I mean, tbf Feudalism and Capitalism isn’t all that different from one another. The only difference is that Feudalism has the hierarchy embedded into government via the monarchy whilst Capitalism’s hierarchy is enforced by corporations controlled by a different select few people.
Whether Socialism actually does replace Capitalism we have yet to see, I’d definitely prefer it over Capitalism.
Feudalism doesn’t necessitate endless growth on a finite planet. It had other terrible contradictions, which were solved by capitalism by introducing new contradictions wich lead to crisis faster, more often and with more devastating effects.Of course, I wouldn’t want to go back to having Lords own all the land, but wait, we still have those, they’re called landlords.
No, they are quite different. Both are class societies, but feudalism was tied to agrarian production, while capitalism is driven by industrial production. It’s less about hierarchy and more about class. As for socialism, it’s already usurping capitalism, the PRC is the world’s largest and most important economy and it’s in the developing stages of socialism.
Usually the way Marxists analyze the difference between systems like Feudalism and Capitalism, the focus is on how production is carried out, and what kinds of property exist. Under capitalism, generally, industrial capitalists who own private factories transform money into commodities (capital and labor, where labor imparts its value on the capital) which are sold back for more money than the capitalist paid (the surplus coming from labor, which isn’t fully compensated). Feudalism is characterized because instead of the principal mode of production being industrial, it’s agrarian and relies on serfs working on their lord’s land for some period of time, then being allowed to work on their own lands.
The fact that the structure of who owns what kind of property is different is very important. In a lot of ways, this change in how production is carried out (what is called the material base) is more relevant in deciding the direction society is headed than how the government is organized (society’s superstructure). The superstructure is shaped by the social relations in the base, but it can only maintain the base.
I mean, tbf Feudalism and Capitalism isn’t all that different from one another. The only difference is that Feudalism has the hierarchy embedded into government via the monarchy whilst Capitalism’s hierarchy is enforced by corporations controlled by a different select few people.
Whether Socialism actually does replace Capitalism we have yet to see, I’d definitely prefer it over Capitalism.
Feudalism doesn’t necessitate endless growth on a finite planet. It had other terrible contradictions, which were solved by capitalism by introducing new contradictions wich lead to crisis faster, more often and with more devastating effects.Of course, I wouldn’t want to go back to having Lords own all the land, but wait, we still have those, they’re called landlords.
No, they are quite different. Both are class societies, but feudalism was tied to agrarian production, while capitalism is driven by industrial production. It’s less about hierarchy and more about class. As for socialism, it’s already usurping capitalism, the PRC is the world’s largest and most important economy and it’s in the developing stages of socialism.
Usually the way Marxists analyze the difference between systems like Feudalism and Capitalism, the focus is on how production is carried out, and what kinds of property exist. Under capitalism, generally, industrial capitalists who own private factories transform money into commodities (capital and labor, where labor imparts its value on the capital) which are sold back for more money than the capitalist paid (the surplus coming from labor, which isn’t fully compensated). Feudalism is characterized because instead of the principal mode of production being industrial, it’s agrarian and relies on serfs working on their lord’s land for some period of time, then being allowed to work on their own lands.
The fact that the structure of who owns what kind of property is different is very important. In a lot of ways, this change in how production is carried out (what is called the material base) is more relevant in deciding the direction society is headed than how the government is organized (society’s superstructure). The superstructure is shaped by the social relations in the base, but it can only maintain the base.
‘Feudalism’ in how it operated was also incredibly varied and regional, power was less concentrated.