A friend of mine just pointed out to me an interesting vid on the topic
This video does have important issues but makes good points too.
First,the usual issue with not grasping medieval economics : most economical changes were already happening by the XIVth, since two centuries notably the appearance of an urban and semi-urban capitalism; but also countryside changes (serfdom was already significantly on the decline before the Plague). That the Plague accelerated changes is largely possible, that it represented a period of popular re-evengelisation is obvious (for instance, it's the period where people begins to use Christian names on a large scale) but feudal society didn't begin to crack then. Of course there's the problem defining a "feudal economy" which is at best debatable giving we're more in a transition between bona fide capitalism and domanial production : he's entierely right that Marx wasn't 100% right about everything and this is possible another case where marxian periodisation is less interesting.
Now, I think his appreciation of woman's role isn't that spot on either : the affirmation that women were leading "anti-feudal" and "anti-capitalist" (whatever it means in this context) needs some grounds. Taking in consideration the great popular movement against feudal hierarchy and urban elites of the XIVth (Jacqueries, Tuchins, Wat Tyler's revolt, etc.) they don't appear, while not being entirely masculine, led by women. They do actively participated to this, but...
Now it's true the political/social role of women decreased since the XIIth century (partly compensated culturally by courteous love and rise of marial cult)
and the role of reintroduced Roman Law is to be pointed out IMO.(note that it concerned social minors, women and poor classes alike, women having a double sentence as the re-evengelisation basically painted them either as saints or demons) and the growing influence over countryside (which economically, happened since the XIIth and the increasingly important of loans into rural economy).
A good part of trials were, eventually, tied to malpractice : for instance, but I don't pretend this example is typical or not, just one that came in mind, the trial of Peronne Bacheme in 1485 in southern France. She was a young widows (so a vulnerable person) which took lessons from an apothicar and became some sort of a wise-woman,and a baby she treated died. People around accused her of witchcraft, secular authorities prosecuted and she was executed.
The author makes a fair point with the similarity of racist lynchings, but I think the key difference there is that we're talking of a structurated and policed society in XIXth/XXth century America, and societies in great changes in periphery of what secular states could do (and generally accepted out of disinterest) while it charged vulnerable persons in the idea of social "normality". Witches were often (not systematically, as we're talking of a really complex situation) peripheral women, socially, without a lot of social protection.
Note that witch-hunts didn't happen all over societies in late Middle-Ages and Early Modern Period. It was fairly limited in Spain and Italy, while they were place of earlier capitalist development, somewhat not rare in England, and most of France,
and really more common in place where Protestantism and Catholicism was at odds.
It's far from being a systematic explicans (the importance of trials in Germany might be explainable trough the destructuration of society due to religious wars and especially TYW), but it does provides some parallel that doesn't fit a whole societal transformation.
Eventually, I don't really agree with the witch-trials as something as politicized that the video's author makes it : it did played a role into social long transformation but I think it was more symptomatic than leading there.