Would you be able to answer or consider the following questions:
1. When did feudalism end / capitalism begin?
2. When did imperialism begin? (Or better yet, the desire, then backed up by charters, letters patent etc.)
….
It’s not that what you’ve said is incorrect in and of itself, you’re just not considering the bigger picture that they had attempted to illustrate. There have even been studies and papers published on this sort of stuff. Some interesting ones point to things like scarcity, geographic location, resource paucity, population density, ecosystems, climate etc. (which I guess could in turn foster certain cultural traits).
Political ideology does not seek to explain. It seeks to control through manipulation. If your understanding of the world is rooted in political ideology you can as well turn to religion for insight.
The field of rational inquiry into the natural world is science and in terms of human tradition it is history. Both require logic to be applied for understanding. It is the right direction. It is the only direction.
1. Both "feudalism" and "capitalism" describe the same socioeconomic system. Because they are pseudoscientific terms used by political charlatans for the purpose of manipulating their followers they are misleading because they are ad-hoc creations often made through distortion of original ideas and almost never backed by scientific or historical research.
Marx never described "capitalism" and only referred to "capital" as a force of nature acting in society. He also described "socialism" not as a system but rather a field of inquiry that we today would understand as both sociology and economics. When Marx refers to a "socialist society" he really means "a society ruled by science of human behaviour".
"Capitalism" was only later contrived by people like Lenin who needed their own religion (oh the irony) to gain power. He popularized the term "capitalism" as the opposition of "socialism" which he also misunderstood. The term "capitalism" was then embraced by the other side and glorified as it was vilified by socialists. From there on you have the same kind of distortion that exists in American politics that is the false dichotomy between Republicans and Democrats.
Similarly "feudalism" was invented by political ideologues rather than historians. Historians refer to the term "feudal lord" and "feudal relationship" or "feudal government" not a system per se. The term "feudal" refers to the latinization of and old Germanic word meaning "property" or "goods". The terms "fief", "fee" and "feudum" all arise from Old Germanic "fehod" which interestingly is linguistically derived from "fehe" meaning "cattle". This linguistic change describes the evolution of society from a nomadic herder to a sedentary farmer.
A "feudal" government is therefore a "capital" government in a very literal sense of the term. The relationship is one of title to property which grants powers related to ownership of property. "Feudalism" is therefore "capitalism" and is no different than any relationship in history where social hierarchy was determined by control of scarce resources.
2. Imperialism describes a relationship of dominance and is therefore as old as human politics.
The first empires used different terms to describe the political arrangement. Achaemeninds - creators of the world's first empire used the term "king of kings" drawing on established traditions of power. The rulers were kings and the ruler who ruled over kings was a king of kings. It was a very secular relationship. The Qin used the term "heavenly sovereign" drawing on the mythology to establish a more religious function.
Imperialism comes from the Latin term "imperium" which means "rule over people". The Romans had the following terms describing relationships of power:
imperium - the rule over people - hence: imperator
dominium - the rule over things including land and slaves - hence: dominus
dictatum - the act of telling others things that should be written down - hence: dictator
The title of "dominus" refers to a relationship of property and is traditional form of address drawing on the relationship of master and slave.
The title of "dictator" refers to a public official that gains authority to dictate actions rather than use council to establish consensus through vote. This is what Julius Ceasar was formally when he was assassinated - dictator perpetuo - meaning "dictator forever" because in Roman law the function of "dictator" was limited in time as a practical measure. It was an authority delegated by a governing body to an official for better fulfillment of duties.
The title of "imperator" was reserved for military leaders as inviduals who were in charge of free men. Roman emperors never referred to themselves as "imperator" outside of their military command. The proper titles of address were "princeps senatus" for Augustus and the first dynasties and later "Ceasar" and "Augustus" by later emperors.
The notion of "imperium" as in "Roman Emperor" or "Holy Roman Emperor" is therefore a reference not to a position but a function. Rulers were "Roman emperors" as means of conveying their position, rank and influence which was derived from religious sanction from the Roman Catholic church. The "empire" was an idea of one ruler with said sanction being supreme over other sovereign rulers.
The term "imperialism" in modern usage arises again in Lenin's writings but Lenin was a charlatan and not a scientist and he had absolutely no idea what he was doing but because he is now treated as a religious figure by religious Marxists - especially Maoists - his claims are taken as scripture. You can see such people in this thread angrily chanting memorized lines as if they meant anything and gave them social status. That is after all a function of organized religion - an empty semantic structure that is used to replace relationships of property as means of social hierarchy. Religious Marxism is therefore fundamentally anti-Marxist and counter-revolutionary. Oh the irony again... always here and always invisible to the narcissist furiously seeking the inflation of their ego with magical language.
Contemporary political and economic relationships are identical to relationships in the ancient world and contemporary political ideology is identical to religious practices in the ancient world.
Being European I will draw on my ancients to convey this eternal widsom -
historia magistra vitae est.
