Not really, no. Even though feudalism doesn’t consider greed and resource hoarding inherently virtuous like capitalism does, both are at their core about the few rich and powerful exploiting and abusing the many poor and powerless through ownership of the necessities for life and a greater capacity for violence.
That would make sense for capitalism, if humanity didn’t have to have its permanent, essential characteristics beaten, traumatised and groomed out of them with land seizures, branding, whipping, workhouses, schools, prisons, debtors prisons, being forced to sell their children, slavery and the threat of homelessness and starvation for hundreds of years.
People didn’t just accept either of those two systems and there’s nothing remotely inherent about them. They were both forced on people through violence or the threat of it.
“inherent humanity” - what a magical term. you might have a magical worldview! which means you won’t even recognize this as an insult, which is sad, but a little funny.
Divine right of kings simply morphed into capitalism. We didn’t get rid of jack shit, and we never will.
Feudalism is entirely different from Capitalism, which is entirely different from Socialism. Class dynamics have changed, and will change.
Capitalism is like Fuedalism in a trenchcoat
It’s a fundamentally different stage of class society with fundamentally different mechanics.
Fundamentally different? Lords are still in control, just now we call them “Billionaires” and act like the “Market” protects us.
Unlike serfs, workers must compete with each other as well as Capitalists. The Market protects nobody but the interests of Capital.
Not really, no. Even though feudalism doesn’t consider greed and resource hoarding inherently virtuous like capitalism does, both are at their core about the few rich and powerful exploiting and abusing the many poor and powerless through ownership of the necessities for life and a greater capacity for violence.
Both are class societies, yes. Both are fundamentally different relations of classes.
There are differences, yes, but they’re built on the same foundation and as such by definition NOT fundamentally different.
They don’t have the same foundation. Aristocrat/serf dynamics are entirely different from Bourgeois/Proletarian relations.
Reading Marx would help you.
They most certainly aren’t.
I have. Guess what: he wasn’t right about everything.
Serfs have a certified existence, they do not sell their labor in a market. They work their land, without participating in Capitalism.
Proletarians do not have a certified existence. They compete against each other in a labor market.
The difference is stark despite both being working classes.
I agree These systems both emerged from inherent humanity, not conspiracy.
That would make sense for capitalism, if humanity didn’t have to have its permanent, essential characteristics beaten, traumatised and groomed out of them with land seizures, branding, whipping, workhouses, schools, prisons, debtors prisons, being forced to sell their children, slavery and the threat of homelessness and starvation for hundreds of years.
People didn’t just accept either of those two systems and there’s nothing remotely inherent about them. They were both forced on people through violence or the threat of it.
And so is revealed the violence inherent to the system.
“inherent humanity” - what a magical term. you might have a magical worldview! which means you won’t even recognize this as an insult, which is sad, but a little funny.
I can recognise nonsense when I see it, and viewpoints based on assumptions rather than evidence.