On the morality of slavery and the effects of technology on civil rights.

[K. A. Pital]

Coercion is a more serious question (especially in precapitalist, non-feudal societies), but coercion does not equal slavery.

Jub mentioned „land rights“. Even Marx with his very Western-centered views noted that such categories applied to a society like India are only confusing - use of land can occur in absence of property rights to land.

Likewise LGBT „rights“ in precapitalist societies is a wrong application of language. A lack of persecution of people for sexual orientation or forms of sexual freedom unique to precapitalist and often pre-monotheistic societies was noted in many cultures. It is primarily the Western and Islamic culture which had been responsible for spreading deadly homophobia to the East, for example.

The concepts originating under capitalism often cannot be applied to non-capitalist society- even historically.

So slavery was far from universal, just as the concept of autonomous communal labour pretty much excluded „nationwide rights“ or „nationwide persecution“.

The capitalist nation-state, being a vessel of propertied classes, violently spreads its concept of rights and also initiates worldwide persecution of currently undesirable. It also rewrites history so that alien concepts are applied with complete disregard of the real historical facts at hand.

[LaCroix]

Correct me if I am wrong (likely), but weren't the feudal classes (nobles and clergy) pretty much an entirely seperate society from the peasantry?

You would have a spectrum from poor to rich (a simple knight vs a king, a town priest vs a cardinal) in feudal society, such as you had a rating from poor to rich in peasantry/common people (small farmer - bigger farmer, craftsmen with small and bigger shops, small market merchants vs big traders). The two worlds were pretty much a seperate entity in regards to social mobility, with little lateral movement. Even the richest merchants of common birth, while living lavish and lazy like some kings could not afford, were still considered to be less than the lowest poor noble.

Feudal society was characterized by a cascading network of subservience to people in rank above you when in line - you had no obligations to any other duke than your own. In fact, a small noble had no direct duty to the king, he was bound to his superior, who was ultimately bound to the king. So a king could de jure not directly demand something of a vassal's vassal. A similar, but less linear, more rank-based system existed for the clergy. (Which would imply that de facto, feudalism only applies to the nobility.) A peasant or merchant never had to swear any oath to any noble, he was considered to be his subject (note the term) simply by living in the area the particular noble was in control of. If two nobles feuded and one conquered the territory, the subject simply changed hands, just as part of the property. Same for taxation of tradesmen and merchants. Who controlled the land, received the spoils.

Wouldn't it be more precise to classify peasantry and feudal society as two co-existing societies? Kind of a military/religious dictatorship by a minority, which mostly only interacted commmercially with the supressed majority? I mean, even the legal part was merely a tool for the feudals to keep control of the lands, and keeping things calm and orderly. Lot's of times, they did nor care about actively preventing crime unless it started to affect their own economic sphere, and a noble killing a common person was usually mostly ignored, until it became a prolem for the liege of the noble in question, which led to him reprimanding or fining the vassal. Just look at Goetz of Berlichingen or similar figures who could do as they pleased in regards to ourtight robbing merchants (not serfs, but 'free men') and killing commoners in broad daylight with little to no repercussions, as long as they kept up the appearances in regards to feudal business.

Also, the existence of free cities with no formal overlord but the king/emperor or the concept that a serf would be a free man once he reaches a city and settles there ('Stadtluft macht frei') seem to imply that serfdom was more a concept of reality (people live in the area that is controlled by this or that noble, so they belong to him, just like the ground, plants, buildings and animals), than a direct result/institution of feudalism. The noble in most cases did not actually 'own' the serf like a slave, but he simply tried to keep him from leaving the farm (apart from it being hard already to do so, economically) out of economic self-interest of needing somebody to work there. And since every noble did so, serfdom became a fact, just like "full employment" became a fact in lot of communist regimes, where it was illegal to not work, and you would simply get assigned to work at a certain place.

[madd0ct0r]

Boo at stas!

Of course any conceptual framework can be applied to any society to assess it! The results may not be especially useful, and it needs to be paired with a second historically contextually sensitive one but to state otherwise is like claiming there's no true translation between langauges.

What you are arguing seems to me to be against the idea of universal rights. Is so?


@lacroix - what time period and area are you thinking of?

[LaCroix]

@lacroix - what time period and area are you thinking of?

Generally, high and late middle ages, for in the early period there was still a lot of lateral movenent between the common and noble societies due to knighthoods being awarded, and the whole concept of feudalism and vassalage was still in an early stage to be generalized.

By the high middle ages (11th century onward) the struggles of "viking/magyar/islamic invasions" were mostly done, castles (a quite essential part of feudalism, as the castle determines the area you control) were developed, and small fiefdoms were consolidated into bigger states (which created the ladder of nobility that feudalism depends on)

It would not be productive to try to classify a system that isn't really defined, yet.

[Spoonist]

orrect me if I am wrong (likely), but weren't the feudal classes (nobles and clergy) pretty much an entirely seperate society from the peasantry?

Yes, but that is not a function of feudalism. Instead the powerful and rich has in all cultures spanning the globe pretty much been a separate society and still are.

(which created the ladder of nobility that feudalism depends on)

It would not be productive to try to classify a system that isn't really defined, yet.

The problem with the tag/label of "feudalism" is that it is a relatively modern (end 1700s) descriptive simplification of a system that they had fundamentally misunderstood. Thus the term is a slippery slope of IDNTIMWYTIM since some interpretations are made by laymen when they hear the term which are no longer shared with modern historians.
Kinda like viking or viking age which sounds specific but when looking at specific points in real history becomes very arbitrary and non-descriptive.

Like it used to be said in school books that the normans brought feudalism with them when conquering britain. However each example given of what that feudalism would in practicality actually "be" already existed with different names before conquest.

You would have a spectrum from poor to rich (a simple knight vs a king, a town priest vs a cardinal) in feudal society, such as you had a rating from poor to rich in peasantry/common people (small farmer - bigger farmer, craftsmen with small and bigger shops, small market merchants vs big traders)

Here is the crux croix.
That is how it is described in theory - however that was pretty much never how it worked in practice nor how the people living in those times would describe it. It is a common and easy referenced shorthand for something too complex which when inspected never fits the label.
For instance during the Holy Roman Empire era which is smack in the middle of what you are referring to with the 'free imperial cities' etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_imperial_city
The game had already changed so much that a lot of folks refer to it as post-feudal and things like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights%27_Revolt
was the result.

you had no obligations to any other duke than your own.

Unfortunately, you did. This was a big problem with the complex intricacies of inheritance combined with might makes right. Nobles would often own and control patches here and there, where one part would be in the demense of X and other parts in the demense of Y. Which leads to whole lot of situations where you would have dual or even triple plus claims or loyalties with different results in who you had to answer to.
This is why you got so many situations like the hundred years war where the king of X was also had domains that made them vassals to Y but really they weren't etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War
If the theory behind the term/label "feudal" would work then that conflict wouldn't have happened the way it did.
Which is also why nation states and nationality/nationalism became so very strong concepts by the end of western medieval era.

You can see this in the legal systems of the time and in how warfare changed the dynamics of such arrangements.

For instance reading the peace treaties gives a lot of insight in how they thought about such things at the time which definitely wouldn't fit our schoolbook understanding of the word 'feudal'.
Like the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Le_Goulet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lambeth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Perth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Pavia_(1329)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Br%C3%A9tigny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of ... und_(1370)

[K. A. Pital]

I merely note that „LGBT rights“ in the modern Westernized context only have meaning because for a long period of history these people have been deprived of equality relative to others. Part of it was thanks to monotheism, part thanks to Arabic and Western expansion, but core point is: before a person is deprived of dignity relative to another person, the concept of „rights“ specifically for that person is nonexistent.

This is like the rights of Native Americans to land: before they were exterminated and their land taken from them, they had all the land - they had neither „rights“ nor „property“, but they possessed, explored, traveled, used and toiled the land.

„Rights“ generally have meaning in an oppressive context. Property rights have a meaning only in a property-based society.

If LGBT people never were oppressed relative to their heterosexual counterparts, the concept of their separate „rights“ would not have come into existence. They would perhaps be having universal human rights, just as other humans, if we wish to put every single thing into a rights-based framework.

Hope I have explained why the idea of „land rights“ in societies where members were not subjected to expulsion from land via enclosure en masse, is also a contradiction in terms. The commune had the ability and authority to use the land it was situated on, and so its members were not „without land rights“, but rather with land, yet outside the property context.

To give an example, walking marriages, allowed polyamory, and homosexual relationships and such among the North Eastern tribes in Russia and parts of China, were not considered wrong by the societies practicing them, but normal.

Hence, description of tribal women as „promiscuous“ and men as „gay“ was only a Western, transplanted concept due to Christianization of Russia, for example. The tribes themselves had no idea their social structures were „wrong“. Eventually they were dismantled and their members oppressed and indoctrinated into the dominant culture, where the idea of „rights“ started to make sense as they were in an inferior position to „the norm“, which is white heterosexual people.

[LaCroix]

(which created the ladder of nobility that feudalism depends on)

It would not be productive to try to classify a system that isn't really defined, yet.

The problem with the tag/label of "feudalism" is that it is a relatively modern (end 1700s) descriptive simplification of a system that they had fundamentally misunderstood. Thus the term is a slippery slope of IDNTIMWYTIM since some interpretations are made by laymen when they hear the term which are no longer shared with modern historians.
Kinda like viking or viking age which sounds specific but when looking at specific points in real history becomes very arbitrary and non-descriptive.

Like it used to be said in school books that the normans brought feudalism with them when conquering britain. However each example given of what that feudalism would in practicality actually "be" already existed with different names before conquest.

Not quite - there were similar structures before feudalism - chief/king and his men, back to the earlies tribal societies but there were no layers in between. You either were a king, or a noble underneath, or a commoner. That works for smaller entities like the pre-norman Britain. Feudalism is a system that came to be once kingdoms were consolidated, and the number of local nobles became to big for direct control by one person, so local "mini kings" in the form of barons, dukes, whatsitsname were needed to make it manageable.

You would have a spectrum from poor to rich (a simple knight vs a king, a town priest vs a cardinal) in feudal society, such as you had a rating from poor to rich in peasantry/common people (small farmer - bigger farmer, craftsmen with small and bigger shops, small market merchants vs big traders)

Here is the crux croix.
That is how it is described in theory - however that was pretty much never how it worked in practice nor how the people living in those times would describe it. It is a common and easy referenced shorthand for something too complex which when inspected never fits the label.
For instance during the Holy Roman Empire era which is smack in the middle of what you are referring to with the 'free imperial cities' etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_imperial_city
The game had already changed so much that a lot of folks refer to it as post-feudal and things like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights%27_Revolt
was the result.

Actually, the knight's revolt was exactly a result of this seperation of societies - Poor Knights (lowest form of nobles with barely any land to their name, if any at all) were robbing rich commoners because they were above the common law. It was ignored for a long time, until the Emperor could no longer ignore the commoners being upset and the fact that it did cut into his personal income (as he was the main beneficiary of the taxes from these people). In return, he banned private warfare (which was the legal term the knights used to "feud" with merchants in order to get away with it), but at the same time the richer nobles made sure that said legislation only applied to the poor nobles, which in turn made the knights revolt against being deprived of their main source of income at that time.

So, it holds that the nobles actually ignored anything in the common realm (robbery and murder) until it directly affected them (losing out on money), and then only made a small correction to curb the people that caused them this financial trouble, but leaving the general problem (nobles fighting amongst each other) mostly untouched.

you had no obligations to any other duke than your own.

Unfortunately, you did. This was a big problem with the complex intricacies of inheritance combined with might makes right. Nobles would often own and control patches here and there, where one part would be in the demense of X and other parts in the demense of Y. Which leads to whole lot of situations where you would have dual or even triple plus claims or loyalties with different results in who you had to answer to.
This is why you got so many situations like the hundred years war where the king of X was also had domains that made them vassals to Y but really they weren't etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War
If the theory behind the term/label "feudal" would work then that conflict wouldn't have happened the way it did.

In my opinion, that is exactly how feudalism was supposed to happen - you owed fealty to the overlord of any demesne your personal holdings were situated in, but only to them. Many nobles had sworn fealties to nobles that had similiar split loyalies, and for the most part, it worked fine, as long as it only concerned paying that tax money to this guy and that tax money to that other guy. Warfare always rattled these things up, as the noble would get the call to arms from say, two different overlords, and for opposing sides. In this case, the noble either had a clear pictuer that he had more property on one side, and would be favoring that, or - in split cases - had to decide which side he thought to be more promising to him, and join that particular one.

Either way, he would be risking to lose all his properties within the losing side if that area was not going to be captured by the winning side during the conflict.

A lot of times, this was resolved by the noble simply not answering any call, and hedging his bet to be able to retain one or both properties via diplomacy and good relations - or simply taking too long to raise troops to show up anywhere.

That's why powerful lords always tried to impose rules/apply pressure to make sure that none of their vassals could hold territory in a different demesne, to limit the impact of these economic decisions on loyalty.

[Spoonist]

Not quite - there were similar structures before feudalism - chief/king and his men, back to the earlies tribal societies but there were no layers in between. You either were a king, or a noble underneath, or a commoner. That works for smaller entities like the pre-norman Britain. Feudalism is a system that came to be once kingdoms were consolidated, and the number of local nobles became to big for direct control by one person, so local "mini kings" in the form of barons, dukes, whatsitsname were needed to make it manageable.

There were layers in between. The Doomsday book easily shows this.
https://opendomesday.org/
So the structures post invasion and pre invasion were pretty much the same but with norman names replacing the old ones.
The division of the land and the hierarchy of those remained remarkably the same considering how many were killed or driven out.

The big change was not those things that people the layers but rather with the "rights of kings" in that William claimed all the land as his and the nobles were only granted tenure. Hence that he could take it back if he so wanted.

Actually, the knight's revolt was exactly a result of this seperation of societies

Agreed but in reverse. Yes to the dual societies and the old laws was replaced by new ones etc.
But, it was an example of that the world was more complex than the theoretic model and that lots of folks see that as the end of the feudal contract of knights in the HRE hence for that to be possible then the HRE had moved beyond what is considered traditional feudalism before that could happen. The rising power of the burgers is not derived from the feudal concept.
For instance since Franz von Sickingen was an opportunist he was known to (where profitable) side with the citizens against their lords. That goes against the power derived top-down through fiefdoms and sub-fiefdoms as dictated by feudal theory, and instead is similar to what we see in pre-norman britain and pre-HRE continent.

In my opinion, that is exactly how feudalism was supposed to happen - you owed fealty to the overlord of any demesne your personal holdings were situated in, but only to them.

I agree in general but not in specifics. Here it is the use of the word "only" that I disagree with while I agree with your overall theme.
This since from historical examples we know that it was possible to owe several overlapping overlords fealty where each of them had legal rights to the domain you lived in. Which resulted in some areas being taxed double over long periods etc. Many such legal cases can be found throughout the medieval period and would sometimes result in rebellions wars etc.



But instead of arguing the details- my generic point was that the schoolbook understanding of what is feudalism is generally flawed.
So as long as one ads caveats like "generally" "mostly" "commonly" which allow for exceptions then one is usually fine.
My objection was where you didn't include such caveats, for instance "no obligations to any other duke" needs a caveat since reality was unfortunately more complex where you could have obligations to more than one.

[Gandalf]

[1]: I have no issue with your sources, but rather your representation of them. They did not support the claim that you made. I made that clear.

I don't feel that you've done so with sufficient evidence. It may be evident to you that the source doesn't say what I think it does, but given what you've posted I find it hard to see things from your point of view.

What part of what I stated was so bamboozling to you?

[2]: Why? I don't owe you shit. Why is it on anyone here to educate you?

It isn't but if you want to do something useful with your time pointing me towards sources will win you the debate faster than mocking will.

Something useful with my time? I have a family and a full time job. I do plenty of useful things.

Of the two of you, I'm way more likely to listen to Ray because he's actually giving me things to look at and trying to change my mind instead of just telling me I'm wrong.

[Jub]

More silliness. Large polities such as Persia or China had no widespread slavery.

What percentage of their populations were needed for basic food production?

My supposition is that we should expect worse rights for the lowest classes in regions where resources are scarcest. I'm starting to realize that I lack the qualifications to properly research this topic, but I'm not sad about the discussion I've helped generate. It's fascinating stuff I'm happy that people with actual education are putting forth real knowledge in response.

I don't mind being taking this board's abuse if it leads to a constructive discussion.

-----

For farming and energy id recomend the first 200 pages of Smil, "energy and civilisation, a history"

He largely ignore politics and legal changes but really gets into the underlying physics of phytomass, human and draft animal energy and nutrient cycles. It also has pithy words about poor models of "rational" peasents seeking to minimise personal labour rather than maximise commodities owned or minimise long term risk. Its this dusjunct at the source of this thread's argument perhaps?
It is also, like many recent books, not too eurocentric as there are important lessons to be drawn from the americas and china (and the different regions and climates of china). Be very very wary of broad and general theories.

In terms of game theory and farm input economics... i cant think of a good one stop shop book. The FAO website has some good stuff, but its been a while since i looked at it.

In terms of social contracts, the greater good and slavery i do not have a strong reccomendation. The penguin introduction series perhaps. I loved its introduction to anarchism

Thanks, I'll add it to my to read list and see if my local library has it on offer.

-----

Well, a counterexample i can say off the top of my head:

North vietnam was relatively poor and had farners single cropping rice that relied on unpredictable and often devastating red river floods. Because they were so poor, they tended to work together a lot and resented their absentee landlords.

South Vietnam was cropping twice, sometimes three times a year in the much lusher and more reliable Mekong delta. The farmers there were comfortable and independent.

One was attracted more to communist ideology. It was not civil rights given by the powerful, nor was it the rich area.

Did communism actually grant them greater rights though or did they just want a change because, from their perspective, anything would have been better than what they had?

-----

Or you can give up on broad hypothesis that is easily disproved by detailed historical research. You're building an entire social theory based on high school level history at best. Ask yourself this question:

Do you think you can build a new workable scientific hypothesis based on high school level science knowledge? If not, then why do you make the assumption that you know enough about history to build such a hypothesis?

Probably not, but I can generate discussion with that same level of knowledge and that is still valuable.

I don't have to be deeply qualified to make a prediction based on what I do know. I just have to be prepared to accept that my idea may not have merit. I'm not sure that's the case here though, I'll have to do some digging but I think that I could find a correlation between rights for the lowest classes and the availability of resources for those same classes.

It's entirely possible that I won't be able to do that either because my idea is wrong or because I lack the skills and resources to make a proper case but that's fine too. If I learn something and generate discussion on a board that could use the activity no time is wasted by either side.

-----

On a fairly basic level, the existence of Gobekli Tepe and Poverty Point, monumental architecture and possible settlements constructed by people who lacked agriculture, necessarily confounds any arguments about the necessity of labor extraction to allow for the existence of urbanization. With that in mind, any arguments that people would hoard agricultural surplus in the absence of coercion and thus prevent the development of specialized labor face a major difficulty, in that these monumental structures were constructed in the absence of a coercive state. So on that level, at least, any arguments about the necessity of slavery, serfdom, etc. to the construction of society are damaged at the base, before getting into, say, the temple-states of Sumeria or the Indus Valley civilization's minimal visible hierarchy (or even the city of Catalhoyuk in Turkey with a presumptive high level of gender equality) which all confound a simplistic model of universal coercion and brute extraction.

Those regions were relatively food-rich compared to the number of people living there, I think we should expect that to play a factor in what they can accomplish relative to regions where food is harder to come by. I'd also argue that the existence of outliers where settlements seem to have come before agriculture shouldn't override the general trend of agricultural leading to civilization. It seems vanishingly unlikely that an organized nation-state could form without agriculture, though if you have evidence that suggests otherwise I'd be happy to see it.

Also, these counter points. don't disprove the idea that places lacking in resources will tend to have worse rights for the lowest classes.

-----

I'm still working on looking at how changes in wealth are affecting rights in the poorest nations on Earth today. I need to figure out what data points might be valid and how long it takes for increased access to resources to translate into civil rights increases. As I've said I may not be able to make a case even if the evidence exists to suggest my idea has merit but I'd like to try.

If anybody has advice on what to look at I'm open to suggestions.

[K. A. Pital]

What percentage of their populations were needed for basic food production?

As we are talking about precapitalist times, 90% or more were peasants.

My supposition is that we should expect worse rights for the lowest classes in regions where resources are scarcest.

Scarcity of resources is not necessarily a pre-requisite for oppression of the lowest classes (peasants, lumpenized workers). In fact, some resource-rich regions have been infamous for extreme restrictions on human rights (yes, this can include sexual freedoms, before you ask).

Nomad tribes operate under severe scarcity of resources, and yet they can lack restrictions typical for a class society.

It's fascinating stuff I'm happy that people with actual education are putting forth real knowledge in response.

It is OK, but we are a bit short on time to elaborate on such complex topics as slavery and its relation to the economic drivers, which are mostly connected to the rise of property as a concept and with it, class, class division and thus enslavement by the propertied class.

[Jub]

As we are talking about precapitalist times, 90% or more were peasants.

When you say that do you mean farmers or just the lowest class in general? Thatchers and cobblers are still peasants but aren't necessarily involved directly in food production as their primary occupation.

Scarcity of resources is not necessarily a pre-requisite for oppression of the lowest classes (peasants, lumpenized workers). In fact, some resource-rich regions have been infamous for extreme restrictions on human rights (yes, this can include sexual freedoms, before you ask).

Yeah, just having resources may not be enough to create new rights for people, but not having them creates incentives for a settled society to oppress the lowest classes.

Nomad tribes operate under severe scarcity of resources, and yet they can lack restrictions typical for a class society.

I don't know if I count those because nomadic tribes, outside of the one large exception, didn't really tend to create nation-states as we've come to know them. It's likely that I'm just pruning exceptions so my theory has a leg to stand on. I'm struggling to find a set of testable criteria to even properly start gathering info to test my idea.

Like I want to look at changes in Subsaharan Africa but I don't know how many of those changes would come from easing resource scarcity and how much comes from nations giving aid pressuring them to make changes. I don't think I have the tools to extract useful info even if I looked into that but I'd like to backup my points.

It is OK, but we are a bit short on time to elaborate on such complex topics as slavery and its relation to the economic drivers, which are mostly connected to the rise of property as a concept and with it, class, class division and thus enslavement by the propertied class.

That's cool, I didn't start the thread and if anybody wants to drop out I'll understand. Nobody has to be an online tutor for me, I'm just glad that we're still able to have this kind of discourse here, it seems like this board as a whole doesn't do this so much anymore.

[K. A. Pital]

When I say peasants I mean living on the land and primarily producing food (it probably involved over 90% of the workforce and also included seasonal labour of wives & children, and of many other workers who had other occupations off-season). Also it is already a historical fact that less than 1% of say Han Dynasty population was slave labour and that most large scale agricultural work was done using hired hands. We are talking about Roman Empire times in Europe here, so the comparison is apt.

Han China was an advanced precapitalist imperial structure, but it did not employ slave labour on a vast scale (like e.g. Greek and Roman civilization or their Mediterranean counterparts). This adds a lot of nuance to the idea of the necessity of slave labour in subsistence agriculture.

This is why it is not a good idea to make blanket statements. First I would gather the information about how agricultural work was accomplished under many ancient civilizations, then I would check the estimates of slave populations and the typical slave use, and if in the end it comes out slavery is not essential to the agricultural production, well... the hypothesis was weak from the start. No big deal.

[Jub]

When I say peasants I mean living on the land and primarily producing food (it probably involved over 90% of the workforce and also included seasonal labour of wives & children, and of many other workers who had other occupations off-season). Also it is already a historical fact that less than 1% of say Han Dynasty population was slave labour and that most large scale agricultural work was done using hired hands. We are talking about Roman Empire times in Europe here, so the comparison is apt.

Han China was an advanced precapitalist imperial structure, but it did not employ slave labour on a vast scale (like e.g. Greek and Roman civilization or their Mediterranean counterparts). This adds a lot of nuance to the idea of the necessity of slave labour in subsistence agriculture.

This is why it is not a good idea to make blanket statements. First I would gather the information about how agricultural work was accomplished under many ancient civilizations, then I would check the estimates of slave populations and the typical slave use, and if in the end it comes out slavery is not essential to the agricultural production, well... the hypothesis was weak from the start. No big deal.

I've never really argued for slavery. I've always been talking about serfs and other tied to the land classes (shorthanded to serf or peasant) that would, by modern standards, be closer to slaves than even the lowest class of impoverished person in most modern nations with basic human rights. I've never once argued that slaves were needed for society to form, I've argued that a class of workers being exploited by other higher classes was essential for society to advance to where we are now. Han China may not have had slaves, but the work from peasants was still siphoned off to fuel the wealth of the higher classes which were the ones responsible for philosophy and scientific advancement.

I think you've mistaken my view that exploited classes have generally been essential to the growth of the modern nation-state for me saying that slavery was required. Slavery was never required, it was just an easy way to create short term growth and inflate the power of the landowning class. Until you can get the number of people required just to meet basic needs down to even 70% some level of exploitation is probably needed to fuel the creation of institutions to continue advancing our knowledge base.

I would also argue that due to modern technology freeing up so much labor, that we no longer require such exploitation to continue advancing society. We haven't needed it since the industrial revolution which should have freed up so much time for so many people. Now especially it's not required, we can get by with 10-20% of the population working to keep everybody fed, clothed, sheltered, electrified, watered, etc. and even to create a certain level of luxury (though well below current levels). We waste a lot of labor with do nothing service jobs, pointless bureaucracy, and endless cycles of moving around money for the express purpose of extracting profit.

[LaCroix]

As we are talking about precapitalist times, 90% or more were peasants.

When you say that do you mean farmers or just the lowest class in general? Thatchers and cobblers are still peasants but aren't necessarily involved directly in food production as their primary occupation.

I think this is where your problem starts - you are looking for a significant difference in crop yield, agricultural work and division of labor.

You are looking at it with a modern mindset.

Division of labor wasn't a thing (apart from cities). Rural communities had no cobbler, no seamstress, no carpenter. All people did more or less the same job - growing their food, and then they swapped between them. You needed wood - you went and felled it. You needed a shirt - you either got wool from the neighbour or flax from the field, spun it and made your stuff. Or bought it from a travelling merchant. Need a house? You and your neighbors built it out of local material (wood and dirt - so called wattle and daub). Needed thatch - you went an cut it.

Most towns did not have a carpenter - but most people could do basic carpentry - that(and spinning/weaving/tanning) was what you did during the grow phases of crops, when less labor was needed on the fields. Fishing/animal husbandry was another part of the busywork between harvests.
Blacksmiths were just as rare. You needed a big town to be able to have a full time blacksmith. And he was a rich person, with expert skills. Most of them were very influential.

There wasn't even a tavern in most small towns - everyone could make their own beer and food. Someone might be a good cook and would have guests over for money, occasionally, in a part time tavern way, while still having fields or animals as day job, but in smaller towns there was no need or enough money for a dedicated full-time business, unless it was alongside a road with lots of travellers.

Merchants moving between towns were the main source of stuff that could not be made locally - tools, better quality fabrics, salt, you name it.

Only in bigger towns and cities, you would have a middle class of specialized craftsmen and merchants, and infrastructure to entertain their more affluent livestyles (transport of goods, sanitary services, entertainment). These people could not go and build a house or make furniture - they paid someone to do it. That person did not have the time to cut wood or gather thatch, himself - he paid someone. HE needed food, he bought it from someone. Someone was good at making fancier tables/chests than other carpenters - they became a name as cabinetmaker. Another was makig better roof constructions, etc. Someone was selling more than "that's what I have today" kinds of meat, you could always get what you wanted there - he became a known butcher...

These people were sought out more, and would become expert tradesmen, which increased demands for businesses to supply them (woodcutters, sawmills, blacksmiths, agriculture, more travelling merchants..), and that restarted the cycle, at a lower tier.

And that's where the percentages of non-agricultural workforce come from.

Outside of cities, no matter what area you are in, no matter the fertility of the ground or crops, the percentage of agricutural labor in pre-industrial times has pretty much always between 90 and 99%.

[K. A. Pital]

I've never really argued for slavery. I've always been talking about serfs and other tied to the land classes (shorthanded to serf or peasant) that would, by modern standards, be closer to slaves than even the lowest class of impoverished person in most modern nations with basic human rights.

I have mentioned that hired hands or tenants were critical for large-scale projects, but other than these, which comprised around a fifth of the workforce, majority were free farmers. How does a free farmer constitute a position „close to a slave“? Do explain. The lack of modern technology is not a lack of rights. Although I also have elaborated on the meaningless application of „rights“ when applied to people in premodern formations which were not oppressed as a minority.

I‘ve never once argued that slaves were needed for society to form, I've argued that a class of workers being exploited by other higher classes was essential for society to advance to where we are now. Han China may not have had slaves, but the work from peasants was still siphoned off to fuel the wealth of the higher classes which were the ones responsible for philosophy and scientific advancement

.
It is a general observation on the nature of class society and as such does not indicate that slavery is moral. In fact, this observation does not even indicate class society itself is moral, or that exploitation is moral.

I would also argue that due to modern technology freeing up so much labor, that we no longer require such exploitation to continue advancing society.

We have intensified exploitation with the advancement of technology. We have alienated mankind from the products of its labour. In fact the industrial revolution has been a slaughterhouse, and brought death and misery to the exploited classes. Only through resistance and struggle have they been able to claw back some of what is theirs by right.

Read up on the working hours before the industrial revolution and during it. And look up nutrition standards as well. There may be many interesting discoveries for you there.

We haven't needed it since the industrial revolution which should have freed up so much time for so many people.

The fight of the exploited for an 8-hour day freed up this time. As such, capitalism can function even with ridiculous hours worked, as evidenced by South Korea and Mexico. There is nothing inherently liberating in the system.

[Effie]

Those regions were relatively food-rich compared to the number of people living there, I think we should expect that to play a factor in what they can accomplish relative to regions where food is harder to come by. I'd also argue that the existence of outliers where settlements seem to have come before agriculture shouldn't override the general trend of agricultural leading to civilization. It seems vanishingly unlikely that an organized nation-state could form without agriculture, though if you have evidence that suggests otherwise I'd be happy to see it.

Also, these counter points. don't disprove the idea that places lacking in resources will tend to have worse rights for the lowest classes.

I would venture to suggest that you don't know what you're talking about and hoping to assert things blindly without anyone stopping to consider whether Turkey 12000 years BP or Louisiana 4000 years BP could plausibly be suggested to be much more abundant in food than neighboring areas, or in turn that a relative scarcity of labor power is what produces monumental architecture.

With that said, the point of such discoveries (and of related discoveries in coastal South America, etc.) is that the relationship of agriculture -> urban settlements is now questionable, and it indeed may be the other way around- agriculture adopted as a means to feed urban settlements. Or both are functions of coterminous developments. This is also a minor point, but the "nation-state" is an innovation that's only a few hundred years old.

[Ziggy Stardust]

This is like the rights of Native Americans to land: before they were exterminated and their land taken from them, they had all the land - they had neither „rights“ nor „property“, but they possessed, explored, traveled, used and toiled the land.

„Rights“ generally have meaning in an oppressive context. Property rights have a meaning only in a property-based society.

Hold up, now, buddy. The notion that Native Americans lacked notions of "property" is a complete and utter myth. At best, it can only be applied very specifically to certain tribes at certain points in their history (I'm actually not aware of ANY Native American tribe that truly lacked any notion of property rights, to be honest, but am happy to be corrected), and is in no way representative of broader historical and cultural trends among the North American aboriginals. It is a notion that developed largely as a consequence of "noble savage" type romantic mythologies about the Native Americans. In reality, property and land rights were highly variable but also omnipresent across North America, and in most tribes such rights were hugely important to their organization and politics. I can point to specific examples among the Creek peoples, the Algonquin peoples, and the various Pueblo peoples, if you like.

The idyllic notion that "property rights" were only imposed by nefarious European capitalists in their defilement of some pure communal society is fanciful nonsense that I'm surprised to hear you profligate.

[K. A. Pital]

Individual private property rights? Or rights to land in a community?

This is a great difference.

There is nothing idyllic in the notion that Native Americans lacked private property rights. Very importantly, they had use rights, usufruct rights, but not alienation rights for a given territory or land. These collective use-right „ownership“ concept is decidedly not what capitalistic private property with its absolute right to sell, alienate or even destroy, entails.

Therefore, the concept of Native American „land ownership“ and the capitalistic private property on land are two very different things.

I could refer you to Cronon. Restricted access to hunting grounds was also variable among tribes (which is perhaps what you are talking about), but this was hardly property in the Western capitalist sense, once again.

So if you want to argue that the Native Americans had “land rights” in the sense of a capitalistic property right to sell and alienate the land, I am all ears.

As Tecumseh said, a sale not done by “all” is invalid. This alone indicates just how far the concept of Native American usufruct rights to land with collective infringement differed from the absolute and individual private property of the invaders.

In any case my point was that private rights have no meaning if there is no alienation or oppression. The right to breathe is nonsense because air is common and nobody forbids another to breathe. Once someone, somewhere introduces restrictions and alienates others, then rights start to take shape. But even then it is a long way from collective usufruct rights to the absolute property rights.

Likewise if there is no oppression based on sexual orientation, the concept of “rights” cannot be applied. Only when, say, for a religious reason, a subset of people are started being actively persecuted, oppressed or even threatened for their orientation, can we start talking about the lack of rights for a minority.

I hope you do understand the general point that I made.

[Imperial Overlord]

Individual private property rights? Or rights to land in a community?

This is a great difference.

You don't need concepts of property rights identical to those of modern capitalism to alienate land and oppress people. Taking exclusive control of valuable land and forcing marginalized families into slavery in return for survival unfortunately appear to have been fairly common on the Northwest Coast. There are a lot of different Native American groups with a lot of different social and economic practices. Grouping them together and generalizing is extremely problematic. The Northwest Coast didn't need Jesus, but it might have needed Marx.

[Jub]

I have mentioned that hired hands or tenants were critical for large-scale projects, but other than these, which comprised around a fifth of the workforce, majority were free farmers. How does a free farmer constitute a position „close to a slave“? Do explain. The lack of modern technology is not a lack of rights. Although I also have elaborated on the meaningless application of „rights“ when applied to people in premodern formations which were not oppressed as a minority.

Did those farmers have freedom of movement? If they so chose could the majority of the world's pre-industrial population have chosen to migrate without serious pushback from locals in positions of power? I know most wouldn't have chosen to anyway, starting a new farm is hard even if there aren't any issues with land rights, but without the option were they really free?

We have intensified exploitation with the advancement of technology. We have alienated mankind from the products of its labour. In fact the industrial revolution has been a slaughterhouse, and brought death and misery to the exploited classes. Only through resistance and struggle have they been able to claw back some of what is theirs by right.

Read up on the working hours before the industrial revolution and during it. And look up nutrition standards as well. There may be many interesting discoveries for you there.

I'm not saying that we aren't currently being exploited, in fact, I said that while exploitation was likely needed in pre-industrial times that it was no longer needed once we dropped the percentage of needed farms from 90% to even 70%.

Also, upon further reflection, I agree with your idea that the modern concept of rights only emerged as a response to oppression

The fight of the exploited for an 8-hour day freed up this time. As such, capitalism can function even with ridiculous hours worked, as evidenced by South Korea and Mexico. There is nothing inherently liberating in the system.

Yes, but there should have been. As it stands we could live comfortably at near current first-world standards with fractional percentages of the workforce that we currently have. If people weren't forced to work service jobs to get buy, that free time could, rather ironically, be used to make at home the things that these very services provide. It's not a coincidence that service jobs exploded right around the time that single earner households stopped being the standard.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Individual private property rights? Or rights to land in a community?

This is a great difference.

Depends on the tribe, as I said. But many did have recognition or understanding of the notion of individual property rights. (In fact, the majority of tribes actually had a system more intermediate between the two extremes you posit, recognizing instead the rights of individual families to plots of land, as opposed to specific members of that family or to a larger community).

There is nothing idyllic in the notion that Native Americans lacked private property rights.

Yes, it is completely idyllic. As I said, just blanketing everything under "Native Americans" is ignorant to the point of racism, because it is trying to homogenize a vast range of different political, economic, and cultural systems.

You aren't even being clear about what Native Americans you are trying to refer to, or at what time period. Are we talking pre-Columbian? Are we talking 19th-century Plains tribes? These are really fucking different things. And someone as smart as you shouldn't be ignorant enough to think that just waving your hands and saying "Native Americans lol" passes any sort of intellectual muster.

Very importantly, they had use rights, usufruct rights, but not alienation rights for a given territory or land. These collective use-right „ownership“ concept is decidedly not what capitalistic private property with its absolute right to sell, alienate or even destroy, entails.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "alienation rights", I'm afraid. Could you clarify exactly what you mean here?

Therefore, the concept of Native American „land ownership“ and the capitalistic private property on land are two very different things.

There is no unified concept of "Native American land ownership". And to what extent that such ideas existed, it was not all that different from capitalistic private property notions. Hell, rights to tracts of land (e.g. pinon tree groves in the southwest) were commodities that could be traded in exchange for other resources, which doesn't sound like a "very different thing" to me.

So if you want to argue that the Native Americans had “land rights” in the sense of a capitalistic property right to sell and alienate the land, I am all ears.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Because that's what every competent historian and anthropologist says on the subject. Read works by knowledgeable sources like Julian Steward. He in fact concluded that truly communal property was scant among most Native American tribes (as a caveat I can't remember if he said that about Native American tribes as a whole or just about the subset of southwestern tribes he studied in greater detail, but the book is at my parent's house at the moment so I can't double-check). And stop referring to Native Americans as a homogenous block. It's condescending to the point of racist.

What you are arguing flies in the face of all competent scholarly work on the subject with which I am familiar. It is idyllic nonsense, trying to gloss over facts in order to advance a Marxist ideology. Which ordinarily I wouldn't mind, because I have zero problem with Marxist ideology, but it bothers me that you are so stubbornly harping on an ignorant viewpoint with racial undertones.

In any case my point was that private rights have no meaning if there is no alienation or oppression. The right to breathe is nonsense because air is common and nobody forbids another to breathe. Once someone, somewhere introduces restrictions and alienates others, then rights start to take shape. But even then it is a long way from collective usufruct rights to the absolute property rights.

Likewise if there is no oppression based on sexual orientation, the concept of “rights” cannot be applied. Only when, say, for a religious reason, a subset of people are started being actively persecuted, oppressed or even threatened for their orientation, can we start talking about the lack of rights for a minority.

I hope you do understand the general point that I made.

I actually do understand, and agree with, the general point you made. I should have made myself more clear, but I was mostly irked by your use of this Native American example in particular, separate from its context within your wider argument. Again, I am actually in agreement with you on the broader point. I just very much get bothered by the way misleading depictions of Native Americans are so often trotted out in the name of ideology.

[K. A. Pital]

Did those farmers have freedom of movement?

Yes. Restrictions on movement in pre-modern societies were present for slaves or serfs (which is what actually made the difference between early East European serfdom and late serfdom, where the serfs were no longer able to leave their lands and masters), but free people were able to move around with practically little to no supervision. In fact, the extreme movement restrictions of modern day are tightly linked to the passport & personal identity system, which did not apply to most people in pre-modern society. Previously you could travel from place to place (provided you had the means to survive the trip) and settle down in a different area. Now this is practically impossible thanks to the nation-states’ restrictive nationality laws. A society of total surveillance could not exist due to the primitive technology, so as soon as you left town, your only identity was your face and what you said about yourself. Y’know, the whole reason people started making those “wanted” posters later to find criminals.

If they so chose could the majority of the world's pre-industrial population have chosen to migrate without serious pushback from locals in positions of power? I know most wouldn't have chosen to anyway, starting a new farm is hard even if there aren't any issues with land rights, but without the option were they really free?

Is there any evidence to the contrary? If they remained free (belonging to neither slaves nor serfs), who could impede their migration?

I’m not saying that we aren't currently being exploited, in fact, I said that while exploitation was likely needed in pre-industrial times that it was no longer needed once we dropped the percentage of needed farms from 90% to even 70%.

There is evidence to the contrary in history (that exploitation was “needed”). For example, some historical evidence points to the fact Han China, with its free farmers and hired construction workers, was wealthier than Rome - on the average.

Also, upon further reflection, I agree with your idea that the modern concept of rights only emerged as a response to oppression

I might have not picked the best examples, but the core observation seems logical. Which is why I think the “unfree” state of, say, artisans or free farmers in pre-modern civilizations is not really evidence-based.

Yes, but there should have been. As it stands we could live comfortably at near current first-world standards with fractional percentages of the workforce that we currently have. If people weren't forced to work service jobs to get buy, that free time could, rather ironically, be used to make at home the things that these very services provide. It's not a coincidence that service jobs exploded right around the time that single earner households stopped being the standard.

I agree that the situation could be much improved, and that the productivity gains from technical progress have (paradoxically for some) not led to the liberation of the working class. The fight for a shorter working time has stalled, incomes are dropping and workers are losing the welfare achieved for a short moment of abberation in 1950-1970. This is because workers gave up on class struggle and no longer demand their fair share as ferociously, and in general have embraced the individualistic concept of “making it” at the expense of someone else, as opposed to making life better together as united people.

But it only underscores the fact that social relations and technology both are important in defining the freedom of various classes. Technology alone is not enough, by a long shot.

[K. A. Pital]

Depends on the tribe, as I said. But many did have recognition or understanding of the notion of individual property rights. (In fact, the majority of tribes actually had a system more intermediate between the two extremes you posit, recognizing instead the rights of individual families to plots of land, as opposed to specific members of that family or to a larger community).

I wonder if this is a posterior rationalization of a use rights framework into property rights. Because the ability to use something does not necessarily make it into property (and much less so a commodity to be traded).

Yes, it is completely idyllic. As I said, just blanketing everything under "Native Americans" is ignorant to the point of racism, because it is trying to homogenize a vast range of different political, economic, and cultural systems. You aren't even being clear about what Native Americans you are trying to refer to, or at what time period. Are we talking pre-Columbian? Are we talking 19th-century Plains tribes? These are really fucking different things. And someone as smart as you shouldn't be ignorant enough to think that just waving your hands and saying "Native Americans lol" passes any sort of intellectual muster.

I was thinking about the tribes in N. America in the XVIII to early XIX century. Not least because there is more information about their social structures, compared to the information on pre-Columbian civilization.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "alienation rights", I'm afraid. Could you clarify exactly what you mean here?

The right to absolutely bar any other person than the owner himself/herself from going through a certain territor or use it in any way, that comes as a necessary prerequisite to the modern absolute private property rights. Like individual fencing and guarding. It is necessary for rights to evolve to this stage for land to become a commodity tradeable by private persons. The guarding of collectively-held but individually-used land by a tribe, or village, is not equivalent to private property on land (I hope that I need not explain why).

There is no unified concept of "Native American land ownership". And to what extent that such ideas existed, it was not all that different from capitalistic private property notions. Hell, rights to tracts of land (e.g. pinon tree groves in the southwest) were commodities that could be traded in exchange for other resources, which doesn't sound like a "very different thing" to me

I think that if there was no unified concept of land ownership, it already makes clear that unlike the universally understood capitalist private property / commodity concepts in modernized societies, the tribal societies had no such universal understanding. Where land was tradeable as a commodity, it certainly represents a similar concept. However, from my, admittedly limited, reading on the subject, I have always felt that the idea of land as individually owned and tradeable as a commodity was more of an exception.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Because that's what every competent historian and anthropologist says on the subject. Read works by knowledgeable sources like Julian Steward. He in fact concluded that truly communal property was scant among most Native American tribes (as a caveat I can't remember if he said that about Native American tribes as a whole or just about the subset of southwestern tribes he studied in greater detail, but the book is at my parent's house at the moment so I can't double-check). And stop referring to Native Americans as a homogenous block. It's condescending to the point of racist.

I will try to find and read it. I seriously do not see why referring to a geographically limited collection of tribal societies as “Native Americans” is “racist”. It is not an ethnic descriptor even! If anything, it is much better and more respectful than, say, calling everyone in China “Chinese”...

What you are arguing flies in the face of all competent scholarly work on the subject with which I am familiar. It is idyllic nonsense, trying to gloss over facts in order to advance a Marxist ideology. Which ordinarily I wouldn't mind, because I have zero problem with Marxist ideology, but it bothers me that you are so stubbornly harping on an ignorant viewpoint with racial undertones.

What is “racial” here? And why have the freely available works I have read indicate that private property rights (as opposed to personal property rights) were not well-developed l, if at all? Have I been reading the wrong research then.

[ray245]

The difference between China Chinese and "native Americans" should be quite obvious. Chinese are self-defined category whereas the term "native American" isn't.

It presupposes similarity and uniformity among diverse culture spanning the size of two continents. That's like lumping all Eurasian people into one category as "Eurasians"

This is where I think your marxist views is beholden to old school racial thoughts, prior to works of scholars like Edward Said.