What spurred the beginning of feudalism? And another question.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Serious question. How did it happen? I remember reading something about world-travelling merchants that began to lose the ability to sell rarities for profit (i.e. buy products for less in area 1, then travel to area 2 which has little to no contact with area 1 and sell products for more more), such as spices and minerals, as traderoutes began to become more renowned and knowledge of the 'rest of the world' became more widespread, started to employ and enslave humans to substitute this. But that's all I've heard on the subject.

Also, was there a large crossover between the traditional aristocracy and the emerging capitalist classes? Did many aristocrats just buy or start businesses and let themselves be absorbed, or was the beginning of capitalism quite literally a complete overthrowing of the previous ruling class?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also, was there a large crossover between the traditional aristocracy and the emerging capitalist classes? Did many aristocrats just buy or start businesses and let themselves be absorbed, or was the beginning of capitalism quite literally a complete overthrowing of the previous ruling class?

Someone else might be able to answer the question of the rise of feudalism, I'm pretty hazy on that subject and so would like to hear some good explainations. My impression is that feudal systems which seem to have developed in many places throughout the world developed from small improvements in agriculture which meant that people farming plots weren't just families and small communities (what used to be called "barbarism" - as a system of agricultural production, not an adjective like it's used to describe certain people deemed uncivilized) but has some surpluss and began to have more trade and so there needed to be people to protect the surplus and trade.

For the second question, quoted above, I feel a little more confident to take a stab at. Capital is just relations of production, not specific people. Generally, wealthier pesants or artisans or yeomen under feudalism could take advantage of new ways of producing wealth and so the old pesantry became more and more capitalists and prolitarians. The aristocrats adapted and became capitalists or they became more and more dependant on capitalists until they had to sell off everything or marry their children to capitalists in exchange for the capitalist getting a nifty title and cultural respect.

My impression is that esentially it was different in different places as far as how much the old aristocracy was part of the emerging bourgoise. In England specifically there was some back and forth where some aristocrats could convert their land to capitalist production or tenant farms, or they would sell their land to capitalists and then use that to invest in something else. Some aristocrats in England became just increasingly poor title-holders, others adapted and used their old money to invest in the rising new forms. Many aristocracts increased their aristocratic power through trade in the capitalist market, so in Eastern Europe for example, the rise of capitalism in Northern and Western Europe led to a massive increase in the wealth and power of the feudal aristocracy and serfdom.

[Fakeblock]

Bear in mind that I'm far from an expert on the subject, but my understanding is that following the collapse of the Roman Empire the old equites (knight) class and the barbarian invaders used their military power to conquer land and bind the peasants to it, thereby creating a new class of serfs. Since European feudalism arose from a collapse and not a progressive movement, it's no surprise that various states in Asia, Arabia and perhaps America(?) were far more developed. As time went on some larger landowners managed to conquer the land of the smaller landowners and create an extensive hierarchy with the most powerful lords at the top and serfs at the bottom with vassals inbetween. At first the feudal lords basically lived off what their serfs could produce for them and sometimes sold the surplus to the travelling merchants (the serfs would also build walls around their castles and serve them in their homes and so on as far as I know). Trading outside of villages was, as far as I know, very limited, almost non-existent. So Europe in the Middle Ages was pretty much a dark, disease-ridden backwater.

The expansion of the markets spurred the growth of industrial towns, bankers and all the things we associate with capitalist trade (but of course on a limited scale). This expansion was itself spurred by the "discovery" of new markets in America, China, India and Africa. With regards to the question of whether there was a crossover between the lords and capitalist, I think, as Jimmie Higgins, it happened both ways. Merchants would buy land, titles and such, settle down and establish themselves in the feudal class. Remember that, even though the emerging capitalists managed to grant themselves a degree of power within the system, the feudal lords were still the ruling class and there was a certain prestige in owning land and settling down that middle-class bankers, merchants and guild masters didn't benefit from. But also, with the development of agriculture and new technologies the lord could buy and sell larger portions of the peasant's product and make more money. In general the expansion of the market meant that life became very difficult if you didn't have any commodities to exchange, so the impoverished were forced to sell the only commodity they had: labour power.

At least that's my understanding of it all. Take it with a grain of salt.

[Comrade Dracula]

To my understanding, classicist slavery is the only mode of production that got destroyed by a combination of external forces (i.e. the Germanic "barbarians", Attila and the Huns, Slavs, the Great Migration of Peoples in general) and internal conflicts (the internal power struggle in the falling Empire, the rise of the Church, socioeconomic crises, etc.).

What I should note before proceeding is that under the rule of Emperor Diocletian, the peasants were bound to the land they farmed, and quite a bit of this land was owned by Roman aristocracy - in effect, such was laying the foundations for the feudal society.
Another noteworthy fact is that the Christian Church, after its legalization under Emperor Constantine I and proclamation as the sole official religion of the Roman State under Emperor Theodosius I, became quite the cultural force - an ideological state apparatus if you will.

The "barbarians" in this era (IV and V centuries CE) were with increased frequency recruited to the Roman Army as mercenaries - as Rome itself could no longer bear the economic burden of supporting a massive army necessary to keep it alive (for example, the decisive battle against Attila was fought by the Franks, if I recall correctly). This lead (of course) to the mercenaries learning of the Roman ways - mostly in the matters of warfare, but ever so little in the matters of state as well.

Yet another (and I promise you, the last!) note is that during late Rome, the Empire was about as united as today's left - i.e. it was fractured at every possible step, with generals and aristocrats seeking personal power, while the Emperors grew increasingly incompetent.

Now that our stage has been set, let the play begin!

It is mid fifth century, and the Roman Empire is in retreat on all fronts. The aforementioned Theodosius I has, as a sort of practical homage to Diocletian's tetrarchy, already split the Empire in half for his two sons, giving the West to Honorius and the East to Arcadius. The Eastern Empire, commonly known as the Byzantine Empire, is fairing a little bit better than its Western counterpart. It has warded off the brunt of the Huns onslaught a century earlier, and it has let the West take care of the various gothic intrusions (such as that episode where Emperor Valens died near Hadrianopolis), and the biggest concerns are yet to come - the Slavic and Avar incursions starting during the Justinian's rule, the ultimately failed reconquests of the Western Empire after its collapse, et cetera.

The West, on the other hand, has it ever-so-slightly worse - They were driven out of Britain by the various tribes (and by driven out, I mean the Roman garrison dispensed with the Imperial rule - as the Emperor was busy being useless at the time - then appointed a commander who thought it was a good idea to cross the Channel and proclaim himself the Western Roman Emperor), the Gaul was falling to the Franks, the Visigoths had theirs sights on the Spain, the Ostrogoths on Italy, and so on.

Then came 410. A swell year for the Romans, as Rome itself was ransacked by the Ostrogoths, headed by King Alaric I. A shocking event, but hardly the last of its kind, as Vandals were quite happy to stage a reenactment in the year 455. Mind you, this is not even mentioning the constant wars, destruction of cities, and other wonderful things that were going on during this era. Or the occasional epidemic that occasionally broke out on an occasion or two. It would also be a bad idea to forget the economic crises and the hunger they wrought.

The point I'm trying to make with this slightly (melo)dramatic exposition is that being city-dweller in late Western Roman Empire was a slightly dangerous lifestyle. This caused a massive migration to the countryside, the aristocrats, for example, retreated to their land possessions (feuds-to-be, if will) and I'd imagine they took their slaves with them and then proceeded to put them to work on the land.

Of course, in the days following the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476. CE (after that drama with the Odoaecer and Emperor Romulus Augustulus), then Justinian's reconquista, city life essentially collapsed in on itself. With the fall of the cities, came the fall of the Proleterii (the poor city-dwellers), the slaves (in the traditional sense) and good parts of the aristocracy.

The power gap left by the fall of the Empire, was quickly filled by an array of local authorities (i.e. what remained of the aristocracy), the Church and the Rise of the "Barbarian" Kingdoms, most notably the Franks, whose late descendants would come to signify the passing of another mode of production, and the potential possibility of yet another MoP.

See, the aristocracy aligned itself with the newly all-powerful "barbarian" lords, signifying the coming the new Kingdoms. The "barbarians" in turn needed an ideological aspect of their new order, so they aligned themselves with the Church.

However, this was still not feudalism proper. While feudal relations of production were very much so exercised on a local level (akin to what capitalism shall do in late feudalism), they still were not universal. This universality came once the rulers of these states decided that Romans were dead enough and started fighting each other. In order to amass armies which would fight cheaply, these kings promised land and peasants (feuds, if you will) in return for granting them armies (made of peasants and the occasional glory-hungry aristocrat). The rest is history.

As for the East, there lies a slightly different story. The classical mode of production remained for quite a while, and it wasn't until Slavs began settling down on the Balkans that vassals were really even a thing (to my knowledge). You see, the Slavs were so tenacious about settling down that the Byzantine Emperors couldn't really hope to keep them out. So, in exchange for their loyalty, they granted them permission to settle down and found their own little statelets, which were in vassal relations with the Imperial Centre. The Eastern Empire of time decayed, as its land got conquered and the Slavic tribes slowly ended up getting their independence. The Byzantines ultimately fell to the feudal Ottomans in 1453.

So, in conclusion, it seems to me that the classicist slavery wasn't so much overthrown as it was annihilated, and the remnants formed the feudal system. Which in turn leads me to ask a question - could the oppressed of the classical era (the Proleterii and the slaves) have overthrown their oppressors? There certainly was class struggle - remember Spartacus. If they did, though, I have to wonder how the history would have progressed. It seems to me that the best they could've ever hoped for was to free themselves of their slave status - becoming free laborers. What then, though?

I suppose this is the end of my ramble. A word of warning to the wise - all the historical, ah, facts mentioned here are me remembering my high school history classes, as supplemented by Wikipedia. The conclusions are also quite possibly suspect. In summary, take this with what you will, but salt is preferred to sugar.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To my understanding, classicist slavery is the only mode of production that got destroyed by a combination of external forces (i.e. the Germanic "barbarians", Attila and the Huns, Slavs, the Great Migration of Peoples in general) and internal conflicts (the internal power struggle in the falling Empire, the rise of the Church, socioeconomic crises, etc.).
i think the American empires might fit the category as well. I've read that for the Aztecs it was in part the contradictions within that society and class system which allowed for relatively easy toppling... I.e. no one was that vested in defending the ruling group and it may have been teetering already. For other large civilizations in the Americas disease followed by European sacking caused them to fall.

I wouldn't be surprised if internal class contradictions also led to the fall of Rome in addition to or resulting increased attacks from outside forces in Italy and the Western part of the empire. I don't know however. I have a book on class and Rome that's been sitting on my shelf but I haven't gotten to it yet... I've been wanting to read it for a while.

[Comrade Dracula]

i think the American empires might fit the category as well. I've read that for the Aztecs it was in part the contradictions within that society and class system which allowed for relatively easy toppling... I.e. no one was that vested in defending the ruling group and it may have been teetering already. For other large civilizations in the Americas disease followed by European sacking caused them to fall.

I'd have to agree. I remember seeing a documentary on it a while back (pre-2010, I think), where it essentially said that the Spaniards managed to convince some of the oppressed peoples within the Aztec Empire to rebel and bought off the rest with promises of riches and whatnot. If I recall correctly, the Aztec leader (and his class, I'd imagine) got to such point of desperation that he started sending increasingly exuberant gifts of gold. Unsurprisingly, Cortes & company decided that they might as well take it all.

Though not so sure that all of the American civilizations were brought down by disease (though, there's no denying that the native north Americans did) - there are the Incas, who also had an advanced civilization and I believe fell in a similar fashion to Aztecs (in Inca's case, it was a Civil War, wasn't it?), though I could be wrong. I'm not quite as well read up on the subject as I ought to be, especially considering how fascinating the cultures in question are.


I wouldn't be surprised if internal class contradictions also led to the fall of Rome in addition to or resulting increased attacks from outside forces in Italy and the Western part of the empire. I don't know however. I have a book on class and Rome that's been sitting on my shelf but I haven't gotten to it yet... I've been wanting to read it for a while.

One would think so, as such crises are usually the times contradictions between classes sharpen... And with the ideological façade of a united Empire of the Roman people (let's not forget that in late Empire, a lot of the former "barbarians" were assimilated, especially after Caracala's edict) so utterly destroyed by constant infighting, I'd imagine they'd skyrocket.

Though, how much a record of such struggles we'd have is questionable. Even today, the so-called free media of the bourgeoisie feels less than satisfied to have to report cases of class struggle, especially across continent(s), hell I don't remember any western media reporting on the increasingly anti-worker Polish labor laws, or the massive crisis that was going on in Russia after the fall of Soviet Union.
I have a tough time imagining the Church being much better at it, especially not after it became an official state institution! The problem, of course, being that the Church records are some of the few records we actually have, much of anything else being destroyed alongside the Empire.
Not that such would be any better, as most of it would be written by the aristocrats, who'd present the whole affair in a manner of questionable objectivity (think, for example, of the Roman representation of the Huns - who, according to them, had more in common with apes than people).

Speaking of the Church, it probably was among some of the last few things holding the Empire together, as it did have quite a bit of influence among the ordinary folk. Let's not forget that before it was the oppressor, it was the champion of the oppressed. The early Christianity could well be taken as a class movement and class ideology of the oppressed in the Roman period (though quite a dysfunctional one, due to its dogmatic pacifism, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was at times broken) - as a challenge to the traditional Roman state ideology, where Emperors were deified.

Lastly, speaking of the book - could you mention its title? It's a slim chance I'll find it where I live or on the Internet, but it's worth a shot.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm going to post a research guide on the end of feudalism/beginning of capitalism and attach a literature review I did as part of my dissertation. See the research guide section of learning for details related to the second question the OP asks in this thread.

[baronci]

Feudalism partially has its roots in the Roman coloni who were essentially serfs, but is more directly connected to the Germanic and Frankish kingdoms that followed the collapse of Western Rome. It's important to recognize that feudalism isn't just serfdom; there's a role that the nobility plays as well - the Duke's vassals were obliged to provide military and material service to him and in turn the dukes swore fealty to the king. Most medieval historians would probably only attribute this to parts of Europe and not China & Japan as people often do.

The Marxist interpretation is largely based on a 19th century characterization which attempted to paint entire historical periods with basic terms and is largely untrue. Probably not what many here would like to think but it is what an actual scholar will tell you. There was also no wave of revolution which undid feudalism - it was undone largely through gradual changes. Pre-modern history just wasn't Marx's (and other 19th century thinkers') strong suit.

Some good things to read:

Encylopedia Brittanica article on Feudalism by Elizabeth AR Brown (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/205583/feudalism)

Internet Medieval Sourcebook (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1i.asp)

[Remus Bleys]

. There was also no wave of revolution which undid feudalism - it was undone largely through gradual changes.What about France?

[baronci]

What about France?

Feudalism in France was eroded when absolutism came into being and the monarch more or less controlled all state affairs. An important characteristic of feudal societies was that vassals were left to rule their own realms despite the king's presence; "a man would rather be Duke of Normandy than King of France" as is often said.

[Fakeblock]

Feudalism partially has its roots in the Roman coloni who were essentially serfs, but is more directly connected to the Germanic and Frankish kingdoms that followed the collapse of Western Rome. It's important to recognize that feudalism isn't just serfdom; there's a role that the nobility plays as well - the Duke's vassals were obliged to provide military and material service to him and in turn the dukes swore fealty to the king. Most medieval historians would probably only attribute this to parts of Europe and not China & Japan as people often do. The Marxist interpretation is largely based on a 19th century characterization which attempted to paint entire historical periods with basic terms and is largely untrue. Probably not what many here would like to think but it is what an actual scholar will tell you. There was also no wave of revolution which undid feudalism - it was undone largely through gradual changes. Pre-modern history just wasn't Marx's strong suit.

I don't think this is an entirely fair characterisation of Marxist thought. First of all, I don't think trying to establish basic traits for various modes of production as a foundation for historical analysis means that we have to ignore the changes that happen in these modes of production and view them as static. Other historians also use broad categories like classical, postclassical and modern eras or Stone Age and Iron Age. The whole point of it is to breach through the details and create a broad, simplistic outline. Bourgeois ideologues/actual scholars also like to say that Marx's analysis of capitalism doesn't account for the changes that have happened since Marx lived, but as any Marxist will note and back up the laws and contradictions of capitalist society still exist, though they may be hidden under the surface. That said the Marxist analysis isn't as simple as "primitive communism-slavery-feudalism-capitalism-communism!" as some (wikipedia) would say, and it's entirely possible to use Marx's method to analyse feudal society in a more dynamic way (as has been done already by the original historical materialists themselves, e.g. this work on the decline of feudalism:http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/decline/index.htm)

Secondly, the bourgeois revolutions in, say, England or France didn't "undo" feudalism, but they raised the bourgeoisie to the position of a ruling class (every class struggle is a political struggle). The bourgeoisie had to an extent built economic and political power in the feudal system, but it was their revolutions that brought them to heads with the feudal ruling classes and the monarchy once and for all, sometimes successfully, sometimes not and sometimes with compromises. This can't happen in capitalist society, because the proletariat can't build its economic power within capitalism without losing its status as proletariat. Therefore it will have to take political power and use it to seize power over the economy and, in doing so, abolishing itself as proletariat.

[TaylorS]

The starting point for the development of Feudalism in the West was the emperor Hadrian ceasing imperialistic expansion. This choked of the supply of cheap slaves captured in conquest that drove the economy of the Classical Mediterranean. Buying and owning slaves became more expensive as a result. Landowners increasingly relied on tenant farmers rather than slaves.

The next turning point is a series of economic and tax reforms by Diocletian and then Constantine that tied the tenant farmers, now called coloni, to the land they worked. Over the course of the Late Empire and up to around AD 850 or so the status of the coloni sunk lower while the remaining slaves tended to be "freed" into coloni. the two classes merging into a class of serfs.

When the Carolingian disintergrated most of the remaining free peasants voluntarily became serfs in exchange for protection or in some cases they were forced into serfdom by legal shenanigans.

[Blake's Baby]

Right, the topic says the beginning of feudalism, the post is about the beginning of capitalism. I'm assuming you're actually asking about the latter.

Capitalism I think is something that we understand from here (several hundred years of it, it being the hegemonic economic system etc) in a rather different fashion from its beginnings. No, the 'beginning of capitalism' was not a sudden overthrow of the feudal era; nor, however, did the aristocracy adapt in the beginning. Capitalism grew slowly inside the structures of feudalism; the early bourgeoisie was developing from the 1300s onwards, and for 300 years or so were a minor class in feudal Europe. From the 1600s, they began to be the dominant class in some places and they then (as feudal power-structures were no longer capable of developing capitalism) began their revolutions to overthrow feudal structures. But it was a long slow build, and a very messy changeover taking hundreds of years. Britain, the most advanced capitalist country between 1650-1850, still has monarchy, aristocracy, a state religion, an unelected second chamber, different legal and education systems in its constituent parts, etc; in other words, a bunch of feudal hangovers in what was once the most advanced capitalist country.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

i think the American empires might fit the category as well. I've read that for the Aztecs it was in part the contradictions within that society and class system which allowed for relatively easy toppling... I.e. no one was that vested in defending the ruling group and it may have been teetering already. For other large civilizations in the Americas disease followed by European sacking caused them to fall.

I wouldn't be surprised if internal class contradictions also led to the fall of Rome in addition to or resulting increased attacks from outside forces in Italy and the Western part of the empire. I don't know however. I have a book on class and Rome that's been sitting on my shelf but I haven't gotten to it yet... I've been wanting to read it for a while.


I'd have to agree. I remember seeing a documentary on it a while back (pre-2010, I think), where it essentially said that the Spaniards managed to convince some of the oppressed peoples within the Aztec Empire to rebel and bought off the rest with promises of riches and whatnot. If I recall correctly, the Aztec leader (and his class, I'd imagine) got to such point of desperation that he started sending increasingly exuberant gifts of gold. Unsurprisingly, Cortes & company decided that they might as well take it all.


The flaw with the Aztec model of governance was that it relied on exploiting vassal states which it dominated through violence. The ruling elites of these vassal states had a class interest in overthrowing the Aztecs, though it didn't really benefit the common man well. The commoners in the major Aztec cities had done quite well for themselves, and this is why those core cities fought with the Aztecs for much longer - they had actually benefited substantially from their domination of Mexico.

Moctezuma showered Cortez with gifts because they were unsure about the nature of the foreigners, and thought that their arrival correlated with various divine signs. Some Aztec religious and political leaders saw the Spanish as a danger, but Moctezuma thought that the foreigners must be welcomed with open arms. This was a fatal mistake for him, as it turned out (incidentally, Spanish accounts say that the enraged Aztecs killed Moctezuma).

As a note, Aztec political leaders were chosen by the religious and political elite, and were not dynastic "emperors" as the Incan leadership was. Thus, they were in a sense more accountable to the public.



Though not so sure that all of the American civilizations were brought down by disease (though, there's no denying that the native north Americans did) - there are the Incas, who also had an advanced civilization and I believe fell in a similar fashion to Aztecs (in Inca's case, it was a Civil War, wasn't it?), though I could be wrong. I'm not quite as well read up on the subject as I ought to be, especially considering how fascinating the cultures in question are.

The Incans and Aztecs had both suffered from disease by the time of conquest. The Spanish went to Tenochtitlan in 1519 and Moctezuma welcomed them into the city. When he did this, they brought their diseases and plagues. When they laid siege to the city, those diseases spread like wildfire.

The diseases spread south through the indigenous trade links, and came to the Incan empire several years before the Spanish arrived. Diseases spread through the ruling elites as well as the lower classes, causing substantial instability and civil war before the Conquistadors ever arrived.

[RedMaterialist]

Here is my theory, in brief: The Barbarians destroyed the Roman Empire which was the last fully developed slave economy. The barbarians, although having a history of taking slaves in war, etc., were not economically developed to the extent that they could just take over the slave system and make it work for themselves.

However, they were willing to allow the slaves to work the same land for a share of the produce. In fact, the last thing the barbarians wanted to do was become a big farming class. For the slaves this was a perfect solution. They were no longer slaves, they knew how to farm and were now producing half of their crop for themselves and their families and half for the new landowners. This conversion of slaves into what is essentially a sharecropper class is not unusual, it happened after the Civil War in the U.S. south. As long as the barbarians were getting half then they could carry on with what they really liked, fighting each other in endless wars (thus, feuding with each other.)

All slaves, however, were not former farming slaves. There were many small artisans, etc. They would have stayed in the cities and towns producing things for sale to the serfs and landowners and the traveling merchants. The slaves became the serfs, the barbarians became the landowning feudal aristocracy, and the artisans became the forerunners of the bourgeoisie.

[Dave B]

I think as regards slavery we probably have a justifiably outrage on it based on the undoubtedly true cruelty of it; re the southern states of America and Kirk Douglas in Sparticus etc.

Where all the villainous slave owners had English accents and the heroes had American ones.

Which was actually more of an insult to the intelligence of the American audience than anything else.

The presumption being I suppose that it would assist them in working out who were the goods guys and who were the bad ones as the introduction of the western paradigm of white hats and black hats might have interfered with historical accuracy when it came to the costume department.

Although the tradition continues as with Hannibal Lecter and Gary Goldman as Dr Smith in Lost in space.

Anyway I digress, a bit.

Not all slaves were so badly treated and in an economic epoch; where there was no or little waged labour the idea of the contrast of the labour and surplus labour of ‘free’ wage (slaves) versus slavery loses its contrast somewhat.

And in fact even Karl pointed out that some slaves in the 19th century US for example were in a better looked after (as their masters capital) than a lot the English working class at the time.

So there was a phrase at the time about the English working class being treated like a rented horses (or rented slaves).


The idea being that as you only have 'it' for a short period of time you thrash it and overwork etc into a crippled position, whilst you have it.

A bit like some of these shits who rent cars and thrash them and crash the gears etc which they wouldn’t do with their own precious property.

In the Southern States of America their was much discussion and precisely worked out economic debate about the economy of working slaves to an early death, which was at its nadir, about seven years.

The idea being about whether or not the recovery of the extra work and surplus value you got out of them, and minimising the expense of their upkeep, could cover the expense of buying new ones on the New Orleans slave market.

It is as just as a delicate balance for modern capitalist re inhuman productive capital, as it is to a slave owner or peasant farmer with his plough horse ie balancing the cost of the maintenance of machinery to extend the life of its use value versus running it into the ground and buying a new one.




Special and good looking slaves engaged in the more refined and delicate work could be quite well looked after eg the very heterosexual Tony Curtis (another American).

Or seduced, rather than ravished, by their masters ie the Roman ruling class who seemed to share the same ‘congenital’ and ‘deviant’ sexual orientation to the English actors like Jack Hawkins.

Although much of that bit was edited out, and left so subtle, that only intellectuals rather than the Americans could understand it.

The Roman ruling class as accumulators of ‘surplus labour’, anyway, appeared quite sensibly to think that differentiating between ‘free’ wage labour and slavery was sophistry
Thus Cicero wrote in his De Officiis that;





…whoever gives his labor for money sells himself and puts himself in the rank of slaves.

It appears that the cheeky monkey was probably indiscriminately throwing in even the artisans into that category.

However, when one looks at the grumbling hand-looming artisans of early 19th century Lancashire they seemed to consider the price and money they got for their products/ commodities as ‘wages’, as in material from E. P. Thompsons Making of the English working Class.

And why not throw this one in now from the same wiki link.
The first articulate description of wage slavery was made by Simon Linguet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Nicholas_Henri_Linguet) in 1763:



The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him . . . They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market . . . It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live . . . It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him . . . what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune . . . These men . . . [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. . . . They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#cite_note-Marx_1863_c7-19)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

There was a BBC programme on recently were it was academically discussed and ‘established transparently’ that slaves had and must have branched out into entrepreneurial artisan production, bought themselves out, and became proper respectable citizens of Rome etc.


Returning to 19th century Russia like we often do.

Apparently around 1860 you had the bizarre situation that some of the first ‘capitalists’, in the emerging domestic textile industry, were legalistically serfs or essentially slaves.

And all sorts of weird stuff went on to ‘economically’ accommodate that apparently.

Re barbarian invaders of Rome etc I am a bit skeptical about the veracity of the tales we are told.

Thus recent scientific evidence re isotopic analysis of bones and mitochondrial DNA analysis has established that there was no mass invasion of England by German Anglo Saxons.

Kicking shit out of the native ‘Celts’ and driving them into Wales etc

They just trickled over and we liked and adopted their food, fashion in clothes and jewellery etc, in the natural English cosmopolitan cultural tradition.

[Bostana]

after the fall of rome there were various 'barbarian warlords attempting to gain power in different regions. A good example would be the Franks. and after verious nations and kigndoms were established they went through a 'modernization' of technology and other things

[RedMaterialist]

after the fall of rome there were various 'barbarian warlords attempting to gain power in different regions. A good example would be the Franks. and after verious nations and kigndoms were established they went through a 'modernization' of technology and other things

How did these barbarian warlords produce the bread they ate?