this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
449 points (75.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43822 readers
1011 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They're different modes of production, however the bourgeoisie intentionally transitioned to capitalism so they could maintain their power. It got a little watered down and theoretically allowed for economic mobility, but that was a sacrifice they were ok with
Feudal lords and the bourgeoisie have nothing to do with each other and are, in fact, historical enemies. Hierarchies existing doesn't make all hierarchies the same.
They didn't transition immediately, and yes there was significant opposition to capitalism during the fuedal era. Just like there was significant opposition to fuedalism from absolute monarchy, and to absolute monarchy from anarcho-primitivism. However, monarchies eventually saw that their options were either changing modes of production or lose power all-together.
For the working class its not that big of a difference, bosses are bosses.