systems, one in which workers and peasants are exploited to the ultimate and another in which the system tries to give them the greatest rewards it can possibly gift them. A huge contradiction right there.

Colllective farming is feudal? Well, did the peasants farm their lands communally?

There are societies right now who volunteer to farm their lands communally, and it works very well.

I read about one recently who speak a minority language in NE India. They’ve simply decided that farming their lands communally is the way to go. Further, though they have small homes for themselves, they have few personal possessions. They think this is all fine and dandy.n Everything works quite smoothly, and of course they grow rice given their locale. Rice is ready and suited for communal farming as nearly no other crop is. But everyone gets plenty of food and does all right. No one is starving. Work refusal or laziness, a classic problem in such enterprises, does not exist. Perhaps they threaten to throw you out of the community if you don’t work.

Really most primitive agricultural societies have long operated on a more or less communal method.

Amerindian society and most primitive culture was described by Marx as “primitive communism.” Sure, you had chiefs and their wives who were “wealthy” in that they had a bit more than everyone else, but the differences were not great. In my region here among the Indians of the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, mostly it boiled down to the chief’s wife having a particularly impressive display of shell beads traded from the coast. Whoop tee doo. Primitive communism works quite well in cultures like this, but once you start getting an actual developed and heavily populated culture, things start getting a lot more complex.

Factory work began with capitalism or better yet, vice versa as capitalism itself was created by getting rid of feudalism, in particular the benign sort of feudalism that allowed for a Commons, the existence of which wasn’t really feudal at all. At any rate the dominant economic relation was nevertheless feudal, only much more benign in England (there was no UK at that time as the non-English parts were all separate entities). The Commons were crown lands but they were hardly policed.

Before 1400, the people simply lived in the Commons before 1400 where they farmed their own lands and owned their own livestock. They lived in small villages where the most powerful man was probably the local priest, though he had little money or land. Some people had skills like weaving or metalsmithing or whatnot, and they sold their labor power to other workers for a wage, which is communism or socialism right there. Instead of feudalism to which it is generally assigned, it was more a system of primitive communism than anything else.

Anyone with a choice would rather be a king on the Commons with your own land, home, animals, etc. than a slave in a factory, so the fencing of the Commons to force peasants off their lands and render them homeless was done by the English state in order to jump start capitalism. There are many quotes from historical politicians on the necessity of forcing the peasants off of their lands in order to impoverish and proletarianize (same thing) them.

And in our present day, in places like Colombia and India, rightwing politicians continue to argue that the local peasants must be thrown off their more or less collective lands for the development of any sort of capitalism to take place. In Colombia, a continuing process, the throwing off the peasants off the lands so the rich can take them over to raise cattle, is ongoing for decades. The peasants retaliated by forming “Marxist armies.”

A similar process took place in Guatemala and El Salvador where the peasants also formed “Marxist rebel armies,” and continues to this day in Paraguay, Brazil, and even Venezuela. In all places it was and is accompanied by a lot of violence and murder of peasant farmers. In Paraguay the peasants have taken up arms as Marxist rebels associated with FARC.

In India, the peasants are being violently thrown off their farmed forest lands to make way for the mining of minerals. As usual the peasants have taken up arms as “Maoist rebels.”

During the Salvadoran Civil War, one peasant woman stated that her choice was to either join the Marxist rebels or starve to death.

Are you starting to see why these rural based “Marxist rebel armies” even form in the first place Duh! It’s all about land, baby! Land and food.

In The Genesis of Capital Marx talks about how in the US West, smallholders were thrown off their lands by the state which gave them the lands in the first place. Their lands were then given to the railroads. The similar logic here was to throw the smallholders off the land forcibly proletarianize them in order to jump start capitalism.

Contrary to capitalist fanboys, some homesteader in the US West with his small farm, rifle for hunting game, small shed for dry goods in the winter, wife maybe sewing clothes or brother blacksmithing or making chairs, both for their neighbors for money, is not a capitalist. We on the Left say these are workers selling their labor power to other workers, and of course it’s a form of socialist or communist economic relations.

Once the people were forced off the Commons by its fencing in the 1400’s, they were immiserated and were now a captive labor force that was forced to either sell its labor power to the local factories or die. People left their farms and crowded into small cities where they lived in the most terrible poverty. They had lived much better as small householders. They were now the captive labor force that capitalism demands, and they either had to go work in the local factories or suffer in the worst imisseration.

So they worked in factories under the worst conditions which all capitalists to this day ferociously defend. You will never find a capitalist who opposes the early work conditions in those factories. Not one. If they do, they’re not really a capitalist and instead they are a socialist.

All of this is laid out quite grotesquely in The Genesis of Capital by Marx, a document which is actually part of his work Das Kapital. The former is not really difficult reading, and I recommend that everyone read this work if you can handle it.

I don’t understand why more conservatives don’t read Marx. Marx really ought to be essential reading for any conservative unless you want to be an ostrich. Know your enemy, right?

It stands without argument that Marx should be read by anyone daring to call themselves a member of the Left, and really more liberals and even shitlibs ought to read him. I don’t understand why more liberals don’t read Marx, but maybe they are afraid of what they might find there and they might have to rethink their lousy views. My father was a shitlib of the worst variety, though his heart was in the right place like most such confused folks. I read him one sentence out of Marx, and he declared that it was the most beautiful, perfect prose.

Really anyone serious about capitalism ought to read Marx. Marx’s analysis of capitalism is immaculate and, like Shakespeare’s literature, has not yet be equaled to this day. Sure, he condemned it but he also praised it to the skies.

Worse, how can you claim to know the slightest thing about capitalism without reading Marx? Does not compute. You can read Austrians and whatnot, but they’re all fraudsters, con artists, and liars. But even they read their Marx! Hayek was no one before he picked up Marx and started tearing it apart.

Most capitalist fanboys nowadays are economic illiterates.

Even Adam Smith himself was the most vicious critic of the very same capitalism he advocated for. He insisted that unregulated capitalism – the capitalism of the Right worldwide and of course the Republican Party – was one of the worst evils known to mankind! His very own words. He stated that the thought process underlying unregulated capitalism was:

Everything for me and nothing for anybody else!

Zero-sum game, thy offspring is capitalism.

Sure it’s the law of the jungle, and I guess it works great for some mountain lions and grizzly bears, but even they have to be a bit social. A male grizzly bear can hardly murder his mate, and a female must care for her cubs and is relatively social beyond that. So human capitalists are worse than the most vicious apex predators – grizzly bears and mountain lions!

Anyway, Smith stated that without serious regulation by the state, the “pure evil” mindset behind all capitalist accumulation was simply the barbarism that Rosa Luxemburg decried.

How many Republican capitalist fanboys know that their hero Adam Smith so savagely abused the ideological system they long ago sold their cheap souls for? Any? One?

(((Ayn Randists))), (((Objectivists))), and other dotards, like the rest of the (((Rothbardian))) and (((Friedmanite))) frauds, are all liars, intellectually dishonest moral cowards who only care about who signed the checks they take to the bank.

Adam Smith was a real man, not a bought and paid for whore. He shines so far above his followers as the sun in the sky drowns out a mere spotlight. Further, he had intellectual integrity and courage, rare traits nowadays when most folks’ intellectual “output” is determined by whoever signed the checks. In other words, most modern “intellectuals have no real “output” at all save from whatever line they are paid to propagate. Truly, the modern age is one of intellectual whoredom uber alles, and most public intellectuals are the brain trust equivalent of “intellectual porn stars,” selling their labor time to the highest bidder.

Money is the root of all evil.

Jesus Christ.

He said it 2,000 years ago, but has he ever been proved wrong in the interim? Of course not. Even your grandmother would probably admit to that were she not excessively compromised by dollar signs.

Please follow and like us:

7 thoughts on “Are Feudalism and Communism the Same Thing? Are Collective Farming and Collective Farming Work Feudal?”

  1. I remember reading something very racial and was surprised it was written by a communist. I suspect the grey area is huge. It’s not a “my white side is good, the other black side is bad” thing.

    You seem to respect the hell out of Adam Smith. Adam Smith seemed to want the ideal for capitalism. I’ve heard the same critique of communism: “Communism is great in theory.” Many set out to achieve the ideal, but few if any seem to accomplish it.

  2. I’ve heard fascism turns women on.

    I’ve also heard that women if given free reign would flock to one man sure as female Koalas have one alpha male that breeds them. I believe women are generally motivated by their primitive nature.

    Primitive Communism is an interesting thought too. Reminds me of Mayas and Incas being referred to as semi-civilized by explorers of old.

  3. Yes might be all fine and dandy. But in practice communal farming is serfdom. The farmers sure are forced to do it and can’t refuse, and they must meet production quotas just like in feudalism.

    Regarding Adam Smith, most libertarians are too dumb to read his magnum opus. He also advocates for heavy taxation of addictive substances and state control of the currency. You are one of the few liberals who are aware Adam Smith has more in common with social democracy than he does with libertarianism. Libertarians think Ayan Rand is Adam Smith. lol.

    1. But in practice communal farming is serfdom. The farmers sure are forced to do it and can’t refuse, and they must meet production quotas just like in feudalism.

      In feudalism, you were fucked. You hardly got to keep much of what you grew. Just a bit of it.

      Collective farming is life on easy mode. Production quotas are never hard to reach. The whole problem with collective farming is people don’t work very hard.

      Serfdom was Hell on Earth.

      Collective farming is life as permanent vacation. Like the workers in the USSR used to say:

      We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.

      And any job you have what boils down to a “production quota.”

      Regarding Adam Smith, most libertarians are too dumb to read his magnum opus.

      Of course they’re total idiots but some Libertarians have it figured out, agree with Smith, and even say that the basic mechanism behind capitalism is one of the most evil ideas known to mankind: the ultimate in pure, utter, near-homicidal selfishness.

      The smarter Libertarians say, Yes, this is true, but the thing is that consumers and even workers can just take their business to the capitalists who act good and refuse to patronize the shits who follow the capitalist maxim to the letter.

      Problem is this never works because in most cases, they’re all shits LOL. Anyway, a capitalist who tries to act decent is soon out of business, and the low-life’s following Smith’s maxim are outcompeting him. Evil always outcompetes good in capitalism. So evil is the basic driver behind innovation, plenty, wealth and all of the goodies we get with capitalism. It’s all paid for with the wages of a pure evil mindset.

      Also, if the bad capitalists’ goods are cheaper than the good capitalists’ goods, you think consumers will punish the bad guys and burn a hole in their wallets? Pull the other one.

      This “consumers will reward good businessmen and punish bad ones” is really groovy in theory. Problem is it never works, so it’s pointless. But Libertardians keep pushing it anyway.

      He also advocates for heavy taxation of addictive substances and state control of the currency.

      Well, even Friedman was a monetarist. Some ideas are just so sensible that even Libertardian idiots have to agree else lose all moral and intellectual integrity.

      You are one of the few liberals who are aware Adam Smith has more in common with social democracy than he does with libertarianism.

      Well, I’ve actually read him! Probably few liberals have bothered. Chomsky praises him too. That’s where I got a lot of my info about him. It also shows that Chomsky’s Leftism has true integrity!

      Libertarians think Ayn Rand is Adam Smith. lol.

      Yeah, the Libertarian intellectual landscape is pretty barren. A moonscape really. They’re all just hacks and ideologues. None of their theories or propositions even make sense economically. I like them on social liberties though.

  4. For the record, I’ve read the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital Vol 1 and 2 but never 3. I will be honest. I have a very very low opinion of Marx’s ideas and his person, beautiful prose notwithstanding. He definitely was a brilliant man but I think his conclusions in DK are garbage. I am a capitalist after all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)