Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

1

Tutorial- THE RISE OF THE MODERN WEST


Gideon Mathson, History (honours) IInd year
THE TRANSITION FROM FEUDALISM TO CAPITALISM

Q.) Discuss the facets of the feudal debate and analyze its applicability in various regions,
over different periods of time.

ANS.) Human society is the product of evolution and an understanding of all the social trends
that surround us today necessitates an analysis of the antecedents of society. It is in this
context that the feudal debate seems to acquire importance for me, as an undergraduate
student of history. The arguments of Dobb, Sweezy, Brenner and Wallerstein have through
critique and analysis tried to reconstruct the most significant trends between the 10th and the
17th centuries and cumulatively their ideas seem to correlate evidence with argument.
One of the first issues of contention over the feudal debate lay in the very nature and
definition of feudalism. Dobb defines feudalism as

Virtually identical with what we mean by serfdom, an obligation laid on the


producer by force and independent of his volition to fulfil the demands of the overlord.

Sweezy argued against this definition, calling it too broad. He says that the encapsulation of
feudalism within the concept of serfdom makes it vague and applicable to a broad family of
social systems. Sweezy believed that Dobb should have limited his analysis to Western
Europe. However Sweezys answer to Dobbs definition seems equally, if not more
ambiguous.

He says it is an Economic system in which serfdom is the predominant relation of


production and in which production is organised around the manorial estate of the lord.

To make his conception more lucid Sweezy goes on to emphasise that the feudal period was
one of production for use and not one of production for exchange. He argued this by
saying that feudalism has a change resisting nature that insulates it from competitive market
thus indicating that the changes within the feudal period occurred because of external factors.
The external factor for Sweezy was trade.

Dobb argues against this saying that different stages in feudalism display different trends and
that this is indicative of the fact that it was not change resisting and that like any other social
system is moved my its own internal contradictions. And these internal contradictions for
Dobb are the relations of production between the landlord and the serf and the eventual
struggle for freedom by the serf. He says that while class conflict does not directly transform
feudalism to capitalism, it does free the individual producer from the landlord.
Takahashi who critiques both Dobb and Sweezy discusses the nature of feudalism on the
basis of the social existence form of labour power which in the medieval period is serfdom.
He criticizes Sweezys conception of the change resisting nature of feudal society, saying that
compared to the inflexibility of eastern European feudalism, Western European feudalism is
relatively fickle. He also questions the source for trade as an external factor causing
movement within feudalism. He asks Sweezy where the impetus for trade comes from.
Sweezy had argued for the decline of the feudal period on the basis of trade, saying that it
accentuated the already extravagant tastes of the landlords thus making then increase the
burden of the peasant s to satisfy these tastes. Moreover he says that trade caused the
development of towns which provided a viable alternative for harassed peasants to migrate to.
Both Takahashi and Dobb argue against this. Takahashi points out that in France trade ended
up restoring the feudal structure. Dobb argues that the decline of serfdom was more
emphasised in certain areas that lacked trade entirely where as in some areas where trade
dominated were strongholds of feudalism. Both Dobb and Takahashi agree that the
movements within the feudal period were caused by the class relations within a particular
situation. Eventually peasant revolt leads to declining control of the landlords and the
introduction of money rent.
In response to this critique Sweezy finally asks: What is the prime mover during the feudal
period? Sweezy himself answers the question by saying that the there was rising production
during the period that had been caused by trade which he says was not external to the
European economy but external to the system of feudalism. He says that feudalism had no
internal prime mover but that it was disintegrated by trade.
Rodney Hilton replies to Sweezys query about the prime mover by saying that the prime
mover in feudal society is the surplus produced by the peasant. It is the extra-economic
extraction of this surplus that defines the class relations between the peasant and the lord and
thus defines the nature and eventual decline of feudalism.
The next point of contention within this debate lay in the nature of the actual period of
transition between the feudal and the capital stages.
Dobb argues it as a period of feudal decline. He says that while feudalism had deteriorated, it
had certainly not been obliterated. He argues for the emergence of the petty mode of
production (the free individual producer) during this period. He says the money rent of this
period is still a feudal rent.

Sweezy on the other hand says that feudalism died in the 15th century. He says that the period
was neither feudal nor capitalist and calls it Pre-capitalist commodity production.
Takahashi disputes this saying that though the peasants of this period were free from serfdom,
they were still burdened by money rent. Sweezy treats money rent as transitional between
capitalist and feudal rent, but Takahashi believes like Dobb that the system of rent during this
period is feudal.
Dobb questions Sweezys conception of the transition period by asking him what the
dominant class of the period was. He believes that it certainly could not have been bourgeois
for otherwise the conflict during this period would have been one between two separate
classes of bourgeois. He argues instead that the dominant class during this period was the
individual producer.
He goes on to argue that it is this individual producer, or the petty mode of production that
eventually goes on to become the capitalist. Thus the producer rises from his ranks to become
the capitalist. Dobb sites Marx as his source for this interpretation.
Marx defines two possibilities for the emergence of capitalism. The first he calls the real
revolutionary way, which was backed by Dobb. In this process the individual producer rises
from the ranks to become a capitalist.
The other method involved the merchant investing money and becoming the capitalist by
taking possession for the direct mode of production. Sweezy argues for this process. He says
that the merchants become producers by utilizing the putting out system by which they cut
out the small scale manufacturer from the process of production. Moreover he criticizes
Dobbs suggestion that the putting out system could be present in the real revolutionary way.
Takahashi argues in favour of Dobb saying that by the time of the 17th century production of
the petty mode was domestic and the merchants were lenient. This allowed the petty mode
the freedom to eventually emerge as the capitalist despite the putting out system. Dobb argues
for an eventual conflict between a class of small scale peasantry who developed into
manufacturers and a class of feudatories and merchants that eventually results in the peasant
gaining control and emerging as the capitalist.
This however has to be limited to Western Europe as pointed out by Takahashi since in Japan
capitalism emerged from and thrived under feudal absolutist control. It emerged out of
synthesis with feudalism than out of conflict against it. Here according to Takahashi
capitalism was stimulated by external forces rather than internal contradictions. Thus he
concludes by saying that the emergence of capitalism took place through the real
revolutionary way in Western Europe and through the second way in Eastern Europe and
Asia.
We can clearly see the eventual transformation from feudalism to capitalism is a process that
follows varied forms in various geo-chrono segments right across the fabric of historical
development. The problem that arises is the attempt to place all these segments under one
broad category and to describe the evolution of all of human society in the same one-

dimensional transformation from feudalism to capitalism to socialism. This in itself is a futile


exercise.
One of the primary causes of contention right through this debate for me has been the
superimposition of a set of rules of social evolution on an era or a particular area that may
have followed a process entirely contradictory to what took place in the specified area.
For example in the very definition of feudalism, where Dobb manages to encapsulate the
basis of feudal society in his argument, this society can only be described as limited to the
time period between the 10th and the 14th centuries within western Europe. This in itself
provides an ideal case study for the development for feudalism as the basic assumptions
regarding feudal society are fulfilled within this particular geo-chrono segment. However
outside of this, like in Eastern Europe within the same period the definitions do not apply. No
doubt a period of feudalism did follow in Eastern Europe some centuries later, however the
superimposition of a broad identity of feudal, even to two portions of the same continent
proves inaccurate.
Such superimposition of definition becomes entirely for the sake of theoretical argument and
academic categorization.
Moreover even in the analysis of the decline of feudalism, in order to evolve a structure that
is truly feudal , scholars like Dobb and Sweezy have tried placing their own broad ideas
about the decline on the entire European continent. Such analysis makes for inaccurate
reconstruction of the past. We may well end up missing out certain trends that are formative
and crucial in the history of a particular region.
Even in the emergence of capitalism as is pointed out by Takahashi, it is very different in
different regions in the world. Thus the first method of eliminating such inaccuracy is a more
comprehensive analysis.
Pre mature steps towards such analysis have been taken by Robert Brenner. In his
mesmerizing critique on the Neo-Malthusians and the trade based analysis of history Brenner
contrasts the decline of feudalism in Western and Eastern Europe and the emergence of
capitalism in England and France.
Brenner emphasises class relations between the landlord and the producer as being crucial for
the movement of history from the feudal to the capitalist periods. He critiqued the
demographic analysis of Ladurie and Postan showing that their two phase demographic
model was limited and that its implications were only secondary as compared to class
relations. He says that class structure is resilient in comparison to the impact of economic
forces. And thus he focuses on the autonomous processes that resulted in the emergence of
class structure.
He critiques Postans economic base theory saying that the long term trends of income
distribution cannot be studied in isolation from class struggle as any explanation for income
distribution must be considered through land-lord peasant relations.

The Malthusians argue for a cycle where decreasing fertility of the soil results in the
landlords imposing higher rents. Moreover increasing population results in fragmentation of
property. Thus the increasing pressure on population witnesses an improvement in the
condition of the land-lord. Then later the population declines due to famine etc. this results in
peasant scarcity which in turn increases peasant mobility and reduces landlords control.
Postan argues for this model being applicable in the 13th century and Ladurie argues for
something similar in the 17th century.
Brenner however says that different outcomes proceed from similar demographic trends all
over Europe. He says that Postans argument for increased rents with reduced population
hinges on the landlords ability to extract surplus. Surplus can only be extracted from bonded
peasants and so the extraction of extra rent was dependant on the peasant/lord relationship.
He then points to the case of peasant enfranchisement in the most populous regions of France,
showing that population pressure had nothing to do with the condition of the peasant. He also
shows how the decline of population in Eastern Europe on the other hand resulted in extra
economic coercion and implementation of serfdom.
He also criticizes the conventional commercialization model assumptions that the decline of
serfdom was based on the change of labour rents to money rents and that the rise of capital
agriculture was on the basis of capital improvement and wage labour.

He then outlines two fundamental questions in the feudal debate:


1. What caused the decline of feudalism despite the persistence of serfdom?
2. What caused the predominance of secure small property despite the landlord?
And it is to elucidate this that he carries out a comparative analysis of the strength of
feudalism in eastern Europe and its decline in western Europe and the emergence of agrarian
capitalism in England and its failure in France. He argues that the break through from
traditional economy depends upon the emergence of specific class relations which in turn
depend upon the destruction of serfdom and the short-circuiting of the emerging predominance of peasantry.
The peasant conditions decline in Europe due to increasing exploitation and decreasing
mobility. There was a crisis in productivity that led to a demographic crisis. The result of this
crisis in Western Europe was the peasants gaining a bargaining point for improved conditions
whereas in Eastern Europe this resulted in the tighter imposition of the landlords control over
the serfs.
According to Brenner the result boiled down to a power struggle between lord and serf. It
was according to Brenner the revolt by the peasant that eventually led to his enfranchisement.
Thus Brenner emphasises the importance of at least posing a question of what the reaction to

class conflict in different regions of the world was and the importance of showing that it was
not commercial or demographic factors that governed the process of feudalism in Europe.
Brenner goes on to explain the reason for the divergence in decline of feudalism in eastern
and western Europe on the basis of levels of rural organisation. He states that in Western
Europe the level of rural organisation was high thus ensuring freedom whereas the East saw
only minor development of peasant self-government.
Though at the same time there were exceptions such as the peasant revolt in Prussia.
Brenner also emphasises the fact that it wasnt revolt but stubborn resistance that won
emancipation for serfs. Thus while Western Europe witnessed the gradual emancipation of
serfs , eastern Europe in the same period, witnessed the opposite.
On the question of agrarian capitalism he first describes its emergence in England. By the 15th
century, large parts of England had started freeing themselves from landlords. However there
were two restrictions to this: The landlords could appropriate great parts of land left vacant by
the demographic decline and moreover they could charge fines on peasant inheritance of
property. This gave them control over the peasantry. And though the peasantry revolted
against this, the landlords eventually established themselves and the controllers of the land in
England.
By the 17th century the landlords come to own 70-75 % of the land. Brenner argues that
having taken over the land the landlords facilitated a system of agricultural capitalism by a
symbiotic system of with the tenants. The tenants worked wage labourers to gain maximum
surplus to please the landlord. This led to system of capital investment on the part of the
tenants. The landlords on their parts did not impose excess rent, allowing the tenants to utilize
the surplus for investment. With agricultural development came price stability and food
security and the industrialization of agriculture allowed 40 % of the English population to
leave agricultural activities to pursue industry.

In France, unlike England the peasants managed to acquire complete freedom and maintained
this freedom over a long historical epoch. They gained the basis for freehold property.
However the peasant organization was far less effective against a centralized state. The state
promoted the interest of the peasant as the peasant provided easy fodder for taxes and
prevented the landowner from acquiring land. Thus France faced a situation of regression.
Unlike the English landlord/tenant system, the producer in France did not have any
competition and beyond maintaining subsistence he was limited. Moreover the peasant was
subjugated economically by the state leading to an overall situation of decadence.
Thus apart from ripping apart the Neo-Malthusian and commercial model theorists, Brenner
lays the basis for movement within the feudal mode of production and moreover he does this
through a comparative analysis of four separate situations.

What limited theorists like Dobb and Sweezy initially was the lack of geographical scope in
their analysis and as I mentioned earlier their super-imposition of a broad definition on very
varied contexts. When Dobb defines the nature of feudalism he does it on a pre-dominantly
Western European basis, without taking into account the various other societies where
feudalism has said to have existed. Moreover while considering the emergence of capitalism
Dobb and Sweezy ignore the different contexts for its emergence in England, France and
Japan and simply argue for a general set of characteristics with which to define the
emergence of capitalism.
It is in relation to this that I would like to expand an idea regarding a possible alternative in
the methodology used to consider the transition from feudalism to capitalism.
The problem here is one of very broad categorization.
Different regions in world evolved to what they are today because of different antecedents in
terms of society and culture. Our world to is not a uniform world. It would be wrong to look
at society and economy today and broadly classify it as socialist or capitalist. Even if we were
to consider the singular continents of Asia or Europe or the countries India and England in
isolation, it would be hard to evolve a broad definition for the trends we observe. Can we
really say 21st century India is entirely capitalistic or socialist? Of course it could be argued
that today we understand the trends of capitalism etc. and thus would try and mould a nation
in a manner to suit a particular trend. But eventually, after the actual performance of a social
ideal in a country, can we really say that the country is dictated by that ideal?
I believe we cant. Empirical History is a reconstruction of the past to help us better
understand our present. As stated by Wallerstein the whole archaeological enterprise from its
inception- the social investment in this branch of activity, the research orientation, the
conceptual tools, the modes of resuming and communicating the results- are functions of the
social present.
And if the present is a reflection of the past, I think it would be inaccurate to argue that the
world, or a single continent or country in the period from the 10th century to the 17th century
could be considered under the head of a singular socio-economic phenomenon.
As has been clearly displayed by Brenner, a truly accurate study of the feudal and capitalist
economy can only be conducted through comparative analysis of several situations. I would
go further to argue that such an analysis must be rigorous and must use every bit of
archaeological evidence available to recreate the past.
In order to do this it would first be important to take up a region as case study to
conceptualise ideal feudalism and then define the nature of feudalism and the steps in the
evolution of feudalism to capitalism within that region. Having done this it would then be
important to specify the time period in which each of these steps took place. Once these have
been established we will get what we can call a sample segment.
Having established the sample segment , in order to study other regions, we must divide units
on the basis of geographic location and the time period that we want to analyse and then

study the trends within this geo-chrono segment in isolation to any other theory or
categorization. Having done so we could compare the steps of evolution of this geo-chrono
segment to our sample society and decide the level of divergence of this region form the
sample segment. This will do justice to each individual society. As clearly shown by Brenner
what was the Decline of feudalism in Western Europe was its resurgence in Eastern Europe
and what was the emergence of capitalist agriculture in England was the opposite in France.
Moreover he also provides exceptions of regions such a Prussia which does not follow the
general trends of the pre-dominant geographical entity it is part of.
There is no doubt that the broad identification of trends in the world is positive to a general
unbiased conception of history, all the same such a categorization must occur only after due
recognition has been paid to each diminutive segment that might be a stark exception to the
rule.
Wallerstein argues that it is essential to see the world-system as a whole since mans ability to
participate in his own social system is determined by this. I would like to add to this saying
that the only way a man can participate in a world system is by having a detailed idea of his
own past and the evolution of his own culture. For if he doesnt his past will be coloured by
biases of an alien nature. If there is no objectivity in the study of social science the closest we
can get to such objectivity is through an empirical analysis of our own culture. Let there at
least not be a complicated unsolvable mess of biases. If they must exist, let them exist in
clearly distinguishable lines, let the biases be separated from each other.

In arguing the definition feudalism or capitalism on the basis of universal evidence we arrive
at conclusions that are geographically and chronologically scattered. It is after this sort of
bias has been cleared that the histories of countries like India and Japan can be analyzed
without the occidental leaning that has been imposed on them by historians both within and
outside their own culture. It is only with objective analysis of this nature that we can escape
the net of historiographical schools that are inapplicable to certain cultures. Then we can
consider the emergence of oligarchic capitalism in Japan in its entirety and maybe see the
history of that nation in a different light. And maybe then epigraphy within our country can
be analysed without superimposition of western categorization and a system entirely detached
from the historical evolution of that part of the world.
There is no doubt that cultures influence each other. We do see traces of the orient in the
occidental world and those of western thought and culture on the orient. However the
perception of an entire period of history of an area in a light that is completely alien to the
region is a misleading excercise.
A division of history into units on the basis of time and region will help create an unbiased
conception of the major world trends and systems. Till such an analysis is carried out and the
existing systems are questioned using aberrations against their rules, historiography will
remain limited and the categorization of history into feudal or capitalist periods will be
largely an argument for the sake of itself.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.) The transition from feudalism to capitalism(1987, printed in Great Britain)
2.) The Brenner Debate (edited by Aston and Philpin, 1987, printed in Great Britain)
3.) The Modern World System( Emmanuel Wallerstein)
4.) Class Notes

S-ar putea să vă placă și