literally, and i don’t mean in the hyperbolic sense but merely in the definitional sense, what he described is fundamentally not capitalism.
the term capitalism, as defined in economics, is when the considerations of “what to produce”, “how to produce”, and “for whom to produce” are decided by whoever OWNS the capital (aka the capitalist) - and capital is machinery, equipment, tools, what are known as the “means of production”.
in feudalism, a lord owns the means of production as well as the land, and this ownership was determined by bloodline and birthright. They then needed to receive the labor of the peasantry in order to get any shit done; all too often they did that through force of violence. there were some occasions where they would attract the participation and compliance of the peasantry through rewarding them instead of punishing them, by, say, providing safety (instead of merely witholding their own violence), stability, amenities, etc…
The differences between a lord and a capitalist, however, are surprisingly few:
there is usually little religious ideology behind the transfer of ownership of capital and it doesn’t always flow down through inheritance.
a capitalist doesn’t always have access to the infliction of violence in order to coerce compliance in their labor force (but they definitely fucking will use violence if they CAN access it)
a capitalist doesn’t always directly own the land upon which their labor force lives (but they absolutely will use it to leverage compliance from their workforce if they CAN)
but for these few exceptions, capitalists otherwise ARE feudal lords.
the people who are today complaining that “this isn’t how capitalism is supposed to be!” on the contrary are now, in fact, for the first time perceiving what capitalism really is at its core all along:
literally, and i don’t mean in the hyperbolic sense but merely in the definitional sense, what he described is fundamentally not capitalism.
the term capitalism, as defined in economics, is when the considerations of “what to produce”, “how to produce”, and “for whom to produce” are decided by whoever OWNS the capital (aka the capitalist) - and capital is machinery, equipment, tools, what are known as the “means of production”.
in feudalism, a lord owns the means of production as well as the land, and this ownership was determined by bloodline and birthright. They then needed to receive the labor of the peasantry in order to get any shit done; all too often they did that through force of violence. there were some occasions where they would attract the participation and compliance of the peasantry through rewarding them instead of punishing them, by, say, providing safety (instead of merely witholding their own violence), stability, amenities, etc…
The differences between a lord and a capitalist, however, are surprisingly few:
there is usually little religious ideology behind the transfer of ownership of capital and it doesn’t always flow down through inheritance.
a capitalist doesn’t always have access to the infliction of violence in order to coerce compliance in their labor force (but they definitely fucking will use violence if they CAN access it)
a capitalist doesn’t always directly own the land upon which their labor force lives (but they absolutely will use it to leverage compliance from their workforce if they CAN)
but for these few exceptions, capitalists otherwise ARE feudal lords.
the people who are today complaining that “this isn’t how capitalism is supposed to be!” on the contrary are now, in fact, for the first time perceiving what capitalism really is at its core all along:
Feudalism with Extra Steps.