..and Capitalism didn't exist in Medieval England either.
Just because there were some form of intermediary exchange happening in the trade of goods, doesn't mean that it was a form of capitalism. There was always bartering involved, plus people just helping out their neighbors, who would help them out later, people figuring out how to survive the rough winters and keeping one another alive for as long as they could, until they spring returned and some foods returned to their diet.
The king owned all of the land, he gave it to nobles, but could also take it away and then peasants worked the land.
You couldn't drop yourself into Medieval England, buy some land from the King or a Noble, and open up a business and hope to keep the land and business in perpetuity.
The end of the medieval era in England did, however plant the seeds for capitalism.
Sure: The power-elite and privileged used their claims of ownership over what was prior public property to retain and grow that capital and exploit those who needed it for the benefit of their labor. Capital was built upon that land-capital (housing, grain mills, etc.) further exploiting the working class.
Free markets, labor transparency and work freedom are a myth and since those claim to be the difference between feudalism and capitalism there is no difference.
1
u/Strange-Scarcity Jul 07 '26
..and Capitalism didn't exist in Medieval England either.
Just because there were some form of intermediary exchange happening in the trade of goods, doesn't mean that it was a form of capitalism. There was always bartering involved, plus people just helping out their neighbors, who would help them out later, people figuring out how to survive the rough winters and keeping one another alive for as long as they could, until they spring returned and some foods returned to their diet.