I think you're confused about communism. What you're talking about seems more about soviet russia and other countries that run/ran an authoritarian state-capitalism system (often calling it communism).
However, communism has nothing to do with enforcing people to work under a threat of death, rather the contrary.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Unsurprisingly this leads to labor camps in every communist government.
That is just a mean to reach the final goal, and it does not mention labor camps or anything like that.
I'm curious on which communist government are you talking about, since pretty much all the "communist" revolutions so far did not actually implement communism but state capitalism (as Lenin himself said), except for some libertarian communist revolutions (e.g. revolutionary Catalogna, Ukraine) that were then defeated militarily.
On one thing I agree with you though, which is that putting all the power into the state is not a good way to achieve communism, as it is dangerous and it pretty much never worked so far.
the Mondragon Corporation[1] is one of the few interesting experiments with a Communism-inspired system that does not immediately degenerate into authoritarian state-capitalism.
>the Mondragon Corporation[1] is one of the few interesting experiments with a Communism-inspired system that does not immediately degenerate into authoritarian state-capitalism.
So there is no logical inconsistency in what you believe?
Mondragon Corporation is a worker syndicate , which is not a "communism inspired system", but a system aspiring for communism. If worker ownership can work in Mondragon, then saying that "communism is impossible without authoritarianism" is flawed.
That is widely considered to be Enlightenment-era propaganda, not an actual feudal practice.
> I can kill you, anytime, for no reason, without consequence, horribly slow. or whole village. the only motivation to not do so is losing a bit of wealth since you all are my property, nothing more. but sometimes I can afford to lose a bit of property, just for the fun of it.
Generally not. Most serfs had some minimal rights and couldn't be killed without justification.
Did you study this in school or read about or just watched movies?
> sky is the only real limit. so yes, comparing those 2 sends shivers down my spine too, since this is just envy.
I didn't blame anyone. Just pointing out that comparison is not really that outrageous and terrifying, mostly because it builds a straw-man out of what feudalism was about.
If you believe kings and lords were going around sleeping with brides everywhere on their first night, yes, I can see why a lot of things would send shivers down your spine.
Prima Noctis was a myth and no evidence of it every being practiced can be found.
I think you got confused, that's communism. :P And it's not decapitation (too messy) it is a bullet to the back of the head or death in a labor camp.
Feudalism is "you can farm here but you owe me and your promise to fight in my wars".
> The fact that you harbor a resentment as if the former is anything like the latter is slightly terrifying.
Really? Is it terrifying to compare a vassal's contract with the "work for me in the warehouse and I'll pay you a minimum wage, if you don't like, there is a line waiting at the door". They are not the same, it's a bit silly but is that sending shivers down our spine?