Other than some minor nuances the cucks around these parts are going to screech at you, op; Nothing.
IT is the domination of the individual by private ownership of large swaths of property in both cases. There is, really, fundamentally, no difference.
Which makes sense as capitalism was molded in such a way as to mirror feudalism. (Having been all the economists of that time understood about property relations and human relations)
NK isn't communist.
RE Leninism -
Someone else could do this better, but I'll address you point by point.
On your first point, this power would be mostly hereditary under feudalism.
Your second point could be applied to capitalism. In the USSR, you could only be forced into a certain job if you were refusing employment altogether without a health reason. Switching jobs was generally allowed, and education was provided so that anyone who could get through school could pursue an occupation regardless of their birth or monetary status.
RE your third point - you're just talking about authoritarianism, which actually can exist in multiple different kinds of economies.
Except this actually isn't true at all. The early capitalists not only rejected feudalism, they rejected mercantilism as well.
This never happens in pretty much every communist country, save for maybe in the case of Gulag prisoners (who left such job after they left the Gulag, which was on average 5 to 10 years). People generally went to school and studied for their intended area of work, and then maybe if they wanted went on to higher education or vocational school. People choose and moved around jobs all the time.
North Korea isn't a hereditary monarchy. I don't necessarily agree with everything it does, but it objectively isn't. Educate yourself in the DPRK thread.
The rest is just literal propaganda garbage.
Only good answer in the thread.
Wage-labor didn't exist, labor wasn't a commodity to be bought and sold under feudalism. Serfs didn't sell their labor power to other people, while all proletarians do. And under feudalism taxation was the primary form of surplus extraction, while in capitalism it is the buying of labor that is.
Also production under capitalism is collective, that is, people work a full day building/producing/serving one thing for the greater good of the economy, while in feudalism production was self-sufficient and the feudals taxed surplus off the serfs.
they were part of guilds. you couldn't just become a blacksmith or a bricklayer without being part of their community and protecting their trade secrets. they would drive you out of town.
Tragedy of the Commons isn't so much horseshit as it is applied to the wrong scenario. It's not a description of a commons, but an open access situation with private competition. Why are the participants not allowed to communicate or coordinate? IRL people would do that because they'd anticipate over-exploitation. Why do they pick specifically something where you could conceivably privatize it? You would see the same situation apply to something un-enclosable, like fisheries. An actual case of the commons wouldn't have independent competitive actors using the same space, but jointly managing it. Co-operative economic planning has to be absent for the Tragedy of the "Commons" to be possible, which makes it not a situation of the commons. It's actually a pretty relevant parable, except that it applies to capitalism's management of un-managed resources.
its not that they are not allow to. they just tend not to. hence the word tragedy
That's the thing though, they did. The Commons worked for centuries without duplication or overproduction crises.