[noemon]

It was and remained a slave-based economy.

No it wasnt a slave based seconomy, this is marxist fallacies, neither was Rome, slaves participated certainly in the economy, but they were not what the economy was based on, it was the merchants and the traders that the economy was based on. And it was them that drove it around. These were urban economies, outside of agrarian economies there is not much to put the slaves to work inside a city, and hence why in many cases during the antiquity they were simply, the police. The Greco-Roman world, Byzantium and the Islamic caliphate were not agrarian economies, but urban economies. And in urban economies it is the bourgoisie that runs things, with the aid of the workers whether they are conscientious like today, or slaves.

Also, i doubt that marx ever bothered to read what is the definition of a slave, and what were their rights according to Greek and later Roman law. To begin with, with the exception that they were not allowed to vote(as minorities are not allowed to vote today, for the national assembly of almost anywhere in the world), the legal system protected them as every other citizen. And ofc they were entitled to salaries, in various cases, higher than many if compared weith other areas of other eras, even with the unionists today. Aside from having no political vote, they were pretty much conguered workers, protected and able to lead dignified lives. Ofc this is relative to area, and era, but in the case of Greece, i have various constitutions for you to pick, and see their rights and compare them with todays minorities in various advanced democracies.

[Potemkin]

No it wasnt a slave based society this is marxists fallacies, neither was Rome, slaves participated certainly in the economy, but they were not what the economy was based on, it was the merchants and the traders that the economy was based on. And it was them that drove it around.

Of course, I disagree. Before you can buy and sell stuff, somebody has to actually make it. That is the basis of the economy. Your position is close to that of those people who argue that it's possible to have finance capitalism without industrial capitalism.

Also, i doubt that marx ever bothered to read what is the definition of a slave, and what were their rights according to Greek and later Roman law. To begin with, with the exception that they were not allowed to vote(as minorities are not allowed to vote today, for the national assembly of almost anywhere in the world), the legal system protected them as every other citizen. And ofc they were entitled to salaries, in various cases, higher than many if compared weith other areas of other eras, even with the unionists today. Aside from having no political vote, they were pretty much conguered workers, protected and able to lead dignified lives. Ofc this is relative to area, and era, but in the case of Greece, i have various constitutions for you to pick, and see their rights and compare them with todays minorities in various advanced democracies.

Tell that to a slave in one of Athens' silver mines, or to a slave about to be tortured before he can give evidence in a court case. Slaves in the ancient world had more rights and protections than they had in the early modern period, certainly, but they were still slaves.

[noemon]

Of course, I disagree. Before you can buy and sell stuff, somebody has to actually make it

And you have the idea, that the sculptors, potters, iron workers were all salary-free slaves?

Well they were not, they were conguered workers, entitled to salary, entitled to many things, entintled to dignity(forbidden to kill them, mistreat them and so on and on) and even entitled to buy out of their slavery, which even gave them political rights on the end. A famous Greek slave that did buy his freedom is Aesop and his famous fables.

Second, it was the owners of these workshops, the network established by Alexander, later utilized by Rome and their own entepreneurial activity that drove the economy of the many Empires that followed.

And since we will be running in circles, this is the quintessence of my position, which basically illustrates my point, because it covers up some important holes: I edited above and you must have missed it.
First, ofc, she did adopt Roman Law especially the private laws.

This is especially true in the field of private law.Even the English and North American Common law owes some debt to Roman law although Roman law exercised much less influence on the English legal system than on the legal systems of the continent.

The fact that private law has been the same ever since the antiquity and more specifically the Athens of Solon, is basically the most apt and tangible example, that we have always been under capitalism.

Second, industrialism is not the driver behind capitalism, but the other way around. It is capitalism, combined with technology that brought industrialism, for the further advancement of capitalism in scale and scope. The right to unionization(Η Αρχή του Συνεταιρίζεσθαι - He Arche tou Syn etairizesthai - the Principle of Corporation), either for workers, or legal entities or whatever one can unionize/co-operate has also existed inside the Legal framework ever since the antiquity.

[Lokakyy]

Well they were not, they were conguered workers, entitled to salary, entitled to many things, entintled to dignity(forbidden to kill them, mistreat them and so on and on) and even entitled to buy out of their slavery, which even gave them political rights on the end. A famous Greek slave that did buy his freedom is Aesop and his famous fables.

That is exactly because the way the slaves were treated was based on their task — the miners were brutally forced to work and whipped. Same applies to the farmhand slaves. The prostitute slaves were mere toys for the free greek.

[noemon]

First of, you can find examples for 1 or 2, 3 or 4 individuals mistreated during a specific time, but these are not definitive of Law and social customs, these are cases recorded for future avoidance of such cases, but rather the Law itself is, and the Law pretty much protected the slave/worker, about the same much that a modern democracy protects a foreign minority person working on the same fields of work.

The point is, which is really very evident, is that, these slaves with todays workers on the very same fields, have no difference(and if they are minorities(ie lacking political rights) they have indeed no difference at all, either compared to then and the Middle-ages, or compared to then and today. So, basically, the marxist theoretical historical materialism is false, beware, not on principle, no, on principle the philosophy is as valid as it can get in my honest opinion, but on its manifestation by X or Y marxist theorist who produced this global history through this prism in this respect is completely and entirely false. The prism has no problem, the actor behind the prism had problems and mainly his problem was ignorance, falsity of data, through popularisms, and euphemerisms during the Era that it was theorized.

[Ter]

Prosthetic Conscience:

Make your mind up, Ter - were all the adults happily living until 70 or 80, or were they dying of infections we can now survive.

I never said that all adults lived to be 70 or 80 but there must have been quite a number of them, yes. Because so many babies died, the overall life expectancy is calculated to be spectacularly lower. Adults that got infected with something deadly died also, but not in the proportion that babies did.

You called the quote of "life expectancy of 28" a 'frequent misinterpretation'. In what way was it misinterpreted?

In a way that many people think that adults normally grew old in their twenties and then died of old age. I specifically mentioned the author Jean Auel who describes exactly that in her novels.

Dr. House just said it as an example of the bad quality of life. Along with the lack of bathrooms, and no anaesthesia. If you think that it's a misinterpretation, then you must have been saying "they didn't worry about children dying".

Don't know where that came from and I deny anything like those interpretations you assign to me. I live in a poor country where the life expectancy is decades less than in the US or Western Europe. I know of many, many babies dying during the first months of life, mothers dying in childbirth, and young adults dying unnecessarily because they cannot afford hospital treatment. I never said those deaths are not mourned but I see that it is accepted, fate, nothing to do about it, that kind of reasoning. I surmise that it would have been similar in the Middle Ages in Europe.

I hope this clarifies the misunderstanding, no pun intended.


Ter

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Infant mortality rates were pretty high but whoever survived infancy lived up to old age.

No one really died at that age, except warriors at the peak of their strength

You cling to a false statement whose only purpose was to make a contrasting point.

OK, Einherjar, the next time you make a false statement, twice, maybe you'd point it out, before people take you seriously? It'd help a lot in discussions if you said "I'm talking a load of shit here, of course" - especially when it's been your only point in the thread.

I never said that all adults lived to be 70 or 80

Yes, you did:

One third of all children died before the age of three, and many young people died from all kinds of diseases or medical conditions like appendicitis and what have you.

So, people who lived through all that would happily live to be 70 or 80, just like today. Only now, many more people grow old and very few babies and kids die.

In a way that many people think that adults normally grew old in their twenties and then died of old age. I specifically mentioned the author Jean Auel who describes exactly that in her novels.

So go and make that argument on a Jean Auel fan site. No-one here made that mistake. You said "This is a frequent misinterpretation" - not "some people elsewhere sometimes misinterpret what life expectancy means".

Don't know where that came from

I said it before, but I'll go through it again: since you said "This is a frequent misinterpretation", you are referring to what Dr. House said - which was a reply to "life was better than in the Middle Ages". So, you weren't arguing about exactly what age people died at to give the life expectancy - you were arguing that a life expectancy of 28 wouldn't make life worse.

[Einherjar]

No it wasnt a slave based seconomy, this is marxist fallacies, neither was Rome, slaves participated certainly in the economy, but they were not what the economy was based on, it was the merchants and the traders that the economy was based on. And it was them that drove it around. These were urban economies, outside of agrarian economies there is not much to put the slaves to work inside a city, and hence why in many cases during the antiquity they were simply, the police. The Greco-Roman world, Byzantium and the Islamic caliphate were not agrarian economies, but urban economies. And in urban economies it is the bourgoisie that runs things, with the aid of the workers whether they are conscientious like today, or slaves.

Very good point. Marx's description of the classical mode of production only concerned the Roman latifundia, and that is obviously a very restricted and simplistic way to view the Roman economy, which was, as you point out, varied and more urban than agrarian. However, it would still be a mistake and anachronistic to classify the Roman economy as capitalist. The Roman state did not cater for merchants (except in cases of mutual benefits) and the Senators themselves were generally aristocratic landowners. On the other hand, the modern capitalist state was established by merchants. So, if the former corporatist system is also to be called capitalism, it is certainly of a different form than, and must be distinguished from, the latter.

[Maas]

Life was good for the people on top of the foodchain.
if you were lucky than you had a roof and a job that you had to do untill you died.

Still no pension, no vacacion, no hospital, healthcare, social security, famine, diseases, no fair courts, no machines to do the work for you, so hardlabour, no coffee, no tea, no plumbing, for average joe: no transportation, no tv, internet, literacy = 2%, scientific progress was evil, had to be a god fearing creature, all your cash went to the church to buy you access to heaven, kids died on you, if not -> childlabour


So that pritty much sucked vacuum.

[noemon]

The Roman state did not cater for merchants (except in cases of mutual benefits) and the Senators themselves were generally aristocratic landowners.

You could also find non-aristocratic senators, from the ranks of the bourgoisie. Also, trying to find a dividing line on the biographies of certain famous personae and define them as aristocracy or bourgoisie is almost literally impossible, by any definition of the 2 terms.

On the other hand, the modern capitalist state was established by merchants. So, if the former corporatist system is also to be called capitalism, it is certainly of a different form than, and must be distinguished from, the latter.

It should be distinguished certainly, but not as something outside of "capitalism". Frankly, ever since the antiquity, the bourgoisie and the aristocracy have been in a constant battle but also in a constant state of co-operation when mutual benefit was the case, and in many areas, cases and eras, the bourgoisie had triumphed. It is literally impossible to find a golden rule like Marx tried to do, and establish an axiom, that it was X class that ruled. Things are always far more complicated, and Marx simply did not have the data to come into such conclusions that he did. Or even today, in this clearly defined capitalist system, hasnt the previous aristocracy, become a "bourgoisie"?

[Einherjar]

I couldn't agree more with you.

Or even today, in this clearly defined capitalist system, hasnt the previous aristocracy, become a "bourgoisie"?

Indeed, and this wholesale transition marked the final deathblow to aristocratic tradition. Since the introduction of gunpowder, the aristocracy merely retained their pretensions without the ability to back them up in practice and so thorough had been their degeneration that they were among the first to accept the ideas of the Enlightenment.

[danholo]

The cathedrals, for example, were the biggest construction projects in human history, after the Pyramids and the Great Wall of China. Medieval European cathedrals are among the great wonders of the world, a staggering achievement.

How on Earth does this translate as "progress"?

[danholo]

Yes, you did:

As an impartial observer I can say that: no he didn't. You really are creating an argument just for the sake of wasting people's time.

[ninurta]

Man... I wish i could live back then. If eating too much beef and drinking too much beer gives me a clogged artery, there is no chance of me getting good medical attention. I have no way of knowing if my partner has a disease or way of preventing myself from getting a std. I could catch measles, mumphs and every other disease that is preventable today. I don't have to worry about retirement since I won't live past 30. Yeah, such a great better life with far better conditions.

On second thought, I will leave the modern conditions only when camping. I like where I was born in history.