The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism

by Paul Marlor Sweezy, Maurice Dobb, Kohachiro Takahashi

The debate on the transition from feudalism to capitalism, originally published in Science and Society in the early 1950s, is one of the most famous episodes in the development of Marxist historiography since the war. It ranged such distinguished contributors as Maurice Dobb, Paul Sweezy, Kohachiro Takahashi and Christopher Hill against each other in a common, critical discussion. Verso has now published the complete texts of the original debate, to which subsequent discussion has returned again and again, together with significant new materials produced by historians since then.

These include articles on the same themes by such French and Italian historians as Georges Lefebvre and Giuliano Procacci. What was the role of trade in the Dark Ages? How did feudal rents evolve during the Middle Ages? Where should the economic origins of mediaeval towns be sought? Why did serfdom eventually disappear in Western Europe? What was the exact relationship between city and countryside in the transition from feudalism to capitalism? How should the importance of overseas expansion be assessed for the 'primitive accumulation of capital' in Europe? When should the first bourgeois revolutions be dated, and which social classes participated in them? All these, and many other vital questions for every student of mediaeval and modern history, are widely and freely explored.

Finally, for the new Verso edition, Rodney Hilton, author of Bond Men Made Free, has written a special introductory essay, reconsidering and summarising relevant scholarship in the two decades since the publication of the original discussion. The result is a book that will be essential for history courses, and fascinating for the general reader.

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

195 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1970

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