It laid the groundwork for mercantilism which made way for capitalism. But there were other factors at play as well. History doesnt progress in a linear fashion along any sort of tech tree.

In addition to industrialization, one important prerequisite of capitalism is the global market. Mass industrialization requires mass resource gathering through global trade networks. This is done through colonialism, slavery, and exploiting existing strained feudal relationship conflicts in other regions, on a global scale. With the creation of the Gutenberg press and the ‘Age of Exploration’, global trade networks and mass communication was possible, which allowed for the creation of the global market. It’s only when all these material conditions are in place, along with a bourgeoisie revolution (where the merchant class revolts against the aristocracy), that the primary mode of production can change from feudalism to capitalism.

WRT Japan, remember that having capitalism as the mode of production in a society only means that it’s the primary way to produce in that society. The classes of merchants and specialized craftspeople existed under feudalism, but they weren’t yet the main class conflict until the previous rule of aristocracy was overthrown.

It depends (because the “ancient” mode of production is kind of vaguely defined, had less surplus and was less global so varied more from local conditions, also Marx describes an “asiatic mode” that today we’d say is a conflation between his poor understanding of Asian Feudal/Ancient states, and his poor understanding of the Bronze Age-era Theocratic Command Economies)

But in general we’re talking about the post-Bronze Age semi-market based slave economies in Europe, and similar economies elsewhere, where the three classes were patrician, plebian, and slave (or Spartan, Perioikoi, and Helot) This is of course kind of a partial explanation since Marx heavily biased his analysis to Greco-Persian and Roman Societies.

The chief distinction between Ancient and Feudal is that slavery is the key basis of the system, far more so than even the imperial capitalist economies and that class conflict is primarily between the two non-productive classes over control over the productive class. This conflict develops a social contract and a rule of law that is more collaborative than the previous Warrior-Theocratic systems, and also a more individualistic market economy as a result, as the rich plebians seek direct control over their slave surplus.

However in the late mode of this society this creates a new tension, where the plebian and patrician classes merge under the legal frameworks, but richer members of both classes begin to dominate the economy entirely as power concentrates, to the extent they are independent of the political centre. Additionally, new technological developments allow self-sustaining rural economies with similar surpluses from smaller political units.

Add a cascade failure or two from famine or war to this tension causing communication networks to break down and substinance agriculture to return, and the landowners (or their deputies, or their deputies deputy) become the ruling class of the new system, with the bonds of land ownership merging with the civil/legal bonds to create ties of obligation. Because there are no central legions to slap down slave rebellions, the landowners are forced to rely on a small group of personal companions and yeomen to keep order, which requires progressively giving the slaves more legal rights in order to maintain control.

Meanwhile the poorer urban classes, losing their surplus, are forced to become productive in their own right, forming the core of a merchant/craftsman class that becomes our Bourgoise/Proletariat.