> "Capitalism" is not a system. Capitalism is life itself.
Of course it is a system. Just as feudalism is a system. It's a way in which to organize distribution of abstracted wealth. You might claim that it's a consequence of industrialization (and still be wrong, but at least make sense).
Would you characterize the organization of the native North Americans as a capitalist society, before the arrival of Europeans?
Capitalism is just private property and voluntary contracts. It's impossible to untie life from that.
Feudalism is a system, but it was built into capitalism. Feudal lords had land as their property, they made voluntary contracts of their vassals: I'll protect you and give you some land, you'll give some of your production to me. There was also trade, merchants et cetera.
This applies to everything. The Native North Americans had private property and various kinds of contracts -- which probably involved some communal property and other stuff.
When there's some entity exercising coercion (non-voluntary contracts), that entity is the State and there is socialism.
Agreed. In particular, ownership of the means of production, land and natural resources (and now extended to ownership of ideas, information and data [eg: gene sequences that have been "discovered"]).
> and voluntary contracts.
I don't think we agree on what "voluntary" means.
> It's impossible to untie life from that.
"Life"? Are you trying to say that property isn't a social construct? How is the concept of property relevant outside of a society?
> The Native North Americans had private property
"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit
"We do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkle of the water. How can you buy them from us?" -Sealth
