Think about it. Communism has one leader and everyone else is under. Eventually people get close to the government and become the nobles. You then have...

Dictator
/ \
People close to the gov
/ / / / \ \ \ \
Everybody else in society

I think it more represent an oligarchy, the type similar to Carthage or Sparta's Council of the Elders.

It has a fundamental difference, in that the ideology that supports communism denies any right for that hierarchy to perpetuate itself. And as a consequence it it quite unstable, the typical example being the peasant that succeeded in becoming leader of the USSR.

Of course, as time passes and the generation that took part in actual revolutions dies, they arrange for power to be passed on to successors, protegés, descendants. And a stable oligarchy may result. But the nomenklatura denounced by Djilas and others was not this oligarchical, hereditary one, but simply one born out of opportunism. He had a good phrase in his autobiography: "privilege begins as a necessity and then becomes established as a right".

Think about it. Communism has one leader and everyone else is under. Eventually people get close to the government and become the nobles. You then have...

Dictator
/ \
People close to the gov
/ / / / \ \ \ \
Everybody else in society


That's what history has shown us. Apparently, things will be different next time.

Think about it. Communism has one leader and everyone else is under. Eventually people get close to the government and become the nobles. You then have...

Dictator
/ \
People close to the gov
/ / / / \ \ \ \
Everybody else in society

Or, does any static and no-accountable power structure turn into feudalism? Without an active will to the contary and regular changes in government a feudal system of power will become established (see: Most of post colonial africa, and various facist regimes).

Its not so much function of communism as in any system without checks and balances - hell any company town often goes towards being feudalism-lite.

There are very few systems of government that does not devolve into aristocracy, democracy included.

The big difference might to be whether the guiding pirnciple is a system of privileges (literally "private laws") or one of meritocracy.

I'd say you need hereditary privilege to make it anything like historical feudalism.

Communists hate fuedalists, of course they'll never turn into them! :)

Think about it. Communism has one leader and everyone else is under. Eventually people get close to the government and become the nobles. You then have...

Dictator
/ \
People close to the gov
/ / / / \ \ \ \
Everybody else in society

No, the reason it has existed as such is that it has come to power in places where the Feudal practices are not a thing of the distant past, as in Western Europe. China, Russia, Vietnam, these places had, and still have, a large peasant class, that is why Communism in practice has become that. Communism in theory is nothing of the sort.

No, the reason it has existed as such is that it has come to power in places where the Feudal practices are not a thing of the distant past, as in Western Europe. China, Russia, Vietnam, these places had, and still have, a large peasant class, that is why Communism in practice has become that. Communism in theory is nothing of the sort.

Communism in theory is nothing but a pipedream!! It does not and has never existed and will never exist as such. Without a peasant class to exploit, communism has no chance to prosper. Every time it has been tried, it degenerates into one man rule. Stalin, Castro, etc.... Oh yeah, and most places it is tried, they immediately have a long period of drought that causes massive crop failures and starvation...! So, yeah, communism is really feudalism with a different name.

Dictator
/ \
People close to the gov
/ / / / \ \ \ \
Everybody else in society

That doesn't really look like Feudalism to me. If communism were highly decentralized, if the ties between the ruler and his retainers were based on the distribution of land over which the retainers had extensive legal rights, and if the ties between the ruler and his nobles were highly personal in nature, then I could see your argument. I'm by no means an expert on Communism (or Feudalism, for that matter), but only the last of those three conditions seems to be possibly the case in communist governments.

If by "feudalism" you mean "an unequal society" then maybe, but using any reasonable definition of feudalism, no.

In other words, what Shortguy said.

By your definition of feudalism, every government would be 'feudalism'.

America:

President < Government < People close to the government < Business tycoons < Everyone else

Britain

PM < Government < People close to the government < Major businesses < Everyone else

Simple, the answers are..............

NO, IMPOSSIBLE and YOU MUST BE KIDDING.