To be fair, a lot of leftists are pro-nationalism, so it's not inconsistent for them to demand hundreds of nationalistic ethnostates for indigenous populations. It's a sad state of affairs
When Capitalism was being theorized, a guy name Sonic Smith had discovered that over time as more money is minted, it loses value, and thus inflation. Thus, when it came time to implement capitalism, it became the 34th rule of capital that was defined.
Calling a system something else doesn't make it different, all of these are still fundamentally capitalist. Production remains commodity-based and mediated by markets, labor power stays commodified and exploitative (if not via capitalists, then via the state apparatus or the markets), wealth accumulation remains in place leading to inevitable snowballing monopolies and wealth gaps, etc.
Only by fundamentally changing what things are produced for and how the goods are distributed (for example, instead of for profit we produce for use to fill people's needs) only then does the system overcome capitalism.
Government ownership over industry where they do have direct control would still be capitalism though, as long as commodity production, wage labor and markets exist, since that's what actually defines it. Ownership alone isn't relevant.
Never said that the relationship was the same, only that exploitation still existed back then, though I must admit I worded my sentence poorly.
Granted, you're painting the guild relationships as if they were merely teaching devices, while that's far from the truth and just falls to medieval ideological propaganda. In reality, they were an early form of "capitalist exploitation" for the lack of a better term in a pre-capitalistic society, it's very similar to the surplus value extraction that we see today. The master owned the tools, workshop, guild membership, etc which constituted as means of production of that time. The apprentice sold their labor power and essentially themselves thanks to the contracts in exchange for subsistence which is literally what wages are designed to do also.
The other forms were different though, yes, but they were still exploitative. Marx didn't write "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." for no reason.
They (serfs) also could just leave if they wanted to find a new place to live, which was a lot easier then than it is now. It wasn’t the false choice of today where you work or starve.
That's literally false - serfs were legally tied to their land and lord, and the only way out was if they were either let go or escaped to some town offering freedom. This obligation was hereditary too, and getting your own land/home was pretty much impossible given how ingrained in aristocrat culture owning land was, with the sale of land being a great dishonor on your lineage and family.
Are we literally falsifying feudalism now, is that what's happening
We can make it different, but it doesn't mean that we'll be able to abolish coercion entirely.
If instead of commodity production we moved past it, abolished current means of coercion (money) and instead pushed for planned economy that focuses on meeting everyone's needs, there would still be a need for some pressure to fill all the needed positions to meet all the production quotas.
It'd still be kilometers better than "get any job so capitalist extracts money from you or starve", and is radical but still coersive nonetheless.
Capitalism has fundamental contradictions that lead it to crisis, contradictions that government intervention can't handle.
You have monopolies naturally occurring due to snowball effect that get recreated even after government break ups, inherent overproduction that happens due to the nature of commodity production, wage labor and surplus value extracting ensuring that it's physically impossible to buy everything that we make, and so on. This shit causes wars, crises, etc
There were still classes back in the day, serfdom, slavery, guilds that had similar exploitation to wage labor. There was plenty of coercion to get labor done.
Democrats will use 100% of their resources to make sure that a mild social democrat who'd fold under internal pressure doesn't win, which is genuinely funny for a party that's supposed to be the left opposition
Even with how shitty conservative elements are, most of the issues they raise are actually correct and often missed by progressive elements, but their proposed solutions or narrative around those issues is pure garbage.
I remember seeing Andrew Tate of all people start talking about how people are living a slave's life, working for others while getting barely enough for subsistence with no real prospects for social mobility, a point that one could pull from Marx. However, the solution that he proposes is a theocracy and return to traditionalism for some reason, which is nonsense.
Reminds me of Romania right now where the centrist candidate that won the presidential elections (and tons of people on here celebrated because it wasn't a reactionary right-winger) refused to ban and straight up endorsed legionary and fascist organizations to "fight communism"
Article in Romanian, though using machine translation will get the general idea across
Sorry, whenever inflation gets mentioned the maggots in my brain force me to make a sonic inflation joke