NationStates Jolt Archive

The defining advancement out of feudalism was the concept of allodial title. Allodial title gave the holders of property rights the ability to pass said rights down through inheritance.

Under the feudal system, property ownership was always in the hands of the sovereign, and he handed out property rights to tenents in exchange for feudal obligations, such as tributes or military service. Upon death, the property rights were fully returned to the sovereign.

So my question:

If the sovereign were replaced by a democratic state, would feudalism be acceptable?

For the communists, how do you feel that a feudalistic democracy would compare to the socialist state that brings about anarcho-communism?

You know that there is more to an economy, in this case specifically feudalism, than the status of property rights, right?

Should we just assume that exchange relations will also be exactly like those of feudalism?

Should we also assume that resource distribution would be exactly like feudalism?

You know that there is more to an economy, in this case specifically feudalism, than the status of property rights, right?

Should we just assume that exchange relations will also be exactly like those of feudalism?

Should we also assume that resource distribution would be exactly like feudalism?

The selfish nature of people guarantee that the nature of property rights define all characteristics of the economy through the behavior of its participants.

However, the changing times and technology will lead to change in many of the interactions of the participants. So apply my question to modern life and then answer the question.

A very strange idea.

The selfish nature of people guarantee that the nature of property rights define all characteristics of the economy through the behavior of its participants.

Well that's a broad statement that I would challenge. But that's really not at issue and I don't intend to pick on you, so I will just go on to the issue at hand.

I will assume that you mean total feudalism as I understand it to be, even though by defining property rights you feel that though you have defined it enough.

No I do not think that feudalism would be acceptable if the sovereign was a democratic government.

In reasoning by analogy this case is similar to a dictator in the context of a democracy, in other words a tyrant. Because tyranny is largely contrary to the purpose of democracy, feudalism would be also contrary in the same sense.

Now why the connection between feudalism and tyranny (dictatorships, authoritarianism, etc)?

Well, as far as I am concerned the purpose of liberalism, free markets, and capitalism is not to keep what you make but to have the freedom to live with in regards to economic activity. Feudalism carries a lot of authoritarian-economic baggage, and so it is contrary to protecting freedom, something that should be the primary function of a democracy.

My responce has been quite broad and I have made a lot of assumptions which I probably should defend. But I'm going to be late for a class, so I will check back in later.

I suppose that feudalism would be acceptable in a democratic state. After all, the entire idea behind democracy is that of majority rule: if the majority was in favor of feudalism, then feudalism would be acceptable. This is like some of the recent elections in the Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia: if the people democratically vote for a theocracy, then you must respect the right of the majority.

I will assume that you mean total feudalism as I understand it to be, even though by defining property rights you feel that though you have defined it enough.

The nobles could be looked at as lower democratic governments such as state and local levels, I suppose.

No I do not think that feudalism would be acceptable if the sovereign was a democratic government.

In reasoning by analogy this case is similar to a dictator in the context of a democracy, in other words a tyrant. Because tyranny is largely contrary to the purpose of democracy, feudalism would be also contrary in the same sense.

Now why the connection between feudalism and tyranny (dictatorships, authoritarianism, etc)?

Well, as far as I am concerned the purpose of liberalism, free markets, and capitalism is not to keep what you make but to have the freedom to live with in regards to economic activity. Feudalism carries a lot of authoritarian-economic baggage, and so it is contrary to protecting freedom, something that should be the primary function of a democracy.

My responce has been quite broad and I have made a lot of assumptions which I probably should defend. But I'm going to be late for a class, so I will check back in later.

I agree with you through here.

A democracy can be a tyrant as well, if given the ability.

If you say that in a feudalism all property is owned by the sovereign, it seems completely inconsistent with democracy, as democratic leaders only serve for a temporary period of time. Would the President/Prime Minister own all land during their term, then lose it?

I watched a professor give a lecture today called "Democratic Feudalism" before a Parliament Committee on the Constitutional Revision Sweden is entering, but it was about something completely different (mainly criticism of current ways judges are appointed) than what is proposed here. Such a weird coincidence...

If you say that in a feudalism all property is owned by the sovereign, it seems completely inconsistent with democracy, as democratic leaders only serve for a temporary period of time. Would the President/Prime Minister own all land during their term, then lose it?

The figures in the office don't make the democratic government. The system and the will of the people make a democratic government. Those in office would not own the property, they would only decide upon how the property was given out.

The figures in the office don't make the democratic government. The system and the will of the people make a democratic government. Those in office would not own the property, they would only decide upon how the property was given out.

Sounds a lot like communism, except there wouldn't necessarily be any egalitarian ideals...

Sounds a lot like communism, except there wouldn't necessarily be any egalitarian ideals...

That is what I thought.

bump

The defining advancement out of feudalism was the concept of allodial title. Allodial title gave the holders of property rights the ability to pass said rights down through inheritance.

Under the feudal system, property ownership was always in the hands of the sovereign, and he handed out property rights to tenents in exchange for feudal obligations, such as tributes or military service. Upon death, the property rights were fully returned to the sovereign.

So my question:

If the sovereign were replaced by a democratic state, would feudalism be acceptable?Do you mean like many capitalist systems today, where people pay tributes (or "rent") to property owners in order to use their property. Or in the words of Peter Kropotkin:

We cry out against the feudal barons who did not permit anyone to settle on the land otherwise than on payment of one quarter of the crops to the lord of the manor; but we continue to do as they did - we extend their system. The forms have changed, but the essence has remained the same. And the workman is compelled to accept the feudal conditions which we call "free contract," because nowhere will he find better conditions. Everything has been appropriated by somebody; he must accept the bargain, or starve.

With that said, however, I support the right of people to decide what they wish to do democratically, provided there is a means for people to easily not live within the aforementioned society if they choose not to.

The defining advancement out of feudalism was the concept of allodial title. Allodial title gave the holders of property rights the ability to pass said rights down through inheritance.

Under the feudal system, property ownership was always in the hands of the sovereign, and he handed out property rights to tenents in exchange for feudal obligations, such as tributes or military service. Upon death, the property rights were fully returned to the sovereign.

So my question:

If the sovereign were replaced by a democratic state, would feudalism be acceptable?

For the communists, how do you feel that a feudalistic democracy would compare to the socialist state that brings about anarcho-communism?

The system you propose is often endored and sometimes practiced it is called socialism. Instead of Nobles controling lands and resourses there are beauracrats. And property rights are alloted to the satate that then divies it out to these nobles (Wait I mean enlightened proletariat).

Well, so far the system has been called socialism and capitalism.

Not true at it's origions capitalism was against landed nobility. Adam Smith caused an outrage when he suggested that it was in the national interest for the nobility to sell their land to skilled businessmen. Who he claimed could return a higher value than the nobles could create in 100 years. Feudalism and Socialism are founded on the concept that the means of production are owned by the state. Only capitalism claims them as owned by consenting individuals.

Not true at it's origions capitalism was against landed nobility. Adam Smith caused an outrage when he suggested that it was in the national interest for the nobility to sell their land to skilled businessmen. Who he claimed could return a higher value than the nobles could create in 100 years. Feudalism and Socialism are founded on the concept that the means of production are owned by the state. Only capitalism claims them as owned by consenting individuals.I disagree. One of the central tenets of capitalism is that people are able to freely inherit. Furthermore, the concept of feudalism doesn't hold that property is owned by the state, it holds that property is owned by landowners, who happen to be the monarchs. Land ownership translated to governance, not the other way around.

Now this is what I was afraid of, and why I was dancing around a bit before I posted a reply to the topic.

Saying that feudalism is state ownership, or that democractic feudalism is essentially socialism, are misguided statements. They are misguided because you are merely taking one aspect of economic organization, namely property rights, and treating it as the whole rather than a part. If that were so then we could say that "primative" economies, socialism, communism, and feudalism are all the essentially the same forms of economic organization.

Like I mentioned in my first post, we also have to ask ourselves about exchange relations, good valuation, and resource management. This is where you see the real differances between these economic systems.

So no, socialism isn't communism or feudalism, or democratic feudalism. They are similar in that there is societal control of the means of production, but there are so many other differances to consider.

I disagree. One of the central tenets of capitalism is that people are able to freely inherit. Furthermore, the concept of feudalism doesn't hold that property is owned by the state, it holds that property is owned by landowners, who happen to be the monarchs. Land ownership translated to governance, not the other way around.

What Smith it would seem was advocating was that land ownership should be seperate from governance. This is a central tennant of Capitalism. That land ownership and governance should be one and the same is a tennant of feudalism and socialism. I could care less which came first because when they become inseperable then it is a moot point. Let me assure ou that when I say capitalism I am not refering to he economic systems currently in place in the US. Here as well ownership and governance are interdependant. That is the sysle that I oppose.

What Smith it would seem was advocating was that land ownership should be seperate from governance. This is a central tennant of Capitalism. That land ownership and governance should be one and the same is a tennant of feudalism and socialism. I could care less which came first because when they become inseperable then it is a moot point. Let me assure ou that when I say capitalism I am not refering to he economic systems currently in place in the US. Here as well ownership and governance are interdependant. That is the sysle that I oppose.In feudalism, it just so happened that the land owners were the government. The "divine right" of kings is what helped to propagate feudalism.
But the main point is that in feudalism, the children of the lords inherited the land, and also inherited the tribute that the serfs paid. The same goes for property in capitalist systems in the present day.

In feudalism, it just so happened that the land owners were the government. The "divine right" of kings is what helped to propagate feudalism.
But the main point is that in feudalism, the children of the lords inherited the land, and also inherited the tribute that the serfs paid. The same goes for property in capitalist systems in the present day.

You're missing the original poster's point. Under Feudalism, only Nobles could inherit Land, Nobles being the Governance mechanism, and really, they simply inherited a "Lease" on the land, as part of their feudal obligations included paying the noble above them for the right to claim possession.

Nobles=Government.

It was not until Peasants (rather than only Nobles) could own land that Feudalism finally died out as a viable operation.
Prior to that, peasants and trades faced a situation where their means of production were owned by the same entity that governed them. (Sound familiar yet? Remember, Agriculture was the primary industry of the Feudal age, but a smith was just as helpless-try moving your forge!)

Under Feudalism, the means of production were owned/controlled by Government.
Under Socialism, the Means of Production is owned/controlled by government.

The government types were different-cosmetically. It's easier to get a Government Job if you have a Relative or friend who has one, than if you don't, after all... but differences in how Lords are selected doesn't make the original poster's point any less valid. A serf paid the Lord of the Land a large portion of his income for the right to conduct his economic business, as well as the "right" to pay for that Lord's physical protection, (often nonexistent or ineffective). The Lord made and enforced rules, regulations, and laws, and could at any time (even after payment) transfer occupancy rights to someone else, raise the amount paid, alter the terms of the agreement, etc.

Quite similar to certain trends in modern American government. The ability to seize properties and transfer them on a whim, for instance, was granted by Supreme Court decision to local governments. Property taxes are often set by arbitrary means designed to benefit those in power, and Property taxation is exactly what minor Nobles paid higher nobles for their rights.
If you're a "Homeowner" you don't own it, and if you don't pay property tax, you don't inherit. You're a Serf with a good lease.

Another feature of Feudalism was that being kicked off did not erase noble-imposed obligations. If, for instance, the Noble booted a group of Serfs off the land they'd been farming to use it for a game-preserve, but the preserve crashed, the Serfs booted would be responsible for paying the difference in value. Today, if your home is taken by the local government, and handed to another entity, or "Resold" but at a lower value than the Gov. thinks it should get... you're obligated to pay them the difference.

You know that there is more to an economy, in this case specifically feudalism, than the status of property rights, right?

Should we just assume that exchange relations will also be exactly like those of feudalism?

Should we also assume that resource distribution would be exactly like feudalism?

Actually concepts surrounding property are the key edict of the definition of "Economics".

In illustration: Feudalism is an economic system used mostly in adaptation regarding monarchial rule. That is the "Monarch" (or sovereign state) owns all property and dispenses such at their own determination. The Lord (Sovereign) grants land to fief's (vassals) by title of grant in nobility; this title then can be transferred hereditarily, by automatic renewal; or recouped to the Lord for redistribution: creating a "class society" whereby the rest of society is broken in to freemen (the bourgoisie; who rented land from the fief's in trade for produced goods) and the serfs; who were subjugated to the fief's power over the land they lived on. [Marx's decry in the Communist Manifesto was against this system....]

In Capitalism, property exists inherant to the people; whereby the title is passed to subsequent generations: There is no grants of nobility; or special privilidges connected with ownership of land. All are free to own property apart from the determination of the Lord or other Sovereign Power (State). In a sense, it is similar to Fuedalism in that title of grant passess from one to another. However differs in that no sovereign power can lay claim to that land. [Marx considered this as a necessary stage of evolution of economics after Feudalism]

In pure Socialism, all property is considered under ownership of the state. Grants to land are passed based upon state determination to people, sigularly, or in groups; based upon the determination of the Sovereign State: In a sense, it is very similar fuedalism in that the "Lord" (State) makes the determinations of who is granted title of use of the land; though differs in that no actual title or grant is passed on to another. [Marx considered this the stage by which capitalism is ended, and the stage is set for the rise of true Communism; however, Marx had nothign good to comment about this form; this was actually to be the absolute worst system; which leads to "revolution" of people's ideas regardant economics and property]

In pure communism, all property is owned by the "people". There is no tranfer of Title, no restriction of rights, and no inheritence. All people have a "free-use" right to all property. [This was Marx's eventual dream/goal....] (However, no systems as this has even made it; everytime the Marxist Revolution is implimented; it can never make it past tyranical Socialism.... Which is why I consider Marxism a failure...)

These of course deal with the systems in "purity"; there are many differing forms and nuances between the systems.

Actually concepts surrounding property are the key edict of the definition of "Economics".

I agree, and I didn't state anything to the contrary. But being a "key edict" does not mean all there is to consider.

Exchange relations, resource distribution, and production are not summed up by property, though all these factors are tied together.

In pure Socialism, all property is considered under ownership of the state

That is not true, at least not universally true. All the means of production, i.e. productive property are owed by the state.

In pure communism, all property is owned by the "people".

Economically, there is no significant distinction between "the state" and "the people" where a single entity, the government, represents whatever basis there is for political authority.

You did make a worthwhile distinction between property in socialism and property in communism, but do you truly suppose that is all?

How will people eat, find shelter, enjoy leisure, etc. under communism? How is it differant from socialism? That's what I mean by exchange relations, how will people get what they need, what will they have to give up, to whom will they give that up to, and in accordance with what mechanism?

Resource distribution and production decisions are self-explanatory, it isn't necessarily true that those who own the property have the only say in how that resource is distributed, at least on the level of society.

For fun, read David Webers' "Honor Harrington" series.
For more fun, read David Drakes' "RCN" series.

A democracy, in my largely uninformed opinion, is just rule by concensus. It has problems the US avoided, (right up until radio, and now television,) by alloying it with republicanism.

The US once limited the franchise to landowners, if it is of any interest. Of course, many people own their own homes. If the franchise had stayed limited to landowners, you can bet there would have been attempts to restrict land ownership to the current parties and their descendants.

Hmm...A fuedal republic?


edited out a typo

For fun, read David Webers' "Honor Harrington" series.
For more fun, read David Drakes' "RCN" series.

A democracy, in my largely uninformed opinion, is just rule by concensus. It has problems the US avoided, (right up until radio, and now television,) by alloying it with republicanism.

The US once limited the franchise to landowners, if it is of any interest. Of course, many people own their own homes. If the franchise had stayed limited to landowners, you can bet there would have been attempts to restrict land ownership to the current parties and their descendants.

Hmm...A fuedal republic?


edited out a typo


Marry me! sorry I am a SF fan

If I understood it, a feudal republic would be a state (or, at least, a land) owned by someone who is not a monarch, but part of the people...

I thought this thread was dead long ago. I was a little disappointed as I thought it was a pretty interesting thought to start the thread.

Exchange relations, resource distribution, and production are not summed up by property, though all these factors are tied together.


Go into detail about what you mean by this, and I think we can find a way that those factors are largely determined by property rights.

If I understood it, a feudal republic would be a state (or, at least, a land) owned by someone who is not a monarch, but part of the people...

All property (personal property would be disputable) would be owned by a republic or democratic state. The rights to the property owned by the state would be conveyed to the citizenry in exchange for favors and service to the state and would revert to the state upon their death.

I disagree. One of the central tenets of capitalism is that people are able to freely inherit. Furthermore, the concept of feudalism doesn't hold that property is owned by the state, it holds that property is owned by landowners, who happen to be the monarchs.

No, property is owned by the state, the king, under a feudal system. The rights to property are conveyed to the lords in return for the fulfillment of feudal obligations to the king. There is one land owning entity under a feudal system.

Land ownership translated to governance, not the other way around.

Hasn't property ownership always legitimized governance. Under a socialist system, isn't the state legitimized by societies collective ownership of property?

You're missing the original poster's point. Under Feudalism, only Nobles could inherit Land, Nobles being the Governance mechanism, and really, they simply inherited a "Lease" on the land, as part of their feudal obligations included paying the noble above them for the right to claim possession.Right, just as in order for any individual to have an apartment, they have to pay "rent" to the landowner.

Nobles=Government.No, Nobles=Landowners who wish to turn a profit on their land. A primitive form of capitalism.


It was not until Peasants (rather than only Nobles) could own land that Feudalism finally died out as a viable operation.
Prior to that, peasants and trades faced a situation where their means of production were owned by the same entity that governed them. (Sound familiar yet? Remember, Agriculture was the primary industry of the Feudal age, but a smith was just as helpless-try moving your forge!)And it will only be until the people as a whole own the means of production will they be able to govern themselves.


Under Feudalism, the means of production were owned/controlled by Government.
Under Socialism, the Means of Production is owned/controlled by government.Under Feudalism, the means of production were owned/controlled by people who wanted to turn a profit and who made people pay a rent/tribute to use the means of production.
Under Capitalism, the means of production are owned/controlled by people who wanted to turn a profit and who made people pay a rent/tribute to use the means of production.

A serf paid the Lord of the Land a large portion of his income for the right to conduct his economic business, as well as the "right" to pay for that Lord's physical protection, (often nonexistent or ineffective). The Lord made and enforced rules, regulations, and laws, and could at any time (even after payment) transfer occupancy rights to someone else, raise the amount paid, alter the terms of the agreement, etc.Or, in other words, a "mortgage" or "rent."


Quite similar to certain trends in modern American government. The ability to seize properties and transfer them on a whim, for instance, was granted by Supreme Court decision to local governments. Property taxes are often set by arbitrary means designed to benefit those in power, and Property taxation is exactly what minor Nobles paid higher nobles for their rights.
If you're a "Homeowner" you don't own it, and if you don't pay property tax, you don't inherit. You're a Serf with a good lease.

Another feature of Feudalism was that being kicked off did not erase noble-imposed obligations. If, for instance, the Noble booted a group of Serfs off the land they'd been farming to use it for a game-preserve, but the preserve crashed, the Serfs booted would be responsible for paying the difference in value. Today, if your home is taken by the local government, and handed to another entity, or "Resold" but at a lower value than the Gov. thinks it should get... you're obligated to pay them the difference.Exactly, which are natural by-products of capitalism. In any capitalist system, the rich petition the government to make laws that favor them. In capitalism, money=power.

No, property is owned by the state, the king, under a feudal system. The rights to property are conveyed to the lords in return for the fulfillment of feudal obligations to the king. There is one land owning entity under a feudal system.Property is owned by a handful of people under a feudal system, just as it is in a capitalist system. There could easily be one land owning entity in a capitalist system.


Hasn't property ownership always legitimized governance. No. In monarchy, the king wasn't concerned about the fate of the peasants, as long as they paid their share of taxes (or rent). The king, in monarchy, would send thugs out to collect the rent, or to boot the peasants off who didn't pay. In a capitalist system, those thugs are called the "police."


Under a socialist system, isn't the state legitimized by societies collective ownership of property?Not exactly. The state is legitimized because society legitimizes it. Of course, society wouldn't be able to legitimize anything if they didn't have collective ownership of property, or the brute force needed in order to make everyone submit to them.

Right, just as in order for any individual to have an apartment, they have to pay "rent" to the landowner.

People are going to have to pay for their living no matter what system, you can't get around that.

The two major differences between capitalism and feudalism:

1. The service or rent paid for property rights are paid to someone with political authority in a feudalism. Under a capitalist system, political authority is not inherent among the land owners, in fact it is generally unacceptable for the landowner to have authority.

2. The landowner in a capitalist system has allodial rights to property, meaning they are inheritable. Under a feudal system, this is not the case. Property rights revert back to the soveriegn upon their death. The child of the noble often recieved the same feudal obligations as they were the most likely successor, but allodial rights did not exist.

When comparing socialism and feudalism, do either of those differences exist? If not, then would not a democratic feudalism resemble a socialist system?

Property is owned by a handful of people under a feudal system, just as it is in a capitalist system. There could easily be one land owning entity in a capitalist system.

Economic factors would make this extremely unlikely, but no, capitalism does not forbid this.

No. In monarchy, the king wasn't concerned about the fate of the peasants, as long as they paid their share of taxes (or rent). The king, in monarchy, would send thugs out to collect the rent, or to boot the peasants off who didn't pay. In a capitalist system, those thugs are called the "police."

In the monarchy, the king is legitimized because he owns all of the land. Where he not able establish possession of the land, he would no longer have his sovereign rights.

Not exactly. The state is legitimized because society legitimizes it. Of course, society wouldn't be able to legitimize anything if they didn't have collective ownership of property, or the brute force needed in order to make everyone submit to them.

But society works to legitimize it automatically. Anytime there is property owned there must be a system of rules to govern it. Viola, government.

People are going to have to pay for their living no matter what system, you can't get around that.

The two major differences between capitalism and feudalism:

1. The service or rent paid for property rights are paid to someone with political authority in a feudalism. Under a capitalist system, political authority is not inherent among the land owners, in fact it is generally unacceptable for the landowner to have authority.I don't know about "generally unacceptable." I do know that landowners typically don't have political authority, but they don't need it when the people who have political authority make the exact same decisions that the landowners would make if they did have political authority. It also gives the people a scapegoat to blame for their problems.


2. The landowner in a capitalist system has allodial rights to property, meaning they are inheritable. Under a feudal system, this is not the case. Property rights revert back to the soveriegn upon their death. The child of the noble often recieved the same feudal obligations as they were the most likely successor, but allodial rights did not exist.In many cases this is true in a capitalist system. If the person who does inherit the property falls behind on their taxes, or if there's an outstanding mortgage on the property, the property can return to the government, or to the bank.


When comparing socialism and feudalism, do either of those differences exist? If not, then would not a democratic feudalism resemble a socialist system?It still seems to me that feudalism resembles capitalism far more than it does socialism.

In the monarchy, the king is legitimized because he owns all of the land. Where he not able establish possession of the land, he would no longer have his sovereign rights.The king is legitimized because he has enough brute force to legitimize him. If he can't control his army, he will be deposed, and someone else will be installed that the army chooses.


But society works to legitimize it automatically. Anytime there is property owned there must be a system of rules to govern it. Viola, government.Well if property needs to have a system of rules to govern it, then isn't that true in a capitalist system also? What legitimizes the government in a capitalist system?

In many cases this is true in a capitalist system. If the person who does inherit the property falls behind on their taxes, or if there's an outstanding mortgage on the property, the property can return to the government, or to the bank.

Very rarely does the government reclaim property rights, the vast majority of the time, the property is auctioned by the bank, or whatever creditor the person in default may have had.

The government can only claim complete property rights through the power of eminent domain. And even then, there is no reversion of rights, they simply use the will of society to take it.

Well if property needs to have a system of rules to govern it, then isn't that true in a capitalist system also? What legitimizes the government in a capitalist system?

Under a capitalist system government is legitimized only in allowing property rights to be uninfringed.

When comparing socialism and feudalism, do either of those differences exist? If not, then would not a democratic feudalism resemble a socialist system?

No, socialism will never be democratic, but communism can be. We will enter a new system (something like privatism) someday. Everything would be private property. The great enterprizes would govern, so the public would become private. We would live in private houses, but not our houses; some enterprize's house. This is the democratic feudalism...

Exchange relations, resource distribution, and production are not summed up by property, though all these factors are tied together.




Go into detail about what you mean by this, and I think we can find a way that those factors are largely determined by property rights.

Gladly.

Now by exchange relations I mean the methods by which goods change hands, and the relationships between the actors involved. To my knowledge there are three methods in history with a few qualifiers by which goods change hands:

1) Redistribution.
By this method we have something similar to communism. Resources are gathered, goods are produced, and they are all brought together in a communal 'pot'. After they are all gathered, they are then distributed amongst the members of the community.

2) Reciprocation.
By this method people gather their own goods and then give them to whomever they have an obligation to, generally along family lines. This kind of exchange occurs in closely knit societies so that eventually the giver receives reciprocation when either he/ or someone he cares about is provided for by someone else. This method is a quite cumbersome, especially in explanation, so I can provide a historic example if you like.

3) Free exchange.
This is, more or less, the free-market. No need for explanation here.

The qualifiers I mentioned earlier are the details by which these exchange paradigms operate. Who distributes in resources in redistribution? Who or what governs the obligations by which goods are passed along in the reciprocation model? How do free actors make exchanges in free exchange? And so on.

The qualifiers could either be based on authority (the sovereign decides), tradition (customs, norms, morality, etc which could include a sovereign), or otherwise an ideology (such as liberalism) or a religion (to the extent that it is not covered in the tradition qualifier).

So what does all this mean?

Well the ownership of property doesn't really fit into these systems described above. It doesn't matter how the goods are collected but how and why they are passed along.

The !Kung whose economy was mostly reciprocative, but somewhat redistributional on certain activities, had private property. Each !Kung owned his/her tools but when it came down to distributing food the !Kung would give to immediately family, and then to extended family and friends, which was encouraged by tradition.

The Chaktaw Indians were another group whose economy is well documented. They had a very complex system of reciprocation based on familial ties and tradition, but also a supplementary system of redistribution based on authority and social hierarchy. Yet, they did not have private property like the !Kung.

Of course, the state of property does have a significant influence on exchange relations. In a modern society where private property, especially productive property, is far more abundant, complex, and varied it seems that we would need a free exchange; the other systems being highly inefficient to service an economy of our type and scale.

But the point I was trying to make is simply that property isn't determinative of the state of exchange relations.

Now on the point of resource distribution and production... Eh... I will concede that the separation between property ownership and these factors is not as strong. The difference is probably still there, but delving into it may not be as useful as examining property v. exchange relations.

Very rarely does the government reclaim property rights, the vast majority of the time, the property is auctioned by the bank, or whatever creditor the person in default may have had.And my contention is that the banks and the government in a capitalist system are two sides of the same coin.


The government can only claim complete property rights through the power of eminent domain. And even then, there is no reversion of rights, they simply use the will of society to take it.Wouldn't this be the same way in a communist system? And different in a feudalist system, where the king can take property without regard to how society feels about it.

Under a capitalist system government is legitimized only in allowing property rights to be uninfringed.If eminent domain is the exception to that, then quite simply communist countries live in a constant state of eminent domain, and therefore don't infringe on property rights either.

And my contention is that the banks and the government in a capitalist system are two sides of the same coin.

Quite often they are. There are many major interwoven links between banks and the government, but that does not mean that property enters into the public or the state's ownership.

Wouldn't this be the same way in a communist system? And different in a feudalist system, where the king can take property without regard to how society feels about it.

No, what I meant there is no retaking of property rights. The property rights are not "reverted" back to the state, like they are in feudalism. They are forcefully taken by the state. The society is, in effect, stealing from the individual.

Whereas, in Communism and Feudalism, all property is considered to be owned by the state, and therefore all individual property rights are conveyed by the state or sovereign. That means that any claiming of property in these systems are a reversion of property rights back to the state, with no theft involved.

In other words, under communism and feudalism, eminent domain is economically legitimate. The state has always had ownership of the property, but had given property rights to the individual. So any revoking of property rights is completely legitimized by the government's ownership. This is not the case in capitalism.

If eminent domain is the exception to that, then quite simply communist countries live in a constant state of eminent domain, and therefore don't infringe on property rights either.

Eminent domain is an infringement of property rights by government. That is the definition of eminent domain. It is the government's revoking of an individual's property rights in order to serve the public good. So you are correct in saying that a communist country has complete eminent domain rights, but with that being the case, that means there is a complete revoking of the individual's property rights.

But I imagine you already knew that.