Assignment: Rise of Modern West 1

3 Semester

Submitted by Submitted to

Sidra Aditya sir

BA History hons ( 2 year)

232448

Date of submission: 21st October 2024

Transition debate from Feudalism to Capitalism in Europe

Introduction:- Looking at the transition debate, from Feudalism to capitalism in Europe .

Many scholars of different Schools of thought have presented their interesting Arguments
on it. This debate is basically all About, trying to understand how this transition happened .
What were the factors that led to The fall of feudal economy? What triggered The
emergence of Capitalism? 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 .

How the Debate on the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism Initiated

The debate regarding the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe began in the 20th
century, A central component of this debate is the influence of Marxist theory, particularly
the ideas of Karl Marx, who argued that the transition to capitalism was driven by class
struggles inherent within the feudal system. Later on we will see various scholars like
Henri pirenne, Maurice Dobb, kohachiro Takahashi, Rodney Hilton, Paul Sweezy, on
the other hand challenged Dobb , John Merrington, Christopher Hill, and Guy Bois
further enriched the debate with their explorations of the economic and social changes
during this [Link] we will see Robert Brenner’s debate on the transition from
feudalism to capitalism centers around the role of class relations and the specific
dynamics of agrarian production. MM Postan & Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie took a
broader historical view, incorporating demographic factors. Lastly, we will see Capitalism
as world system .
Together, these scholars laid the foundation for a complex and multi-faceted debate on
how Europe transitioned from a feudal to a capitalist society.

[Link] Pirenne’s significant work “Medieval Cities: Their Origin and Revival”
(published in 1925) elaborates.

Role of Trade in transition

According to Pirenne, the Islamic expansion in the 7th and 8th centuries cut off the
Mediterranean, which had been the central economic artery of the Roman Empire. This
disruption of trade led to the collapse of the urban economy and the rise of a localized,
agrarian economy, paving the way for the feudal system.

Pirenne’s emphasis on trade as a crucial factor in the transition from feudalism to

capitalism anticipated later debates, particularly those led by Paul Sweezy. Pirenne
believed that the revival of trade in the late Middle Ages, particularly with the re-
establishment of Mediterranean commerce, was a key factor that contributed to the
decline of feudalism and the rise of capitalism.

[Link]’S MODEL : Internal Factors in the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism

Maurice Dobb’s “Studies in the Development of Capitalism,” first published in 1946,
played a pivotal role in shaping the debate on the transition from feudalism to capitalism.

Maurice Dobb, following Marx’s Capital, explained England’s ‘truly revolutionary path’ to
capitalism through the lens of class struggle, which he saw as the ‘prime mover’ in this
transition. He argued that the key to understanding this shift lay in the differentiation of
classes, particularly in terms of property rights to land. Dobb emphasized that as feudal
landlords sought to maximize profits, they imposed greater burdens on peasants, leading
to class conflict. This struggle between landlords and peasants eventually led to the
dissolution of feudal relations and the emergence of capitalist property relations, marking
England’s unique route to capitalism.

According to Dobb and scholars like Rodney Hilton,and Kohachiro Takahashi, , the
internal dynamics of the feudal mode of production were crucial in determining its
eventual disintegration. They argued that the absence of technological innovation, low
productivity in the manorial economy, and the excessive demands of feudal lords—such as
increasing taxes to fund wars, crusades, and the extravagant lifestyles of nobles—created
an economic strain that pushed feudalism toward crisis. This internal collapse led to the
breakdown of feudal relations and signaled the advanced disintegration of the feudal
system.

Petty mode of production

However, this did not immediately lead to the smooth development of capitalist relations.
Instead, there was a transitional period where production was neither fully feudal nor
capitalist. This intermediate stage, independent from feudalism, was characterized by
what scholars refer to as the ‘petty mode of production,’ a system where small-scale
producers operated outside the traditional feudal structure but had not yet adopted
capitalist practices. This transitional phase reflects the complexities of the shift from
feudalism to capitalism.

Decline of Feudalism was slow

Maurice Dobb argues that the decline of feudalism was slow and uneven across Europe,
influenced by factors such as the peasantry’s access to less restrictive regions and the
varying political power of landowners and serfs. In Western Europe, peasants had gradually
gained rights, allowing them to benefit from the 14 th-century feudal crisis. The end of land
depredation in the 11th century spurred agricultural expansion and population growth.
However, by the 14th century, the population had outstripped production, causing a labor
shortage that contributed to the feudal system’s collapse.

Internal factors as- dynamic mode of production

Maurice Dobb argued that it was the internal factors within feudal society, which he
described as a ‘dynamic mode of production,’ that facilitated the transition toward
capitalism. He posited that the inefficiencies and wastage inherent in the feudal system
led to a crisis in the 14th century.

Feudalism to Capitalism – two stage process

Dobb also proposed that the shift from feudalism to capitalism occurred in two stages:
from the 9th to the 17th century, society was predominantly feudal, and with the onset of the
18th century, the transition to capitalism began to take shape.

These arguments laid the groundwork for the debate on the transition from feudalism to
capitalism, but they were further challenged by Paul Sweezy, whose perspectives we will
discuss later.
[Link] Hilton : role of class struggle as the ‘prime mover’ in the transition from
feudalism to capitalism.

Rodney Hilton, a prominent Marxist historian, fully supported Maurice Dobb’s ‘property
relations’ perspective, agreeing that the growth and decline of feudalism were driven by
internal factors. Hilton emphasized that the relationship between landlords and peasants,
particularly through feudal rents, was the prime mover in this process. He argued that the
extraction of rents and the increasing demands placed on peasants by landlords created
tensions that eventually led to the breakdown of the feudal system. Hilton maintained that
these internal class struggles, centered around property and labor exploitation, were the
key forces behind feudalism’s decay.

Feudal rent – Becoming Prime Mover

He further argued that the fundamental law of feudal society was the tendency of the
exploiting class (landlords) to extract the maximum rent from the labor of direct producers
(peasants). This pursuit of higher rents conflicted with the broader needs of social growth,
leading to internal tensions within the exploiting class itself. As landlords competed with
each other for dominance, they intensified their demands for rent to maintain their power
and status. This struggle for power and control over land fueled the crisis in feudal society,
with feudal rent becoming the prime mover of the system’s eventual breakdown.

[Link] Takahashi : Expanding the Debate on Feudalism Beyond England”

Kohachiro Takahashi, a Marxist historian, contributed to the debate on the transition from
feudalism to capitalism by emphasizing the internal contradictions within the feudal mode
of production. Takahashi emphasized the need to broaden the debate on the transition
from feudalism to capitalism beyond the English context, incorporating the experiences of
feudalism in Continental Europe. He strongly supported Maurice Dobb’s view that the
decline of feudalism was primarily due to internal factors, such as class struggle, rather
than external influences like trade.

A Critique of Dobb’s Definition of Feudalism”

Kohachiro Takahashi critiqued Maurice Dobb’s definition of feudalism as inadequate

because it primarily focused on abstract concepts of feudal landed property and serfdom.
He argued that, akin to how Marx began his analysis of capital with the commodity, an
analysis of feudalism should start with the fundamental social units that comprised
Western feudal society:- small plot with collective rights, village community and manor.
He emphasized that the manor was the dominant unit among these, serving as the
foundation for extracting surplus from producers in the form of feudal rent and facilitating
the mobilization of labor.

This perspective broadened the understanding of feudalism by highlighting the importance

of social structures in shaping the economic system, moving beyond the abstractions of
feudal property and serfdom to focus on the interrelations between these fundamental
units.

[Link] Sweezy: challenged Dobb’s Perspective

Paul Sweezy, a prominent Marxist economist, was among the first to contest Maurice
Dobb’s viewpoint on the transition from feudalism to capitalism.

Paul Sweezy – emphasized on External factors

Sweezy argued that Dobb’s emphasis on internal factors within feudal society overlooked
the significant impact of external factors, particularly the rise of trade and market
[Link] believed that the expansion of commerce and the growth of a merchant class
played a crucial role in undermining feudal relations and facilitating the emergence of
capitalism. 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.

Paul Sweezy also objected to Maurice Dobb’s identification of feudalism with ‘serfdom’ as
interchangeable terms, deeming Dobb’s definition inadequate. He argued that such an
identification oversimplified the complexities of feudal society and failed to account for the
diverse social structures and relationships within it.

Three – stage process

Additionally, Sweezy disagreed with Dobb’s analysis that the transition from feudalism to
capitalism was a two-stage process. Instead, he proposed a three-stage model: the first
stage, from the 9th to the 14th century, marked the dominance of feudalism; the second
stage, from the 14th to the 17th century, represented an interim phase characterized by
distinct economic, social, and political features that were neither purely feudal nor
capitalist; and the final stage, beginning in the 18th century, witnessed the emergence of
capitalism. This three-stage perspective provided a more nuanced understanding of the
transition process.

The Role of Trade and Urban Centers in the Transition

Paul Sweezy emphasized the significance of the revival of long-distance trade in the 14th
century as a crucial factor in the transformation from feudalism to capitalism. He argued
that the emergence of urban centers acted as magnets for over-exploited peasants, leading
to mass migration that resulted in the dissolution of feudal ties and relations. These new
urban centers developed politically outside the confines of feudalism and were associated
with a burgeoning merchant class.

He believed that without the emergence of these urban centers, the revival of long-
distance trade alone could not have catalyzed such significant change. The new social
class of merchants, rising from these urban environments, played a pivotal role in providing
leadership for the transition process, ultimately facilitating the decline of feudalism and the
rise of capitalism.

Sweezy’s Commercial Model: A Market-Centric Approach

Paul Sweezy provided an alternative, antithetical view to Maurice Dobb’s perspective on

the transition from feudalism to capitalism by adopting a market-centric approach known
as the ‘Commercial Model.’ Sweezy objected to Dobb’s identification of feudalism with
serfdom as interchangeable terms. He argued that the primary feature of the feudal mode
of production was a system designed for use, where the amount produced was known and
limited. According to Sweezy, the rise of an exchange economy and the subsequent
monetization of relations between feudal lords and peasants signaled the beginning of the
dissolution of feudalism.

Criticism by

Takahashi rejected Sweezy’s notion of feudalism as a self-contained, closed economic

system. He argued that commodities were produced and circulated across various modes
of production, including feudalism. He stressed that understanding the methods of
production and circulation was essential to analyzing feudalism’s economic structure,
challenging Sweezy’s market-focused model by placing greater emphasis on internal social
and production relations.

Rodney Hilton also challenged Sweezy’s view by rejecting the idea that long-distance
trade was responsible for the decline of feudalism. Sweezy’s perspective was rooted in the
Pirenne thesis, which Hilton critiqued. According to Hilton, the rise of towns and trade,
which Sweezy and others considered a principal factor in feudalism’s decline, was actually
a result of class struggle within the feudal system. Hilton argued that the commutation of
rents into cash payments played a key role in the development of merchant capital and the
growth of towns, but these changes occurred within the context of the feudal mode of
production, not as external forces driving its decline.
[Link] Merrington : Towns as integral to Feudalism
John Merrington’s thesis on the transition from feudalism to capitalism is a significant
contribution to the historiographical debate, particularly through his article originally
published in New Left Review and later in Rodney Hilton’s edited volume The Transition
from Feudalism to Capitalism (1976). Merrington challenged the traditional view that
towns and urban commerce were the primary drivers of the transition to capitalism.
Instead, he argued that towns were not external to the feudal system but operated within it,
helping to sustain and expand feudalism rather than undermining it.

Towns and Trade – inherent components

Merrington contended that towns and trade were inherent components of feudalism, rather
than external capitalist forces that undermined its functioning. He asserted that they did
not significantly contribute to the emergence of capitalism because merchant capital did
not generate surplus value; instead, it merely redistributed existing value. Although
merchant capital played a crucial role in the primitive accumulation of capital, it could
not serve as a foundation for a permanent and self-reproducing accumulation. This
perspective emphasized the internal dynamics of feudalism and downplayed the role of
towns and trade in facilitating the transition to capitalism.

Critique of John Merrington’s arguments :

First, towns often served as potential or actual refuges for the subject rural population, as
highlighted by Dobb.

Second, urban markets helped strengthen social and political connections between rural
producers, fostering collaboration and resistance against feudal structures.

Finally, Merrington recognized the role of merchant capital in primitive accumulation, he

did not sufficiently address how this accumulation was essential for the eventual
emergence of capitalism.

[Link] hill

Christopher Hill contributed to the transition debate by emphasizing that one cannot assert
a complete passage from feudalism to capitalism until the core characteristics of
feudalism have entirely vanished.

He argued that this transitional period should be understood as one marked by the decline
of feudalism alongside the simultaneous development of capitalism. Hill supported
Maurice Dobb’s theory, suggesting that the transition was not a straightforward process but
rather a complex interplay where remnants of feudal structures persisted while new
capitalist relations emerged. This perspective underscores the gradual and nuanced nature
of the transition, recognizing that elements of both systems could coexist, significantly
influencing social and economic dynamics during this transformative period.

Hill argued that various social, economic, and political factors interacted in intricate ways,
producing diverse outcomes across different regions, ultimately shaping the multifaceted
nature of the transition to capitalism.

8. Guy Bois

Guy Bois was a French Marxist historian known for his significant contributions to the
debate on the transition from feudalism to [Link] challenged the reductionist
interpretations of the transition that viewed it as a linear or straightforward process. He
emphasized the need to consider the specific historical and regional contexts that shaped
the transition . He proposed that the transition involved the development of agrarian
capitalism, where the relations between landlords and peasants evolved into more
capitalist forms. He suggested that changes in agricultural practices and property relations
were central to this transformation.

Bois also recognized the agency of the peasantry in the transition process. He argued that
peasant revolts and movements were significant in challenging feudal authority and
contributed to the eventual rise of capitalist relations.

Overall, Bois’s contributions to the debate provided a nuanced understanding of the

transition from feudalism to capitalism.

[Link] Demographic Model

,particularly in the context of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, is often

associated with Neo-Malthusian scholars like M.M. Poston, Emmanuel Le Roy. These
scholars emphasize the role of demographic changes—such as population growth,
decline, and migration—in shaping economic and social structures during this transitional
period.

Population Dynamics in the Decline of Feudalism

This demography-centric explanation is often referred to as the Malthusian Model, named

after the population theory of Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834). Scholars such as W.
Abel, and Le Roy Ladurie have endorsed the significance of population dynamics in their
studies of pre-modern Europe. The central argument of this model posits that European
feudalism experienced substantial economic and demographic growth from the 11 th to the
end of the 13th century.
 This period of steady growth eventually led to overpopulation, creating a conflict
between the material resources available and the burgeoning population. The increasing
pressure on agriculture and other natural resources resulted in declining returns, food
shortages, lowered wages, and rising rents. These factors culminated in an agrarian crisis,
which was a critical turning point in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, highlighting
the interconnections between demographic changes and economic outcomes.

Impact on Feudal society

The demographic and economic challenges faced by feudal Europe, rooted in the conflict
between population growth and limited [Link] crisis was exacerbated by famines,
malnourishment, and natural calamities such as the Black Death, which caused a sharp
decline in population by the 14th century. This demographic shift led to a labor shortage and
a decline in landlord incomes, disrupting the traditional social balance and empowering
peasants. In response, landlords adopted various strategies: some imposed new forms of
bondage, others converted feudal dues into cash rents, while some appropriated peasant
and common lands for sheep farming, indicating a shift toward capitalist agricultural
practices.

Together, these Neo-Malthusian scholars contribute to a nuanced understanding of how

demographic factors interacted with economic and social forces during the transition from
feudalism to capitalism, suggesting that demographic changes were not merely a backdrop
but a significant driving force in this complex historical process.

[Link] Brenner : The Class-Relations Model

Robert Brenner’s debate on the transition from feudalism to capitalism primarily revolves
around his argument that the transition was rooted in specific social and economic
relations within the agrarian structures of medieval Europe. Brenner emphasized the
significance of class relations, particularly the struggle between landlords and peasants,
as key to understanding this transition.

Brenner’s arguments sparked considerable discussion and critique among scholars,

Including Guy Bois, Chris Harman, David Parker, and Immanuel Wallerstein.

In the 1970s, Robert Brenner published “Agrarian Class Structure and Economic
Development in Pre-Industrial Europe,” challenged prevailing demographic and
commercial explanations for the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Brenner argued
that the key to understanding this transition lay in the structure of class relations,
particularly between landlords and peasants, rather than demographic pressures or
market expansion.

He criticized the demographic model, which attributed economic changes to population

growth and decline, for oversimplifying the process. Instead, Brenner emphasized that
different class structures in Western Europe, especially in England, facilitated the rise of
capitalist relations by enabling productivity-driven transformations, such as the enclosure
movement.

His debate shifted the focus from external market forces or population changes to internal
class dynamics, sparking significant discussions among historians and scholars about the
origins of capitalism.

Criticism of Brenner ‘s Debate - A number of scholars however criticized Brenner thesis.

[Link] Bois, a French medieval historian, was one of the first scholars to object to Robert
Brenner’s class-centric interpretation of the decline of feudalism. Bois argued that
Brenner’s definition of class was too narrowly focused on economic relations and did not
consider the broader social and material conditions.

[Link] Harman, like Guy Bois, engaged with Robert Brenner’s class-centric interpretation
of the transition from feudalism to capitalism by emphasizing the importance of the forces
of production. Harman argued that a class’s social capacity is not determined solely by its
economic role but also by the productive forces that support it. These forces include
material, intellectual, and political resources, which shape the ability of a class to
influence broader historical developments. In contrast to Brenner’s focus on class
relations, Harman highlighted how changes in production technology and social resources
played a key role in the historical transitions.

[Link] Parker criticized Robert Brenner’s analysis for being too focused on class relations
and overlooking the broader social, political, and economic factors involved in the
transition from feudalism to capitalism. Parker argued that Brenner’s emphasis on class
struggle as the primary driving force neglected other important variables, such as the role
of state power, international trade, and technological advancements. He believed that
Brenner’s approach was too narrow and deterministic, failing to account for the complex
and multifaceted nature of historical change.

Nevertheless , Robert Brenner’s debate fundamentally reshaped the understanding of the

transition from feudalism to capitalism by emphasizing the primacy of class relations over
demographic or market-driven explanations.
[Link] as a World System: Wallerstein’s Theoretical Contributions

Immanuel Wallerstein, in his work The Origins of the Modern World System, defines
capitalism as a global system consisting of three interconnected zones:

Immanuel Wallerstein explains that the core in the world economy represents the most
developed regions with advanced technology, strong control over wage labor, and the
ability to exploit global resources through the world market.

The periphery consists of less developed areas that are economically and technologically
underdeveloped, providing raw materials, agricultural products, and minerals using
coerced labor.

The semi-periphery forms an intermediate zone, exploiting the periphery but being
exploited by the core. It has both raw material production and finished goods, with a mix of
wage and coerced labor. Wallerstein views capitalism as emerging between the 1450s and
1640s.

Conclusion

The transition from feudalism to capitalism is a complex process shaped by various

factors, sparking extensive scholarly debate. Ultimately, this transition cannot be attributed
to a single cause; instead, it reflects a convergence of economic, social, and political
changes that redefined production relations and set the stage for modern capitalism.

Bibliography

• The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism By Rodney Hilton

• The Brenner Debate by TH Aston
• The Modern World-System, vol. Book by Immanuel Wallerstein
• Lecture Notes