Workspace 'Workspace' in 'Arvind Sinha - Europe in Transition_ From Feudalism to

Page 1 (row 1, column 1)

Maurice Dobb argued that the decline of feudalism

was the result of inner contradictions within the
feudal mode of production. His views are strongly
supported and elaborated by scholars such as
Rodney Hilton, Boris Porchnev, Christopher Hill,
Kohachiro Takahashi.
This explanation is commonly referred to as the ‘inner-
contradiction model’or the ‘property-relations’pcrspective.
As per Sweezy -> the expansion of commercial economy
that was directly related to the growth of trade which
acted as an external dissolving agent. This interpretation is
usually termed as the ‘market’ or ‘commercial’ model or the
‘exchange-relations’ perspective.
Wallerstein -> World-trade ( World-Systems ) perspective.
( Janet Abu-Lughod, Andre Gunder Frank and Ekholm )
Robert Brenner -> Similar to Maurice Dobb, but takes
class-relations into greater account as opposed to merely
property-relations.
Non-Marxists -> Demographic Factors in the decline of
Feudalism -> MM Postan, Emanuel Le Roy Ladurie and H J
Habakkuk.
They were more concerned with themes such as historical
materialism, capitalist mode of production and class
con ict as a historical process of change. The German
Ideology, Communist Manifesto and Pre-Capitalist
Economic Foundations rarely mentioned transition.
Varying ways in which Feudalism and Capitalism have been
de ned. Some say that merchant capitalism ( 16th century )
was beginning of true capitalism while some say that the
Industrial Revolution ( second half of the 18th century was
true capitalism ).
In the 1840s, Marx maintained that 'productive
force’ ( technical determinism ) was the crucial factor in the
process of social change. He however has more insights in
his subsequent writings.
Karl Marx provides two alternative routes to capitalism.
1) Expansion of mercantile activity ( expansion of markets )
led to the growth of cities ( that were based on surplus from
rural feudal systems ). These cities were the basis of an
autonomous urban sphere in this epoch of the advent of
mercantile capitalism, which was the initial thrust towards
capitalism.
2) In the second route, Marx discusses how some
producers managed to became merchant capitalists,
leading to the separation of the vast majority of producers
from the ownership of their means of production, leading to
their proletarianisation )
The second route, which he enunciated in his “Capital”,
discusses how labour power becomes a commodity, while
the rst route only discusses how products become
commodities. Here, the relations of production during the
growth of capitalism is what is discussed. ( Give example of
England -vs France ).
Interestingly -> The two approaches are similar to the intra-
Marxist debates on the transition issue, let us explore it
further.
Sweezy objects to Dobb’s identi cation of feudalism with
serfdom as interchangeable terms. As per Dobb, relation of
production was serfdom in feudalism, organised around
manorial estates. Markets were not absent, but played no
role in determining the purpose or method of production.
As per Sweezy ->
Western feudalism had a change-resistant character.
feudalism remained stable or static despite facing chronic
instability and insecurity.
Dobb’s concept of feudalism is defective and he contends
that some serfdom can exist in systems that are not feudal.
Dobb’s description of feudalism too general to be
immediately applicable to any particular region or a social
system
Sweezy de nes feudalism as a system of production for
use, which had no internal dynamic for long-term growth
and expansion, as well as the capacity of transforming into
capitalism.
Therefore he argues that the rise of exchange economy that
led to monetization of relations between feudal lords and
the peasant mass somehow signalled the dissolution of
feudalism.
Agreement -> Dobb was correct in arguing that disregard
for the interests of the serfs and war and brigandage
characterised the entire Feudal Period.
questions the evidence of Dobb’s theory that there was a
growth in the size of the parasitic class of nobility.
Dobb -> Disagrees with Henri Pirenne who dates the beginning of capitalism to the twelfth century. Nor does
he accept fourteenth century as its beginning, when there was the rise in urban trade and guild handicrafts
( High Middle Ages ).
He argues that their was unevenness of the process as well as the chronological di erences between various
regions that saw the advent of serfdom over hitherto free cultivators. The development of capitalism falls into a
number of stages, characterized by its level of maturity
Feudalism was a system of production resting initially on serf-labour or subject peasantry, and eventually on
hired wage-labour. The disintegration of feudalism has to be explained in relation to the rise of wage-labour
under the bourgeois or the capitalist method of production.
Dobb locates the beginning of capitalism in the later half of the sixteenth and the early part of the seventeenth
centuries when capital began to penetrate production on considerable scale. This development was either in
the form of reasonably matured relations between the capitalist and the wage earners or in the less-developed
form of subordination of domestic handicraft workers to a capitalist through the so-called ‘putting-out system’.
Feudalism as a system of self - su cient natural economy. He treats it primarily as a soci economic system in
which trade and money dealings were not totally absent but occupied a relatively smaller place in the economy.
As per Dobb, the internal relationship of the feudal mode of production is as follows.
economic status and authority are associated with land tenure as per law or customary right. direct producer is
under obligation either by social custom ( based on law ) or military strength ( by the feudal lord ) to part with a
certain portion of his produce ( rent in kind ) or labour ( labour rent ) to his superior. This is practically identical
with serfdom. Production is generally for immediate needs and not for wider market.
Apart from Dobb; Rodney Hilton, Kohachiro Takahashi and Eric Hobsbawm, this internal relationship
determined the system's disintegration or survival. Dobb argues that the the ine ciency and incapability of
feudalism as a mode of production to satisfy the material demands placed upon it, partly due to the growing
need of the ruling class for enhanced revenue, led to its decline.
Increased Revenue Demand -> attempts by lords to augment taxes, an increased need of revenue for wars,
brigandage and crusades, and the extravagances of the nobles through costly displays and lavish feasts
Low Productivity -> Increase in population led to marginal lands being colonised. Low productivity of the
manorial economy, due to aforementioned reason as well as due to absence of technological developments in
the second phase of feudalism. Low and stationary state of labour productivity. -> Narrow margin from which
surplus product was to be extracted.
Kohachiro Takahashi strongly defends Dobb’s arguments. He analyses the nature of the surplus appropriation in
feudalism. He insists that serfdom is the existence-form of labour in the feudal mode of production. The
essence was transference of the excess labour ( excess is de ned as surplus to what was needed for
subsistence of family and economic reproduction ) of the peasant family to the lord. He maintains that that it is
the nature of social existence of labour power that is the basic or decisive factor in the various models of
production.
Rodney Hilton, based on his studies, demonstrates that adds another perspective to the surplus appropriation,
showing that the surplus labour could either be used directly on the lord's demesne, or transferred in the form
of rent in kind or in money. This became a decisive point in Hilton's argument that in the crisis of feudalism,
feudal rent became the prime mover. As per Hilton, the fundamental law of feudal society was the tendency of
the exploiting class to realise the maximum rent from the labour of the direct producers. This con icted with the
necessities of social growth of the exploiting class, which strove to maintain and improve their position vis-a-vis
the others, for which they increased the feudal rent, exacerbating the oppression. It was this struggle for power
and land control in which feudal rent became the prime-mover.
Eric Hobsbawm -> He elaborates the point about unevenness of the transition process as well as the
chronological di erences between various regions seeing this transition. As per Hobsbawm, The capitalist
elements within feudalism have to become strong enough to burst out of the feudal shell. For Hobsbawm, the
de nite triumph of capitalism is re ected through the Industrial, American and the French Revolutions. In this,
the relations between Europe and the rest of the world were decisive at various crucial stages. For instance, in
1801, 84 % of the British Gross Domestic Capital Formation, came from its colonies. In a similar phase, 40 % of
its BoP de cits due to investments in white colonies, was met by tribute from India.
even the most primitive economy also requires a certain amount of trade, local village markets and itinerarant
peddlers were props and not threats to the feudal system.
expansion of trade within the feudal system was possible only as long as it was within the peddling system.
once localised trading and trans-shipment centres were established, a qualitative new factor was emerged.
Sweezy makes a Ricardian argument by deeming the manorial organisation of production as ine cient as
compared to a system of specialised production centres that had division of labour between them, and engaged
in trade relations with each other. This emergence of "exchange value" was a powerful force that transformed the
attitude of producers. Now, not just traders and merchants, but even the members of the feudal society adopted
a business like attitude and sought money instead of perishable goods. This led to incorporation of estates into
the orbit of exchange economy.
the expansion of trade and the rise of towns opened up new opportunities to the servile population of the
country-side.
demand for new products received a llip as fresh tastes were created for food, dress, household items and
weapons
While Dobb points out the intensi cation of serfdom in some regions with progress of trade, sweezy considers
them to be temporary reverses that do not undermine the gradual trend, of the steady replacement of demesne
farming based on serf labour, with tenant farming with hired labour/independent peasant labour.
limited development of town life and lack of urban centres o ered little alternative to the agricultural workforce in
eastern Europe, limited market structure checked the rise of capitalism there. On the other hand, rise of towns in
W Europe :
attracted serfs from manors, giving them an alternative to free their oppressive situation
Urban demand forced changes in the production methods, as well as customary rules and regulations
obstructing fuller exploitation of rural resources
this new changed economic order had new production relations and organisation
As per Dobb, two hundred years b/w end of feudalism and beginning of capitalism was transitional in nature, i.e,
neither feudal nor capitalist, it was not a simple mixture of the two either. Sweezy characterises it as period of
pre-capitalist commodity production ( petty producers ). As per Sweezy, the rise of commodity production had
two distinct phases: in the rst, feudalism was undermined, in the second, the grounds for the advent of full
edged capitalism began
Rejoinder from Dobb, Takahashi and Hilton:
Dobb argues that while feudal economy was inert and stable, it had an intrinsic
tendency to change as well. In fact, the feudal period saw considerable change in
technique ( for instance in cropping patterns ). Dobb also defends his de nition ot
feudalism and maintains that feudalism and serfdom is the same thing. In fact,
one may argue that Sweezy's characterisation of feudalism is merely the
statement of its property; not a de nition per se.
The fundamental di erence between Dobb and Sweezy is on the question of
trade and urban centres - whether these existed within the feudal structure or
outside it.
Dobb maintained that trade accentuated the internal con icts within the old mode
of production, but wasn't a prime mover in itself. He also argues that growth of
towns was a process internal to the feudal system.
By citing the example of the backward north-west region of England where
serfdom in the form of direct labour services disappeared rst, but in the more
advanced south-east region, situated closest to town markets and trade routes,
the labour services survived much longer, he negated Sweezy's contention that
there was a co-relationship between feudal disintegration and the 'nearness to
centres of trade’. He also argues that in most parts of eastern Europe, the
intensi cation of serfdom in the fteenth and sixteenth centuries was related to
trade.
Sweezy argued that the monetization of feudal relations signalled the dissolution
of feudalism. However England witnessed this process by the fourteenth century
tho she had to wait for several centuries for the emergence of capitalism.
Similarly, John E. Martin argues that money rent coexisted with labour rents as far
back as the tenth century in parts of England, Northern France, Rhine Valley, and
central Italy.
Takahashi rejects Sweezy's contention that the contradiction between feudalism
and capitalism is b/w system of production of use and system of production for
the market. He maintains that the contradiction is between feudal land-property
( serfdom ) and industrial capitalism ( wage-labour ). The transition, therefore,
fundamentally involved a transformation in the social form of the existence of
labour power, which entailed a separation of the means of production from the
direct producers. As per him, trade merely accelerated the process of
di erentiation among the petty producers. The fundamental structure of the
market itself depended on the internal organization of the production system.
Wallerstein made a revolutionary contribtuion to the debate. He falls within the
exchange-relations/market/commercial viewpoint, but his arguments were
di erent.
Sweezy was similar to Pirenne inasmuch as both emphasised the importance of
growth of trade in items of regular consumption rather than elite items. This led to
a division of labour among the di market centres, leading to the decline of
feudalism since this expanding exchange relations was beyond the feudal system.
Wallerstein does not accept that the de nition of capitalism can be seen as a
mature form of social relations of production ( wage labour ) existing within
nation-states.The emergence of free wage-labour in a particular national setting in
Europe involves an interplay of market economy between di erent regions.
Instead, he de nes capitalism as a world system which was a world-economy
rather than a world-empire. The capitalist world economy was based on
international division of labour and universal market exchange relations, much like
empires were based on political relationships, and a prospective world-empire
would have a centralised political and military relationship.
Core -> Most developed. Most advanced technology in the manufacturing
process. Can exploit the resources throughout the world market. Capitalist
entrepreneurs here can exploit surplus value both within the core as well as
beyond it, since they control wage-labour.
Periphery -> technologically and economically least developed. These regions
were not only economically least developed but politically and militarily weak
exploited by other regions ( both semi-periphery and periphery ) but mainly by the
periphery. Specialises in the production of raw materials, agricultural products
and minerals with the use of forced labour. This was serfdom in Eastern Europe,
or slavery in Hispanic America. Th encomienda controlled the slavery in the
Spanish ruled colonies of S and C America while the donatarios did the same in
Portuguese-controlled Brazil.
Semi-Periphery -> Intermediate level of economic development, technology,
political and military power. It exploits the periphery, and is itself exploited by the
core. Produces both raw materials, as well as nished.manufactured goods. Has
both wage-labour as well as coerced cash - crop labour.
As per Wallerstein, capitalism emerged from the 1450s to the 1640s ( the long
sixteenth century ). Spain and Portugal were the rst capitalist states, which had a
core status courtesy their vast colonial empires. Soon they lost their core status,
which was transient, and slipped into the semi-periphery levels. Netherlands, then
England and Northern France were the rst to achieve true core status.
Wallerstein was criticised on several grounds. For instance, the modern-world
system emerged only after unequal exchange relations had developed
between the powerful cores and weak peripheries.His exploration of the
relation between the core and periphery was simply based on accepting the
unequal market exchange relations, and not explaining the factors that led to
certain states becoming cores and certain states becoming periphery.
Furthermore, he is accused of ignoring the internal dynamics of society.
Wallerstein is criticised on empirical grounds. The core-periphery trade hardly
co tributed to the total volume of trade, as claimed by Wallerstein. Paul
Bairoch and Patrick K. O’Brien's work shows that even as late as the 1790s,
hardly 4 percent of Europe's gross national product was exported beyond
national boundaries.
Furthermore, while Wallerstein treated European Absolutism in some of the
core economies as a distinctly capitalist phenomenon. For him, this was an
attempt by which commercial capitalists got together at a national level to
assert their chief interests in the international economy. This is empirically
contradicted by his own observations. Wallerstein identi es Netherlands and
England as the rst true cores, despite having weak state-structures, as
compared to states like Prussia, Sweden, Austro-Hungary, which weren’t core
regions, and had much stronger absolutism.

he agrees with Dobb that the ight of the serfs from land
was an important cause of the feudal crisis. Dobb assumed
that the crisis was internal to feudal system as it stemmed
from oppression. For Sweezy, the fundamental question is
that the serfs could not simply desert the manors unless
they had some place to go. Sweezy maintains that Dobb’s
theory of the internal causation of the breakdown of
feudalism could still be rescued if he had shown that the
rise of the towns was a process internal to the feudal
system.

M .M . Postan and H .J. Habakkuk are among the rst to stress the role of population in the long-term changes in the Robert Brenner criticises the Malthusian Model for depending on a built-in-mechanism of self-correction, based on the Malthusian Checks
economic structures ( Demographic explanation/Malthusian Model ). Abel, Verhulst, and Le Roy Ladurie also endorsed this ( disease, high infant mortality, famine, war ) controlling the growing divide between the rapidly burgeoning population and declining food
view. Brenner deems this model to have a built-in model of self-correction, determining its direction of change. supply due to constant use of soil ( and declining fertility ), via crises, each crisis marking a fresh beginning.

This theory was constructed against Sweezy's view that trade and market were the main cause of the decline of feudalism.
Postan argues that in the thirteenth century, in face of pressure from the world market of grains, the seigneurial reaction
tightened bondage on peasants, instead of bringing about the dissolution of serfdom. Clearly, the Market Force cannot be
treated as the prime-mover of the transition. It was only in Western Europe that capitalist development was facilitated by the
growing Market Pressure.
Malthusians assigned a determinist role to population. In the high middle ages, from the 11th to the 13th century, there was
signi cant economic and demographic growth, leading to overpopulation and a con ict between available resources and
demand of the increasing population. Marginal lands were now being used for food production, leading to declining returns
and shortage of food grains, and lowered productivity. There was fragmentation of landholdings, a decrease in wages and
increase in rents. There was an agrarian crisis in the feudal setup, since the natural economy could not increase production.
Famines, malnourishment and the Black Death epidemic led to sharp decline in population. Habbakuk applies this model to
the entire period between roughly eight centuries starting from the tenth century. He discovers a reversal in this trend from the
1450s. The demographic crisis of the fourteenth century caused severe shortage of labour and a sharp fall in incomes of the
landlords. This shifted the earlier social balance away from the aristocratic class towards the peasants.
Nobility responded in di erent ways.
a) New bondage
b) feudal dues into money rents
c) appropriated the land belonging to the peasants/common lands and turned them into pastures for sheep farming.
Brenner criticises the Malthusian model for not addressing long-term trends in income distribution. For Brenner, any explanation of the
progress of income-distribution in late-mediaeval and early-modern period should interpret not just the changing distribution pattern of
local produce, but also the distribution of property b/w lord and peasant, and the applicability of force in rent relationship. Such questions
of class relations and class power is considered autonomous from economic forces, as per Brenner.
As per Brenner, the demographic interpretation does not give any real causal explanation for why certain trends and conditions of total
production, economic growth and stagnation persist. He disagrees with the adequacy of Ladurie's explanation that the economic process
is essentially the direct result of apparently autonomous processes of technical innovation. He stresses the importance and singularity of
class relations and their structure in terms of economic processes.
He notes that di erent economic and social outcomes proceeded from similar demographic trends at di erent times and in di erent
areas of Europe. While in one region, the Malthusian crisis led to the di appearance of serfdom, in another region a counter-tendency
could be observed. This weakened the power of demographic trends as a singular factor for historical explanation. Similarly, France saw
fragmentation of holdings, rising rents and declining productivity due to the increase in population, while a similar growth in England led to
larger units of landholding and large tenant farmers who utilised wage-labour.
Guy Bois agrees that demography played a role in feudal crisis, disagreeing that it was solely economic mechanisms that were alone
responsible for the demographic regression. However, he disagrees with the demographic school of writers who consider it to be the
prime-mover. According to him, the fall in seigneurial revenue started the acute phase of crisis in feudalism that reorganised the relations
of production. Within feudalism, new economic patterns were taking root, fuelled by the growth of a foreign body based on the process of
accumulation. There was a transformation in the means of production into free commodities.

b) showed increasing monetisation, but it was c) that was showing a trend towards capitalist farming ( proletarianisation )
Wage-labourers emerged in greater numbers during this time, while a few tenant farmers became yeomen.

This was extended to the seventeenth century, thereby suggesting a cyclical process of demographic and economic
progress, and subsequent regression. This will continue until the economy is a natural economy.

Postan -> endogenous role to demography, merely viewing it in terms of demand exceeding supply.
fl
ff
ff
n­
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
fl
fi
fi
ff
fi
fl
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
ff
ff
fi
s­
fi
ffi
ff
fl
o­
ffi
fl
ff
 M .M . Postan and H .J. Habakkuk are among the rst to stress the role of population in the long-term changes in the
economic structures ( Demographic explanation/Malthusian Model ). Abel, Verhulst, and Le Roy Ladurie also endorsed this
view. Brenner deems this model to have a built-in model of self-correction, determining its direction of change.

This theory was constructed against Sweezy's view that trade and market were the main cause of the decline of feudalism.

Postan argues that in the thirteenth century, in face of pressure from the world market of grains, the seigneurial reaction
tightened bondage on peasants, instead of bringing about the dissolution of serfdom. Clearly, the Market Force cannot be
treated as the prime-mover of the transition. It was only in Western Europe that capitalist development was facilitated by the

Workspace 'Workspace' in 'Arvind Sinha - Europe in Transition_ From Feudalism to

growing Market Pressure.

Malthusians assigned a determinist role to population. In the high middle ages, from the 11th to the 13th century, there was
signi cant economic and demographic growth, leading to overpopulation and a con ict between available resources and
demand of the increasing population. Marginal lands were now being used for food production, leading to declining returns

Page 2 (row 2, column 1)

and shortage of food grains, and lowered productivity. There was fragmentation of landholdings, a decrease in wages and
increase in rents. There was an agrarian crisis in the feudal setup, since the natural economy could not increase production.
Famines, malnourishment and the Black Death epidemic led to sharp decline in population. Habbakuk applies this model to
the entire period between roughly eight centuries starting from the tenth century. He discovers a reversal in this trend from the
1450s. The demographic crisis of the fourteenth century caused severe shortage of labour and a sharp fall in incomes of the
landlords. This shifted the earlier social balance away from the aristocratic class towards the peasants.

Nobility responded in di erent ways.

a) New bondage
b) feudal dues into money rents
c) appropriated the land belonging to the peasants/common lands and turned them into pastures for sheep farming.

b) showed increasing monetisation, but it was c) that was showing a trend towards capitalist farming ( proletarianisation )
Wage-labourers emerged in greater numbers during this time, while a few tenant farmers became yeomen.

This was extended to the seventeenth century, thereby suggesting a cyclical process of demographic and economic
progress, and subsequent regression. This will continue until the economy is a natural economy.
Postan -> endogenous role to demography, merely viewing it in terms of demand exceeding supply.
Abel suggests that the trend towards commercial production and trade in farm products was restricted by an increase in the
rural population and because of the self-su cient character of peasant agriculture. Abel assigns demography an external
role, as a factor a ecting the fall in prices in the fourteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as a result of stagnation or
reduction in population due to epidemics and wars.
Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie supports the hypotheses of the demographic model on statistical grounds, as well as introducing
climatic factors into it. He argues that ‘it is in the economy, in social relations and even more fundamentally, in biological
facts, rather than in the class struggle, that we must seek the motive force in history’
Robert Brenner made great strides in advancing Dobb's account, extending the property-relations/inner-contradiction model.
Like Dobb, he rejects Capitalism as a trade-based division of labour. He stresses on merchant capital being the catalyst for the transition to
capitalism.
As discussed before, he had two major problems with demographic model, namely its failure to explain (a) the decline versus the
persistence of serfdom, and (b) the emergence and predominance of secure small peasant-property versus the rise of landlord or large
tenant-farmer relations to land.
For Brenner, the structure of class relations determines the in uence of demographic or commercial change in the distribution of income
and economic growth, not vice versa. Brenner views the class structure as having two uni ed aspects
(a) the relations of the direct producers to one another, to their tools and their land in the immediate process of production, called the
‘labour process’ or the ‘social relations of production’, and (b) the inherently con ictive ‘relations of property’ that is always guaranteed by
force, i.e. the extraction of surplus from the producers by di erent means called the 'surplus-extraction' relationships.
This class structure emerges autonomously and is not shaped by or altered by changes in commerce or demography. These impose limits
on economic development. Brenner agrees with Postan that demographic crisis was inherent in the mediaeval economy, but the crisis was
not due to demographic factors, but instead because a serf-based feudal agricultural economy was unable to innovate even due to market
pressure. Surplus extraction by the lords left peasant without the funds that were required to maintain holding and prevent decline in
productivity. This surplus was wasted on military expenditure and luxury goods.

peasant accumulation, of peasant productivity and ultimately of peasant subsistence ( remember wrt
demographic crisis ka explanation )
According to Brenner, the previous evolutions of rural society provide the explanation of the divergent socio-
economic paths taken by Eastern and Western Europe.
He takes case of W vs E Germany. In W Germany, peasants had organised themselves through local village
institutions to defend themselves against landords. These provided economic regulations, preserved the
rights of inheritance, fixed rents and provided magistrates. In contrast, E Germany had very limited
development of village institutions defending the class interests of peasants. He extends W Germany ka
argument to most parts of W Europe, thereby contending that peasants were able to bring about the
dissolution of serfdom, unlike E Europe where the seigneurial attacks and control could not be countered.
economic backwardness of Eastern Europe cannot be the result of its dependence upon trade. in primary
products to the West. Rather the dependence on grain exports was a result of backwardness and unequal
distribution of income that was rooted in the nature of class structure.
Brenner -> Feudalism involved fusion b/w economic and political. He uses the term political accumulation as one of the key features of
feudal dynamics, referring to intrafeudal military con icts, military expansion and the self-organisation of elites against rival elites.
State Formation -> Comparison b/w England and France. In France the state itself developed feudal class character, defending rural
communities for its own bene ts in the competition with the landed nobility. In the thirteenth century, the state placed itself against the
landlords in Paris. The state was able to increase its power by intervening between peasants and landlords to ensure peasant freedom,
heritability and xed rents. They prevented rural di erentiation and agrarian transformation.
The state was able to extract considerable surplus from the peasants, though it was spent on non-productive expenditure.
In England, from the late 15th century, Monarchical centralisation emerged. However this was dependent on the landlord classes, and not a
peasant-based form. Neither could this centralisation become absolutist. English peasantry had become free by this stage through
resistance and ights, but the English landed aristocracy raised rents and nes to such an extent that small tenant farmers were forced to
leave. The subsequent enclosure movement also undermined peasant property. The English Landowners undermined peasant
proprietorship and suppressed peasant resistance, thereby leading to agrarian capitalism based on free wage-labour and large units of
production during the 16th and 17th century. Brenner therefore underlines the importance of productive use of agricultural surplus in the
class relations of England, as opposed to simply the rise in population, markets or grain prices, that led to England's economic
development

Perry Anderson -> Eclectic Marxism.

a) Accepts Malthusian notion of cyclic phases of imbalance between population and food supply, and includes in his analysis
Critiques of the Brenner Thesis b) Partially accepts importance of towns and international trade

a) Heide Wunder nds aws in Brenner's study, which she deems as full of factual inaccuracies based on secondary
literature and not primary research. One example was his presentation of class structures in Germany.
b) Patrica Croote and David Parker consider his explanation of contrasting develo ments in England and France
unsatisfactory and too general. For instance in France, they accuse Brenner of overstating the independence of
peasantry, while in England, Brenner is said to have overstated the lord-centric explanation, missing out the role of
customary-tenants and short-term leaseholders. Furthermore, while the most spectacular growth of agrarian capitalism
took place after the English Revolution, many of the capitalist farmers were those of the traditional aristocracy.
c) Focuses on production relations and class structures, believing that change in social relations preceded the development of forces of production in
the emergence of capitalism. Unlike Brenner who traces the di erences in origins of capitalism to di erent class-relations, Anderson does not propose
any simple evolutionary theory of change within feudalism based on class struggle resulting in feudal crisis.
d) He assigns a role to political factors in the transition as well.
point c) and d) are explained through a novel, super-structural explanation.

c) Postan and J Hatcher insist that Brenner misunderstood the Malthusian Model. they never assigned an al e) Unique element of his analysis was his act of assigning a role to the superstructure, including the legal system, in the transition to capitalism. For
determining role to the demographic trends in medieval society at the expense of social factors. Their reason for e ‐ Anderson, the Juridicial traditions played a determining role in the transition to capitalism, rst in England, then in France and later in other regions.
phasizing demographic factors is to relate periodic movements and economic uctuations to long-term historical Anderson argues that the incorporation of Roman Law into the Feudal System played the primary role in the eventual emergence of the capitalist
trends absolute property rights, bringing about a fundamental transformation in feudal property relationship and providing a llip to centralisation. As per
d) Exclusive concern for surplus-extraction relations distorts view of relationship b/w lords and peasants, exaggerating Anderson, the relative absence of Roman Law in E Europe retarded the emergence in capitalist property relationship there.
the importance of rent and its elasticity.
e) Guy Bois agrees with Brenner's emphasis on class-struggle but disagrees with Brenner's regional approach. He
believes that the birth of capitalism is a by-product of the soci -economic functioning of the feudal system as a whole,
which was replete with inequality of developments leading to divergence in historical development.
f) Brenner puts a lot of emphasis on large-scale units of production. However Dobb and Hilton had traced the complex
processes in rural social di erentiation through which even some small peasant-proprietors could become capitalist
farmers.
g) Ladurie criticises Brenner's explanation of agricultural and capitalist development as being far too unilinear. He cites
Holland, Belgium, parts of France and Japan where small farming catered to the working population of the new
industrial capitalism, instead of there being disintegration of small farmers in the path to capitalism. The destruction of
the peasantry and large - scale farming on the English model could be another route to capitalist development but not
the sole path.

In recent years, the decline of feudalism and the rise of capitalism have been generally explained outside the
classical models, and on line with the world-system approach.

Andre Gunder Frank rejects the notion that there was any qualitative shift from feudalism to capitalism in the
sixteenth century. He in fact rejects terms like feudalism or capitalism as distinct modes of production. For him, the
process of capital accumulation had been going on since 3000 B C when we see the Urban Revolution and the
advent of States.

Janet Abu-Lughod follows the world-system approach and suggests that the rise of the capitalist world order began
not in the sixteenth century but as early as about A D 1250. She argues that this system was truly global but instead
of describing Europe as the core region she considers Asia, or more speci cally China as the core zone and Europe
as the periphery. She objects to the Eur centric approach and nds nothing special in it during this period. It was
the economic decline and withdrawal of China and the breaking up of the oriental link that gave the West an
opportunity to expand. These writings highlight the importance of world-trade networks.

There are some other writers who give credit to the nation-states for the rise of capitalism. Like Anderson, they also
suggest that the rise of nation-states rationalized law, freed land for market speculations, removed internal barriers,
established standardized taxation, uniform currencies and brought about redistribution of incomes. However,
these views have still to gain ground and the debate on transition remains unresolved.
fi
fl
fi
fi
ff
fl
ff
ff
fi
o­
ffi
ff
fi
fl
ff
fl
o­
ff
fi
fi
fi
fl
fl
p­
fl
fi
fi
ff
l­
m­
fi