Η μετάβαση από τον φεουδαλισμό στον καπιταλισμό

by Paul M. Sweezy, Maurice Dobb, Christopher Hill

Τα δοκίμια που περιλαμβάνονται στο βιβλίο αυτό πρωτοδημοσιεύτηκαν στα παρακάτω περιοδικά: η "Κριτική" του Σουήζυ και η "Απάντηση" του Ντόμπ στο Science and Society, άνοιξη 1950· η "Συμβολή στη συζήτηση" του Τακαχάσι στο Science and Society, φθινόπωρο 1952· το "Πρόσθετο σχόλιο" του Ντομπ και η "Δευτερολογία" του Σουήζυ στο Science and Society, άνοιξη 1953· το "Σχόλιο" του Χίλτον και το "Σχόλιο" του Χιλ στο Science and Society, φθινόπωρο 1953· οι "Μερικές παρατηρήσεις" του Λεφέμπρ στο La Peosee, Φεβρουάριος 1956· η "Ανασκόπηση της διαμάχης", του Προκάτσι στο Societa, XI, 1995· το δοκίμιο του Χίλτον "Καπιταλισμός - τι θα πει η λέξη", στο Past and Present, Φεβρουάριος 1962· το άρθρο του Χομπσμπάουμ "Από το φεουδαλισμό στον καπιταλισμό" στο Marxism Today, Αύγουστος 1962· το άρθρο του Ντομπ "Από το φεουδαλισμό στον καπιταλισμό" στο Marxism Today, Σεπτέμβριος 1962· το άρθρο του Μέρινγκτον "Πόλη και ύπαιθρος στη μετάβαση προς τον καπιταλισμό" στο New Left Review, No 93, Σεπτέμβριος - Οκτώβριος 1975.

Το βιβλίο του Ντομπ, όπως ο ίδιος παραδέχεται και όπως και οι κριτικοί του έχουν επαναλάβει, είναι έργο ενός μαρξιστή οικονομολόγου εξοικειωμένου με τις τότε διαθέσιμες δευτερογενείς εργασίες. Ο αντίπαλός του στη διαμάχη αυτή, ο Πωλ Σουήζυ, βρισκόταν σε παρόμοια θέση, τη θέση δηλαδή του μαρξιστή μελετητή του σύγχρονου καπιταλισμού που ασχολήθηκε με θέματα μεσαιωνικής οικονομικής ιστορίας βασισμένος σε δευτερογενείς εργασίες μη μαρξιστών ιστορικών. Το ίδιο ισχύει, αν και σε μικρότερο βαθμό, και για τον Τακακάσι, τον πιο σημαντικό από τους επιστήμονες που συμμετείχαν στη συζήτηση που ακολούθησε. Γιατί μολονότι ο Τακαχάσι είναι πρωτότυπος μελετητής στο πεδίο του γιαπωνέζικου φεουδαλισμού και των προβλημάτων της μετάβασης στον καπιταλισμό κατά τον 19ο αιώνα, οι απόψεις του για τα ίδια προβλήματα της ιστορίας της κλασικής περιοχής γέννησης του καπιταλισμού, δηλαδή της Δυτικής Ευρώπης, βασίζονται και αυτές σε δευτερογενή έργα. Ακόμη και η πιο πρόσφατη από τις εκτενέστερες εργασίες πάνω στη διαμάχη, αυτή του Τζων Μέρινγκτον, δεν καταπιάνεται με τα ερευνητικά προβλήματα που αντιμετωπίζει ο ιστορικός της φεουδαλικής οικονομίας. Έτσι, και εξαιρώντας τον Χιλ και τον Χίλτον, η συμμετοχή των οποίων στην αρχική διαμάχη ήταν σχετικά μικρή, η συζήτηση έγινε ανάμεσα σε μαρξιστές που επισήμαναν μεν ορισμένα βασικά προβλήματα σχετικά με το φεουδαλικό και καπιταλιστικό τρόπο παραγωγής αλλά που, ταυτόχρονα, μη έχοντας την υποστήριξη μαρξιστών ειδικών (τουλάχιστον στη δεκαετία του 1950, οπότε και άρχισε η διαμάχη) ήταν υποχρεωμένοι να διεξάγουν μεγάλο μέρος της βασικής τους έρευνας βασιζόμενοι στο έργο μη μαρξιστικών αυθεντιών.

Genres: History, Economics, Nonfiction, Politics, European History, Medieval, Medieval History

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1970

About the author

Paul Marlor Sweezy (April 10, 1910 – February 27, 2004) was a Marxist economist, political activist, publisher, and founding editor of the long-running magazine Monthly Review. He is best remembered for his contributions to economic theory as one of the leading Marxian economists of the second half of the 20th century.

Paul Sweezy was born on April 10, 1910 in New York City and attended Phillips Exeter Academy. He went on to Harvard and was editor of The Harvard Crimson, graduating magna cum laude in 1932. Having completed his undergraduate coursework, his interests shifted from journalism to economics. Sweezy spent the 1931–32 academic year taking courses at the London School of Economics, traveling to Vienna to study on breaks. It was at this time that Sweezy was first exposed to Marxian economic ideas. He made the acquaintance of Harold Laski, Joan Robinson and other young left-wing British thinkers of the day.

Upon his return to the United States, Sweezy again enrolled at Harvard, from which he received his doctorate degree in 1937. During his studies, Sweezy had become the "ersatz son" ("ersatz" meaning "replacement" in German) of the renowned, Czech-born economist Joseph Schumpeter, although on an intellectual level, their views were diametrically opposed. Later, as colleagues, their debates on the "Laws of Capitalism" were of legendary status for a generation of Harvard economists.

While at Harvard, Sweezy founded the academic journal The Review of Economic Studies and published essays on imperfect competition, the role of expectations in the determination of supply and demand, and the problem of economic stagnation.

Sweezy became an instructor at Harvard in 1938. It was there that he helped establish a local branch of the American Federation of Teachers, the Harvard Teachers' Union. In this interval also Sweezy wrote lectures that later became one of his most important works of economics, The Theory of Capitalist Development (1942), a book which summarized the labor theory of value of Marx and his followers. The book was the first in English to deal with such questions as the transformation problem thoroughly.

Sweezy worked for several New Deal agencies analyzing the concentration of economic power and the dynamics of monopoly and competition. This research included the influential study for the National Resources Committee, "Interest Groups in the American Economy" which identified the eight most powerful financial-industrial alliances in US business.

From 1942 to 1945, Sweezy worked for the research and analysis division of the Office of Strategic Services. Sweezy was sent to London, where his work for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) required his monitoring British economic policy for the US government. He went on to edit the OSS's monthly publication, European Political Report. Sweezy received the bronze star for his role in the war. He was the recipient of the Social Science Research Council Demobilization Award at war's end.

Sweezy wrote extensively for the liberal press during the post-war period, including such publications as The Nation and The New Republic, among others. He also wrote a book, Socialism, published in 1949, as well as a number of shorter pieces which were collected in book form as The Present as History in 1953. In 1947 Sweezy quit his teaching position at Harvard, with two years remaining on his contract, to dedicate himself to full-time writing and editing.

In 1949, Sweezy and Leo Huberman founded a new magazine called Monthly Review, using money from historian and literary critic F. O. Matthiessen. The first issue appeared in May of that year, and included Albert Einstein's article "Why Socialism?". The magazine, established in the midst of the American Red Scare, describes itself as socialist "independent of any political organization".

Monthly Review rapidly expanded into the production of books and pamphlets through its publishing arm, Monthly Review Press

Reviews

[Tiarnán · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lucid discussion of the titular transition from feudalism to capitalism that explodes conventional economic history (the "commercial model" of Pirenne - recapitulated by Sweezy in this volume) while offering useful insights on (among other topics): the class dynamics of feudal society; world history and the global transition to capitalist modernity; Marxist historical methodology; the role of towns and urban centres under feudalism versus capitalism; and what precisely defines capitalism as a unique social form.

Incredibly, most of these papers were published in the '50s (Dobb's original book which provoked the debate was published in 1946!), with Merrington's (fantastic) essay being the latest, published in New Left Review in 1976. And yet the sad thing is that the modern left has (by and large) failed to build on them, instead regressing to simplistic Smithian, teleological, or moralistic accounts of the origins and definition of capitalism.

That said, the best contributions of this volume from Dobb, Hilton, and Takahashi were subsequently elaborated on and partly corrected (particularly on the issue of the supposed 'petty producer revolt' that signalled the death knell of feudalism) by the US historian Robert Brenner in the late 70s. His essays on the topic (collected in 'the Brenner Debate') are a sort of spiritual sequel to this book, and it's worth reading the two together.

[Marks54 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a published version of one of the foundational arguments among historians mentioned in the Wood book on the origins of capitalism that I recently finished. It starts with some jabs and thrusts around a review of Dobb’s book by Sweezy. Then it expands into a broader discussion of the transition out of medieval property relations and into modern capitalism. What makes this a valuable discussion is the amalgamation of various radical Marxist historians and more conventional scholars, coupled with issues of how best to combine theory and evidence in making judgments about grand historical processes over centuries.

There is a temptation to think that the “experts” in a given area are all agreed on a set of conclusions, on what constitutes acceptable or reasonable evidence, and on which questions have been answered and which remain. That is almost never the case in social sciences, even the most popular ones such as economics and psychology. It is certainly not the case in history, especially history about politics and economics - especially concerning Europe following WW2. This perplexes students but is what makes academia fun sometimes.

A volume like this one is unusual these days, since discussion chains like these can increasingly be accessed digitally and books elaborating these discussions do not reach wide readerships..

[AK · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wish there were more books like this. A collection of short essays, from a Marxist viewpoint, about the emergence of capitalism. Really useful for thinking about methodology, would be great for a class about historical methods and historiography. Well-edited and summarized by Hilton.

[Arman Behrad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even after the insistence of Marx on the materialistic essence of the dialectic, there is a school of Marxist ideology who interpreter the transition from feudalism to Capitalism based on none-economical forces.that's the story of them.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am in no way a commie, but this is one of the best methodologies for explaining evolution in historical economies.

[Eternauta · Rating 3 out of 5]

Μην τρέφετε καμία αυταπάτη όσοι ελάχιστοι μπείτε ανυποψίαστοι στον πειρασμό να βουτήξετε στην συγκεκριμένη συλλογή άρθρων : η ολοκλήρωση της ανάγνωσης είναι εφικτή μόνο με γερές δόσεις καφεΐνης και προϋποθέτει μια ροπή προς μαζοχιστικές απολαύσεις!

Πρόκειται για μια έντονη συζήτηση μεταξύ μαρξιστών ιστορικών και πολιτικών επιστημόνων που άναψε για τα καλά την δεκαετία του '50 για να ολοκληρωθεί τρόπον τινά στα 1970s οπότε και δημοσιεύεται το τελευταίο (και εξαιρετικά πληροφορημένο) άρθρο του John Merrington στο New Left Review.
Από τις σελίδες παρελαύνουν ιερά τέρατα της Αγγλόφωνης ιστοριογραφίας όπως οι Hobsbawm, Hill και (κατά την γνώμη μου ο πιο πειστικός όλων εδώ ) Rodney Hilton.

Σημείο σφοδρής αντιπαράθεσης το εάν ο μετασχηματισμός της ευρωπαϊκής κοινωνίας από το φεουδαρχικο στο καπιταλιστικό μοντέλο έγινε από τις δυνάμεις του εμπορίου και της αγοράς ("εξωτερικές" και αντιτιθέμενες στον φεουδαλικο τρόπο παραγωγής όπως υποστηρίζει η "φιλελεύθερη" ιστοριογραφία) ή "εσωτερικά", εξαιτίας των εγγενών αντιφάσεων της φεουδαρχίας που εμπεριείχε εντός της μορφές αστικής ανάπτυξης και εμπορικού - κερδοσκοπικού κεφαλαίου.

Η jargon σήμερα κάνει να γελάνε και τα μουστάκια μας και σε εμένα τουλάχιστον φαίνεται απίστευτος ο βαθμός στον οποίο αναμφισβήτητα ικανοί ιστορικοί αγωνιούν να επιβεβαιώσουν την ορθότητα του μαρξιστικού ερμηνευτικού μοντέλου χωρίς να συζητούν ενδεχόμενες αστοχίες ή έστω την ανάγκη τροποποιήσεων . Μοναδική φωνή από τον έξω κόσμο η ουσιαστική παρέμβαση του Γάλλου ιστορικού των Annales , Henri Lefebvre, ο οποίος και αντιπροσωπεύει μια αναλυτική σχολή που τελικά επέδρασε πολύ περισσότερο στην κατανόησή μας για τον ύστερο Μεσαίωνα και την πρώιμη νεωτερικότητα στην Ευρώπη.

Σε πολλές στιγμές βλαστήμησα αλλά ποτέ δεν έχασα την υπομονή μου για έναν απλό λόγο. Όσο ξεπερασμένη, ντετερμινιστική , στριφνή και εάν ήταν η μαρξιστική ιστοριογραφία εμπλούτισε με ένα μοναδικό τρόπο την ιστορική έρευνα του περασμένου αιώνα . Κανείς άλλος δεν ασχολήθηκε τόσο εμπεριστατωμένα και επίμονα με την διατύπωση ερωτημάτων και ερμηνειών για τους μηχανισμούς ιστορικής αλλαγής / μετασχηματισμού.

Το συγκεκριμένο βιβλίο αν και επιεικώς ξεπερασμένο εξακολουθεί να πάλλεται με έναν ειλικρινή ενθουσιασμό να συνθέσει την ιστορία του παρελθόντος με τις κοινωνικές ζυμώσεις του παρόντος. Και για τους πρόθυμους να βουτήξουν στην ιστορία της περιόδου , εξακολουθεί να παρέχει food for thought στο βαθμό που μπορεί κάποιος να ξεπεράσει τις αγκυλώσεις του γλωσσικού ιδιώματος.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

A book of mysticism. High on emotion, low on reason. High on ideology, low on facts.

[Berend Vendel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very in-depth. At first I wondered if I should've read some works discussed herein, but a general understanding of Marx sufficed for a good grasp of the transition thus sketched. Summarizing and standing on its own very well, it also stimulates you to read further into the issue. So be prepared to enter a rabbit hole when opening this book!

[Nathan Fisher · Rating 3 out of 5]

Takahashi / Merrington contributions are superb. It’s a real crime the former’s work remains untranslated in English.

[Tânia]

Mais do que apresentar uma tese coesa, este livro é uma compilação de artigos da autoria de 5 autores diferentes que se debruçam sobre a transição do sistema económico feudal para o capitalista. A partir da crítica de Sweezy à obra Studies in the Development of Capitalism de Maurice Dobb, desenvolve-se uma discussão académica sobre as causas, externas ou internas, que levaram à queda do feudalismo e à emergência de uma nova ordem económica capitalista. A metodologia utilizada no livro é marxista, o que significa que ambos os momentos são analisados segundo a perspetiva do materialismo histórico, que entende que as relações sociais devem ser compreendidas nos respetivos sistemas de produção.
Uma das características fundamentais para compreender a passagem do feudalismo para o capitalismo é a separação dos meios de produção dos trabalhadores, passando a existir a noção de propriedade privada e de trabalho assalariado. O incremento da produtividade para além das necessidades de subsistência é uma outra condição que é vincada devido à sua importância para a diferenciação dos conceitos de valor de uso e valor de troca no sistema capitalista. Ademais, a servidão, embora não exclusiva do feudalismo, não pode ser descurada como componente essencial deste modo de produção, já que os trabalhadores se encontravam "amarrados à terra" sobre coerção do senhor. A Revolução Inglesa, entendida como uma "revolução burguesa" pelos autores marxistas, é percecionada como um dos marcos da institucionalização do capitalismo na Europa Ocidental, visto que se deu pela ascensão da burguesia sobre a classe governante feudal. No final, ficou por concretizar a caracterização do sistema económico do período transitório, compreendido entre os séculos XIV e XVI, visto por alguns como híbrido, sem elementos predominantes de um ou outro sistema.

[Andrés Zelada · Rating 2 out of 5]

No lo he terminado. Se abre con un ensayo de Sweezy en el que hace unas críticas a un libro previo de Dobbs (que, por supuesto, no está incluido en el volumen). Luego responde Dobbs. Después Takahashi también se mete a opinar. Y así sucesivamente.

Todos disputan sobre sutiles distinciones marxianas y también hacen esto tan irritante de tirarse a la cabeza frases de Marx y de Engels y discutir sobre su interpretación como si aquellos venerables pensadores decimonónicos fueran profetas. Definitivamente, no es mi rollo en absoluto. Y supongo que tiene más gracia si has leído el libro de Dobbs en el que se basa todo el debate.

[Ray Doakes · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book examined multiple perspectives on how and why capitalism transitioned from feudalism. These opinions were often in disagreement with each other, but built upon each others arguments. This was an academic text that did not necessarily answer the questions it asked, but one that presented the reader with a number of theories to help them make their own conclusions or philosophy. Overall, the book was a dense read, but I do think that my knowledge about the subject has grown immensely from my time invested in it. If you are in the mood for a strictly academic text on this subject, then give it a read.

[Wesaka Gidai]

History has to be rewritten in every generation, because although the past does not change, the present does; each generation asks new questions of the past and finds new areas of sympathy as it re-lives different aspects of the experiences of its predecessors.”

[Swalehe Juma · Rating 2 out of 5]

History is always transitional