>>512103444
>Feudalism is the step in history between slave society and capitalism
Romans didn't own "slaves" they owned servants. You would never have an actual slave reverse roles with you during saturnalia (for obvious reasons). Some Germanic tribes did own slaves I suppose, but I hardly believe it's fair to say feudalism is in between tribal and capitalist structures.
>Enforced violent exploitation through bonded labor
Medieval wasn't nearly as violent as they made it out (if you didn't work as a serf you didn't eat, but nobody beat you to death for not working except during times of crisis and/or tyranny)
>Stifled human potential and technological progress
Just not true. In Roman Empire all the tech was centered only in Rome itself. Even after conquering Briton and France the Romans lagged at building widespread forges. They had highways for transporting goods back to Rome proper, but widespread roads were non-existent. English built nearly all castles, wells, awuaducts, sick houses and water wheels long after the fall of Rome.

Furthermore there were numerous discoveries in terms of construction. For example gothic architecture would have been impossible with the Roman rudimentary understanding of megalithic design. One only needs to look at the cathedrals to understand they weren't stupid.

>you try looking back to it with rose-tinted glasses
Ridiculous. How on earth would I have nostalgia for a time that was a thousand years before my birth?

tldr: socialism is a good critique of capitalism, but it still shares the source of capitalism's flaws: it's inhuman. It's based on systems rather than human relations. It's only natural that if your father was a scoundrel that people assume you one until proven otherwise.