S&S Quarterly, Inc.

Guilford Press
A Historian's Remarks on the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism
Author(s): Georges Lefebvre
Source: Science & Society, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Summer, 1956), pp. 241-246
Published by: Guilford Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40400440 .
Accessed: 03/02/2011 04:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=guilford. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
S&S Quarterly, Inc. and Guilford Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Science & Society.
http://www.jstor.org
A HISTORIAN'S REMARKS ON THE TRANSITION
FROM FEUDALISM TO CAPITALISM*
GEORGES LEFEBVRE
DOBB'S
book,1
the
controversy
that its
publica-
tion
engendered
between him and Paul
Sweezy,
and the
observations made
by
H. K.
Takahashi,
R. Hilton and
C.
Hill,2
have been of
great
interest to me. So far as I
know,
the de-
bate has not attracted much attention in France
up
to the
present,
and the
only
reference I can make is to the review of Dobb's work
by J.
Nre in the Revue
historique
for
January-March
1950.
I am not a medievalist and in
any
case what I know of the
rural
history
of the Middle
Ages
relates
chiefly
to
France,
whereas
Dobb and
Sweezy
refer
mainly
to
England.
I cannot take a
position
as to the substance of the
question, accordingly;
but since Dobb
and
Sweezy
seem to me to have
spoken
as economists and sociolo-
gists, my
reflections
may perhaps
be of interest as
shedding light
on
the reactions of a historian.
In the first
place,
since the
organization
of
production
domi-
nated the
discussion,
the
feudal system
was not at issue and the
word
feudalism
was not in
place,
for the essential
property
of feudal-
ism consists in the
hierarchy
of lord and
vassals,
and the distribution
of
fiefs
to the latter
by
the former. The
expression
of
seigneurial
system
could not be used
either,
because the
authority
of the lord
*
Translated from La
Pense,
Nouvelle
srie,
No.
65, janvier-
fvrier
1956, p. 22-25.
1 Maurice Dobb,
Studies in the
Development of Capitalism.
New
York,
1946.
2 The
controversy
has
appeared
in Science and
Society,
vols. XIV
(1950), p. 134-167;
vol. XVI
(1952) p. 313-345;
vo1- XVII
(1953) p. i55"l64> 34O-351-
These Communi-
cations have been
reprinted
in The Transition
from
Feudalism to
Capitalism.
New
York: Science and
Society, 1954.
241
242 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
over the boors of his domain arose out of a
dispersion
and dismem-
berment of the
power
of the
state,
as the result of which
many
of
the
prerogatives
of the
sovereign passed
to the
seigneurs.
The correct
expression
would be the manorial
system,
a
system
whose roots
go
back to the earliest
periods
of
history
and does not
intrinsically
belong
to the last centuries of the Middle
Ages.
In the second
place,
if the manorial
system
is to be identified
with
serfdom,
a definition of the latter is
required.
For Marc Bloch,
the
relationship
of the serf to his master was
originally
the outcome
of a
personal dependence,
affirmed
by
the
special obligation
known
in France as
chevage;
it is
only
later that the serf was attached to
the
soil,
adstrictus ad
glebam;
this
idea, however,
is not
universally
accepted
and,
to discuss the
question,
it would have to be
carefully
specified
what countries and
regions
are under consideration. More-
over,
it can not be said that the social condition of the inhabitants
of the rural districts at that time was
exclusively
serfdom;
there
were
always
some tenants who were more or less
free,
vilains
francs
and even allodial holders.
In the third
place,
since Dobb's basic thesis attributes the eco-
nomic and social transformation to an internal contradiction of the
manorial
system,
it
appears
to me to be of the essence to
point
out
one such contradiction he does not mention. When
production
is
based on the
exploitation
of a labor force
kept
down
by
force,
the
difficulty
for the master is
supervision
of the work so as to make
sure it is
efficient;
the
difficulty
is met
imperfectly
at best
by bring-
ing
the
workers,
whether slaves or
villeins,
into a
group
under the
control of an
overseer;
and
furthermore,
who will oversee the over-
seers? I remember that when I was a student I heard teachers
who knew
nothing
of
Hegel
or Marx
point
to this
difficulty
as one
of the sources of the
system
of
coloni,
and cite a letter of
Pliny
the
Younger,
if I remember
aright,
in which he
explains
that instead of
direct
exploitation
of a certain manor
by
slaves he considers it to be
more
practical
to distribute tenures to them on condition of
perform-
ance of certain duties. From
Carolingian
times
on,
settled serfs
(chases,
casati)
were not rare: the
Polyptique
of Irminon shows ten-
ants of whom at least a
portion
must have been of servile condition.
Finally,
I feel I must call to mind the
multiplicity
of the his-
torical factors. Marx
brought
out the
predominant importance
of
FROM FEUDALISM TO CAPITALISM 243
economics, or,
to be more
precise,
o the mode of
production.
In
pursuing
this new
principle,
which was a
discovery
of
genius
at the
time,
it was not his task to extend his
inquiry
to the other
factors,
but it was never his intention to exclude their
eifects;
since
history
is the work of
man,
he found it
amusing
to be accused of not
taking
human nature into account. After
all,
if economics is the dominant
factor,
the reason is that before
anything
else man has to be fed:
he
produces
because he is
hungry.
Without
citing
numbers of ex-
amples,
I
merely
observe that
according
to Dobb himself the demo-
graphic
factor is
important.
If,
as Dobb
holds,
the lord made his
demands more
onerous,
this was
partly
because his
offspring
multi-
plied
the
portions
his revenues had to be divided
into;
if the
peas-
ants
fled,
this was
partly
because their numbers had increased to the
point
where their
holdings
could no
longer provide
for them. From
this
point
of view
Sweezy's position
seems to me to be
stronger
than
Dobb is inclined to
admit,
although
Dobb does not
deny
the
part
played by
the revival of trade. The fact that the lord became more
demanding
was in
very large part
due to the fact that commerce
offered him
objects
with which to
improve
his
way
of
life;
and the
peasant
ran
away
because the
development
of the towns
tempted
him
by opening refuges
and chances of
gain
for him.
I shall also
say something
with reference to the "two
ways."
The
merchant creates a
manufacture,
either in the strict sense of the
term
(what
we in France call a
usine)
or in the broad
sense,
that is
by
means of what the
Anglo-Saxons designate
as the
putting-out
system.
He thus becomes a
manufacturer;
but since
production
re-
mains subordinate to
commerce,
the economic structure is not
changed,
in this
respect.
This is
way
2. On the other
hand,
if an
artisan no
longer produces
for the local consumer and enters into
direct relations with the national or international
market,
the
pro-
ducer becomes a merchant as well: this is
way
1: a
revolutionary
way,
because commerce is subordinated to
production.
I will
agree:
this is a revolution that I should like to call a tech-
nological
one,
and I
presume
that is what was in Marx's mind.
But if
capitalism
is defined in terms of the
profit
taken out of the
product
of
wage
labor,
the facts seem to me to be a
good
deal more
complicated; way
2
may
lead to
capitalism just
as
way
1
does,
and
I do not think that Marx did not realize this.
244 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
An
artisan,
in
starting
out on
way
1,
does not confine himself
to
subordinating
commerce to
production;
to
supply
the
market,
in
the broad sense of the
term,
he must recruit a labor force
paid by
wages,
on which he makes a
profit;
this makes a
capitalist
of him.
But if a merchant sets
up
a
manufacture,
he is
doing
the same
thing;
he is a
capitalist
too. It
may
be
said,
perhaps,
that the situa-
tion is different if this
manufacturing
is
by
the
putting-out system,
because the home worker remains an
independent producer,
so that
the merchant deals with him at an
agreed price, just
like a
consumer,
and
only
obtains a
profit by
resale. This thesis could be maintained
if the artisan continues at the same time to
supply
the local market
and is to some extent free to choose his
customers,
being thereby
enabled not to be
entirely
at the
mercy
of the merchant. But it is
obvious that sooner or later the
putting-out system
excludes this
hypothesis,
since the merchants' orders are so
large
and
relatively
regular
that
they engross
the artisan's
activity.
Even
more,
the mer-
chant,
supplying
the loom and the raw
material,
is not content to
bring
the
existing
artisanate under his
control;
he creates workmen
in the rural
masses,
which suffer from endemic
unemployment
and are at his
mercy.
In this
case,
just
as in the
other,
the merchant
becomes a
capitalist,
as Marx defines the
term,
and that is
why
the
class
struggle appeared
in
Italy
and Flanders in the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries.
These observations do not militate
against
Dobb's thesis con-
trasting
the merchant and the
producer
who has become a
capitalist,
and
relating
to this conflict one of the
aspects
of the First
English
Revolution. Commerce and the state assisted each
other,
the mer-
chant as lender and
purveyor
to the
public
services,
especially
the
army,
and the state
by
the
privileges,
bounties and
monopolies
it
granted;
in
addition,
the
sovereign
favored commerce and manu-
factures for the sake of the financial structure and the
treasury,
and
to maintain the
monetary
stock of the
country:
mercantilism and
colonial
exploitation
were erected into a
system
and
played
into the
hands of the merchant.
Consequently,
the merchant never dreamed
of
overthrowing
the
political
and social
structure,
and it could be
predicted
that he would side with the
royal power
if the latter were
menaced. On the other
hand,
this
symbiosis
irritated the
producers,
who were
just coming
in to
capitalism
and did not
profit by
the
FROM FEUDALISM TO CAPITALISM 245
same
privileges
as the favored
merchant,
being
reduced
only
to their
own
powers
and resources.
Nevertheless,
when the
origins
of
capitalism
are
being sought,
it should not be
forgotten
that the collusion of commerce and the
state favored its
germination,
even if it is
thought
that Sombart
emphasized
this
point
too much. Without the
protection
of the
state
against
the
competition
of countries with more advanced econo-
mies,
manufacture would have had a hard time
gaining
a
footing.
The orders that the state
gave
to
manufacturing
also
gave
it ad-
vantages,
and had an influence on
technology
whose
consequences
were no doubt
unsuspected by any
one. When these orders were for
the
luxury
of the
court,
they
were of much less
importance
than
the
supplies
for the
public
services,
especially
the armed
forces,
be-
cause
they implied
mass
production:
the artisanate was not
adapted
to
this,
and could not be
expected
to
give
the
quantity, regularity
and
speed
of manufacture
needed,
and
especially
not the
uniformity
that is so essential in arms. The
only
manufacturer that could suc-
ceed in
really satisfying
the state was the merchant who set
up
a
factory, strictly
so
called,
or
organized
a
putting-out system,
because
only
he could concentrate the
enterprise
and make
production
regular.
In this
way
he took
part
in the historic mission of
capital-
ism:
inaugurating
mass
production by rationalizing
and
mechanizing
labor,
thanks to concentration of the
enterprise.
Under these
conditions,
it seems to me that the facts could be
presented
in the
following
manner. The merchant creates the fac-
tory
and his interests are in
agreement
with those of the
state,
as
well as with those of the
great
landowners who set about redis-
tributing
their lands and
eliminating
their
tenants,
in order to trans-
form
agriculture. Following
their
examples,
the
peasants
who have
put
some
savings
aside and artisans who have taken
part
in the
primitive
accumulation of
capital
also undertake to set
up agricul-
tural
operations
on new
methods,
or a manufacture. Since the state
virtually ignores
them,
they
are
jealous
of both the merchant and
the
aristocracy,
and want to
participate
in the
government
in order
to
suppress privileges
and
monopolies,
in order to have a chance
at
getting government
orders. It is natural therefore that
they
should have declared for Parliament in the
English
Civil War. One
of the
aspects
of the French Revolution of 1789 has the same
origin.
246 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
I should
add, however,
that
they
were not at all hostile to the
govern-
ment aid that
they
condemned in the merchant: the
partisans
of free
enterprise
made
just
as effective use of the
power
of the
state,
once
they
had
got
their hands on
it,
as the
privileged
merchant did.
I shall conclude with a few words on method. The
primary
task
of economists and
sociologists (and
Dobb and
Sweezy
seem to me
to
appear
in that
capacity,
as I said
above)
is to
enquire
into the
economic
system
and
society
that are
actually
in existence. After
this,
they compare
the two in order to
get general
ideas. But it is
natural that the
comparative
method should lead them to* extend
their
investigations
into the economies and societies of the
past.
At that
point they
must become historians.
When
they
arrive at this
phase,
Dobb and
Sweezy
build
up
their
hypotheses,
not
by
means of labors of erudition but
by borrowing
results
presumed
to be
definitely
established
by
the historians. There
is no
objection
to
this;
historians likewise resort to this
expedient
on occasion.
Only, they
do not rest there. Once the
hypothesis
has been
constructed,
the reason must come out of its shell to in-
terrogate
the external world
again,
so as to discover whether or
not the answers the world
gives support
that
hypothesis.
It
appears
to me that the discussion aroused
by
Dobb's
publica-
tion has reached this
point.
I feel it would be useless and even
dangerous
to
carry
it further without
turning
from abstraction to the
concrete. And how is it
possible
to conform to the
precept
of ex-
perimental
rationalism
except by resorting
to erudition and its
rules? The historian therefore draws
up
a research
plan;
he draws
up
a
questionnaire,
well
provided
with indications of
sources,
the
exploration
of which will be the first
phase
of the work. Dobb and
Sweezy
have rendered the service of
formulating
the
problems.
Now,
to
work,
as historians!
Boulogne-sur-Seine,
France