> Capitalist societies are capitalist. I don't get what point you try to make with saying they also have slavery.
You literally said:
> Slave holding society -> feudalism -> capitalism
You're saying that slave holding societies stop holding slaves, become feudal and become capitalist. I'm saying they didn't. Slavery didn't stop through that progression. Your underlying argument is wrong.
Your argument that "The Roman empire was based on slavery and had to die so that humanity could progress." doesn't make any sense in that slavery didn't stop. Your two points, that Rome was based upon slavery, and that it had to die, seem totally unrelated to that.
This point: "That allowed producing more food with less workforce so many people were free to do other things and bigger cities could develop which in turn would set the foundation for making the industrial revolution possible." is also incorrect as that was not a result of Rome's fall. Europe was still massively agrarian for a millennia after, so that doesn't have any connection with Rome either.
You're drawing strained connections between disconnected facts and trying to wrap it all in some sort of logical and obvious progression that doesn't exist.
It's clear that no one is going to change your mind on this subject even though many have tried, so that's my final word on the matter.
I never wrote anything about stopping slavery. That is purely your interpretation. Please try to give more a charitable reading to what another person might be saying instead of going to the most extreme that seems easy to debunk.
Especially silly as I was specifically talking about agriculture. Yes, most of my food was not produced by slaves. Some might but that would be the exception.
It is sad that we couldn't talk about my actual points.
You literally said:
> Slave holding society -> feudalism -> capitalism
You're saying that slave holding societies stop holding slaves, become feudal and become capitalist. I'm saying they didn't. Slavery didn't stop through that progression. Your underlying argument is wrong.
Your argument that "The Roman empire was based on slavery and had to die so that humanity could progress." doesn't make any sense in that slavery didn't stop. Your two points, that Rome was based upon slavery, and that it had to die, seem totally unrelated to that.
This point: "That allowed producing more food with less workforce so many people were free to do other things and bigger cities could develop which in turn would set the foundation for making the industrial revolution possible." is also incorrect as that was not a result of Rome's fall. Europe was still massively agrarian for a millennia after, so that doesn't have any connection with Rome either.
You're drawing strained connections between disconnected facts and trying to wrap it all in some sort of logical and obvious progression that doesn't exist.
It's clear that no one is going to change your mind on this subject even though many have tried, so that's my final word on the matter.