In the popular understanding of Marxism there is a mode of production that comes before capitalism which is the feudal mode of production. Recently though I've been seeing (and it seems it's been a debate for awhile) things about how feudalism doesn't actually exist, which seems to come from two authors: Susan Reynolds and another woman who I can't remember. Of course then it will often be said "well feudalism in its Marxist sense exists, this is referring to the non-marxist use of 'feudalism.'" The main thesis seems to be (as far as I can understand) that there was no standard of "feudalism" and what is referred to as "feudalism" differs greatly across time and geography.
I'm wondering if someone who knows more about this can help me square this Marxist theory (which I also understand I don't have a great handle on either). But does this call certain aspects of Marxism into question - namely this idea of feudalism synthesizing into capitalism? Does the Marxist historiography of the Middle Ages through the Early Modern period need to be reworked? Although it seems the "feudalism does not exist" theory specifically excludes Marxism - so what is the difference then between the Marxist and non-Marxist understanding of feudalism? And further, if feudalism doesn't exist, what is the feudal mode of production? Hoping there's someone here who can help provide insight into any of these questions. Thanks.
Good post wanted to add that the nature of the economy as a whole is the over determining factor of the "mode of production" in Marxist terms. For instance the US pre war south was a capitalist mode of production. It was based on the usage of slave labor but functioned within a commodity economy - or "production for exchange" - which is an emergent characteristic of capitalism. Production for use is characteristic of feudalism, as noted in quarks post, where the surplus itself is produced and taken by the nobility.