They were often the descendants of conquerors or settlers. While you could overcome competitors justly, being completely ruthless is typically advantageous. Maybe I'm crazy, but perhaps we should implement a governing system that discourages that behavior.

The difference is that under capitalism, the blame is outsourced to the market.

Also under classic Feudalism the lords usually did not micromanage your farm. At harvest time the collector would pass by and you had to fill your quota. How you got there was your problem but also your choice. It was often terrible because the quota was unrealistic, but you had an agency over your own work, that people today often lack.

Oh yeah, that's because the vast majority of people beleive we jumped straight from feudalism to capitalism, without merchantislism in between.

That's where a lot of the disconnect comes in. In a world of cottage industries and small holdings, choice really could mean something. Everyone being ruthlessly self interested could've, potentially, worked out. Without market makers etc. the best idea and the brightest people may well have risen to the top and the market could've made that happen.

However, that was merchantislism. In the world of capitalism, that's make believe fantasy nonsense that shows capitalists to be just as utopian as any socialist.

I mean, it was literally invented, due to the changes brought about by the industrial because the aristocracy were terrified they might have to start working for a living. It wasn't some natural state we defaulted to. It didn't happen by magic or divine providence. It wasn't chosen because it was the most fair or stood up to scrutiny the best.

Nope, it's literally the greed and entitled laziness of the British upper classes, expressed in economic form.

No, lots of kings were brutal tyrants and/or totally incompetent rulers. The ones who took care of their subjects and who were wise and competent were extremely rare. These were the philosopher kings Plato wanted as rulers.

By what metric?

Ahh a small rural subset of the population rules their own land. But unfortunately they don't own the rights to their seeds, farming equipment, and the food they produce (sometimes). They produce things that sell for so little sometimes they can't be independent and need trade agreements with other feudal lords that work them to death. Aka a farmer still gets groceries at Walmart, healthcare, seeds from big seed Corp, and tractors from John deere so much so most small independent farmers are closing up shop

Just as residents in cities are progressively owning less of the land they live on family farmers are being pushed out by corporate megafarms.

Oh they're solving that problem as fast as they can. Don't you worry.

I beleive most farms in the UK are leased now days. Not sure about anywhere else though.

Insane people inherit wealth today and lead their "kingdom" to ruin only to be proper up by somebody else only to fail again.

We just haven't had this type of capitalism for long enough to see many Neros that had infinite power and then ruin it completely. We are in the holy Roman empire with 1000+ kingdoms constantly in strive with each other. Some are more powerful than others and ever so often one completely shits the bed because the inherited child is an absolute buffoon.

And Musk can't order you beheaded.

Also, it was by no means always inheritance. Quite often it was the most power hungry psychopath that won.

And like, specifically bureaucratic profesionals. There's plenty of us out here with real jobs that require experience and specialty knowledge like skilled trades, culinary, medical, etc, but then there's those asshats that pretend "synergy" is a thing and for some reason they make the most money???

This is totally possible under actual democracy, the only challenge is getting enough people to the point where they're not voting against their own long-term interests, and voting system's robust enough to withstand the influence of capital.

What I mean is, there are governments around the world already funding positive things, on the collective purse.

It's just at the moment, it pales in comparison to the stranglehold capitalism has over our economies.

Just saying, we don't need to wait for the entire world to join hands to move towards socialism.