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.
You literally said:
> Slave holding society -> feudalism -> capitalism
You're saying that slave holding societies stop holding slaves, become feudal and become capitalist. I'm saying they didn't. Slavery didn't stop through that progression. Your underlying argument is wrong.
Your argument that "The Roman empire was based on slavery and had to die so that humanity could progress." doesn't make any sense in that slavery didn't stop. Your two points, that Rome was based upon slavery, and that it had to die, seem totally unrelated to that.
This point: "That allowed producing more food with less workforce so many people were free to do other things and bigger cities could develop which in turn would set the foundation for making the industrial revolution possible." is also incorrect as that was not a result of Rome's fall. Europe was still massively agrarian for a millennia after, so that doesn't have any connection with Rome either.
You're drawing strained connections between disconnected facts and trying to wrap it all in some sort of logical and obvious progression that doesn't exist.
It's clear that no one is going to change your mind on this subject even though many have tried, so that's my final word on the matter.
Especially silly as I was specifically talking about agriculture. Yes, most of my food was not produced by slaves. Some might but that would be the exception.
It is sad that we couldn't talk about my actual points.
I feel like you're talking about economic abstractions without understanding the actual historical context.