The more I learn history the more I'm becoming convinced that there really is nothing special about our modern liberal...

The more I learn history the more I'm becoming convinced that there really is nothing special about our modern liberal capitalism.

Is it true or it it the bias of the people who I'm watching YouTube videos of/listening to podcasts of

Bump

I'm in the same situation except I'm starting to think capitalism is worse than feudalism

Certainly the current philosophisers who think we have everything figured out and liberal capitalism is the end state of mankind are as wrong as those of previous eras.

you obviously havent read much history

I think the most special thing is that it replaced real violence with structural violence while at the same time claims to be enforced globally.

Through its structural violence it is harder to argue against it

This. At least under european feudalism(I don't know if feudalism in China or Japan was diferent) there were no banks, there no interests and there was no fake ilusion that people could climb the social ladder. You were born in a certain place and you would live all your life on that region.
Now under liberal capitalism people are born into poverty but they get this ilusion that they can become rich. So you see more and more people gambling, more and more people applying for reality shows instead of university.
Capitalism is mental retardation…and the best thing is that it's defenders use the exact same argument folks used before the french revolution. "Monarchy and feudalism is the natural way of life, kings rule because of divine right, it always has been like this and it will always be this way".

just gibe up and learn history again kiddo.

He's right though

While banks existed in the late middle ages banks they are not an inherent element of feudalism which relies on barter economy and personal relations

If you read a lot about Rome or China you see really quick they not much has changed. There might be fancy technological veneer slapped over things but many economic and political modes of exploitation and oppression are the same.

...

Well it's all a matter of scale. There are 200 billion stars in our galaxy, and at least 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe, and for all we know, the rest of the universe might be literally infinite. Life on Earth, let alone human history, is so insignificant we don't have words for it.

Except for the fact that, you know, Rome was essentially an overgrown city-state that had enslaved the rest of Europe and depended entirely on a slave economy, necessitating constant expansion to sate the need for more slaves, and quickly went into decline and collapse when they were unable to continue doing this.

Wrong. Looks like you need to read Theory As History: Essays On Modes Of Production And Exploitation, by Jairus Banaji.

Luckily for you, a copy is available in the >>>/freedu/ Marxist thread.

How exactly is that wrong, pray tell?

Explain what you mean by slave economy.

It's depressing because I haven't seen it collapse in the history books.
I could sleep much easier if I knew that even if it takes 500 years, this system will die.

An economy built on the use of slave labor as the primary mode of production.

Then you are wrong. Roman landowners capitalized on fundamentally different forms of labour. As Jairus Banaji tells us in Theory As History: Essays On Modes Of Production And Exploitation, the production of profit depended on waged labour as much as it did slave labour. And I think slave labour is less a mode of production and a definite form of the relations of production.

Are there actual numbers on this?

Then why did Rome issue a grain dole to people put out of work by slave labor if Rome apparently depended on wage labor as much as slave labor?

Jairus Banaji does make use of primary sources for this argument in his excellent work Theory As History: Essays In Modes Of Production And Exploitation

Are you Marxcucks finally admitting capitalism was a step backwards in terms of the dialectic instead of a step forward?

Welcome to nrx.

...

Intredasting, I'll check it out. Thanks.

I said that Rome depended as much on waged labour than it did for slave labour for the production of profit; not that waged labour supplanted slave labour in this role. Reducing the explanation of the fall of Rome to one of the failure of a Slave Economy ignores how this came about. But had you read Jairus Banaji's excellent collection of writings published as part of the Historical Materialism series: Theory As History: Essays On The Modes Of Production And Exploitation, then you would have have understood this.

...

Even his pseudonym brings to mind a bespectacled, bowtie-wearing balding man with a self-satisfied smirk.

A Harry Potter character.

What I was getting at is that programs like the grain dole implies that most non-slave labor was destroyed due to freeborn workers not being able to complete.

To be honest, Roman History isn't something I'm remotely knowledgeable on, I just want you to read Jairus Banaji's Theory As History: Essays On The Modes Of Production And Exploitation which is available on the >>>/freedu/ board's Marxist thread. He writes against historical simplification in a way that a) clears up common preconceptions regarding Marxist theory, and b) critiques those who practice dogma in order to do so.

I can only say that 'programs like the grain dole' also implies a wider set of contradictions between the two forms of labour. Not that slave labour didn't play a role in the collapse of Rome but that to reduce it to the sole factor would be a deliberate oversight.

Well, it put mankind in space!

Oh, wait, no. Actually that was communism.