Before Feudalism?

[BIXX]

What was there before feudalism? And what were the characteristics of the existence of people in that time period?

From what I've found, all people are saying is that feudalism was preceded by the Roman Empire, which was characterized by autocracy and republicanism. But maybe there's something I'm missing?

Thank you for your time.

[argeiphontes]

There were the latifundia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latifundia), which were precursors to the feudal estates, though they were run by slaves.

So, basically, slavery. Though this wasn't as harsh as the racist capitalist slavery of the Americas (1500-?), which was much worse.

[Thirsty Crow]

What was there before feudalism? And what were the characteristics of the existence of people in that time period?
You are assuming that there was a unified, monolithic "period" that preceeded the equally universal and monolithic period of feudalism.

It very far from obvious that societies developed in this way. And I use the plural here on purpose, as I think a case can be made that the universalizing tendencies are specific to capital (the world market giving rise to so called world history), and that prior historical development was marked by kinds of localism and local particularities and distinctions, even those that can be encompassed by the concept of mode of production (for instance, the difference between German tribes and Slavic tribes during late antiquity and the early middle ages).

So to actually approach the question you pose, it is necessary to complete it with two sub-questions: when and where.

[reb]

Feudalism isn't a widely accepted term these days. It covers a period of history which is over a thousand years where there were many different types of class relations that didn't exist everywhere.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Feudalism isn't a widely accepted term these days. It covers a period of history which is over a thousand years where there were many different types of class relations that didn't exist everywhere.

It's a shame. Looking at the experience of western nations, we can see a clear pattern of development, into which feudalism fits as an exclusive social system from no earlier than the 11th century, and probably no later than the 17th/18th centuries (in Britain probably a transition from feudalism to capitalism began as early as the early 15th century, with the seeds for capital's future hegemony perhaps lain even earlier).

[Firebrand]

according to marx and engels history goes a bit like this
1) primitive communism
2) society based on slave labour
3) feudalism
4) capitalism
5) communism

of course this is a very basic and simplistic summary and Marx and Engels were operating with far less archaeological and anthropological data than we currently have, and there are wide regional variations on these themes as well as complications and societies that don't fit neatly into any one category. But it's not too bad a starting point

[Per Levy]

im reading "die revolutionen europas" from otto rühle right now and he actualy goes into detail how feudalism was "born" in germany, from tribe owned fields and semidemocratic kings to feudalism and towngroth sadly it isnt anywhere in english as far as i know. and im really bad at paraphrasing, he explains all that so much better than what i make it sound like.

[Astarte]

im reading "die revolutionen europas" from otto rühle right now and he actualy goes into detail how feudalism was "born" in germany, from tribe owned fields and semidemocratic kings to feudalism and towngroth sadly it isnt anywhere in english as far as i know. and im really bad at paraphrasing, he explains all that so much better than what i make it sound like.

Sounds a lot like what Engels says in "The Mark", which luckily is in English - I would recommend it to the OP http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1892/12/mark.htm

[synthesis]

My conception of the answer to your question is that Marx and Engels kind of lumped together everything between "primitive communism" and "feudalism" into the "ancient" and "Asiatic" modes of production, because they weren't as relevant as primitive communism, feudalism and capitalism to their metasocietal analysis. I think this is something that deserves a lot more scholarly attention in terms of a broader system of categorization, a middle ground between the vagueness of Marx's terms and the distancing from the concept of modes of production that a lot of academics do when analyzing pre-feudal societies - "ancient" and "Asiatic" is too simple, but it's obviously not as if relations of production and productive forces only came into existence at the same time as feudalism.

[tuwix]

What was there before feudalism? And what were the characteristics of the existence of people in that time period?


The book linked below will answer your question in details:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

[reb]

It's a shame. Looking at the experience of western nations, we can see a clear pattern of development, into which feudalism fits as an exclusive social system from no earlier than the 11th century, and probably no later than the 17th/18th centuries (in Britain probably a transition from feudalism to capitalism began as early as the early 15th century, with the seeds for capital's future hegemony perhaps lain even earlier).

Feudalism should really be seen more as a political structure of face-to-face relations built upon different economic structures. Feudalism itself is not a mode of production and can't really be described as one. It would be equivalent of saying that Republicanism is a mode of production and I think this is what is what topic is trying to revolve around.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The book linked below will answer your question in details:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/
We really need something written from a Marxist perspective that takes into account 130 years of advancement in the field of anthropology since that was written.

[synthesis]

Feudalism should really be seen more as a political structure of face-to-face relations built upon different economic structures. Feudalism itself is not a mode of production and can't really be described as one. It would be equivalent of saying that Republicanism is a mode of production and I think this is what is what topic is trying to revolve around.

Are you serious? The feudal mode of production is one of the immutable core concepts of Marxist historical materialism. It refers to a system where peasants/serfs have plots of land in an area ruled by an aristocrat and, rather than being paid wages, are exploited by requiring them to surrender a portion of whatever it is they produce on that land.

[Alexios]

Are you serious? The feudal mode of production is one of the immutable core concepts of Marxist historical materialism. It refers to a system where peasants/serfs have plots of land in an area ruled by an aristocrat and, rather than being paid wages, are exploited by requiring them to surrender a portion of whatever it is they produce on that land.

That would be manorialism (www[dot] lordsandladies [dot] org/manorialism [dot] htm.), not feudalism.

[reb]

Are you serious? The feudal mode of production is one of the immutable core concepts of Marxist historical materialism. It refers to a system where peasants/serfs have plots of land in an area ruled by an aristocrat and, rather than being paid wages, are exploited by requiring them to surrender a portion of whatever it is they produce on that land.

Yes, I'm serious. Working from memory, Marx only ever referred to the Feudal era, which spanned over a thousand years, the relations contained within changed not only over time, but locally as well, only in the context of the development of capital, of which the aristocracy and peasant class were class that were kicked out. And besides, both peasant and serf had different relations to production from each other. Not to mention that there was a whole host of different classes during this time period as well. Marx was working with outdated concepts but marxism wasn't about studying the period in between the Roman empire and the beginnings of capitalism.

[synthesis]

That would be manorialism (www[dot] lordsandladies [dot] org/manorialism [dot] htm.), not feudalism.

Everything encompassed by the phrase "feudal mode of production," as defined above, is based on the concept of a society's primary economic organization revolving around tenants (serfs, peasants, whatever) paying tribute to the owner of the land.

I agree that it's not as universally applicable as some people claim, but these semantic quibbles aren't a good enough justification for creating a confusion of terms for a century and a half of Marxist theory and historical materialism.