Capitalist economic choice was coercive, not genuinely free.

Evidence

Landlords could choose to lease land for a price reflecting the amount of wool it could produce. The evicted serfs could choose to offer their labour for a wage. Of course, in reality, being free to choose was no different from being free to lose. Former serfs who refused squalid work for a pitiful wage starved to death. Proud aristocrats who refused to go along with the commodification of their land went bankrupt. As feudalism receded, economic choice arrived but was as free as the one offered by a mafioso who, smilingly, tells you: ‘I shall make you an offer you cannot refuse.’ — Yanis Varoufakis, Technofeudalism, 100

Categorization

• XREF: Directly challenges the conventional equation of capitalism with freedom that the author flags in paragraph 96; anchors the book’s deflation of market-freedom myths. — connects to: Pollock located capitalism’s crisis mechanism in market autonomy, not ownership — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 1168; Capitalism’s coercion is impersonal, operating through economic need rather than direct command — Clara E. Mattei, Escape from Capitalism, 77; Capitalism functionally requires excluding citizens from economic decisions. — Clara E. Mattei, Escape from Capitalism, 372 (+8 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Yanis Varoufakis, Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism, 100

Broader Connections

• Capitalism’s coercion is impersonal market dependence rather than personal domination. #qualifies (0.90) — Clara E. Mattei, Escape from Capitalism, 77