Are there any countries that still have yet to progress into Capitalism? And I mean countries, not like uncontacted tribes. If not, what was the last country to become Capitalist?
>>2821699those r semi-feudal, not full-scale feudalism tbh, which has been dead for a long time
Pockets in Peru, bolivia, guatemala, Chiapas mexico, have haciendas. These are areas where serfs effectively work on plantations owned by very rich land lords, usually by debt or broke indigenous people.
In the sahel, Ethiopia, and west african states there are also bonded labour and hereditary lords, especially the Congo where literal serfdom exists.
There are also pockets in india, pakistan, nepal (before the revolution), and probably most feudal of all, afganistan and the Phillipines. Cambodia and Myanmar have also had such a bad time that they have degraded into semi-feudal conditions in some regions too.
India still has zamindars that own large swaths of land that own debt slaves, zamindars usually also hold heavy political power controlling local courts and police. Nepal also used to have a literal caste system until its maoist insurgency that ended it. Afganistan has slavery done by local tribes, clans also funcition like feudal kingdoms inside the state, probably the more close example of an entire society being feudal.
Liechtenstein, Monaco, Andorra, pockets of Ukraine, Sicily, and some really shitty regions of europe.
Liechtenstein is a absolute monarchy, Andorra is designed to this day as a castle system, Monaco has dynastic laws, sicily has mafias and land lords that act very feudal, and ukraine has local businesses that control every aspect of local areas, there are also some clans in Ukraine.
>>2821702I'm a filthy empiricist, I don't see a difference between an agrarian society and an agrarian society.
Sentinel island?
>>2821716Pre-feudal tribal society
Isnt India deindustralizing right now?
Isnt the later stages of capitalism just neo-feudalism because small families hold wealth and social mobility becomes impossible? did my marx talk about this
>>2821699>Israel 1%The society closest to Socialism is Israel CONFIRMED
>>2821704Thank you for the genuine answer
>>2821716They'd be in Primitive Communism
>>2821673Let's see, in feudalism, the peasantry is tied to the land, rather than a particular owner, like under slavery. They are obligated to perform agricultural labor as rent payments, for which they are paid a very small amount….
Where does this happen.
hmm…..
The US prison system!
>>2821699High share of labour in agriculture does not mean feudalism. Are you a booklet or just trolling?
There's no predominantly precapitalist "semi-feudal" nation anywhere in the world, so the whole question is irrelevant and mostly used as an excuse for "third-world" nationalism by subhuman maotards.
>>2821699>>2821702People here are so goddamned illiterate they think farming constitutes feudalism or, if they're especially pseudointellectual, "semi-feudal". All productive farming the world over is bourgeois, and the "peasantry" (of which pretty much everyone fais to distinguish between tenure, serfdom or slavery) doesn't exist anymore.
>>2821721>>2821723>neofeudalismSpecial breed of retardation.
>did my marx talk about thisHave you tried reading him before making marxism your whole personality?
>>2821905>feudalism in one jailFucking retard.
>>2821961>ignores the whole post to complain about ableism with a screenshot of pseud ramblings and wojaksJust another day on leftoidpol.
What's the political economy like in Zomia? Sorry, "Southeast Asian Massif", thank you Wikipedia.
>>2821955>All productive farming the world over is bourgeoisretard
>>2822534All Chris Wickham does is change the name of the Feudal Mode of Production to the Tributary Mode of Production, to make it less “Eurocentric” sounding, along with lumping the Ancient Mode of Production into the Feudal/Tributary Mode of production using the argument that the Roman Empire had more Peasants then Slaves (this is technically true, but I still lean towards keeping the Ancient and Feudal Modes of Production separate), none of this means “Feudalism is Fake”, in fact it proves that the Marxist Materialist conception of History is correct, 😂🤣✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚀☢️!
>>2822549Where is it feudal still? The Philippines? I’m asking in good faith
No, not on the scale of a nation-state at least, the development of capitalism in the last pockets of pre-capitalist antiquity happened in conjunction with post-WW2 "de-colonization". As a rule of thumb, the remnants or regressions to previous modes of production occur only in nations where due to failed states, war or absolute poverty it is impossible to maintain a capitalist economy, and even then it's iffy because capitalism does maintain institutions like slave labor and tribute in other forms in specific instances.
>>2822553Of course it does, he's a Marxist. Do you think a Marxist would abandon materialism? And yes, it does mean feudalism is fake.
>>2821673There never have been feudal societies. Feudalism is a myth. It never existed and was cooked up by 18th century writers to malign the medieval past. There was never such a thing as a feudal system, even in Europe.
>>2821704>Pockets in Peru, bolivia, guatemala, Chiapas mexico, have haciendas.Resemble European manorialism, but there's no serfdom and they are also aimed at cultivating cash crops for a global market.
>In the sahel, Ethiopia, and west african states there are also bonded labour and hereditary lords,Sahelian states were tributary systems and also relied on slavery, they didn't have a European style landed aristocracy and still don't. Much of the Sahel remains nomadic or semi-nomadic.
>India still has zamindars that own large swaths of land that own debt slavesIn Mughal India, zamindars were revenue collectors who collected taxes in kind and used them to provide services to the local community and to the Emperor. Zamindars didn't own any land because all land legally belonged to the Emperor, who in theory appointed zamindars to districts on a rotating basis. There was no serf class and zamindars couldn't compel peasants to do anything. It was the British who turned zamindars into large scale landowners and in any case the system was legally abolished in India in the 70s, although zamindars and their descendants remain private landowners.
>probably most feudal of all, afganistanThis is just sillly. Afghanistan is dominated by large tribes structured according to segementary lineage system. These tribes don't have chiefs or leaders, they settle their disputes through councils, and while they have "kings" they don't really have any legal authority and ordinary people don't have to follow them. Land is seen as the collective property of a kin group, not just an individual owner. There are no serfs, no landed aristocracy.
>>2822553you're right for once
>>2822846you basically ignored everything he said and just reasserted your position