> it’s not a hard class system — as you’re given capital in reward for your labor The latter doesn't justify the former. If you are rewarded for your work, but

> it’s not a hard class system — as you’re given capital in reward for your labor The latter doesn't justify the former. If you are rewarded for your work, but it would require you many lifetimes of labor to reach the next class, that's for all intents and purposes a hard class system. The argument for class mobility based on initiative doesn't make it a soft class system. > Capitalism is substantially more malleable as a class system than traditional feudalism (what came before in Europe) or modern communism (its main rival), which trades feudalistic class for status within the party. Doesn't make it malleable, just comparatively more malleable. The problem is with the later stages of capitalism where everything is big and rigid, but you still need growth for the system to work. What we need is a different system that improves on capitalism, but has at its heart a welfare state, doesn't reduce each individual to an economic actor and have incentives set so that each actor (or machine which seeks connections) can converge to the mean, instead of each one trying to reach the top.