RISE OF MODERN WEST

ASSIGNMENT
NAME: HARSHITA SRIVASTAVA
BA HONS(HISTORY)
SECOND YEAR
ROLL NO. 232416
INTRODUCTION
Feudalism which was the dominant social, political, and cultural system characterized by land
ownership and obligations was prominent in the medieval West from the 9th to 15th centuries. The
period between the end of feudalism and the rise of capitalism was the transition period from where
the transition debate originated. This transition birthed a question- as to what led to this decline;
external or internal factors. Many scholars have put forward their arguments with evidence to
substantiate their statements. However, most of these arguments are critiqued by other scholars
such as Hilton critiqued Dobb. Brenner also played a prominent role however he didn't essentially
participate in the debate. Most of initial discussions in this debate focused entirely on Europe.
Brenner and Anderson emphasized European developments, while Anderson highlighted the Roman
legacy as key to start of feudalism and evolution of capitalist private property. Therefore, we can
observe a Eurocentric approach to this debate by certain scholars.

DOBBS THEORY ON DECLINE OF FEUDALISM-

Maurice Dobb was a British economist and Marxist who wrote the book ’ Studies in Development of
Capitalism’ in 1946 which discussed the transition period in great detail.

 MAIN THEORY- He focused mainly on means of production. He also equated feudalism to

serfdom which he defined as an obligation on the producer to fulfill certain economic
demands of an overlord, in cash, kind or services performed. He regarded feudalism as a
static system based on exploitation. Once this exploitation reached its limit, it led to the
peasant rebellion of the 14th century which caused the decline of serfdom.
Regarding the decline, Dobb discusses that evidence suggests that the growth of the money
economy could lead to the expansion of feudalism as much as it could lead to its decline.
Therefore, he argues that the cause of the decline of feudalism was not trade but an internal
cause i.e. over-exploitation of the labor force. Serfs deserted the lords' estates altogether,
and the remaining ones were too overworked to keep the system going. These internal
developments forced the feudal ruling class to commute labor forces and lease demesne
lands to tenant farmers.

 DOBB’S VIEW ON THE TRANSITION PERIOD- According to Dobb’s the transition period falls
between 14th and 16th century. For the characteristics of this period, Dobb discusses the
coming of the wealthy merchant bourgeoisie and absolutist monarchy, majority of small
 tenants paying money, most of the estates being farmed by hired labor, and freehold farmers
showcasing independence from feudalism. However, he qualifies his own argument by
stating that social relations retained their medieval character, therefore pointing to the
period’s feudal character.

 DOBB’S VIEW ON RISE OF CAPITALISM- Dobb had two theses on rise of capitalism-
•The Revolutionary Way: In this, a few producers with their savings were able to start trade
and with time, break free from the constraints of guilds. They therefore were able to
organize production in a new, capitalist manner.
• The Non-Revolutionary Way: In the second instance, a few merchants started to assume
command of the actual production process. This aided in the shift to capitalism, but
eventually these merchants became a barrier to full capitalist development as their way of
organizing production became outdated and declined.

Dobb focuses more on the first way as he upholds that class structure and class relations which are
revolutionary factors gave way to Petty Production(i.e. commodity production) in the transition
period which included the Petty industrial producers and free tenants(kulak).

CRITIQUE OF DOBB BY RODNEY HILTON- In his book ‘The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism’,he
states that the decline in feudalism was both due to internal and external causes. However, the
specific impact of events like serfs fleeing lands was shaped by the relationship between the serfs
and their feudal [Link] argues that Dobb ignores the rise of town as a major factor for serfs
fleeing the land. He claims that exploitation wasn’t enough to cause them to leave the land and
therefore, came the role of towns and the new opportunities they offered.

PAUL SWEAZY CRITIQUE OF DOBB

Sweezy was a dedicated Marxist whose ideas had influence of Pirenne. There is a profound
methodological distance between Dobb’s analysis and that of Sweezy rising from their definition of
feudalism and the nature of the system.

 DEFINITION OF FEUDALISM- In his article, ‘A Critique’, Sweazy argued against the definition
of feudalism proposed by Dobb. For, Sweazy feudalism was a self-sufficient production in
contrast to Dobb's idea that feudalism equated to serfdom. He focuses mainly on relations
of exchange. Sweazy views feudalism as a production of use while on the other hand, Dobb
identifies it from the view of social relations. Therefore, for transition to capitalism, Dobb
relates it to change in social relations while Sweazy concentrates on the shifts in production
from use to exchange.

 PRIME MOVER OF FEUDALISM- He raised the key question about the "prime mover" in
feudalism which translates to the internal contradictions within the feudal system that led to
its development and eventual decline. Sweezy suggests that feudalism had no such internal
driving force. According to him, the prime mover was an external factor, primarily the
expansion of trade which led to rise of the merchant class.
  PRE-CAPITALIST COMMUNITY PRODUCTION SYSTEM- This was the system in function during
the transition period according to Sweezy. He discusses how merchants and mercantile
capital were the carriers of this system contradicting Dobb’s view by using the non-
revolutionary way to describe the rise of capitalism. He explains that artisans became free
laborers in cities, while merchants gained wealth. During feudalism, merchants traded in the
countryside, but in the transition period, they approached artisans, encouraging them to
produce, a practice known as the "pulling-out system."

 DOBBS CRITIQUE OF SWEEZY- Maurice Dobb criticizes Sweazy for oversimplifying mode of
production by focusing too much on relations of exchange. After Sweezy's critique, Dobb
amended his view of static nature of feudalism and described it as having qualitative
dynamics. He argued that both early and transitional feudalism was still feudal, with mainly
two components: natural (self-sufficiency) and monetary (production for exchange).
Therefore, he states that exchange alone couldn't be the cause of the rise of capitalism
contradicting Sweazy. Most of Historians (mainly Marxists) take a stand against Sweazy's
opinions arguing for the importance of internal causes.

HENRI PIRENNE
Henri Pirenne contributed to this debate by providing a background. The "Commercialization model"
was proposed by him, explaining the decline of feudalism and the rise of [Link] discusses how
the trade in Mediterranean declined in the Dark Ages. With the decline of Islamic power in the 11th
and 13th centuries, European trade revived, leading to the growth of towns and new trade networks.
This, Pirenne suggested, gave the way for the rise of capitalism.

DEMOGRAPHIC MODEL
Scholars like M. M. Postan, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, and W. Abel developed a demographic model
in order to explain medieval Europe’s economic changes, particularly serfdom. They argued that
population growth often exceeded agricultural capacity, leading to famine and plague, which wiped
out populations and restored balance. This cyclical population rise and fall influenced the liberty or
freedom of peasants**, as labor shortages boosted their bargaining power, while surges reduced it.

 INCREASE AND DECREASE OF POPULATION ON SERFDOM-

13th century- During periods of **population growth**,like in 13th century Europe
experienced economic growth, **rapid rise in prices** for food, shelter, and raw materials.
Initially, wages kept up with inflation, but as population pressure mounted, **real wages**
fell while rents and interest rates surged. This created an economic strain on peasants.
14th century- The Black Death in the 14th century swept off about 25-40% of Europe's
population, causing food prices to drop while labor wages increased due to shortages. As
there was no longer a need for landlords to bind peasants, feudalism declined as a result of
this depopulation.
  MALTHUSIAN MODEL- The Malthusian model assumes limited agricultural productivity and a
population growing beyond available land resources. It was Le Roy Ladurie**who introduced
this model, where population fluctuations caused pauperization and intensified class conflict.
Different phases of agrarian cycles were identified by him: the low water mark (11th-15th
centuries), expansion (late 15th- 1600), maturity (1600- 1650), and recession (1650-1700), all
closely linked to demographic changes. The demographic approach, at times called "secular
Malthusianism," has replaced earlier theories connecting transition to market expansion.

CRITIQUE BY BRENNER- Dobb's argument against this model relies on instances of "distinct
outcomes" arising from "similar demographic trends in different parts of Europe at different times."
This was a Eurocentric approach that overlooked the complexities of demographic changes in other
parts of the world.

BRENNER’S DEBATE
Brenner argues that there is no difference between the decline of feudalism and rise of capitalism.
He considers feudalism with manorism to be synonymous terms. He also focuses on ‘extra-economic
coercion’ (exploitation). He draws contrast by telling how by the 14th century, control over land was
crucial, but late in the century, new developments such as the removal of common rights and the
displacement of small peasants emerged. The imperative for serfs was securing greater security
rights, keeping low rents, reducing exploitation etc.

 ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION OF BRENNER: CLASS RELATIONS- While Dobb focused on the

means of production Brenner focused on relations of production. He was of view that class
relations were the driving force behind economic transitions and not trade or the argument
of neo-Malthusian model. In the class relations, he explains the ruler's power structure i.e.
relative powers of lords and peasants, the strength of a village community, its population,
and the proximity of peasant's houses.

 REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN CLASS STRUGGLES- He lays out certain case studies to prove his
arguments. In France, he showcases how peasant’s exploitation led to the gentrification of
feudal rents, converting them into taxes. As a result, peasants gained wealth, stopping the
development of capitalism. In Britain, peasants were partially successful, as the nobility
retained control over land and threw out smaller farmers. This led to the rise of agrarian
capitalism, as landlords started leasing land to capitalist tenants, therefore enabling large
capitalist farms to emerge.

CRITICISM OF BRENNER - Aston in his work, “The Brenner Debate” highlights Brenner's conceptual
confusion between population trends and labor scarcity. Guy Bois argues that Brenner overlooks the
broader role of the forces of production and criticizes Brenner's exclusion of medieval markets from
feudal society, emphasizing that landlords used markets to coerce peasants and extract surplus.
TAKAFUSA TAKAHASHI
He argued that Japanese feudalism resembled that of the West, and its shift to capitalism was driven
internally, influenced by Western imperialism. He linked Japan's “top-down capitalist structure” as
cause of this process. The Meiji Restoration was the result of the end of feudalism.

CRITIQUE- Anderson disagreed with Takahashi's reasoning of internal contradictions to end

feudalism as he argued that the separation of Japan from the world market blocked its independent
evolution from feudalism toward capitalism pointing out to need for trade to ignite the evolution.

CONCLUSION
The decline of feudalism and the rise of capitalism is one of the most lively debates in academics.
One single factor cannot be regarded for the transition, as it was a complex process with many
diversities. There was regional variation in this process as evident from the case of Japan. Many
important scholars like Dobb, Sweezy, Brenner etc emerged in this debate providing their
[Link] transition debate, therefore became an important part of academic history.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 THE TRANSITION FROM FEUDALISM TO CAPITALISM- RODNEY HILTON
 THE BRENNER DEBATE - T.H ALTON AND C. H. E. PHILPIN

EUROCENTRICISM -2 PAGES

Eurocentrism sees all knowledge emerging from Europe, particularly in the context of European
modernity, which is characterized by linear time and universal progress. This narrative incorporates
two key ideas: the superiority of Western civilization (progress and reason) and the continuous
growth of capitalism (modernization and market creation). often prioritizing European experiences,
values, and histories while marginalizing other regions and cultures.

: Traditionally, the concept of feudalism was developed in Europe, particularly in medieval France and
England, and was applied universally to describe social and political systems across different
[Link] Progression: Eurocentrism often portrays European history as a
linear progression from feudalism to modernity, emphasizing the "uniqueness" of
European historical development.

1. Focus on European Internal Development

Eurocentrism emphasizes internal European changes, such as the decline of feudal structures,
the rise of centralized monarchies, and the growth of trade and commerce. Historians within this
tradition often argue that Europe's shift from feudalism to capitalism was the result of a long
process of political, economic, and social evolution that took place within Europe itself such as
war, population shifts, and economic challenges.

 Rise of Capitalism: The growth of markets, trade, and financial institutions in Europe,
particularly in cities and emerging nation-states, is seen as central to the rise of capitalism.
 The development of banking systems, the growth of merchant classes, and the accumulation
of capital are viewed as key elements in this transition.

2. Neglect of External Influences- Eurocentric perspectives often downplay the role of external
factors, such as global trade networks, colonialism, and interactions with non-European
civilizations, in the development of capitalism. External influences such as the influx of wealth
from the Americas, the rise of the Atlantic slave trade, and the interaction with Asian and African
markets are frequently minimized in traditional Eurocentric accounts.

 Colonial Exploitation: Eurocentrism often underplays the role of European colonialism and
the exploitation of resources from colonies in shaping the capitalist system. The wealth
generated through the exploitation of colonies is typically viewed as secondary to the
internal European economic processes that were said to have led to capitalism.

2. The Role of the Church and Religion

In the Eurocentric view, the Catholic Church and religious institutions played a significant role in
shaping European societal [Link] shifts (like the Protestant Reformation) are viewed
as enabling the growth of a capitalist mindset focused on individualism and material success.

3. The Influence of the Nation-State- Eurocentrism views the rise of strong, centralized nation-
states in Europe, particularly in France and England, as crucial for the transition to capitalism.
Monarchs like Henry VII in England and Louis XIV in France centralized power, reducing feudal
fragmentation and creating a unified economy. This centralization supported the development of
laws and infrastructure that facilitated trade and commerce. Additionally, mercantilist policies,
which promoted state control over resources, trade, and industry, are seen as key to establishing
capitalist systems in Europe. These factors are viewed as essential in shaping Europe's capitalist
growth.