>peasants produce shit for local lord
>local lord has to/is supposed to give shit back in return to the peasants
Was Feudalism the first incarnation of Communism in Europe in a small-scale way /his/?
I'm pretty sure that's just taxes.
It's really more of an extension of subsistence agriculture.
I think feudal arrangements are common when states collapse and the security provided by a central government disappears.
No. Communes, that opposed feudalism, were commie.
Read on the surplus value theory of exploitation and you'll see why Marxists reject feudalism.
>>1048409
The state didn't collapse. Just because Rome had fallen didn't mean those regions weren't decentralized from the Empire already.
The locals already had their own power in the region. Only an emperor was missing.
The Feudal Lords were not that decentralized either.
There were arrangements made with higher nobility to insure stability and health of the home region.
Even outside traders who profited off goods and services produced in the home region brought some form of unity.
I suppose if you're determined to oversimplify everything to the absolute greatest extent of bumfuck retarded.
If you want to be a reductionist asshole you can invent connections in anything.
Congrats, you've just noticed that when you go far enough to the left or the right, you basically come full circle and end up at a very similar outcome.
>>1048394
State ownership of the means of production doesn't make a system communist if the state does not operate at the direction of the people.
The Eastern Romans were pretty socialist, with a large part of Constantinople's population subsisting solely on doles by the Emperor. One might even call it a regress to the palace economy of the Bronze Age.
>>1048481
>Now now, no need to be hostile.
Sorry, it was pretty mean of me, you're right.
I suppose if you're determined to oversimplify everything to the absolute greatest extent of silliness.
If you want to be a reductionist individual you can invent connections in anything.
monastic communities had some communist traits.
>>1048475
socialism =/= welfare
>>1048394
Here, let me give you the Marxian analysis. All systems of producing goods are defined by somehow uniting producers with the means of production and thus creating a method of extracting a surplus product. The surplus product being what the worker has produced that is not necessary to sustain him/herself. Feudal society goes about this with plain legal force, and capitalist society goes about this by incentivizing them with wage-labor. To be unique communism can only be defined by the absence of these features. Of course, the USSR actually retained both but their production process was not solely determined by either. The Soviet economy could've been organized democratically and without money but it nevertheless would have been fundamentally the same mode of production.
>>1048453
Congarts, you've bought into a masturbatory liberal fiction and unironically believe that there's not more than one factor at work there.
