Please don’t take this question the wrong way, I am just trying to learn and get the opinions of more people on this subject. I find it interesting.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    2 months ago

    The stages of development are just how our history has unfolded, they’re not prescriptive. A different trajectory is hypothetically possible.

    • jermaphobe@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It makes sense to me that some form of forced labor would be necessary since it is the simplest way to organize labor. But yeah, I suppose different ways to organize labor could have formed instead, although it seems unlikely to me.

      • happybadger [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        2 months ago

        The Inca empire didn’t have slavery, but they conquered and developed large amounts of territory even without literacy. They just exchanged rations of necessities for a set amount of labour per year. People had their needs met and Infrastructure Week went smoothly.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Slavery is a very old method of production that had a resurgence a few centuries ago.

        It’s more of a regressive economic movement than a new development, then and now.

        It was not inevitable; the ruling class exploited socioeconomic conditions in Africa and exported enslaved laborers to colonies in the Americas accordingly.

        • jermaphobe@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          I was referring to slavery as a necessary step during antiquity only, more recent slavery I don’t believe to have been inevitable at all.

          • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 months ago

            The “terrible swift sword” that forced hunter-gatherers into the wheat fields was maybe necessary for economy of scale early agriculture, yeah.

            • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              I can see the argument, but the amount of free labor it takes to maintain a slave system is so high (especially when there isn’t much in the way of technology) that significant slavery at the dawn of agriculture seems unlikely. Seems like that’s something you could only start to pull off with a decent sized city state’s worth of overseer labor, and at that point you’ve already had agriculture for a while.

      • multitotal@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        since it is the simplest way to organize labor

        Is it though? Wouldn’t it be easier to organise labour if the people you’re organising are cooperative?

        • jermaphobe@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          maybe it isn’t, the more questions I ask the more I realize that I don’t actually know very much about this.

          • keepcarrot [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            In a manner of speaking slavery is very simple if you’re heavily armed and surrounded by people who do not want to do what you want to.