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 Sweezy’s answer to Dobb’s 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 Sweezy’s 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 Sweezy’s 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 Sweezy’s 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 Postan’s “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 Postan’s 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:
- What caused the decline of feudalism despite the persistence of serfdom?
- 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 pre-dominance 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 wasn’t 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 can’t. 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 man’s 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 doesn’t 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
- The transition from feudalism to capitalism(1987, printed in Great Britain)
- The Brenner Debate (edited by Aston and Philpin, 1987, printed in Great Britain)
- The Modern World System( Emmanuel Wallerstein)
- Class Notes