Also regarding the latifundia, I always thought that in fact it increased exponentially after the collapse of the Roman republic and the 'resolving' of this political problem, which I think also needs to be understood in the context of the fact that many Roman citizens simply had no work to do at all, which was the reason for the impetus for land reform by Caesar in the first place. The latifundia may have not existed at a scale that would have made it the basis for feudalism at this time, but if we're talking the centuries afterwards it certainly did.
'decentralization' of power at the level of agricultural estates, and I say decentralized with caution because I simply mean that the degree that which these were 'controlled' was more direct, at local levels while at the same time operating in synchronicity with the wider mode of production. This gave rise to the collapse of the slave system, which was in place insofar as the people were themselves commodities that were exchanged, the basis of which became more obsolete throughout the course of the Roman empire (due to the decrease in importation of slaves).
I am not aware of any archaeological evidence contesting the 'scale' of the latifundia as it concerns that this system would carry the embryonic basis of feudalism. Furthermore when we speak of contradictions it's not always necessarily a direct conflict between classes that is mediated politically, often times this conflict is facilitated in a bloodless way - through for example technological innovation. Regarding the emergence of feudalism and the contradictions which gave birth to it, my contention has always been that feudalism emerged with the increased
I'm aware that in ancient Greece, it is a subject of debate regarding the degree that which slaves were responsible for agricultural labor. But what I am familiar with is the fact that virtually all other kinds of labor were done by slaves, insofar as it concerned the production of society. Still, it is simply not contested - the degree that which slavery was the basis for virtually the entire Roman productive relations, most especially agriculture. As far as what my knowledge permits,
the problem is that the archaeology does not allow for it; we know now that latifundia did not exist on this scale, and in any event it doesn't bring us up to the 'feudal moment' (wherever you want to locate that, it's much later than the end of the republic). "A similar mode of production (to Greece's), emerged in ancient Italy, for perhaps similar reasons, but the particular characteristics of this mode of production in its course of development carried internal contradictions which would lead to feudalism. This was not inevitably the only possible historical trajectory path from the beginning, but this is what happened." my issue above still stands, but this is clarifying, so thank you. it's very easy for me to reduce certain positions to a crass universal historical determinism even when i know they aren't necessarily that rigid. it's possible none of this is really that important, but it's a personal peeve, so i appreciate your response.
"When Marx and Engels spoke of 'slave society', they did not do this so as to brush off the particular characteristics of these societies, but to locate what was essential to them as it concerned historical movement." i'm aware. i'm saying that i'm not convinced that a) internal antagonisms particular to Roman slavery is what gave rise to feudalism, partly because i am not convinced that b) slavery was the main force driving production. (but perhaps I was wrong to assume that A being true demands that B be true, if that's what you're getting at here?) the only argument i've heard that somewhat approaches proving this is the standard 'gracchan crisis' narrative that the mass employment of slaves on latifundia displaced smallholders, drove them into the cities en masse, and created a political problem that was not resolved until marius, sulla, or caesar (pick your general);
this is why the emphasis from classicists (and khad in that thread) on 'feudalish' relations, I think. the one possible argument against this relies on forced labor in silver mines, but our estimates for the value of silver and how much it 'ran' the 'economy' are even less conclusive than our estimates on grain. primitive mercantilism etc, however, i would agree was very much on the surface (although i have questions about how critical rentiership was in the roman case, possibly more than usually allowed).
"I do not know how it could be said that these were not 'slave societies', with the essential basis of productive relations ultimately having their basis in relations of slavery...But this is an empirical matter - perhaps it is wrong, somehow." I'm inclined to think it is; obviously calculations of population/value/etc. for this time period are hugely suspect, but i tend to locate 'the essential basis of productive relations' in 'where and by what means people reproduce themselves, i.e. how they eat' (and this may well be mistaken), and in that case the archaeological and literary evidence (admittedly sparse) would seem to suggest that 'peasant smallholders' provided the vast bulk of labor which powered these societies and that their working conditions (so to speak) were not very different at all from their slaves (even the poorest household might have one or two);
ultimately the power of Macedonia over other city states gave Greek history a determinate path, which would be succeeded by ancient Rome. I also suspect this is a simplistic generalization and could in fact be wrong (perhaps developments internal to other Greek city states made Macedonia's hegemony inevitable, necessary, that's an empirical question.) but more must be known (than I know at least - you may be more knowledgeable here) about the particular differences between the Greek city states, what they meant politically, and so on, to come to this conclusion.
There isn't really a reason to believe that feudalism could have emerged out of ancient Greek society. A similar mode of production (to Greece's), emerged in ancient Italy, for perhaps similar reasons, but the particular characteristics of this mode of production in its course of development carried internal contradictions which would lead to feudalism. This was not inevitably the only possible historical trajectory path from the beginning, but this is what happened (and subsequently is necessary in understanding how present day society was shaped). My suspicion is that pre-Hellenistic Greece was indeterminate, could have evolved in various different ways, but that
