The Twelve Kingdoms Forum

Okay, that sounds contradictory. But think of it: his rule is fair, and for everyone. He even helps refugees from other kingdoms, and treats all people equally, be them foreigners, kaikyaku or hanjyuu. Chances are, the services provided by the state are all universal, and himself often blends in with the people to hear their thoughts, so he somewhat abides to popular rule.

Furthermore, I love his character for yet another reason: he is alive for his people as a whole, not for just one woman he wants to "protect", which would be a stupid cliché. That is why he is my favorite character: he is the utmost noble and perfect, and political by nature. being "the socialist king" is something positive I thought him to be. Thoughts?

Apart from displaying no trace of socialist political belief or activity whatsoever?

The only part of Junni Kokki politics that could be described as socialist is the way everyone gets a certain amount of land on reaching adulthood. The fact that the farmer can then do whatever he wants with the land (including selling it) takes away from the socialist aspect.

The current wikipedia article defines Socialism as "Socialism refers to any one of various economic theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer."

While the system in the twelve kingdoms is one of (largely) equal opportunities, it completely lacks state or cooperative ownership or administration of the means of production. Trying to summarise it, I described it as "Confucian-Libertarian". There is nothing socialistic about equality under the law, helping refugees or paying attention to popular sentiment. Remember that the underlying basis of the system of government in the Twelve Kingdoms is damp women lying in ponds handing out swords.

I'm not advocating En as a textbook socialist kingdom, but as a system with some socialist characteristics. You are focusing it only on the economical aspect, but I believe equality under the law and paying attention to the popular sentiment are two of the most known aspects of Socialism.

Quote by Friedrich Engels: What is Communism? Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. What is the proletariat? The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor....

Now let us dismiss "proletariat" from its historical meaning in the western society, and apply it to Juuni Kokki: all peasants, artesans, shusei, merchants, soldiers and urban workers of all different professions live for their labour. They are the majority of people: without a doubt the buraucrats in the palace are in the minority.

Proceeding with my line of thought: Shouryuu listens to the people, and makes all decisions thinking of their well-being. Would that not be a characteristic of Socialism? I'm not claiming he controls all means of production, and abolished provate property, hence why I repeat, En has some socialistic aspects.

Now...

While the system in the twelve kingdoms is one of (largely) equal opportunities, it completely lacks state or cooperative ownership or administration of the means of production.

I'm not so sure on this. It sounds logical to me that farmers organize themselves in small cooperatives to help their production mutually(especially at cold times), rather than engaging merely in subsistence, or engaging in the known capitalist practice of agribusiness.

I will assume things now, but I like to think Shoryu has some form of control over the means of production. By which I mean, I am sure the government sends monetary help for the farmers in winter, or when there is a new plague, you get the picture.

Shokou wrote:I'm not advocating En as a textbook socialist kingdom, but as a system with some socialist characteristics. You are focusing it only on the economical aspect, but I believe equality under the law and paying attention to the popular sentiment are two of the most known aspects of Socialism.

No. That's just incorrect. Under your definition the United States is socialist, as well as the vast majority of other countries, at least nominally. IIRC, North Korea and Myamar would be the only completely non-socialist countries in the world.

The reason why I'm focusing on the economic aspect is that socialsm IS an economic system. There are and were socialist countries with equality under the law and paying attention to the popular sentiment. There are and were socialist countries which completely lack any such thing - and judging from the countries that had "socialst" in their name, they were far more common. However, I will concede that they could easily have been as much "socialist" as they were "democratic" or controlled by the "people".

Why are you ignoring my quotation by Engels, defining Socialism in a political way, rather than economical?

Under your definition the United States is socialist, as well as the vast majority of other countries.

First thing, under my definition, false democracies are not allowed.

Second thing, I think you are missing my main point: En possesses some remarkably socialist traits. Namely the fact it's a government which effectively governs for its people. Pray tell, do you have a personal problem with En even having one single Socialist characteristic?

I'm not ignoring your quote - it just isn't relevant. He believed that the only way to achieve political equality was to change the economic system because he believed that the political system was a result of the economic system.

I have no idea what you mean by false democracies not being allowed. I assume you mean that countries that elect people you dislike are not democracies.

My problem is that your definition of socialism is not shared by any dictionary, encyclopaedia, text book or other person I have access to. En does not have (dictionary definition of) socialist characteristics. It may well have characteristics of socialism, according to your definition of socialism, but I find that more people understand me if I restrict myself to the more conventional definitions of the words I use.

I'm not ignoring your quote - it just isn't relevant. He believed that the only way to achieve political equality was to change the economic system because he believed that the political system was a result of the economic system.

I agree: I used it to stress the "popular rule" characteristic, used in my point to stress one socialist characteristic in En.

I have no idea what you mean by false democracies not being allowed. I assume you mean that countries that elect people you dislike are not democracies.

And I assume you consider flawed "democratic" systems with manipulation of the masses via money as valid, perfect democracies. I am sad to find out you're that naïve.

My problem is that your definition of socialism is not shared by any dictionary, encyclopaedia, text book or other person I have access to. En does not have (dictionary definition of) socialist characteristics. It may well have characteristics of socialism, according to your definition of socialism, but I find that more people understand me if I restrict myself to the more conventional definitions of the words I use.

What you consider as "my" definition of socialism is a direct quote from one of its biggest heads: in fact, he was the co-founder of Marxism, which happens to be the single most acclaimed branch of Socialism by far. How is that not a convention? I like to think popular rule is one of the *most* conventional characteristics of Socialism. Something must be wrong with your material. I acknowledge En is far from Socialism, but I can clearly see some basic characteristics, even if loosely.

Shokou wrote:My problem is that your definition of socialism is not shared by any dictionary, encyclopaedia, text book or other person I have access to. En does not have (dictionary definition of) socialist characteristics. It may well have characteristics of socialism, according to your definition of socialism, but I find that more people understand me if I restrict myself to the more conventional definitions of the words I use.

What you consider as "my" definition of socialism is a direct quote from one of its biggest heads: in fact, he was the co-founder of Marxism, which happens to be the single most acclaimed branch of Socialism by far. How is that not a convention? I like to think popular rule is one of the *most* conventional characteristics of Socialism. Something must be wrong with your material. I acknowledge En is far from Socialism, but I can clearly see some basic characteristics, even if loosely.

Given that my material includes:

1) Every dictionary I have been able to access, whether online or hard copy.
2) Every encyclopaedia I have been able to access, whether online or hard copy.
3) Every book on philosophy, economics, history or politics I have ever read that mentions the words "socialist" or "socialism", irrespective of whether the author defines him or herself as "socialist" or not.
4) My understanding of socialism from when I read Marx's work as part of a philosophy course at school, which I'll admit was a long time ago.
5) Every time I've seen the word used in a fictional work, again irrespective of whether the author defines him or herself as "socialist" or not (or for that matter a Trotskyite or anarchist).
6) Every time I have heard the word used by a person talking in my presence, irrespective of whether the speaker defines him or herself as "socialist" or not.
7) Every time anyone apart from yourself has used the word on the internet, in my presence.

Your definition is supported by one quote from the long and complicated works of Engels and is sufficiently broad that it includes people and societies that neither you, I nor they would describe as socialist.

Given that, I believe it is far more likely that something is wrong with your use of the word than something is wrong with everyone else's, especially, and this is important, when that everyone else includes a large number of people who are socialists themselves.

If you can provide me with a link pointing to any (English language, preferably, I'm mostly monolingual and neither my French nor Japanese would be up to a discussion on political philosophy) dictionary, encyclopaedia or other reference that supports your view on the definition of the word "socialism" or "socialist", I'd be happy to view it. I have been unable to find any.

Because it's unfair to ask you to do something I'm unwilling to do myself, Please find some links to a range of sources, that I found with some quick searching, which use the same definition of socialism as I do, below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://www.socialism.com/whatsocialism.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14062a.htm
http://www.anglocatholicsocialism.org/

I'd like to point out that this quick list include pro-socialism sources and anti-socialism sources, but that they do agree on the basic definition of the word.

I, once again, was unable to find any reference that supported the defintion of socialism that you have been using and would be grateful if you could provide one.

As you wish, source by source. Occasional bolded text means what fits in. Warning: things may get repetitive, but that's due to the nature of the texts not differing much in the basic definitions.

*First link(Wikipedia):

Early socialist thinkers tended to favor an authentic meritocracy combined with rational social planning, while many modern socialists have a more egalitarian approach.

Fits in with En. It's not a true meritocracy, but as you said, the farmers can sell their land. However, it is socially planned well: they receive an equal amount of land, and I find it safe to assume the government gives subsidies to help the farmers who are raising crops which are essential to the well-being of the populace, such as rice, grain, etc.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society.

Again, in En, capital doesn't play the biggest role, but land does. And we know how land distribution works over there.

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other.

Socialism is not as concrete as you make it out to be. Some socialist countries can take the focus less on economy, and more on politics, and vice-versa. And some countries which aren't even socialist can have small socialist traits(my main point).

In 1847, Friedrich Engels said "socialism was respectable on the continent, while communism was not." The Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France were considered socialists, while working-class movements that "proclaimed the necessity of total social change" denoted themselves communists.

This is to stress how relative the terms can be made out to be. Some measures taken by a full capitalist liberal government(such as Britain giving rights to workers in the 19th century) can be interpreted as small socialist acts(which can be used to prevent the people from taking over the government and making it a true Socialism!)

In Russia, Vladimir Lenin denounced the Europeans' Great War as an imperialist conflict, and urged workers worldwide to use the war as occasion for proletarian revolution. The Second International dissolved during the war. However, Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg and other anti-war Marxists conferred in the Zimmerwald Conference in September 1915.

Now applying this rule to Tentei: the heavens punish any king who engages in imperialist wars, by forbiding them to cross borders with their army. Therefore, I concolude Tentei wants the ruler to make a good government for his people, and not want to expand his territory and profit. And this is a characteristic of Socialism.

In the postwar years, socialism became increasingly influential throughout the so-called Third World. Countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America frequently adopted socialist economic programs.

Just repeating: clearly capitalist countries could still take socialism programs in just one area or two. I'm sure you know of the various examples. Look up Salvador Allende in Chile for a good example. It was still capitalism, but it was taken in a direction to efficiently benefit the people in an egalitarian way, and this is one of my main points. The "Confucionist-Libertarian" government of En just happens to have small socialist points, it's not socialist.

The post-war social democratic governments introduced social reform and wealth redistribution via state welfare and taxation. The new U.K. Labour Government effected the nationalizations of major public utilities such as mines, gas, coal, electricity, rail, iron, steel, and the Bank of England.[33][34]

A rich country which is clearly not socialist in any of our eyes is taking equity-ensuring measures. A little socialism can help control the populace, don't you think?

Crosland said Capitalism had ended: To the question, ‘Is this still capitalism?’, I would answer ‘No’.[38] In 1959, the German Social Democratic Party adopted the Godesberg Program, rejecting class struggle and Marxism.

Ooh, the right-wing is pissed! Socialism is a broad term. Here it was used pejoratively. I'm sure the stuck-up bureaucrats like Genkai have something to say about Shouryu's egalitarian reign as well. Pissing those with power is another characteristic of Socialism.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Bolivian President Evo Morales, for instance, refer to their political programs as socialist. Chávez has coined the term "21st century socialism" (sometimes translated more literally as "Socialism of the 21st century"). After winning re-election in December 2006, President Chávez said, "Now more than ever, I am obliged to move Venezuela's path towards socialism."[42]

Those two are reformists: they continue capitalism, but adopt some socialist programs as well. They even go as far as renaming their reformist program as a new kind of Socialism! You can't get more broader than that.

In China, the Chinese Communist Party has led a transition from the command economy of the Mao period to an economic program they term the socialist market economy or "socialism with Chinese characteristics.

The reverse also holds true. We can't hold on to 100% textbook definitions, as they are not practical, at least not for now.

Polish economist Oskar Lange, an early proponent of market socialism, proposed a central planning board establishing prices and controls of investment. The prices of producer goods would be determined through trial and error. The prices of consumer goods would be determined by supply and demand, with the supply coming from state-owned firms that would set their prices equal to the marginal cost, as in perfectly competitive markets. The central planning board would distribute a "social dividend" to ensure reasonable income equality.[46]

This is to stress a similar practice I believe takes place in En. A small control, including subsidies, limiting the amount of land one can have, and attempting to warrant the people's necessary demands are fulfilled.


*Second link(Dictionary.com):

There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy.

Even a strict textbook definition has an example on how broad things can be. Think of a scale with various levels of Socialism. En is on a small scale.

*Third link(Merrian-Webster): This link has nothing favoring my view. However, I think it is too limited. I'd say this kind of superficial view is the one which prevails in your points. I'd like you to think over that.

*Fourth link(Socialism.com):

Socialism short-circuits this insanity with a planned economy, in which we only produce as much of any product as is needed. Instead of store shelves being filled with 20 identical deodorants with different labels, we’ll poll people to find out what products they actually want, and produce as much as needed, without all the waste of market competition.

Technology will no longer be cornered in order to drive up prices, or buried when advances would interfere with profits. The organized use of resources and the end of war will make the earth a far richer place in a hurry.

Conveying the example, there are officials in the government whose work is to make sure the people have their basic needs fulfilled. And the "no crossing the borders" rule is again, a quality used by Socialism.

It is a relationship in which people who want to go in a certain direction turn to those who can help them carry out their own aims—they turn to people who know what needs to be done to win, and aren’t afraid to say so. Armed with those tools, the people then take leadership themselves, and can move mountains!

And En-ou listens to the people, which is a partially socialist feature.

*Fifth link(The Concisive Library of Economics): Ugh, I couldn't take this past the first few lines. Sorry. However, see my argument about the right-wing to cover those guys.

*Sixth Link(Catholic Encyclopedia): ...catholic encyclopedia. Honestly, you need better sources. But anyway...

The term is often used vaguely to indicate any increase of collective control over individual action, or even any revolt of the dispossessed against the rule of the possessing classes. But these are undue extensions of the term, leading to much confusion of thought. State control and even state ownership are notnecessarily Socialism: they become so only when they result in or tend towards the prohibition of private ownership not only of "natural monopolies", but also of all the sources of wealth.

Perfect example of how broad things can be. For one, I often use the term "Socialist" in casual conversations as a positive adjective to describe an action which aims the greater good, as opposed to a selfish desire.

Moreover modern Socialism is not a mere arbitrary exercise at state-building, but a deliberate attempt to relieve, on explicit principles, the existingsocial conditions, which are regarded as intolerable. The great inequalities of human life and opportunity, produced by the excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of a comparatively small section of the community,

See, it's not just about the textbook definition of a 100% socialist state. It can be defined as a human and equal practice as well.

I stopped reading after that, when it became religious prattle. Still, look at the right-wing argument.

*Seventh link(Anglo Catholic Socialism): Okay, I admit I got lazy. I searched for "Socialism" and "Marx" on the site, and got nothing. However, I say this: Religious Socialism can relate to Tentei, as I said earlier. And in Tentei's case, we are sure the heavens have actual power, and have a set of rules for the rulers to follow. And some of them have Socialist attributes to them.

And I repeat: that is not my definition of socialism, but a definition which englobes one of its main characteristics. And if you were too lazy to read it all(I don't blame you), here is the main sum: the definition of Socialism is broad, and some nations who aren't socialist can still take minor socialist measures. I hope you could understand my point without being angry.

I'm editing this because I was a bit tired when I wrote it and perhaps wasn't as clear as I should have been. I wasn't asking about similarities between En and other theoretical or actual socialist countries. I was disputing your definition of socialism.

I asked you to provide an example of or reference to anyone else using the same definition of socialism as you did, as opposed to the definition I'm using. I gave those URL's as examples I'd found that supported my definition. I asked if you could point to any that supported yours. Either my message was unclear or you were unable to find any.

What you did do was read all my examples and look for similarities between what was written there and En. While this showed there were some common points, that would be true for every government, real, historical, theoretical or fictional. In other words - so what? If something is true for every conceivable government, it is meaningless that it is true for one fictional government in particular. If any government activity in the economic life of a country is socialist and that any similarity to any activity ever performed by anyone who called themselves socialist is socialist, then everyone who's ever lived (including the fictional ones) are socialists.

If all that's necessary to be considered socialist is to share some political views with a self-declared socialist, then I'll agree that En-ou is, at least partially, socialist. However, especially when you consider how broad socialism is, then so is every person in the world. I am, every American is and so was a British diplomat who ran for parliament after WWI under the motto of "A strong navy and no socialism" (whose autobiography I once read). He was in favour of meritocracy and disliked racism. If everybody is partially socialist, it is meaningless to say that one particular person is partially socialist

A lot of the activities you seem to regard as socialist are shared by a large number of other political theories. In order for your claim that En-ou is partially socialist to mean anything, you have to show that his policies are similar to the distinguishing characteristics of socialism, what makes socialism different from the other political theories. As, according to every mention of socialism I have ever encountered anywhere with the sole exception of that provided by you, the definition of socialism is collective or government control of means of production.

The government of En does have similarities to some characteristics of real or theoretical socialist governments. However I am unaware of any government, real, historical, theoretical or fictional that possesses no such similarities. I have read about utopias, distopias, gritty governments, fanciful governments and have never encountered any such thing. If you can provide an example of this, I'd be grateful to hear of it.

Let's put it this way. You regard Shoryuu as socialist because he believes in equality under the law and listening to the wishes of the people. Those policies are also a feature of: Anarchism, Anarcho-pacifism, Anarcho-primitivism, Anarcho-capitalism, Anarchist communism, Cultural conservatism, Liberal conservatism, Libertarian conservatism, Neoconservatism, Paleoconservatism, Social conservatism, Bioconservatism, Eco-socialism, Free-market environmentalism, Classical liberalism, Economic liberalism, Market liberalism, Left-libertarianism, Libertarianism, Minarchism, Objectivism, Anticlericalism, Religious socialism, Islamism, Islamic Socialism Secularism, State atheism, Socialism, Democratic socialism, Fabianism, Market socialism, Neosocialism, Social democracy, Social capitalism, Democratic Communism, Autonomist Marxism, Anarcho-syndicalism, and Utopian socialism. This list is incomplete.

The only political theories I can think of that rejected equality under the law and listening to the wishes of the people were Nazism, Stalinism and Juche. I'm not sure about these, though.

Alright, think of a scale defining how much of Socialism there is in each country. Now compare En's scale to the other 11 kingdoms.

No doubt(except for maybe Sou), it will come on the top of all of them. That's why I called En-ou a Socialist, but I digress: there is a difference between being fully socialist, and just very partialy socialist(the British diplomat you exemplified would be rated ~4 on a scale of 1:100). Now for my main point, you ask me to provide example of governments which clearly represent characteristics clearly different from Socialism. And clearly, you showed many examples of theories which have points in common with Socialism, namely almost all of them! Theoretically, all theories preach fairness and justice! Well, what does En have that's so remarkably Socialist, then?

Simple: efficiency. Call me biased, but making sure the populace is satisfied is one of the pillars of the theory of Socialism. Compared to the other kingdoms in the same world, En clearly has the edge here. Hell, Shouryu is one of the only two kings to disguise himself and listen to the people personally! I think it's remarkably Socialist to manage to have such a fair ruler, a man who lives for his people, a man who does manage to build it without being interrupted by bureaucracy! I concede that is more of a subjective vew than an objective view, but that's the beauty of it, don't you agree?

Editing: I'd like to add Social Darwinism and Plato's Republic to the list of political theories that rejected equality under the law and listening to the wishes of the people.

Every source I have ever seen in my entire life defines Socialism as government/collective control of means of production.

You have defined socialism as goverment that cares about the well being of the common people, as examplified by equality under the law and listening to the desires of the people.

You are the only person I have ever encountered that uses that definition.

You have failed to provide any examples of anyone else using that definition, despite being repeatedly asked to do so.

That defintion would include every system of goverment that is not completely fascist and blatantly evil - including a large number which would violently disagree with being called Socialist.

Would you regard anyone who called himself an anti-socialist as completely fascist and blatantly evil, when what he means by that is he's oppposed to government/collective control of means of production?

I agree with you that En's goverment is very much NOT completely fascist and blatantly evil.

I disagree that he must therefore be socialist.

DimensionW wrote:While I very much doubt that bustling En is an entirely socialist nation, I do have to agree that it has a number of programs that could be considered socialist in nature, most notably in the programs it allocates to care for refugees and displaced Japanese people. The latter is actually enough to live on pretty much for an entire life's duration... not to mention helps them get into contact with scholars and such who could possibly teach them the language and so on.

IIRC, it only lasts for a few years, long enough to learn the language if you try hard and get on your feet. I never claimed that it Shoryuu that was an Objectivist. I just said that classifying him as Socialist would require changing the definition of socialism to something so broad as to be effectively meaningless.

Forgot about this. Anyway, what you said is "you are one person to define Socialist as ______", when I didn't, I just said things can be broad on a subjective sphere of thought.

Besides, his kingdom does enture the welfare of his people, no one is "left by his own feet", remember even other kingdoms have programs which help farmers in the winter, and such. It is safe to assume En will help any citizen with sustenance problems, as well as Kaikyaku.

Shokou wrote:Forgot about this. Anyway, what you said is "you are one person to define Socialist as ______", when I didn't, I just said things can be broad on a subjective sphere of thought.

Which means what, exactly? What I do agree with you about is that this conversation isn't going anywhere and is probably annoying other people, so shall we drop it?

Socialisms generally wouldn't have kings, never mind kings who sneak around the people. And Marxism was meant to be post-industrial, not agricultural, until Lenin and Mao started mangling the theory.

I too think it's pointless and disingenuous to use socialism as a synonym for good government. Especially in a Confucian context, with its own ideas about governance.

Helping people in famines is a pretty common governmental attribute, whether out of altruism or desire for stability.

Giving an equal parcel of land to every new citizen is pretty close to an outright version of socialism -- though it apparently has precedents in, surprise, Chinese history. (A friend describes a new dynasty equalizing the land, then giving large tax-free plots to officials, which got inherited by the children, and farmers got to be forced to sell their plots in bad years, and in a few centuries it was time for a new dynasty.) But that seems to be Tentei's policy, not En.

Some of En's other features are compatible with socialism, but don't necessarily stand out as distinguishing features of Socialism. If anything, it's closer to a modern social democracy, which some people would call socialist, but others wouldn't, and if you want to communicate usefully. But I don't think it's even that far -- is there any indication of free education in general in En? Maybe for the kids, but for university? Rakushun is being personally subsidized but the university charges in general, I believe.

There does appear to be some level of universal education. Even orphans and Hanjyuu get some. IIRC, Rakushun did have to pay for education beyond the very basic, though.

Given the economics of a low tech farming economy, education would have to be free or very cheap - otherwise most people would have their children helping out on the farm, rather than sending them to school. It wouldn't even, necessarily, be a bad thing. If your kid is going to be a farmer like you are, that is a reasonable way to teach them the skills they'll need. The majority of the people in the twelve kingdoms are farmers, after all.

My main complaint about the education system is that it seems aimed to produce government officials and civil servants. There doesn't seem to be much suitable for merchants, researchers or other enterpreneurs. This was mentioned in the translated part of Tonan.

It would actually make sense that the basic Government-supported education would be more about producing government officials and civil workers. I would think that, as with most societies at this level, other fields such as merchants, ship builders, etc. would be supported through guilds. At least, that is what I've inferred. The Twelve Kingdoms tended to be about the political climate than how the economics worked. There didn't seem to be much government control of the economies (then again, this might be different for different kingdoms).

Anyways, I'm sure a whole series of novels could be written on just the economics of The Twelve Kingdoms...

Jinx999 wrote:

Shokou wrote:Forgot about this. Anyway, what you said is "you are one person to define Socialist as ______", when I didn't, I just said things can be broad on a subjective sphere of thought.

Which means what, exactly? What I do agree with you about is that this conversation isn't going anywhere and is probably annoying other people, so shall we drop it?

Well, I'm so forgetful, so...

Conclusion: the complexity of the politics and economics in Juuni Kokki is perplexing, and shit like 99% of Japanese animation can't compare.

And Shoryu is still the best. <3

Fuyumi Ono has actually thought about the government structure and politics of her world, which 90% of writers, even very good ones, fail to do so. Books and films set in the real world use the real governments (which they often get wrong, but that's another discussion). The vast majority of fantasy stories tend to use generic feudalism.

The government in the Twelve Kingdoms isn't entirely original, being largely based on Confucian doctrine, but it's still far more complex and well realised than any other fantasy I can think of.

Confucian doctrine and real Chinese practices, I think. The governmental offices in 12K and Saiunkoku Monogatari sounded rather similar, and I assume both ape real Imperial government. The land scheme apparently has looser precedent too, early in the Mandate of Heaven cycle of a new dynasty, with a land reform phase.