DISCUSS THE DEBATE THAT CAN

BE RELATED TO DECLINE OF
FEUDALISM OR IN THE RISE OF
CAPITALISM.

Contents

Debate on the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism

......................................................................................3
Reasons for the debate:................................................4
Feudalism.....................................................................5
Capitalism.....................................................................6
The Marxist Theory.......................................................7
Inner-contradiction Model..........................................10
Market-centric Explanation........................................15
Demographic Model....................................................17
Brenner’s views on transition.....................................20

Page 1 of 23
One of the liveliest academic debates in recent times
relate to the question of what led to the decline of
feudalism and the emergence of capitalist mode of
production that led to the creation of the modern
world. This is commonly called the ‘transition debate’.
The decline of feudalism and origins of capitalism have
been studied for a long period of time and yet not one
entirely valid study has been able to present consistent
findings of this transition. It is the outcome of
divergent explanations offered on the nature of feudal
relationship and the moving forces responsible for its
decline and the connection this decline had with the
birth of capitalism.

Page 2 of 23
 Debate on the transition from
Feudalism to Capitalism

The debate on transition from feudalism to capitalism

was mainly about 2 points:

 Whether the extension of external trade dissolved

the feudal mode of production – ‘the exchange
relations’ perspective
 Whether the feudal mode broke down as a result of
an inner contradiction in the feudal relations of
production, i.e. the intensification of the extraction of
surplus by the nobility, and its expenditure on
unproductive activities like war and luxury
consumption – ‘property relations’ perspective

The three schools of thought regarding the rise of

capitalism and the decline feudalism were based on
the Market Theory, the Marxists, and the Demography.

Page 3 of 23
 Reasons for the debate:

 The theoretical ambivalence in Karl Marx’s account

of transition from feudalism to capitalism.
 The variety of ways in which scholars have used the
terms ‘feudalism’ and ‘capitalism’.

Whether ‘true’ capitalism began with the coming of the

industrial revolution in England in the 2nd half of the
18th century or with the maturity of merchant
capitalism during the 16th century, are some issues
that have been raised in the course of the transition
debate.

Page 4 of 23
 Feudalism

Feudalism as a form of political, economic and social

system dominated Europe from around 9th – 14th
century A.D.
 Specifically, it means a social system of rights and
duties based on land tenures and personal
relationships, in which land is held in ‘fief’ by vassals
from lord.
 Broadly, it means a form of society or stage of
civilization that flourishes, especially in a closed
agrarian economy, and has certain general
characteristics besides the mere presence of lords,
vassals, and fief.

Thus, the socio-economic political system that

developed in the medieval period, first in Western
Europe and later in other parts of Europe and the rest
of the world, is called ‘feudalism’.

Page 5 of 23
 Capitalism

Capitalism is an economic system based

preponderantly on the private ownership, use of
capital for the production and exchange of goods and
services with the aim of earning a profit.

Page 6 of 23
 The Marxist Theory

There is no single Marxist theory on the transition

from feudalism to capitalism. The Marxist historians
have some fundamental differences over the concept of
feudalism and capitalism and on the causes and the
nature of transition from one mode of production to
another.

Marx used the term ‘feudalism’ to describe a whole

social order whose principal feature was domination
of the rest of the society, mainly peasants, by a
military landowning aristocracy. The essence of feudal
mode of production in the Marxist sense is the
exploitative relationship between landowners and
subordinate peasants.

He described capitalism as a ‘mode of production’ of

the material wealth of society, and believed that the
social and political institutions, the ideas and

Page 7 of 23
achievements of any society are ultimately derived
from its ‘mode of production’.

He saw the change from feudal to a capital society in

the change from a primary agrarian society of petty
producers to a society producing commodities for
exchange in the market.

Karl Marx provides two alternative routes to

capitalism:

 He emphasises the corrosive effect of mercantile

activity, the expansion of market and the growth of
cities on feudal systems. He suggested that mercantile
capitalism within an autonomous urban sphere
provided the initial thrust towards capitalism.
 He focuses on the producer and the process by
which the producer becomes mercantile capitalist. For
Marx, this was the real revolutionary path towards
capitalism.

Marx lays stress on social relations of production. He

suggests that in Western Europe, capitalism does not
Page 8 of 23
emerge before the 16th century and its industrial form
not until the late 18th century. According to him,
industrial capitalism depends on three factors:

 Private ownership of the means of production

 The rise of the bourgeois class
 The existence of wage labour

These formed the basis of production and profit

accumulation in the long run.

Thus, Marx’s explanation of the emergence of

capitalism is primarily concerned with the
establishment of the structural preconditions rather
than with the detailed mechanism that created these
preconditions.

Page 9 of 23
 Inner-contradiction Model

Maurice Dobb provides the first major explanation for

the decline of feudalism representing the classical
Marxist approach. Dobb defines feudalism as a ‘system
under which economic status and authority were
associated with land-tenure, and the direct producer
was under obligation based on law or customary right
to devote a certain quota of his labour or his produce
to the benefits of his feudal superior’. Feudalism here
consisted of social relations between feudal lords and
peasants. Feudal lords ruled over peasants and their
lands and degraded any attempt of economical
decisions taken by them even when upper class
peasants had the ability to grow economically.
Controlled peasants called ‘serfs’ utilized their small
lands with produce and labor work and were required
to allocate a part of their labor value and produce to
the feudal lords; this was considered a petty mode of
production in a socio-economic viewpoint of feudalism.

Page 10 of 23
He argued that the decline of feudalism was the result
of inner contradiction within the feudal mode of
production. This explanation is generally described as
the ‘inner-contradiction model’. For Dobb, there are 2
chief elements related to the transition from feudalism
to capitalism:

 A system of production resting on serf-labour

 A system of production based on Hired wage-labour

Dobb begins to address decline of feudalism with

emphasizing the reasoning to be rise in trade and
merchant capital that destroyed the feudal
system. It is argued that trade and merchant capital
did not directly bring change to the feudal economic
system; as the development of trade was closely
related to the growth of division of labour, and that
division of labour depended on rise of productivity of
labour. The emergence of productivity of labour was
brought about by the development of social forces of
production which was structured by class relations of
the economic system. Thus, trade and merchant
capital was shaped by the feudal class relations.

Page 11 of 23
Though very little emphasis was placed on the role of
feudal class relations and its connection to trade, by
Dobb, he does somewhat discuss the linkage between
the two. Brenner analyses Dobbs view by stating ‘with
development of trade the growth of new needs would
induce the landlords to attempt to increase output and
thus to rationalize their estate’. With increasing needs
created by trade and money economy it was believed
that extra-economical pressure was imposed by feudal
superiors on peasants when they had limited peasant
production forces, thus, this led to the transformation
of feudalism to capitalism.

Dobb also raises the issue of bourgeois revolution.

According to him, it was brought about by the
emergence of an urban setting; a commercial-
industrial development. He considering ‘lord-peasant
class relations and the outcome of lord-peasant class
conflict’ was important to understand the growth of
towns in the feudal society that led to the rise of
commercial-industrial advancement. During the period
of the transition, development of towns in feudal
societies were due to increased demand for weapons
Page 12 of 23
and luxury products occurring from feudal class
relations and ‘the lack of demand for agriculture
means of production’. This was also the reason for
growth of trade which was developed by the rise of
interest in exchanging peasant-produced food for
luxury goods. Dobb's analysis on transition of
feudalism to capitalism does at some point contradict
itself, however it gives a vast in-depth study to
understand the matter better and imposes relatively
valid points.

In conclusion, according to Dobb, rise of trade and

merchant capital was the core motive for decline of
feudalism; this commercial transformation of the
economy was caused by inefficient feudal mode of
production that entailed problematic social class
relations between lords and peasants. He also states
that declining agricultural productivity and rising
demand for commodity production led to rise of
capitalism where free wage labour and money-rent
capitalist economic system was established.

Page 13 of 23
Page 14 of 23
 Market-centric Explanation

Paul Sweezy adopts a market-centric approach called

the ‘market’ or the ‘commercial model’. He objects to
Dobb’s identification of feudalism with serfdom as
interchangeable terms. The ‘exchange relations’
perspective of Sweezy defines capitalism as a system
of production for profit through market exchange that
depends on an international trade-based division of
labour. He argues that since feudal society was a
system of production for use, there was existed no
internal dynamic that would stimulate long term
growth and expansion, leave alone the capability of
transforming into capitalism. According to him, the
rise of exchange economy that led to monetization of
relations between feudal lords and the peasant mass
somewhat signalled the dissolution of feudalism. He
finds Dobb’s concept of feudalism defective and he
contends that some serfdom can exist in systems that
are not feudal. He believes that even the most
primitive economy also requires a certain amount of
trade.
Page 15 of 23
On what came after feudalism in western Europe,
Sweezy’s answer is that the period of 200 hundred odd
years between the end of feudalism and the beginning
of capitalism was the period of the ‘pre-capitalist
commodity production’. He suggested that it was the
growth of commodity production that first undermined
feudalism and later prepared the grounds for success
of capitalism.

According to Pirenne, trade or ‘grand trade’ who was

different to the petty local trade occupied the crucial
position. Feudalism rose in Western Europe when the
trade and therefore urban civilization of the classical
period declined as a result of the rupture of the main
trade routes across the Mediterranean, because of the
Muslims who occupied the controlling points in the sea
during the 17th and 18th centuries. With the restoration
of these strategic points by Crusades from the 11th
century onwards, trade revived, and feudalism
declined. Thus, Pirenne implied that feudalism, trade
and urbanization was alien to each other and
visualised ‘grand trade’ as external to feudalism.
Page 16 of 23
Dobb accepted the compatibility of trade with
feudalism, and accepted international trade as an
integral part of feudal life, supplying the demands for
luxury of the feudal lords. Brenner has stressed
property relations and rejected both the
characterization of capitalism in terms of a trade based
division of labour and the emphasis on urban merchant
capital as the dynamic for capitalist expansion.

Demographic Model

The decline of feudalism and the rise of capitalism are

placed by some writers on demographic factors. This
view is led by scholars like H.J. Habbakuk, M.M.
Postan, Guy Bois and Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie. They
suggest that major shifts in demographic patterns
caused the disintegration of the feudal economy. This
interpretation is termed as the Malthusian model or
the ‘demographic model’.

Postan and Habbakuk are among the first to stress on

the role of population in the long term changes in the
Page 17 of 23
economic structures. Ladurie and Postan used the data
from the church records to explain the long-term
growth, and the decline of the population in the Middle
Ages and after. They have drawn attention to non-
human factors like climate change and plague which
along with social factors like the age of marriage and
economic incentives to have large or small families
influence the demographic cycle.

Historians emphasize the growing urbanization to be

crucial link in the decline of feudalism. The role of the
town in the decline of feudalism has been overstated,
since the towns till the 13th century could hardly
absorb 10% of the population.

According to Anderson, changes crucial to transition

were found in the rise of Absolutism – a feudal state,
which was a fundamental departure from the feudal
political structure. Throughout this period of transition
to capitalism, the landed monopoly was maintained by
Absolutism, whereby the landed classes could continue
to extract rent from peasant production. The decline of

Page 18 of 23
the political structure of feudalism did not imply the
complete destruction of feudalism.

Paul Sweezy saw the Verlags system or the ‘putting

out system’, in which large merchants of the town
employed craftsmen scattered in domestic workshops
in the villages or suburbs as the most significant point
from which process of transition to the matured
factory system of the Industrial Revolution started.

Page 19 of 23
 Brenner’s views on transition

Brenner criticizes both the demographic model as well

as the trade-centred approach. The main thrust of
Brenner’s argument placed the development of class
structure and state power and its effects at the centre
of analysis. According to Brenner, the two fundamental
problems regarding the transition related to:

 The decline versus persistence of serfdom and its

effects
 The emergence and predominance of secure small
peasant property versus the rise of landlord-large
tenant farmer relations on the land

Brenner believed class struggle to be the cause for the

decline of feudalism and the rise of capitalism. He
concluded that a successful struggle by peasants to
protect the integrity of the tenancy of their holdings
led to a sort of historical regression, since small scale
production by its very nature, is incapable of
technological innovation and that it was the proto-
capitalist landowners and well-to-do yeomen who lay
Page 20 of 23
the basis for a full-fledged capitalist agriculture. He
rejected the interpretations to the differential social
development of advanced Western and backward
Eastern Europe after 1450. According to him, the
demographic explanation i.e. that in Western Europe,
the population collapse during the 14th century, is seen
as being responsible or placing serf labour in a far
stronger bargaining position with the feudal lords than
hitherto resulting in challenge and erosion of serfdom
and contributing to the rise of capitalism.

The class-structure, according to Brenner, had three

layers— the state or the monarchy at the top, the
gentry and feudal landlords at the middle and the
peasants and serfs at the lowest base. In the 14th and
15th centuries the perpetual class conflict between the
second and third social groups resulted in the triumph
of the peasantry and serfdom came to an end. In
England, however, since the monarchy was dependent
on the gentry for taxes, it could not protect the
peasantry against the oppression of the gentry and the
feudal lords. As a result, the peasantry were ultimately
again suppressed by feudalism, leading to their
Page 21 of 23
deprivation of land which were subsequently enclosed
by the landlords. The successful enclosure movement
in England laid the foundations of agrarian capitalism
in the 16th century and this facilitated the process of
her early industrialization. In France, however, the
monarchy was directly dependent upon the peasants
for taxes. So the landlords could not enclose the lands
successfully as the peasants resisted the move
vehemently and the monarchy could not afford to
impose it upon them against their will. As a result,
agrarian capitalism could not develop in France. It was
all the more delayed in Eastern Europe where
monarchy was extremely weak, feudal lords were
powerful and consequently feudalism continued in its
strongest form.

Hilton’s transition debate centres on class conflicts

between lords and serfs in relation to the feudal crisis
of the 14th century Europe. According to him, labour
rent was not an essential element in the feudal
relations of production, and was merely one form of an
enforced transfer of surplus. He emphasised both the
pressure of the land of the peasants as well as the
Page 22 of 23
efforts of the peasant to retain for themselves as much
of the surplus as possible. He emphasised peasant
‘class consciousnesses’ and the development of the
ideology of ‘freedom’.

Brenner rejected the interpretations to the differential

social development of advanced Western and
backward Eastern Europe after 1450. According to
him, the demographic explanation i.e. that in Western
Europe, the population collapse during the 14th
century, is seen as being responsible or placing serf
labour in a far stronger bargaining position with the
feudal lords than hitherto resulting in challenge and
erosion of serfdom and contributing to the rise of
capitalism.

Page 23 of 23