Feudalism and Slavery

[Comrade Martin]

Was slavery a division of Feudalist modes of production, or perhaps an extension of them, or was it an entirely different system altogether?

I've been debating it tonight and reached no point of agreement. I think that slavery is a Feudalist mode of production, much like serfdom was, or "indentured servitude." While Feudalism is usually defined by the ownership of land and of the control of Lords over the serfs, it also coincided with the development of the ownership of slaves. Serfs and slaves are unique from Proletarians and other classes in that they are outside of competition, while other classes are involved in it. Slaves aren't compelled to compete with eachother and neither are serfs. They are also similar in their lack of many rights, with the slave having considerable fewer than serfs, who can conceivably leave.

What do comrades think?

[matiasm]

no slavery was in the ages pre to feudalism. In the slavery ages a worker was forced to labor through voilence and the productions that were made were taken through the same actions. In feudalism workers labored for their masters in return for protection and shelter, but still having no means of the production and working in bad conditions. (money was non existent until late feudalism last years and the rise of capitalism)

[amanondeathrow]

Are you referring to the American enslavement of Africans or slavery in general?

[Delirium]

Serfs are tied to the land, and are not property of any individual. Serfs give a part of thier time to work in the lord's fields (or whatever) in exchange for the use of the land and the use of the lord's property ( mill, oven, smith, etc..) And the lord was supposedly supposed to protect the serfs also.

Slaves have it much worse, they have no customary 'rights' like the serfs, they are simply property. A serf only exists in feudalism, where a slave can exist in any economic or political system.

[ack]

The serfs worked the land and did non move. Whereas slaves worked for specific masters and were often traded.

[Comrade Martin]

It seems to me that all of these views are un-Marxist in general. After all, slavery, while preceding Feudalism involving land, also fit in to the category of a Feudalist mode of production, as Feudalism not only lived alongside it but indeed encouraged it. Capitalists are also highly opposed to slavery, which is only applicable in a limited sense and is not as productive as wage-slavery.

If anyone can refer me to something by Marx or any other classic Marxist theoretician that can offer a historically materialist viewpoint on how slavery is exactly disenfranchised and alien to Feudalism, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, it appears that slavery only functions with coupled with what we define as Feudalism. Primitive Communism did not allow for slavery and the moment that it engaged in this mode of production was an evolution out of Primitive Communist norms and a move forward towards Feudalist production norms.

This is at least how I view it, coming from a Marxist angle. I haven't seen any other sensible Marxist theory regarding slavery.

[RevolverNo9]

It seems to me that all of these views are un-Marxist in general.

Your proposition, unfortunately, is neither historically acurate or coinciding with Marxian theory...


If anyone can refer me to something by Marx or any other classic Marxist theoretician that can offer a historically materialist viewpoint on how slavery is exactly disenfranchised and alien to Feudalism, I would appreciate it.

I don't have any quotation to hand about classical Marxist theory on feudalism (there isn't much, really) but (without trying to sound as arrogant as this seems!) I would hazard to guess I have studied 'feudalism' as a medieval phenomenon more than most on this board (it's hardly a 'hot topic'!) So I'll describe some of the things relevent to discussion.

FEUDALISM: MARXIST & HISTORIOGRAPHICAL

Firstly, it's important to distinguish between the Marxian theoretical concept of feudalism and the historiographical notion (a highly contentious one - many historians (especially Anglo-Saxon ones) dispute it ever existing), not there isn't any overlap.

Feudalism was a term based on the legal name 'fief' that was conied in the eighteenth-century by lawyers seeking to define a social system in the high middle-ages which seemed to be characterised by a graduating hierarchry of social relatioships, each one dependent on the other.

In the latter half of the C20th a more nuanced and accurate picture of feudalism has occurred (see: Marc Bloch, Georges Duby, Guy Bois, Pierre Bonnassie e.g.). The 'orthodox' reading is that about the year 1000 authority passed from a system of 'public' officials who organised economic and judicial matters to a class of knights and castled lords (the 'milites' in Latin or castallans). The pressures of this shift forced (directly or indirectly) farmers, peasents, workers and the less powerful to make themselves dependent on the more powerful (knights, castallans, monasteries etc...) This was the only route to economic and military security. The result of this was a network of personal dependencies, absent of written legal conventions, 'state' dictates or the like.

Such social organisation only lasted a couple of hundred years, as monarchs and conts began again to impose their own direct authority over people and as commerece began to grow as a form of economic organisation.

The Marxist concept of feudalism is a much broader one (mainly, I presume, because when Marx conceived of his historical materialist progression (tribal, slave-owning, feudal, (mercantile,) capitalist, communist) feudalism was not a system properly understood). Simply it means an economic system based on land-ownership, as opposed to the previous means of exploitation where the ruling class owned slaves and the succeeding where they controlled 'capital'. To paraphrase that famous thing by Marx that everyone's read at least once: in slave-owning society the man with power owns the slave, in feudalism the mill, in capitalism the factory.

SLAVES

To get to the point, neither concept allows for a remotely significant slave class. Perhaps Guy Bois, a Marxist historian and one of the major interpreters of the 'Feudal Revolution of the Year 1000' will help illustrate the point (since he attempts to sythesise the classical notion of a 'feudal revolution' with the orthodox concept of Marxist social progression.)

Firstly, feudalism, by definition is opposed to slave-owning society. Slave societies perpetuate due to the exploitation of a working-class of slaves, a class of men who are legally sub-human, who are owned as property by the ruling class. Feudalism is the rule of a class of land-owners who - through personal reletionships with serfs etc... - earn economic dominance.

Bois' research reveals the principals of class-interest leading to social revolution working thus: innovations in agricultural technology and the decline of centralised 'public' authority meant that it was more profitable for land-owners to place a slave on land where he was not directly responsbile for his upkeep. This family, who became the 'serf', had to provide for themselves independently while also maintaining the upkeep of his lord.

So, while the slave was the direct property of the exploiter, the serf had greater autonomy and was responsible for his own upkeep while also being bound by contemporary social relationships ('feudal' bounds) to support his lord (through food, other goods, military service, labour service, money (rarely and later) etc). The slave, as a considerable class, was anachronism to the feudal mode of production - feudalism transcended slave-ownership, freeing production at that time of society.

And of course, like slave-owning socieities, feudalism would also produce its own contradictions that would nessecitate its own supercedence by capitalist economic procedures.

[Entrails Konfetti]

During feudalism in the west; in some parts of the east, and meso-America slavery survived.

When feudalism folded because of its internal contradictions, slavery was realized in colonialism, and merchantilism.

Feudalism came into existence because of the contractions of huge city-state emipires such as Rome. Rome depended on forms of Primitive Accumulation such as slavery, and heavy taxation. The majority of the peasent population was under so much dept that they became slaves, and therefore the whole peasent population of the empire became slaves, and had no incentive to keep toiling. Rome got to big to suppress the peasents, resulting it to breaking into two empires.

Then those two empires were too much to maintain, and society eroded. The Dark Ages, or Feudalism were the answer to the circumstances. Smaller more centralized empires, with incentive for the working population, or peasents.

Revolver No9 and everyone else pretty much explained the peasents relationship to the land under feudalism.

When merchantilism came about, and the building of colonies; slaves were the cheapest, and most profitable method for the new ruling class to exploit the land. Wage-Slavery at the time was still in its infancy, centred around small artisans, and shops.

[Comrade Martin]

Okay, thanks for that, and I see where you are coming from, but two points:

A.) Feudalism and slave ownership were often heavily intermixed and intertwined, and there is no real evidence to support a thesis that Feudalists and slave owners are ever in competition necessarily nor opposed to eachother. In fact, they often worked together. This would not be typical of a multi-class interaction if the slave owners are the former ruling class now deposed by Feudal lords and whatnot. There was no real class antagonism like there was and still is between the Capitalist class and Feudalist ideals and slavery.

B.) To use the Civil War in America as an example, when the Confederate states withdrew from the Union, they immediately sought help from the (Semi-)Feudalist European states, getting loans from French banks and the like. This would seem to be a relationship based on Feudalist solidarity. And furthermore, the Southern states sought to impose slavery on the North if they were victorious in the war. That would mean that American Capitalism would take two steps back if the South had been victorious and if we are to believe that this "slave ownership stage" preceded Feudalism; a proposition that seems to contradict human social development from a historically matetialist perspective.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:01 PM
no slavery was in the ages pre to feudalism. In the slavery ages a worker was forced to labor through voilence and the productions that were made were taken through the same actions. In feudalism workers labored for their masters in return for protection and shelter, but still having no means of the production and working in bad conditions. (money was non existent until late feudalism last years and the rise of capitalism)
That depends on the culture. Many fuedal societies still maintained a segment of its population as slaves. They would have been below the position of peasants.

[RevolverNo9]

Perhaps the following notion will help clarify things: for a slave-society to exist, the slave-class must be a pillar of that social edifice, ie. if we remove this 'pillar', the organisation of society would collapse. The economic pillar of slave-owning society was the owning of a mass slave-class. We cannot conceive of such a society working without slaves.

Now, as has been contended, slavery as a phenomenon has existed in societies more advanced than simple 'slave-societies'. However, they were not 'pillars' of the social edifice. Slaves were indeed in feudal times a rare commodity that a lord might have (very unusual as this was). If these commodities were removed, however, social organisation would be little altered.


Feudalism and slave ownership were often heavily intermixed and intertwined, and there is no real evidence to support a thesis that Feudalists and slave owners are ever in competition necessarily nor opposed to eachother. In fact, they often worked together.

'No real evidence'? Can you back this up or is this just an assertion? Indeed there most certainly was a noticible displacement of power in Europe around the year 1000. The old public officials lost their power, slaves became emancipated by economic pressures and an entirely new ruling class - the knights or 'milites' - came to dominance. When they were new, destroying the old order, knights were characterised as thungs, brutal and violent. However as their position became solidified, ideology alters too: the notion of chivalry occurs and knights, no longer thugs, are the protectors of the church, the weak and - ultimately - the fatherland.

A historical materialist approach can only conclude that the dominant class changed and that the nature of exploitation also altered (from slave to serf).


To use the Civil War in America as an example, when the Confederate states withdrew from the Union, they immediately sought help from the (Semi-)Feudalist European states, getting loans from French banks and the like. This would seem to be a relationship based on Feudalist solidarity.

?!? 'feudalist solidarity'? I really don't understand what that means and anyway its impossible. In C19th Western Europe feudalism had been transcended by centuries and modern advanced indstrialised capitalism was well underway (how exactly could Marx describe an economic system that didn't exist?!?!?)

Again slavery in the Confederates is a different phenomenon than the 'pillar' that constituted slave-owning societies. Colonial exploitation was of a different order to ancient slavery and while capitalism needed to supercede this residue of older society in order to advance, we cannot call this an 'ancient social system'.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the American Civil War to explain my point clearly. Marx I believe did write articles on the matter. Maybe that would be a good place to look.

[Comrade Martin]

Perhaps the following notion will help clarify things: for a slave-society to exist, the slave-class must be a pillar of that social edifice, ie. if we remove this 'pillar', the organisation of society would collapse. The economic pillar of slave-owning society was the owning of a mass slave-class. We cannot conceive of such a society working without slaves.

Now, as has been contended, slavery as a phenomenon has existed in societies more advanced than simple 'slave-societies'. However, they were not 'pillars' of the social edifice. Slaves were indeed in feudal times a rare commodity that a lord might have (very unusual as this was). If these commodities were removed, however, social organisation would be little altered.

I would disagree here. I think that the ruling class in a particular society defines that type of society during the time in question. Once the ruling class changes, it reflect the social organization of that period. If Capitalism becomes the pillar of economic organization yet the organization of social hierarchies is based on Feudalist pretenses, thereby constituting a different ruling class than the Capitalist class, the society is still a Feudalist one, and only until the Capitalist class has overthrown that class and replaced it with itself does its definable character change.


'No real evidence'? Can you back this up or is this just an assertion? Indeed there most certainly was a noticible displacement of power in Europe around the year 1000. The old public officials lost their power, slaves became emancipated by economic pressures and an entirely new ruling class - the knights or 'milites' - came to dominance. When they were new, destroying the old order, knights were characterised as thungs, brutal and violent. However as their position became solidified, ideology alters too: the notion of chivalry occurs and knights, no longer thugs, are the protectors of the church, the weak and - ultimately - the fatherland.

A historical materialist approach can only conclude that the dominant class changed and that the nature of exploitation also altered (from slave to serf).

But the ruling class never changed in class character, irrespective of the particular pillar(s) of any given time. Thus, there were no societies controlled by a slave-owning class. Therefore, there were no slave societies, only the Feudalist one under which the slaves operated. As it exists today, slavery is always totally illegalized under Capitalism, or there is always a serious drive to illegalize it (The United States being the only real example of tolerating slavery, largely because of its profitability to Capitalists in early America, losing its relevancy to Capitalism over time), while they phased in and out of legality under Feudalism. Thus, the conclusion to draw is that slavery is a more or less Feudalist appendage, not a Capitalist one nor one of its own existance, seperate of Feudalism or Capitalism.


?!? 'feudalist solidarity'? I really don't understand what that means and anyway its impossible. In C19th Western Europe feudalism had been transcended by centuries and modern advanced indstrialised capitalism was well underway (how exactly could Marx describe an economic system that didn't exist?!?!?)

Just because Capitalism existed (And even in abundance) in Europe didn't make these societies fully Capitalist. I would argue that the existance of monarchs today symbolizes an incomplete transition to Capitalism, but complete for the most part (Sort of a 99% kind of thing). The monarchs had plenty of power in the 19th century, at least much more than they do now, and there were even some isolated expressions of a full-fledged Feudalist systems. The Confederacy sought assistance from these entities, taking out loans and such for instance. It was perhaps the nature of the Capitalist power in Europe that prevented full-scale military assistance to the Confederacy, but it was certainly Feudalist solidarity that was the cause for any assistance whatsoever.

[RevolverNo9]

Your position still confuses me, opposing as it does both historical materialism and plain historiographical knowledge...


I would disagree here. I think that the ruling class in a particular society defines that type of society during the time in question. Once the ruling class changes, it reflect the social organization of that period.

Obviously... because no economic system can constitute the 'pillar' of a social edifice until it has burst the fetters of the old society. And, as I think I have demonstrated, feudal society certainly burst the fetters of ancient-economic societies. I have described quite clearly that there was a new ruling class distinct to the old order. Knights were just 'thugs' before hand. In fact the contemporary word, miles, simply means 'soldier'. It wasn't until after the consolidation of their dominance that ideology altered so that knights became glorious and respected and chivalrous.

Where did all the slaves go?? In the first milenium there was an abundence. After 1000.... very, very few are recorded to exist at all. We know that the systems of labour and exploitation changed dramatically. Personal arrangements constituted the nature of feudal bonds, not ownership of the body. You haven't addressed any of these issues.


But the ruling class never changed in class character, irrespective of the particular pillar(s) of any given time.

Yes they did. I've explained this twice now.


Thus, there were no societies controlled by a slave-owning class. Therefore, there were no slave societies, only the Feudalist one under which the slaves operated.


Um... care to read anything by Marx or maybe even a historian? You going to tell me what on earth was feudal about ancient Athens or Sparta??!!


As it exists today, slavery is always totally illegalized under Capitalism, or there is always a serious drive to illegalize it (The United States being the only real example of tolerating slavery, largely because of its profitability to Capitalists in early America, losing its relevancy to Capitalism over time), while they phased in and out of legality under Feudalism.

Exactly, the only examples of slavery in capitalism (where slavery by the way was not the pillar) was when it benefitted the interest of the capitalists. Its destruction was also the result of class interest. That's historical materialism. As I've repeated over and over again, slavery in the high middle-ages was negligible. Ideology also reflects this: before the feudal transofrmation monasteries and ecclesiastical sources (which I take to be the chief realm of ideology in the middle ages) describe how slaves are in that position justly, how they are in the right order ordained by god. After the feudal transformation, slavery is seen to be a misuse of the holy human person, while the holy, immutable order is constituted of serf workers of the land, priests and those who fight (those knights again... ie. the NEW ruling class).

How can slavery be a feudal phenomenon??! You are flying against the evidence of material reality!


Just because Capitalism existed (And even in abundance) in Europe didn't make these societies fully Capitalist.

Okay...


I would argue that the existance of monarchs today symbolizes an incomplete transition to Capitalism, but complete for the most part (Sort of a 99% kind of thing).

Right... (more like 99.99% in most cases).


The monarchs had plenty of power in the 19th century, at least much more than they do now, and there were even some isolated expressions of a full-fledged Feudalist systems.

Not neccesserily true - it varies depending on each nation and the development of capitalism, obviously. In England, by far the most advanced nation economically, the monarch had very little power (as had been increasingly the case since the Georgians as middle-class parliament and mercantile companies just kept on growing in power). Although, yes, there was still a significant landed population in England, the system there was nothing less than capitalist.


It was perhaps the nature of the Capitalist power in Europe that prevented full-scale military assistance to the Confederacy, but it was certainly Feudalist solidarity that was the cause for any assistance whatsoever.

This is just such an outlandish and anachronistic claim that I think you should probably try and back it up with something a bit more substantial. At this stage the Northern states were considerable behind the most economically advanced of European nations so right from the start this perverse logic implodes.

[Comrade Martin]

Your position still confuses me, opposing as it does both historical materialism and plain historiographical knowledge...

I've never before heard that slavery was its own system. Not only have I been taught its synonymity with Feudalism, but I cannot comprehend otherwise being true.


Obviously... because no economic system can constitute the 'pillar' of a social edifice until it has burst the fetters of the old society. And, as I think I have demonstrated, feudal society certainly burst the fetters of ancient-economic societies. I have described quite clearly that there was a new ruling class distinct to the old order. Knights were just 'thugs' before hand. In fact the contemporary word, miles, simply means 'soldier'. It wasn't until after the consolidation of their dominance that ideology altered so that knights became glorious and respected and chivalrous.

Where did all the slaves go?? In the first milenium there was an abundence. After 1000.... very, very few are recorded to exist at all. We know that the systems of labour and exploitation changed dramatically. Personal arrangements constituted the nature of feudal bonds, not ownership of the body. You haven't addressed any of these issues.

Firstly, there was never any "bursting" process. There was a fade in and fade out between them; no social revolution. Only until the advent of Capitalism did slavery become less favored, and only until Capitalists became very powerful did slavery become abolished.

Second, just because we called them knights instead of thugs doesn't constitute a social revolution. Knights were certainly important to the traditional Feudalist system as we understand it, much like Lords and monarchs are. But at the same time, going back to tribal life, chiefs of tribes excercized authority and would appoint Lord-like positions. This constitutes the earliest form of Feudalism, as it just emerged in embryo form from the Primitive Communist stage of development. It was under the pretenses of tribal organization of leadership that monarchial developments occured, but all the meanwhile slavery was still common and in fact probably the dominant form of economic functioning. Yet the social hierarchy and leading classes in the state appratus (As primitive as it initally was) remained barely unchanged, with additions and subtractions to the system as a whole over time given different paces of development and different religious adaptations necessary for such concepts as "Divine Right" to exist.


Yes they did. I've explained this twice now.

This was in response to what I said, "But the ruling class never changed in class character, irrespective of the particular pillar(s) of any given time." As explained above, I believe you to be wrong.


Um... care to read anything by Marx or maybe even a historian? You going to tell me what on earth was feudal about ancient Athens or Sparta??!!

Easy! Athens allowed only the wealthy to hold political office, and because the wealthy were wealthy primarily by merit of land ownership and inheritance, they differed very little from the aristocratic kings preceding them. Their class maintained political power. It was still Feudalism. Sparta had kings and organized society along those lines. 'nuff said.


Exactly, the only examples of slavery in capitalism (where slavery by the way was not the pillar) was when it benefitted the interest of the capitalists. Its destruction was also the result of class interest. That's historical materialism. As I've repeated over and over again, slavery in the high middle-ages was negligible. Ideology also reflects this: before the feudal transofrmation monasteries and ecclesiastical sources (which I take to be the chief realm of ideology in the middle ages) describe how slaves are in that position justly, how they are in the right order ordained by god. After the feudal transformation, slavery is seen to be a misuse of the holy human person, while the holy, immutable order is constituted of serf workers of the land, priests and those who fight (those knights again... ie. the NEW ruling class).

How can slavery be a feudal phenomenon??! You are flying against the evidence of material reality!

It was not until VERY late that slavery was ever really abolished for good, and only the development of the Bourgeoisie in any form brought on a real move to abolish slavery. In any event, however, the spotty abolitions leading up to that point showed that these abolitions were not performed out of the necessity of the Feudalist transition, as many other places did not abolish slavery even though it didn't benefit the other classes much at all. This is historical materialism. Slavery was only abolished Pre-Bourgeoisie as a means of gaining a wider support base for otherwise unpopular invaders, with each of such proclamations being only temporary. Just like today, we see Capitalists grant concessions to the Proletariat which might utterly destroy the Petty Bourgeoisie or even hinder their own powers significantly, but these are merely temporary and not designed to transist to Socialism, but rather to prevent its fullest development in that direction.


It was perhaps the nature of the Capitalist power in Europe that prevented full-scale military assistance to the Confederacy, but it was certainly Feudalist solidarity that was the cause for any assistance whatsoever.


This is just such an outlandish and anachronistic claim that I think you should probably try and back it up with something a bit more substantial. At this stage the Northern states were considerable behind the most economically advanced of European nations so right from the start this perverse logic implodes.

How does it implode at all? Even if the North was behind, why would Capitalists not mutually seek to aid other Capitalists, upon whom they often relied for goods available only (Or more quickly and quantively produced) in America. The Confederates reached out to Europe period because the sought assistance from the Feudal classes which still remained, even if to a small degree, who could still effect the decisions of their respective states. They sought help from class allies, not class enemies. That's historical materialism.

[RevolverNo9]

I've never before heard that slavery was its own system. Not only have I been taught its synonymity with Feudalism, but I cannot comprehend otherwise being true.


?!?!

This is what I don't understand. God only knows who or what you've been learning from. Marx said (if you care to open up anything from The Communist Manifesto to Das Kapital) that society progressed from primitive communism, to slavery, to feudalism and to capitalism. Just have a look. Top of the google list for HM is this site:

http://www.marxist.com/History/historicalM...l%20materialism (http://www.marxist.com/History/historicalMaterialism.htm#What%20is%20historical%2 0materialism)?

I haven't read it but I'm sure it gives a general gist of an orthodox Marxist view of history.


Firstly, there was never any "bursting" process. There was a fade in and fade out between them; no social revolution.

Highly debatable. The question of whether feudalism occured gradually or in an intense period of social change is one of the most contentious in historiography.


Only until the advent of Capitalism did slavery become less favored, and only until Capitalists became very powerful did slavery become abolished.

Er, quite simply NO. During feudalism slave-ownership was negligible. Slaves accounted for no considerable process of labour. Serfs and allodial peasents constitiuted the vast majority of exploited labourers.


Second, just because we called them knights instead of thugs doesn't constitute a social revolution.

Not in itself... but if you accept the fundamental tenets of Historical Materialism (which I can't tell if you do to be honest) then you accept that being determines consciousness, ie. the economic and social inter-relations of society determine its ideology and perception. Therefore, if the ideology alters so that knights are seen in an overwhelmingly positive light and as important, this must have been determined by an alteration in the economic base. Got an alternative explanation? 'Cos if you do, you're upholding of HM is riddled with so many contradictions it's not true (unless you're going to shoot me with some heavy Althusser but I'd be surprised).

When they weren't the dominant class they were a threat in the class struggle, ideology denigrates them. When they became so, ideology upholds them. Simple.


Knights were certainly important to the traditional Feudalist system as we understand it, much like Lords and monarchs are.

Knights and lords are not mutually exclusive class concepts here. The milites were simply the 'knights' who came to constitute the land-owning lords who exploited the serfs. Both make up the ruling class of the time, regardless of their inner-hierarchies.

And without trying to complicate things, monarchs weren't integral to the feudal system at all. Indeed the 'high-watermark' of feudalism (after the 'feudal revolution' of 1000) was characterised by an atomisation of authority. The king of France was no more powerful (and indeed was often less powerful) than neighbouring dukes and lords. Feudalism was a system of personal relationships, not centralised command.


But at the same time, going back to tribal life, chiefs of tribes excercized authority and would appoint Lord-like positions. This constitutes the earliest form of Feudalism

What! Feudalism simply did not exist until the middle-ages! There are no two ways about it. Man, even Wikipedia can tell you that (in fact why don't you read whatever they've written on feudalim on wikipedia before you reply? Just so you have some basics).


Easy! Athens allowed only the wealthy to hold political office, and because the wealthy were wealthy primarily by merit of land ownership and inheritance, they differed very little from the aristocratic kings preceding them. Their class maintained political power. It was still Feudalism. Sparta had kings and organized society along those lines. 'nuff said.

Feudalism wouldn't exist for over 1000 years afterwards! Actually in Athens many political offices were allocated by ballot! You didn't have to be a particularly wealthy land-owner at all... it was random. However you did have to be a citizen. This whole mode of life was possible because... Athenian society was maintained by the labour of a slave-class!

Sparta was perhaps the most extreme slave-owning society of all! The class of actual Spartans was tiny, a very small elite who spent their entire lives training for war. Their way of life was possible because they had subdued a whole local, native population and turned them into a slave-class (the helots) responsible for labour and production. Is that ''nuff said'?

Neither society's form of exploitation remotely resembled the feudal form of exploitation explained I believe a number of times already.


It was not until VERY late that slavery was ever really abolished for good, and only the development of the Bourgeoisie in any form brought on a real move to abolish slavery.

As I have said countless times, slavery as a significant mode of economic production was gone before the first millenium ended! You are just being plain perverse now.


Slavery was only abolished Pre-Bourgeoisie as a means of gaining a wider support base for otherwise unpopular invaders, with each of such proclamations being only temporary.

No, it fell into disuse before the year 1000 because it was a limiting form of exploitation! It's got nothing to do with 'conscious concessions'.


The Confederates reached out to Europe period because the sought assistance from the Feudal classes which still remained, even if to a small degree, who could still effect the decisions of their respective states.

To be perfectly honest I don't know anything much about the American Civil War and so cannot make a critically sound rebuttal. However your claim still comes over as perculiar, perverse and confusing. I can't take it seriously unless you back it up with some authoritiative source.

Please, just read something on both the orthodox schemata of Historical Materialism and Feudalism before you carry on with your line of argument. (I'm sure that link at the top says something classical on the matter).