Wat is the difference between a feudal and capitalist economy system?

Question

Searched the web but didnt find anything ...

Answer 1

The big difference at core is that under the feudal system, serfs were actual property of the Lords. In capitalism, workers are free to go about their lives as they wish and are free to work for any person or company they choose. Plus, serfs did not earn wages, they were given pieces of land to cultivate for their own consumption. In capitalism, workers receive a salary. Another key issue is that feudalism was primarily based on agriculture with a heavy emphasis on labour and not capital. Capitalism is quite the opposite where heavy investment in mechanisation have eliminated the need for those enormous factories that were seen at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th.

There's lots more to talk about, but I suggest getting into research databases that some universities have in order for you to get more in depth information,.

Answer 2

the Feudal system lies its advancement,if any, by the feud or disputes over certain asset(s), namely paddy field or tea plantation and the likes, Home/House i.e Hotels,Bungalow,you name it,the the winner of this despute,not necesarily in an court/justicial dilema solving. While the capitalist would based their activities on the investment,bank savings,industries and manufacturing, with some disputable conditions apllies, that would be either on the defend of the project owner or the money owner,or so to speak.

Answer 3

u.s. is a social democracy, do not trust me look it up. There exists no organic capitalist loose marketplace economic equipment as we talk. All international places have some form of differentiated taxation and social classes. Australia is a social democracy similar to the U.S. The U.S. has been a social democracy formally ever when you consider that FDR and the recent deal. those that decision the plans of Obama socialist or communist are deceptive, he's a social democrat. Republicans are also social democrats, that's till they belong to the far-authentic libertarian portion of the party: that elect a flat tax on all income and a constrained gov't. with out social facilities. meaning the tea party applicants q4 elect to get rid of Social protection, Welfare, Public practise, Medicare, Widow pensions and so on and so on. i have by no skill heard of blend economic equipment. yet you're probable searching for social democracy or democratic socialism(notwithstanding that's some thing else altogether).

Answer 4

The feudal system was based on a series of social contracts, or social ties if you like, based on relationships to land. Ownership was rather like a matrushka doll in that varying ranks of rights to property existed depending upon your position in the system. If you were not tied to the land, such as the Roma, then you had no rights. So property rights were related to your social position in the system and the land you were tied to. Since the contracts "run with the land," ancient obligations could impinge upon current realities.

In an unchanging world that was fine. Because land was the basis of property and rights, wars were fought over control of land. Those who held land were rich, those who did not were not. Empires formed to control land.

In the capitalist system property rights were temporary and were based upon contractual relationships (except land which still tended to have feudal relatinships even in the US we still talk of land being held fee simple and of seisen) that could change. The court system was used to manage relationships in a worst case scenario and was based upon the functional production rather than the assets owned. Control of the world is control of production not control of land. Production based revolutions such as the October Revolution of 1917 were based upon ownership of production. A capitalist system also has a shelled system of rights but it is shelled along all types of property and is based upon contracts and legistlated law.

Answer 5

hmmm