Not him, but feudalism wasn’t a state sponsored system in the modern sense. There was no bureaucratic, state-funded army or police force enforcing property rights. Each Lord maintained their own. Also, private property didn’t really exist. Land was held in a feif. Feudal institutions were set up to maintain feudal obligations and social order based on land tenure and status or whatever, not to protect private property or markets.
I think you are reading a bit too into a single word quip to a leading question; asked by someone who doesn’t particularly seem to be open to discussion, based on their use of slurs.
If you strictly adhere to modern concepts - whose rise is after the advent of state capitalism and intrinsically tied to it - you are obviously not going to find a counterexample to the question. It is however, also wholly unsatisfying, as it is by technicality: you would both be requiring something to adhere to (and follow) modern concepts and precede modern concepts.
As such, make an analogy where things are sufficiently similar, so that the primary point still stands. If you consider the soldiers and guards under nobility as a state funded (tax funded) group to protect them and their interests and land (their fief) (for example of the merchants they associate with) as private property; things still line up.
The point is that people in power sending muscle after those they don’t like to protect their interests and those of their group wasn’t invented with state capitalism. It is just state capitalism is returning to its feudal roots.
Not him, but feudalism wasn’t a state sponsored system in the modern sense. There was no bureaucratic, state-funded army or police force enforcing property rights. Each Lord maintained their own. Also, private property didn’t really exist. Land was held in a feif. Feudal institutions were set up to maintain feudal obligations and social order based on land tenure and status or whatever, not to protect private property or markets.
I think you are reading a bit too into a single word quip to a leading question; asked by someone who doesn’t particularly seem to be open to discussion, based on their use of slurs.
If you strictly adhere to modern concepts - whose rise is after the advent of state capitalism and intrinsically tied to it - you are obviously not going to find a counterexample to the question. It is however, also wholly unsatisfying, as it is by technicality: you would both be requiring something to adhere to (and follow) modern concepts and precede modern concepts.
As such, make an analogy where things are sufficiently similar, so that the primary point still stands. If you consider the soldiers and guards under nobility as a state funded (tax funded) group to protect them and their interests and land (their fief) (for example of the merchants they associate with) as private property; things still line up.
The point is that people in power sending muscle after those they don’t like to protect their interests and those of their group wasn’t invented with state capitalism. It is just state capitalism is returning to its feudal roots.