Feudalism (economically at least) was generally a matter of Rent: A set portion of your labor belongs to the Landlord, the rest of it belongs to yourself (as opposed to capitalism's 'a set portion of it belongs to you, the rest belongs to the Boss')
To be perfectly honest… "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" really does fit it better than either of those two.
You mean the nazi valhalla
It's a joke you humorless muggle.
Under socialism, in theory, the people should be able to send the army to depose unpopular leaders. However in reality demagogues successfully prevent this.
Apart from ideology, what is the difference in "material reality" between the lifestyle of a socialist and that of a monarchical subject?
Damn I didn't know that empire was that large.
This can't possibly be grammatically correct.
People who cite the Inca as a socialist conveniently ignore the fact that there was a rigid class system, where the the nobles could hold private property and the lower class was forced to constantly labor for the nobles and the state.
Obviously this appeals to tankies, but no leftist who believes in freedom should cite the Inca as a good example of socialism or even as a socialist society at all.
The Inca Empire falling was a historical fluke brought about by the Spaniards and their plagues hitting right in the middle of a civil war. It was really very powerful.
What's wrong with it? "The amount of genetic homogeneity" is "extraordinary."
Homogeneity can't be quantified, so "amount" makes no sense. Also, "extraordinary amount" means a high number of thing whereas "genetic homogeneity" means only one thing. Using simply "extraordinary genetic homogeneity" would solve both problems.
Thus Spiritual/cultural racism as opposed to biological racism.