Retarded communist just called Russia under tsar capitalist...
@matrix it wasn't a liberal society but it doesn't mean it didn't have things to consider it 'capitalist' though, even if much of the modernization of industry was relegated to like two cities
@orekix It's been a while since I looked at anything regarding Russia, but the land was owned by the tsar like in basically any monarchy. They had shop keepers, traders etc so I guess you can call it capitalist.
Yeah, it's a bad distinction to make.
>all the rich were only rich because they were in tsar's favor.
this seems pretty silly and unrealistic, was every autocracy automatically not a capitalist society? are parliaments and political parties necessary for something to be considered 'capitalism'?
'Capitalism' mostly stuck due to the prevalence of socialist stages of history in the 19th century. I think it's better to speak between market economies or centrally planned economies, as well as the forms of property ownership.