Feudalism and Capitalism

[Harald]

Does anyone know the difference between feudalism and capitalism? I can't figure it out. They both share the will of exloiting the vast majority if the people - unlike communism. So what is the real difference?

[Dante]

Capitalism is all about the aquisition of money, and by inference those that have money have power. Feudalism is any system whereby one group of people exercises power over another, and this group in turn exercises power over another group and so on and so on. This does not necessarily involve money though. Those at the top of the pyramid may be there because they have military power (fascism), because they are royalty (monarchy), or through being the highest religious figures (theocracy).

In oversimplified terms, capitalism is about exploiting people to get wealth, and feudalism is about exploiting people to get power.

Of course one often comes with the other, but that's another story...

And I take issue with the notion of automatic exploitation in either of those systems, but that's generally enough...

Bah, my head hurts and I'm not explaining it well.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

Capitalist=power through money.  Although in the U.S this has inadvertently given a large political influence to the large corporations and VERY wealthy individuals.  It's the whole lobbying system thing.  "We fund your campaign, you push the bills through congress that we want."  But the main idea is that money is owned primarily by the individual.

Feudalism, as far as I know it was exploitation through power as Dante says.  Historically (i.e. medieval Europe) this was primarily military power in exchange for usage of land.  The Lords owned the land (called fiefs), they allowed vassals to use the land in return for their pledge that they would fight for their lords during battles, wars, and so forth.  Sometimes vassals also functioned as lords.  King=lord to the aristocrats.  aristocrats=lords to the peasant class.  Some kings held the believe (or at least spread the idea) that they were ordained by God to rule over the people.  Coupled with Christianity I'm not sure whether this qualifies as a Theocracy, but you get the idea.

Not my expertise, but I think that's the general idea.

[Khan]

I don't think that it strictly counts as theocracy since there is a separate class of priests in medieval feudalism. For it to be a theocracy the priests have to be the law/policy makers.

[nemafakei]

Feudalism is a social system wherein power is formally transferred solely through inheritance and elevation is through bequest; sovereign power within each nation rests with the monarch, while other nobles wield devolved power within their respective lands. Exploitation is achieved through the direct threat of violence, and is restricted largely to the nobility, who command armies of varying sizes.

In capitalism, the strict aristocratic class boundaries are removed and there is a limited amount of social mobility. The state is theoretically a public enterprise, and the only legitimate bearer of violence. Exploitation is achieved within a framework of legally-protected investment and ownership of the means of production. That is to say, the state intervenes with violence on behalf of the investor to defend the extraction of surplus value. There does not exist a hereditary nobility with the ability to use force.

There are, of course, variations on this theme, for example state-capitalism, where the state is the sole employer, effectively cutting out the middleman.

[Tatar Khan]

Feudalism was a political structure that was mostly practiced in Medieval Europe but there are examples of its use outside the Europe. The idea was that since ruling a whole country for one person is hard it is divided out to different lords by the king. The land was reward for their service and they had to administer it. The integrity of the land was supported by the king. The land that could have been further divided by the lord to other lords under him. those lords were in no service to the king (this would prove problematic later on, as some lords grew in power). The land as was property was passed through inheritance (this led to the problem since land was scarce but inheritors were usually more than one). The local lords had the right to administer taxation and development of land by using serfs (peasants who lived on the land) to produce needed products for the lord. Local lords were also able to interpret the laws and administer legal judgment. Later on the system would find problems with the fact that local lords were able to challenge the king because they had a bigger army and stronger resource base than the king, and so could guarantee their own integrity of the feud. Also after a while, a large number of landless knights would appear, which lead to nothing really good either. The system also hindered overland trade as each lord would tax the goods that were coming through their domain.

The inequality here existed due to social class of being nobility or not. Since only nobility could receive titles and thus land (with few exceptions for peasants). The rest of the population thus had no claim to the land and so could have been kicked of it anytime by the lord (Something that will happen, especially in England when textile industry arising from wool would start to kick in).  In our modern understanding this system was unfair as it gave few the political power over many without any of their agreement, it also gave privileges and right only to some. In the understanding of the day the system was fair as it was based on the idea that by "Natural Law" peasants are lower in status than the nobles and nobles are lower than the kings.

Capitalism is an economic system based on the idea that each person benefiting himself through his actions would overall produce goods and services that are useful to society. The system heavily rests on money as it is needed measurement of value of goods and services. People pursue money in their selfish desire for greater goods and services would try to find the most optimal way to create, produce and market their goods and services to the public. The value of the product is determined by the demand and supply for that product, with economic profit only possible in the short run due to markets balancing in the long run. The problems with the system arise when it comes to certain goods and services, those that include police service, military, firefighting (in some places there were moves to privatise that), judicial and legal systems and government. In some countries this also extends to medical services. Capitalism as such does not dictate the political system as it could exist under dicatatorship or democracy. Arguments that capitalism some how leads to democracy are all a very big stretch. Since most of them deal with appearance of middle class that wants to have a bigger say in political affairs and so pushing through democratic form of government. This is kind of a stretch and so far has little of example in real life. In addition, since trade in goods and services existed from ancient times to contrast with that additional things are attached to definition of Capitalism which includes the creation of large trade routes, financial system and market in securities.

[Caid Ivik]

Does anyone know the difference between feudalism and capitalism? I can't figure it out. They both share the will of exloiting the vast majority if the people - unlike communism. So what is the real difference?

Welcome to the FED2k. I hope you know what you're doing  ;)

To the topic, I would say there is no 'real' difference, only 'nominal'. Those are all names, used by philosophers to distinguish societies in various time and place (or in hypothesis), based on a certain major factor. The difference depends then on the theory, which are you studying right now (Marx, Aristoteles, Tocqueville, Hegel...) or which you feel you agree with.

In the factor of economical exploitation of majority by minority of population (this is the Marx' way), yes, they have only quantitative difference: in feudalism, the exploiting minority is smaller and more rigidly (through various means) delimited than in capitalism. Only in communism, as it could be understood, the exploitation is different qualitatively - you are exploited by the state, an impersonal institution. Another difference is the understanding of property and legal power: feudal lord may give and enforce laws to the land, which he owns, in capitalism you can only own and receive benefits from your property.

In short, hereditary land could be used as a capital and today you may spare capital for your children, thus retaining a strong position for your family...but today this position wouldn't be protected by a law.