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.
in addition to what some others are saying I want to point out that feudalism doesn't have one of the biggest key elements of capitalism: wage labor
peasants did not sell their labor to capitalists but rather worked the land for themselves and were tithed a portion of their crops, more or less. in many places the situation was almost communalistic in that all peasants were equals working the land and then you had the high castes above you, but you werent employees in any way nor were you slaves. but this varies by era and by locality