If I need to use 90% of my population just to produce enough food to sustain them, I can only use 10% for other things. The society that only needs 50% of the workforce to be in agriculture can easily entertain for example a vastly bigger military even with the same population.
Economics is what wins war. Economics is what allows technological progress.
Yes, slavery existed but the question is what the dominant form of ding agriculture.
I feel like you're talking about economic abstractions without understanding the actual historical context.
History doesn't go perfectly linearly. There is always exceptions for every rule. You need to understand the broad stroke and main driving forces before going into the small.
The bigger picture is: Slave holding society -> feudalism -> capitalism
Not everywhere in the world and sometimes steps get skipped but that is the general tendency observed.
Edit: Removed a unnecessary sentence that was not very polite. Sorry about that.
Your point might be more palatable without the swipes at someones intelligence.
Your "bigger picture" doesn't make sense, as there have been capitalist societies with slave holding, and it's not just an "exception" - you're clearly thinking of things from a western context, and it was the west itself that had this exception. I don't know anywhere in the world that neatly aligns with your progression.
You're trying to explain history via the economy but in ways that don't align with the historical context. I can accept this is your personal belief, but I don't find it compelling.
Modern slavery is a pretty different phenomenon to antique slave holding anyway.
It is fact that the vast majority of the world is capitalist today, no?
Yes, you can argue they are not purely this or that or whatever but I don't see what purpose that would serve other than muddle the conversation.
It is also historical fact, that the first countries that went through an industrialization where feudalistic, no? England, Germany, France so on.
So how is the progression I showed you not trivially true?
Yes it is eurocentric and the development in Asia was very different and yada, yda. Fair point but the industrialization started in Europe and that was no accident.
I am not even sure what you are actually disagreeing with.
It's a strange take that hyper-focuses on slavery and the economy when slavery was being used by western nations well into the 1800s.