One of my favorite quotes I think is relevant to this whole business of capitalism as good/bad/whatever:

"Capitalism is not a system, it's a word invented by some 19th century hipster to describe a situation where people freely buy and sell things" -abbreviated and author unknown

Point being capitalism is not a system....it is THE natural system. All else is a hinderance to it.

If it is the "natural system" why did it emerge only in the 19th century after thousand of years of societies ruled by feudalism and other systems?

Because capitalism requires the protection and preservation of property. This requires an outside party (the government, police force, etc.) to protect the property.

If you can't defend it or feel it is safe then capitalism fails because people hoard instead of spend.

Capitalism isn't a system of governance. There was capitalism going on during feudalism, and every other sort of government and society.

Capitalism was not the dominant form of order, status or distribution of wealth in feudalistic socities. For your well-being it was more important in which status group you were born in than what you abilities were. As a member of nobility you did not work or were productive and lived very good as a rent seeker.

Actually, what is natural to the human species is foraging by small bands, which is basically cooperative. Capitalism became dominate only when industrial technology made it possible to vastly increase wealth through large economic enterprises. Now with AI technology it looks like capitalism may soon no longer be the way to go.

Even the hunter gatherer societies traded. You'd frequently find people wearing decorative shells far inland.

> it is THE natural system

This is why almost all other group/pack species in the animal kingdom all have a central leader, because............ it's not the natural order of things. The idea of people being equal enough to contribute is only a recent concept to be fair.

My intent (this is my article) with the Luddites was to show that technological change also drives social change. In the case of the Luddites, they accurately recognised that automation will eventually kill "jobs" (at least as we understand them). It's fairly logical that new governance emerges as conditions in society change.

But isn't that the whole point of technology? Ultimately we want to fulfill all our needs without any more effort than physics requires. As we get closer to that we have to shift society around, but isn't that a good thing?

Definitely. I just suggested capitalism wasn't fit for purpose. The reason I use Luddites as an example is because it was a violent reaction to a social problem created by technology.

That's not a bad problem, but it's also worth recognising that we've got to think of our social structures to keep pace with the great things technology is doing for our lives.