In a fuedalist society was capitalism the real movement to abolish the present state of things?

Are you saying there's no qualitative difference in the economies of XVIIth and XIXth century France or Germany?

I believe there is, just like there is a qualitative difference in the economy of 11th century France and 16th century France, yet both were feudal societies.

That's also true, since if we compare them, we will see that in the 16th century France more feudal relations were already started to be more based on quit rent thanks to the development of the markets that later allowed the advent of full-on commodity production, while many areas in eastern Europe, like Poland or Russia, still relied on non-value based socage well into the XVIIIth/XIXth century.

It pokes hole into marxian economy, when you have shit like King Leopold or the British empire (which is a feudal empire mixed with capitalist/mercantilist economy).

King Leopold was a figure-head King whose family the Belgians put in power to convince the British their revolution was safe. who didn’t have any real power in Belgium. He ran the Congo as his private property and his operation was more like a modern corporation with its own mercenaries than 12th century England. I don’t see how any of what you said invalidates Marxian history.

So he was behaving like a real king, a real king cares not about democracy or votes.
Marxian history is about stage and evolution of society that is tied with the economy, when real history shows that the economy can evolve, yet the society stays the same.

Russia for example literally went from feudalism (Kievan Russia) to slavery/feudalism/capitalism (Empire) to slavery/capitalism (stalinism) to capitalism (late USSR/Yeltsin) to capitalism/fascism/slavery (they literally have slave labor in Russia today) all the while maintaining a backwards retrograde society through all the stages.

the existence of slaves doesn't mean it isn't capitalism. Capitalist production is the general way commoditys are produced.

Commodities have been produced ever since the ancient egyptian societies.

Commoditys were not been produced exclusively for exchange. Making things for your own use and selling the surplus is very different from producing commoditys for exchange.

Except selling thing and making your bucks have been a thing since bronze age societies.

They have absolutely been making things for the purpose of selling them.

Yes but most things were produced for use. Producing for exchnage didn't become the dominate form of production until capitalism.

Brits have fully abolished the feudal tenure in the second half of the 17th century.

Feudalism was abolished in 1861, although the agrarian revolution was only completed in 1917
Plain capitalism, I know you mean the forced labour, but strictly speaking slavery is the system where property rights are applied to the people.
Same as above(aside from some shit in chechenya), also fascism isn't a mode of production

Except the commodity production has only been generalized onto the entire society roughly around the XVIIIth and XIXth centuries. Your typical slave working on a latifundium or feudal peasant did not have a contact with the market on a daily basis.

They were absolutely produced for exchange.

All those nice weapons and jewelry and shit weren't "used" in the same sense the table and chairs were.

Those commoditys were a minority not a majoirty of all goods produced. Commodity production was not generalized.

And before that? The 15th and the 16th centuries?
Source?
Factually wrong, the feudal peasant goes to the market to buy shit he cannot make by himself, unless you think a feudal peasant can just up and make himself bread, jewelry and weapon by himself.

Yeah, man, I don't think weapons and jewelry were a minority.

In fact, weapons were a popular and very mainstream commodities to trade, as well as horse.

Feudal peasants historically had little or no occasion to need any significant amount of weapons and jewelry. Also, why would you think they couldn't make their own bread? I know these are just arbitrary examples, but the same is applicable to any good really. For most of the population throughout feudal times, the staple food was literally gruel. Besides clothes (sewn by women in the home) and food (mostly produced by the peasants themselves, and hardly a consumer good in any case), what exactly do you think they would need market interaction for?

But that's ultimately irrelevant anyway. The point isn't that there was literally zero capitalism in ancient days or that there was literally zero slavery in the nineteenth century. Rather, these are general trends. There are many exceptions. Even when there is not an exception, you should never expect to find an economy that's 100% feudalism, slavery, or whatever.

Historically wrong, every medieval peasant ought to have a weapon or two, or even armor, so he can be drafted to war or fight off robber or dangerous animal. Jewelry is also something common because even peasant has to marry to someone.
Because bread requires bakery, which is something you do not make out of a blue or easily make. And breads are damn cheap out of the market.
This is factually wrong, they eat bread, with milk and meat.
Nonsense, every village have a tailor, you have to be talented or even skilled to make cloth.
Also wrong, because a peasant simply cannot produce a varied diet based on their simple crop.
Their furniture, their children toy, their books, their weapons and their jewelry.
My point is that commodity production has existed ever since the bronze age society.
11th centuries France as 100% feudalism, just like America since its conception was 100% capitalism.

Feudalism in England has flourished since the 8th to the 14th century, the 15th and 16th centuries were the period of its decline in favour of market relationships, with the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 being a formalization of this process. This was the period of the primitive accumulation, as evidenced by the practices such as the enclosure of lands or vagabondage laws.
Frankly I was a bit too general here since that period applies mostly to western European countries like France and its neighbours. But for example I recall about 80% of late imperial Russia was made up of peasantry living in their tiny villages, I really doubt a lot of them a had a daily contact with the market exchange aside from things like the taxation, see communal villages known as Obshchinas.
Jesus, you don't get it. Now we have a contact with the market pretty much every single fucking day, a 16th century Ukrainian feudal peasant did not, he had more contact with his noble by having to eg. work three days a week on lord's field according to the feudal obligations.

But the 15th and 16th centuries were the height of the monarchies, where they conquer and exploit the most.
Except every villages have a market, and they sell shit there, market naturally form inside any kind of community, because no one does shit for free.
You are speaking to someone who know how farmer work, no, they literally do not slave away all days at the field like an office worker does, they literally get up in the morning, take care of the field, then do something else (market time, playing, go drinking with your buddies). Farming is hard work, but it literally does not take 8 hours like modern work.

I'm talking about the decline of feudal relationships and peasant communal ownership in favour of market relationships and private property in England, not about kings conquering shit.
Not really, Obschinas for example were based on communal ownership, the land not assigned to one house permanently but allocated by the entire village community basing on the number of people in the household. Such communal systems were in fact pretty widespread before the things like eg. English Enclosure Acts or Russian Stolypin's reform.
I didn't mention anything about the length of the workday.

wew
read literally any history book you nigger.

In fact, I think you oughta read a history.

Feudal era was not a time where peasants literally sewn their own clothes and stay at the farm all days like some kind of cavemen.

They were a joyful, colorful bunch.

Like hell they are. Modern historical and anthropological research pretty clearly paints the picture that in older societies trade was something conducted with outsiders, while complex social debt systems based on gift giving along with mutual aid has been the norm for economic interelations within a community before modernity.

I dunno about your "evidence", but village market has always existed.

People make shit, and they trade to give money, since their "job" is not time consuming and requiring attention like modern job.

...

What exactly is this "feudal relationship" and "peasant communal ownership"? The lord own the fiefs which own the villages/castles, and market exist within the town/village, rich men own private properties yet they still swear fealty to the lord, this fact was true in the feudal era from the 11th era to 16th centuries.
The only one who owns the village is the lord, and the market exists said commune anyway. People do not share their toothbrush.
Except their length of work day is crucial to the argument, the peasants spend more times among themselves than with the lord.

libcom.org/files/DebtThe_First_5_000_Years.pdf

Read it, then get back to me.

...

Nah, get back to me after you read actual historical books about feudal lives.

lmao

…yeah, as they say, 10 peddlers make a market.

For all your pompous about the supposed errors in Marx' historical materialism and class warfare, have you actually read Marx? Because you are fundamentally failing to understand that the semiotics are different from mainstream history studies.

All I care to know, is that marxian history is horseshit and does not reflect real history, and this is why communism isn't inevitable.

And this is evidence too, Marx literally had different theories of history in his early works.

Let's ignore the vagueness of this claim for the moment - do you expect theorists to immediately come up with their final thesis? Is going back on ones theory and changing details a slight against its validity to you?

t. Microbrain

No, but I expect a historian to study recorded history instead of writing fiction in a non-fiction book.

Why do that when I could play, say, a vidya game?

At least a vidya game would be entertaining.

Yikes, lad, read what you try to critique before fumbling like this.

t. nanobrain

Yeah I don't think one need to read Marx in order to critique Marxian history, which has outlived Marx works now.

Why indeed, at least the toys trigger my almonds.

Feudal land tenure in general.
The entire village holds given land as one rather than dividing it between each other, like commual pastures, communal pannages, and(although sightly different) the entire arable land like in those stupid Russian villages we've been talking about/
Both yes and no, Obshchinas could have both free peasants and serfs, and after the reform there were only free peasants. But to the point:
Yet they did share the entire arable land assigned to the households and periodically redistributed according to the changes in the household so everyone had their own food source, not to mention collective farming was also a thing in there. If they, much like us, engage in the trade so often, that what did they have to buy and sell so often every single day?
And every day after returning from the lord's manor they immediately had to go to the local village market in order to buy things they needed on a daily basis?

Feudal land tenure which means the local lord owns everything.
The land doesn't belong to any of the peasants, it belongs to the lord, this is like idiocy of the workers dividing the workplace up, no, the lord decides who farms what, not the peasants.
Free peasants own a bit of land, but the lord can take the land back if he wants, only when peasants get richer, the bourgeois start to form that their rights become more emboldended.
As said, other kind of food that they did not have. Cheese, bread, meat, milk…the feudal peasants did not live like king, but they had a varied diet.
Peasants have their own houses, and in the family, it's the wife who goes shopping because she's physically weaker than the husband and much more frail, this tradition carries on to modern day.

selling your surplus is not the same as producing for exchange

Uh, they were selling their surplus for the purpose of making money.

And they kinda had to, since outside of grain tax from the lord, they had to give money to the church.

Slavery is owning people, capitalism is paying a wage for labor. These are mutually exclusive concepts.

Yet the british empire owned slaves for hundreds of years.

And so did the Confederacy/CSA.

Slaves were paid too you idiot, especially the skilled slaves such as those that worked in Richmond's steel works, who were actually compensated relatively well.

Not to mention, the means of productions also existed back then (various grain mills, wind mill, various hammers, nails, agricultural tools).

They were just simpler, and no, the slaves/peasants did not own them either.

And as a consequence the peasants bound to that lord/living on that land must do such and such things, like working in lord's manor or paying a rent, to continue living there. This is pretty much what I mean by feudal relationship.
Factually incorrect, the free peasantry entitled to have a strip of land assigned to them did exist in the obshchinas even before the abolition of serfdom and after it those communes were made up exclusively of free peasants not bound to any lord

Why don't you just use numbers?

Those are numbers.

Sure, he was acting far worse than you average run of the mill absolute monarch or Bronze Age despot but that doesn't mean his rule was somehow the same as one.

Hitler cared not for democracy or votes, but I wouldn't say Nazi Germany was exactly the same as the pre-revolutionary French absolute monarchy. Even though Hitler was the de facto absolute ruler I wouldn't even go so far as to say that Nazi Germany was some sort of monarchy.

Read any account of Leopold's Congo and you'll find he was primarily concerned with making profits and not extracting rent/tribute from his subjects or leaving behind some kind of monarchial dynasty in the Congo. His goal was to become a billionaire and he began colonization with the hope that the Congo could help support the national interests of the Belgian bourgeois in the same that Indonesia did in neighboring Holland which drew 25% of its national income from its trade. His eyes were always on the international price of rubber and not building some kind of lasting dynasty or obtaining rents from peasant subjects in the Congo. He enslaved anyone he could and stole as much as possible in order to make as much profit as soon as possible before his competitors on the international rubber-market. Millions were killed for short-term profits.

That doesn't sound very much like feudalism to me either in the economic sense or the cultural ones. Leopold had a monarchial title that he received due to the survival of feudal muh privileges and heritage but he did not govern the Congo in a feudal way.

Monarchies who manage to survive in the modern-world often adapt themselves to capitalist money-making. The Eastern monarchies such as the Gulf-states, Burnei, Thailand etc. are good examples of this. So, is the British monarchy that you mentioned which known to insider's as "The Firm"?

That the most famed and one of the longest-reigning monarchies in the world adapts the nomenclature of a mere corporation is a sign that class relations actually have shifted in the modern world and that the institutions that survived feudalism were in fact forced to adapt to this pressure in order to survive. The British monarchy itself was the victim of two revolutions and two regicides and one abdication during a period of less than two centuries, I might add.

How has society stayed the same? Are you seriously going to argue that Tudor England or earlier is the same as modern England except with faster growth and better technology?

Speaking strictly from a cultural perspective, England in 1900 and England today are both capitalist societies but the sheer extent of cultural change in just 100 years and even class relations have undergone significant modification in that time even if the fundamental contradictions have not changed.

Economically, the economy of Britain has shifted decisively in favor of capitalists and the middle classes and away from the aristocracy significantly over the centuries. And, Britain is one of the nations where the bourgeois revolution(s) there had the most conservative result by our present vantage point.

still not the same as for the purpose of exchange

This feudal relationship has not in fact dyed out, it lives out in the modern day with housekeepers and butlers.
Sound like bullshit to me, especially in Russia where serfdom was especially hard, perhaps those lands were assigned free for the peasants (as in they are free to do whatever they want with it), but belonging to them entirely? That sounds like too much of a stretch.
It's more than just food, there are simply too much shit that the peasantry cannot make by themselves and require craftsmen/cook's talents.
Come on, the butchery service is an incredibly long profession.

Where I live, South east asia, life in village and shit has stayed the same for thousands of year, the technology increases and there's a bit of mechanization, sure, but farmers working in the field while their wives buying shit in the local market has continued been the norm.

First off, what is the point of the monarchy? That is to rule the land and make a profit out of it, this was usually done by extracting grain and tax, but it was also done by selling the surplus made by their local farmers and craftsmen. King Leopold acted like a evil king, but he still acted like a king as he made the most profit out of his host. You have to realize that the way corporation works isn't that different than a monarchy, that is why neo-feudalism isn't much of an actual joke.
The society of the 1100s England and 1400s England are already different despite their economic staying MOSTLY the same, just like how 90s culture is different than 00s and 10s cultures despite the unchanging economic. Yet something like Saudi Arabia has the economy advancing very fast, but their government still work by the decree of monarchy.

My point is that societal culture changes regardless of economy, economy can play a part of it, but it is not the wholly cause.

Sure. The retreating of elites to tax exempt estates and the binding of the serfs to those domains undermined the tax base for the large slave holding empire that was Rome.

You’re using the word profit in an imprecise way when I’m fact what you really mean is surplus-value. Capitalist profit is different from rent and tax which is really just a veiled rent which was the economic centerpiece of feudalism and feudal relations.

Medieval Kings were typically very rich from surplus that they extracted from their subject population but they were generally not capitalists.

It is true they are monarchist but this fact does not make them any less capitalist or the same as Kings from earlier times. Authoritiarianism=\=feudalism.

I think you’re drawing a false dichotomy if you think Marxism someone says these changes aren’t important. Both economic changes and cultural changes matter; one can draw the other and vice-versa, but in general the economic is the primary determinant of a society’s mode of life.

Most people were illiterate fucking peasants m8. Farming to provide for yourself and your family was much more prevalent than farming a cash crop or trading. These occurrences increased over time, but wasn't the MAJORITY. Who owned fucking jewelry 'cept higher class people? Who owned swords 'cept those who could afford them or is provided for them? Even then swords were made by the local blacksmith for direct use by their lords rather than straight up buying stuff. This isn't DnD m8.