Think you've read more into what I'm saying here than I meant. I've not said anything about capitalism in the post you quoted, nor am I linking it to some kind of "end of history" narrative, which I think is bollocks as well.
Of course physical strength is less relevant today, that's why I was referring specifically to feudalism. Obviously in our societies today the qualities that make somebody successful differ from those that did 500 years ago, and also differ from place to place. Individuals and collectives shape this process, and are shaped by it in turn, this I'm sure we can agree on.
What I would say is that yes, capitalism has developed out of historical circumstance, but that it does also seem to tap very effectively into some fundamental features of human nature (as Marx recognised). That's not to say they're the noble features, or that other systems could not provide incentives for a much better array of human behaviour. But it does mean that the alternatives had better be good.
Where we differ I suspect is the extent and power with which we believe collective action can be effectively organised under conditions of extreme social stress. But I'm certainly not an "end of history" idiot.
I take it you have never heard of the Platt Amendment?
