For one thing, they state that in Socialism that the means production and distribution are owned by "the public" while in feudalism the means of production and distribution are owned by a "Lord". What they leave out is that "the public" is typically usurped by bureaucrats and apparatchik who are "Lords" in everything but name.
Advantages listed for Socialism are:
Somehow these advantages eluded Venezuela."Absence of business fluctuations, Absence of monopolistic practices, Better welfare, Economic growth, Greater efficiency"
The article also lauds Socialism for Political and Economic stability and dings Feudalism for lacking both. That seems odd because Feudalism "flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries. That seems like a pretty long run for a system that is "unstable". In contrast, the most famous Socialist party, the National Socialist German Workers' Party had a much shorter run. It ruled from 1933 until April 30, 1945.
"Differences" that were not discussed were the huge influence that the Church had in Feudal systems. One could easily point at "Political Correctness" and "White Privilege" and say it is the same thing: Dogma and Original Sin with newly minted names.
I think the only difference between Socialism and Feudalism is that Socialism has better Public Relations and lacks the restraints of personal bonds.