The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism

S&S Quarterly, Inc.
Guilford Press
The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism

Author(s): Paul M. Sweezy and Maurice Dobb
Source: Science & Society, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Spring, 1950), pp. 134-167
Published by: Guilford Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40400000
Accessed: 18-11-2015 19:28 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
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
This content downloaded from 38.125.197.2 on Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:28:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMUNICATIONS
THE TRANSITION FROM FEUDALISM TO CAPITALISM
We live in the period of transitionfromcapitalismto socialism;and

this fact lends particular interestto studies of earlier transitionsfrom
one social systemto another. This is one reason, among many others,
why Maurice Dobb's Studies in the Development of Capitalism1is such
a timelyand importantbook. Somethinglike a thirdof thewhole volume
is devoted to the decline of feudalismand the rise of capitalism.In this
article I shall confinemy attentionexclusivelyto this aspect of Dobb's
work.
(i) Dobb's Definitionof Feudalism

Dobb definesfeudalism as being "virtuallyidentical with what we
usually mean by serfdom:an obligation laid on the producer by force
and independentlyof his own volitionto fulfillcertaineconomicdemands
of an overlord,whetherthese demands take the formof servicesto be
performedor of dues to be paid in moneyor in kind" (p. 35). In keep-
ing with this definition,Dobb uses the two terms,"feudalism" and
"serfdom,"as practicallyinterchangeablethroughoutthe book.
It seems to me that this definitionis defectivein not identifyinga
systemof production.Some serfdomcan existin systemswhichare clearly
not feudal; and even as the dominant relation of production,serfdom
has at differenttimes and in different regionsbeen associatedwith dif-
ferentformsof economic organization.Thus Engels, in one of his last
lettersto Marx, wrote that "it is certain that serfdomand bondage are
not a peculiarly (spezifisch)medieval-feudalform,we find them every-
where or nearly everywherewhere conquerorshave the land cultivated
forthemby the old inhabitants/12 It follows,I think,that the conceptof
feudalism, as Dobb definesit, is too generalto be immediatelyapplicable
to the studyof a particularregionduringa particularperiod. Or to put
it otherwise,what Dobb is reallydefiningis not one social systembut a
i (New York: International Publishers, 1946).

2 Marx-Engels,Selected Correspondence,p. 411 f.
*34
COMMUNICATIONS 135
familyof social systems,all of which are based on serfdom.In studying
specifichistoricalproblems,it is importantto know not only thatwe are
dealing with feudalismbut also whichmemberof the familyis involved.
Dobb's primaryinterest, of course,lies in westernEuropean feudalism,
since it was in thisregionthatcapitalismwas born and grewto maturity.
Hence it seems to me he ought to indicate veryclearlywhat he regards
as the main featuresof westernEuropean feudalismand to follow this
with a theoreticalanalysisof the laws and tendenciesof a systemwith
theseprincipal features.I shall tryto show later that his failure to fol-
low thiscourseleads him to a numberof doubtfulgeneralizations.More-
over, I thinkthe same reason accounts for Dobb's frequentpractice of
invokingfactualsupportfroma wide varietyof regionsand periods for
argumentswhich are applied to westernEurope and can really only be
testedin termsof westernEuropean experience.
This is not to say, of course, that Dobb is not thoroughlyfamiliar
with westernEuropean feudalism.At one point (p. 36 f.) he gives a con-
cise outline of its most importantcharacteristics:(1) "a low level of
technique,in which the instrumentsof productionare simple and gen-
erally inexpensive,and the act of production is largely individual in
character;the division of labour . . . being at a veryprimitivelevel of
development"; (2) "productionforthe immediateneed of the household
or village-community and not fora widermarket"; (3) "demesne-farming:
farming of the lord's estate,oftenon a considerablescale, by compulsory
labour-services";(4) "political decentralization"; (5) "conditional hold-
ing of land by lords on some kind of service-tenure";(6) "possessionby
a lord of judicial or quasi-judicial functionsin relation to the dependent
population." Dobb refersto a systemhaving these characteristics as the
"classic" formof feudalism,but it would be less likely to mislead if it
were called the westernEuropean form.The fact that "the feudal mode
of productionwas not confinedto thisclassic form"is apparentlyDobb's
reason for not analyzingits structureand tendenciesmore closely. In
my judgment,however,such an analysis is essentialif we are to avoid
confusionin our attemptsto discover the causes of the downfall of
feudalismin westernEurope.
(2) The Theory of WesternEuropean Feudalism

Drawing on Dobb's description,we can define western European
feudalismas an economic systemin which serfdomis the predominant
relation of production,and in which production is organized in and
around the manorialestateof the lord. It is importantto notice that this
136 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
definitiondoes not imply "natural economy"or the absence of money
transactionsor money calculation. What it does imply is that markets
are forthe most part local and that long-distancetrade,while not neces-
sarilyabsent, plays no determiningrole in the purposes or methodsof
production.The crucial featureof feudalismin this sense is that it is
a systemof productionfor use. The needs of the communityare known,
and productionis planned and organizedwith a view to satisfying these
needs. This has extremelyimportantconsequences.As Marx stated in
Capital, "it is clear . . . that in any given economic formationof society,
wherenot the exchangevalue but the use value of the productpredomi-
nates, surplus labor will be limited by a given set of wants which may
be greateror less, and that here no boundless thirstfor surplus labor
arises from the nature of production itself. f's There is, in other words,
none of the pressurewhich exists under capitalism for continual im-
provementsin methodsof production.Techniques and formsof organiza-
tionsettledown in establishedgrooves.Where thisis the case,as historical
materialismteaches,thereis a verystrongtendencyfor the whole life of
societyto be oriented toward custom and tradition.
We must not conclude, however,that such a systemis necessarily
stable or static.One elementof instabilityis the competitionamong the
lords forland and vassals which togetherformthe foundationof power
and prestige.This competitionis the analogue of competitionforprofits
under capitalism,but its effectsare quite different. It generatesa more
or less continuous state of warfare;but the resultantinsecurityof life
and possession,far fromrevolutionizingmethodsof productionas capi-
talist competitiondoes, merely accentuates the mutual dependence of
lord and vassal and thusreinforcesthe basic structureof feudal relations.
Feudal warfareupsets, impoverishes,and exhausts society,but it has
no tendencyto transformit.
A second elementof instabilityis to be found in the growthof popu-
lation. The structureof the manor is such as to set limitsto the number
of producersit can employand the numberof consumersit can support,
while the inherentconservatism of the systeminhibitsoverall expansion.
This does not mean, of course,that no growthis possible, only that it
tendsto lag behind population increase.Youngersonsof serfsare pushed
out of the regular frameworkof feudal societyand go to make up the
kind of vagrantpopulation-living on alms or brigandageand supplying
the raw materialformercenaryarmies-whichwas so characteristic of the
3 Capital, i, p. 260. Italics added. (All referencesto Capital are to the Kerr edition.)
COMMUNICATIONS 137
Middle Ages. Such a surplus population, however,while contributing
to instabilityand insecurity,exercises no creative or revolutionizing
influenceon feudal society.4
We may conclude, then, that westernEuropean feudalism,in spite
of chronic instabilityand insecurity,was a systemwith a very strong
bias in favorof maintaininggiven methodsand relationsof production.
I thinkwe are justifiedin sayingof it what Marx said of India beforethe
period of Britishrule: "All the civil wars, invasions,revolutions,con-
quests,famines. . . did not go deeper than its surface."5
I believe that if Dobb had taken full account of this inherentlycon-
servativeand change-resisting characterof westernEuropean feudalism,
he would have been obliged to alter the theorywhich he puts forward
to account forits disintegrationand decline in the later Middle Ages.
(3) Dobb's Theory of the Decline of Feudalism

Dobb summarizesthe commonlyaccepted explanation of the decline
of feudalismas follows:
We are oftenpresented withthepictureof a moreor lessstableeconomythatwas
disintegratedby the impactof commerceactingas an externalforceand developing
outsidethe systemthatit finallyoverwhelms. We are givenan interpretationof the
transitionfromthe old order to the new that findsthe dominantcausal sequences
withinthe sphereof exchangebetweenmanorialeconomyand the outside world.
"Naturaleconomy" and "exchangeeconomy"are twoeconomicordersthatcannotmix,
to cause theformerto go into
and thepresenceof tthelatter,we are told,is sufficient
dissolution(p. 38).
Dobb does not deny the "outstandingimportance"of thisprocess:"That
it was connectedwith the changes that were so marked at the end of
the Middle Ages is evident enough" (p. 38). But he findsthis explana-
tion inadequate because it does not probe deeply enough into the effect
of trade on feudalism. If we examine the problem more closely, he
argues,we shall findthat "there seems,in fact,to be as much evidence
that the growthof a moneyeconomyper se led to an intensification of
serfdomas thereis evidence that it was the cause of the feudal decline"
(p. 40). In support of this contention,he cites a considerablebody of
4 It mightbe thoughtthatthe vigorouscolonizationand reclamationmovementof

the twelfthand thirteenth centuriesdisprovesthis argument.I think,however,
that thisis not the case. The colonizationmovement seemsto have been a reflex
of the growthof tradeand commodity production, of the in-
not a manifestation
ternalexpansivepowerof feudalsociety.See Henri Pirenne,Economicand Social
Historyof MedievalEurope (New York, 1937),ch. 3, sec. ii.
5 Emile Burns,ed., A Handbookof Marxism(London,1935),p. 18.
historicaldata, the "outstandingcase" being"the recrudescence of Feudal-
ism in Eastern Europe at the end of the fifteenth century-that 'second
serfdom'of which FriedrichEngels wrote: a revival of the old system
whichwas associatedwith the growthof productionforthe market" (p.
39). On the basis of such data, Dobb reasons that if the only factorat
work in westernEurope had been the rise of trade,the resultmightas
well have been an intensification as a disintegrationof feudalism.And
fromthis it followsthat theremust have been other factorsat work to
bring about the actually observedresult.
What were thesefactors?Dobb believesthat theycan be foundinside
the feudal economy itself.He concedes that "the evidence is neither
very plentifulnor conclusive,"but he feels that "such evidence as we
possess stronglyindicates that it was the inefficiencyof Feudalism as a
of
system production,coupled with the growing needs of the rulingclass
forrevenue,thatwas primarilyresponsibleforits decline; since thisneed
for additional revenue promoted an increase in the pressureon the
producer to a point where this pressurebecame literallyunendurable"
(p. 42). The consequenceof this growingpressurewas that "in the end
it led to an exhaustion,or actual disappearance,of the labour-forceby
which the systemwas nourished" (p. 43).
In otherwords,accordingto Dobb's theory,the essentialcause of the
breakdownof feudalismwas over-exploitationof the labor force: serfs
deserted the lords' estatesen masse, and those who remainedwere too
few and too overworkedto enable the systemto maintain itselfon the
old basis. It was thesedevelopments,ratherthan the rise of trade,which
forcedthe feudal rulingclass to adopt thoseexpedients-commutation of
labor services,leasing demesne lands to tenant farmers,etc.-which
finallyled to the transformation of productiverelationsin the country-
side.
(4) A Critique of Dobb's Theory

In order to make his theorystand up, Dobb mustshow thatthe feudal
ruling class's growingneed for revenue and the flightof serfsfromthe
land can both be explained in termsof forcesoperatinginside the feudal
system.Let us see how he attemptsto do this.
First,with regard to the lords' need for revenue. Here Dobb cites a
number of factorswhich he regardsas inherentin the feudal system.
Serfswere held in contemptand were looked upon primarilyas a source
of income (p. 43 f.). The size of the parasiticclass tended to expand as a
resultof naturalgrowthof noble families,sub-infeudation, and the multi-
COMMUNICATIONS 139
plicationof retainers-allof whom "had to be supportedfromthe surplus

labour of theserfpopulation." War and brigandage"swelledtheexpenses
of feudal households"and "spread waste and devastationover the land."
Finally, "as the age of chivalryadvanced, the extravagancesof noble
households advanced also, with their lavish feasts and costly displays,
vyingin emulation in theircult of magnificentia"(p. 45).
Two of thesefactors-disregard for the interestsof the serfs,and war
and brigandage-existedthroughoutthewhole period,and if theybecame
more intense with the passage of time, this requires to be explained:
it cannot simplybe taken forgrantedas a natural featureof feudalism.
Dobb makes no attemptto explain such a trend,however;and even the
special drain which he attributesto the crusades during the decisive
period of feudal developmentis of doubtful significance.Afterall, the
crusadersfoughtin the East, and theynaturallylived for the most part
offthe land; the crusades were to a certain extent looting expeditions
which broughtmaterialrewardsto theirsponsorsand participants;and
they were in large part substitutesfor, rather than additions to, the
"normal" feudal warfareof the time.On the whole, it seems to me that
thesetwo factorsprovide little supportforDobb's theory.
It is somewhatdifferent, however,with the other two factors,namely,
the growthin the size of the parasiticclass and the growingextravagance
of noble households. Here we have prima facie evidence of a need for
increasedrevenue. But whetherwe also have the necessarysupport for
Dobb's theoryis more doubtful.The growthin the size of the parasitic
classwas matchedby a growthof the serfpopulation. Moreover,through-
out the Middle Ages therewas plentyof cultivable land to be brought
into use. Hence, despite its extremelyconservativenature, the feudal
systemdid expand, slowlybut steadily.When we take accountof the fact
that warfaretook its main toll fromthe upper orders (jsincetheyalone
were permittedto bear arms),we may well doubt whethertherewas a
significant relativegrowthin the size of the parasiticclass. In the absence
of any clear factual evidence one way or the other,we would certainly
not be justifiedin attributingdecisive weightto this factor.
On theotherhand, thereis no reason to doubt the realityof the grow-
ing extravaganceof the feudal ruling class: here the evidence is plentiful
and it all pointsin the same direction.But was thisgrowingextravagance
a trendwhich can be explained by the nature of the feudal system,or
does it reflectsomethingthat was happening outside the feudal system?
It seemsto me thaton generalgroundswe should expect the latterto be
the case. Even under such a dynamicsystemas capitalism,spontaneous
changesin consumers'tastesare of negligibleimportance,6 and we should

expect this to be true a in
fortiori a tradition-bound societylike feudal-
ism. Moreover,once we look outside the feudal systemwe find ample
reason forthe growingextravaganceof the feudal ruling class: the rapid
expansion of trade fromthe eleventhcenturyonward broughtan ever-
increasingquantity and varietyof goods within its reach. Dobb recog-
nizes the existenceof this relation between trade and the needs of the
feudalrulingclass,but it seemsto me thathe passesover it altogethertoo
lightly.If he had given it the weightit deserves,he could hardlyhave
maintainedthat the growingextravaganceof the ruling class was due to
causes internalto the feudal system.
Let us now turnto theproblemof theflightof the serfsfromtheland.
There is littledoubt that thiswas an importantcause of the crisisof the
feudal economythat characterizedthe fourteenthcentury.Dobb assumes
that it was due to the oppressionof the lords (which in turn had its
originin theirgrowingneed forrevenue)and can thus be explained as a
processinternalto the feudal system.But has he made out a convincing
case for this assumption?7
I thinknot. The serfscould not simplydesertthe manors,no matter
how exactingtheirmastersmightbecome,unless theyhad somewhereto
go. It is true,as I have argued above, thatfeudal societytendsto generate
a surplus vagrantpopulation; but this vagrantpopulation, constituting
the dregsof society,is made up of thoseof whom thereis no room on the
manors,and it is hardlyrealisticto suppose thatany considerablenumber
of serfswould deliberatelyabandon their holdings to descend to the
bottomof the social ladder.
This whole problem, however,takes on an entirelynew aspect-to
which Dobb pays surprisinglylittle attention-whenwe recall that the
flightof theserfstook place simultaneouslywiththe growthof the towns,
especiallyin the twelfthand thirteenthcenturies.There is no doubt that
6 Thus, for example, Schumpeter feels justified in assuming that under capitalism
"consumers'initiative in changing their tastes ... is negligible and that all change
in consumers' tastes is incident to, and brought about by, producers' action,"
Business Cycles, (New York, 1939), 1,p. 73. Needless to say, this assumptionis in full
accord with the Marxian theoryof the primacyof production over consumption.
7 It should be stressed that it is an assumption, not an established fact. Rodney
Hilton, a student of medieval economic history to whom Dobb acknowledges in-
debtedness in the Preface, states in a review that "there is not anythinglike ade-
quajte statisticalproof that an appreciable number of peasants left their holdings
for the reason stated [i.e., intolerable conditionsof oppression]/'Modern Quarterly,
(Summer, 1947), p. 268.
COMMUNICATIONS 141
the rapidlydevelopingtowns-offering, as theydid, liberty,employment,
and improvedsocial status-acted as a powerfulmagnetto the oppressed
rural population. And the burghersthemselves,in need of additional
labor power and of more soldiers to enhance their militarystrength,
made everyeffort to facilitatethe escape of the serfsfromthe jurisdiction
of theirmasters."There is frequently,"Marx commentedin a letterto
Engels, "somethingquite pathetic about the way the burghersin the
twelfthcenturyinvite the peasants to escape to the cities."8Against this
background,the movementaway fromthe land, which would otherwise
be incomprehensible,is seen to be the natural consequence of the rise
of the towns. No doubt the oppression of which Dobb writeswas an
importantfactorin predisposingthe serfsto flight,but acting by itself
it could hardlyhave produced an emigrationof large proportions.9
Dobb 's theoryof the internalcausationof the breakdownof feudalism
could still be rescuedif it could be shownthatthe rise of the townswas a
processinternalto the feudal system.But as I read Dobb, he would not
maintainthis.He takesan eclecticpositionon the question of the origin
of the medieval townsbut recognizesthat theirgrowthwas generallyin
proportionto theirimportanceas tradingcenters.Since trade can in no
sensebe regardedas a formof feudal economy,it followsthatDobb could
hardly argue that the rise of urban life was a consequence of internal
feudal causes.
To sum up thiscritiqueof Dobb's theoryof the decline of feudalism:
havingneglectedto analysethe laws and tendenciesof westernEuropean
feudalism,he mistakesfor immanenttrendscertain historicaldevelop-
mentswhichin factcan onlybe explained as arisingfromcauses external
to the system.
(5) More on the Theory of the Decline of Feudalism

While I findDobb's theoryof the decline of feudalismunsatisfactory
on severalcounts,I thinkhe has neverthelessmade an importantcontri-
8 SelectedCorrespondence, p. 74.
9 As I shall arguebelow,it was the relativeabsenceof urbanlifein easternEurope
whichleftthe peasantrythereat the mercyof the lordsand broughtabout the
recrudescence of serfdomin thatregionin the fifteenthcentury.Dobb, it will be
recalled,cited this"secondserfdom" in easternEurope against(theview that trade
necessarily tendsto bringabout thedisintegration
of feudaleconomy.We can now
see thatthe problemis in realitymuchmorecomplex.Near the centersof trade,
the effecton feudaleconomyis stronglydisintegrating; furtheraway the effect
tendsto be just the opposite. This is an importantquestionto whichwe shall
returnlater.
bution to the solution of the problem. Most of his specificcriticismof
traditionaltheoriesare well taken; and it seems clear that no theory
whichfailsto takeinto accountthe factorswhichDobb stresses-especially
the growingextravaganceof the ruling class and the flightof the serfs
fromthe land- can be regardedas correct.Hence the followingnotesand
suggestionsowe much to Dobb even where theydepart fromhis views.
It seems to me that Dobb has not succeeded in shaking that part of
the commonlyaccepted theorywhich holds that the root cause of the
decline of feudalismwas the growthof trade. But he has shown that the
impactof tradeon the feudalsystemis morecomplicatedthanhas usually
been thought: the idea that trade equals "money economy" and that
money economyis a natural dissolventof feudal relationsis much too
simple. Let us attemptto explore the relation of trade to the feudal
economymore closely.10
It seems to me that the importantconflictin this connectionis not
between"moneyeconomy"and "natural economy"but betweenproduc-
tion forthe marketand productionfor use. We ought to tryto uncover
the process by which trade engendereda systemof productionfor the
market,and then to trace the impact of this systemon the pre-existent
feudal systemof productionforuse.
Any but the most primitiveeconomyrequires a certain amount of
trade. Thus the local village marketsand the itinerantpeddlers of the
European Dark Ages were props ratherthan threatsto the feudal order:
theysupplied essentialneeds withoutbulking large enough to affectthe
structureof economic relations.When trade firstbegan to expand in
the tenthcentury(or perhaps even before),it was in the sphereof long-
distance,as distinguishedfrompurely local, exchange of relativelyex-
pensivegoods whichcould stand theveryhigh transportcostsof the time.
As long as this expansion of trade remained within the formsof what
may be called the peddling system,its effectsnecessarilyremainedslight.
10 It should be noted that the problem of the growth of trade in the Middle Ages
is in principle separate from the problem of the decline of feudalism. Granted the
fact that trade increased,whatever the reason may have been, feudalism was bound
to be influencedin certain ways. There is no space here for a discussion of the
reasons for the growth of trade; I will only say that I find Pirenne's theory
which stressesthe re-opening of Mediterranean shipping to and from the western
ports in the eleventh century,and the development by the Scandinavians of com-
mercial routes from the North Sea and the Baltic via Russia to the Black Sea
from the tenth century - to be quite convincing. But clearly one does not have
to accept Pirenne's theory in order to agree that the growth of trade was the
decisive factor in bringingabout the decline of westernEuropean feudalism.
COMMUNICATIONS 143
But when it outgrewthe peddling stage and began to resultin the estab-
lishmentof localized tradingand transshipment centers,a qualitatively
new factorwas introduced.For these centers,though based on long-
distance exchange,inevitablybecame generatorsof commodityproduc-
tion in theirown right.They had to be provisionedfromthe surround-
ing countryside;and their handicrafts,embodying a higher form of
specializationand divisionof labor than anythingknownto themanorial
economy,not only supplied the town population itself with needed
products but also provided commoditieswhich the rural population
could purchasewith the proceeds of sales in the town market.As this
process unfolded, the transactionsof the long-distancetraders,which
formedthe seed fromwhich the tradingcentersgrew,lost theirunique
importanceand probablyin the majorityof cases came to occupy a sec-
ondaryplace in the town economies.
We see thus how long-distancetrade could be a creativeforce,bring-
ing into existencea systemof productionforexchange alongside the old
feudalsystemof productionforuse.11Once juxtaposed, thesetwo systems
naturallybegan to act upon each other. Let us examine some of the
currentsof influencerunning from the exchange economy to the use
economy.
In the firstplace, and perhaps most importantly,the inefficiency of
the manorial organizationof production-which probablyno one recog-
nized,or at least paid any attentionto, as long as it had no rival-was
now clearlyrevealed by contrastwith a more rational systemof speciali-
zation and divisionof labor. Manufacturedgoods could be bought more
cheaply than theycould be made, and this pressureto buy generateda
pressureto sell. Taken together,these pressuresoperated powerfullyto
bring the feudal estateswithin the orbit of the exchange economy."Of
what use now/' Pirenne asks, "were the domesticworkshopswhich on
each importantmanor used to maintaina fewscore serfsto manufacture
textilesor farmingtools,not half as well as theywere now made by the
artisansof the neighboringtown?They were allowed to disappear almost
everywhere in the courseof the twelfthcentury."12
11 In this connection,it is importantto recognize'that the contrastbetweenthe

two formsof economyis by no meansidenticalwith the contrastbetweentown
and country.Rural as well as urbanproduction
forthe marketis includedin ex-
changeeconomy.Hence the relativeimportance of the two formsof economycan
never be measuredby a simple index like the proportionof urban to rural
population.
it Pirenne,op. cit.,p. 82.
Second, the veryexistenceof exchange value as a massiveeconomic
facttendsto transform the attitudeof producers.It now becomespossible
to seek riches,not in the absurd formof a heap of perishablegoods but
in the veryconvenientand mobile formof moneyor claims to money.
The possessionof wealth soon becomes an end in itselfin an exchange
economy,and this psychologicaltransformation affectsnot only those
who are immediatelyinvolved but also (though doubtless to a lesser
degree) thosewho come into contactwith the exchange economy.Hence
not onlymerchantsand tradersbut also membersof theold feudalsociety
acquire what we should call today a businesslikeattitude toward eco-
nomic affairs.Since businessmenalways have a need for more revenue,
we have here a part of the explanation of the rulingclass's growingneed
forrevenue,on which,as we have seen,Dobb places so much emphasisin
accountingfor the decline of feudalism.
Third, and also importantin thesame connection,is thedevelopment
of the tastesof the feudal ruling class. As Pirenne describesthe process,
in everydirectionwherecommercespread,it createdthe desirefor the new articles
of consumption,
whichit broughtwithit. As alwayshappens,thearistocracy wishedto
surroundthemselveswiththeluxury,or at least thecomfortbefittingtheirsocialrank.
We see at once,forinstance,by comparingthe lifeof a knightin the eleventhcen-
turywith thatof one in the twelfth, how the expensesnecessitated
by food,dress,
householdfurnitureand, above all, arms,rosebetweenthesetwoperiods.13
Here we have what is probablythe key to the feudal ruling class's need
forincreasedrevenuein the later Middle Ages.
Finally,the rise of the towns,which were the centersand breedersof
exchange economy,opened up to the servilepopulation of the country-
side the prospectof a freerand betterlife. This was undoubtedlythe
main cause of that flightfromthe land which Dobb rightlyconsidersto
have been one of the decisivefactorsin the decline of feudalism.
No doubt the rise of exchange economyhad other effectson the old
order,but I think that the four which have been mentionedwere suffi-
cientlypervasive and powerfulto ensure the breaking up of the pre-
existingsystemof production. The superior efficiency of more highly
specialized production, the greatergains to be made by producingfor
the marketrather than for immediateuse, the greaterattractiveness of
town life to the worker: these factorsmade it only a matterof time
before the new system,once strongenough to stand on its own feet,
would win out.
But the triumphof exchange economydoes not necessarilyimply
13 Ibid., p. 81.
COMMUNICATIONS 145
the end of eitherserfdomor demesne-farming. Exchange economyis com-
patible with slavery, serfdom, independentself-employed labor, or wage-
labor. Historyis rich in examples of productionfor the marketby all
thesekindsof labor. Dobb is thereforeunquestionablyrightin rejecting
the theorythatthe rise of trade automaticallybringswith it the liquida-
tion of serfdom;and if serfdomis identifiedwith feudalism,this is of
course true,ex definitione,of feudalismtoo. The fact that the advance
of exchange economyactually went hand in hand with the decline of
serfdomis somethingwhich has to be explained; it cannot simplybe
taken forgranted.
In analyzingthisproblemwe can, I think,safelypass over the uneven
characterof the decline of serfdomin westernEurope. Dobb points out
thatfor a time in some regionsof westernEurope the progressoi trade
was accompanied by an intensification rather than a relaxation of the
bonds of serfdom.This is no doubt true and important,and he succeeds
in clearing up a number of apparent paradoxes. But these temporary
and partial reversalsof trendshould not be allowed to obscure the over-
all picture which is one of the steadyreplacementof demesne-farming
using serf labor by tenant farmingusing either independent peasant
labor or (to a much smaller extent) hired labor. The real problem
is to account forthisunderlyingtrend.
It seems to me that of the complex of causes at work,two stand out
as decisivelyimportant.In the firstplace, the rise of the towns,which
was fairlygeneral throughoutwesternEurope, did a great deal more
than merelyoffera haven of refugeto those serfswho fled the manors;
it also altered the positionof thosewho remainedbehind. Probablyonly
a relativelysmall proportionof the total numberof serfsactuallypacked
up and moved to the towns,but enough did to make the pressureof the
higherstandardsenjoyed in the townseffectively feltin the countryside.
as
Just wages must rise in a low-wage area when workers have the possi-
of
bility moving to a high-wage area, so concessions had to be made to
serfswhen theyhad the possibilityof movingto the towns.Such conces-
sions were necessarilyin the directionof more freedomand the transfor-
mation of feudal dues into moneyrents.
In the second place, while the manor could be, and in manycases was,
turnedto productionforthe market,it was fundamentallyinefficient and
unsuited to that purpose. Techniques were primitiveand division of
labor undeveloped. From an administrativepoint of view, the manor
was unwieldy:in particulartherewas no clear-cutseparationof produc-
tion fromconsumptionso that the costingof productswas almost im-
possible.Moreover, everything on the manorwas regulatedby custom
and tradition. This appliednot onlyto themethodsof cultivation but
also to thequantity ofworkperformed and itsdivisionbetweennecessary
and surpluslabor:theserfhad duties,buthe also had rights. This whole
massof customary rulesand regulations constitutedso manyobstacles
to therationalexploitation of humanand materialresources forpecuni-
arygain.14Sooneror later,new typesof productive relationsand new
formsof organization had to be foundto meetthe requirements of a
changed economic order.
Is thisreasoningrefutedby the "secondserfdom" of the sixteenth
century and after in eastern Europe, on which Dobb places so much
stress?How did it happenthatin thiscase thegrowthof opportunities
to tradeled to a dramaticand enduringintensification of thebondsof
serfdom?
The answerto thesequestions willbe found,I think,in thegeography
of thesecondserfdom, in thefactthatthephenomenon becomesincreas-
ingly marked and severe as we move eastward away from thecenterof
the new exchangeeconomy.15 At the center,wheretownlife is most
highlydeveloped,theagricultural laborerhas an alternative to remain-
ing on thesoil; and thisgiveshim, as it were,a strongbargaining posi-
14 Dobb often seems to overlook this aspect of feudalism and to assume that only
the villein stood to gain from the abolition of serfdom. He tends to forget that
"the enfranchisementof the peasants was in reality the enfranchisementof tthe
landowner, who, having henceforthto deal with free men who were not attached
to his land, could dispose of the latter by means of simple revocable contracts,
whose brief duration enabled him >to modify them in accordance with the in-
creasing rent of the land," Pirenne, A History of Europe from the Invasions to
the XVI Century (New York, 1939), p. 533.
15 Pirenne gives the following graphic description: "To the west of the Elbe the
change had no particular consequences beyond a recrudescenceof corves, presta-
tions, and arbitrarymeasures of every kind. But beyond the river, in Branden-
burg, Prussia, Silesia, Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary, the most mercilessadvantage
was taken of it. The descendants of the free colonists of the thirteenthcentury
were systematicallydeprived of their land and reduced to the position of personal
serfs (Leibeigene). The wholesale exploitation of estates absorbed itheirholdings
and reduced them to a servile condition which so closely approximated to that of
slavery that it was permissible to sell the person of the serf independentlyof the
soil. From the middle of tthesixteenthcenturythe whole of the region to the east
of the Elbe and the Sudeten Mountains became covered with Rittergterexploited
by Junkers,who may be compared, as regards the degree of humanity displayed
in their treatmentof their white slaves, with the planters of the West Indie/'
ibid., p. 534.
COMMUNICATIONS 147
tion. When the ruling class turnsto productionfor the marketwith a
viewto pecuniarygain, it findsit necessaryto resortto new,more flexible,
and relativelyprogressiveformsof exploitation. On the peripheryof
the exchange economy,on the other hand, the relative position of the
landlordand the agriculturallaboreris verydifferent. The workercannot
run away because he has no place to go: forall practical purposeshe is
at the mercyof the lord,who, moreover,has neverbeen subjectedto the
civilizingproximityof urban life.When the expansion of trade instillsa
lust for gain into a ruling class in this positon, the result is not the
developmentof new formsof exploitationbut the intensification of old
forms.Marx, in the followingpassage (even though he was not spe-
cificallyconcernedwith the second serfdomin easternEurope), went to
the root of the matter:
As soon as people,whoseproductionstill moveswithinthe lowerformsof slave-
labor,corvelabor, etc., are drawninto the whirlpoolof an international market
dominatedby thecapitalistic modeof production, thesale of theirproductsforexport
becomingtheirprincipalinterest, thecivilizedhorrors
of over-work are graftedon the
barbarichorrorsof slavery,serfdom,etc."16
Dobb's theoryholds that the decline of westernEuropean feudalism
was due to the overexploitationby the ruling class of society'slabor
power. If the reasoningof this section is correct,it seems to me that it
would be more accurate to say that the decline of westernEuropean
feudalismwas due to the inabilityof the ruling class to maintain con-
trol over,and hence to overexploit,society'slabor power.
(6) What Came AfterFeudalism in WesternEurope?
Accordingto Dobb's chronology-which would probably not be seri-
ously disputedby anyone-westernEuropean feudalismentereda period
of acute crisisin thefourteenth centuryand thereafterdisintegrated,more
or less rapidlyin differentregions.On the otherhand, we cannot speak of
thebeginningof thecapitalistperiod until the secondhalfofthesixteenth
centuryat the earliest.This raises the followingquestion: "how are we
to speak of the economicsystemin the interveningperiod betweenthen
[i.e. the disintegrationof feudalism] and the later sixteenthcentury:a
period which,accordingto our dating,seemsto have been neitherfeudal
nor yet capitalistso far as its mode of productionwas concerned?" (p.
19). This is an importantquestion, and we should be gratefulto Dobb
for raising it in this clear-cutform.
Dobb's answerto his own question is hesitantand indecisive (p. 19-
16 Capital,1, p. 260.
2i). True, the feudalmode of production"had reachedan advanced
stageof disintegration";
"a merchantbourgeoisiehad grownto wealth
and influence";"in the urban handicraftsand in the rise of well-to-do
and middling-well-to-do freeholdfarmersone sees a mode of production
whichhad won its independencefromFeudalism"; "the majorityof small
tenants. . . paid a moneyrent"; and "the estateswere forthe most part
farmedby hired labour." But Dobb qualifies almost everyone of these
statementsand sums up by sayingthat "social relationsin the country-
side between producers and their lords and mastersretained much of
their medieval character,and much of the integumentat least of the
feudal orderremained."In otherwords,Dobb's answer,I take it, is that
the period was feudal afterall.
This answer,however,is not verysatisfactory. If the period is to be
regarded as feudal,even from the point of view of Dobb's comprehensive
definition,then at the veryleast it ought to have been characterizedby
the continued predominanceof serfdomin the countryside.And yet
there is good authorityfor the view that this was preciselythe period
during which serfdomdeclined to relativelysmall proportionsall over
westernEurope.
In England[Marx wrote]serfdomhad practically disappearedin the last part of
the fourteenth century.The immensemajorityof thepopulationconsistedthen,and
to a stilllargerextentin the fifteenth of freepeasantproprietors,
century, whatever
the feudaltitleunderwhichtheirrightof property was hidden.17
It seems that Marx had reservationsabout how widespreadthisdevelop-

ment was on the continent,but beforethe end of his life he must have
given them up. At the end of 1882, threemonthsbeforeMarx's death,
Engels wrotea paper dealing withtheMark, the old Germanland system.
He sent the manuscriptto Marx, commentingthat "the point about the
almosttotal disappearance (Zurcktreten)of serfdom-legallyor actually
-in the thirteenthand fourteenthcenturiesis the mostimportantto me,
because formerlyyou expressed a divergentopinion on this."18Two
days later Marx wrote back: "Returning the manuscript:verygood"19
And to this Engels replied: "I am glad that on the historyof serfdom
we 'proceed in agreement/as theysay in business."20
These passages show that it was the consideredjudgment of Marx
17 Ibid., 1, p. 788.
18 SelectedCorrespondence,p. 408.
19 Briefwechsel, Instituteed., rv,p. 694. This letteris not in-
Marx-Engels-Lenin
cluded in the SelectedCorrespondence.
so SelectedCorrespondence,p. 411.
COMMUNICATIONS 149
and Engels that by the fifteenth centurythe substancehad largelygone
out of feudal formsand that serfdomhad ceased to be the dominant
relationof productionthroughoutwesternEurope. There is nothingin
the evidence cited by Dobb to convince me that we would be justified
in reversingthisjudgment.
Dobb mightanswer that he does not disagree,that he concedes the
substantialdisappearance of serfdom,and that his characterizationof
thisperiod as essentiallyfeudal is based on the factthat the peasant was
still restrictedin his movementsand in many waysdependent upon the
landlord. What he says (p. 63-66) could, I think,be construedin this
sense; and ChristopherHill, who is in a good position to know Dobb's
meaning,lends support to this interpretation. Accordingto Hill:
Mr. Dobb's definitionof feudalismenableshim to make clear whatruralEngland
in the fifteenthand sixteenth centurieswas like. He rejectsthe viewwhichidentifies
feudalismwithlabour servicesand attributesfundamental to the aboli-
significance
tion of serfdomin England. Mr. Dobb shows that peasantspayinga moneyrent
(theoverwhelming majorityof the sixteenth-centuryEnglishcountryside)maybe de-
pendentin numerousotherwayson the landlordunderwhomtheylive. . . . Capi-
talistrelationsin agriculture were spreadingin sixteenth-century England,but over
mostof the countrythe dominantrelationof exploitationwas still feudal.. . . The
important tthing is not the legal formof the relationshipbetweenlord and peasant,
but the economiccontentof this relationship.21
It seems to me that to stretchthe concept of feudalismin this way
is to deprive it of the quality of definitenesswhich is essentialto scien-
tificusefulness.If the fact that tenantsare exploited by, and "in numer-
ous ways" dependent on, landlords is the hallmark of feudalism,we
should have to conclude,forexample, that certainregionsof the United
States are today feudal. Such a descriptionmay be justifiedfor journal-
isticpurposes;but if we were to go on fromthereand conclude that the
economic systemunder which these regions of the United States live
today is in fundamentalrespectsidentical with the economic systemof
the European Middle Ages, we should be well on the way to serious
confusion.I think the same applies, though obviously in less extreme
degree, if we assume a fundamentalidentitybetween the economic
systemof England in the sixteenthcenturyand the economic system
of England in the thirteenthcentury.And yet to call themboth by the
same name, or even to refrainfrom giving them differentnames, is
inevitablyto invite such an assumption.
How, then, shall we characterizethe period between the end of
(Summer,1947),p. 269.
21 The ModernQuarterly,
feudalismand the beginningof capitalism?I thinkDobb is on the
righttrackwhenhe saysthatthe "twohundred-odd yearswhichsepa-
ratedEdwardIII fromElizabethwerecertainly transitionalin charac-
ter"and thatit is "true,and of outstanding importance for any proper
understanding of this that
transition, the disintegration of the feudal
modeof production had alreadyreachedan advancedstagebeforethe
capitalistmode of productiondeveloped,and that thisdisintegration
did not proceedin any close associationwiththe growthof the new
mode of production withinthe wombof the old" (p. 20). This seems
to me to be entirelycorrect, and I believethatif Dobb had followed
it up he wouldhave arrivedat a satisfactory solutionof the problem.
We usuallythinkof a -transition fromone social systemto another
as a processin whichthe twosystems directly confront each otherand
fight it out for supremacy. Such a process,of course, does not exclude
the possibility of transitionalforms;but thesetransitional formsare
thought of as mixtures of elements from the two systems which are vying
formastery. It is obvious,forexample,that the transition fromcapi-
talismto socialismis proceedingalong some such lines as these;and
thisfactno doubtmakesit all the easierforus to assumethatearlier
transitions musthave been similar.
So far as the transition fromfeudalismto capitalismis concerned,
however,thisis a seriouserror.As the foregoing statement by Dobb
emphasizes, feudalism in western Europe was already moribund, if not
actually dead, before capitalismwas born.It follows thatthe intervening
periodwas not a simplemixtureof feudalismand capitalism:the pre-
dominantelementswereneitherfeudalnor capitalist.
This is nottheplace fora detaileddiscussion of terminology. I shall
simply call the system which prevailed in western Europe duringthe
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries"pre-capitalistcommodity production"
to indicatethatit was thegrowthof commodity production whichfirst
undermined feudalismand thensomewhatlater,afterthisworkof de-
structionhad been substantially completed,preparedthe groundfor
thegrowthof capitalism.22 The transition fromfeudalismto capitalism
22 It is not necessaryto specifythattheperiod is non- or post-feudal,since commodity

production and feudalism are mutually exclusive concepts. On the other hand,
capitalism is itselfa formof commodityproduction, and for this reason the quali-
fication "pre-capitalist" must be explicitly made.
It could be argued that the best name for the systemwould be "simple com-
modity production," since this is a well-established concept in Marxian theory.
It seems to me, however, that to use the term in this way might lead to unneces-
COMMUNICATIONS 151
is thus not a singleuninterruptedprocess-similarto the transitionfrom
capitalism to socialism-but is made up of two quite distinct phases
which presentradically differentproblems and require to be analyzed
separately.
It mightbe thoughtthat this characterizationof the transitionfrom
feudalismto capitalismis in conflictwith the traditionalMarxian view.
But I thinkthis is not so: all it does is to make explicit certainpoints
which are implicitin thisview.
Although [Marx wrote] we come across the firstbeginnings of capitalist produc-
tion as early as the fourteenthor fifteenthcentury,sporadically, in certain towns of
the Mediterranean,the capitalistic era dates from the sixteenth century. Wherever it
appears, the abolition of serfdomhas long been effected,and the highest development
of the middle ages, the existence of sovereigntowns, has long been on the wane.
And again:
The circulation of commodities is the starting point of capital. Commodity pro-
duction and developed commoditycirculation, trade, form the historical preconditions
under which it arises. World trade and the world market open up in the sixteenth
century the modern life historyof capital.23
I think,unmistakablyimplya view of the transition
Such statements,
fromfeudalismto capitalismsuch as I have suggested.24
We should be careful not to push this line of reasoning about the
sary confusion. Simple commodityproduction is usually defined as a systemof in-

dependent producers owning their own means of production and satisfyingtheir
wants by means of mutual exchange. Such a theoreticalconstructionis useful for
a number of reasons: for example, it enables us to present the problem of exchange
value in its simplest form; and it also is helpful in clarifyingthe nature of classes
and their relations to the means of production. In pre-capitalistcommoditypro-
duction, however, the most important of the means of production- the land-
was largely owned by a class of non-producers,and this fact is enough to dif-
ferentiatethesystemsharply from the usual concept of simple commodity pro-
duction.
*3 Capital, i, p. 787 and 163. I have translated this passage anew. The Moore and
Aveling translation is inaccurate and omits the emphasis which appears in the
original.
*4 I have, of course, selected these particular quotations from Marx for their con-
ciseness and clarity. But obviously isolated quotations can neither prove nor dis-
prove the point. The reader who wishes to make up his own mind about Marx's
view of the transitionfrom feudalism to capitalism will have to study carefullyat
least the followingparts of Capital: 1, Part viii; and in, ch. 20 and 47.
In some respects,the recently-publishedmanuscriptswhich Marx wrote during
the winter of 1857-58 in preparation for the Critique of Political Economy are
even more valuable in throwinglight on his ideas about the nature of the transition
transitionfromfeudalismto capitalismtoo far.In particular,it seemsto
me that it would be going too far to classifypre-capitalistcommodity
productionas a social systemsui generis,on a par with feudalism,capi-
talism,and socialism.There was no reallydominantrelationof produc-
tion to put its stamp on the systemas a whole. There were still strong
vestigesof serfdomand vigorousbeginningsof wage-labor,but the forms
of labor relation which were most common in the statisticalsense were
prettyclearlyunstable and incapable of providingthe basis of a viable
social order.This holds especiallyof the relationbetweenlandlordsand
workingtenantspaying a money rent ("the overwhelmingmajorityof
the sixteenth-century English countryside/'according to Christopher
Hill). Marx analyzed this relation with great care in a chapter called
"The Genesis of Capitalist Ground Rent," and insisted that it could
be properlyunderstoodonly as a transitionalform:
The transformation of rent in kind into money rent, taking place firstsporadically,
then on a more or less national scale, requires a considerable developmentof commerce,
of city industries,of the production of commoditiesin general, and with them of the
circulation of money. . . . Money rent, as a convertedformof rent in kind and as an
antagonistof rent in kind is the last form and at the same time the formof the disso-
lution of the typeof ground rent which we have considered so far,namely ground rent
as the normal formof surplus value and of theunpaid surplus labor which flows to
the owner of the means of production. ... In its furtherdevelopmentmoney rent must
lead . . . either to the transformationof land into independent peasants' property,or
into the formcorrespondingtothe capitalist mode of production, that is to rent paid
by the capitalist tenant.25
Moreover,this is not the only typeof unstable relation in the pre-

capitalist commodity-producing economy. Dobb has shown in a very
illuminating sectionof his chapteron the growthof the proletariat"how
unstable an economyof small producerscan be in face of the disinte-
gratingeffectsof productionfor the market,especiallya distantmarket,
unlessit enjoyssome special advantagewhich lends it strengthor special
measuresare taken to give protectionto its poorerand weakermembers"
(p 254)
from feudalism to capitalism: see Grundrisseder Kritik der politischen konomie

(Rohentwurf),Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute (Moscow, 1939), especially the section
entitled "Formen die der kapitalistischenProduktion vorhergehn"which begins on
1, p. 375. An adequate examination of this source, however, would require a long
article by itself; and I can only say here that my own interpretationof Marx,
which was fully formed before the Grundrisse became available to me, was con-
firmedby this new material.
25 Capital, in, ch. 47, p. 926 f. Changes have been made in the Untermann translation.
COMMUNICATIONS 153
We are, I think,justifiedin concludingthatwhile pre-capitalistcom-
modityproductionwas neitherfeudal nor capitalist,it was just as little
a viable systemin its own right.It was strongenough to undermineand
disintegratefeudalism,but it was too weak to develop an independent
structureof its own: all it could accomplishin a positive sense was to
preparethe ground forthe victoriousadvance of capitalismin the seven-
teenthand eighteenthcenturies.
(7) A Few Remarkson the Rise of Capitalism

In general,I agree fullywithDobb's analysisof the rise of capitalism.
It seemsto me that his treatmentof this problem is exceptionallyclear
and illuminating:I would be inclined to rate it the high point of the
whole volume. But thereare two theses,clearlyregardedby Dobb him-
selfas important,whichseem to me to require criticalexamination.The
firstconcernsthe origin of the industrialcapitalist in the full sense of
the term; the second concernsthe process of original accumulation.26
Dobb cites Marx's chapter on "Merchant Capitar' (, ch. 20) in
support of the view that industrialcapital develops in two main ways.
The followingis the key passage fromDobb:
- "the reallyrevolutionary
Accordingto the first way"- a sectionof the producers
themselvesaccumulatedcapitaland took to trade,and in courseof timebegan to or-
ganizeproductionon a capitalistbasisfreefromthehandicraft restrictions
of theguilds.
Accordingto thesecond,a sectionof the existingmerchantclass began to "take pos-
of production";thereby
sessiondirectly as a mode of transition,"
"servinghistorically
but becomingeventually "an obstacleto a real capitalistmode of productionand de-
clin(ing)withthe development of the latter."27
Dobb puts much stresson the firstof these methods.On p. 128 he
writes:
Whilethegrowing shownbysectionsof merchant
interest capitalin controlling
pro-
duction- in developingwhat may be termeda deliberately contrivedsystemof "ex-
ploitationthroughtrade"- preparedthewayforthisfinaloutcome[i.e.,thesubjection
ofproduction and mayin a fewcaseshavereachedit, this
to genuinecapitalistcontrol],
finalstagegenerallyseems,as Marxpointedout, to have been associatedwiththe rise
fromtheranksof theproducersthemselves of a capitalistelement,half-manufacturer,
26 Dobb followstheMooreand Avelingtranslation in speakingof "primitive" accumu-

lation." This is likelyto be misleading,however,since the point is not that the
processis primitivein theusual senseof theterm(thoughit maybe and usuallyis),
but thatit is not precededby previousacts of accumulation.Hence "original"or
"primary" is a betterrendering in thiscontext.
of ursprnglich
27 Dobb, p. 123. The internal
quotes are from Capital,in, p. 393f.
half-merchant, and to organizethoseveryranksfromwhich
whichbeganto subordinate
it had so recently
risen (p. 128).
Again:
The openingof the seventeenth centurywitnessedthe beginningsof an important
shiftin thecentreof gravity:therisingpredominanceof a classof merchant-employers
fromthe ranksof the craftsmen themselvesamongthe yeomanry of the large com-
panies- theprocessthatMarxdescribedas the "reallyrevolutionary way" (p. 134).
And later,aftera lengthyanalysisof the failureof capitalistproduction,
despite early and promisingbeginnings,to develop in certainareas of
the continent,Dobb says:
When seen in the lightof a comparative studyof capitalistdevelopment,Marx's
thatat thisstagethe riseof a classof industrialcapitalistsfromthe ranks
contention
of theproducersthemselvesis a conditionof anyrevolutionary transformationof pro-
ductionbeginsto acquirea centralimportance(p. 161).
It is noteworthy, however,that Dobb admits that "the details of this
process are far from clear, and thereis little evidence that bears directly
upon it" (p. 134). In fact,so littleevidence,even of an indirectcharacter,
seems to be available that one reviewerfelt constrainedto remarkthat
"it would have been desirable to findmore evidenceforthe view,derived
fromMarx, that the really revolutionarytransformation of production
and the breakingof the control of merchantcapital over production,
was accomplishedby men comingfromthe ranksof formercraftsmen."28
I think,however,that the real troublehere is not so much a lack of
evidence (for my part, I doubt if evidence of the required kind exists)
as a misreadingof Marx. Let us reproduce the entirepassage in which
Marx speaks of the "really revolutionaryway":
The transition fromthe feudalmodeof productiontakestworoads. The producer
becomesa merchant and capitalist, fromagricultural
in contradistinction naturalecon-
omyand the guild-encircled handicrafts of medievaltownindustry.This is the really
revolutionary way. Or "themerchanttakespossessionin a directway of production.
Whilethiswayserveshistorically - instancetheEnglishclothier
as a modeof transition
of theseventeenth century,whobringstheweavers, althoughtheyremainindependently
at work,underhis controlbysellingwool to themand buyingclothfromthem - never-
thelessit cannotbyitselfdo muchfortheoverthrow of theold modeof production,but
ratherpreserves it and uses it as its premise.29
As can be readily seen, Marx does not say anythingabout capitalists

risingfromthe ranks of the handicraftproducers.It is, of course,quite
8 Perez Zagorin in science & society, xh (Spring, 1948), p. 280 f.
29 Capital, m, p. 393.
COMMUNICATIONS 155
true that the expressionused by Marx- "the producer becomes a mer-
chant and capitalist"-mighthave that implication;but it mightequally
well mean thatthe producer,whateverhis background,startsout as both
a merchantand an employerof wage-labor.It seemsto me thatthe whole
contextgoes to show thatthe latteris the morereasonableinterpretation.
What Marx was contrasting,I believe,was the launchingof full-fledged
capitalist enterpriseswith the slow developmentof the putting-outsys-
tem.There is no indicationthathe was concernedabout producers'rising
fromtheranks.Moreover,when he does deal explicitlywith thisproblem
in the firstvolume of Capital, what he says is quite impossibleto recon-
cile with Dobb's interpretationof the above-quoted passage.
The genesis of the industrial capitalist [Marx wrote] did not proceed in such a
gradual way as that of the farmer. Doubtless many small guild-masters,and yet more
independent small artisans,or even wage-laborers,transformedthemselvesinto small
capitalists,and (by gradually extending exploitation of wage-labor and corresponding
accumulation) into full-blowncapitalists. . . . The snail's-pace of this method corre-
sponded in no wise with the commercial requirementsof the new world-marketthat
the great discoveriesof the end of the fifteenthcenturycreated.30
These are the opening remarksof a chapter entitled "Genesis of the

IndustrialCapitalist"; most of the rest of the chapter is devoted to de-
scribingthe methodsof trade and plunder by which large amounts of
capital werebroughttogethermuch morerapidlythan this"snail's-pace."
And while Marx saysverylittle about the actual methodsby which these
accumulationsfound theirway into industry,it is hardly credible that
he would have assignedan importantrole in the processto the producer
risen fromthe ranks.
If we interpretMarx to mean that the "really revolutionaryway"
was for those with disposable capital to launch full-fledgedcapitalist
enterpriseswithoutgoing throughthe intermediatestagesof the putting-
in findinga wealth of
out system,we shall, I think,have little difficulty
evidence to support his contention.Nef has shown conclusively (of
course without any referenceat all to Marx) that what he calls the
firstindustrialrevolution in England (about 1540 to 1640) was very
largelycharacterizedby preciselythis kind of investmentin such "new"
industriesas mining, metallurgy,brewing,sugar refining,soap, alum,
glass,and salt-making.31And the proofthatit was a "reallyrevolutionary
30 Ibid., 1, p. 82*.
31 J. U. Nef, Industryand Governmentin France and England, 1540-1640 (Philadel-
phia, 1940), especially ch. 1 and 3.
way" was providedby the resultsof England's firstindustrialrevolution:

economicsupremacyoverall rival nationsand the firstbourgeoispolitical
revolution.
I turn now to the second of Dobb's theses on the rise of capitalism
whichseemsto me to requirecriticalexamination.Here I can be briefer.
Dobb sees the processof originalaccumulationas involvingtwoquite
distinctphases (p. 177 if.). First,the risingbourgeoisieacquires at bar-
gain prices (or in the most favorablecase for nothing:e.g., the church
lands under Henryvin) certainassetsand claims to wealth. In thisphase,
wealth is not only transferred to the bourgeoisie;it is also concentrated
in fewerhands. Second, and later, comes the realization phase. Dobb
writesthat
ofno lessimportance thanthefirstphaseof theprocessof accumulationwas thesecond
and completing phase,by whichtheobjectsof theoriginalaccumulation wererealized
or sold (at leastin part)in orderto makepossiblean actual investment in industrial
production- a sale of the objects
original of accumulationin orderwiththeproceedsto
acquire (or to bringintoexistence) cottonmachinery,factory ironfoundries,
buildings,
raw materialsand labour-power(p. 183).
So far as I can see, Dobb offersno evidence at all of the existenceof
this realization phase. Nor is this surprisingbecause it seems to me
equally clear that thereare no reasonsto suppose that such a phase must
have existedor actuallydid exist.As Dobb himselfmakesperfectly plain,
the assets acquired and concentratedin fewerhands during the acquisi-
tion phase were of various kinds, including land, debt-claims,and
preciousmetals: in otherwords,frozenand liquid assetsalike. He recog-
nizes, too, that this was the period duringwhich the bourgeoisiedevel-
oped banking and credit machineryfor turningits frozenassets (espe-
cially the public debt) into liquid assets.Under the circumstances, it is
impossible to see why the bourgeoisieshould be under any compulsion
to sell in order to realize capital for industrialinvestment.Further,it
is impossibleto see what class could buy assetsfromthe bourgeoisiein
order to supply it with liquid funds.Naturally,this does not mean that
individual membersof the bourgeoisiecould not or did not sell assets
to other membersof the same class or to membersof other classes in
order to acquire funds for industrialinvestment,but there was surely
no other class to which the bourgeoisieas a whole could sell assets in
this period of capitalist development.
ActuallyDobb, aside fromassertingthe necessityand importanceof
the realization phase, makes very little of it. When it comes down to
analyzingthe necessarypre-conditions forindustrialinvestment, he shows
COMMUNICATIONS 157
thattherequiredcomplementto acquisitionon the partof the bourgeosie
was not realization by the bourgeoisie,but the break-upof the old sys-
tem of production and especially dispossessionof enough landworkers
to forma class willing to work forwages. This is certainlycorrect,and
I can onlyregretthat Dobb's reiteratedstatementsabout the importance
of the realizationphase may serveto divertthe attentionof some readers
fromhis excellenttreatmentof the essentialproblemsof the period of
original accumulation.
PAUL M. SWEE2Y
REPLY BY MAURICE DOBB
Paul Sweezy'sarticleon the transitionfromfeudalismto capitalism

raises in a clear and stimulatingmanner a numberof importantissues,
discussionof which can only be beneficialto an understandingboth of
historicaldevelopmentand of Marxism as a method of studyingthat
development.May I state at the outset that I personallywelcome his
contributionto such a discussionas a distinguishedchallenge to further
thoughtand study?With a good deal of what he says I feel no disagree-
ment.In some places wherehe dissentsfromwhat I have said, the differ-
ence betweenus is one of emphasis and of formulation.But in one or
two places a more fundamentaldifferenceover method and analysis
seems to emerge; and here I feel that his interpretationis misleading.
(1) First,I am not quite clear whetherSweezyrejectsmy definition
of feudalismor merelyconsidersit to be incomplete.This definition,as
he says,restson a virtualidentificationof feudalismwith serfdom-if by
the latter is meant, not merelythe performanceof obligatoryservices,
but exploitation of the producer by virtue of directpolitico-legalcom-
pulsion.1If he means thatfeudalismthusdefinedcoverssomethingwider
thanthemedievalformof European economyand embracesa wide variety
of typeswhich (in any fullerstudyof feudalism)deservecarefulanalysis,
I readilyagree. But in referringto a "systemof production"he seems to
Sweezysuggeststhat such a widening of the term is unsatisfactorysince elements of

directpolitico-legalcompulsion over labor may be found at widely separated periods
of history,including modern times. Where such elements predominate,they would
on this definitionconstitutethe formof economyin question feudal; but if theyare
merely incidental and subordinate, their presence no more sufficesto do so than
does the incidental existence of hired wage-labor sufficeto constitute a particular
societycapitalist. In most of the "incongruous" cases which Sweezy has in mind,
compulsorylabor is purely incidental, not typical.
be sayingsomethingother than this,and to be contrastinga systemof
productionwith a mode of productionin Marx's use of this term.What
preciselya systemof productionis intendedto cover I am not clear. But
what followsindicatesthat the termis intendedto include the relations
between the producer and his market.There are even hints that these
relationsof exchange (by contrastwith relationsof production)are the
focus of attention in Sweezy's interpretationof the historicalprocess.
(He regards "the crucial featureof feudalism,"for example, as being
"that it is a systemof productionfor use")
If this is so, then I thinkwe have a fundamentalissue between us.
The definitionwhich I was using in my Studies was advisedlyin terms
of the relations of productioncharacteristicof feudalism: namely, the
relations between the direct producer and his overlord.The coercive
relationship,consistingin the direct extractionof the surplus labor of
producersby the ruling class, was conditioned,of course,by a certain
level of developmentof the productiveforces.Methods of production
were relativelyprimitive,and (so far as the producers'own subsistence,
at least, was concerned)were of the type of which Marx spoke as the
"pettymode of production,"in which the produceris in possessionof his
means of productionas an individual producingunit. This I regard as
the crucial characteristic;and when differenteconomic formshave this
characteristicin common,this common elementwhich theyshare is of
greatersignificancethan otherrespectsin which theymay differ(e.g., in
the relation of productionto the market).Admittedlythis production-
relationshipis itself capable of considerable variety,according to the
form which the compulsoryextractionof the surplus product takes:
e.g., direct labor servicesor the appropriationof tributeeitherin kind
or in money.2But the distinctionbetweenthese does not correspondto
2 See Marx's analysis of "Labor Rent, Rent in Kind and Money Rent," Capital, in.
I would particularlydraw attentionto the passage in the course of Marx's treatment
of this subject in which he says: "The specificeconomic form in which unpaid sur-
plus labor is pumped out of the direct producers determinesthe relation of rulers
and ruled, as it grows immediatelyout of production itselfand reacts upon it as a
determiningelement. ... It is always the direct relation of the owners of the condi-
tions of production to the direct producers which reveals the innermostsecret,the
hidden foundation of the entire social construction.. . . The formof this relation
between rulers and ruled naturally correspondsalways with a definitestage in ithe
developmentof the methods of labor and of its productivesocial power. This does
not prevent the same economic basis from showing infinitevariations and grada-
tions in its appearance, even though its principal conditions are everywherethe
same/' Capital, in, p. 919.
COMMUNICATIONS 159
thatbetween"westernEuropeanfeudalism," whichSweezythinksthat
I shouldhave distinguished and concentrated upon, and feudalismin
easternEurope (althoughin Asiaticfeudalism thetributaryrelationship
wouldseemto have predominated and to havegiventhisitsdistinctive
impress). While therewereimportant differences
undoubtedly between
conditions in westernand easternEurope,therewerealso striking simi-
laritiesas regards"theformin whichunpaidsurpluslaborwas pumped
outof thedirectproducers"; and it is mybeliefthatthedesireto repre-
sent"western Europeanfeudalism" as a distinctive
genusand to endowit
alonewiththetitleof "feudal"is a productof bourgeoishistorians and
of theirtendency to concentrateupon juridical characteristics
and dif-
ferentia.
(2) Regardingthe "conservative and change-resisting characterof
"westernEuropeanfeudalism," whichneeded some externalforceto
dislodgeit,and whichI am accusedofneglecting, I remainratherscepti-
cal. True, of course,that,by contrast withcapitalisteconomy,feudal
society wasextremely stableand inert.But thisis notto saythatfeudal-
ismhad no tendency withinit to change.To sayso wouldbe, surely,to
makeit an exceptionto the generalMarxistlaw of development that
economicsocietyis movedby its own internalcontradictions. Actually,
thefeudalperiodwitnessed considerable changesin technique;3 and the
later centuries of feudalism showed marked differences fromthoseof
earlyfeudalism. Moreover, it wouldseemto be not to westernEurope
but to theEast thatwe have to look forthe moststableforms:in par-
ticular,to Asiaticformsof tributary serfdom. And it is to be notedthat
of
it was the form where surplus labor is appropriated via dues in kind
-and of thisformspecifically- thatMarx spokeas "quite suitablefor
becomingthebasisof stationary conditionsof society,suchas we see in
Asia."4
Sweezyqualifieshis statement by sayingthatthefeudalsystem is not
necessarilystatic.All he claimsis thatsuchmovement as occurs"has no
tendency to transform it." But despitethisqualification,theimplication
remainsthatunderfeudalismclass strugglecan play no revolutionary
role.It occursto me thattheremaybe a confusionat therootof this
denialof revolutionary and transforming tendencies.No one is suggest-
ing thatclassstruggle of peasantsagainstlordsgivesrise,in anysimple
anddirectway,to capitalism. Whatthisdoesis to modify thedependence
3 Molly Gibbs, Feudal Order (London, 1949),p. 5-7, 92 f.

4 Capital,,p. 924.
of the pettymode of productionupon feudal overlordshipand eventually
to shake loose the small producer fromfeudal exploitation.It is then
fromthe pettymode of production (in the degree to which it secures
independence of action, and social differentiationin turn develops
withinit) that capitalismis born. This is a fundamentalpoint to which
we shall return.
(3) In the course of supportinghis own thesis that an internally
stable feudalismcould only be disintegratedby the impact of an exter-
nal force5-trade and markets-Sweezyrepresentsmy own view as being
that the decline of feudalismwas solely the work of internalforcesand
that the growthof trade had nothingto do with the process.He seems
to see it as a question of eitherinternalconflictor externalforces.This
strikesme as much too simplified,even mechanical,a presentation.I see
it as an interactionof the two; although with primaryemphasis,it is
true, upon the internal contradictions;since these would, I believe,
operate in any case (if on a quite differenttime-scale),and since they
determinethe particularformand directionof the effects which external
influencesexert.I am by no means denyingthat the growthof market
towns and of trade played an importantrole in acceleratingthe disin-
tegrationof the old mode of production.What I am assertingis that
tradeexercisedits influenceto die extentthat it accentuatedthe internal
conflictswithin the old mode of production. For example, the growth
of trade (as I pointed out in my Studies in several places, e.g., p. 60-62
and 253 f.) accelerated the process of social differentiation within the
pettymode of production,creatinga kulak class, on the one hand, and
a semi-proletariat, on the other. Again, as Sweezy emphasizes,towns
acted as magnetsto fugitiveserfs.I am not much concerned to argue
whether this flightof serfswas due more to the attractionof these
urban magnets (and alternativelyin some parts of Europe to the lure
of freeland) or to the repulsive forceof feudal exploitation.Evidently
it was a matterof both, in varyingdegreesat different timesand places.
But the specificeffectwhich such flighthad was due to the specificchar-
acter of the relationshipbetweenserfand feudal exploiter.6
5 His referenceto "historical

developments whichin factcan onlybe explainedas aris-
ingfromcausesexternalto thesystem" leavesus in no doubtthatthisin his view.
I agreeentirely
6 Incidentally, withtheimportant consideration whichSweezystresses
thatit was not so muchthemagnitude of the flightto the townswhichwas signi-
ficant,but that the threatof it (accompaniedperhapsby no more than a small
movement) mightsufficeto forcethelordsintomakingconcessions, weaken-
seriously
ing to feudalism.
COMMUNICATIONS 161
Hence I do not agree that I am called upon to "show that the feudal
ruling class's growingneed forrevenue and the flightof serfsfromthe
land can both be explained in termsof forcesoperatinginside the feudal
system,"or "that the rise of townswas a process internalto the feudal
system"(although to some extent I believe that the latter is true,and
that,preciselybecause feudalismwas far frombeing a purely "natural
economy,"it encouraged towns to cater for its need of long-distance
trade). At the same time,I thinkthat Sweezyis wrongin assertingthat
there is necessarilya correlation between feudal disintegrationand
"nearnessto centersof trade," In my Studies I cited several pieces of
evidenceto rebut the simplifiedview which has been popularized by the
vulgar theoristsof "money economy."Of these I will repeat here only
two. It was preciselyin the backward north and west of England that
serfdomin the form of direct labor servicesdisappeared earliest, and
in the more advanced south-east,with its town markets and trade
routes,thatlabor serviceswere moststubbornin theirsurvival.Similarly,
in manypartsof easternEurope intensification of serfdomin the fifteenth
and sixteenthcenturieswas associatedwith the growthof trade,and the
correlationwas, not betweennearnessto marketsand feudal disintegra-
tion (as Sweezyclaims), but betweennearnessto marketsand strength-
ening of serfdom (cf. my Studies, p. 38-42). These factsare mentioned
by Sweezy.Yet this does not preventhim frommaintainingthat it was
only "on the peripheryof the exchange economy"that feudal relations
were proof against dissolution.
The fact that the "systemof production"on which Sweezy focuses
attentionis more concernedwith the sphereof exchange than with rela-
tions of productionis indicated by a rathersurprisingomission in his
treatment.He nowherepays more than incidentalattentionto what has
alwaysseemed to be a crucial consideration:namely,that the transition
fromcoerciveextractionof surplus labor by estate-owners to the use of
freehired labor must have depended upon the existenceof cheap labor
forhire (i.e., of proletarianor semi-proletarian
elements).This I believe
to have been a more fundamentalfactorthan proximityof marketsin
determiningwhetherthe old social relationssurvivedor were dissolved.
Of course,therewas interactionbetween this factorand the growthof
trade: in particular (as I have alreadymentioned)the effectof the latter
upon the processof social differentiation within the pettymode of pro-
duction. But this factormust, surely,have played a decisive role in
determiningthe precise effectwhich trade had in differentplaces and
at different periods?PossiblySweezyplays down this factorbecause he
thinksit too obviousto stress;or possiblybecausehe is thinking of the
leasingof farmsfora moneyrentas theimmediate successor ofserfdom.
This latterconsideration bringsus to his question:"What came after
feudalismin Europe?"
(4) I entirelyagreewithSweezyin regarding ,economicsocietyin
westernEuropebetweenthefourteenth century and theend of thesix-
teenthas beingcomplexand transitional, in thesensethattheold was
in processof rapid disintegration and new economicformsweresimul-
taneouslyappearing.I also agreewithhimin thinking thatduringthis
period the pettymode of production was in process of emancipating
itselffromfeudalexploitation, but was not yetsubjected(at least in
anysignificant degree)to capitalistrelationsof production, whichwere
eventually to destroyit. Moreover, I regardtherecognition of thisfact
as vital to any true understanding of the passagefromfeudalismto
capitalism.But Sweezygoesfurther thanthis.He speaksof it as transi-
tionalin a sensewhichexcludesthepossibility of its stillbeingfeudal
(even if a feudal economy at an advanced stageof dissolution). There
seemsto me to be pointin doingthisonlyif one wishesto speakof it
as a distinct modeof production sutgeneris, whichis neitherfeudalnor
capitalist. This is to my mind an impossible procedure;and Sweezy
agrees in not wishing to go so far as In
this. thefinalpicture,therefore,
thesetwocenturies are apparently leftsuspendeduncomfortably in the
firmament betweenheavenand earth.In theprocessofhistorical develop-
menttheyhave to be classified as homelesshybrids. While thissortof
answermightbe adequate enoughin a purelyevolutionary view of
historicaldevelopment throughsuccessivesystems or stages,I suggest
thatit will notdo fora revolutionary viewof historical development- a
viewofhistory as a succession ofclasssystems, withsocialrevolution(in
thesenseof a transfer of powerfromone classto another)as thecrucial
mechanism of historicaltransformation.
The crucialquestionwhichSweezyhas apparently failedto ask (or
if he has,he wouldseemto have burkedtheanswerto it) is this:what
was therulingclassof thisperiod?Since (as Sweezyhimself recognizes)
therewas not yetdevelopedcapitalistproduction, it cannothave been
a capitalistclass.If one answersthatit was something intermediate be-
tweenfeudaland capitalist, in theshapeof a bourgeoisie whichhad not
yetinvestedits capitalin thedevelopment of a bourgeoismodeof pro-
duction,thenone is in the Pokrovsky-bog of "merchant capitalism."If
a merchant bourgeoisie formedtherulingclass,thenthestatemusthave
beensomekindof bourgeois state.And if thestatewas a bourgeois state
COMMUNICATIONS 163
already,not onlyin thesixteenth centurybut evenat thebeginning of
the fifteenth,what constituted the essentialissue of the seventeenth
centurycivil war? It cannot (accordingto thisview) have been the
bourgeoisrevolution.We are leftwith some such suppositionas the
one advancedin a preliminary discussionof the mattersome years
ago: thatit was a an
against attempted
struggle coimfer-revolution
staged
by crown and court an
against already existentbourgeoisstatepower.7
Moreover, we are facedwiththealternative of eitherdenyingthatthere
wasanycrucialhistorical moment as thebourgeois
describable revolution,
or of seekingforthisbourgeois revolutionin someearliercentury at or
beforethedawnof theTudor age.
This is a matterwhichhas occupieda good deal of discussionamong
Marxisthistorians in Englandin thelastfewyears.The largerquestion
of the natureof the absolutestatesof thisepochwas also the subject
of discussionamongSoviethistorians just beforethe war. If we reject
thealternatives just mentioned, we are leftwiththeview (whichI be-
lieveto be therightone) thattherulingclasswas stillfeudaland that
thestatewas stillthepoliticalinstrument of its rule.And if thisis so,
thenthisrulingclassmusthave dependedforits incomeon surviving
feudalmethodsof exploitingthepettymodeof production. True, since
tradehad cometo occupya leadingplace in the economy, thisruling
classhad itselfan interest in trade(as also had manya medievalmonas-
teryin theheydayof feudalism), and tookcertainsectionsof the mer-
chantbourgeoisie(speciallythe exportmerchants) into economicpart-
nership and intopolitical alliancewith itself(whencearosemanyof the
figuresof the "new Tudor Hence,
aristocracy"). thislate,dissolvingform
offeudalexploitation of theperiodofcentralized statepowerhad many
differences fromthe feudalexploitationof earliercenturies;and ad-
mittedly manyplaces the feudal "integument"
in was wearingvery
threadbare. True also,feudalexploitation of thepettymodeof produc-
tiononlyrarelytooktheclassicalformof directlaborservices, and had
assumedpredominantly theformof moneyrent.But whilepoliticalcon-
straintand the pressures of manorialcustomstillruledeconomicrela-
tionships(as continued to be the case over verylarge areas of the
Englishcountryside), and a freemarketin land was absent (as well as
freelabormobility), theformof thisexploitation cannotbe said to have
7 P. F., in the courseof a discussionon Christopher

Hill's article,"The English
Revolution1640,"in theLabour Monthly(1941).
shed its feudal form-even if this was a degenerateand rapidly disinte-
gratingform.
In this connectionI would draw attentionto the fact that in the
passage about moneyrentwhich Sweezyquotes fromMarx (Capital, in,
ch. 47), the moneyrent of which Marx is here speaking is not yet capi-
talist ground rent,with the farmeras an independenttenantpaying a
contractualrent,but is still (by manifestimplication)a formof feudal
rent,even if a dissolvingform ("moneyrent,as a convertedformof rent
in kind and as an antagonistof rent in kind is the last formand at the
same time the formof dissolutionof the typeof ground rent which we
have consideredso far.. . ."). Earlier in the same sectionMarx says: ''the
basis of this rent remains the same as that of the rent in kind, from
which is starts.The directproducerstill is the possessorof the land . . .
amdhe has to performforhis landlord . . . forcedsurpluslabor . . . and
this forcedsurplus labor is now paid in moneyobtained by the sale of
the surplus product" (p. 926).
(5) On the two finalpointsof Sweezy's criticismI will tryto be brief.
Of the outstandingrole played at the dawn of capitalismby capitalists
who had been spawned by the pettymode of productionI suggestthat
thereis abundant evidence,8whateverthe proper interpretation may be
of that crucial passage fromMarx's discussionof the matter (and I still
thinkit bears the interpretationcustomarilyplaced upon it). Some of
this evidence I quoted in my Studies (ch. 4). This is doubtless a matter
deservingof more researchthan it had had hitherto.But the importance
of the risingsmall and middle bourgeoisieof thisperiod has alreadybeen
shown by Tawney, for one. There is accumulatingevidence that the
significance of kulak enterprisein thevillage can hardlybe overestimated.
There are signs of him at a quite early date, hiring the labor of the
poorer "cotter" and in the sixteenthcenturypioneering new and im-
proved methods of enclosed farmingon a fairlyextensivescale. His-
toriansof thisperiod have recentlypointed out that a distinctivefeature
of English developmentin the Tudor age was the ease with which these
kulak yeoman farmersrose to become minor gentry,purchasingmanors
and joining the ranksof the local squirearchy.It may well be (as Kos-
minskyhas suggested)that theyplayed a leading role even in the Peas-
ants' Revolt in 1381. Undoubtedlytheyprosperedgreatly (as employers
of labor) fromthe fallingreal wage of the Tudor Inflation;and smaller
8 The passage of mine which Sweezy quotes, referringto "little evidence that bears
directlyupon it," relates to"the details of the process" and not to the existence
of this type of capitalist or to the role which he played.
COMMUNICATIONS 165
gentryand rising kulaks were organizersof the countrycloth industry

on an extensivescale. Evidently they were a most importantdriving
forcein the bourgeoisrevolutionof the seventeenthcentury,providing
in particularthe sinewsof Cromwell'sNew Model Army.Moreover,the
fact that theywere is, I believe, a key to understandingthe class align-
ments of the bourgeois revolution: in particular the reason why mer-
chant capital, far fromalways playing a progressiverole, was often to
be found allied with feudal reaction.
Similarly,in the urban craftgilds there were many entrepreneurs
of a similar type,who took to trade and employedpoorer craftsmenon
the putting-outsystem.I have suggested (and if I rememberrightly
the suggestionoriginallycame from Unwin) that these developments
were responsiblefor the movementsto be observedamong the gilds at
the end of the sixteenthcenturyand the beginningof the sevententh:
in particularfor the rise of the new Stuart corporations.So far as one
can see, it was they (certainlyit was the countryclothiers)who were
firmsupportersof the English revolution,and not the rich patentees,
such as those of whom Nef has talked, many of whom were royalist,
since theystill depended on privilegeand derived their privilegefrom
courtinfluence.I cannot see how the importanceof this line of develop-
mentin generatingthe first,pre-industrial revolution,stage of capitalism
can possiblybe denied.9 Even at the time of the industrialrevolution
many of the new entrepreneurswere small men who had started as
"merchant-manufacturers" of the putting-outsystem.True, in some
industries (e.g., iron, copper and brass), where larger capitals were
needed,it was alreadydifferent.But it was conditionsof techniquewhich
determinedwhetherthe small capitalist,risen fromthe ranks,could or
could not become a pioneer of the new mode of production; and until
the technical changes associated with the industrial revolution (some
9 Swcczy quotes Marx's reference to such developments as proceeding "at a snail's

pace," compared with the full possibilitiesof expansion. But so was the development
of capitalism "at a snail's pace" (relativelyto later developments) in the period of
"the infancyof capitalist production"of which Marx is here speaking. It was, surely,
because of this that the transformation could only be completed after the new bour-
geoisie had won political power, and (as Marx says later in the same chapter) had
begun to "employ the power of the State ... to hasten, hothouse fashion, the
process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode,
and to shorten the transition." Then, but only then, could the snail's pace of
earlier development be accelerated and the ground laid for the rapid growthsof
the industrial revolution.
of which,it is true,werealreadyoccurringtwo centuriesbefore1800)
thesmallcapitalistcould stillplay a leadingrole.
(6) Withregardto theso-called"realizationphase" in the accumu-
lationprocess,I mustacknowledge thatSweezyhas laid his finger on a
weak place in the analysis,about whichI myselfhad doubts,and on
whichI was awarethatthe evidencewas inadequate.Whethersuch a
phaseexistsor not does not affect mymain contention; sincethiswas
thatdispossession of othersis the essenseof the accumulating process,
and not merelythe acquisitionof particularcategoriesof wealthby
capitalists.This is not to deny,however, thatthe bourgeois-enrichment
aspects of the matter had a place; in which case I believethatthedis-
tinguishing of the"twophases"retainssomeimportance. I suggestthat
it is a topicto whichMarxistresearchmightusefullybe directed;and
I continueto thinkthat"the secondphase" is a hypothesis whichcor-
to
responds something actual.
We can agreethatit wasnota caseofthebourgeoisie realizingassets,
previously accumulated, to some new class.Indeed, there is no need for
themto do so as a class,since,once a proletariat has been created,the
only"cost"to thebourgeoisieas a wholein the extensionof capitalist
production is thesubsistence whichtheyhaveto advanceto workers(in
the formof wages)-a factof whichthe classicaleconomists werewell
aware.Ownership ofland and country houses,etc.,did notofitselfassist
themin providingthissubsistence. Even if theycould have sold their
properties to third parties, thiswould not necessarily-leavingforeign
tradeapart-have augmentedthe subsistence fundforcapitalistsociety
as a whole.But whatis thecase fortheclassas a wholemaynotbe the
caseforone sectionof it,which (as Sweezyimplies)maybe handicapped
by lack of sufficient liquid fundsto serveas workingcapital;and there
may well be substantial meaningin speakingof one stratumof the
bourgeoisie(imbued with a desireto buylaborpower:i.e., to investin
production) sellingreal estateor bondsto otherstrataof thebourgeoisie
whichstill has a tastefor acquiringwealthin theseforms.It is, of
course,possiblethatall theinvestments neededto financetheindustrial
revolution camefromthecurrentincomeof the new captainsof indus-
tryof theperiod:the Darbys,Dales, Wilkinsons, Wedgwoodsand Rad-
cliffes.In thiscase nothingremainsto be said. Previousbourgeoisen-
richment in theformswe havementioned can be ignoredas a factorin
the financing of industrialgrowth.This, however,seemsprimafacie
unlikely.I am not awarethatmuchworkhas beendone on thesources
fromwhichsuchconstructional projectsas theearlycanalsand railways
COMMUNICATIONS 167
in Englandwerefinanced. We knowthatmanyof thenewentrepreneurs
werehandicappedforlack of capital,and thatmuchof the capitalfor
the expandingcottonindustryin the early nineteenth centurycame
fromtextilemerchants. That the creditsystem was not yetadequately
developedto meet the needs of developingindustry is shownby the
mushroom growth of the unstable "country banks" in the earlynine-
teenthcentury precisely to fillthis gap. It seems an hypothesis worthy
thatin the eighteenth
of investigation centurytherewas a good deal
ofsellingofbondsand real estateto suchpersonsas retiredEast Indian
"nabobs"bymenwho,thenor subsequently, usedtheproceedsto invest
in theexpandingindustry and commerce of the time;and thatit was
by some such route-by a processhavingtwo stages-that the wealth
acquiredfromcolonialloot fertilized the industrialrevolution.
Even if therewas no significant amountof transfer of assets,I think
thatmy "secondphase" may not altogether lack justification.It may
have significance
(if,admittedly, a somewhat different as
one) denoting
a periodin whichtherehad been a shiftforthebourgeoisie as a whole
froman earlierpreference forholdingreal estateor valuable objects
or bonds to a preference for investingin means of productionand
labor-power.Even if no considerable volumeof sellingof the former
actuallytookplace,the shift may nevertheless havehad a largeinfluence
on thepricesofsuchassetsand on economicand socialactivities.
MAURICE DOBB
TrinityCollege,
Cambridge,England

The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

S&S Quarterly, Inc.

The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism

THE TRANSITION FROM FEUDALISM TO CAPITALISM

We live in the period of transitionfromcapitalismto socialism;and

(i) Dobb's Definitionof Feudalism

i (New York: International Publishers, 1946).

(2) The Theory of WesternEuropean Feudalism

(3) Dobb's Theory of the Decline of Feudalism

4 It mightbe thoughtthatthe vigorouscolonizationand reclamationmovementof

(4) A Critique of Dobb's Theory

plicationof retainers-allof whom "had to be supportedfromthe surplus

changesin consumers'tastesare of negligibleimportance,6 and we should

(5) More on the Theory of the Decline of Feudalism

11 In this connection,it is importantto recognize'that the contrastbetweenthe

It seems that Marx had reservationsabout how widespreadthisdevelop-

22 It is not necessaryto specifythattheperiod is non- or post-feudal,since commodity

sary confusion. Simple commodityproduction is usually defined as a systemof in-

Moreover,this is not the only typeof unstable relation in the pre-

from feudalism to capitalism: see Grundrisseder Kritik der politischen konomie

(7) A Few Remarkson the Rise of Capitalism

26 Dobb followstheMooreand Avelingtranslation in speakingof "primitive" accumu-

As can be readily seen, Marx does not say anythingabout capitalists

These are the opening remarksof a chapter entitled "Genesis of the

way" was providedby the resultsof England's firstindustrialrevolution:

REPLY BY MAURICE DOBB

Paul Sweezy'sarticleon the transitionfromfeudalismto capitalism

Sweezysuggeststhat such a widening of the term is unsatisfactorysince elements of

3 Molly Gibbs, Feudal Order (London, 1949),p. 5-7, 92 f.

5 His referenceto "historical

7 P. F., in the courseof a discussionon Christopher

gentryand rising kulaks were organizersof the countrycloth industry

9 Swcczy quotes Marx's reference to such developments as proceeding "at a snail's

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen