TRANSITION DEBATES

One of the most lively academic debates in recent times relate

to the question Of what led to the decline of feudalism and the
emergence of capitalist mode Of production that led to the creation of
modern world. This is commonly known As the transition debate. The
decline of feudalism and origins of capitalism Have been studied for a
long period of time and yet not one entirely valid study Has been able
to present consistent findings of this transition. It is the outcome Of
divergent explanation offered on the nature of feudal relationship and
the Moving forces responsible for its decline and the connection this
decline had With the birth of capitalism.

Inner contradictions within the feudal mode of

production: A causation for the collapse of feudalism

Maurice Herbert Dobb, An English Marxist economist of 20th

century was the first person to give the major explanation for the
Decline of feudalism. Focusing on the western feudalism, representing
a classical Marxist approach, Dobb Proposed the inner contradiction
model which says that it was the Internal contradictions within the
feudal mode of production that led to the decline of feudalism in
Europe. He called Feudalism and serfdom as practically
interchangeable, That is feudalism as a mode of production and
serfdom as a dominant relationship .
The features of classical feudalism according to Dobb were -
Low level of technology and specialization ,Rudimentary division of
labour ,Production only for the immediate need rather than for a wider
market , Demesne farming through compulsory labour services
,Political decentralisation of feudal monarchs , jurisdictional powers of
lords over a dependant population and Serfdom was mainly a
relationship of production and production was organized around the
manor (estate of feudal lords ). Because of these reasons, Dobb
claimed that, feudalism as a system of production was inefficient ; And
due to factors like - Increase in population of feudal lords, Increasing
pressure due to wars and Extravagance , the Needs of ruling classes
were increasing and this increased pressure on the producing class. So
he argued that, This increasing pressure on the system and the
producing class became unbearable at a point and had lead to the
collapse of the system.
Dobb talks about over exploitation of labour leading to
Exhaustion or actual disappearance of the labor force - Desertion of
labourers in large numbers. The flight of serfs in mass was an important
feature of feudal crisis of 14 th century. The running away of labourers
can also be considered as a class struggle. The ones who remained on
the manor but too few in number were made to overwork, and Certain
steps and concessions like- Commutation or shift of labour services into
rent/ kind or in money and Leasing demesne lands to tenant farmers;
had to be given by the feudal lords to ensure continuity in production.
Dobb says because of these changes, there’s going to be change in the
production relations, especially in the country sides (rural areas).
However, he adds that, Class struggles didnt directly led to rise of
capitalism, but since the hold of feudal lords is shaking loose ,the small
producer became free of feudal exploitation and this triggered the
expansion of capitalism. According to him with the decline in power of
feudal Lords, there occurred Liberation of petty mode of production
(petty commodity production ) from the fetters or chains of feudalism
mainly due to class struggle. The urban craftspeople and middle class
peasants become independent of feudalism. They were petty
producers who were not yet capitalists, but certainly contained a
potential to become so.

Thus Dobb says, Serfdom has ended which is equal to end of

feudalism, most of the people has become small pesants. The Feudal
lord is leasing out his land and therefore the relationship is not going to
be that of the feudal period. Rent is going to being fixed and lease is for
a few years and That is the incentive for the tenant farmers to expand
production. So Dobb says that, This is going to be emergence of
capitalism where they will be able to expand the production as the
feudal lord has no more control over surplus extraction from the
pesants land. So they had the opportunity to expand production and
then to invest or buy more land with it and again expand the
production. Maurice Dobb says that trade dose not play a terminating
or determining role in production methods
So, In Dobb’s conception, it was this petty mode of production
(from 14 - 16th century ) which predominated economically in around
two hundred between the beginning of the feudal crisis , a kind of
transition period and a full fledged capitalist mode of production began
around mid of 16 th century . Dobb’s interpretation of the decline of
feudalism set off the celebrated transition debate.

In 1950s Dobb was in debate with another Marxist

scholar Paul Sweezy. He also said that feudalism was a system of
production for use. But Sweezy disagrees with the reasons that dobb
points out for the increasing pressure on the producing class. Sweezy
says, extravagance is the only reason for increase in pressure over
pesant & serfs. When dobb finds increase in feudal lord population as
causative factor for the increased pressure on the feudal system
Sweezy says,that if theres an increase of population of feudal lords
there would be a corresponding increase in population of peasant &
serfs (producing class) and this pressure of the increase number is then
spread over. So he finds this argument problematic.
About dobbs point on war pressure as a reason, Sweezy says, that
feudalism is defined by constant wars during 14 century.So it *cannot
be said that, there is increasing pressure due to wars in 14 century and
this created pressure on producing class. The third cause, that is the
extravagance(luxurious lyf style ) of feudal lords is accepted by Sweezy.
He links it to reopening of Mediterranean with crusades and identifies
revival long distant trades between west & the east as the Prime mover
for decline of feudalism and rise of capitalism; an external factor which
he explains through his ' commercial model '.
 Prof. H Kohachiro Takahashi, a Japanese scholar in his
work- ‘Science and Society’ (1953) argues that the belief that the
emergence of money rent was somehow incompatible with feudal
economic relations is not borne out by evidence. According to him,
What is important for shift from fedualism to captilism is Seperation of
direct producer from the means of production. He says Inner
contradiction are more important but Commutation of labour servises
into Money/ rent/ kind, Don not change production relation in country
side, Beacuse Extra economic coercion remains and Money rent Does
not mean that thers a complete change or end of feudalism.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 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 is determined by pre-existing social
structure.
 Rodney Howard Hilton,an English Marxist historian;
like Dobb, supported the idea that decline of feudalism was a result of
Internal class struggle. He says, When we look at feudal economy,The
dynamic factor under feudalism is not the ones who owns the
production but it is the producing class- peasants/serfs. Hilton says,
Class struggle is endemic and takes the form of constant struggle over
rent, struggle over surplus. According to him rent under Feudalism is
fixed according to custom and generally the feudal lord would not
tamper with this custom. So what the feudal lord could do was to
impose Tess over the rent -that is extra economic coercion. He says,
Thers is money rent under Feudalism.but it doesn’t mean relations of
production are changing
Hilton points out that, there is evidence of Increase in population and
decrease of production; and With increase of population, we have
Fragmentation of land holdings Which means there will more pressure
on land and large part of what produced will be consumed. So, because
of this fragmentation and limited technology Automatically productivity
goes down. So he says, there is evidence for productivity of land which
is equal to income of landlords begins stagnate before the period Black
death (1347-1348). Thus Land is subjected to diminishing returns.
When theres decline of productivity, low technology and population
rise,The fedual lords will put more pressure and there will be pesant
rebellions. He points out Major Pesant Rebellions like French jacquerie
1359, The English Peasants revolt 1381 and The ciompi revolt in
Florence 1378 to exemplify this. According to Hilton; because of this
rebellions the feudal lord is on the Back foot and he is unable to
increase his rent and this is the feudal crisis (from around mid of 14
century ) which is coming before demographic crisis. He disagrees that
the prime mover of transition is population /demography. That’s why
he says the crisis of production in feudalism pre dates Black death. Thus
Hilton argues that, Decline of rent which is equal to the income of
feudal lords, from land is the first sign of decline in the power of feudal
lords. Hilton along with dobb, said that the dissolution of feudalism and
emergence of capitalism progressed from liberation of petty
commodity production and is released from fetters of feudalism largely
due to class struggles.
During feudal dynamic period there was enfranchisement of serfs- The
conversion of serfs into pesants. However Hilton says that, This
creation of serfs to peasants in feudal dynamic period is not responsible
for the decline of rent of feudal lords. Because In feudal period increase
in population leads to increase in Rent and an increase in rent leads to
decline of wages. By increase of population, need for land to people
increases ; which makes easy for lords to increase rents . So, Hilton says
that the first sign of Weakening of feudal lords is the fact that he
cannot increase his rent . He also says that, Towns and trade are not
inimical to feudalism. In Hilton’s views, the role of towns and trade,
seen by others such as Sweezy as a principal reason for decline of
feudalism or as a prime mover, was itself the outcome of class
struggle.
 Perry Anderson, a British scholar in his book titled “Lineages
of the absolutist state” talks about The importance of towns, trades
and revival of Roman laws in influencing the transition from feudalism
to capitalism. He also says that the ending of the serfdom doesn’t mean
that Feudalism ended as such or a complete weakening of power of
feudal lords as they are the ones who used the term partialisation of
sovereignty under feudalism.
Anderson says when we look on to the nature of the state,We are
going to see the emergence of bourgeois class and as they are
economically dominant, they tried to capture social and political power.
Marxist says that this has been happening since the long civil war
england had 1640-1688, between feudal forces and capitalist forces. –
Bourgeois revolution. Once the feudal powers are taken down then
Capitalist forces are going to take critical powers and new policies,
regulations are going to be passed , after this we see the industrial
revolution in England.
According to Anderson, 14 and 15 century experienced a long period of
crisis in economy and society and On looking it politically we witness
the emergence of Absolutes state in western europe -A centralized
monarchy.He use Centralized monarchies for spain france and england,
Which is different from partialized sovereignty of feudal period. With
the emergence of Absolutist state, he says that,The King is going to
centralise power in his hands using national bureaucracy, national
taxation and a national army ,There will be imposition of standardized
codified law (actually revival of Roman law) – Customary Law.There will
also be the emergence of a national market and the economy is also
going to be divided and there will be Tolls. Europe will witness a
particular class becoming important – The capitalist / Bourgeois class.
In 16th centuary Europe will see the Emergence of nation states and
certain parts of England will witness – ‘Linguistic nationalism’ That is,
Emerging states are going to patronise or standardise one written
language, Which marked an identity. However, Anderson calls, the
absolute state as juss a Recharged feudal apparatus
Friedrich Engels Argued that Absolutism was a period where the
dominance of feudal lords ends and later revisd the argument along
with Carl Marx and they argued that the Absolutists state of western
Europe attempted to maintain an equilibrium between the feudal class
and Bourgeois class. According to them National market, permanent
bureaucracy, national taxation, national army and codification of law
were Bourgeois features of the state . But Anderson who opposes this
says that,When we do a careful study on the structure of the
Absolutists state,There was not any kind of equilibrium between feudal
and emerging capitalist class.
From structure of the Absolutists state,Anderson says, 1)End of
serfdom doesn’t mean end of feudal relations from country side. 2)Rent
is now going to be taken in the form of money and kind rather than
labour services. But extra economic coercion, personal dependence of
peasants to feudal lords does not ends. 3). The producer remains
attached to the means of production. As long as producer remains
attached to the means of production, the relationship remains
feudal.4). Feudal lords still dominates the most important means of
production -Land; And they do not allow creation of a free market in
land (free Buying and selling of land ). The means of production is still
owned by the feudal lords and this continues throughout the early
modern period.
Anderson argues that, What changed was the method or form of feudal
exploitation. He adds: “Absloutism is nothing but redeployed and
recharged apparatus of feudal domination designed to clamp the
pesant vassals back into the traditional social position.He says, The
feudal lords who had become weakened, transfered their power of
exploitation to the state. Now the lords will take rent and state will take
revenues adding pressure of state taxation over the pesants. Thus
absolutist sate is going to keep the peasantry in same level of
subordination as it was before in feudalism – an instrument to
pushback the peasantry into a subordination. Anderson says, the
absolutist state was never an arbiter between the Bourgeoise and
feudal lords. But A new system based on Aristocracy. He says, the royal
states of Renaissance were modern instruments to maintain feudal
domination over the rural vassals .The feudal lords are juss shifting ther
exploiting power to the state. He says revival of Roman law gave high
importance to private property and it is associated with patriarchy. He
also points out that, national army is important and war was one means
of surplus extraction under feudalism. In the mid of 15 century about
80% of state economy is spent on wars. He says, Despite ending of
serfdom , the feudal class was still dominant and enjoyed physical
immunity and the right to bare arms- the 2 feudal previlages . Thus in
Conclusion he argues that,This period is still strongly feudal not a
Capitalist one.
John Edward Christopher Hill, an English Marxist historian says that
Absolute monarchy Was a different kind of feudal monarchy.The ruling
class remained the same.
Anderson and Hills say that,
The ruling class was the feudal class in the early modern period also.
The state is serving /looking after /protecting the intrest of particular
section of society -Thats the ruling feudal class
Hills says,
Whether we have a constitutional monarchy or a republic monarchy, or
a facis dictatorship... The ruling class remains the same - that is the
Bourgeois class. The sate is dominated by the feudal class because the
sate is serving the interests of a particular class and this shows the
nature of the state.
“COMMERCIAL MODEL”: A MARKET CENTRIC
APPROACH

Paul Marlor 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. Providing an alternative
antithetical view, He adopts a market centric approach called
“commercial model”.Sweezy has borrowed this commercial model
from Henry pirane, who says with Rise of Islam and Blocking of
Mediterranean, crusades and unblocking of Mediterranean. He opines
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 also agrees feudalism was a
system of production for use and Says, Feudalism was Inherent in
nature, conservative and change resistive . But this doesn’t mean that
feudalism was a static system as There was movement within feudalism
due to:1. Competition between feudal lords for more land and more
vassals 2. constant warfare under feudalism and insecurity of life.
Sweezy argues, Prime mover for decline of feudalism and rise of
capitalism was the Revival of long distant trade, an external factor. He
says, there was trade in fedualism, but that trade was peddlers trade
and this peddling trade was not responsible for shaking the feudalism.It
was the long distant trade between west and east that is responsible
for shaking the feudalism.

Sweezy says, The cause of Decline of feudalism was that the Ruling class
was not able to maintain its control over labour. Over exploitation and
extra Economic coercion led to the flight of serfs and The rise of towns
which are becoming urban centres of trade 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
merchant captalists, the urban centre economy was no longer a
self-production unit but catered to long distance. He also talks about
the rich peasants called “Yoman” class in England or “kulaks”- com who
hired the lands from lords and becomes cottagers . 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. So, Paul Sweezy says that, 15th and 16th century should be
categorised as pre- capitalist commodity production, Before the full
fledged capitalist mode of production by 16 th century.
 Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein was an American sociologist and
economic historian, through his – modern world system theory, gives
importance to international trade, expansion of Europe and the
emergence of a European world Economy In 16 th century. He says,
This expansion of Europe is coming at a time of feudal Crisis and is
associated with finding solutions to it. So that initially they tried to
expand agriculture Within Europe and it was not successful and then
they went to North Africa( ciate )and to certain Atlantic islands [ Azores
& Madeira ; Canary] and then shift toward the new world.

Wallerstein says, As Europe expands we will have the European world

economy. The core of this European world economy is western Europe
and he uses 2 terms Core- periphery & Semi- periphery.In core
periphery he puts Western Europe and Core is going to specialize in
finished goods and in Semi periphery he puts Eastern Europe or the
Baltic region and this part is going to specialize in production of
food/grain , diary, metals and wood. This expansion of Europe is not
related to looking for luxurious items but for big bulk items - Staples .
So he says, With the emergence of European in world economy,There
was international division of labour,Unequalled trade/ produce
relations between core and semi periphery and Use of forced labour to
in periphery to produce for the core and thus an absolutist state is
going to emerge.
According to Wallerstein, The rise of Absolute state in western Europe
is for a particular reason. With the establishment of Europe world
Economy, theres a need of a system in place by which the surplus from
the colonies can easily be shifted to the core and this is provided by the
absolute state by promoting and legalizing certain laws , slave trade
and forced labour. So Inorder to deal with the feudal crisis and to
support emerging capitalism,The state is going to frame laws and
policies Like promoting slavery and legalising slave labour, to extract
surplus from periphery for the benefit of the core. So he says This is the
function of Absolutist states- Exploitation of periphery by core . Hey
also says at a time in western Europe we have emergence of free
labour as serfdom was ending. But in Eastern Europe there was
reinforcement of feudalism -Re feudalization and Second serfdom.

Criticisms on Wallerstein :

1) He does not talk about local routes,he does not link the rise of
Absolute state with feudal crisis. It is said as if state is rising
because of an external pressure.
2) criticism by Brenner
He says, international division of labour by considering core and
periphery in different economic levels is not as simple.He says,
Eastern Europe was able to supply grains to western Europe
because of the class relations and because of 2 nd serfdom. He says
class relations are important. Second serfdom was established in
14 th and 15 th century and from 16th century we see Eastern
 Europe starts (food generation) supplying food grains to western
Europe.
3) criticisms by Patrick o’ Brian & Bairoch.
Wallerstein argued that the Capital / money is being provided for
the emerging capitalism in Europe from the Profits of colonial
trade. Patrick o’ Brian & Bairoch says, When we look at colonial
trade, it forms a very small path of European trade. Europe is
trading with many regions like America, Africa, Asia and by within
itself. They argue If we look at % of this colonial trade, it is small
and gives only small % profit. A large amount of capital is used for
industrialisation from profits of colonial trade. We see, colonial
market for Europen goods become more important from around
1750 s onwards and in 1780 we see industrial revolution. But On
the whole before that it’s a small part of overall part of European
trade. So we cannot say that profit from colonial trade is not
helping in transition from feudalism to capitalism.

Adam Smith has also argued that,

(capitalism helped the consumer because, there will be competition,
mass production, goods will be available at a cheaper rate and since
there will be competition, there will be good amount of production..
For good production there will also be good amount of empowerment.)
He says that, Capitalism stands for consumer whereas in Mercantilism
the state controls economy and gives monopoly and tax concessions
and other kinds of benefits to the producer. Mercantilism primarily
supports the producer.
 Mercantilism is the economic policy of Absolute state, it is both and
economic and political theory based on power and plenty.
Means, that country with plentiful of resources is a powerful country
and mercantilism was based on state interference in the economy.
There was state interference in Capitalism also but not that much as
that of mercantilism.
We know this is a transition period where gradually feudalism is
declining and capitalism is emerging. In this period economy is going to
change from feudal nature to capital nature with the emergence of new
classes – The most important class was the capitalist class – also called
the ‘Bourgeois class’. So u can either be a agricultural or industrial
capitalist. Capitalist dosent mean a merchant. A capitalist was indulgent
in trade but he was the producer. But what we see in early modern
period, it is the merchants under the putting out system who is going
become the Capitalists- Merchant capitalism .
THE DEMOGRAPHIC MODEL OF TRANSITION FROM
FEUDALISM TO CAPITALISM
RELEGION: AN IFLUENCING FACTOR ON TRANSITION
VIEWS OF MODERN SCHOLARS
 Written and Prepared by,
TINCE PHILIP & JHALAK SHARMA