Pre-feudal society?

[Lolshevik]

I understand that, before capitalism, the feudal economic system, which based itself on the exploitation of peasants/serfs by the nobility, was the dominant economic system on earth. But I also hear about antiquity, the ancient slave system, etc; and I assume this refers to Rome, Greek city-states, and other societies of the ancient world.

My question is, how does the ancient slave system differ from feudalism, when under feudalism (and even capitalism) slavery was practiced? What caused the ancient slave system to succumb to feudalism? Or was the "classical" world really just practicing feudal economics, albeit in a different form than medieval Europe?

[Psy]

I understand that, before capitalism, the feudal economic system, which based itself on the exploitation of peasants/serfs by the nobility, was the dominant economic system on earth. But I also hear about antiquity, the ancient slave system, etc; and I assume this refers to Rome, Greek city-states, and other societies of the ancient world.

My question is, how does the ancient slave system differ from feudalism, when under feudalism (and even capitalism) slavery was practiced? What caused the ancient slave system to succumb to feudalism? Or was the "classical" world really just practicing feudal economics, albeit in a different form than medieval Europe?

In Feudalism instead of forcing slaves to work through violence (that greatly empowers the political power of army officers even over the land owning class) the church convinced peasants that God created class divisions in society so it was Gods will for them to be peasants making it far easier for land owners to get work out of peasants then from slaves.

While slavery still existed during feudalism it was not a dominate mode of production.

[Lynx]

The scale of violence required (for greater numbers of slaves) would have resulted in diminishing returns, so a better method of exploitation was needed.

[Lolshevik]

Thanks, Lynx and Psy.

At what point(s) can it be said that feudalism established itself as the dominant economic system over ancient slavery?

[Ismail]

At what point(s) can it be said that feudalism established itself as the dominant economic system over ancient slavery? These could help you:
http://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.net/english/polecon/chapter_ii.htm
h (http://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.net/english/polecon/chapter_ii.htm)ttp://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.net/english/polecon/chapter_iii.htm (http://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.net/english/polecon/chapter_iii.htm)

It's a 1954 Marxist political economy textbook. Those parts are about the slave system, then Feudalism and how it supplanted the slave system.

[Lolshevik]

Ah, thanks! This is just the sort of thing I was looking for.

EDIT: So, am I to take it that the feudal aristocracy were really the same class as ancient slave/landowners? Did the ruling class of society really not switch hands corresponding to such a big change in the nature of the productive system?

[Psy]

Ah, thanks! This is just the sort of thing I was looking for.

EDIT: So, am I to take it that the feudal aristocracy were really the same class as ancient slave/landowners? Did the ruling class of society really not switch hands corresponding to such a big change in the nature of the productive system?
Well the Roman Empire was the largest slave based empire simply collapsed while slavery was still a primary mode of production, the collapse of the Roman empire meant its ruling class was looted not only by foreign armies but from slaves and plebs (the early form of peasant/artisans), the new imperial powers the grew out of the ashes of the Roman empire were fedual empires. While in Asia the ruling classes of the major Asian imperialist powers of the time (Japan and China) ran into the crisis of their generals realizing they were far more powerful then the offical ruling class that led to military coups, civil-wars and in China's case division of the empire.

So in both cases the ruling classes failed and a new ruling class took advantage of their weakness.

[Lolshevik]

How does the slave-owning aristocracy differ from the feudal aristocracy, though? I mean, I can see that the modes of exploitation were different & that the large permanent standing army was not a factor in feudalism like it was in slavery.

But, according to the text that Ismail linked to, in many cases the slave-owning aristocracy simply transformed the slaves into serfs, so it seems to me like a new ruling class didn't emerge but rather the old ruling class transformed itself.

[Psy]

How does the slave-owning aristocracy differ from the feudal aristocracy, though? I mean, I can see that the modes of exploitation were different & that the large permanent standing army was not a factor in feudalism like it was in slavery.

But, according to the text that Ismail linked to, in many cases the slave-owning aristocracy simply transformed the slaves into serfs, so it seems to me like a new ruling class didn't emerge but rather the old ruling class transformed itself.

We are not talking about the simplistic class order of capitalism, at the top of feudal societies were not the land owners but the leaders of the kingdom, the land owners were a subservient class to the ruling classes (those classes above the feudal aristocracy). Feudal empires didn't make decisions based on the interest of the land owners but based on the interest of the rulers of the empire (ie themselves). This is why landowners in feudalism was drafted in armies, as they were not the ruling class thus had to do what their master told them to.

[Lolshevik]

Ah, I see. I'd always thought of the kings, et al of feudal societies as part of the landowning class, without really thinking about the distinctions between them.

Thanks, Psy.

[Psy]

Ah, I see. I'd always thought of the kings, et al of feudal societies as part of the landowning class, without really thinking about the distinctions between them.

Thanks, Psy.
Well knights are a good example of the land owning class not being the ruling class as knights were wealthy land owners drafted into military service that used their wealth to buy armor, weapons and a good horse to increase their survivability in battle while royalty was far from the battle.