[Houghton M.]

Right, because the way he/she framed it, it described an abuse of any system. It combined systemic (structure of land ownership) with abuse—at mercy of whim.

Whims are by definition abusive.

So, if you need a single word phrase: abuse of power.

Which is what I said originally was what happened at the Philalphia convenience store.

And what my interlocutor tried to shove under the label “feudal.”

Satisfied?

[Balding_Eagle]

So, what IS that word?

[TalonDJ]

So, if you need a single word phrase: abuse of power.

No, it is not just about abuse of power. It is about a system where there is no ability for the peons to reliably address grievance. This is true whether there is abuses of power or not. You can have (in theory) a dictatorial regime with no abuses of power. If you called a system of forces collectivization 'communism' you would be right. If someone stepped in and said 'no that is not communism, that is just abuse of power' you would argue with them. We were not talking about the abuse of power. We were talking about the lack of accountability, recourse, and the de-facto ruling class. Those features ARE reminiscent of the Feudal system.