So was Marxian-history a real thing in history?

So was Marxian-history a real thing in history?

I have trouble believe there's a difference between "slave society", feudalism and capitalism.

The roman empire was pretty much feudalism completed with an emperor, nobility and a clergy class, and the feudal structure also incorporates a wage labor middle-class in form of peasants where they don't own anything but work the land for the lord/land owner.

This kind of feudalism has also existed before feudalism officially exists, slaves and peasants both exist in ancient Greek city-states and ancient Egyptian empires.

Other urls found in this thread:

Except it wasn't.

Kindly explain how it wasn't?

Also, this is a very anglo-centric view of history, considering China perfectly combines slave society with feudalism.

Feudalism technically exists in China ever since what? The Qin empire?

I thought this for a while too until I read some books and now I can sometimes use the correct words. It was nice and easy to say "capitalism has existed since written history and is the cause of all problems in society" but its a little spooky and its more correct to say "private property has existed since the invention of agriculture, sedentary culture, writing arose as a way to record debts etc"

Feudalism is a very specific type of socioeconomic program where serfs are tied to the land and required to work on it in exchange for protection and cant leave. They work part of the week on the land that the king owns and are free to use their own land as they see fit on their off days. Serfs were usually in generational debt bondage.

Rome wasn't feudalism because they didn't have serfs and people weren't tied to the land.

Feudalism also isn't capitalism because it doesn't have private ownership of the means of production directed for surplus commodity production to exchange for profit.

Capitalism is not: markets, trading stuff, bartering

Shit nigga I guess leftypol really does read

What are some examples of revolutions that transformed ancient society to feudalism?

We all know the bourgeois revolutions, but what about the revolutions of landed gentry?

Jesus fuck.
Also, it's true that they are tied to the land, but peasants could also break the laws and leave. Migration was a big thing in feudal period, not to mention, some of them were drafted to fight war, so you can have some paddy living in fucking Russia for example.

It does though, the grain, food, goods are exchanged as taxes, any surplus, the peasants either hoard or sell to merchants to get more gold.

Maybe agricultural revolution?

Feudalism as a thing has existed ever since somebody calls himself a king.

Also, fucking wrong, they had peasants and slaves, and they were forced to work to the governor/slave master the same way the peasant is forced to work for the lord/baron/count.

Taxes are not exchange. There was nothing the lords gave the serfs in return. The serfs might have sold their surplus to a merchant, but this only happened occasionally because they lived off the products of their own labour and they weren't required to sell their labour to someone else. generalized commodity production =/= commodity production

The lords give them protection and the right to farm his land. Which is exactly like how you pay taxes and work nowadays.
The peasants of the middle age trade, they do not make their own breads, they must also have the money to buy table/common furniture or weapon, or go to school/employ someone else. The idea that the peasants live completely off by themselves is nonsense.
They were FORCED to sell their labour to the lord of the land. If they do not work, they would be killed or expelled.

Not true for the taxes part. The state doesn't own most of the MoP, it just takes shit from various parts of the economy. It isn't true either for the work part, because capitalists don't just give the MoP to you and then take a part of the products of your labour. Instead, the capitalists buy your labour power and then sell the whole of the products of your labour (thus commodity production is generalized because from the start it regulates the process of production).
They weren't required to trade anything if they wanted to just survive.
I'm pretty sure that they had to make furniture for themselves, they didn't need weapons for anything (if we are not counting overthrowing the feudal system), they never got to school their kids and they never really employed other people (I'm pretty sure that peasants lived kind of communally)
I never said that.

Marxist historiography is bad, but you're falling into the trap of thinking feudalism and angrarian clans/townships are capitalist. Rome had elements of capitalism by its peak that disappeared with the split and fall of the western empire.

Serfs did have allocations of land though which they had control over, but was still within the fief of their lord. They couldn't completely claim it as their own but they had their own use of it, for farming or whatever else they wanted.

Also the peasantry broadly wasn't taxed under feudalism because they had already given their lord the contribution demanded through the feudal system. A lot of peasant revolts were because of attempts to levy taxes on peasants trading their own goods.

they were not tied to the land like serfs were. A medieval serf was not free to leave the farm and join a legion.

For anyone wanting to know more about feudal lifestyle:

Which is true for both feudal and capitalist economy, the lord just taxes the peasants and the merchants and craftsmen.
It's also true, they get the grains from your labour and sell to somebody else, or they even sell back to you in case of really bad famine. You get something out of it, but it is just wage.
But they never wanted to just survive, the children need toy, the wife needs new dress, the man needs new tools and weapons, all of this are bought by money in the local market.
I'm pretty sure you need to back that shit up with proof, because the furniture market has existed since ancient times, people don't just make shit like mirror drawers by themselves, or dresses, or potteries.
Except to defend themselves against pests, wild beasts and robbers which were more prevalent in that era than they are now, and the fact the lord requires them to own weapons in order to be levied.
They actually homeschooled their kids if they lack money, for the wealthy peasants, they sent their kids to school, for the middle class, they sent them to the church or the local merchant/craftsmen for apprenticeship, these were all traditions started by feudal men.
They HAD to hire farmhands in harvest time because without the manpower, their crops would be lost to pest or winter.

All of these are basic goddamn histories, something you ought to fucking know when you argue about feudalistic life. Your version of feudal exists in some kind of anarchist fantasy land where the peasants are poor but they make everything by themselves and don't need money.

Serf as in the feudal serf in Russia did not own shit, they just farmed and the lord/boyar allowed them to keep some shit for themselves, that's all. They still get paid and their source of income is why they had stuff like furniture.
Their taxes were the grain/produce they had to give to the lord, they were also required to pay church taxes too, so this is another nonsense shit you are pouting.
Just another reason in a shitload of reasons behind peasant revolt.

And somehow slaves are "free" to leave their farm and join a legion? What, the roman legion is for free men and mercenaries, not slaves.
On the contrary, the medieval serf is required to be armed so they can be levied into an army, and get paid doing so.

All this thread is convincing me that Holla Forums has no fucking idea about the feudal peasant.

These being distinct socioeconomic systems really isn't exclusive to Marxism. You're essentially arguing with the bulk of established historiography.

Capitalism wasn't even called capitalism when it was formed.

It was called mercantilism first.

And history itself called the ancient kingdoms pre-Roman empire to be feudal kingdoms, and these kingdoms exist along with slave society, or before slave society.

Not to mention stuff like the Confederacy, where slavery exists along with capitalism.

Mercantilism is more of a proto-capitalism. They aren't one and the same.
Who says this?
Isolated pockets of slavery don't define an entire economic system. Slavery still exists today but you wouldn't argue that we don't live in a capitalist society.