If Feudalism means the rule of Feudal lords, by ownership of the land and thus crop rents, and capitalism means the rule of capitalists, by ownership of capital and thus profit

Then with socialism, it's the rule of society, by communal ownership (state or not) of our industry towards societal goods, such as food, shelter, etc. and avoid the crises that come with it

If you reform the system without changing its system, it will rhyme up its mistakes all over again (do the same action but with worse effect to society)

Btw though: don't most of the ideal Socdem countries, whom you call socialist, in the West rely on exploitative unequal "exchange" , and the Socdem countries of the Global South are slandered and sanctioned, the most extreme example being Venezuela?

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a fair point, but I'd like to clarify that I'm not calling socdem countries socialist. I think there's a difference between socdem policy and UBI in terms of their impacts on the economy, on the social contract, and on politics.

[–] Lemmygradwontallowme@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh ok... I think the main pt is that UBI and Socdem policies are similar in that, while not inherent in Socialism, they would be better executed under it, as a policy...

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Yep, I see your point. UBI is inherently inefficient in a capitalist system, and so the comparison isn't really fair.