A comparison of the writings of Chancellor Fortescue and Thomas More reveals the gulf between the 15th and 16th century. As Thornton rightly has it, the English working class was precipitated without any transition from its golden into its iron age.

In that same chapter he literally notes that the wage-laborer was an incredibly small part of society at the time.

The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class.

I see you, unlike Marx, don't understand what a medieval commune is in contrast to serfdom, or what the transition to bourgeois in the late medieval period was like. He's talking about class relations and development, as usual, not praising feudalism, Christ. Read another two chapters of the Manifesto, for Christ's sake, it's not that fucking long

What makes Marxism communist is structurally you are more brutally exploited than a serf.

Jesus fucking Christ.

A lord who kills his serfs stops being a lord,

what.

It flattens everything into one homogenized capitalist class and one homogenized working class, so the only possible revolution is those two switching places.

That is pretty fucking contrary to a Marxist view of a workers' revolution.

If Marx believed you were freer or more powerful than a serf he wouldn’t be communist, he would be looking for which faction of workers was going to break out into a middle revolutionary class and replace capitalism with their own system of exploitation.

fucking what.