One of the liveliest academic debates in recent times relate to the question of what led to

the decline of feudalism and the rise of capitalism. It is commonly identified as the
‘transition debate’. The Dobb-Sweezy transition debate began between the Marxists and
later amongst shifted to the Marxist and non-Marxist scholars too. The main controversy
began on the issues such as the causes that led to the transition, whether these were
internal or external; the principal social class responsible for this transition and the class
that dominated the society during this change; whether it was market or the class struggle
that delivered the output of this transition and the second issue was the stages in the
transition [whether it was a result of two stages (Dobb) or three stages (Sweezy)].
This unending debate began with the publication of Maurice Dobb’s stimulating work-
“studies in the development of capitalism” (1946). It was vehemently challenged by Paul
Sweezy, who also gained the support of Wallenstein. This debate expanded among wider
range of historian who supported either Dobb or Sweezy. Dobbs views are strongly
supported and elaborated by scholars such as Hilton, Porchnev, hill, Takahashi, Anderson
and many others.
Henri Pirenne has given a background to this debate. According to him, the classical
understanding of the decline of feudalism and consequent rise of capitalism was in term of a
so called “commercialization model”. The primary tenant of this model was the socio-
economic formations in Europe in the feudal period were primarily determined by the
decline and revival if trade in the Mediterranean region. The waning of Islamic power in the
11th-13th century in this region led to the revival of European trade, which had widespread
effect on the European feudal system. It led to the growth of new trade- communication,
rise of town, percolation of money etc. Capitalism was thus coming home to the Europeans.
In 1946, Maurice Dobb published his work ‘Study in the Development of Capitalism’. His
work challenged the ‘Commercialisation Model’. In his work, he tried to highlight issue
related to the factors responsible for the transition from feudal society to capitalist society.
He provides the first major explanation for the decline of feudalism. Dobb asserts that the
feudal economy can’t simply be described as ‘natural economy’. According to him, trade
never disappeared from feudal society and in fact could be a significant part of the feudal
society. Hence development of trade does it for the desolation of feudalism. Dobb
representing the classical Marxist approach assigns the decisive role to internal relations of
feudalism. He feels that the need of additional revenue promoted and increased the
pressure on the producer to a point where this pressure became unbearable. According to
Dobb and many other scholars like Hilton, Takahashi and Eric Hobsbawn, it is internal
relationship of feudal mode of production that determines the system’s disintegration. The
absence of technology, low productivity, of the manorial economy, the attempts by lords to
augment taxes, an increased need of revenue for wars, brigandage and crusades and the
extravagances of the nobles, combined to act as a drain on feudal revenue and pushed
feudalism towards crisis. Moreover, Dobb says, desolation of feudalism was very slow and
uneven all over Europe, due to various factors. One of the factors was the access of the
peasantry to alternative places with fewer feudal restrictions. Another important factor was
the relative political power of the land owning class and serfs. This differed in various parts
of Europe. In Western Europe, peasants had managed to accumulate small freedom and
rights for themselves over the centuries and gradually the balance of power tilted towards
the peasantry to such an extent that when 14 th century feudal crisis occurred, the peasantry
was able to use it at their advantage. Thus, in the 11th century continuous depredation of
land of western tribes ended. This led to an agrarian revival and extension of agriculture
leading to expanding population. By the end of 13th century and the beginning of 14th
century, Land-Man ratio reached proportions where population may out stripped
production. The ensuing massive scarcity of labour underlay the 14th century feudal crisis.
After the feudal crisis, feudal relations crumbled and the feudal mode of production reached
an advance stage of disintegration. But this didn’t immediately lead to smooth capitalist
relation. There was a period of transition, characterised by production that was neither
feudal nor yet capitalist. Independent from feudalism, this mode of production was
characterised as ‘petty mode of production’. According to Dobb, once the petty mode had
freed itself from feudal control, the process of social differentiation within petty mode
started, leading to accumulation of capital.
The transition to capitalism was a long drawn process which took in different phases.
Hobsbawn supports and elaborates the arguments of Dobb. He points out the transition
from feudal to capitalist mode of production was uneven and not straightforward process.
Hilton says, the crisis of feudalism also involves the most advanced section of ‘bourgeois’
development within the feudal system. For Hobsbawn, the definite triumph of capitalism is
reflected through the industrial, American and French revolution.
Rodney Hilton lends full support to the ‘property relation’ perspective of Dobb. He agrees
that the growth and decay of feudalism was the result of the factors operating within it and
he considers feudal rents to be the prime mover. He suggests that the fundamental law of
feudal society was the tendency of the exploiting class to realize the maximum rent from
the labour of direct producers. This conflict with the necessities of social growth resulted in
a contraction within the exploiting class itself. The member of this class began to compete
with each other to establish their domination. This strives for power lead to increase the
feudal rent to maintain their position. Thus, it was struggle for power and land control that
ignited the crisis in which feudal rent became prime mover.
Dobb argues that it were the internal factors with the feudal society he describes as
‘dynamic mode of production’ that led the transition towards capitalism. According to him,
the wastage and inefficiency of the feudal mode of production brought about the crisis in
the 14th century, with this the continuous wars and excessive exploitative nature of this
system which caused a number of evidences of peasant protest accelerated the process
towards transition. He also argued that this feudalism was a 2 stage process i.e. between
9th-17th century the society was feudal dominant and with the start of 18 th century, the
transition to capitalism took place.
Sweezy objects Dobb’s identification of feudalism and his explanation for the transition, he
is of the opinion that Dobb’s theory has a number of problems associated with it. He is of
the opinion that there was no major historical work to support Dobb’s analysis and the
major works that are present are against his theory. There are significant aspects in his
analysis that no historical evidence supports and does not sustain his analysis (such as the
‘stage of realisation’). He also critiques Dobb for projecting the internal factors responsible
for the transition but he fails to explain the motor force resulting only in transition to
capitalism. He also objects Dobb’s identification of feudalism with ‘serfdom’ as
interchangeable terms, and calls his definition inadequate. He also disagrees with Dobb’s
analysis that the transition process was a 2 stage process as for him it was a 3 stage process
(i.e. 9th-14th century, feudalism was a dominant process; 14th-17th century was an interim
phase which was distinct from both feudalism and capitalism in its economic, social and
political characters, and the last was the 18th century which saw the rise of capitalism.
According to Paul Sweezy, the distinctive feature of feudalism was its objective of
production (i.e. for self-consumption rather than for market). Hence, it is a mode of
production that lacks trade and market.
Sweezy along with the support from Wallenstein bring out the role of market and exchange
economy in the decline of feudalism and rise of capitalism. Sweezy provides an alternative
antithetical view. He adopts a market centric approach called “commercial model”. The
main characteristic of feudal mode according to Sweezy was actually a “system of
production” for use that is the amount to be produced is known and limited. He looked at
the economy of lord’s manor- one using serfs/labour, production for the lord, his retinue
and dependent population that is, a limited circle. According to him, the rise of exchange
economy that led to monetization of relations between feudal lords and the peasants mass
somehow signalled the dissolution of feudalism. He believes that the external factor was the
prime mover, as he identifies primarily the expansion of trade. Though he is not very
detailed about from where to begin looking for trade, he says, there were several ways in
which the “system of production” for exchange acted upon the system of production for
use. First, it provided a wide variety of communities, sufficient to draw out the feudal
classes into market. In this manner it makes them willing to enter the system of exchange
production. Thus, the feudal lords were connected to the market in a sure way. The need to
buy generated a pressure to sell and the only way they could sell, was to produce more
efficiently, therefore there was a need to re organise the manors. This really changed the
system of production for use.
He is of the opinion that it was the external factors such as 1) long distance trade and
market 2) urban trading centres 3) the merchant class which were responsible factors for
the transition.
He explains that the revival of long distance trade in the 14th century played an important
role in the transformation. Also the emergence of urban centres acted as magnets to the
over-exploited peasants and led to mass migration resulting in the dissolution of feudal ties
and relations. These new centres emerged politically outside the feudalism and belonged to
the new class of merchants, the urban centre economy was no longer a self-production unit
but catered to long distance. He believed that it was the emergence of urban centres that
led to the decline of feudalism as without it, the emergence of long distance trade could not
bring the change and the new social class of merchants that emerged in these centres
provided leadership to the process of transition.
According to Dobb, while defining feudalism Sweezy gives over emphasis on the nature of
circulation and consumption to determine the nature of feudal mode of production, which
was incorrect because in the Marxist mode of production, the nature of production
determined the nature of consumption and not vice-versa. The factors pointed out as
external according to Dobb, were actually internal processes.
Dobb believes that trade and market were important for feudalism as any other market. He
also points out that the merchant class was not extinct in feudal system, as they traded in
luxurious objects and the trade that emerged during 14th-17h century was feudal trading
class. The principal factors for transition pointed out by Sweezy were incorrect as capitalism
did not occur in urban centres, prime trading centres or place that had numerous merchant
class population. He cites the example of Manchester, north England which first
experienced rise of capitalism which was rural in character and not urban. He also points out
the reasons given by Sweezy to describe feudalism as static was incorrect as it was dynamic
mode as according to him, feudalism never stabilizes.
Dobb is of the opinion that it was the role of “independent petty producers” that was far
more significant in transition than that of merchant class as they invested their profits in a
very different way as compared to the merchant class who did not invest to widen the
production base but to purchase feudal property and titles, etc. whereas the independent
petty producers invested in modernization and in the expansion of the mode of production,
hence their role was far more revolutionary than that of the merchant class, this conclusion
was deprived from Marx’s tropical vol II. Dobb calls long distance trade as a subordinate
cause which Sweezy has pointed as the principle cause. Dobb also believes that class
equilibrium that Sweezy believes, can never exist and was his piece of imagination as it was
the aristocrat class that was dominant and the subsequent works prove it.
Takahashi argues that the belief that the emergence of money rent was somehow
incompatible with the feudal economic relations is not borne out by evidence. He rejects
Sweezy’s thesis and suggests that the contradiction between feudalism and capitalism is not
the contradiction between ‘system of production for use’ and ‘system of production for
market’ but between feudal land and industrial capital. He observes that Sweezy had not
given a clear and explicit definition of feudalism and asserts that several of his criticism of
Dobb was not substantive and in fact it was just word play. He assigns the role of prime
movers to inner contradiction and says that trade influences the process of disintegration
only to the extent to which, these internal contradictions have been worked out. He says,
Dobb is right in saying that origins of capitalism should be seen not in the utilities of
bourgeoisie but in small bourgeois. He also critics Dobb for claiming he was wrong in saying
that the putting out system in the first way is a transitional phase. He finds Sweezy more
correct here. He finds Dobb confused between the putting out system and the domestic
 system. He writes that the way in which capitalism develops id determined by pre-existingsocial
structure.
Giuliano Procacci feels that while Dobb and others writers are convincing in their regulation of Pirenne’s
thesis. They are less convincing in their historical reconstruction of the internal dialectic of feudalism, for
they often seem defensive and critical.
Hill also intervened in the debate and said that until feature of feudalism had fully disappeared one
cannot speak of the passage of feudalism so this was the period of decline of feudalism with
simultaneous development of capitalism and supports Dobb’s theory of transition.
The debate between Dobb and Sweezy was on every aspect of this transition. For Dobb, the definition of
feudalism has 2 key aspects (force of labour, form of exploitation) whereas for Sweezy it was the
objective of production that was of importance. Dobb called feudalism as a dynamic mode of production
to which Sweezy disagreed and instead called it a static mode of production. The debate was also on the
matter of causes whether external (Sweezy) or internal (Dobb) factors led to this transition. This debate
still remains unsolved and with every new discovery it is again open for debate among the historians.

The Class-Relations Model: For Brenner, it is the structure of class relations that determine the manner and degree
to which particular demographic or commercial change will affect long-term trends in the distribution of income and
economic growth, not vice versa. • Through comparative analysis, Brenner explains how different class structures
and their historical developments determined specific historical outcomes in transition to capitalism. By comparing
the agrarian class-relations in England and France, he highlights the role of the state. In France, the centralized state
appears to have developed in the large parts, feudal class character. The state was able to increase its power by
intervening between peasants and landlords to ensure peasant freedom, hereditability and fixed rents. It made
rulers independent of parliamentary taxation and helped in perpetuating small peasants and at the same time
prevented rural differentiation and agrarian transformation. In England the state support enabled the English landed
aristocracy to raise rents and fines to such levels that small tenant farmers were forced to leave. The enclosure
movement undermined peasant property, thereby introducing differentiation in peasant population and opening the
path to agricultural capitalism. This was based on free wage-labour and large units of production during the
sixteenth and seventeenth century. Brenner insists that it was not the rising population or markets and grain prices
but the productive use of agricultural surplus that was they key to England’s economic development. • Brenner
suggests that the contradiction between the development of peasant production and the relations of surplus
extraction that defined the class relations of serfdom tended to lead to a crisis of peasant accumulation, of peasant
productivity and ultimately of peasant subsistence (Brenner Debate). The crisis was accompanied by an
intensification of the class conflict inherent in the existing structure. Citing the example of western Germany where
the peasants had organised themselves through local village institutions as a powerful line of defence against the
incursions of landlords; he contends that the peasants were able to considerably limit the claims of the aristocracy
and helped the process of the dissolution of serfdom. He also contends that the cause of dependence on grain
exports and backwardness and unequal distribution of income in East Germany was rooted in the nature of class
structure. • A number of scholars however criticized Brenner thesis. H Wunder finds flaws in Brenner’s study full of
factual inaccuracies as it was based on secondary literature and not on original research. M M Postan and John
Hatcher insist that Brenner’s class relations model cannot sufficiently replace their own model and they counter
Brenner’s criticism by insisting that they never assigned an all determining role to the demographic trends in
medieval society at the expense of social factors. • Guy Bois generally agrees with Brenner’s criticism of the
Malthusian model and his stress on the decisive role assigned to the class struggle in the long-term evolution of
capitalism, but he believes that the birth of capitalism is by-product of the socio economic functioning of the feudal
system as a whole and not confined to regions, as brought out by Brenner. Another criticism made against Brenner is
his belief that the development of capitalism is based on large-scale units of production. Dobb and Hilton had
emphasized on the complex process that led to rural social differentiation in which even some small peasant-
proprietors could become capitalist farmers over a long period of time. Patrica Croote and David Parker argue that
the real agricultural revolution was a long-term process of good husbandry involving new techniques and crops. Thus
the peasants may provide impetus to economic development. According to them, Brenner misunderstood the
position of the peasantry in France and hence exaggerates its independence. In England he provides a ‘lord centric’
explanation and misses out the role of ‘customary tenants’ and ‘short term leaseholders’. • Another viewpoint worth
mentioning is that of Perry Anderson. Like Dobb and Hilton he believes that changes in social relations preceded the
development of productive forces in the emergence of capitalism. Like Brenner he assigns a role to political factors
in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. He partially accepts the importance of towns and international trade.
For Anderson the primary element in the eventual emergence of the capitalist absolute property rights was the
incorporation of Roman Law into the feudal system. This helped the process of centralization and brought about
fundamental transformation in feudal property relationship. • There are some other writers who give credit to the
nation-states for the rise of capitalism. Like Anderson they 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.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY :

1. Arvind Sinha : Europe in Transition – From Feudalism to Industralization.

2. Maurice Dobb – Studies in the Development of Capitalism
3. Alfred F. Havighurst (ed.) – The Pirenne Thesis: Analysis, Criticism, and
Revision
4. Rodney Hilton (ed.) – The Transition form Feudalism to Capitalism
5. www.unacademy.com
6. Class notes