It's the nature of a capitalist society. It's right in the definition.
> an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
> an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
> The branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth.
Original question was about "society" which is sort of nebulous, but I think (hope?) most people wouldn't define their relationships with their family and close friends, or with most of the world around them, through the lens of an economic system, be it capitalism, communism, mercantilism or feudalism.
Humans by their very nature possess the instinct to outcompete their rivals as a result of millions of years of evolution. Anyone who was not like that, was removed from the gene pool by those who were either by taking their resources or by outright murdering them.
for clarity, feudalism lasted twice as long as capitalism has currently existed.
and while competition has dominated the scientific and cultural narrative for a while, that's not the exclusive interpretation, or even necessarily the best or correct one.
Was the blacksmith selling the products of his labor to people in the community not capitalism?
What exactly do you mean by capitalism?
Now, sure, that manorial land was technically the means of production, and those in charge of these manors technically owned it (maybe much more like we are used to in civilizational phases, like with the Roman empire ?), but isn't this really stretching the intuitions we have around "capitalism" ?
if we are going to make a distinction between feudalism and capitalism, surely we can similarly make a distinction between capitalism and X, instead of simply defining capitalism uselessly as "free markets" or "human nature." it's inclusive of the institutions which uphold these relations.